20170315DSM 2016 Supplement 2.pdf

2016Annual Report
DEMAND-SIDE MANAGEMENT
SUPPLEMENT 2: EVALUATION
MARCH 15 • 2017
D AND-SID w w
I M •-
LI
Itete
six®
An IDACORP Company
v
r*'
v ,
L'-Jl /
4 £Y
*•
5kWt ii >
^4 .>.,-¦
o»i»j
Sr;vj
|
"---
%
:iA-
¦,
R
J"J
JL-:~'J 'W rsWm-¦¦'.~"-?i
T 4 .^'-.>lij"!^I IliiBPlII
"
f
NTY/i9
IHt'fill illi4^
JSPS KS
«£•-C*=
•¦-'_J-J
-I'¦'—•~H6^-'P"''27i-S ,
A
t ¦'
jc?1A
imt/c1 1£Iis
f
Ifil
I I
I L -an
—-
i
*¦i
w Us*||i <^|Y^-v ?a'<^V-0 %Mr;
\w•I w
¦T
4
ik i¦PwR 2
-
Printed on recycled paper
Idaho Power Company Supplement 2: Evaluation
Demand-Side Management 2016 Annual Report Page i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Evaluation and Research Summary .............................................................................................................1
Evaluation Plan ............................................................................................................................................3
Energy Efficiency Advisory Group Minutes ...............................................................................................5
NEEA Market Effects Evaluations ............................................................................................................37
Integrated Design Lab ................................................................................................................................39
Research/Surveys .....................................................................................................................................159
Evaluations ...............................................................................................................................................725
Weatherization Assistance for Qualified Customers 2015 Annual Report .............................................959

Supplement 2: Evaluation Idaho Power Company
Page ii Demand-Side Management 2016 Annual Report

This page left blank intentionally.

Idaho Power Company Supplement 2: Evaluation
Demand-Side Management 2016 Annual Report Page 1
EVALUATION AND RESEARCH SUMMARY

Idaho Power considers program evaluation an essential component of its demand-side management
(DSM) operational activities. 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 managed by Idaho Power’s
Strategic Sourcing department. In some cases, research and analysis is conducted internally and
managed by Idaho Power’s Research and Analysis team within the Customer Relations and Energy
Efficiency (CR&EE) 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 (IPMVP), 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 the ongoing cost-effectiveness of
programs, the 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, industry best practice analyses, and customer
surveys as important resources in providing accurate and transparent program savings estimates.
Recommendations and findings from evaluations and research are used to continuously refine Idaho
Power’s DSM programs.
In 2016, Idaho Power contracted with Leidos Engineering (Leidos) to conduct four program impact
evaluations and two program process evaluations. Impact evaluations were performed for the Retrofit
(Easy Upgrades), New Construction (Building Efficiency), Rebate Advantage, and Irrigation Efficiency
Rewards programs. Process evaluations were performed for the Rebate Advantage and Irrigation
Efficiency Rewards programs. CLEAResult Consulting, Inc. (CLEAResult) conducted impact
evaluations of the A/C Cool Credit, and Flex Peak programs’ 2016 demand response events.
Throughout 2016, Idaho Power administered several surveys regarding energy efficiency programs to
measure customer satisfaction. Some surveys were administered by a third-party contractor; other
surveys were administered by Idaho Power either through traditional means or through the company’s
empowered community online survey.
Supplement 2: Evaluation Idaho Power Company
Page 2 Demand-Side Management 2016 Annual Report
Final reports from all evaluations, research, and surveys completed in 2016 and an evaluation schedule
are provided in Supplement 2: Evaluation.
Idaho Power Company Supplement 2: Evaluation
Demand-Side Management 2016 Annual Report Page 3
EVALUATION PLAN
Customer Relations and Energy Efficiency 2012–2017 Program Evaluation Plans

Impact Process Other Impact Process Other Impact Process Other Impact Process Other Impact Process Other Impact Process Other
 


Energy House Calls 
ENERGY STAR® Homes Northwest 
 
 
Home Energy Audit 
Home Improvement Program  
Multi-Family Energy Savings Program
Rebate Advantage  
Residential Energy Efficiency Education Initiative
Shade Tree Project 
Weatherization Assistance for Qualified Customers 
Weatherization Solutions for Eligible Customers 
Custom (Custom Efficiency) 
New Construction (Building Efficiency)
Retrofits (Easy Upgrades)
Irrigation Efficiency Rewards   
A/C Cool Credit   
 
Irrigation Peak Rewards  
20172016
Flex Peak Program
Demand Response Programs
Irrigation Program
Educational Distributions
Energy Efficient Lighting
Fridge and Freezer Recycling Program (See ya later,
refrigerator®)
Customer Relations and Energy Efficiency 2012–2017 Program Evaluation Plan
20152014
Commercial/Industrial Program
Residential Programs
Heating & Cooling Efficiency Program
Simple Steps, Smart Savings™c
2012 2013
Ductless Heat Pump Pilot
Supplement 2: Evaluation Idaho Power Company
Page 4 Demand-Side Management 2016 Annual Report
This page left blank intentionally.

Idaho Power Company Supplement 2: Evaluation
Demand-Side Management 2016 Annual Report Page 5
ENERGY EFFICIENCY ADVISORY GROUP MINUTES
The following pages include minutes from EEAG meetings held on February 18, May 5, August 30,
and November 3, 2016.

Supplement 2: Evaluation Idaho Power Company
Page 6 Demand-Side Management 2016 Annual Report

This page left blank intentionally.

1
Energy Efficiency Advisory Group (EEAG) Notes dated February 18, 2016
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
Diego Rivas–Northwest Energy Coalition Sid Erwin–Idaho Irrigation Pumpers Association
Tami White–Idaho Power Ben Otto-Idaho Conservation League
Michael Breish-Public Utility Commission of Oregon (via
phone)
Tina Jayaweera-Northwest Power & Conservation
Council (via phone)
Quentin Nesbitt*–Idaho Power

Not Present:
Kent Hanway-CSHQA
Name–Company
Name–Company
Guests and Presenters*:
Pete Pengilly*–Idaho Power Cory Read–Idaho Power
Roger Lawless*–Idaho Power Theresa Drake–Idaho Power
Shelley Martin–Idaho Power Andrea Simmonsen–Idaho Power
Darrel Anderson*–Idaho Power Jennifer Pope–Office of Energy Resources
Nick Bengston*–Clearesult Donn English–Idaho Public Utility Commission
Billie McWinn–Idaho Power Gary Grayson-Idaho Power
Bill Shawver*–Idaho Power
Roberta Rene*-Idaho Power
Todd Greenwell-Idaho Power
Lynn Tominaga-Idaho Irrigation Pumpers Association
Cheryl Paoli-Idaho Power
Amanda Richards-Honeywell
Mary Hacking-Idaho Power
Chellie Jensen-Idaho Power
Robert Everett-Idaho Power
Connie Aschenbrenner-Idaho Power
Shirley Lindstrom-Northwest Power & Conservation
Council
Mindi Shodeen-Idaho Power
Tracey Burtch*-Idaho Power
Denise Humphreys-Idaho Power
Brenda Tominaga-Idaho Irrigation Pumpers Association
Randy Thorn-Idaho Power
Pete Richardson-ICIP
Shelley Martin-Idaho Power
Sheree Willhite-Idaho Power
Chris Pollow-Idaho Power
Zeke VanHooser-Idaho Power

Meeting Facilitator:
Rosemary Curtin-(RBCI)

2
Recording Secretary:
Shawn Lovewell (Idaho Power) with Kathy Yi (Idaho Power)
Meeting Convened at 9:31am
Rosemary started the meeting with introductions of members and guests.
9:33am-Comments—Darrel Anderson, President and CEO, Idaho Power
Darrel started his comments with a safety discussion. He reminded everyone of the new traffic patterns downtown and urged everyone to be safe when using crosswalks. He thanked the members of EEAG for their time and
guidance throughout the years. Darrel noted that Idaho Power is celebrating its centennial this year and that things have changed over Idaho Power’s long history noting that, as an example, this conference room is now filled with employees and stakeholders that are trying to encourage Idaho Power customers to use energy wisely through
cost-effective efficiency. Darrel said that the company is benefitted by having EEAG as a resource that challenges the company and brings new thoughts and ideas about energy efficiency. He spoke of demand response and how it worked just as expected this year. Darrel then asked the EEAG a question, “When energy efficiency is viewed
as a resource similar to the way we view a power plant, shouldn’t it be treated the same so that the company can at least recover dollar for dollar that it spends, or perhaps even earn a return?”
Darrel showed the group a copy of the cookbook that was designed and printed for the centennial and asked that
each EEAG member receive a copy before they leave. He also shared a personal story about changing all the lights in his home to LED’s. He then asked the group for any comments or questions and received these
comments.
 A member has been very impressed with how Idaho Power presents information at offsite events. As a
customer and consumer it is appreciated.
 In these meetings the benefit of using success stories and how effective they are was discussed. What could be a better success story than the CEO of Idaho Power changing out the lights in his home?
Darrel thanked the group again for their participation in EEAG.
9:47-November Meeting Notes-Announcements
There were no comments or questions on the November meeting notes.
Stacey gave an update on the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). The staff of the Idaho Public Utilities Commission (IPUC) has decided not to issue a memo outlining staff’s expectations for prudency review, which is a change from its decision back in November.
There were questions and discussion about:
 As a stakeholder it is hard to know the principals without having something in writing. To make sure
everyone is on the same page, it would be good to have a document. Stacey stated that she could appreciate that as an intervener; however the document would be between commission staff and utilities. The language in that document has been in staff comments, intervener, and even commission comments.
There shouldn’t be any surprises because the parties involved know the expectations and how programs should be administered. That is the reason a new document will not be published.
Theresa Drake addressed the group regarding employee development changes. Billie McWinn who had been the
residential leader in 2015, is making a lateral move, still as a program leader, but will now be focused on non-
3
Rider projects such as net metering, Green Power and special projects like community solar. Theresa then
introduced Roger Lawless as the new residential leader who joined the department in January. His experience
includes 13 years in the customer service organization with the last seven of those years as a leader. Roger then gave a brief overview of his background to the group.
9:55am-2015 Financials/Portfolio Results—Pete Pengilly
Pete reviewed the 2015 preliminary DSM expenses to be included in Appendix 1&2 of the Demand-Side-Management 2015 Annual Report.
Key points presented:
 Appendix 1 highlights the Idaho and Oregon Rider balances and the Northwest Energy Efficiency
Alliance (NEEA) payment amounts for 2015. Appendix 2 highlights 2015 expenses and preliminary
energy savings by program.
 The presentation highlighted current Idaho and Oregon Rider balance as of January 2016, demand
response results comparison from 2004-2015, energy efficiency savings from 2002-2015, and cumulative Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) targets & Idaho Power savings from 2002-2015.
There were questions and discussion about:
 Does Idaho Power have plans to address the increasing Rider balance amount? Tami answered that there are no plans at this point to change the Rider percentage. In the past when the company collected a
smaller percentage, the Rider had a negative balance and that didn’t prohibit the company from pursuing cost-effective energy efficiency. The Rider percentage was then increased and the demand response incentives were moved to another account and the Rider balance moved to a positive balance.
 The company needs to make sure there is enough money in the Rider to market its programs to customer, but not so much money that it appears that the company is holding onto that money.
 The company has done a good job with the Rider and thank you for clarifying how demand response is not actually paid for from that account. It does appear that the balance seems to be continually trending
upward.
 Are the savings numbers from NEEA for Idaho Power’s service area and is that what they report? Pete
answered that some of it is and some of it is allocated. NEEA is moving to geographically assigned
savings. Some of it is from residential and commercial but not much from the industrial customers.
10:28am-2015 Commercial Program Performance—Quentin Nesbitt
Quentin highlighted savings, participation, and updates for the commercial, industrial, and irrigation programs.
He presented the comparisons for the years 2013, 2014, and 2015.
Key points presented:
 Due to some large projects being finalized for Building Efficiency, it had the largest savings increase in 2015 over 2013 and 2014. Construction is on the rise in Boise and Twin Falls. The Easy Upgrades program savings for 2015 have surpassed both 2013 and 2014. Several small business approaches were
reviewed and it has been determined there are currently quite a few small businesses that participate in the current program and other approaches reviewed would cause confusion and customer issues with why are
we doing something different for some businesses and not all. There will be a continued effort to make
4
the current offering easy for all customers to participate in. The Irrigation Efficiency program is slightly
over target goals for 2015. Commodity prices are down which affects an irrigator’s ability to invest in
their irrigation systems.
 A tracking system is now in place for the Flex Peak program so that Customer Reps can record customer
interactions for this program.

There were questions and discussion about:
 Regarding the direct install for small businesses, is there a reason why some business can or can’t
participate and was the company able to get a sense of what other utilities have experienced with their
small business programs? Quentin answered that the other programs were based on total use line or geographic line. His goal is to find a way to make the current program available to all commercial customers and become more involved with trade allies.
 Since all programs have qualifications and restrictions it might be helpful if Idaho Power spoke with other utilities that have direct install programs.
 Most agricultural people do not understand how a regulator works. More effort is needed to educate the irrigators in order to expand the irrigation programs.
 Is the Flex Peak tracking system a new feature? It seems like it would be a great tool to use for all of the programs. Quentin stated that it is new to Flex Peak but it has been used for other programs.
 It was suggested that these Customer Reps should be trained on the details of Flex Peak to help overcome objections to participation.

11:20am-2015 Residential Program Performance—Roger Lawless
Roger highlighted energy savings and participation by program for 2014-2015 and also provided program
updates.
Key points presented:
 Slide 3 compared energy savings for the residential programs from 2013, 2014 and preliminary savings
for 2015. The Home Improvement program shows a decline in savings from 2014. In 2014 a tax credit was expected to expire so there was a sense of urgency for customers to take advantage of that and do upgrades before the tax credit expired. The tax credit was extended so the contractors were not
encouraging customers with the same sense of urgency in 2015.
 In February of 2015 the incentive was removed for the See ya later, Refrigerator® program (SYLR) and
then on November 23rd JACO, the third party administrator, went into receivership so the program had to
be suspended. Idaho Power would like feedback from EEAG on whether this program should continue and if so, for how long, or be cancelled completely.
 Starting March 1st, 2016 the Home Energy Audit will be made available to customers with gas heated homes.
5
 In January the Drying Rack Project kicked off with customers picking up766 racks in Boise and Nampa.
This project will be offered in the eastern region in the future. At a prior EEAG meeting it was suggested that a post survey be sent out to participants. Idaho Power implemented that feedback and will be sending out surveys in six months to find out what types of behavior changes were made by participants.
 The Multi Family Direct Install project will be taking place at the end of February and the first part of March 2016. A 76 unit apartment complex in Pocatello will be participating. Measures that will be
installed are: LED light bulbs, faucet aerators, high efficiency showerheads, and insulated water heater pipe wrap. Idaho Power would like feedback from EEAG on ideas for other measures that should be included.
Discussion for SYLR program:
 If SYLR is cancelled, there is still a lot of marketing material that references this program. How will that
be handled? Idaho Power stated that if the program gets cancelled then they would need to update the
current material with new information. New marketing material that references that program is currently on hold until a decision is made.
 Prior to 2015, was there steady participation or was it seasonal? Pete answered that there were about 3000 units per year recycled but that was when the program offered an incentive. In 2015 there were about
1600 units recycled.
 If SYLR continues, will the 2 LED bulbs still be offered? Roger answered that the bulbs would still be
offered to customers.
 There are other utilities that are cancelling their refrigerator recycling programs because they cannot make them cost effective with the third party providers. Part of that could be because of having to travel to rural
areas. If Idaho Power focused on urban instead of rural it might make it cost effective.
 Idaho Power could hold “neighborhood blitzes” where customers are made aware of a specific date for
refrigerator pickup in their neighborhood. That could help cut costs.
 In rural areas customers are usually charged to dispose of appliances so if there is a “last chance” to
recycle, they might participate.
Discussion for Drying Rack Project:
 For the Drying Rack Project, how will the savings be quantified? Roger answered that it will be from the
surveys.
 There could be numerous marketing opportunities with all of the social media pictures. The company
could encourage customers to send in pictures of them using these drying racks, and it would be a way for them to self report.
Discussion for Multi Family Direct Install:
 What kind of investment is the facility owner making and what is the value? Roger stated that it is at no cost for the owners and the kits value is between $30 and $40.
 Is this a one-time project or will it be ongoing? Roger answered that right now it will be a one-time project, but it could be duplicated once the first one has been completed.
6
 Ideas on what else to include in the kits are: furnace filter, sealing around doors and window, power strip,
program a thermostat for customers, pipe wrap for both hot and cold pipes, water heater settings, duct sealing and attic insulation, thermostatic shower valves.
12:00 Lunch
1:00 Meeting Reconvened
1:00pm-Demand Response Program Evaluation—Nick Bengston-Clearesult
Nick presented the results of the Demand Response Program Evaluation. The programs evaluated were Irrigation
Peak Rewards, A/C Cool Credit program, and Flex Peak. This was an impact evaluation that was completed in 2015.
Key points presented for Irrigation Peak Rewards:
 The counterfactual realization rate is what the demand reduction would have been on any day during the curtailment period.
 The AMI data drives much of the analysis. There was data for about 80% of the pumps.
 On slide 11, the Avg. Load Remaining Rate used to be called device failure.
There were questions and discussion about:
 Regarding device failure, is there a way to know if the 3% rate is normal in the industry? Nick answered
that it is actually very low. A lot of these pumps are remote so 3% is a reasonable number.
 Are these percentages driven by just one or two customers not nominating consistently? Nick stated that
they are not consistently the same pumps over and over again.
Key points presented for A/C Cool Credit:
 A predictive calculator was created in 2012 to aid in program management.
 In this program there can be snapback in energy use. This can happen after an event when customers will
typically run their air conditioning more after an event due to heat accumulation in the home.
There were questions and discussion about:
 What types of homes were evaluated? Nick stated that home type was not part of the scope of this
evaluation.
 Is there snapback in irrigation? Quentin answered that only a small percentage of irrigation pumps are
turned on automatically. Since most pumps are manually switched on after an event, it takes longer for them to come back online thus avoiding snapback.
 The takeaway from snapback is that the program should be run for a longer period of time during an
event. Quentin stated that there is a customer satisfaction issue with extending event times later into the evening. The Program Specialist added that balancing customer impact is important. If the customer feels
negatively impacted by participating in the program, they may stop participating. .
7
Key points presented for Flex peak:
 2015 was the first year of the program being administered internally. Most of the load comes from HVAC with some from production and lighting.
 The first two events had good realization rates. The third event had a lower rate due to one customer not
participating.
 Even more important than a realization rate in this program is predictability so that Idaho Power has a
general idea of what to expect in load reduction.
1:52-Energy Efficiency Marketing Overview —Bill Shawver, Roberta Rene, and Tracey Burtch

Key Points Presented:
 From a marketing perspective, Idaho Power continues to increase its efforts when it’s cost effective and
prudent.
 A complete redesign of the website will take place in 2016. It will be adaptive and responsive to all
devices; desktop and mobile. This means that regardless of the device a customer uses the website will adapt to the size of the screen.
 The goal of marketing campaigns is to promote energy efficiency programs as whole, not just an
individual program.
 Direct mail is done to get customers engaged and aware that there is a program available to meet their
needs.
 Results from the Energy Saving Improvements survey were presented. This survey took place in the
online Empowered Community.
 The Pledge/Challenge marketing tactic was presented to the group with Tracey asking the group for
feedback on using the word “Pledge” vs. “Challenge” and ideas for promoting it.
There were questions and discussion about:
 On the marketing campaigns, how did the company invest in different types of media and were the results
what was expected? Roberta answered that the company worked within the budget to get the best possible buy for the different media types. Television is the most expensive but since people learn visually they
will remember the ads.
 Could the same system the company uses for tracking interactions for the Flex Peak Program be used for
a more targeted approach for direct mailings? Roberta answered that those conversations have started
internally.
 In order for direct mail to be effective there needs to be at least three pieces sent out. Roberta stated that
Idaho Power customers do respond well to direct mail. Bill added that receptiveness is important and bill inserts will continue to be mailed.
8
 How do outreach events fit into these activities? Roberta stated that the first priority is to achieve the
consistent look and feel for all of the programs and then begin doing outreach in 2017.
 Are children marketed to directly with any of these mediums? Bill answered that there are yearly art
contests through the schools and Idaho Power has Community Education Reps that give classroom
presentations.
 How is marketing rolled into cost effectiveness? Pete answered that if marketing is directly related to a
program, then it is included in that programs’ cost effectiveness analysis.
 Slide 9 indicated two responses to the question. Were those the only two options available to choose
from? Peoples’ revealed preferences are usually not the same as their motivators. Tracey answered that depending on how the question was answered, it would take the participant down a different track.
 The company should look at what other industries are doing in terms of marketing, not just the utility industry. Motivators can be different at different stages of life; it should not be a “one size fits all” approach.
 The word “challenge” triggers a competitive spirit that a customer would be likely to meet and may go beyond the commitment made vs. a “pledge” where they might do the minimal amount to achieve the
goal. This is a good vehicle to commit to a behavioral change.
 Some of the national entities have both, maybe combine the two. Try not to reward something that didn’t
happen. If someone says they are going to participate and they don’t end up following through, a reward
isn’t going to change behavior.
 When you invoke a behavioral change and the results of that change are known to the person making the
change, it is more impactful.
 Use Facebook and Nextdoor to promote this. Have people share pictures and stories with their friends and
on Idaho Power’s page. A “community” could be created where ideas and pictures are shared.
 A follow-up survey should be done to see if people fulfilled the pledge and if they are continuing with the
changes. Have other changes been made as a result of the pledge?

3:02-Program Planning —Quentin Nesbitt
Quentin presented updates on the Energy Savings Kits and Smart Thermostats.
Key points presented:
 The Energy Savings Kits will be available at no cost. The goal is to have 7500 kits distributed. The
delivery details have not been finalized. The company is hoping to have a first quarter launch but it should be April at the latest.
 The initial run will be a direct mailer to a selected community; they will be able to enroll online, via telephone, or through a business reply card. Idaho Power is expecting about a 20% uptake.
 The Smart Thermostat launch date is March 31st 2016. This will be contractor install with a $75 incentive.
9

3:10 pm-Open Discussion
 In Darrel Anderson’s opening comments he talked about what’s the next new thing out in the energy efficiency world. Idaho Power has good programs and good measures but the widget stuff is pretty much
done. The company needs to get beyond widget based efficiency. How can a behavior based programs be designed to drive energy savings?
 There was discussion around myAccount, Idaho Power’s online portal that a customer can register for to pay their bill, start, stop, or transfer service and access their energy usage. The many features of myAccount were explained. A suggestion was made that at the next EEAG meeting, members could bring
their laptops or mobile devices and log into their accounts for a tour of myAccount.
 There will always be a segment of the population that does not have a computer or know how to use it
properly so providing access to their information for those customers is important.
 There was discussion about the company using text notifications or push notices to alert customers about
their energy usage. Theresa informed the group that Idaho Power is looking into implementing alerts and
notifications. Customers have indicated through surveys they are interested in receiving these notifications from the company.
 If there was a dollar amount on those alerts it might make more of an impact for customers.
 On May 9-13 the Energy Out West event will be held in Spokane Washington. Idaho Power is a current
sponsor of this event. Program Specialist, Cheryl Paoli will be presenting a tutorial on working with CAP Agencies and will also be receiving an award for her work with the Weatherization Programs.

Wrap-Up:
Parting comments from members were:
 The meeting went well. The agenda wasn’t too full. A follow-up discussion on the Rider balance would
be a good topic for the next meeting.
 The progress made since Rosemary came aboard is immense and has allowed for more productive
discussions.
 It seems that more time is being spent discussing financial information so we could allocate more time for
discussion during that presentation.
 It was a good meeting and has become more succinct on what we are trying to accomplish.
 Thank you for having Darrel Anderson speak with us. It seems that the importance of energy efficiency has worked its way up to the executive level. At the next meeting the Rider balance should be addressed
and revisit the discussion of the small business direct install issue.
10
 Appreciate the participation of Darrel Anderson and it showed that the company does value energy
efficiency. The low hanging fruit has been reached and the remaining will be expensive and more difficult to achieve. The work of this group will need to be strategic and thoughtful about how to obtain it.
 The direction of the marketing is good. Thank you for the cookbook.
 Even though the savings are preliminary, it is up and that is a good thing. A lot of hard work went into
achieving those numbers.
 Would like to continue the behavioral discussion.
 Thank you to Rosemary and to Idaho Power for having an Energy Efficiency Advisory Group to have these types of discussions.
Quentin thanked everyone for their time, comments and recognition. He reminded everyone to bring laptops or
mobile devices for the myAccount demonstration at the next meeting.
3:50 Meeting Adjourned

1

Energy Efficiency Advisory Group (EEAG) Meeting Notes
May 5, 2016
Present:
Catherine Chertudi–City of Boise, Public Works Dept. Don Strickler–Simplot
Tina Jayaweera-Northwest Power & Conservation Council
Tami White–Idaho Power
Lynn Tominaga–Idaho Irrigation Pumpers
Association
Oregon
Not Present:
Ken Robinette–South Central Comm. Action Partnership
Sid Erwin–Idaho Irrigation Pumpers Association
Lynn Young–AARP

Guests and Presenters*:
Pete Pengilly*–Idaho Power Cory Read–Idaho Power
Roger Lawless*–Idaho Power Theresa Drake–Idaho Power
Shelley Martin–Idaho Power Andrea Simmonsen–Idaho Power
Bill Shawver–Idaho Power Jennifer Pope–Office of Energy Resources
Pete Richardson–ICIP Don Reading–ICIP
Mary Hacking–Idaho Power Tracey Burtch*–Idaho Power
Lee Garrett–Idaho Power
Cory Read-Idaho Power
Roberta Rene*-Idaho Power
Susan Klein-Idaho Power
Zeke VanHooser-Idaho Power
Sheree Willhite-Idaho Power
Chris Pollow-Idaho Power
Mindi Shodeen-Idaho Power
Denise Humphreys-Idaho Power

Todd Schultz*-Idaho Power
Jim Jauregui-Idaho Power
Anne Alenskis-Idaho Power
Melissa Thom-Idaho Power
Randy Thorn-Idaho Power
Becky Arte-Howell-Idaho Power
Cheryl Paoli-Idaho Power
Shirley Lindstrom-Northwest Power & Conservation
Council
Meeting Facilitator:
Rosemary Curtin-(RBCI)
Note Takers:
2

Shawn Lovewell (Idaho Power) with Kathy Yi (Idaho Power)
Meeting Convened at 9:35am
Rosemary started the meeting with introductions of EEAG members and guests. The February meeting notes were reviewed and there were no questions or comments.
Tami provided a brief update regarding two recent filings Idaho Power submitted to the Idaho Public Utilities Commission (IPUC); 1) the annual DSM Prudence filing (IPC-E-16-03) and; 2) the annual FCA filing (IPC-E-16-
02).
9:41 am-Mini Home Assessment/myAccount Walk through— Roger Lawless & Todd Schultz
Roger passed out the mini home assessment to the group and asked them to take a few minutes to fill it out.
Key points presented:
Roger asked the group if anything stood out from a behavioral stand point after filing out the assessment and if they wanted to share.
There were questions and discussion about:
• This is a nice list of behaviors that use energy, but this assessment alone is not a behavioral change.
However, when I was finished I was comparing my score to the person next to me and we wanted to see
who scored higher. What I do with the information afterward could lead to a change in behavior. Roger stated that this assessment will be a marketing piece included in the Energy Saving Kits. It is an informational and educational piece that will be used to get people thinking about their behaviors.
• The information on the company’s website is useful and the information is informative. However, I don’t
want people to confuse this assessment tool as a behavioral program. Quentin stated that the assessment is
a complementary tool to myAccount and what customers can do with it.
• I like how simple and straight forward the mini home assessment is. I can share these things with my
young daughter.
• I agree that this by itself is not a behavior change, but it is a step in the right direction.
10:00am- myAccount Walk through — Todd Schultz
Todd provided an overview of myAccount.
Key points presented:
Todd gave the group a brief synopsis of his early employment history with Idaho Power and described the tools that were available to help customers understand their usage, and how the tools we have now are incredible. There were four customer focus groups that took place last November. Customers were invited to provide feedback on
what was and wasn’t valuable to them on the website. They liked icon based navigation, larger fonts, and graphs. The new myAccount landing page on the company’s website was just released. It has a new look and feel based
on the feedback from the focus groups.
There were questions and discussions about:
3

• There is a lot of good information provided here and it is nice that you can compare your usage from
month to month. What is missing though is the ability to compare your usage to others. Todd stated that in the focus groups, people really liked the ability to compare their usage from one month to the next or
from the current month to the same month last year. Seeing that in a graph can give them a sense of what
is coming and what they can do to change it. This is where that behavior change will happen.
• How far back can we go on the bill comparison? Todd answered that monthly usage information can go
back a couple years.
• Todd asked the group if any of those that had set up their profile in myAccount have gone in and loaded
their homes characteristics to get a more detailed look at their homes energy usage. A few people raised their hands.
• How is the end-use data calculated? Todd stated that a third party provides the analytics.
• Does Idaho Power have data on what pages customers are visiting and the level of detail that is being
looked at? Todd answered that roughly 95% of the customer hits are “pay bill” and “view bill” and
usage. Of the pages that are accessed on a monthly basis, the other tools on myAccount are about 4% of those accessed. Only a small percentage of customers are drilling down for more detail. Based upon
customer focus group feedback, the company designed a new look with an icon based navigation. The
hope is that this new look and feel will make it easier for customers to explore more detailed tools available in myAccount.
• Going back to the end user calculation, is it an algorithm that is used for everyone or is it specific to each customer? Todd stated that it is based on appliance use and the age of the home.
• There was discussion around how the customer inputs their home's data into myAccount and how it compares to other customers. If a customer doesn’t complete this information, then there will be no comparison.
• Does the company have a plan to get as many customers to go into myAccount and fill out their information so they can start saving more energy? Bill Shawver answered that the company will continue
to market myAccount. The goal is to move customers toward the deeper level of detail. Todd stated that it is important to provide customers with information that is important to them, giving them the tools that they need and want.
• It is great that Idaho Power is using this data to empower its customers. This information is necessary for a behavioral change and to drive customers, but it is not enough.
• Do other utilities in Oregon have this type of information on their websites? JP didn’t know the answer, but committed to find out and let the group know.
• Would like to see this type of irrigation customer usage information provided to irrigation districts. It could be a very useful tool. Quentin stated that irrigation customers can look at their own individual
accounts, but Idaho Power cannot provide information about customers to other customers.
• From myAccount, can a customer have an Energy Savings Kit delivered to them? Roger stated that option will be available in the future along with other ways to register for the kits.
4

• The energy use comparison bar belongs on the front page and in bold. Having language that says “if you
are using more energy, click here” or “click here to see how you can use less energy.” Having that front and center could help drive customers deeper into the tools.
Todd thanked the group for their feedback and comments and asked members of the EEAG to go into
myAccount and set up their own profile, then share with their co-workers and neighbors about what is available on the website. Be an advocate for myAccount and the tools that are available.
10:55am Break
11:10am-Marketing presentation— Bill Shawver, Roberta Rene, & Tracey Burtch
At the February EEAG meeting, Bill asked how many of the EEAG members follow Idaho Power on social media
and a few said that they do. Two people started following the company since the last meeting. Bill emphasized
that the EEAG is valuable in helping the company shape how it markets to customers. The presentation today will highlight the success of the most recent marketing campaigns.
Key points presented:
• Idaho Power received Silver and a Citation Rockie Award from the Idaho Advertising Federation for the
recent Energy Efficiency Awareness Campaigns.
• The marketing collateral binder was passed around so that members could see marketing pieces that have
been sent to customers since the last meeting in February.
• Because customers still respond well to direct marketing, the company is working on putting all of the energy efficiency program information into one marketing piece to help increase customer participation in
EE programs. The group was asked for suggestions and ideas on how to accomplish this.
• At the February EEAG meeting the group discussed the idea of an Energy Savings Pledge and Idaho
Power will be moving forward this fall with the Pledge. The company will be asking customers to pledge
to make one or more energy saving behavioral changes to be entered into a drawing to win an Energy Star® clothes washer/dryer combo. There will be a webpage where customers can make their pledge. The
October bill insert will be the primary way customers will learn about it. The behavioral change options were discussed with the group and feedback was requested.
• The various social media site statistics were reviewed with the group.
There were questions and discussion about:
• At the Idaho Conservation League, they initiate a lot of direct mailings and get very little response.
Segmenting Idaho Power customers to send letters might be a better use of resources instead of sending out a blanket letter to all customers.
• The City of Boise has used bookmarks in the past for the Household Hazardous Waste program. Having bullet points or smaller bites of information listed is less overwhelming to people and they are more likely
to read it.
• The Energy Savings Pledge is the beginnings of a behavioral program. This motivates behavior changes.
However, it may be more effective if the commitment is public rather than private.
5

• In order to help people engage, the company could have a bar chart showing how many people have taken
the pledge.
• Give people prompts and reminders throughout the pledge period to remind them of the commitment they
made.
• When a customer logs onto the website or myAccount, have the pledge sign up information right there.
• Ideas for pledges could be: doing full loads of dishes or laundry; changing out the five most used lights in the home to something more efficient; buying an Energy Star® appliance; having a specific time where all electronics are turned off or unplugged.
12:00 Lunch
1:00pm Meeting Reconvened
1:00pm-2016 Commercial Program Performance YTD—Quentin Nesbitt
Quentin highlighted savings, participation, and updates for the commercial, industrial, and irrigation programs.
Key points presented:
• Building Efficiency, Easy Upgrades, and Custom Efficiency have been combined into one program and will now be named Commercial & Industrial Energy Efficiency Program. Some additional prescriptive measures have been added.
• The current Building Efficiency program savings numbers for 2016 year to date have exceeded 2015
savings numbers for the same time period. The new 2016 pre application will be simpler and will require
less information from customers to avoid delays in submitting it to Idaho Power.
• The Easy Upgrades program has also experienced an increase in projects and savings in 2016 vs. 2015
year to date. Trade ally workshops will be held in Idaho Power’s service area to review program changes and new measure additions. This year lighting vendors have been invited to the workshops to share information with trade allies about the products they offer.
• Savings for the Custom Efficiency program has increased for 2016 vs. 2015 year to date. There have been three training sessions so far this year with an additional four training sessions scheduled for 2016.
• The first year report has been finalized for the Wastewater Cohort. The 2.56 MWh savings does include behavioral type changes that occur through the education and training in the cohort.
• There are 80 sites currently signed up for the Flex Peak program. In 2015, 72 sites were enrolled.
There were questions and discussion about:
• If Idaho Power is exceeding its savings goals, is the company paying more than needed to achieve cost effective conservation? Pete answered that it isn’t how cost effective something is, but rather if it is or is not cost effective. The volume usually helps cost effectiveness. Quentin added that an example would be
the cost of LED bulbs have decreased, so Idaho Power doesn’t have to pay as much of an incentive to get customers to change out their lights.
6

• For the Custom Efficiency program, why are the savings for 2016 so much better than 2015? What is the
difference, could it be the economy? Quentin answered that it could be that the economy is improving so businesses are more likely to spend money on upgrades.
• Does Idaho Power know the savings range of projects for the Wastewater Cohort? Quentin answered that
the range is 0-22%.
• Does the company plan on opening the Wastewater Cohort to the industry in general rather than a
targeted approach? Quentin answered that it was offered to anyone that had water or wastewater systems.
• The sites that have re-enrolled in Flex Peak for this year, are they nominating the same amounts as last
year? The Program Specialist answered that a couple sites have nominated a lower amount but most sites are the same or higher.

1:49pm-2016 Residential Program Performance YTD—Roger Lawless
Roger highlighted energy savings and participation for the residential programs along with updates.
Key points presented:
• Residential lighting savings have increased in 2016 vs. 2015. Consumers have more options and the
prices are coming down for the LED technology.
• Roger passed around a copy of the direct mail piece for the Energy Saving Kits. The goal is to have 7,500
customers sign up to receive a kit by the end of 2016. These kits will be provided to customers at no charge.
• The refrigerator and freezer recycling program will be reinstated. Customers will be notified via a bill insert in May and June that this program will be offered through the end of 2016.
• During the Fort Hall Drying Rack event, the company was able to co-market the Weatherization Solutions
program. Following feedback provided by the EEAG, Idaho Power will be sending out prompts and pre and post surveys to customers to gauge their usage of the drying racks.
• The Home Energy Audit has had close to 200 participants. Since adding all fuel sources, the program has seen an increase in participation.
There were questions and discussion about:
• Are the Energy Saving Kits customizable based on customer preference? Roger answered that the kits are
based on whether the customer has an electrically heated water heater or non-electric water heater.
• What is the kWh savings for each kit? The non-electric kits are 96 kWh per year and the electric kits are
601 kWh per year.
• Since the Regional Technical Forum (RTF) doesn’t have savings for faucet aerators, what numbers is the
company using? The savings from the last potential study that Applied Energy Group provided.
7

• What is the estimated pre-evaluation savings of the drying racks? The savings is estimated to be about 90
kWh per year, per rack.
• For the Home Energy Audits, what audit software is being used? The CAKE Audit program is being
used.
• How did the company market the Home Energy Audits to non-electrically heated homes? The company
created an on-line infographic which walked customers through the audit process. The Company also
utilized bill inserts and Facebook posts.
• For the Home Energy Audit program, where are the savings coming from and how is the company
tracking them? The savings come from the direct install pieces which are LED bulbs and pipe wrap. Participants are being tracked because the primary goal of the Home Energy Audit is to guide people
toward the Company’s other EE programs.
• What is the status of the smart thermostats? Roger answered that these were launched on March 31st so
there isn’t much information available yet. He stated he will provide an update to the group at the August
meeting.
2:25pm-Program Planning Update/Discussion—Quentin Nesbitt
Quentin presented an update on the Multi-Family Direct Install Project. The EEAG was asked for feedback on
adding a multi-family ductless heat pump measure and a ground source heat pump option.
Key points presented:
• An apartment complex in Pocatello was the participating customer for the Multi-Family Direct Install Project. Following EEAG feedback, the company utilized the facility owner’s maintenance personnel to
manage the project. Implementing the project in this way was the most cost effective method.
• Quentin asked the group if they had any advice for continuing with this approach as part of the Home Improvement program.
• In the last two years in the Treasure Valley, there have been 14 multi-family projects that have used electric forced air with central air conditioning. By working with builders and developers on a project
before construction starts, Idaho Power would research the cost effectiveness of the project and potentially be able to offer an incentive for using ductless heat pumps. Idaho Power is looking for feedback on pursuing a ductless heat pump measure for multi-family structures.
• Idaho Power currently does not offer an incentive on ground source heat pumps in its Heating & Cooling Efficiency program. There are some customers that are confused by this because the company does offer
an incentive on air source and open loop water source heat pumps. There are higher install costs with the
ground source heat pumps because of excavation and space needed for the loop field. The company requested feedback from the EEAG on the idea of adding this measure.
There were questions and discussion about:
• The cost effectiveness of the Multi-Family Direct Install Project. The general consensus of the group was
that the company should continue pursuing the approach of using the facility maintenance personnel to do the installs.
8

• In reference to the ductless heat pumps for multi-family units, has the company considered the cost
savings, in its cost effectiveness analysis, from not having these units ducted? It was answered that part of the survey was to determine what the cost savings is for a non-ducted structure.
• Idaho Power should definitely be involved in multi-family projects that are in development. It goes back
to that idea of going way up stream to affect change.
• The Office of Energy Resources (OER) doesn’t offer loans on the open loop due to the water use
concerns. Incenting on anything that isn’t a “pump and dump” is a better way to go. Quentin answered that he has seen other utilities offer some sort of incentive on these measures. Maybe on a custom basis an
incentive could be offered.
• It will be a challenge to get uptake on ground source heat pumps in this market. Building space is limited
due to lot sizes. Quentin stated that it would probably be more appealing to the rural customer where
space isn’t as big of an issue.
2:53pm-Financials/Rider Balance History—Pete Pengilly
Pete presented Appendix 1: Idaho Rider and Oregon Rider (Jan-Mar 2016), 2016 DSM Actual Expenses and
Preliminary Energy Savings by Program (Jan-Mar 2016). Pete also presented an energy efficiency funding chronology for the Idaho and Oregon Rider.
Key points presented:
• The Idaho Rider had a $10.1 million collected balance on March 31st 2016. The last increase to the Rider
was in 2009 when it was increased from 2.5% to 4.75%. The increase was primarily due to the fact that, at
that time, demand response incentives were paid out of the Rider. In 2011, the demand response incentive payments from the Rider were moved to base rates (with differences tracked through the PCA) and the
Rider percentage was decreased by 0.75%.
• The self directed option allows customers taking service under Schedule 19 to track their contributions to
the Rider and utilize them at a later date. Under this option, they are able to have direct use of 100% of
those funds for cost-effective DSM projects.
• The Oregon Rider had a $4.8 million under collected balance as of March 31st, 2016. In Oregon, Idaho
Power is currently spending about what it collects in the Rider. Demand Response incentives are paid out of the Rider in Oregon.
• The presentation provided an overview of activity for the Idaho and Oregon Riders since their inception.
There was questions and discussion about:
• If the Schedule 19 customers do not use the money in the self-directed option, what happens to the funds?
Quentin answered that the funds are returned to the Rider. There is a fixed three year cycle during which these funds can be used.
• Based on the information in the presentation, it looks like Idaho Power does its best when the Rider is in a deficit. Quentin commented that the Rider balance has no impact on the company’s pursuit of cost
effective energy efficiency.
9

• Instead of over collecting by 1 million every month, maybe decrease it so the company only over collects
by $500,000, maybe there should be an adjustment to the percentage collected. Until the company provides some different scenarios for collection and spending, it is hard for us as a group to make
recommendations.
• The percentage collected in the Rider should stay where it is instead of fluctuating up and down. Energy use could go down which would decrease the amount collected.
• Other utilities adjust their DSM rider every two years. That might be too often, but at least we wouldn’t be having this type of conversation every year.
• We should be looking to achieve reasonable balances in the Rider. The company shouldn’t take the balance down to a bare minimum, but rather find a middle ground to keep balances healthy.
• There is value in stability. Maybe the company should look at a 2-3 year rolling look that could address any lumpiness.
• From an industrial standpoint, if we don’t collect as much there won’t be as much to spend in the future
even though there are still opportunities for cost effective energy efficiency.

3:38pm-Wrap Up/Open Discussion
• When the company does a cost effectiveness analysis for a program, how is that program’s energy
savings valued? Pete answered that a value is assigned to energy efficiency in the Integrated Resource Plan (IRP). The IRP process produces hourly avoided costs which are put in time blocks with both on peak and off peak values recognized. For example, summer on peak includes both an energy and capacity
benefit.
• The August EEAG meeting date will need to be changed due to scheduling conflicts. Shawn will send out
some alternate dates for members to vote on.

3:45pm-Meeting Adjourned

1

Idaho Power Company Energy Efficiency Advisory Group (EEAG)
Meeting Notes dated August 30, 2016
Present:
Catherine Chertudi–City of Boise, Public Works Dept. Don Strickler–Simplot
Ben Otto-Idaho Conservation League John Chatburn–Office of Energy Resources
Stacey Donohue–Idaho Public Utilities Commission Jennifer Pope–Office of Energy Resources
Diego Rivas–Northwest Energy Coalition Sid Erwin–Idaho Irrigation Pumpers Association
Tami White–Idaho Power Kent Hanway-CSHQA
Tina Jayaweera-Northwest Power & Conservation Council

Not Present:
Ken Robinette–South Central Comm. Action Partnership
Jean-Pierre (JP) Batmale–Public Utility Commission of Oregon

Guests and Presenters*:
Pete Pengilly–Idaho Power Cory Read–Idaho Power
Roger Lawless*–Idaho Power Theresa Drake*–Idaho Power
Mindi Shodeen–Idaho Power Andrea Simmonsen–Idaho Power
Pete Richardson-Industrial Customers of Idaho Power Don Reading-Industrial Customers of Idaho Power
Donn English-Idaho Public Utilities Commission Ken Miller-Snake River Alliance
Dave Angell-Idaho Power Jared Hansen-Idaho Power
Braden Jensen-Idaho Farm Bureau
Tracey Burtch*-Idaho Power
Zeke VanHooser-Idaho Power
Chris Pollow-Idaho Power
Sheree Willhite-Idaho Power
Jon Alban-Idaho Power
Denise Humphreys-Idaho Power
Cheryl Paoli-Idaho Power
Travis McMillen-Idaho Power
Bill Shawver*-Idaho Power
Tonja Dyke-Idaho Power
Randy Thorn-Idaho Power
Chellie Jensen-Idaho Power
Todd Greenwell-Idaho Power
Becky Arte-Howell-Idaho Power
Shirley Lindstrom-Northwest Power & Conservation
Council
Jill Simpson – Idaho Power
Meeting Facilitator: Rosemary Curtin-RBCI
Note Takers:
Shawn Lovewell (Idaho Power) with Kathy Yi (Idaho Power)
Meeting Convened at 9:31 am
2

This meeting was hosted by EEAG member Kent Hanway of CSHQA at their office on Broad Street in Boise.
Rosemary started the meeting with introductions of EEAG members and guests. Kent Hanway of CSHQA
informed the group of the fire exits and where to gather outside the building in the event of an emergency, along with other general housekeeping items. The May meeting notes were reviewed and there were no questions or
comments.
Tami spoke to the group about the Weatherization Assistance for Qualified Customers (WAQC) report that Idaho Power is required to file annually with the Idaho Public Utilities Commission (IPUC). Much of the same
information in this report is presented in the DSM Annual Report. The company is considering filing a request with the IPUC for authority to consolidate the information provided in the annual WAQC report into the DSM Annual report instead of filing each separately. The company solicited feedback from the EEAG on this idea. The
general consensus of the EEAG was that the company should combine the WAQC report into the DSM Annual report.
9:38am-2016 Residential Program Performance YTD—Roger Lawless
Roger highlighted the Energy Saving Kits (ESK), Smart Thermostats, Fridge & Freezer Recycling, Shade Tree project, drying racks, multifamily and A/C Cool Credit summer performance and presented the following key points:
• The original goal for the ESK’s was to have 3,000 enrollments by August. By July 31st there were approximately 9,700 enrollments. After a social media post on August 2nd enrollments grew to 12,000 in
just 10 days. Because of the large number of enrollments, fulfillment of those kits would now take 5-6 weeks instead of the usual 3-4 weeks. Customers were notified of the delay via postcard that due to recent demand kits would take a couple weeks longer to arrive. The kit vendor covered the cost of the postcards
because they could not meet the 3 week turnaround time.
• Smart Thermostats were added to the Heating & Cooling Efficiency program on March 31st. There are
over 80 models on the qualified products list. From April-August 2016 there were 21 applications submitted for incentives. The marketing tactics for this program were discussed.
• The Fridge & Freezer Recycling program timeline was discussed. The company would like to continue
this program in 2017 however the program may face cost effectiveness challenges due to updated DSM alternative costs and the Regional Technical Forum (RTF) updating their savings numbers.
There were questions and discussion about whether or not the company can collect customer email addresses,
when an evaluation will be done for the ESK’s and the marketing of the kits, smart thermostats and the challenges of marketing and educating customers about them.
10:35am-Break. The remainder of the Residential Program Performance presentation took place after lunch.
10:45am-2016 Commercial Program Performance YTD—Quentin Nesbitt
Quentin provided program updates for Commercial & Industrial, Irrigation Efficiency, Irrigation Peak Rewards,
and Flex Peak and presented the following key points:
• The savings numbers for all programs are through July of 2016.
• Examples of the tools used by participants of the Water Supply Cohort were shown along with examples of the types of changes being implemented in different facilities.
3

• There were 138 sites enrolled for the Flex Peak program in 2016 vs. 72 sites in 2015. The target was to
achieve above 35 MW and the program achieved 41 MW
There were questions and discussion about creating a more structured approach in educating customers and trade
allies on the commercial/industrial programs in order to raise participation levels and providing more detailed
information to customers who participate in the Flex Peak program.
11:16am-Transmission & Distribution Benefits Analysis—Dave Angell
Dave Angell presented the results of an analysis conducted by Idaho Power to quantify the value of energy
efficiency’s deferral of transmission & distribution investments and presented the following key points:
• The company identified 36 growth-driven projects scattered around the Idaho Power’s service area. These
projects included: distribution circuits, substations, and transmission lines.
• Energy Efficiency projections were applied evenly across the service area based on peak demand by rate
class. The assumption was made that energy efficiency projection for system peak aligns with feeder and
transformer load peaks.
• The estimated value of energy efficiency on T&D deferral is $3.76/kW-year average.
There were questions and discussion about other identified projects and what those were comprised of, how the company projects peak impacts from energy efficiency, the value of right-of-ways and permitting.
12:00pm-Lunch
12:45pm- Meeting Reconvened
12:50pm-CSHQA Building Tour
Kent Hanway and Steve Isbell gave a short presentation about the energy efficient measures implemented in the CSHQA building. A few years ago their lease was up at the CW Moore building. Renovating this building was an
opportunity to give back to the community in making the space better. It demonstrated their commitment to
sustainable design.
Steve Burgos of the City of Boise gave a short presentation on the LIV District. The LIV acronym is Lasting environments, Innovative enterprises, and Vibrant communities.
The presentations were followed by a tour of the CSHQA facility.
1:34pm-Program Marketing—Tracey Burtch & Bill Shawver
Tracey presented the results of the Residential Energy Efficiency Campaign survey. The Smart-Saver Pledge and
the plans for marketing in 2017 were highlighted and she presented the following key points:
• In 2015 the Empowered Community was surveyed regarding the residential energy efficiency ad
campaign. The same survey was conducted in 2016 with those that did not participate in 2015. The recall rate of the ads was higher in 2016.
• The Smart-Saver Pledge will run from October 1-November 21. Customers who participate will be entered to win an Energy Star® electric appliance. The winner can choose from a variety of different options. Tracey thanked the EEAG for their pledge idea suggestions.
4

• In 2017 the company will be exploring new ways to refresh the current ad concepts and develop a
consistent look and feel for the residential programs.
There were questions and discussion about the company providing more detail on the respondents of the survey,
survey results and the comparison of energy efficiency surveys vs. other topics the company conducts, and a
discussion about a past Connections article. There was further discussion regarding the Smart-Saver pledge and the ability of a participant to make their pledge public on a social media platform.
2:19pm-2016 Residential Program Performance YTD (continued)—Roger Lawless
Roger continued with the residential program performance updates from earlier this morning and presented the following key points:
• There are four events scheduled in October for the Shade Tree Project in the Treasure Valley. The company is investigating holding one offering outside of the Treasure Valley starting in 2017. There is a
98% customer satisfaction rate with this project.
• Surveys will go out to customers who participated in the drying rack promotion six months from when they received them. The goal is have customers reduce 25% of their drying load.
• A Boise location for the Multi-family direct install has been secured. The installations are scheduled for the first part of September at the Green Briar complex.
• There were three events for the A/C Cool Credit program all at a 55% curtailment rate. The preliminary estimate of demand reduction is 31MW.
There were questions and discussion about the Shade Tree project being a good example of an interesting and
creative efficiency program, finding a way to use the current construction boom to leverage this project, and how many multi-family projects are being targeted for 2017.
2:30pm- 2017 Preliminary Cost Effectiveness– Kathy Yi
Pete stated prior to the presentation that this information is preliminary. The main point is how alternative costs have been decreasing year after year and are affecting programs cost-effectiveness.
Kathy presented the following key points:
• This information is preliminary and a full analysis of this information won’t be completed until
November.
• Program cost-effectiveness assumptions for 2016 and 2017 were reviewed. Version 1.7 of the Technical
Reference Manual will be used for 2017.
• The different cost-effectiveness tests were reviewed. A preliminary cost-effectiveness summary of all
programs was presented along with how the anticipated changes may impact program cost effectiveness
for 2017.
There were questions and discussion about how kW impact from energy efficiency programs is valued vs. the
kWh savings from programs and how the EEAG should be discussing plans for 2017 before the end of the year.
2:50pm-Break
5

3:04pm-Program Planning– Roger Lawless/Theresa Drake/Quentin Nesbitt
The group was updated on a new residential idea, the multifamily ductless heat pump project, and a new
commercial idea. The following key points were presented:
• Enervee provides a branded online marketplace for customers to research and compare energy efficient
products, read customer reviews and receive incentives. Some utilities use Enervee to offer incentives and some use this tool strictly for education. This is still a new concept and there are only a handful of utilities currently working with Enervee.
• The Treasure Valley has a seen a big boom of multifamily expansion with the majority having electric
forced air furnace w/ air conditioning or ducted heat pumps. Idaho Power is working on ways to facilitate
market transformation to ductless heat pumps for multifamily buildings. The company will keep the group updated on progress.
• Based on previous EEAG comments regarding customer alerts and home energy reports, Theresa
provided an update on what the company is currently working on. A team has been formed to research the type of information customers would like to receive from Idaho Power and if our internal systems can
handle this. The company plans to issue an outage alert to test the texting server in the 4th quarter of 2016. The next type of alert will be in regards to bill usage and the roll out of that is anticipated to occur in the 2nd quarter of 2017.
• The vendor that Idaho Power uses for myAccount will be migrating clients to new cloud based software at the end of 2017. They have agreed to let the company use the existing software to build its Home
Energy Reports before the migration so that it won’t be delayed.
• Idaho Power is looking at implementing a new cohort approach that would target school districts. Schools
would be assessed on their energy use and a plan for reducing energy consumption would be
implemented. Coaching, training and knowledge share would be provided in workshops.
There were questions and discussion about the Enervee tool and the potential benefits it could provide to
customers for research and education along with the analytic data generated for the company. The company should continue to have discussions with the Office of Energy Resources and CSHQA for the development of the School Cohort. .
3:59pm-Roundtable
• This was one of the best meetings. There has been good critiquing of programs and appreciate the
willingness of the company to listen.
• Appreciate the steps that Idaho Power takes to get input from the group on programs.
• Was nice to have the meeting at a different location.
• We talked a lot about 2016 plans, but it would be nice to discuss things before they happen.
• Thank you to Kent and CSHQA for hosting this meeting.
• Liked the broad overview of all the programs.
6

• Need to find a way to limit the size of the agenda again. There is too much content scheduled and not
enough time for discussion.
4:05pm Meeting Adjourned

1

Energy Efficiency Advisory Group (EEAG) Notes dated November 3, 2016
Present:
Catherine Chertudi–City of Boise, Public Works Dept. Don Strickler–Simplot
Quentin Nesbitt*–Idaho Power
Tami White–Idaho Power
Diego Rivas–Northwest Energy Coalition
Stacey Donohue-Idaho Public Utilities Commission
Jennifer Pope-Office of Energy Resources
Sid Erwin–Idaho Irrigation Pumpers Association
Tina Jayaweera-Northwest Power & Conservation Council (via phone)
Not Present:
Jean-Pierre (JP) Batmale–Public Utility Commission of Oregon
Kent Hanway-CSHQA
Ken Robinette–South Central Comm. Action Partnership
John Chatburn-Office of Energy Resources
Guests and Presenters*:
Pete Pengilly–Idaho Power Cory Read–Idaho Power
Roger Lawless*–Idaho Power Mindi Shodeen–Idaho Power
Shelley Martin–Idaho Power Andrea Simmonsen–Idaho Power
Theresa Drake–Idaho Power Don Reading–Industrial Customers of Idaho Power
Dave Falcone–Division of Building Safety Tracey Burtch*–Idaho Power
Michael Alvarado–Bonocore Technology Partners Annie Meyer*–Idaho Power
Donn English–Idaho Public Utilities Commission
Peter Richardson-Industrial Customers of Idaho Power
Nadine Hanhan-Public Utility Commission of Oregon (via phone)
Denise Humphreys-Idaho Power
Jerry Peterson-Division of Building Safety
Phil DeVol-Idaho Power
Sheree Willhite-Idaho Power
Becky Andersohn-Idaho Power

Bill Shawver*-Idaho Power
Becky Arte-Howell-Idaho Power
Cheryl Paoli-Idaho Power
Todd Greenwell-Idaho Power
Zeke VanHooser-Idaho Power
Chellie Jensen-Idaho Power
Tonja Dyke-Idaho Power
Ken Miller-Snake River Alliance
Meeting Facilitator:
Rosemary Curtin-RBCI
Note Takers:
Shawn Lovewell (Idaho Power) with Kathy Yi (Idaho Power)
2

Meeting Convened at 9:32am
Rosemary started the meeting with introductions of EEAG members and guests. There were no comments on the
August meeting notes.
Tami provided a brief update that in Idaho Power’s 2015 DSM Prudence Request (Case No. IPC-E-16-03 filed
March 15, 2016) two of the three parties to the case (IPUC Staff and the Industrial Customers of Idaho Power
(ICIP)) expressed concerns that the Idaho Energy Efficiency Rider (Rider) was collecting more than the company was spending on its DSM efforts and that the balance was getting too large. In its reply comments in this case
Idaho Power expressed a willingness to work with parties to determine if the Rider percentage needed to be adjusted. In its September order approving Idaho Power’s 2015 DSM expenditures as prudently incurred, the Idaho Public Utilities Commission (IPUC) also directed Idaho Power to collaborate with stakeholders and submit
a proposal for revising the Rider percentage by no later than December 30, 2016. There will be a workshop held with parties to the case (Staff, ICIP and the Idaho Conservation League) on November 7th and then there will be a conference call with members of EEAG to share the company’s recommendation and receive feedback from
EEAG before the company files its proposal with the IPUC. Tami also informed the group that the company will file its annual Flex Peak report in Idaho today and in Oregon next week. This is the second year the company has administered this program internally and it saw increased participation and load reduction.
9:40am- 2016 Residential Program Performance —Roger Lawless
Roger highlighted year to date savings comparison for 2016 over 2015 and program cost effectiveness of the
Heating & Cooling Efficiency program, Energy House Calls, and Home Improvement. He presented the
following key points:
• As of the end of 3rd quarter, the residential programs are at 144% of goal, in large part due to the energy-
savings kit. In the Home Products program the company will continue to offer the buy down of CFL’s manufactured in 2016, but after this year those buy down incentives will no longer be available. The company anticipates continuing to offer the fridge and freezer recycling in 2017.
• At the August EEAG meeting, there was a cost-effectiveness discussion on some of the programs. Idaho
Power made a commitment to bring back its findings and present these to the group.
• Currently the ductless heat pump (DHP) measure is affecting the cost-effectiveness of the Heating & Cooling Efficiency (H&CE) program. The company is recommending that the DHP measure be pulled
out of the H&CE program and become a standalone program, increase marketing efforts, and continue
developing relationships with the trade allies that drive this program.
• Market transformation is an area where the Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance (NEEA) can make an
impact in the region. The company has expressed interest in NEEA working at the manufacturer level to lower the cost and broaden available products for the DHP’s.
• The duct sealing and direct install measures for the Energy House Calls (EHC) program are borderline cost effective. The company would like to make a few modifications to the program to increase cost
effectiveness. The recommendation is to keep EHC through 2017 then assess the viability of the program
around August of 2017 for the upcoming year.
• The Home Improvement Program, which includes insulation of roof, floor, ceiling and window
replacement, is not cost effective. The company will still encourage customers through education to continue to upgrade these measures even though an incentive will no longer be offered. EEAG was asked
for ideas on how best to sunset this program.
3

There was discussion and questions about maintaining consistency in programs, continuing to work with trade
allies in the H&CE program, looking at regional perspective and leveraging Idaho Power’s investment in NEEA
and keeping the timeframe in mind when sun setting a program so that customers have time to react.
10:39-Break
10:55 am-2016 Commercial Program Performance— Quentin Nesbitt
Quentin provided year-to-date savings and participation for the Commercial & Industrial, Irrigation, and Flex Peak programs along with 2017 plans for these programs. The following key points were presented:
• New construction projects are on target to meet the 2016 goal. For 2017 there will be a continued effort to build relationships and educate customers who have not engaged in programs.
• The Retrofit program has seen increased participation due in large part to the increased interest in new
LED technology. The student intern is updating new product tech sheets. These are tools that the customer reps use when visiting customers to aid in describing program measures. For 2017 there may be
a need to update and or change some incentive levels, provide more specific technical trainings for trade allies to keep them engaged in the program, and continue finding ways to reach small business customers.
• The Custom program is at 72% of kWh savings compared to the 2015 total. There are fewer projects in
the pipeline but applications have remained strong. For 2017 the company will continue to work with customers on projects through scoping and detailed audits as well as looking at retro-commissioning
ideas.
• The School Cohort timeline and success stories for the Wastewater and Water Supply Cohorts were
discussed and the increased participation in the Commercial & Industrial trainings was highlighted.
• Irrigation Efficiency projects and savings are up in comparison to last year and to goal.
• Flex Peak had a 48% higher enrollment rate for 2016. For the 2017 program season, enrollment will focus on retention of current participants. The company requested EEAG input regarding a few possible changes for next year. The company is looking at an automatic re-enrollment vs. annual enrollment,
adding a bill credit as a payment option, adding clarifying language regarding summing the event data instead of metering data on aggregated customers, and adding texting as a notification option.
There were questions and discussion about how the company deals with changes to incentive amounts, pay for
performance programs that other regional utility’s have, marketing ideas for the school cohort. The group supports the proposed changes for Flex Peak and stressed consistency for all customers regarding how the bill
credit would be reflected on a customer’s bill.
12:01 Lunch
1:00pm- Program Planning—Roger Lawless
Roger presented information on home energy reports, thermostatic shower valve, and gave an update on the
online marketplace. The following key points were presented:
• The company is developing a home energy report pilot to be deployed early in 2017. Between 10,000 and
20,000 customers will be in a randomized control group with a treatment group of equal size. Participants would receive five to six reports over a 12 month period. Idaho Power will be working with the same
4

implementer that worked on myAccount in order to leverage that same information. The company
solicited feedback from EEAG on the type of target audience for these reports.
• Roger explained how the thermostatic shower valves work, showed the results of a customer survey,
asked members of EEAG to install one on their own showers and provide feedback around the first of
December. The company solicited feedback from EEAG on how the shower valve could be offered as part of the residential portfolio.
• At the August EEAG meeting there was discussion about the online marketplace and the vendor that the company was researching. Roger highlighted an additional vendor and asked EEAG for feedback on the two options presented today.
There were questions and discussion about how to target a specific audience for the home energy reports, suggestions on providing frequent prompts to help customers implement changes, and discussion around how this
information will be used in conjunction with myAccount data. There was discussion on how the thermostatic
shower valve could be offered as an incentive for customers to create a myAccount profile - it could be used to drive people towards the home energy reports, and it could be an additional piece to the existing energy saving
kits. The general consensus for the online marketplace discussion was that most members liked the idea of being
able to guide customers toward the more energy efficient appliances even if there was not an incentive available. There was some concern about vendor one not being able to offer a way for the customer to purchase energy
efficient products directly from their on-line marketplace.
1:49-Program Marketing—Bill Shawver, Tracey Burtch & Annie Meyer
Bill introduced a new employee, Annie Meyer, and spoke of other organizational changes within the department.
Tracey presented the Empowered Community survey results for 2015 and 2016, gave an update on the Smart-
saver Pledge, the fall awareness campaign, and various social media ads. The following key points were presented:
• A copy of the Smart-saver pledge was passed around to members of EEAG and they were invited to participate. There have been 937 pledges turned in and a follow up survey will be sent out in early
December. The company has received positive feedback and notes from customers.
• The company will be evaluating changes to the 2017 Awareness campaign, it will have a similar look and
feel but some components will change to keep customers engaged.
• The company is working on a new ad campaign targeting the commercial & industrial customer. These
ads will feature actual customers and use recognizable landscapes. They will be done through print ads,
success story videos online and social media. The first ad will feature a comparison of Don Strickler of Simplot and Kent Hanway of CSHQA.
• Idaho Power was the recipient of an E-Source Utility Ad award for its residential energy efficiency marketing campaign. They received the second place award for Best Ad Campaign for an Investor Owned Utility.
There were questions and discussion around survey participation, target marketing using geo-fencing, and if the company has seen an uptick in program participation due to the increased marketing efforts. Members of EEAG
were complimentary of current marketing efforts and the new ideas for future marketing.
3:32 pm-Roundtable
5

Shawn will send out a doodle poll for 2017 EEAG dates in the next few weeks.
• I think it would be appropriate for Idaho Power to spend some of its advertising dollars around reliability and how well it does keeping our lights on during bad weather conditions.
• This was a good meeting. It is nice to see things discussed at these meetings being implemented.
• At the end of our last meeting the group said they would like to hear about programs for 2017 and I
appreciate that we discussed that today.
• This was a great meeting. I am impressed with the adaptations being made for Flex Peak. The company is
getting the word out on the Custom Efficiency, the school cohort, online marketplace and home energy
reports. The marketing is a whole new world from two years ago and I want to recognize the strides the company has made in this area.
2:38pm Meeting adjourned

Idaho Power Company Supplement 2: Evaluation
Demand-Side Management 2016 Annual Report Page 37
NEEA MARKET EFFECTS EVALUATIONS
Table 1. 2016 NEEA Market Effects Evaluations
Report Title Sector Analysis Performed by
Study
Manager
Study/Evaluation
Type
Residential DNV-GL NEEA Market
Commercial Cadmus NEEA Assessment
Commercial Research Into Action NEEA Analysis
Commercial Research Into Action NEEA Analysis
Residential Evergreen Economics NEEA Market
Commercial Ecotope, Inc. NEEA Code
Commercial Cadmus NEEA Analysis
Commercial Cadmus NEEA Market
Industrial Cadmus NEEA Analysis
Commercial Research Into Action NEEA Market
Commercial TRC NEEA Assessment
Funder/Member Cadmus NEEA Satisfaction
Residential Energy 350 NEEA Assessment
Residential ILLUME Advising NEEA Market
Residential Evergreen Economics NEEA Market
Commercial Navigant NEEA Market
2015-2016 Northwest Residential Lighting
Long-Term Market Tracking Study
Assessment of NEEA Influence on 2010
Small Electric Motors Standard
Building Operator Certificate Program Dataset
Analysis
Building Operator Certificate Renewal Rate
Assumptions Memorandum
Characterization of the Super-Efficient Dryer Market
Commercial Code Evaluation Pilot Study
Commercial Real Estate Market Partners
Program Savings Persistence Analysis
Commissioning Long-Term Monitoring and
Tracking—2015 Square Footage Update
Evaluation of Key ACE Model Assumptions for
Motor Rewinds
Luminaire Level Lighting Controls Market
Characterization and Baseline Report
NEEA Fluorescent Lamp Ballast Standard
Evaluation: Final Report
NEEA Funder and Board Member Satisfaction
Survey Results
Next Step Homes Phase 1: Savings Validation
Northwest Ductless Heat Pump Initiative:
Market Progress Evaluation Report #5
Northwest Heat Pump Water Heater Initiative
Market Progress Evaluation Report #2
Reduced Wattage Lamp Replacement Initiative
Market Progress Evaluation Report #1
Retail Products Portfolio Pilot Evaluation Final
Report
Commercial Research Into Action NEEA Assessment
For NEEA reports, see the CD included at the back of this supplement.
Supplement 2: Evaluation Idaho Power Company
Page 38 Demand-Side Management 2016 Annual Report

This page left blank intentionally.
Idaho Power Company Supplement 2: Evaluation
Demand-Side Management 2016 Annual Report Page 39
INTEGRATED DESIGN LAB
Table 2. 2016 Integrated Design Lab
Report Title Sector Analysis Performed by Study Manager Type
2016 Task 1: Foundational Services Commercial IDL Idaho Power Summary
2016 Task 1.7: Heat Pump Calculator Commercial IDL Idaho Power Summary
2016 Task 2: Lunch and Learn Commercial IDL Idaho Power Summary
2016 Task 3: BSUG Commercial IDL Idaho Power Summary
2016 Task 5: Building Efficiency Verifications Commercial IDL Idaho Power Summary
2016 Task 5: Tool Loan Library Commercial IDL Idaho Power Summary
2016 Task 6: Building Metrics Labeling Commercial IDL Idaho Power Summary
2016 Task 8: Daylighting Training Commercial IDL Idaho Power Summary
CRE Progress Report on Energy Savings for 2015—Summary Commercial GreenSteps Idaho Power Summary

Supplement 2: Evaluation Idaho Power Company
Page 40 Demand-Side Management 2016 Annual Report

This page left blank intentionally.

Report Number: 1601_001-01

2016 TASK 1: FOUNDATIONAL SERVICES
SUMMARY OF PROJECTS
IDAHO POWER COMPANY EXTERNAL YEAR-END
REPORT

December 31, 2016

Prepared for:
Idaho Power Company

Author:
Elizabeth Cooper

ii

This page left intentionally blank.
iii

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

IDL Director:
Elizabeth Cooper

Author:
Elizabeth Cooper

Prepared for:
Idaho Power Company

Contract Number:
5277

Please cite this report as follows: Cooper, E. (2016). 2016
TASK 1: Foundational Services – Summary of Projects
(1601_001-01). University of Idaho Integrated Design Lab,
Boise, ID.
iv

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.
v

This page left intentionally blank.

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Introduction ................................................................................................................. 1
2. Project Summary ......................................................................................................... 2
3. Appendices ................................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
Appendix A: Project Identification ................................ Error! Bookmark not defined.

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
AIA American Institute of Architects
ASHRAE American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air-conditioning
Engineers
BEQ Building Energy Quotient
BOMA Building Owners and Managers Association
EMS Energy Management System
HID High Intensity Discharge
IDL Integrated Design Lab
IPC Idaho Power Company
LED Light Emitting Diode
LEED Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design
Op-Ed Opinion Editorial
TI Tenant Improvement
UI University of Idaho
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 1
2016 Task 1: Foundational Services- Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report #161601_001-01)

1. INTRODUCTION
The University of Idaho Integrated Design Lab (UI-IDL) provided technical
assistance in 2016 for energy efficiency building projects through the Foundational
Services task. This program, supported by Idaho Power Company (IPC), offered three
phases of assistance for customers to choose from. A marketing flyer outlining the three
phases is shown below. Phase I includes projects with budgets less than $2,000, Phase
II is limited to projects from $2,000 to $4,000, and Phase III is any project with a budget
greater than $4,000.

Figure 1: Foundational Services Flyer Outlining Phases
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 2
2016 Task 1: Foundational Services- Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report #161601_001-01)

The Foundational Services program was marketed at numerous events and to
multiple organizations in 2016, which included all IDL Lunch and Learn series
presentations and BSUG presentations to local architecture and engineering firms,
ASHRAE, AIA, and local government.
2. PROJECT SUMMARY
Forty-one projects received technical assistance through the Foundational
Services program in 2016. Projects ranged from short phone call consultations to
detailed building simulations. Building owners, property managers, building operators,
architects, design engineers, utility customer representatives, government staff, energy
management staff, program administrators, and contractors contacted the IDL. In total,
there were thirty-two Phase I projects, five Phase II projects and one Phase III project.
The full list of projects is shown in the appendix below. Details on Phase 2 and Phase 3
projects are included in the individual project reports submitted to IPC. Three projects
are in early stages and the full scope of work has yet to be determined. Fifteen of the
projects were for work to be completed in existing buildings, and seventeen were for
new construction projects. The remaining projects are not building specific, or the scope
has yet to be defined.

Table 1: 2016 Foundational Services Project Summary
Project Phase Approx.
Area Existing
Higher education technical design assistance 1 N/A New Boise
Healthcare technical design assistance 1 N/A New Meridian
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 3
2016 Task 1: Foundational Services- Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report #161601_001-01)

--
--
--
--
e
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 4
2016 Task 1: Foundational Services- Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report #161601_001-01)

Report Number: 1601_010-07

2016 TASK 1.7: HEAT PUMP CALCULATOR
SUMMARY OF PROGRESS
IDAHO POWER COMPANY EXTERNAL YEAR-END REPORT

December 31, 2016

Prepared for:
Idaho Power Company

Authors:
Elizabeth Cooper

ii

This page left intentionally blank.
iii

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

IDL Director:
Elizabeth Cooper

Authors:
Elizabeth Cooper

Prepared for:
Idaho Power Company

Contract Number:
5277

Please cite this report as follows: Cooper, E. (2016). TASK 7:
Climate Design Tools - Summary of Progress (1601_010-07).
University of Idaho Integrated Design Lab, Boise, ID.
iv

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 RECOMMENDATIONS 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 POSSIBILITY 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.

v

This page left intentionally blank.

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 1
2. Climate Design Tools ................................................................................................................... 1
3. Feedback and Next Steps ............................................................................................................ 2
4. References .................................................................................................................................. 3

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
GSHP Ground-Source Heat Pump
HP Heat Pump
IDL Integrated Design Lab
IPC Idaho Power Company
UI University of Idaho
VRF Variable Refrigerant Flow
WSHP Water-Source Heat Pump

Integrated Design Lab | Boise 1
2016 Task 1.7: Heat Pump Calculator- Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report #1601_010-07)

1. INTRODUCTION
The 2016 Heat Pump (HP) Calculator task was a continuation of work done by the University of Idaho Integrated Design Lab
(UI-IDL) for Idaho Power Company (IPC) that was begun in 2013 and continued through 2014 and 2015. A Heat Pump Energy Savings
Calculator (HePESC) spreadsheet was developed in 2013, which was capable of hourly load calculations, energy consumption
estimates using regression curves from simulation, and simple cost calculations. Details on 2013 effort, progress, and methods can
be found in the IDL technical report number 1301_010-01, “2013 Heat Pump Calculator – Development and Methodology.” The
scope in 2014 focused on improving the tool by means of verification and user feedback. The 2015 work included further revisions,
outreach, the completion of adding a residential space-type, and the incorporation of several climate design tools. The work in 2016
included the unification of additional climate design tools to the calculator and the addition of seven unique weather files for sites
around Idaho. Details of this and the tool improvements are outlined in this report.
2. CLIMATE DESIGN TOOLS
The IDL developed several different climate design tools that existed as separate spreadsheets in the past. These tools
included; passive cooling with thermal mass and natural ventilation, cross ventilation, stack ventilation, and night flush strategies.
These tools were compiled within the HP Calculator tool under the “Advanced Design” tab in 2015. In 2016 the two remaining design
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 2
2016 Task 1.7: Heat Pump Calculator- Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report #1601_010-07)

tools, earth tube and passive solar, were incorporated into the Advanced Design portion of the HP Calculator. These features are
shown in Appendix A: Climate Design Tools.
3. FEEDBACK AND NEXT STEPS
The earth tube design tool still needs to be optimized to run correctly. The tool currently has multiple sheets and the
calculators do not reference weather files. There are very few shared functions between earth tube and any of the other design
tools. It may make more sense to pull earth tube from the calculator to facilitate ease of use and calculation speeds, and let it
remain a stand-alone tool. The passive solar calculator is functioning properly, but the graphic output needs improving. It was also
determined that the night flush tool was not referencing the correct cells. It is recommended that a thorough evaluation of all of the
tools be implemented in the future to confirm that the appropriate weather files are referenced, especially with the additional
locations. Further development of the tool could be to include other building types, such as multifamily, etc. Additionally, the
calculator has become large and slow. Revising the calculator to employ macros is still an option to improve run times. The ability to
input custom equipment is still limited, and the functionality may be limited by the user’s understanding of the required inputs.
Further development of this capability should be included in future work.

Integrated Design Lab | Boise 3
2016 Task 1.7: Heat Pump Calculator- Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report #1601_010-07)

4. REFERENCES
ASHRAE. (2013). Chapter 18: Nonresidential cooling and heating load calculations. In Ashrae handbook: Fundamentals. Atlanta, GA:
ASHRAE.
Back-of-the-Envelope Calculator Version 2.0 (n.d.). Retrieved February 21, 2014 from Energy Center of Wisconsin website:
http://www.ecw.org/project.php?workid=1&resultid=286.
Masy, G. (2008). Definition and Validation of a Simplified Multizone Dynamic Building Model Connected to a Heating System and
HVAC Unit (Doctoral Thesis). Retrieved from website: http://bictel.ulg.ac.be/ETD-db/collection/available/ULgetd-11052008-
145605/ (ULgetd-11052008-145605).
Mendon, V., & Taylor, T. (2014). Development of Residential Prototype Building Models and Analysis System for Large-Scale Energy
Efficiency Studies Using EnergyPlus. Building Simulation Conference (pp. 457-464). Atlanta: ASHRAE/IBPSA-USA
Wilson, E., Metzger, D., Hrowitz, S., and Hendron, R. (2014). 2014 Building America House Simulation Protocols. National Renewable
Energy Laboratory, Technical Reprot NREL/TP-5500-60988

Report Number: 1601_002-01

2016 TASK 2: LUNCH AND LEARN
SUMMARY OF EFFORT AND OUTCOMES
IDAHO POWER COMPANY EXTERNAL YEAR-END REPORT

December 31, 2016

Prepared for:
Idaho Power Company

Authors:
Dylan Agnes
Elizabeth Cooper

ii

This page left intentionally blank.
iii

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

IDL Director:
Elizabeth Cooper

Authors:
Dylan Agnes
Elizabeth Cooper

Prepared for:
Idaho Power Company

Contract Number:
#5277

Please cite this report as follows: Agnes, D., (2016). 2016 TASK 2:
Lunch and Learn – Summary of Effort and Outcomes (1601_002-
01). University of Idaho Integrated Design Lab, Boise, ID.
iv

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.

v

This page left intentionally blank.

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. 2016 Summary and Cumulative Analysis .................................................................................... 9
2. Session Summaries ................................................................................................................... 14
2.1 Session 1: New Design Recommendations for Exterior Lighting (3/15/16) ........................ 14
2.2 Session 2: Passive House Standard for Multifamily Projects (3/16/16).............................. 15
2.3 Session 3: Life Sciences Building Path to High-Performance Design and Construction
(05/26/16) ................................................................................................................................. 16
2.4 Session 4: Daylight in Buildings: Getting the Details Right (08/04/16) ............................... 17
2.5 Session 5: Benchmarking and Energy Goal Setting (08/10/16) .......................................... 18
2.6 Session 6: Integrated Design Case Studies (08/11/16) ....................................................... 18
2.7 Session 7: Daylight in Buildings Getting the Details Right (08/30/16) ................................ 19
2.8 Session 8: Daylight in Buildings Getting the Details Right (08/31/16) ................................ 20
2.9 Session 9: Radiant Heating and Cooling Design (09/07/16) ............................................... 21
2.10 Session 10: Hybrid Ground Source Heat Pump (09/20/16) .............................................. 21
2.11 Session 11: Daylight in Buildings: Schematic Design Methods (09/20/16) ...................... 22
2.12 Session 12: Cold Feet: Managing Controls and condensation when simulating radiant
slab cooling (09/20/16) ............................................................................................................. 23
2.13 Session 13: The Classroom of the Future: A DOE project (09/20/16) .............................. 24
2.14 Session 14: Daylight in Buildings: Getting the Details Right (09/23/16) ........................... 25
2.15 Sessions 15: Case Study: Daimler Truck North America (10/13/16) ................................. 25
2.16 Session 16: Daylight in Buildings: Getting the Details Right (10/17/16) ........................... 26
2.17 Session 17: Hybrid Ground Source Heat Pump (10/20/16) .............................................. 27
2.18 Session 18: Daylight Performance Metrics for Human Health, Productivity, and
Satisfaction (10/28/16) ............................................................................................................. 28
2.19 Session 19: Integrated Design Principles (12/06/16) ........................................................ 29
2.20 Session 20: Daylight Performance Metrics for Human Health, Productivity, and
Satisfaction (12/13/16) ............................................................................................................. 29
3. Future Work .............................................................................................................................. 31
4. Appendices ................................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.

vii

4.1.2 Session 1: New Design Recommendations for Exterior Lighting (3/15/16) ............ Error!
Bookmark not defined.
4.1.3 Session 2: Passive House Standard for Multifamily Projects (3/16/16) Error! Bookmark
not defined.
4.1.4 Session 3: Life Sciences Building Path to High-Performance Design and
Construction (05/26/16) ........................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
4.1.5 Session 4: Daylight in Buildings: Getting the Details Right (08/04/16) . Error! Bookmark
not defined.
4.1.6 Session 5: Benchmarking and Energy Goal Setting (8/10/16) ........ Error! Bookmark not
defined.
4.1.7 Session 6: Integrated Design Case Studies (8/11/16)...... Error! Bookmark not defined.
4.1.8 Session 7: Daylight in Buildings Getting the Details Right (8/30/16) .... Error! Bookmark
not defined.
4.1.9 Session 8: Daylight in Buildings Getting the Details Right (8/31/16) .... Error! Bookmark
not defined.
4.1.10 Session 9: Radiant Heating and Cooling Design (09/07/16) ......... Error! Bookmark not
defined.
4.1.11 Session 10: Hybrid Ground Source Heat Pump (09/08/16) ......... Error! Bookmark not
defined.
4.1.12 Session 11: Daylight in Buildings: Schematic Design Methods (09/20/16) ........... Error!
Bookmark not defined.
4.1.13 Session 12: Cold Feet: Managing Controls and Condensation when simulating
radiant slab cooling (9/20/16) .................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
4.1.14 Session 13: The Classroom of the Future: A DOE project (9/20/16) ... Error! Bookmark
not defined.
4.1.15 Session 14: Daylight in Buildings: Getting the Details Right (09/23/16) ............... Error!
Bookmark not defined.
4.1.16 Sessions 15: Case Study – Daimler Truck North America (10/13/16) . Error! Bookmark
not defined.
4.1.17 Session 16: Daylight in Buildings: Getting the Details Right (10/17/16) ............... Error!
Bookmark not defined.
4.1.18 Session 17: Hybrid Ground Source Heat Pump (10/20/16) ......... Error! Bookmark not
defined.

viii

4.1.19 Session 18: Daylight Performance Metrics for Human Health, Productivity, and
Satisfaction (10/28/16) ............................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
4.1.20 Session 19: Integrated Design Principles (12/06/16) .... Error! Bookmark not defined.
4.1.21 Session 20: The Importance of Building Performance Modeling for Architects
(12/13/16)................................................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
AIA American Institute of Architects
Arch Architect(ure)
ASHRAE American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air-Conditioning Engineers
BCGCC Boise Green Building Code
BESF Building Energy Simulation Forum (Energy Trust of Oregon)
Bldg. Building
BOMA Building Owners and Managers Association
CSI Construction Specifications Institute
Cx Customer Experience
DOE Department of Energy
Elec. Electrical
EUI Energy Use Intensity
GSHP Ground Source Heat Pump
HVAC Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning
IBOA Intermountain Building Operators Association
IBPSA International Building Performance Simulation Association
IDL Integrated Design Lab
IECC International Energy Conservation Code
IES Illuminating Engineering Society
IPC Idaho Power Company
LEED Leadership in Energy & Environmental Design
LED Light Emitting Diode
M&V Measurement and Verification
Mech. Mechanical
Mgmt. Management
NCARB National Council of Architectural Registration Boards
TBD To Be Determined

ix

UI University of Idaho
USGBC U.S. Green Building Council
WBS WELL Building Standard

10

1. 2016 SUMMARY AND CUMULATIVE ANALYSIS
Table 1: 2016 Lunch and Learn Summary
Date Title Presenter Group / Location Attendees
1 03/15 New Design Recommendations for Exterior Lighting IES Open to all 5
2 03/16 Passive House Standards for Multifamily Projects Energy Trust of Oregon Open to all 2
3 05/26 Life Sciences Building Path to High-Performance Design
and Concepts
Energy Trust of Oregon Open to all 5
4 08/04 Daylight in Buildings: Getting the Details Right Elizabeth Cooper Architectural Organization 1 14
5 08/10 Benchmarking and Energy Goal Setting Elizabeth Cooper Engineering Firm 1 8
6 08/11 Integrated Design Case Studies Elizabeth Cooper Architecture Firm 2 12
7 08/30 Daylight in Buildings: Getting the Details Right Elizabeth Cooper Architecture Firm 3 11
8 08/31 Daylight in Buildings: Getting the Details Right Elizabeth Cooper Architecture Firm 2 10

9 09/07 Radiant Heating and Cooling Design Damon Woods Architecture Firm 1 8
10 09/08 Hybrid Ground Source Heat Pump System Damon Woods Architectural Organization 1 8
11 09/20 Daylight in Buildings: Schematic Design Methods Elizabeth Cooper Architecture Firm 3 11
12 09/20 Cold Feet - Managing Controls and Condensation when
Simulating Radiant Slab Cooling
Damon Woods Architecture Firm 4 9
13 09/20 The Classroom of the Future: A DOE project IES Open to all 5
14 09/23 Daylight in Buildings: Getting the Details Right Elizabeth Cooper Architecture Firm 5 12
15 10/13 Case Study: Daimler Truck North America Energy Trust of Oregon Open to all 6
16 10/17 Daylight in Buildings: Getting the Details Right Elizabeth Cooper Architecture Firm 6 10
17 10/20 Hybrid Ground Source Heat Pump Damon Woods Architecture Firm 4 9
18 10/28 Daylight Performance Metrics for Human Health,
Productivity, and Satisfaction
Elizabeth Cooper Architecture Firm 5 8
19 12/06 Integrated Design Principles Elizabeth Cooper Architecture Firm 7 4
20 12/13 Daylight Performance Metrics for Human Health,
Productivity, and Satisfaction
Elizabeth Cooper Architecture Firm 7 4
161

11

Table 1 above summarizes all Lunch and Learn presentations given in 2016. Eighteen presentations were slated to
specific organizations or companies during the project planning phase of the task. Two additional sessions were left open to be filled
by Energy Trust Oregon. Twenty sessions were held in 2016. Three sessions were filled by Energy Trust of Oregon and two by
Illuminating Engineering Society. The statistics in this section are cumulative for the 20 presentations. At each presentation
participants were asked to sign in and fill out an evaluation form. Presentations were judged on a scale of 1 to 5, please see table 2,
however, participants were given the opportunity to provide hand written responses.

Table 2: Evaluation Form Scale
Evaluation 1 2 3 4 5
In general, today’s presentation was: Not Useful Somewhat Useful Very Useful
The content of the presentation was: Too Basic About Right Too Advanced
Please rate the following parts of the presentation:
Organization, Clarity, Opportunity for Questions, Instructor’s Needs Improvement Good Excellent

Table 3: Overall Attendance Breakdown
Architect: 136 Electrician: Engineer: 8 Contractor: Mech. Engineer: 3 Other: 6
Elec. Engineer: None Specified: 6
Total (In-Person): 161

12

Figure 1: Attendee Profession
Architect85%
Engineer
5%
Mech. Engineer
2%
Other
4%
None Specified
4%
Profession of Attendee Breakdown

13

Figure 2: Attendee Count by Title and Number of Session

14
8
12
8
8
11
9
4
4
5
2
6
5
5
11
9
8
10 12 10
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Daylight in Buildings: Getting the Details Right
Hybrid Ground Source Heat Pump
Integrated Design Case Studies
Benchmarking and Energy Goal Setting
Radiant Heating and Cooling Design Considerations
Daylight in Buildings: Schematic Design Methods
Cold Feet: Managing controls and condensation when simulating radiant slab…
Daylight Performance Metrics for Human Health, Productivity, and Satisfaction
Integrated Design Principles
Life Sciences Building Path to High-Performance Design and Construction
Passive House Standard for Multifamily Projects
Case Study - Daimler Truck North America
New Design Recommendations for Exterior Lighting
The Classroom of the Future: A DOE project
Session 1 Session 2 Session 3 Session 4 Session 5

14

Figure 3: Average Evaluations by Session Title

Figure 4: Overall Averages of Evaluations for all Sessions
0
1
2
3
4
5
Da
y
l
i
g
h
t

i
n

B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
s
:
Ge
t
t
i
n
g

t
h
e

D
e
t
a
i
l
s
Ri
g
h
t
Be
n
c
h
m
a
r
k
i
n
g

a
n
d
En
e
r
g
y

G
o
a
l

S
e
t
t
i
n
g
In
t
e
g
r
a
t
e
d

D
e
s
i
g
n
Ca
s
e

S
t
u
d
i
e
s
Da
y
l
i
g
h
t

i
n

B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
s
:
Ge
t
t
i
n
g

t
h
e

D
e
t
a
i
l
s
Ri
g
h
t
Da
y
l
i
g
h
t

i
n

B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
s
:
Ge
t
t
i
n
g

t
h
e

D
e
t
a
i
l
s
Ri
g
h
t
Ra
d
i
a
n
t

H
e
a
t
i
n
g

a
n
d
Co
o
l
i
n
g

D
e
s
i
g
n
Co
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
Hy
b
r
i
d

G
r
o
u
n
d

S
o
u
r
c
e
He
a
t

P
u
m
p
Da
y
l
i
g
h
t

i
n

B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
s
:
Sc
h
e
m
a
t
i
c

D
e
s
i
g
n
Me
t
h
o
d
s
Co
l
d

F
e
e
t
:

M
a
n
a
g
i
n
g
co
n
t
r
o
l
s

a
n
d
co
n
d
e
n
s
a
t
i
o
n

w
h
e
n
si
m
u
l
a
t
i
n
g

r
a
d
i
a
n
t
…
Da
y
l
i
g
h
t

i
n

B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
s
:
Ge
t
t
i
n
g

t
h
e

D
e
t
a
i
l
s
Ri
g
h
t
Da
y
l
i
g
h
t

i
n

B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
s
:
Ge
t
t
i
n
g

t
h
e

D
e
t
a
i
l
s
Ri
g
h
t
Hy
b
r
i
d

G
r
o
u
n
d

S
o
u
r
c
e
He
a
t

P
u
m
p
Da
y
l
i
g
h
t

P
e
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e
Me
t
r
i
c
s

f
o
r

H
u
m
a
n
He
a
l
t
h
,

P
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
,
an
d

S
a
t
i
s
f
a
c
t
i
o
n
In general, today's presentation was:Rate organization:
Rate clarity:Rate opportunity for questions:
Rate instructor's knowledge of the subject matter:Rate delivery of presentation:
The content of the presentation was:
4.37 4.54 4.36 4.77 4.80 4.40
3.41
0
1
2
3
4
5
In general, today's
presentation was:
Rate organization:Rate clarity:Rate opportunity for
questions:
Rate instructor's
knowledge of the
subject matter:
Rate delivery of
presentation:
The content of the
presentation was:

15

2. SESSION SUMMARIES
At the conclusion of each lunch and learn session, an evaluation form was requested from each participant. The feedback
was used to improve future sessions. The feedback received from participants is generally constructive criticism used to keep
sessions updated but also to propose other potential topics and questions to the Integrated Design Lab.
2.1 Session 1: New Design Recommendations for Exterior Lighting (3/15/16)
Title: New Design Recommendations for Exterior Lighting
Description: We will cover key elements of IES RP-33 Lighting for Exterior Environments. The recommended practice aims to provide guidance
in finding a balance between using the nighttime environment, and constraints created by ordinances and bylaws, as well as other factors such
as environmental and health concerns. IES RP-33 Lighting for Exterior Environments is a key document for practicing designers, as it links various
other documents that provide design guidelines for specific outdoor lighting applications, including IES RP-20 Lighting for Parking Facilities, and
IES RP-8 Roadway Lighting.
Shirley is President of Cree’s Canadian business unit. She has worked for several international lighting companies during her 30 years in the
lighting industry. Lighting Certified since 2000, Shirley is an active member of the Illuminating Engineering Society (IES), a Past President of the
Toronto Section, a past IES District Chair, and after four years on the IESNA Board of Directors, Shirley is now Vice-President (Incoming
President), and will become President starting in July of 2016. She is a member of several IES committees including Roadway Lighting, Outdoor
Environmental Lighting, and Street & Area Lighting. Shirley is also a committee member for several CSA standards committees on lighting
including Roadway and Solid State Lighting.
Presentation Info:

16

Attendance:

5

2.2 Session 2: Passive House Standard for Multifamily Projects (3/16/16)
Title: Passive House Standard for Multifamily Projects
Description: This course will cover how the owner, developer, design teams, and general contractor worked together to meet rigorous Passive
House standards, including their approach to design, modeling, envelope, mechanical systems, and construction. It will also include findings on
incremental and associated financing costs, as well as information on actual energy use compared to modeled energy use for the first six months
of occupancy.
• Demonstrate design approaches and solutions to meet Passive House Standards
• Communicate key differences between traditional construction and Passive House methods for building envelope, heating, ventilation,
and cooling
• Review constructability of the Passive House details including the air barrier strategy
• Illustrate the challenges of sourcing materials to meet Passive House Standard, including impacts to project schedule
• Foster an understanding of Passive House whole building air tightness testing and use of Passive House Planning Package as a design tool

Presentation Info:

Dylan Lamar, Green Hammer
Craig Kelley, Housing Development Center

17

Attendance:

2
2.3 Session 3: Life Sciences Building Path to High-Performance Design and Construction (05/26/16)
Title: Life Sciences Building Path to High-Performance Design and Construction

Description: The facility also embodies high-performance through the energy systems, program spaces and the collaborative work relationship
between the owner and design team. It is the second largest project in the country to achieve LEED® Platinum certification, and some of its
energy-efficient features include ultra-efficient lighting and HVAC systems as well as advanced control strategies. Come and learn about this
state-of-the-art building and how collaboration is key in elevating performance.

• Explore the importance of synergy between institutional partners and learn how three major Oregon Universities came together to
create a unique learning environment
• Understand the early design decisions and strategies that influenced the energy performance of this building
• Learn what choices accomplished the building’s mission and set the project up for success
• Understand how data-driven design helped mechanical and electrical systems achieve energy performance goals, and explore a
comparison between the systems’ modeled and actual performance
• Learn the importance of collaboration throughout this project and discover how the team worked together to overcome challenges
during design and construction

Presentation Info:

18

Michael Custer, JE Dunn Construction
George Hager, SERA Architects
Mark Williams, OHSU

Attendance:

6

2.4 Session 4: Daylight in Buildings: Getting the Details Right (08/04/16)
Title: Daylight in Buildings Getting the Details Right

Description: The second talk in a sequence intended to instruct on the process of creating high quality and comfortable daylit spaces focuses 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 interior space layouts, furniture design, window details including glazing specifications and shading strategies.
The presentation introduces concepts of lighting control systems to ensure that energy is saved from the inclusion of daylight.

Presentation Info:

19

Attendance:

14
2.5 Session 5: Benchmarking and Energy Goal Setting (08/10/16)
Title: Benchmarking and Energy Goal Setting
Description: Learning the language and tools of the energy engineering field is critical to reaching real energy reductions in buildings. This
presentation discusses several methods for establishing energy goals and targets in the pre-design phase and what the implications are for
generating ideas to approach serious reductions in usage. Local examples will be highlighted. Measuring the performance of existing and new
projects is critical to long term success because, you can't improve what you don't measure.

Presentation Info:

Attendance:

8
2.6 Session 6: Integrated Design Case Studies (08/11/16)
Title: Integrated Design Case Studies

20

Description: In this session, integrated design process will be reviewed and several case study examples presented. The case studies
highlight both the successes and challenges of executing the integrated design process to create buildings that save significant energy compared
to code baseline. Each project will be placed in the context of the 2030 Challenge, with the goal of establishing both the viability and the
difficulty of reaching the milestones of the challenge. Most of these projects are regionally and climatically significant to Idaho and the
Northwest.

Presentation Info:

Attendance:

12

2.7 Session 7: Daylight in Buildings Getting the Details Right (08/30/16)
Title: Daylight in Buildings Getting the Details Right
Description: The second talk in a sequence intended to instruct on the process of creating high quality and comfortable daylit spaces focuses 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 interior space layouts, furniture design, window details including glazing specifications and shading strategies.
The presentation introduces concepts of lighting control systems to ensure that energy is saved from the inclusion of daylight.

Presentation Info:
Date: 8/30/2016
Location: Architecture Firm 3 - Boise
Presenter: Elizabeth Cooper

21

Attendance:

11

2.8 Session 8: Daylight in Buildings Getting the Details Right (08/31/16)
Title: Daylight in Buildings Getting the Details Right
Description: The second talk in a sequence intended to instruct on the process of creating high quality and comfortable daylit spaces focuses 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 interior space layouts, furniture design, window details including glazing specifications and shading strategies.
The presentation introduces concepts of lighting control systems to ensure that energy is saved from the inclusion of daylight.

Presentation Info:

Attendance:

10

22

2.9 Session 9: Radiant Heating and Cooling Design (09/07/16)
Title: Radiant Heating and Cooling Design
Description: 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 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 will cover some general rules of thumb
to consider for radiant systems, as well as provide an overview of the key architectural and engineering design decisions associated with each
system configuration.

Presentation Info:

Attendance:

8

2.10 Session 10: Hybrid Ground Source Heat Pump (09/08/16)
Title: Hybrid Ground Source Heat Pump

23

Description: The initial cost of ground-source heat pump systems can be substantially higher than conventional systems, limiting it as a design
option. This presentation will highlight how, 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. It will discuss how, 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.

Presentation Info:

Attendance:

8
2.11 Session 11: Daylight in Buildings: Schematic Design Methods (09/20/16)
Title: Daylight in Buildings: Schematic Design Methods
Description: High quality daylighting design is a lost art. Several generations of designers and engineers have been trained to rely on electrically
illuminated spaces in order to meet minimum lighting criteria for functional environments occupied by humans. This presentation is the first in a
sequence intended to revive the lost art of daylighting design. It teaches concepts of designing in the overcast sky as well as under sunny skies.
The concept of providing useable work plane illumination is delivered while the importance of creating visually comfortable and balanced daylit
spaces is stressed. This presentation highlights the architectural form generators as well concepts of interior surface brightness to produce high
quality and comfortable daylit spaces.

Presentation Info:

24

Attendance:

11
2.12 Session 12: Cold Feet: Managing Controls and condensation when simulating radiant slab cooling (09/20/16)
Title: Cold Feet: Managing Controls and condensation when simulation radiant slab cooling
Description: Daylighting alone does not necessarily save energy. While a good daylighting design will optimize the envelope to minimize
unnecessary heat gain and heat loss, the bulk of the energy savings from spaces with the significant inclusion of daylight comes from dimming or
switching off electric lighting systems. There have been several examples of successful daylighting-sensing lighting controls systems and even
more tough lessons learned from systems that did not perform adequately. The general concepts of various daylight harvesting strategies will
be presented. Then, the seven most common challenges to creating functional daylight-sensing lighting control systems will be reviewed in
detail. Finally, several successful examples will be highlighted to promote more successful applications in future projects.

Presentation Info:

Attendance:

25

5

2.13 Session 13: The Classroom of the Future: A DOE project (09/20/16)
Title: The Classroom of the Future: A DOE project
Description: The Department of Energy has initiated a research project to develop and test novel SSL luminaire designs for the classroom of the
future. This presentation will present key findings from this research effort. Topics covered will include how major drivers, such as new trends in
lighting and controls, new trends in learning, new requirements for the classroom, and a new understanding of human centric lighting, change
the way we need to light classrooms. The presentation will cover the DOE-proscribed goals for energy efficiency, teacher control over lighting
intensity and CCT, lumen maintenance and color stability, luminaire performance, and lighting levels on classroom desks and walls. After the
presentation, the attendee will understand how to meet or exceed the DOE goals.

Ron Scott is with Finelite, Inc.He joined Finelite in 2014 and is responsible for the sale and promotion of Finelite products throughout Canada
and the Western U.S. With a background in Mechanical Engineering, Ron began his lighting career in product design for Philips Ledalite. Over the
course of the next 20 years, he was the product manager for a workspace specific lighting product with on-board motion and daylighting
controls, a technical specialist managing the business sector for controls, and the regional sales manager for the Central US. In this last role, Ron
trained agency staff and gave AIA- and NCQLP-registered presentations to clients throughout the region. Now, after more than 25 years in the
lighting industry, Ron is a popular presenter of courses for regional IES chapters, architectural and lighting design practices throughout North
America.

Presentation Info:

Attendance:

26

5
2.14 Session 14: Daylight in Buildings: Getting the Details Right (09/23/16)
Title: Daylight in Buildings: Getting the Details Right
Description: The second talk in a sequence intended to instruct on the process of creating high quality and comfortable day-lit spaces focuses
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 interior space layouts, furniture design, window details (including glazing specifications), and shading
strategies. The presentation introduces concepts of lighting control systems to ensure that energy is saved from the inclusion of daylight.

Presentation Info:

Attendance:

12
2.15 Sessions 15: Case Study: Daimler Truck North America (10/13/16)
Title: Case Study: Daimler Truck North America
Description: At the October AFE event, presenters from the project design team and Daimler’s sustainability engineer team will talk about their
successful collaboration on the project, as well as the technical and design challenges they faced developing a high-performance office building
on an industrial brown field site. A guided tour of the building will follow.

27

• Understand how the collaborative process with the design team and building owner led to effective decision-making strategies and a
successful project.
• Learn how early energy analysis impacted the orientation, site placement and occupant health of the building.
• Learn how the design team created synergies between building systems to meet the RFP requirements. The course will cover how
parametric analysis of envelope systems, HVAC energy consumption, thermal comfort, indoor air quality, and onsite renewable energy
were utilized together.
• See how the design team and owners evaluated the building’s performance during the post-occupancy measurement and verification
period.
• Learn important tips for designing around dedicated outside air systems with radiant comfort systems in the occupied space.

Presentation Info:

Mitchell Dec, Associate Principal, Glumac
Michael Great, Managing Principal, Ankrom Moisan Architects

Attendance:

6

2.16 Session 16: Daylight in Buildings: Getting the Details Right (10/17/16)
Title: Daylight in Buildings: Getting the Details Right

28

Description: The second talk in a sequence intended to instruct on the process of creating high quality and comfortable day-lit spaces focuses 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 interior space layouts, furniture design, window details (including glazing specifications), and shading
strategies. The presentation introduces concepts of lighting control systems to ensure that energy is saved from the inclusion of daylight.

Presentation Info:

Attendance:

10
2.17 Session 17: Hybrid Ground Source Heat Pump (10/20/16)
Title: Hybrid Ground Source Heat Pump
Description: The initial cost of ground-source heat pump systems can be substantially higher than conventional systems, limiting it as a design
option. This presentation will highlight how, 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. It will discuss how, 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.

Presentation Info:

29

Attendance:

9
2.18 Session 18: Daylight Performance Metrics for Human Health, Productivity, and Satisfaction (10/28/16)
Title: Daylight Performance Metrics for Human Health, and Productivity, and Satisfaction
Description: Daylight can breathe light and life into our buildings. Daylight can also make our buildings healthier and more energy efficient.
However, designing effective, comfortable, and daylit buildings remains outside the capabilities of most designers. This session will discuss the
impacts of daylight on humans in the built environment, the metrics associated with effective daylighting, and the tools available for designing
daylight spaces with these metrics. It will highlight 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 upon worker productivity and improved user satisfaction through high
quality daylighting design. It will explain the basis for daylighting metrics and how to utilize them in daylight and lighting design as well as
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. Examples from real spaces present us with actionable knowledge about synthesizing the light
of place with the specific needs of human activity as well as inform an intuitive understanding of the metrics and corresponding criteria.

Presentation Info:

Attendance:

30

8
2.19 Session 19: Integrated Design Principles (12/06/16)
Title: Integrated Design Principles

Description: The discussion will include a brief overview of the 2030 challenge, the status of current building stock, and its relationship to code.
Most of the discussion will be centered on the process of design and the associated inputs of climate, building use, and site design, and building
design. The creation of loads by the necessary inputs will be addressed as an element to be reduced in order to mitigate system size and energy
use. The aim is to provide an example of what can happen when we reduce energy loads through climate and use responsive design.
Additionally, the presentation will cover some of the tools and techniques used to help guide decisions in the integrated design process.

Presentation Info:

Attendance:

4
2.20 Session 20: Daylight Performance Metrics for Human Health, Productivity, and Satisfaction (12/13/16)
Title: Daylight Performance Metrics for Human Health, Productivity, and Satisfaction
Description: Daylight can breathe light and life into our buildings. Daylight can also make our buildings healthier and more energy efficient.
However, designing effective, comfortable, and daylit buildings remains outside the capabilities of most designers. This session will discuss the

31

impacts of daylight on humans in the built environment, the metrics associated with effective daylighting, and the tools available for designing
daylight spaces with these metrics. It will highlight 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 upon worker productivity and improved user satisfaction through high
quality daylighting design. It will explain the basis for daylighting metrics and how to utilize them in daylight and lighting design as well as
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. Examples from real spaces present us with actionable knowledge about synthesizing the light
of place with the specific needs of human activity as well as inform an intuitive understanding of the metrics and corresponding criteria.

Presentation Info:

Attendance:

4

32

3. FUTURE WORK
Feedback was gathered from the 99 Lunch and Learn evaluations received throughout 2016. The comments from these were
valuable in defining possible future Lunch and Learn topics and informed the list of suggestions below.
Potential Future Topics:
• Mechanical systems
o Building HVAC System
o HVAC controls and programming
o Passive heating/cooling/ventilation
• Codes
o Advances in insulation systems
o Energy Efficient Envelopes
• Lighting/Daylighting
o Digital Lighting Controls
o Human Comfort
o Glare Issues
o Residential Design Guide

33

With the Lunch and Learn task, attendance at each session is determined mainly by the size of the firm or organization that is
hosting. However, there may still be opportunities for increasing attendance. One suggestion would be to encourage the hosting
entity to invite others who would find the information relevant such as, consultants or owners they work with.

Report Number: 1601_003-01

2016 TASK 3: BSUG
SUMMARY OF EFFORT AND OUTCOMES
IDAHO POWER COMPANY EXTERNAL YEAR-END REPORT

December 31, 2016

Prepared for:
Idaho Power Company

Authors:
Dylan Agnes
Elizabeth Cooper

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:
Elizabeth Cooper

Authors:
Dylan Agnes
Elizabeth Cooper

Prepared for:
Idaho Power Company

Contract Number:
5277

Please cite this report as follows: Agnes, D. (2016). 2016 TASK 3:
BSUG – Summary of Effort and Outcomes (1601_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. Acronyms and Abbreviations ...................................................................................................... 2
2. Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 3
3. 2016 Summary and Cumulative Analysis .................................................................................... 3
3.1 2016 Attendance ................................................................................................................... 4
3.2 2016 Evaluations ................................................................................................................... 5
4. Session Summaries ..................................................................................................................... 6
4.1 Session 1: Cold Feet – Managing Controls and Condensation when Simulating Radiant Slab
Cooling (5/25/16) ........................................................................................................................ 6
4.2 Session 2: Energy Modeling Mindset – Making Informed Design Decisions with Building
Energy Models (6/22/16) ............................................................................................................ 7
4.3 Session 3: Expanding the Role of Lighting in Architecture (7/27/16) ................................... 7
4.4 Session 4: eHarmony for Energy Modeling – Hits and Misses in Matching Energy Modeling
Tools and Energy Modeling Projects (8/17/16) .......................................................................... 8
4.5 Session 5: Climate Data – The Highs and Lows in Data Availability and Confidence
(10/19/16) ................................................................................................................................... 9
4.6 Session 6: Building Performance Analysis for Building Performance Rating System ......... 10
5. Website Maintenance and Statistics ........................................................................................ 11
6. Other Activities and Suggestions for Future Improvements .................................................... 13

Integrated Design Lab | Boise 2

1. ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
AIA American Institute of Architects
App Application
ARUP London based multi-discipline firm
ASHRAE American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air-Conditioning Engineers
BCVTP Building Controls Virtual Test-Bed
BEMP Building Energy Modeling Professional
BESF Building Energy Simulation Forum (Energy Trust of Oregon)
BIM Building Information Modeling
BOMA Building Owners and Managers Association
BSME Bachelor of Science in Mechanical Engineering
BSUG Building Simulation Users’ Group
CBECS Commercial Building Energy Consumption Survey
Comm Commercial
Elec. Electrical
eQUEST Quick Energy Simulation Tool
GBXML Green Building Extensible Markup Language
HePESC Heat Pump Energy Savings Calculator
HVAC Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning
IBPSA International Building Performance Simulation Association
IDL Integrated Design Lab
IPC Idaho Power Company
LBNL Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
LEED Leadership in Energy & Environmental Design
M. Arch Masters of Architecture
ME Mechanical Engineer(ing)
Mech. Mechanical
MEP Mechanical, Electrical, and Plumbing
MS Arch Masters of Science Architecture
NCARB National Council of Architectural Registration Boards
RDA Revit Daylighting Analysis
TMY Typical Meteorological Year
THERM
UDC Urban Design Center
UI University of Idaho
USGBC U.S. Green Building Council
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 3
2. INTRODUCTION
The 2016 Idaho Power scope of work for the Building Simulation Users’ Group (BSUG) task included planning, organization
and hosting of six meetings, recording attendance and evaluations, archiving video of the presentations, and maintaining the BSUG
2.0 website.
3. 2016 SUMMARY AND CUMULATIVE ANALYSIS
In 2016, six sessions were coordinated and hosted. Sessions are summarized below with details in the following sections.
Table 1: Overall Summary of Sessions
Presenter
Company Date Title Presenter In-person Online In-person Online
5/25 Cold Feet: Managing Controls and Condensation when
Simulating Radiant Slab Cooling
Damon Woods IDL 11 0 13 0
6/22 Energy Modeling Mindset: Making Informed Design
Decisions with Building Energy Models
Tim Johnson CTA 10 40 11 22
7/27 Expanding the Role of Lighting in Architecture Kera Lagios Integral
Light Studio
1 21 5 12
8/17 eHarmony for Energy Modeling – Hits and Misses in
Matching Energy Modeling Tools and Energy Modeling
Building
Total: 70 67 73 48
137 121
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 4
3.1 2016 Attendance

Figure 1: Attendee Count by Session and Type

Table 2: Overall Attendance Breakdown
Architect: 18 Electrician:
Engineer: 22 Contractor:
Mech. Engineer: 6 Other: 7
Elec. Engineer: None Specified: 68
Total (In-Person): 73
Total (Online): 48 Total (Combined): 121

13
11
5
11
4
29
0
22
12
13
1
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Cold Feet: Managing controls and condensation when
simulating radiant slab cooling
Energy Modeling Mindset - Making Informed Design
Decisions with Building Energy Models
Expanding the Role of Lighting in Architecture
eHarmony for Energy Modeling - Hits and Misses in
Matching Energy Modeling Tools and Energy Modeling…
Climate Data: The Highs and Lows in Data Availability and
Confidence
Building Performance Analysis for Building Performance
Rating System
Number of Attendees In-Person Online

Figure 2: Attendee Profession Breakdown

Figure 3: Attendee Type Breakdown
Architect35%
Engineer
41%
Mech.
Engineer
11%
Other
13%
In-Person
63%
Online
37%
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 5
3.2 2016 Evaluations

Figure 4: Average Evaluations by Session

Figure 5: Average Evaluation Scores for All Sessions
0
1
2
3
4
5
Cold Feet: Managing controls
and condensation when
simulating radiant slab
cooling
Energy Modeling Mindset -
Making Informed Design
Decisions with Building
Energy Models
Expanding the Role of
Lighting in Architecture
eHarmony for Energy
Modeling - Hits and Misses in
Matching Energy Modeling
Tools and Energy Modeling
Projects
Climate Data: The Highs and
Lows in Data Availability and
Confidence
Building Performance
Analysis for Building
Performance Rating System
Average Evaluation Scores By Session
In general, today's presentation was:Rate organization:Rate clarity:Rate opportunity for questions:Rate instructor's knowledge of the subject matter:Rate delivery of presentation:The content of the presentation was:
4.11 4.25 4.34 4.42 4.62 4.30
3.15
0
1
2
3
4
5
In general,
today's
presentation
was:
Rate
organization:
Rate clarity:Rate opportunity
for questions:
Rate instructor's
knowledge of
the subject
matter:
Rate delivery of
presentation:
The content of
the presentation
was:
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 6
4. SESSION SUMMARIES
4.1 Session 1: Cold Feet – Managing Controls and Condensation when Simulating Radiant
Slab Cooling (5/25/16)
Title: Cold Feet – Managing Controls and Condensation when Simulating Radiant Slab Cooling
Date: 05/25/16
Description: Radiant slab systems have the potential to use significantly less energy than conventional
all-air HVAC systems. In a 2012 survey by the New Buildings Institute, roughly 50% of net-zero buildings
chose to pursue radiant designs for their HVAC systems. However, if not controlled properly, radiant
slabs can lead to higher energy use and issues of simultaneous heating and cooling in both energy
models and real buildings. This BSUG will cover current design guidelines for radiant slab systems,
particularly when used for cooling. The lecture will also include a discussion of operational best
practices, capacity calculations, and condensation management based on the current literature. One of
the OpenStudio models developed by the Integrated Design Lab will be shown as a case-study including
lessons learned during the project. Damon Woods will present some of the latest research on radiant
systems, their unique load profiles, and control requirements to show that there’s no need to have cold
feet about modeling radiant slabs systems.
Presenter: Damon Woods is a PhD candidate at the University of Idaho in mechanical engineering. His
research focus is on model predictive control and demand-side management of radiant systems. He
received his bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering from Montana State University and a master’s
in the same subject from Boise State University. Damon has been working as a research assistant at U of
I’s Integrated Design Lab for the last three years while pursuing his doctorate.

Attendance:
Architect: 3 Electrician:
Engineer: 5 Contractor:
Mech. Engineer: Other*: 3
Elec. Engineer: None Specified: 2
Total (In-Person):
Total (Online):
*If 'Other' was noted: Not specified

Interesting topic presented in a way that is easy to understand
Good overview. Not too basic or advanced.
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 7
4.2 Session 2: Energy Modeling Mindset – Making Informed Design Decisions with Building
Energy Models (6/22/16)
Title: Energy Modeling Mindset – Making Informed Design Decisions with Building Energy Models
Date: 06/22/16
Description: Once considered a costly exercise reserved only for high performance or “green” buildings,
energy models are now becoming standard practice. Timely building performance models can reduce
construction costs, operational costs, and lessen a project’s environmental impact. This session will
provide a guide to navigating the treacherous “rapids” of building energy modeling for design
optimization
Presenters: Working out of the Energy Services group at CTA Architects Engineers’ downtown Boise
office, Tim Johnson is a veteran professional mechanical engineer and ASHRAE building energy modeling
professional. He specializes in building performance analysis and has provided design and energy
services for more than 100 projects – including Pahranagat National Wildlife Refuge, a zero net energy
(ZNE) facility in southern Nevada, and several joint efforts with the National Renewable Energy Lab
(NREL).

Attendance:
Architect: 1 Contractor:
Mech. Engineer: 2 Other*: 2
Elec. Engineer: None Specified: 6
Total (In-Person):
Total (Online):
*If 'Other' was noted: IPC Programs (2)

Evaluation Highlights (What attendees found most valuable):
•
•

4.3 Session 3: Expanding the Role of Lighting in Architecture (7/27/16)
Title: Expanding the Role of Lighting in Architecture
Date: 7/27/16
Description: For decades, electric lighting has been relegated to a relatively small role in the
architectural project, often treated as an afterthought or an applied element. Recent concurrent
developments, however, have shifted this relationship and made electric lighting a much more central
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 8
part of the design discussion. For instance, emerging biological research has highlighted the importance
of lighting to the health of building occupants, while the evolution of lighting manufacturing has opened
new avenues for the way light can be delivered. Further developments in simulations tools have also
made it easier and more accessible for architects, engineers and designers to incorporate electric
lighting modeling into their design workflows. During this lecture, I will share some of the tools that we
use for both electric (and daylighting) concepts as well as basic techniques and good practices for
incorporating electric lighting workflows into your own practice.

Presenter: Kera is an Associate Principal and co-leader of the Integral Light Studio at Integral Group, a
deep green engineering firm in Oakland, CA. Prior to her time at Integral, she was a daylighting and
lighting designer at Lam Partners, where she worked on dozens of projects ranging from institutional
and commercial buildings to the lighting of facades and sculptures. Kera also co-founded Solemma, LLC
and was one of the original developers of the DIVA-for-Rhino daylighting and energy plug-in. She holds a
Masters of Architecture from Harvard University’s Graduate School of Design, and a BA Summa Cum
Laude in the History of Art from The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
Attendance:
Architect: 2 Electrician:
Engineer: 1 Contractor:
Mech. Engineer: Other*:
Elec. Engineer: None Specified: 2
Total (In-Person):
Total (Online):
*If 'Other' was noted:
Evaluation Highlights (What attendees found most valuable):
Overview and contextualization of a number of different software packages by an industry
professional
Very informative
4.4 Session 4: eHarmony for Energy Modeling – Hits and Misses in Matching Energy Modeling
Tools and Energy Modeling Projects (8/17/16)
Title: eHarmony for Energy Modeling – Hits and Misses in Matching Energy Modeling Tools and
Energy Modeling Projects
Date: 8/17/2016
Description: The goal of the talk is put into practice the perhaps self-evident but easy to ignore notion
that the success of an energy simulation project often hinges on the choice of analysis tool. To that end
we will look with a critical eye at the details of some modeling projects that TESS has carried out using
one such tool called TRNSYS. The talk will also provide a brief overview of other tools in an effort to
place TRNSYS within the wider energy system analysis landscape.
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 9
Presenter: David holds a Bachelor of Science in Engineering from Swarthmore College and a Master of
Science in Mechanical Engineering from the University of Wisconsin – Madison. His work efforts are
divided between energy simulation consulting practice and energy modeling software development,
support, and teaching. He has been a guest researcher at the University of Wisconsin – Madison and at
the Centre Scientifique et Technique du Bâtiment in Nice, France and has been a partner at Thermal
Energy System Specialists in Madison, Wisconsin since 2004.
Attendance:
Architect: 5 Electrician:
Engineer: 3 Contractor:
Mech. Engineer: 1 Other*: 2
Elec. Engineer: None Specified: 13
Total (In-Person):
Total (Online):
*If 'Other' was noted: Energy Specialist II
Evaluation Highlights (What attendees found most valuable):
Having a general topic regarding implementation was great
Big picture philosophy
Software and the future of modeling. Good to learn that we are more to scripts/text
Introduction modeling tool I was not familiar with
Examples
I appreciated the examples of projects, as well as the way it was tied to the larger point of the
presentation

4.5 Session 5: Climate Data – The Highs and Lows in Data Availability and Confidence
(10/19/16)
Title: Climate Data – The Highs and Lows in Data Availability and Confidence
Date: 10/19/16
Description: The goal of the talk is to present an overview of climate and weather data, it’s availability
and sources and a short discussion on the uncertainty associated with future projections.
Presenter: Mel holds an Associates in Applied Science in Meteorology from the Community College of
the Air Force, Bachelor of Science in Applied Meteorology from Embry Riddle Aeronautical University,
Bachelor of Science in Geosciences: Hydrology emphasis from Boise State University and is currently
working to finish his Ph.D. in Geosciences at Boise State University.

He currently works at Idaho Power Company as a Hydrometeorologist as part of the Resource Planning
and Operations Group. His focus at Idaho Power and in his dissertation work is the examination of the
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 10
climatic drivers of Southern Idaho’s Weather and developing forecast models for operational use with
renewable resources and load generation requirements.
Attendance: Architect: 1 Electrician:
Engineer: 1 Contractor:
Mech. Engineer: 2 Other*:
Elec. Engineer: None Specified: 1 Total (In-Person): Total (Online):
*If 'Other' was noted:

Evaluation Highlights (What attendees found most valuable):
Lots of good sources
Good diversity in sites and options
The final case study

4.6 Session 6: Building Performance Analysis for Building Performance Rating System
Title: Building Performance Analysis for Building Performance Rating System
Date: 11/09/16
Description: This presentation focuses on building performance rating systems and their requirements
for energy use reduction and whole building optimization. The program provides an overview of how to
use computer assisted building performance analysis building performance analysis systems and
ASHRAE 90.1 Appendix G to maximize the design team’s ability to achieve the greatest number of
credits when seeking project certification under a building performed rating system.
Presenters: Dennis Knight
Attendance:
Architect: 1 Electrician:
Engineer: 2 Contractor:
Mech. Engineer: 2 Other*: Elec. Engineer: None Specified: 24 Total (In-Person): Total (Online):
*If 'Other' was noted:

Evaluation Highlights (What attendees found most valuable):
No comments were made.

Integrated Design Lab | Boise 11
5. WEBSITE MAINTENANCE AND STATISTICS
The Google site “BSUG 2.0” was maintained and updated monthly. Each month, details
about the upcoming presentation were posted to the ‘UPCOMING EVENTS’ page. These pages
also included links to both webinar and in-person registration. Monthly emails linked to these
pages as well as directly to the registration sites. If the monthly session included a webinar
recording, the video was edited and posted to the YouTube channel with a link from the BSUG
2.0 website.
Between January 1, 2016 and November 13, 2016, total page views summed to 994 with
unique page views at 823 for 914 total sessions at the site. Of the 914 sessions, 234 (26%) of
the sessions were by users in Idaho. Below are charts showing a summary of website activity
for the most popular pages, as well as for the site as a whole.

Figure 6: Number of Page Views for the Ten Most Popular Pages in 2016

431
124 117 85 56 44 41 41 28 27
389
87 102 79 42 34 28 21 18 23
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
Most Popular Pages
Pageviews Unique Pageviews
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 12

Figure 7: Monthly Site-Wide Statistics

Figure 8: Heat Map of All U.S. Sessions in 2016
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
Site-Wide Statistics
Page Views Unique Page Views Avg. Time on Page (sec)Sessions Users
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 13

Figure 9: Bubble Maps of All Sessions and Idaho in 2016

6. OTHER ACTIVITIES AND SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE IMPROVEMENTS
We saw a decrease in average attendance for each session this year but we only lost
two in-person for overall attendance. Furthermore, online attendance is about a fourth of what
it was last year and the decrease in online attendance can be identified with two of the six
session not being able to host a webinar, May and November. Despite the slight decrease in
attendance this year was successful for the BSUG task with 6 sessions completed and 130 total
attendees – 73 in-person and 48 online. Feedback was provided by attendees via the
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 14
evaluation forms, 63 of which were collected. These offered a starting point for determining
future improvements to the program.

Report Number: 1601_005-01

2016 TASK 5: BUILDING EFFICIENCY VERIFICATIONS
SUMMARY OF PROJECTS
IDAHO POWER COMPANY INTERNAL YEAR-END REPORT

December 31, 2016 (Revised 2/6/17)

Prepared for:
Idaho Power Company

Authors:
Robert Galarza
Elizabeth Cooper

ii

This page left intentionally blank.
iii

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

IDL Director:
Elizabeth Cooper

Authors:
Robert Galarza

Prepared for:
Idaho Power Company

Contract Number:
3094

Please cite this report as follows: Galarza, R. (2016). 2016 TASK 5:
Building Efficiency Verifications – Summary of Projects (1601_005-
01). University of Idaho Integrated Design Lab, Boise, ID.
iv

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.

v

This page left intentionally blank.
Integrated Design Lab | Boise vi
2016 Task 5: Building Efficiency Verifications - Idaho Power Company Internal Year-End Report
(Report #1601_005-01)

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 1
2. 2016 Building Efficiency Verification Projects ............................................................................ 1
3. 2016 Photo Controls Review Projects ......................................................................................... 3

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
AC Air Conditioning
BEV Building Efficiency Verification
HVAC Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning
IDL Integrated Design Lab
IPC Idaho Power Company
UI University of Idaho
VRF Variable Refrigerant Flow

Integrated Design Lab | Boise 1
2016 Task 5: Building Efficiency Verifications- Idaho Power Company Internal Year-End Report
(Report #1601_005-01)
1

1. INTRODUCTION
The University of Idaho Integrated Design Lab (UI-IDL) had two roles for the Building
Efficiency Verification (BEV) task in 2016. The primary role was to conduct on-site verification
reports for approximately 10%, typically seven to eight, of projects that participated in Idaho
Power Company’s (IPC) New Construction Program. The verified projects were randomly
selected from the entire pool of projects, and at least four projects were required to be outside
the Boise area. The secondary role was to review the photo controls design and function for
every project whose application included incentive L3: Daylight Photo Controls within the New
Construction Program. Once each review was concluded, a letter of support for the incentive
was submitted to Idaho Power. This review and letter were to ensure energy savings and
quality of design through the inclusion of additional design and commissioning
recommendations.
2. 2016 BUILDING EFFICIENCY VERIFICATION PROJECTS
The UI-IDL completed twelve New Construction projects as part of the 2016 scope of
work. A detailed report for each project was submitted to IPC, including claimed and actual
installation for each specific incentive the project applied for. All of the projects reviewed in
2016 were completed under the Building Efficiency 2014 Program. The specific incentives for
this program are outlined in Table 1.
Table 2 summarizes the twelve projects and respective qualified incentive measures
which were verified by UI-IDL. For the projects listed, 50% were conducted outside the Boise
area.
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 2
2016 Task 5: Building Efficiency Verifications- Idaho Power Company Internal Year-End Report
(Report #1601_005-01)
2

Table 1: 2014 Build Efficiency Program Specific Incentives
Lighting L1 Interior Light Load Reduction
L2 Exterior Light Load Reduction
L3 Daylight Photo Controls
L4 Occupancy Sensors
L5 High Efficiency Exit Signs
Air Conditioning A1 Efficient Air-Cooled AC & Heat Pump Units
A2 Efficient VRF Units
A3 Efficient Chillers
A4
A5
Air Side Economizers
Direct Evaporative Coolers
Building Shell B1 Reflective Roof Treatment
Controls C1 Energy Management Control System
C2 Guest Room Energy Management System
C3 HVAC Variable Speed Drives
Appliances with Electric Water
Heating D1 EnergyStar Undercounter Dishwashers
R2 Floating Suction Controls

Table 2: BEV Project Summary
IPC Project
#
Facility
Description Location
14-151 Retail (Non-Food) Boise, ID L1, L4, L5, A1, B1 12/08/16
14-182 Marsing, ID 12/05/16
14-198 Ontario, OR 11/11/16
14-203 Apartment Boise, ID 12/08/16
14-246 Meridian, ID 11/30/16
14-277 Agricultural Weiser, ID 11/11/16
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 3
2016 Task 5: Building Efficiency Verifications- Idaho Power Company Internal Year-End Report
(Report #1601_005-01)
3

14-146 Meridian, ID 1/24/17
14-035 School Meridian, ID A1, A4, B1, C1, 1/25/17

3. 2016 PHOTO CONTROLS REVIEW PROJECTS
In 2016, the UI-IDL received at least eighteen inquiries regarding the New Construction
photo controls incentive review. Documentation was received and final letters of support were
submitted to IPC for photo controls incentive applications for eleven of these projects including
a warehouse, a government facility, offices, and a manufacturing facility, a school, and
greenhouses. Reviews were not completed for two government facilities and a university
library since the requested necessary documentation was not received by the UI-IDL. Follow-up
may be necessary on these projects.

Report Number: 1601_005-05

2016 TASK 5: TOOL LOAN LIBRARY
SUMMARY OF EFFORT AND OUTCOMES
IDAHO POWER COMPANY EXTERNAL YEAR-END REPORT

December 31, 2016

Prepared for:
Idaho Power Company

Authors:
Dylan Agnes
Elizabeth Cooper

ii

This page left intentionally blank.
iii

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

IDL Director:
Elizabeth Cooper

Authors:
Dylan Agnes
Elizabeth Cooper

Prepared for:
Idaho Power Company

Contract Number:
5277

Please cite this report as follows: Agnes, D. (2016). 2016 TASK 5:
Tool Loan Library – Summary of Effort and Outcomes (1601_005-
05). University of Idaho Integrated Design Lab, Boise, ID.
iv

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.

v

This page left intentionally blank.

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 8
2. Marketing .................................................................................................................................... 9
3. New Tools & Tool Calibration Plan ........................................................................................... 11
4. 2016 Summary Of Loans ........................................................................................................... 14

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
AC Air Conditioning
AIA American Institute of Architects
AHU Air Handling Unit
Amp Ampere
ASHRAE American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air-Conditioning Engineers
BOMA Building Owners and Managers Association
BSU Boise State University
CO2 Carbon Dioxide
CT Current Transducer
Cx Commissioning
DCV Demand Control Ventilation
EE Energy Efficiency
EEM(s) Energy Efficiency Measure(s)
fc Foot-Candle
HVAC Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning
IAC Industrial Assessment Center
IBOA Intermountain Building Operators Association
IDL Integrated Design Lab
Int. International
IPC Idaho Power Company
kW Kilowatt
kWh Kilowatt-Hour
M&V Measurement and Verification
OSA Outside Air
PG&E Pacific Gas and Electric Company

vii

PPM Parts Per Million
RPM Rotations Per Minute
RTU Rooftop Unit
TLL Tool Loan Library
TPS Third Party Service
UI University of Idaho
USGBC U.S. Green Building Council
Verif. Verification
VOC Volatile Organic Compound
3P Third Party

Integrated Design Lab | Boise 8
2016 Task 5: Tool Loan Library - Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report #1601_005-05)

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 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). In the past years interest in these types of libraries has grown.
Recently, the Smart Building Center which is a project of the Northwest Energy Efficiency
Council has started a lending library and they cite other lending libraries spanning a large range
of tools, including non-energy efficiency related tools.
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 measuring
parameters to quantify key factors related to building and equipment energy use, and factors
which can affect worker productivity.
The loan process is started when a customer fills out the tool loan proposal form, which
is found on the TLL webpage (www.idlboise.com/tool-loan-library). When completing a tool
loan proposal, the customer includes basic background information, 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.

Integrated Design Lab | Boise 9
2016 Task 5: Tool Loan Library - Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report #1601_005-05)

2. MARKETING
Marketing for the TLL was done at various UI-IDL and IPC activities throughout 2016, as
well as on the UI-IDL website. One hundred tool loan flyers were printed in June of 2016 for
distribution by IPC and UI-IDL staff. The flyer layout was unchanged from 2013: it is in Figure 1
and Figure 2 below. The TLL was promoted in presentations given by the UI-IDL staff, including
the Lunch and Learn series and lectures to professional organizations such as the American
Institute of Architects (AIA), ASHRAE, City of Boise, and the Idaho Green Energy and Building
Conference.
The TLL flyer and program slides direct potential users to the TLL website for more
information about the library. The main UI-IDL website hosts the TLL portal where customers
can submit proposals and request tools, all online. In 2016, the TLL home page had 4,790
visitors. Changes and progress for the TLL homepage can be found in Appendix D.
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 10
2016 Task 5: Tool Loan Library - Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report #1601_005-05)

Figure 1: TLL Flyer Front

Figure 2: TLL Flyer Back

Integrated Design Lab | Boise 11
2016 Task 5: Tool Loan Library - Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report #1601_005-05)

3. NEW TOOLS & TOOL CALIBRATION PLAN
In 2016, new tools were added to the TLL, and manuals and guidelines were made
available for lending. The two new tools that were purchased were thermal imaging processors
for use with smartphones. These tools, called Flir ONE, attach directly to the user’s phone port,
are small and easy to use. One is available to be used with iPhones and the other for Android
operating systems. In addition to these new tools, several books and manuals were purchased
for use in the TLL. Additionally, manuals already owned by the IDL will be added to the available
reference material. The following is a list of the new material:
• ASHRAE Standard 62.1-2016- Ventilation for Acceptable Indoor Air Quality
• ASHRAE Active and Passive Beam Application Design Guide
• ASHRAE Fundamentals of HVAC Control Systems
• ASHRAE Best Practices for Datacom Facility Energy Efficiency
• ASHRAE Green Tips for Data Centers
• ASHRAE Server Efficiency
• ASHRAE Geothermal Heating and Cooling: Design of Ground-source Heat Pump
Systems
• ASHRAE Procedures for Commercial Building Energy Audits
• Illuminating Engineering Society, The Lighting Handbook, Ed. 10
Equipment items included in the tool loan program are typically distributed with a
manufacturer guaranteed calibration period between 1 and 3 years. While many items may
remain within recommended tolerances for years after the guaranteed calibration period ends,
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 12
2016 Task 5: Tool Loan Library - Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report #1601_005-05)

verifying the item is properly calibrated after initial and subsequent periods is recommended.
Calibration services are available on most tools, sometimes from the manufacturer, and from
various certified calibration services nationwide.
Third party (3P), certified tool calibration is ideal, but an extensive 3P calibration
program would be expensive. Based on research and pricing from quotes, formal calibration
would be cost prohibitive for much of the library tools. In several cases, cost of calibration can
well exceed 30% of the item cost. As a certified calibration is typically only valid for 1-2 years,
an alternative measurement and verification plan for most sensors and loggers is
recommended. This will be possible with most of the tool loan inventory. A few exceptions to
this must be made on a case by case basis to allow for factory calibration of items that cannot
be compared or tested in any other way. An example of one item in this category would be the
Shortridge Digital Manometer and Air-Data Multimeter which would have to be recalibrated by
the manufacturer.
The IDL will perform the following to ensure items are within specified calibration
tolerances:
1. Equipment will be cross-checked against new equipment of the same type for
accuracy in a test situation where data is logged. The IDL plan would cross-check
older items against multiple newer items at the end of each calibration period (i.e.
every two years) to ensure readings are within specified tolerances.
2. Those items found to be out of tolerance will be assessed for factory re-calibration
or replacement.
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 13
2016 Task 5: Tool Loan Library - Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report #1601_005-05)

Calibration tracking columns have been added to an inventory spreadsheet which will
allow the IDL to determine which items are due for calibration testing. Updates to calibration
and references to testing data will be maintained in the inventory spreadsheet and has been
expanded to include tool use, quotes, and budget estimates, please see Appendix C for more
details. In December of 2016 twenty-five HOBO U12-012 loggers are being calibrated by third
party, Transcat.

Integrated Design Lab | Boise 14
2016 Task 5: Tool Loan Library - Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report #1601_005-05)

4. 2016 SUMMARY OF LOANS
In 2016, loan requests totaled 49 with 46 loans completed, 3 Loans were canceled by
the customer or were rejected and 2 loans on-going. The third quarter had the highest volume
of loans at 17 total. Loans were made to 12 different locations and 30 unique users. A wide
range of tools were borrowed, as listed in Figure 8. The majority of tools were borrowed for
principle investigations or audits, although loans were also made for determining baselines
before EEMs were implemented. Tools were borrowed to verify these EEMs as well.
Table 1 and the following figures outline the usage analysis for TLL in 2016.
Table 1: Project and Loan Summary
Request Date Location Project Type of Loan Tools

1/8/2016 Boise ID Server1 Audit 2
2/19/2016 Boise ID Home1 Verification
of EEMs
1
2/23/2016 Boise ID BPL1 Audit 1
3/1/2016 Weiser ID WWTP1 Verification
of EEMs
15
3/15/2016 Boise ID Home2 Verification
of EEMs
1
3/4/2016 Boise ID Thesis1 Audit 1
3/9/2016 Kimberly ID WTP1 Audit 1
3/15/2016 Boise ID BPL2 Audit 4
3/30/2016 Boise ID BPLV Audit 3
5/3/2016 Garden
Valley
ID VW1 Audit 27
5/4/2016 Boise ID YRTU1 Audit 1
5/9/2016 Boise ID BPLV2 Audit 3
5/11/2016 Boise ID OHW Verification
of EEMs
1
5/24/2016 Boise ID ESTU1 Audit 24
5/17/2016 Mountain
Home
ID MHEA Audit 11
5/19/2016 Boise ID WTH Audit 1
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 15
2016 Task 5: Tool Loan Library - Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report #1601_005-05)

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 16
2016 Task 5: Tool Loan Library - Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report #1601_005-05)

Figure 3: Loans by Type

Figure 4: Number of Loans per Quarter

Figure 5: Number of Loans per Month
7 1 2
10
2 1
9
4 4
6
2 1
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
1. Preliminary Investigation /
Audit / Study to Identify Energy
Efficiency Measures (EEMs)
2. Pre-implementation / Baseline
Measurements of Particular
EEMs
3. Post-implementation /
Verification Measures of
Particular EEMs
Loans by Type
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
10
13
17
9
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
Number of Loans per Quarter
0
2
4
6
8
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Number of Loans per Month
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 17
2016 Task 5: Tool Loan Library - Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report #1601_005-05)

Figure 6: Number of Loans by Location

Figure 7: Number of Loans by User
7
1
1
1
11
1
1
10
1
2
3
1
1
6
1
1
0 10 20 30 40
Wheatland
Boise
Gooding
Nampa
Twin Falls
Burley
Meridian
Weiser
Kimberly
Garden Valley
Mountain Home
Moscow
CA
Id
a
h
o
Loans by Location
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
1
1
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
2
3
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
2
7
1
1
1
1
1
2
3
1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Architectural Firm 1
Architectural Firm 2
Architectural Firm 3
Architectural Firm 4
Architectural Firm 5
City 1
City 2
Construction 1
Engineering Firm 1
Engineering Firm 2
Engineering Firm 3
Engineering Firm 4
Engineering Firm 5
Engineering Firm 6
Engineering Firm 7
Home 1
Home 2
Hospital 1
Research Lab
University
Utilities 1
Loans by User
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 18
2016 Task 5: Tool Loan Library - Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report #1601_005-05)

212

Figure 8: Summary of Tools Loaned
6
3
16
2
1
4
2
3
6
3
2
3
5
1
1
6
2
2
2
2
14
1
4
2
2
1
4
2
1
6
3
3
1
2
1
4
1
2
2
28
9
2
3
2
1
1
1
2
8
1
1
1
1
1
9
12
1
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Watts up Pro ES Meter
Track-It Mod #5396-0201
Split-core CT, 200 Amp
Smoke Pen
Shortridge Flow Meter ADM-880C
Shortridge Flow Hood
Sesnor, CT, Split-Core, 0-050 Amp
Sensor, Multi-Functional, Air Temp, Water Temp, Soil…
Sensor, CT, Split-Core, 0-200 Amp
Sensor, CT, Split-Core, 0-100 Amp
Sensor, CT, Split-Core, 0-050 Amp
Sensor, CT, Split-Core, 0-020 Amp
Photography, Camera Accessories, Tripod, 36"
Nikon D70s
Magnelab AC Current Transformer (CT) Connection
Logger, Single-Functional, Magnetism
Logger, Multi-Functional, Air Temp, RH, Light, Extra…
Light Meter
Konica Minolta Luminance Meter
Konica Minolta Illuminance Meter
HOBO U12-013 Data Logger
HOBO U12-012 Data Logger
HOBO U12-008 Data Logger
HOBO U12-006 Data Logger
HOBO Temperature Sensor
HOBO Current Transformer 50 Amp
HOBO Current Transformer 200 Amp
HOBO Current Transformer 20 Amp
HOBO Current Transformer 100 Amp
GE Sensing Flow Meter
Fluke 1730 Energy Logger
FLIR ONE Thermal Imaging Camera
FLIR E50bx Infrared camera
FLIR E50bx
Extech Light Meter
ElitePro, Standard Memory (512K) Logger, Amps, Volts,…
Dent RoCoil Flexible CT
Dent ElitePro Energy Logger, High Memory, Line Power
Carbon Dioxide and Temperature Monitor
ACT-1250-600
Flow Mete, Dynasonics UFX
Tool Summary
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4

Report Number: 1601_006-01

2016 TASK 6: BUILDING METRICS LABELING
SUMMARY OF EFFORT AND OUTCOMES
IDAHO POWER COMPANY EXTERNAL YEAR-END REPORT

December 31, 2016

Prepared for:
Idaho Power Company

Author:
Elizabeth Cooper

ii

This page left intentionally blank.
iii

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

IDL Director:
Elizabeth Cooper

Author:
Elizabeth Cooper

Prepared for:
Idaho Power Company

Contract Number:
5277

Please cite this report as follows: Cooper, E. (2016). 2016 TASK 6:
Building Metrics Labeling – Summary of Efforts and Outcomes
(1601_006-01). University of Idaho Integrated Design Lab, Boise,
ID.
iv

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.

v

This page left intentionally blank.

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 1
2. Summary of Progress .................................................................................................................. 1
2.1 Website Progress................................................................................................................... 1
2.2 Marketing .............................................................................................................................. 1
3. Next Steps ................................................................................................................................... 2

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
App Application
BOMA Building Owners and Operators Association
BSUG Building Simulation Users’ Group
CREW Commercial Real Estate Women (Network)
EUI Energy Use Intensity
IDL Integrated Design Lab
IMG Intermountain Gas
IPC Idaho Power Company
KWCD Kilowatt Crackdown
UI University of Idaho
USGBC United States Green Building Council

Integrated Design Lab | Boise 1
2016 Task 6: Building Metrics Labeling- Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report #1601_006-0)

1. INTRODUCTION
The Building Metrics Labeling (BML) task was a continuation of work done by the
University of Idaho Integrated Design Lab (UI-IDL) for Idaho Power Company (IPC) beginning in
2012. A stand-alone energy specific label was developed in 2012 and a web-portal was created
in 2013 so the label could be automatically generated once information was submitted by
users. In 2015 the work focused on providing user support, general promotion of the tool, and
tool debugging with minor functionality improvements. The task in 2016 was a continuation of
the support, and promotion of the tool that was started in 2014.
2. SUMMARY OF PROGRESS
2.1 Website Progress
The majority of the progress made in 2016 was maintenance and support. No additional
content was added.
2.2 Marketing
Once the initial online tool was published to the website, marketing brochures were
created. The UI-IDL created a two-sided flyer that was used as the main method for marketing
in 2014. Images of the flyer can be found in previous year-end reports.
During 2016, the tool was discussed and/or the flyer was distributed at multiple
events, listed below.
• 20 Lunch and Learn presentations to architecture or engineering firms and
organizations (flyers and a slide before the main presentation)
• Multiple Central Addition planning meetings hosted by USGBC
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 2
2016 Task 6: Building Metrics Labeling- Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report #1601_006-0)

• Six BSUG events
• Calls and/or visits to five building owners within the Central Addition (LIV
District)

One-on-one marketing and support was also available if requested. No requests were
made in 2016.
3. NEXT STEPS
Despite significant attempts to bring the tool to market for building owners and
managers, very little progress has been made toward widespread adoption. As part of the
scope of work for 2016, a step-by-step slide tutorial was to be developed. This tutorial will be
completed in early 2017. No specific new efforts are planned for 2017, but the IDL will keep the
website active, and continue to provide support when requested. In the future, if interest
grows, a smartphone based application could be developed that might assist in greater
adoption of the tool.

Report Number: 1601_001-08

2016 TASK 8: DAYLIGHTING TRAINING
SUMMARY OF EFFORTS AND PROGRESS
IDAHO POWER COMPANY EXTERNAL YEAR-END
REPORT

December 31, 2016

Prepared for:
Idaho Power Company

Authors:
Elizabeth Cooper
Leyla Sanati
Nick Hansen

ii

This page left intentionally blank.
iii

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

IDL Director:
Elizabeth Cooper

Authors:
Elizabeth Cooper
Leyla Sanati
Nick Hansen

Prepared for:
Idaho Power Company

Contract Number:
5277

Please cite this report as follows: Cooper, E., L. Sanati, N.
Hansen (2016). 2016 TASK 8: Daylighting Training –
Summary of Efforts and Progress (1601_008-01). University
of Idaho Integrated Design Lab, Boise, ID.
iv

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.
v

This page left intentionally blank.

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 7
2. Project Summary ..................................................................................................................... 7
3. Next Steps................................................................................................................................. 8

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
AIA American Institute of Architects
ASHRAE American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air-conditioning
Engineers
BEQ Building Energy Quotient
BOMA Building Owners and Managers Association
EMS Energy Management System
HID High Intensity Discharge
IDL Integrated Design Lab
IPC Idaho Power Company
LED Light Emitting Diode
LEED Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design
Op-Ed Opinion Editorial
TI Tenant Improvement
UI University of Idaho

7

1. INTRODUCTION
Idaho Power, in partnership with the University of Idaho’s Integrated Design Lab, will
provide daylight training sessions for local professionals. This training enhances
knowledge of, and appreciation for, daylight, and keeps professionals informed of the
latest advances in daylighting technologies. The sessions will discuss the fundamentals
of daylighting design and its implications on visual comfort, thermal comfort, building
energy performance and electric lighting control systems.

2. PROJECT SUMMARY
The objective of this task is to continue education and training sessions surrounding
the daylighting control systems installed at the IDL and other approved partner sites to
electrical contractors and design professionals on an alternating year basis, as market
needs warrant. In 2016, the existing lighting controls in the lab were recommissioned.
Lighting controls that were not properly functioning were fixed. In the classroom it was
found that the lighting control panel had no wall switch and the occupancy sensor
wasn’t compatible with the panel. These were remedied with the installation of a new
wall switch and a new occupancy sensor. In the classroom the wireless lighting control
system was found to be outdated. A new wireless system was donated from the
wireless manufacturer and was installed to replace the outdated system. All of the new
lighting control equipment was commissioned for proper functionality. Manuals for all of
the installed lighting control equipment were gathered and all of the installed systems
were documented. A protocol was written for demonstrating the functionality of all of the
installed lighting control systems. A review of new lighting control technologies was

8

performed. It was determined that there were no new technologies that at this time
would benefit the lab’s lighting control systems or be feasible to demonstrate with the
lab’s current configuration. A market needs assessment was performed in Q3 to
determine the need for a daylighting class as well as to help develop the curriculum for
the class. This survey was posted on the IDL website and sent out to the lab’s mailing
lists. The survey was also sent around at BSUG and Lunch and Learn sessions. The
survey was sent to a total of 210 individuals of which we received 18 responses. A
detailed marketing plan was developed and in accordance with the marketing plan
marketing materials were produced. Initial marketing began in November with the Idaho
Energy and Green Building Conference and a joint ASHRAE and BSUG meeting.
Marketing for the 2017 classes will continue in January 2017. The daylighting training
will be offered as two one-day workshops. The sessions are scheduled for March 21-22,
April 18-19, and May 9-10. This scope includes education and training for existing
technology and any additional installed or updated systems or technologies.

3. NEXT STEPS

The course curriculum is currently being modified to address the need for training
that will earn CEUs for electrical contractors. Due to the lack of initial survey responses
and needing to seek feedback from electrical contractors a list of Treasure Valley
electrical contractors has been put together. Each electrical contractor will be contacted
directly and given the opportunity to participate in a survey to seek feedback on our
proposed course curriculum. The program in will be updated after the course curriculum

9

is finalized. The marketing flyer will be updated to reflect these changes as will the
google doc for online registration. After finalizing the course material an application will
be submitted to the DBS for course approval and marketing will begin in earnest.

CRE Progress Report on Energy Savings for 2015 – Summary

By Sharon Grant and Suzie Hall
Managing Members, GreenSteps

March 15, 2016

This contract began in May, 2015, as a “graduate program” to continue momentum built in the Kilowatt
Crackdown (KWCD) competition. We identified the participants with high motivation and coached them
to develop more strategic approaches to saving energy. We worked with 26 buildings in Boise and
Ketchum, and six property management firms. The overall energy savings across 20 buildings was 5.5%
based on the percent change from their baseline (Jan – Dec, 2014) vs. current (Jan – Dec, 2015) EUI.
(note that six buildings were not included due to data discrepancies, high vacancy or limited history).

With firm #1, we built a strong foundation for Strategic Energy Management during the KWCD as well as
through focused NEEA CRE work on two of their buildings, in which they are conducting an ongoing
lighting retrofit, and participated in a 75/25 split with Idaho Power to have a detailed energy model built
by IDL to enable them to make smart capital improvements. New HVAC equipment was delivered in
February, 2016. They are pursuing incentives from Idaho Power for lighting and HVAC projects. A more
detailed energy audit of another building revealed a major mechanical mistake that should have been
caught in commissioning, but has gone on for years. Through this repair and other initiatives, this
building has shown the second highest reduction of energy use of 33%! They are in the process of
applying for ENERGY STAR. One of their building operators attended IBOA training. They also took over
two buildings in January, 2016, and IDL conducted energy audits of each of these.

With Firm #2, we worked with them to benchmark this building in Portfolio Manager, and scheduled an
energy audit through Idaho Power in September 2015. IDL conducted a follow-up audit in February,
2016, to evaluate the building in more detail. We worked together to develop new TI Guidelines, and
IDL developed a plan for utilizing natural ventilation.

Firm #3 became involved when a property manager from the KWCD moved to a new firm. We worked
with them to pursue incentives for an emergency HVAC replacement, and have IDL review the bid. In a
second building, we saw an opportunity to retrofit lighting, and replaced all screw-in bulbs with LED
bulbs in January, 2016, and coordinated incentives through Idaho Power. We introduced the owner to
Portfolio Manager and worked together to establish a building for ongoing benchmarking.

We continued working with Firm #4 on their portfolio of benchmarked properties. The focus of our
work over the past year has been to further develop their Strategic Energy Management Plan for their
buildings. One building showed the highest savings of 38% due to optimizing efficiencies during
vacancy, and their portfolio showed an average of 2.5% savings overall.

Firm #5 has been a highly engaged participant, showed energy savings in all buildings and earned an
ENERGY STAR certification. They worked diligently to resolve indoor air quality (IAQ) issues to achieve
this, and we are engaged with the marketing department at Idaho Power to promote this project. In
addition, we made substantial progress in developing their Strategic Energy Management Plan. An
opportunity to improve the energy efficiency and appearance of exterior lighting in all four buildings was

identified, and we facilitated a plan for a side-by-side lighting mockups for evaluation. The average
energy savings across their four buildings is 8.85%.

Firm #6 focused on resolving previously reported unacceptable IAQ levels. In February 2016, a new
study was performed, and much better results were noted. ENERGY STAR certification seems highly
possible at this time. We also proposed new ceiling and lighting elements for the main lobby, converting
several existing fluorescents to LED’s.
Supplement 2: Evaluation Idaho Power Company
Page 158 Demand-Side Management 2016 Annual Report
This page left blank intentionally

Idaho Power Company Supplement 2: Evaluation
Demand-Side Management 2016 Annual Report Page 159
RESEARCH/SURVEYS
Table 3. 2016 Research/Surveys
Report Title Program or Sector
Analysis
Performed by Study/Evaluation Type
2016 Idaho Power Energy-Saving Kit
Program Summary Report
Residential Resource
Action Programs®
Idaho Power Summary
2016 Residential End-Use Survey Residential Market Strategies Idaho Power Survey
A/C Efficiency Survey Results Residential Idaho Power Idaho Power Survey
CAPAI Survey Report 2016 Residential Idaho Power Idaho Power Survey
Drying Rack Pre-Survey Results Residential Idaho Power Idaho Power Survey
Energy Efficiency Campaign Awareness Survey Results
Residential Idaho Power Idaho Power Survey
Energy-Savings Improvements Survey
Results
Residential Idaho Power Idaho Power Survey
Energy Wise® Program Summary Report Residential Resource Action Programs®
Idaho Power Summary
Flex Peak 2016 Survey Results Commercial/Industrial Idaho Power Idaho Power Survey
HEAP 2016 Survey Results Residential Idaho Power Idaho Power Survey
Holiday Lighting Study Residential Idaho Power Idaho Power Survey
Lighting Study Residential Idaho Power Idaho Power Survey
Shade Tree 2016 Survey Results Residential Idaho Power Idaho Power Survey
Smart Saver Pledge 2016 Survey Results Residential Idaho Power Idaho Power Survey
Thanksgiving Cooking Efficiency Study Residential Idaho Power Idaho Power Survey
Thermostatic Shut-off Valve Study Residential Idaho Power Idaho Power Survey
WAQC 2016 Survey Results Residential Idaho Power Idaho Power Survey
Weatherization Solutions 2016 Survey Results Residential Idaho Power Idaho Power Survey
Supplement 2: Evaluation Idaho Power Company
Page 160 Demand-Side Management 2016 Annual Report

This page left blank intentionally.

IDAHO POWER
ENERGY-SAVING KIT
PROGRAM SUMMARY REPORT
2016
SUBMITTED BY:
RESOURCE ACTION PROGRAMS®
i a:.a
IDAHO POWER
PRESENTS
Energy
Savii\gs
V-'
$3?
ftJ
made#easy
•IS:
O ,>£*
¦-¦'
ysflflfc \.s*
yy 7liEll
-:
rr>\J
TH
rnmLUUL.
!£
%\
k
IDAHO IDAHO POWER
POWER.ENERGY-SAVING KIT
PROGRAM SUMMARY REPORT
An IDACORP Company
2016
SUBMITTED BY:
RESOURCE ACTION PROGRAMS®
Submitted by:
February 2017
Idaho Power Energy-Saving Kit
Program Summary Report
2016
Sponsored by:
Idaho Power Energy-Saving Kit Program Summary Report2
“Thank you for the tips and the kit.
All of my co-workers and friends are
going to order them too.
The materials were easy to read,
colorful, and informative.”
– Idaho Power Energy-Saving Kit Program Participant
Resource Action Programs®3
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ...........................................................................................5
RAP Direct-to-Customer Programs .................................................................9
Idaho Power Energy-Saving Kit Program Overview ...................................11
Idaho Power Energy-Saving Kit Program Materials ....................................13
Idaho Power Energy-Saving Kit Program Implementation ........................15
Idaho Power Energy-Saving Kit Program Impact........................................17
A. Home Survey and Retrofit Data .........................................................17
B. Water and Energy Savings Summary ................................................18
C. Participant Response ...........................................................................19
Appendix A .......................................................................................................24
Projected Savings from 9-Watt LED Retrofit ..........................................24
Projected Savings from 7.5-Watt LED Retrofit .......................................24
Projected Savings from Showerhead Retrofit ........................................25
Projected Savings from Kitchen Faucet Aerator Retrofit .....................26
Projected Savings from Bathroom Faucet Aerator Retrofit .................27
Projected Savings from LED Night Light Installation ............................28
Projected Savings from Shower Timer Installation ................................29
Appendix B ........................................................................................................30
Enrollment Survey Response Summary ...................................................30
Kit Survey Response Summary .................................................................31
Appendix C ........................................................................................................34
Program Marketing .....................................................................................34
Appendix D .......................................................................................................35
Idaho Cities & Towns Affected ..................................................................35
Oregon Cities & Towns Affected ...............................................................36
Idaho Power Regions Affected .................................................................37
Idaho Power Energy-Saving Kit Program Summary Report4Executive Summary
“I used everything that was sent and
I love it. Thank you so much for this
awesome program.”
– Idaho Power Energy-Saving Kit Program Participant
Resource Action Programs®5Executive Summary
The Idaho Power Energy-Saving Kit Program was designed and implemented to provide Idaho Power’s
residential households with energy-efficiency education, measures to reduce their energy costs, and
help them develop energy-efficient behaviors consistent with Idaho Power. This report summarizes
the 2016 Energy-Saving Kit program, which was implemented by thirty-three thousand, six-hundred
eighty-two (33,682) Idaho households and eight hundred sixty-four (864) Oregon households. Funding
was provided by Idaho Power.
The program achieved or exceeded expectations and the results are listed below.
PROGRAM ACHIEVEMENTS
1. Provided residential energy-saving measures and energy-efficiency education to 33,682 Idaho
and 864 Oregon households.
• Affected all five regions of the Idaho Power service territory
• Affected 113 cities & towns in Idaho
• Affected 18 cities & towns in Oregon
Regions Households Electric Kit Non-Electric Kit
Canyon 6,260 3,313 2,893
Capital 14,532 6,378 8,154
Eastern 3,330 2,123 1,207
Southern 5,949 4,285 1,664
Western 4,529 3,616 913
Total 34,546 19,715 14,831
34,546
2. Generated residential energy and water savings. Projected annual savings:
• 229,392,781 gallons of water saved
• 17,151,399 kWh of electricity saved
• 109,128 therms of gas saved
Executive Summary
Idaho Power Energy-Saving Kit Program Summary Report6Executive Summary
3. Supported Idaho Power with their diverse outreach and distribution methods.
• Idaho Power website
• Idaho Power employee
• Information in bills
• Social Media
• Family & friends
• News
• Direct mailing
4. Designed and provided complementary educational materials and incentives to maximize
installation of targeted efficiency measures (Installation rates ranged from 57–93 percent).
5. Maintained data collection and management
services to collect and process audit ready data
from participating households.
6. Maintained tracking and reporting to
summarize the Program participation.
Program design and customization initiated in late 2015 resulted in the full implementation starting
in May 2016. The first batch of 14,354 direct mailers sent out to start the outreach process resulted
in immediate positive response from Idaho Power customers. Program content on the Idaho Power
website and enclosed information in the customer bills combined with local news features generated
a tremendous surge in demand for this energy-saving kits. The initial plan to assist 7,500 Idaho Power
households was increased six times to total 34,546 households in both Idaho and Oregon.
The Program provided customized Direct-to-Customer Program modules, which included educational
materials and energy-saving products. A participant survey was included with the program materials.
The purpose of the survey was to increase educational retention and impact while serving as a data
collection tool.
Survey responses indicated high participant satisfaction and participation in product retrofits and
adoption of new energy saving behaviors. Total 5,378 households returned completed surveys and the
responses were overwhelmingly positive. Highlights include:
A summary of responses can be found in Appendix B.72+28+F
Reported households
with the High-Efficiency
Showerhead installed.*
72%62+38+F
Reported households who
used the Shower Timer.*
68%
OPTING-IN METHODS HOUSEHOLDS %
Website 28,869 83.5%
Phone 2,401 7.0%
Postcards 3,276 9.5%
(continued)
57+43+F
Reported households
with ALL 9 LED light
bulbs installed.
57%93+7+F
Reported households
with the LED Night Light
installed.*
93%
*Installation rates assume 50% of households who responded “Not yet, but will” actually completed the installation.
Resource Action Programs®7Executive Summary
Projected Resource Savings
A list of assumptions and formulas used for these calculations can be found in Appendix A.
Projected energy savings from this program are significant. Based on the reported actions, annual and
lifetime resource savings are as follows:
PROJECTED ANNUAL SAVINGS
229,392,781 gallons of water saved
17,151,399 kWh of electricity saved
109,128 therms of gas saved
PROJECTED ANNUAL
SAVINGS PER HOME
11,635 gallons of water saved
496 kWh of electricity saved
3 therms of gas saved
PROJECTED LIFETIME SAVINGS
1,977,545,345 gallons of water saved
154,450,405 kWh of electricity saved
218,256 therms of gas saved
PROJECTED LIFETIME
SAVINGS PER HOME
100,307 gallons of water saved
4,471 kWh of electricity saved
6 therms of gas saved
Idaho Power Energy-Saving Kit Program Summary Report8RAP Direct-to-Customer Programs
“Thank you for offering the energy
efficiency products. I have told friends
and family so they are ordering
them also. I appreciate you helping
us save money and helping with the
environment!!!”
– Idaho Power Energy-Saving Kit Program Participant
Resource Action Programs®9RAP Direct-to-Customer Programs
For more than 24 years, Resource Action Programs®
(RAP) has designed and implemented resource
efficiency and education programs, changing
household energy and water use while delivering
significant, measurable resource savings for
program sponsors. All RAP programs feature
a proven blend of innovative education and
comprehensive implementation services.
RAP Programs serve more than 400,000 households
each year through school and adult delivered
Measure Based Education Programs. Our forty-
person staff manages the implementation process
and program oversight for nearly 300 individual
programs annually. Recognized nationally as a
leader in energy and water efficiency education
and program design, RAP has a strong reputation
for providing the highest level of service to program
sponsors as part of a wide range of conservation
and resource efficiency solutions for municipalities,
utilities, states, community agencies, and
corporations.
All aspects of program design and implementation
are completed at the Program Center in Sparks,
Nevada. These include: graphic and web design, print
production, procurement, warehousing, logistics,
module production, marketing, program tracking,
data tabulation and reporting.
The Direct-to-Customer Program represents the
leading edge of community energy efficiency
education program design and implementation.
The Program uses a client-directed Measure
Based Education model to generate lasting
residential energy savings from both retrofits
and new behaviors. Initially, participants
choose their personal savings target. Then they
select retrofits using provided measures and
energy-saving behaviors to reach their goal. The
Direct-to-Customer Program is tremendously
versatile, and can easily be introduced and
distributed via a wide range of delivery channels,
including Opt-in Direct Mail, CBO/CAA distribution,
workshops, community events, affinity groups
(volunteers, CAAs, CBOs, churches) or public events.
Cost-effective energy savings from the measure
installations will justify program investments
on their own, but the Program delivers several
other important benefits as well. The educational
component is designed to include each household
member in order to manage household energy
use. Measures, immediate savings actions and
additional savings ideas for all areas of residential
energy use are grouped by areas of the home and
provided to participants as options to help them
reach their personal savings targets. Additional
rebates and program opportunities can be
introduced through the Program or offered as
incentives for program performance.
Participation in the Direct-to-Customer Program
provides a strong, personalized pathway for
participants to realize both initial and ongoing
savings from new products and behavior choices in
their homes.
RAP Direct-to-Customer Programs
Idaho Power Energy-Saving Kit Program Summary Report10Program Overview
“I love my new light bulbs. They are
so bright. What a great gift. I’ll buy
more of them. Thank you.”
– Idaho Power Energy-Saving Kit Program Participant
Resource Action Programs®11Program Overview
Idaho Power Energy-Saving Kit
Program Overview
The overarching goal of this measure based program was to assist Idaho Power in providing their
residential households with energy-efficiency education and reduced energy costs as well as
developing energy efficiency behaviors consistent with Idaho Power’s energy efficiency objectives.
The energy-savings Kits empowered the Idaho and Oregon households to save energy and money.
The program created and distributed a custom educational savings module consisting of efficiency
measures, educational materials, and household surveys. Educational materials included a Quick Start
Guide, Survey, Installation Instructions, Mini-Home Assessment (Idaho Power provided) and other tools
such as stickers and magnets as reminders for
new energy-efficient conservation behaviors.
All elements were customized to meet Idaho
Power priorities, regional conditions and
regulatory requirements.
The program was offered to eligible Idaho
Power residential households as defined
by Idaho Power. Those in participating
households cited the categories shown in the
table (at right) when asked how they heard of
the program.
Those in eligible households opting-in to receive
the energy-saving kit utilized one of three
primary methods:
1) RAP developed and maintained a program
website to process energy-saving kit orders as well as to provide program information, including
product installation videos and instructions. 2) RAP maintained a toll-free phone number to process
the called-in kit orders and address any inquiries and issues. 3) Custom-designed direct mailers were
sent to households with program information and instructions on ordering a kit.
Follow-up installation surveys were received from 5,378 participated households, representing a
response rate of 15.6% of the 34,546 energy-saving kits distributed. A monthly drawing for a $100 gift
card provided an incentive for returning the household installation surveys.
OPTING-IN METHODS HOUSEHOLDS %
Website 28,869 83.5%
Phone 2,401 7.0%
Postcards 3,276 9.5%
HEARD ABOUT PROGRAM HOUSEHOLDS %
Social Media 15,007 43.5%
Other: Family & Friends 7,214 20.9%
Direct Mail 3,721 10.8%
Idaho Power website 2,504 7.2%
Other: News 1,707 4.9%
Idaho Power employee 1,158 3.3%
Info in bill 928 2.7%
Other: Ft Hall Event 127 0.4%
Other 2,020 5.8%
Blank 160 0.5%
Idaho Power Energy-Saving Kit Program Summary Report12Program Materials
Refrigerator/Freezer
Almost 8 percent of your electricity use

g
o
e
s

t
o

y
o
u
r

refrigerator and 2 percent to your fre
e
z
e
r
.

I
f

t
h
e
y
’
r
e

e
v
e
n

1
0
°
F

colder than necessary, the energy they use

c
o
u
l
d

g
o

u
p

b
y

2
5

percent.
Use your digital thermometer to check the
temperature. Refrigerators should be set
b
e
t
w
e
e
n

3
8
°

and 40°F and the freezer should be set

a
t

0
°
F
.

Adjust temperature, if necessary.
TIP: Make sure the door is sealed tightly. Che
c
k

t
h
e

g
a
s
k
e
t

(rubber seal) for cracks and dried-on food
.
LED Lighting
LED light bulbs use up to 80 percen
t

l
e
s
s

e
n
e
r
g
y

t
h
a
n

traditional bulbs and last up to 25 times lo
n
g
e
r
.

F
o
r

t
h
e

most savings, use the LED bulbs from y
o
u
r

k
i
t

t
o

r
e
p
l
a
c
e

incandescent bulbs in high-use areas
.

T
h
e
n

i
n
s
t
a
l
l

t
h
e

L
E
D

night light in an area that lights a path and
l
e
t
s

y
o
u

a
v
o
i
d

turning on other lights.
Replace your most-used 45-watt bu
l
b
s

w
i
t
h

t
h
e

7.5-watt LED bulbs from your kit.
Replace your most-used 60-watt bu
l
b
s

w
i
t
h

t
h
e

9-watt LED bulbs from your kit.
Install the new LED night light from y
o
u
r

k
i
t
.
TIP: For the most savings, place LED bulbs
i
n

f
i
x
t
u
r
e
s

t
h
a
t

a
r
e

o
n

for at least 2-3 hours a day.
Water Efficiency
When taking a shower, you use two resource
s
—
w
a
t
e
r

a
n
d

energy to heat the water. There’s also the

e
n
e
r
g
y

i
t

t
a
k
e
s

t
o

pump, move and treat the water to con
s
i
d
e
r
.

I
n
s
t
a
l
l

t
h
e

3-way
high-efficiency showerhead and fauc
e
t

a
e
r
a
t
o
r
s

f
r
o
m

y
o
u
r

kit. You’ll find that these items provide goo
d

p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

a
n
d

a

satisfying result.
Install the new high-efficiency show
e
r
h
e
a
d

f
r
o
m

your kit.
Install the new kitchen faucet aerato
r

f
r
o
m

y
o
u
r

k
i
t
.
Install the new bathroom faucet aerator
s

f
r
o
m

y
o
u
r

k
i
t
.
TIP: You can compare the water flow rate o
f

y
o
u
r

o
l
d

s
h
o
w
e
r
h
e
a
d

with the new one by following the six st
e
p
s

o
n

t
h
e

f
l
o
w
-
r
a
t
e

t
e
s
t

bag included in the bottom of your k
i
t
.
QUICK STEP2
WATER AND
ENERGY
QUICK STEP1
LIGHTING
QUICK START GUIDE
Español en el otro lado
113719
START SAVING NOW!
1
2
3
Install the energy-efficient products in you
r

k
i
t
.
Follow the energy-saving tips provid
e
d

i
n

t
h
i
s

Q
u
i
c
k

S
t
a
r
t

G
u
i
d
e
.
For additional ways to save, visit idah
o
p
o
w
e
r
.
c
o
m
/
s
a
v
e
2
d
a
y
.
Installation Questions?
See the INSTALLATION INSTRUCTION

B
O
O
K
L
E
T

i
n

t
h
e

bottom of your kit.
Visit idahopower.com/save2day to view

i
n
s
t
a
l
l
a
t
i
o
n

v
i
d
e
o
s
.
Don’t forget!
Return your survey for a chance to win a
$
1
0
0

g
i
f
t

c
a
r
d
.
Developed in partnership:
QUICK STEP5
APPLIANCE
QUICK STEP4
APPLIANCE
Water Heater
Heating water can account for 14 to 25 per
c
e
n
t

o
f

t
h
e

e
n
e
r
g
y

consumed in your home. Many people t
h
i
n
k

p
l
a
c
i
n
g

a

w
a
t
e
r

heater on the hottest setting heats th
e

w
a
t
e
r

m
o
r
e

q
u
i
c
k
l
y

b
u
t

it doesn’t. It just uses more energy. Use the
d
i
g
i
t
a
l

t
h
e
r
m
o
m
e
t
e
r

from your kit to check the water tempera
t
u
r
e
.

I
f

i
t
’
s

o
v
e
r

1
2
0
°
F
,

you may be overheating your water an
d

w
a
s
t
i
n
g

e
n
e
r
g
y
!
Fill a cup with the hottest water from the
f
a
u
c
e
t

farthest from the water heater. Place th
e

d
i
g
i
t
a
l

thermometer in the cup for two minu
t
e
s
.

If your hot water is over 120°F, lower the

t
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e

setting on your water heater. Refer to

y
o
u
r

o
w
n
e
r
’
s

manual to adjust the settings.
TIP: If your water heater is in a garage or u
n
h
e
a
t
e
d

b
a
s
e
m
e
n
t
,

use a water heater blanket to save an a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l

4

t
o

9

p
e
r
c
e
n
t

on your water heating costs. Water h
e
a
t
e
r

b
l
a
n
k
e
t
s

c
a
n

b
e

found at your local hardware store.
Shower Timer
Running your shower for five minutes
c
a
n

u
s
e

a
s

m
u
c
h

e
n
e
r
g
y

as leaving a 60-watt light bulb on for 14 hou
r
s
.

A

s
h
o
w
e
r

t
i
m
e
r

reminds you to save energy and water wh
i
l
e

s
h
o
w
e
r
i
n
g
.

T
h
e

shower timer, set to five (5) minutes, en
c
o
u
r
a
g
e
s

t
h
e

w
i
s
e

u
s
e

of water. It requires no assembly or
m
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
.

S
i
m
p
l
y

r
o
t
a
t
e

the shower timer half a turn when you beg
i
n

y
o
u
r

s
h
o
w
e
r
;

t
h
e
n

try to finish before the sand runs out.
Install the new shower timer from y
o
u
r

k
i
t
.
TIP: The average shower is 8.2 – 10.4 minutes i
n

l
e
n
g
t
h
.

A

f
i
v
e
-
minute shower reduces energy used to pum
p

a
n
d

h
e
a
t

w
a
t
e
r
,

saves fresh water and reduces wastewate
r
.
QUICK STEP3
WATER AND
ENERGY
Want to Save More?
Idaho Power offers energy efficiency ince
n
t
i
v
e
s

t
o

r
e
d
u
c
e

t
h
e

cost of energy efficient products and/
o
r

s
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
.

C
h
e
c
k

o
u
t

the programs and tips at idahopow
e
r
.
c
o
m
/
s
a
v
e

t
o

f
i
n
d

m
o
r
e

ways to use energy wisely and avoid unne
c
e
s
s
a
r
y

w
a
s
t
e
.
Water Heater
Heating water can accoun
t

f
o
r

1
4

t
o

2
5

p
e
r
c
e
n
t

o
f

t
h
e

e
n
e
r
g
y

consumed in your home. Ma
n
y

p
e
o
p
l
e

t
h
i
n
k

p
l
a
c
i
n
g

a

w
a
t
e
r

heater on the hottest se
t
t
i
n
g

h
e
a
t
s

t
h
e

w
a
t
e
r

m
o
r
e

q
u
i
c
k
l
y

b
u
t

it doesn’t. It just uses mor
e

e
n
e
r
g
y
.

U
s
e

t
h
e

d
i
g
i
t
a
l

t
h
e
r
m
o
m
e
t
e
r

from your kit to check the w
a
t
e
r

t
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e
.

I
f

i
t
’
s

o
v
e
r

1
2
0
°
F
,

you may be overheating

y
o
u
r

w
a
t
e
r

a
n
d

w
a
s
t
i
n
g

e
n
e
r
g
y
!
Fill a cup with the hottest
w
a
t
e
r

f
r
o
m

t
h
e

f
a
u
c
e
t

farthest from the wate
r

h
e
a
t
e
r
.

P
l
a
c
e

t
h
e

d
i
g
i
t
a
l

thermometer in the cup f
o
r

t
w
o

m
i
n
u
t
e
s
.

If your hot water is ove
r

1
2
0
°
F
,

l
o
w
e
r

t
h
e

t
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e

setting on your water hea
t
e
r
.

R
e
f
e
r

t
o

y
o
u
r

o
w
n
e
r
’
s

manual to adjust the setting
s
.

TIP: If your water heater is
i
n

a

g
a
r
a
g
e

o
r

u
n
h
e
a
t
e
d

b
a
s
e
m
e
n
t
,

use a water heater blan
k
e
t

t
o

s
a
v
e

a
n

a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l

4

t
o

9

p
e
r
c
e
n
t

on your water heating co
s
t
s
.

W
a
t
e
r

h
e
a
t
e
r

b
l
a
n
k
e
t
s

c
a
n

b
e

found at your local hardwar
e

s
t
o
r
e
.
APPLIANCE
Refrigerator/Freezer
Almost 8 percent of your ele
c
t
r
i
c
i
t
y

u
s
e

g
o
e
s

t
o

y
o
u
r

refrigerator and 2 percen
t

t
o

y
o
u
r

f
r
e
e
z
e
r
.

I
f

t
h
e
y
’
r
e

e
v
e
n

1
0
°
F

colder than necessary, the
e
n
e
r
g
y

t
h
e
y

u
s
e

c
o
u
l
d

g
o

u
p

b
y

2
5

percent.
Use your digital thermom
e
t
e
r

t
o

c
h
e
c
k

t
h
e
temperature. Refrigerators
s
h
o
u
l
d

b
e

s
e
t

b
e
t
w
e
e
n

3
8
°

and 40°F and the freeze
r

s
h
o
u
l
d

b
e

s
e
t

a
t

0
°
F
.

Adjust temperature, if neces
s
a
r
y
.
TIP: Make sure the door is se
a
l
e
d

t
i
g
h
t
l
y
.

C
h
e
c
k

t
h
e

g
a
s
k
e
t

(rubber seal) for cracks a
n
d

d
r
i
e
d
-
o
n

f
o
o
d
.
APPLIANCE
LED Lighting
LED light bulbs use up t
o

8
0

p
e
r
c
e
n
t

l
e
s
s

e
n
e
r
g
y

t
h
a
n

traditional bulbs and last
u
p

t
o

2
5

t
i
m
e
s

l
o
n
g
e
r
.

F
o
r

t
h
e

most savings, use the LED b
u
l
b
s

f
r
o
m

y
o
u
r

k
i
t

t
o

r
e
p
l
a
c
e

incandescent bulbs in hi
g
h
-
u
s
e

a
r
e
a
s
.

T
h
e
n

i
n
s
t
a
l
l

t
h
e

L
E
D

night light in an area that l
i
g
h
t
s

a

p
a
t
h

a
n
d

l
e
t
s

y
o
u

a
v
o
i
d

turning on other lights
.
Replace your most-used

4
5
-
w
a
t
t

b
u
l
b
s

w
i
t
h

t
h
e

7.5-watt LED bulbs from yo
u
r

k
i
t
.
Replace your most-used
6
0
-
w
a
t
t

b
u
l
b
s

w
i
t
h

t
h
e

9-watt LED bulbs from you
r

k
i
t
.
Install the new LED night
l
i
g
h
t

f
r
o
m

y
o
u
r

k
i
t
.
TIP: For the most savings, place

L
E
D

b
u
l
b
s

i
n

f
i
x
t
u
r
e
s

t
h
a
t

a
r
e

o
n

for at least 2-3 hours a day.
Want to Save More?
Idaho Power offers energy
e
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
c
y

i
n
c
e
n
t
i
v
e
s

t
o

r
e
d
u
c
e

t
h
e

cost of energy efficient

p
r
o
d
u
c
t
s

a
n
d
/
o
r

s
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
.

C
h
e
c
k

o
u
t

the programs and tips at
i
d
a
h
o
p
o
w
e
r
.
c
o
m
/
s
a
v
e

t
o

f
i
n
d

m
o
r
e

ways to use energy wisely a
n
d

a
v
o
i
d

u
n
n
e
c
e
s
s
a
r
y

w
a
s
t
e
.
QUICK STEP1
LIGHTING
QUICK START GUIDEEspañol en el otro lado
113749
START SAVING NO
W
! 1
2
3
Install the energy-efficient p
r
o
d
u
c
t
s

i
n

y
o
u
r

k
i
t
.
Follow the energy-saving t
i
p
s

p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d

i
n

t
h
i
s

Q
u
i
c
k

S
t
a
r
t

G
u
i
d
e
.
For additional ways to save,

v
i
s
i
t

i
d
a
h
o
p
o
w
e
r
.
c
o
m
/
s
a
v
e
2
d
a
y
.
Installation Question
s
? See the INSTALLATION INST
R
U
C
T
I
O
N

B
O
O
K
L
E
T

i
n

t
h
e

bottom of your kit.
Visit idahopower.com/s
a
v
e
2
d
a
y

t
o

v
i
e
w

i
n
s
t
a
l
l
a
t
i
o
n

v
i
d
e
o
s
.
Don’t forget!
Return your survey for a

c
h
a
n
c
e

t
o

w
i
n

a

$
1
0
0

g
i
f
t

c
a
r
d
.
Developed in partnership
:

Shower Timer
Running your shower for f
i
v
e

m
i
n
u
t
e
s

c
a
n

u
s
e

a
s

m
u
c
h

e
n
e
r
g
y

as leaving a 60-watt light bu
l
b

o
n

f
o
r

1
4

h
o
u
r
s
.

A

s
h
o
w
e
r

t
i
m
e
r

reminds you to save ene
r
g
y

a
n
d

w
a
t
e
r

w
h
i
l
e

s
h
o
w
e
r
i
n
g
.

T
h
e

shower timer, set to five (5
)

m
i
n
u
t
e
s
,

e
n
c
o
u
r
a
g
e
s

t
h
e

w
i
s
e

u
s
e

of water. It requires no
a
s
s
e
m
b
l
y

o
r

m
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
.

S
i
m
p
l
y

r
o
t
a
t
e

the shower timer half a tu
r
n

w
h
e
n

y
o
u

b
e
g
i
n

y
o
u
r

s
h
o
w
e
r
;

t
h
e
n

try to finish before the sand

r
u
n
s

o
u
t
.
Install the new shower t
i
m
e
r

f
r
o
m

y
o
u
r

k
i
t
.
TIP: The average shower is 8
.
2

–

1
0
.
4

m
i
n
u
t
e
s

i
n

l
e
n
g
t
h
.

A

f
i
v
e
-
minute shower reduces
e
n
e
r
g
y

u
s
e
d

t
o

p
u
m
p

a
n
d

h
e
a
t

w
a
t
e
r
,

saves fresh water and redu
c
e
s

w
a
s
t
e
w
a
t
e
r
.
QUICK STEP2
WATER AND ENERGY
Water Flow-Rate Test Ba
g
If your showerhead uses

m
o
r
e

t
h
a
n

2
.
5

g
a
l
l
o
n
s

o
f

w
a
t
e
r

p
e
r

minute (gpm) or your fauc
e
t
s

u
s
e

m
o
r
e

t
h
a
n

1
.
5

g
p
m
,

y
o
u

c
o
u
l
d

save by installing a high-effi
c
i
e
n
c
y

s
h
o
w
e
r
h
e
a
d

a
n
d

f
a
u
c
e
t

aerators. These devices s
a
v
e

w
a
t
e
r

a
n
d

e
n
e
r
g
y

w
h
i
l
e

d
e
l
i
v
e
r
i
n
g

good pressure.
With a stopwatch and
a

h
e
l
p
e
r
,

f
o
l
l
o
w

t
h
e

s
i
x

s
t
e
p
s

on the flow-rate test bag

t
o

m
e
a
s
u
r
e

t
h
e

w
a
t
e
r

u
s
e

o
f

your current showerhead.
Now measure the output
o
f

y
o
u
r

k
i
t
c
h
e
n

f
a
u
c
e
t

a
n
d

bathroom faucets.
TIP: Idaho Power offers inc
e
n
t
i
v
e
s

f
o
r
efficient showerheads b
y

w
o
r
k
i
n
g

w
i
t
h
manufacturers and partic
i
p
a
t
i
n
g

r
e
t
a
i
l
e
r
s
.
Go to idahopower.com/sho
w
e
r
h
e
a
d
s

f
o
r
promotion details.
QUICK STEP3
WATER
QUICK STEP4
QUICK STEP5
Refrigerator/Freeze
r
Almost 8 percent of yo
u
r

e
l
e
c
t
r
i
c
i
t
y

u
s
e

g
o
e
s

t
o

y
o
u
r

refrigerator and 2 per
c
e
n
t

t
o

y
o
u
r

f
r
e
e
z
e
r
.

I
f

t
h
e
y
’
r
e

e
v
e
n

1
0
°
F

colder than necessa
r
y
,

t
h
e

e
n
e
r
g
y

t
h
e
y

u
s
e

c
o
u
l
d

g
o

u
p

b
y

2
5

percent.
Use your digital therm
o
m
e
t
e
r

t
o

c
h
e
c
k

t
h
e

temperature. Refrige
r
a
t
o
r
s

s
h
o
u
l
d

b
e

s
e
t

b
e
t
w
e
e
n

3
8
°

and 40°F and the free
z
e
r

s
h
o
u
l
d

b
e

s
e
t

a
t

0
°
F
.

Adjust temperature, if

n
e
c
e
s
s
a
r
y
.
TIP: Make sure the doo
r

i
s

s
e
a
l
e
d

t
i
g
h
t
l
y
.

C
h
e
c
k

t
h
e

g
a
s
k
e
t

(rubber seal) for crac
k
s

a
n
d

d
r
i
e
d
-
o
n

f
o
o
d
.
LED Lighting
LED light bulbs use up

t
o

8
0

p
e
r
c
e
n
t

l
e
s
s

e
n
e
r
g
y

t
h
a
n

traditional bulbs and
l
a
s
t

u
p

t
o

2
5

t
i
m
e
s

l
o
n
g
e
r
.

F
o
r

t
h
e

most savings, use the L
E
D

b
u
l
b
s

f
r
o
m

y
o
u
r

k
i
t

t
o

r
e
p
l
a
c
e

incandescent bulbs in

h
i
g
h
-
u
s
e

a
r
e
a
s
.

T
h
e
n

i
n
s
t
a
l
l

t
h
e

L
E
D

night light in an area th
a
t

l
i
g
h
t
s

a

p
a
t
h

a
n
d

l
e
t
s

y
o
u

a
v
o
i
d

turning on other light
s
.
Replace your most-us
e
d

4
5
-
w
a
t
t

b
u
l
b
s

w
i
t
h

t
h
e

7.5-watt LED bulbs f
r
o
m

y
o
u
r

k
i
t
.
Replace your most-u
s
e
d

6
0
-
w
a
t
t

b
u
l
b
s

w
i
t
h

t
h
e

9-watt LED bulbs from

y
o
u
r

k
i
t
.
Install the new LED

n
i
g
h
t

l
i
g
h
t

f
r
o
m

y
o
u
r

k
i
t
.
TIP: For the most savings,
p
l
a
c
e

L
E
D

b
u
l
b
s

i
n

f
i
x
t
u
r
e
s

t
h
a
t

a
r
e

o
n

for at least 2-3 hours a

d
a
y
.
Water Efficiency
When taking a shower
,

y
o
u

u
s
e

t
w
o

r
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
—
w
a
t
e
r

a
n
d

energy to heat the w
a
t
e
r
.

T
h
e
r
e
’
s

a
l
s
o

t
h
e

e
n
e
r
g
y

i
t

t
a
k
e
s

t
o

pump, move and treat

t
h
e

w
a
t
e
r

t
o

c
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
.

I
n
s
t
a
l
l

t
h
e

3-way
high-efficiency show
e
r
h
e
a
d

a
n
d

f
a
u
c
e
t

a
e
r
a
t
o
r
s

f
r
o
m

y
o
u
r

kit. You’ll find that the
s
e

i
t
e
m
s

p
r
o
v
i
d
e

g
o
o
d

p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

a
n
d

a

satisfying result.
Install the new high-e
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
c
y

s
h
o
w
e
r
h
e
a
d

f
r
o
m

your kit.
Install the new kitch
e
n

f
a
u
c
e
t

a
e
r
a
t
o
r

f
r
o
m

y
o
u
r

k
i
t
.
Install the new bath
r
o
o
m

f
a
u
c
e
t

a
e
r
a
t
o
r
s

f
r
o
m

y
o
u
r

k
i
t
.
TIP: You can compare the
w
a
t
e
r

f
l
o
w

r
a
t
e

o
f

y
o
u
r

o
l
d

s
h
o
w
e
r
h
e
a
d

with the new one by
f
o
l
l
o
w
i
n
g

t
h
e

s
i
x

s
t
e
p
s

o
n

t
h
e

f
l
o
w
-
r
a
t
e

t
e
s
t

bag included in the bot
t
o
m

o
f

y
o
u
r

k
i
t
.
QUICK STEP2
WATER AND
ENERGY
QUICK STEP1
LIGHTING
QUICK START GUI
D
E
Español en el otro lad
o
113719
START SAVING NO
W
!

1
2
3
Install the energy-eff
i
c
i
e
n
t

p
r
o
d
u
c
t
s

i
n

y
o
u
r

k
i
t
.
Follow the energy-s
a
v
i
n
g

t
i
p
s

p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d

i
n

t
h
i
s

Q
u
i
c
k

S
t
a
r
t

G
u
i
d
e
.
For additional ways
t
o

s
a
v
e
,

v
i
s
i
t

i
d
a
h
o
p
o
w
e
r
.
c
o
m
/
s
a
v
e
2
d
a
y
.
Installation Questio
n
s
?
See the INSTALLATIO
N

I
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N

B
O
O
K
L
E
T

i
n

t
h
e

bottom of your kit.
Visit idahopower.com
/
s
a
v
e
2
d
a
y

t
o

v
i
e
w

i
n
s
t
a
l
l
a
t
i
o
n

v
i
d
e
o
s
.
Don’t forget!
Return your survey fo
r

a

c
h
a
n
c
e

t
o

w
i
n

a

$
1
0
0

g
i
f
t

c
a
r
d
.
Developed in partner
s
h
i
p
:

QUICK STEP5
APPLIANCE
QUICK STEP4
APPLIANCE
Water Heater
Heating water can ac
c
o
u
n
t

f
o
r

1
4

t
o

2
5

p
e
r
c
e
n
t

o
f

t
h
e

e
n
e
r
g
y

consumed in your h
o
m
e
.

M
a
n
y

p
e
o
p
l
e

t
h
i
n
k

p
l
a
c
i
n
g

a

w
a
t
e
r

heater on the hottest

s
e
t
t
i
n
g

h
e
a
t
s

t
h
e

w
a
t
e
r

m
o
r
e

q
u
i
c
k
l
y

b
u
t

it doesn’t. It just use
s

m
o
r
e

e
n
e
r
g
y
.

U
s
e

t
h
e

d
i
g
i
t
a
l

t
h
e
r
m
o
m
e
t
e
r

from your kit to chec
k

t
h
e

w
a
t
e
r

t
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e
.

I
f

i
t
’
s

o
v
e
r

1
2
0
°
F
,

you may be overhea
t
i
n
g

y
o
u
r

w
a
t
e
r

a
n
d

w
a
s
t
i
n
g

e
n
e
r
g
y
!
Fill a cup with the ho
t
t
e
s
t

w
a
t
e
r

f
r
o
m

t
h
e

f
a
u
c
e
t

farthest from the wate
r

h
e
a
t
e
r
.

P
l
a
c
e

t
h
e

d
i
g
i
t
a
l

thermometer in the c
u
p

f
o
r

t
w
o

m
i
n
u
t
e
s
.

If your hot water is o
v
e
r

1
2
0
°
F
,

l
o
w
e
r

t
h
e

t
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e

setting on your water
h
e
a
t
e
r
.

R
e
f
e
r

t
o

y
o
u
r

o
w
n
e
r
’
s

manual to adjust the

s
e
t
t
i
n
g
s
.

TIP: If your water heater is

i
n

a

g
a
r
a
g
e

o
r

u
n
h
e
a
t
e
d

b
a
s
e
m
e
n
t
,

use a water heater bl
a
n
k
e
t

t
o

s
a
v
e

a
n

a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l

4

t
o

9

p
e
r
c
e
n
t

on your water heati
n
g

c
o
s
t
s
.

W
a
t
e
r

h
e
a
t
e
r

b
l
a
n
k
e
t
s

c
a
n

b
e

found at your local ha
r
d
w
a
r
e

s
t
o
r
e
.
Shower Timer
Running your shower

f
o
r

f
i
v
e

m
i
n
u
t
e
s

c
a
n

u
s
e

a
s

m
u
c
h

e
n
e
r
g
y

as leaving a 60-watt

l
i
g
h
t

b
u
l
b

o
n

f
o
r

1
4

h
o
u
r
s
.

A

s
h
o
w
e
r

t
i
m
e
r

reminds you to save e
n
e
r
g
y

a
n
d

w
a
t
e
r

w
h
i
l
e

s
h
o
w
e
r
i
n
g
.

T
h
e

shower timer, set to

f
i
v
e

(
5
)

m
i
n
u
t
e
s
,

e
n
c
o
u
r
a
g
e
s

t
h
e

w
i
s
e

u
s
e

of water. It requires no

a
s
s
e
m
b
l
y

o
r

m
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
.

S
i
m
p
l
y

r
o
t
a
t
e

the shower timer ha
l
f

a

t
u
r
n

w
h
e
n

y
o
u

b
e
g
i
n

y
o
u
r

s
h
o
w
e
r
;

t
h
e
n

try to finish before the

s
a
n
d

r
u
n
s

o
u
t
.
Install the new show
e
r

t
i
m
e
r

f
r
o
m

y
o
u
r

k
i
t
.
TIP: The average shower is

8
.
2

–

1
0
.
4

m
i
n
u
t
e
s

i
n

l
e
n
g
t
h
.

A

f
i
v
e
-
minute shower reduce
s

e
n
e
r
g
y

u
s
e
d

t
o

p
u
m
p

a
n
d

h
e
a
t

w
a
t
e
r
,

saves fresh water an
d

r
e
d
u
c
e
s

w
a
s
t
e
w
a
t
e
r
.
QUICK STEP3
WATER AND
ENERGY
Want to Save More?
Idaho Power offers e
n
e
r
g
y

e
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
c
y

i
n
c
e
n
t
i
v
e
s

t
o

r
e
d
u
c
e

t
h
e

cost of energy efficien
t

p
r
o
d
u
c
t
s

a
n
d
/
o
r

s
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
.

C
h
e
c
k

o
u
t

the programs and tip
s

a
t

i
d
a
h
o
p
o
w
e
r
.
c
o
m
/
s
a
v
e

t
o

f
i
n
d

m
o
r
e

ways to use energy w
i
s
e
l
y

a
n
d

a
v
o
i
d

u
n
n
e
c
e
s
s
a
r
y

w
a
s
t
e
.
Resource Action Programs®13Program Materials
Included Efficiency Measures
Six 9-Watt LEDs (800 Lumens)
Three 7.5-Watt LEDs (480 Lumens)
IPC branded LED Night Light
High Efficiency Showerhead
Kitchen and Bathroom Faucet Aerators
Shower Timer
Digital Thermometer
Each participating household received an energy-saving kit containing efficiency measures for their
homes and a Quick Start Guide with energy efficiency information and behavioral tips. The materials
were customized for Idaho Power. Households with electric water heating received an electric kit
(including water-saving measures). Households with other water heating options received a
non-electric kit (not including water-saving measures).
Idaho Power Energy-Saving Kit
Program Materials
Included Educational Materials
Quick Start Guide
Survey
Survey Envelope (postage prepaid)
Sticker and Magnet Reminder
Mini-Home Assessment (Idaho Power provided)
Installation Instructions
* An Electric Kit
Idaho Power Energy-Saving Kit Program Summary Report14Program Implementation
15038 A0065 Idaho Power DTC
1. What type of home do you live in?
Single family home - Detached
Apartment, Condo, Townhouse, or Multi-family with 2-3 units
Apartment, Condo, Townhouse, or Multi-family with 4 or more units
Mobile/Manufactured home
2. How many people live in your home?
5 or more 3 1
4 2
3. How many of the LEDs did you install?
All of them 5-6 1-2
7-8 3-4 None
4. If you did not install all of the LEDs, what did you do with the remainder?
Plan to install, just haven’t yet Gave them to someone else
Stored for later use Other
Have you installed the Yes Not yet, but will No, won’t use
5. High-Efficienc Showerhead?
6. Kitchen Faucet Aerator?
7. Bathroom Faucet Aerator #1?
8. Bathroom Faucet Aerator #2?
Have you used the Yes Not yet, but will No, won’t use
9. LED Night Light?
10. Shower Timer?
11. Flow-Rate Test Bag to test the
flo rate of your shower or faucets?
12. If you used the Digital Thermometer to check the temperature of your
w
a
t
e
r
,

what was the temperature?
> 140° F < 120° F
131° F to 140° F Did not check water temperature
120° F to 130° F
Did you adjust the temperature of your Yes Yes No
I lowered it I raised it I did not adjust
13. Electric water heater?
14. Refrigerator?
15. Freezer?
16. How satisfie were you with the kit ordering process?
Very satisfied Somewhat dissatisfie
Somewhat satisfie Very dissatisfie
17. Did you receive your kit within 3 weeks?
Yes No
18. How likely would you be to tell a friend or family member to order a kit?
Very likely Somewhat unlikely
Somewhat likely Very unlikely
19. Prior to hearing about the Energy-Saving Kits, were you aware Idaho Po
w
e
r

h
a
d

energy efficienc programs and incentives?
Yes No
20. Have you ever gone to Idaho Power’s website to look for information about
energy efficienc programs or to fin ways to save?
Yes No
21. How likely are you to participate in another energy efficienc program?
Very likely Somewhat unlikely
Somewhat likely Very unlikely
22. If you did not install some of the kit items, please tell us why.

Return this survey in the postage-paid envelope included in your kit.
You will be entered into our monthly drawing for a chance to win a $100 gift

c
a
r
d
.
0000000
100Gift Cd$
INSTAL LATION SURVEY
(Español en el otro lado)
Compl e šis survey
‚r a ƒ„… † win a
*
1. Install the energy-efficient products in your kit.
2. Follow the energy-saving tips provided in the
quick start guide.
3. Return this survey for a chance to win a $100
gift card!
(Postage-paid envelope included)
All you have to do is...
*For contest details visit Idahopower.com/save2day
Fill in each bubble completely
Use a black pen to fill in the bubble
next to the correct answer.
113729
YES NO
113729 15038 Idaho_Power Survey Electric.indd 1-3
6/2/16 2:38 PM
15038 A0065

I
d
a
h
o

P
o
w
e
r

D
T
C

1. What type of ho
m
e

d
o

y
o
u

l
i
v
e

i
n
?
Single family

h
o
m
e

-

D
e
t
a
c
h
e
d
Apartment, Co
n
d
o
,

T
o
w
n
h
o
u
s
e
,

o
r

M
u
l
t
i
-
f
a
m
i
l
y

w
i
t
h

2
-
3

u
n
i
t
s
Apartment, C
o
n
d
o
,

T
o
w
n
h
o
u
s
e
,

o
r

M
u
l
t
i
-
f
a
m
i
l
y

w
i
t
h

4

o
r

m
o
r
e

u
n
i
t
s
Mobile/Man
u
f
a
c
t
u
r
e
d

h
o
m
e
2. How many p
e
o
p
l
e

l
i
v
e

i
n

y
o
u
r

h
o
m
e
?
5 or more
3
1
4
23. How many of th
e

L
E
D
s

d
i
d

y
o
u

i
n
s
t
a
l
l
?
All of them
5-6
1-2
7-8
3-4
None
4. If you did not in
s
t
a
l
l

a
l
l

o
f

t
h
e

L
E
D
s
,

w
h
a
t

d
i
d

y
o
u

d
o

w
i
t
h

t
h
e

r
e
m
a
i
n
d
e
r
?
Plan to insta
l
l
,

j
u
s
t

h
a
v
e
n
’
t

y
e
t

Gave them
t
o

s
o
m
e
o
n
e

e
l
s
e
Stored for late
r

u
s
e

Other
Have you installe
d

t
h
e

Yes Not yet, b
u
t

w
i
l
l

N
o
,

w
o
n
’
t

u
s
e
5. High-Efficienc Showerhead?

6. Kitchen Faucet
A
e
r
a
t
o
r
?

7. Bathroom Faucet

A
e
r
a
t
o
r

#
1
?

8. Bathroom Fauce
t

A
e
r
a
t
o
r

#
2
?

Have you used th
e

Yes Not yet,
b
u
t

w
i
l
l

N
o
,

w
o
n
’
t

u
s
e
9. LED Night L
i
g
h
t
?

10. Shower Timer?

11. Flow-Rate Test B
a
g

t
o

t
e
s
t

the
flo rate of your shower or faucets?

12. If you used t
h
e

D
i
g
i
t
a
l

T
h
e
r
m
o
m
e
t
e
r

t
o

c
h
e
c
k

t
h
e

t
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e

o
f

y
o
u
r

w
a
t
e
r
,

what was the te
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e
? > 140° F
< 120° F
131° F to 14
0
°

F

Did not chec
k

w
a
t
e
r

t
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e
120° F to 1
3
0
°

F
Did you adjust th
e

t
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e

o
f

y
o
u
r

Yes Yes No

I lowered it
I

r
a
i
s
e
d

i
t

I

d
i
d

n
o
t

a
d
j
u
s
t
13. Electric wa
t
e
r

h
e
a
t
e
r
?

14. Refrigerator?

15. Freezer?

16. How satisfie were you with the kit ordering process?
Very satisfied
Somewhat dissatisfie
Somewhat
satisfie
Very dissatisfie
17. Did you recei
v
e

y
o
u
r

k
i
t

w
i
t
h
i
n

3

w
e
e
k
s
?
Yes No18. How likely w
o
u
l
d

y
o
u

b
e

t
o

t
e
l
l

a

f
r
i
e
n
d

o
r

f
a
m
i
l
y

m
e
m
b
e
r

t
o

o
r
d
e
r

a

k
i
t
?
Very likely
Somewhat u
n
l
i
k
e
l
y
Somewhat
l
i
k
e
l
y

Very unlikel
y
19. Prior to hearing a
b
o
u
t

t
h
e

E
n
e
r
g
y
-
S
a
v
i
n
g

K
i
t
s
,

w
e
r
e

y
o
u

a
w
a
r
e

I
d
a
h
o

P
o
w
e
r

h
a
d

energy efficienc programs and incentives?
Yes No20. Have you ever gon
e

t
o

I
d
a
h
o

P
o
w
e
r
’
s

w
e
b
s
i
t
e

t
o

l
o
o
k

f
o
r

i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n

a
b
o
u
t

energy efficienc programs or to fin ways to save?
Yes No21. How likely are you to participate in another energy efficienc program?
Very likely
Somewhat u
n
l
i
k
e
l
y
Somewhat
l
i
k
e
l
y

Very unlike
l
y
22. If you did n
o
t

i
n
s
t
a
l
l

s
o
m
e

o
f

t
h
e

k
i
t

i
t
e
m
s
,

p
l
e
a
s
e

t
e
l
l

u
s

w
h
y
.

Return this surv
e
y

i
n

t
h
e

p
o
s
t
a
g
e
-
p
a
i
d

e
n
v
e
l
o
p
e

i
n
c
l
u
d
e
d

i
n

y
o
u
r

k
i
t
.
You will be enter
e
d

i
n
t
o

o
u
r

m
o
n
t
h
l
y

d
r
a
w
i
n
g

f
o
r

a

c
h
a
n
c
e

t
o

w
i
n

a

$
1
0
0

g
i
f
t

c
a
r
d
.
0000000100Gift Cd
$
INSTAL LATION SUR
V
E
Y
(Español en
e
l

o
t
r
o

l
a
d
o
)
Compl e š
i
s

s
u
r
v
e
y‚r a ƒ„…
†

w
i
n

a
*
1. Install the e
n
e
r
g
y
-
e
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t

p
r
o
d
u
c
t
s

i
n

y
o
u
r

k
i
t
.
2. Follow the
e
n
e
r
g
y
-
s
a
v
i
n
g

t
i
p
s

p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d

i
n

t
h
e

quick start g
u
i
d
e
.

3. Return this
s
u
r
v
e
y

f
o
r

a

c
h
a
n
c
e

t
o

w
i
n

a

$
1
0
0

gift card!
(Postage-pai
d

e
n
v
e
l
o
p
e

i
n
c
l
u
d
e
d
)
All you have

t
o

d
o

i
s
.
.
.
*For contest deta
i
l
s

v
i
s
i
t

I
d
a
h
o
p
o
w
e
r
.
c
o
m
/
s
a
v
e
2
d
a
y
Fill in each b
u
b
b
l
e

c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
l
y
Use a black pen

t
o

f
i
l
l

i
n

t
h
e

b
u
b
b
l
e

next to the
c
o
r
r
e
c
t

a
n
s
w
e
r
.
113729
YES NO
113729 15038 Idah
o
_
P
o
w
e
r

S
u
r
v
e
y

E
l
e
c
t
r
i
c
.
i
n
d
d

1
-
3
6/2/16 2:38 PM
Resource Action Programs®15Program Implementation
An introductory marketing direct mailer, supported by the information on the Idaho Power website,
merited positive results. Many shared their positive program experience with their family and
friends though social media, word of mouth, and emails. Additional exposure through local news
features and community events (e.g. Fort Hall energy visit) resulted in a tremendous surge of
demand for the program.
Participation was processed and tracked at the RAP Program Center, which has the capacity to
handle in excess of 100,000 requests per month. The program website, a toll-free phone number,
and the business reply postcards provided convenient methods for interested households to order
a kit and participate in the program.
Orders were tracked and managed daily from all outreach and enrollment sources. Program
materials and products were packaged and addressed for individual home delivery. All Program
modules received a unique ID number to improve the accuracy of data tracking and reduce the
amount of information required from respondents.
All enrollments, shipping, and survey data were managed by RAP’s proprietary Program Database. In
addition, all returned surveys were tabulated and included in the program database. This procedure
allows for reporting, which is an important element for tracking the measurements and goals of
this program.
Idaho Power Energy-Saving Kit
Program Implementation
Idaho Power Energy-Saving Kit Program Summary Report16Program Impact
“Love this kit. It is great. I’ve
told many friends to check out
your website.”
– Idaho Power Energy-Saving Kit Program Participant
Resource Action Programs®17Program Impact
The program impacted 115 cities and towns throughout Idaho and 18 cities and towns in Oregon. As
illustrated below, the program successfully educated those in participating households about energy
and water efficiency while generating resource savings through the installation of efficiency measures
in their homes. Home survey and installation information was collected to track savings and gather
household consumption and demographic data. The three program elements, described on the next few
pages, were used to collect this data.
A. Home Survey and Retrofit Data
Upon completion of the program, participating households were asked to complete a home survey to
assess their resource use, verify product installation, provide demographic information, and measure
participation rates. Sample questions appear below and a complete summary of all responses is
included in Appendix B.
Did you install ALL 9 LED Light Bulbs? Yes - 57%
Did you install the LED Night Light? Yes - 93%
Did you install the High-Efficiency Showerhead? Yes - 72%
Did you use the Shower Timer? Yes - 68%
Idaho Power Energy-Saving Kit
Program Impact
72+28+F
Reported households
with the High-Efficiency
Showerhead installed.*
72%62+38+F
Reported households who
used the Shower Timer.*
68%57+43+F
Reported households
with ALL 9 LED Light
Bulbs installed.
57%93+7+F
Reported households
with the LED Night Light
installed.*
93%
Idaho Power Energy-Saving Kit Program Summary Report18Program Impact
B. Water and Energy Savings Summary
As part of the program, participants installed retrofit efficiency measures in their homes. Using the
family habits collected from the home survey as the basis for this calculation, 34,546 households are
expected to save the following resource totals. Savings from these actions and new behaviors will
continue for many years to come.
Projected Resource Savings
A list of assumptions and formulas used for these calculations can be found in Appendix A.
Total Number of Participants: 34,546
Number of Electric Only Participants: 19,715
Number of Non-Electric Participants: 14,831
Annual Lifetime
Projected reduction from Showerhead retrofit:109,655,053 1,096,550,530 gallons
Measure Life: 10 years 3,686,705 36,867,050 kWh
Projected reduction from Shower Timer installation:39,547,809 79,095,617 gallons
Product Life: 2 years 2,962,052 5,924,104 kWh
109,128 218,256 therms
Projected reduction from Kitchen Faucet Aerator retrofit:46,622,046 466,220,464 gallons
Measure Life: 10 years 2,089,790 20,897,900 kWh
Projected reduction from Bathroom Faucet Aerator retrofit:33,567,873 335,678,734 gallons
Measure Life: 10 years 4,179,580 41,795,800 kWh
Projected reduction from 9-watt LED Light Bulbs:2,280,036 27,360,432 kWh
Measure Life: 12 years
Projected reduction from 7.5-watt LED Light Bulbs:1,036,380 12,436,560 kWh
Measure Life: 12 years
Projected reduction from LED Night Light:916,856 9,168,559 kWh
Measure Life: 10 years
TOTAL PROJECTED PROGRAM SAVINGS:229,392,781 1,977,545,345 gallons
17,151,399 154,450,405 kWh
109,128 218,256 therms
TOTAL PROJECTED PROGRAM SAVINGS PER HOUSEHOLD: 11,635.44 100,306.64 gallons
496 4,471 kWh
3 6 therms
Resource Action Programs®19Program Impact
C. Participant Response
Participant response to Idaho Power’s various outreach methods combined with social media and
interpersonal communication resulted in an overwhelming demand for the program. Idaho Power
increased the budget and the kit availability for this program in order to fulfill all residential customer
orders. The participants utilized the Quick Start Guide to choose which measures and actions to take.
Installation videos and text instructions made retrofit projects easy to complete. The installation rate
data and the participant satisfaction data presented in this report were provided by kit surveys.
SURVEY TYPE KITS SHIPPED SURVEYS RECEIVED SURVEY %
Electric 19,715 2,790 14.2%
Non-electric 14,831 2,588 17.4%
TOTAL 34,546 5,378 15.6%
94+6+F
Reported households
that were very likely to
tell a friend or family
member to order a kit.
94%86+14+F
Reported households
that were very likely to
participate in another
energy efficiency program.
86%95+5+F
Reported households
that were very satisfied
with the ordering process.
95%91+9+F
Reported households
that received their kits
within 3 weeks.
91%
How satisfied were you with the kit ordering process? Very Satisfied - 95%
Did you receive your kit within 3 weeks? Yes - 91%
How likely would you be to tell a friend or family member to order a kit? Very Likely - 94%
How likely are you to participate in another energy efficiency program? Very Likely - 86%
Idaho Power Energy-Saving Kit Program Summary Report20Program Impact
Thank you for the tips and the kit. All of my co-workers and friends are going to order them too.
The materials were easy to read, colorful, and informative.
We are very grateful Idaho Power has put out this kit, it is so good of you to do this for everyone and give us a
chance to really save some money. In this day and age, we do need to watch what we spend. We are low income
seniors who are very grateful for anything we can get. Thank you very much easy savings center.
We are very grateful.
Thank you for offering the energy efficiency products. I have told friends and family so they are ordering them
also. I appreciate you helping us save money and helping with the environment!!!
Loved all the items and felt it was important to use all of them. Thank you very much. Will be getting more LED’s
for my home soon. I told my oldest daughter about your program.
Love this kit. It is great. I’ve told many friends to check out your website.
I installed all of the kit items right away. Thank you for this offer. It was very helpful.
I love this kit! Telling everyone I know about it!
I used everything, love the kit. Changed out my windows and all my appliances. Want to learn more and become
more efficient.
I have previously replaced most of the light bulbs in the house with LED bulbs. Due to the cost of the bulbs I was
waiting until they burned out but when I got this kit I HAPPILY replaced the remaining non-LED bulbs.
Thank you!
I installed all. Thank you. I like all of them!
I love my new light bulbs. They are so bright. What a great gift. I’ll buy more of them. Thank you.
Very nice way to help us conserve on our energy cost and usage. Thanks
All installed – 2 thumbs up
I installed all of them, love the light bulbs and shower timer.
Excellent ideas!
I used everything. Thank you !! :)
Participant Responses
Resource Action Programs®21Program Impact
Very helpful stuff – really like the LED lights and dimmable lights.

Thank you for a great value! I appreciate everything in the kit!
All items installed! Thank you for the energy saving help!
I used everything that was sent and I love it. Thank you so much for this awesome program.
I used them all – I love the night light. Thank you for the kit.
All items are helpful and informative! We need to pay more attention to these details. Thanks for your efforts.
I installed everything just wanted to say thank you!
All were installed – Thank you very much!
I am 82 years old. My son will do the rest. I like all of them. The showerhead was excellent. Will use all.
I installed all the items. Thank you.
Participant Responses (continued)
Idaho Power Energy-Saving Kit Program Summary Report22Appendices
* An Electric Kit
Resource Action Programs®23Appendices
Appendix A
Projected Savings from 9-Watt LED Retrofit ...............................................24
Projected Savings from 7.5-Watt LED Retrofit ............................................24
Projected Savings from Showerhead Retrofit .............................................25
Projected Savings from Kitchen Faucet Aerator Retrofit ..........................26
Projected Savings from Bathroom Faucet Aerator Retrofit .......................27
Projected Savings from LED Night Light Installation .................................28
Projected Savings from Shower Timer Installation.....................................29
Appendix B
Enrollment Survey Response Summary ........................................................30
Kit Survey Response Summary .......................................................................31
Appendix C
Program Marketing ..........................................................................................34
Appendix D
Idaho Cities & Towns Affected .......................................................................35
Oregon Cities & Towns Affected ....................................................................36
Idaho Power Regions Affected .......................................................................37
Appendices
Idaho Power Energy-Saving Kit Program Summary Report24Appendix A
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x

A
9-watt LED Light Bulb retrofit inputs and assumptions:
Lamps per participant: 6
Number of participants:34,546
Deemed savings per lamp (kWh): 11 kWh1
Measure life:12 years1
Projected Electricity Savings:
The LED retrofit projects an annual reduction of: 2,280,036 kWh2
The LED retrofit projects a lifetime reduction of:27,360,432 kWh3
1 Regional Technical Forum. ResLightingCFLandLEDLamps_v3_3.xslm. Mail by request. LED general purpose and Dimmable. 665 to 1439 lumens.
2 LED kWh savings formula (Deemed savings per lamp x Number of participants x Lamps per participant).
3 LED kWh lifetime savings formula (Annual savings x Measure Life).
7.5-watt LED Light Bulb retrofit inputs and assumptions:
Lamps per participant: 3
Number of participants:34,546
Deemed savings per lamp (kWh): 10 kWh1
Measure life:12 years1
Projected Electricity Savings:
The LED retrofit projects an annual reduction of: 1,036,380 kWh2
The LED retrofit projects a lifetime reduction of:12,436,560 kWh3
1 Regional Technical Forum. ResLightingCFLandLEDLamps_v3_3.xslm. Mail by request. LED general purpose and Dimmable. 250 to 664 lumens.
2 LED kWh savings formula (Deemed savings per lamp x Number of participants x Lamps per participant).
3 LED kWh lifetime savings formula (Annual savings x Measure Life).
Projected Savings from 9-Watt LED Retrofit
Projected Savings from 7.5-Watt LED Retrofit
Resource Action Programs®25Appendix A
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x

A
Showerhead retrofit inputs and assumptions:
Showerheads per electric DHW kit: 1
Number of electric DHW participants: 19,715
Domestic electric hot water reported:100%1
Number of people per household: 2.59 1
Deemed Savings: 187 2
Length of average shower: 7.84 minutes3
Showerhead (baseline): 2.50 gpm3
Showerhead new (retrofit): 1.75 gpm
Measure life: 10.00 years2
Projected Water Savings:
Showerhead retrofit projects an annual reduction of:109,655,053 gallons4
Showerhead retrofit projects a lifetime reduction of:1,096,550,530 gallons4
Projected Electricity Savings:
Showerhead retrofit projects an annual reduction of:3,686,705 kWh5
Showerhead retrofit projects a lifetime reduction of:36,867,050 kWh5
1 Data Reported by Program Participants.
2 Regional Technical Forum - ResShowerheads_v2_1 xlsm. Mail by request. 1.75 gpm Any shower Electric water heating.
3 (March 20, 2014). Blessing Memo for LivingWise Kits for 2014, Paul Sklar, E.I., Planning Engineer Energy Trust of Oregon.
4 Showerhead Gallons Formula (Number of participants x (Showerhead baseline - Showerhead new) x Length of average shower x Days per year x People per household).
5 Showerhead kWh formula (Number of Participants x Deemed Savings).
Projected Savings from Showerhead Retrofit
Idaho Power Energy-Saving Kit Program Summary Report26Appendix A
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x

A
Kitchen Faucet Aerator retrofit inputs and assumptions:
Kitchen Faucet Aerator per electric DHW kit: 1
Number of electric DHW participants: 19,715
Domestic electric hot water reported:100%1
Number of people per household: 2.59 1
Savings: 106.00 kWh2
Average daily use: 2.50 minutes 3
Kitchen Faucet Aerator (baseline): 2.50 gpm3
Kitchen Faucet Aerator (retrofit): 1.50 gpm
Measure life:10.00 years3
Projected Water Savings:
Kitchen Faucet Aerator retrofit projects an annual reduction of:46,622,046 gallons4
Kitchen Faucet Aerator retrofit projects a lifetime reduction of:466,220,464 gallons4
Projected Electricity Savings:
Kitchen Faucet Aerator retrofit projects an annual reduction of:2,089,790 kWh5
Kitchen Faucet Aerator retrofit projects a lifetime reduction of:20,897,900 kWh6
1 Data Reported by Program Participants.
2 Applied Energy Group. Idaho Power Energy Efficiency Potential Study, 2012.
3 (March 20, 2014). Blessing Memo for LivingWise Kits for 2014, Paul Sklar, E.I., Planning Engineer Energy Trust of Oregon.
4 Kitchen Aerators gallons formula (Number of Participants x (Kitchen aerator baseline - Kitchen aerator retrofit) x Average Daily Use x Days per year x People per
household).
5 Kitchen Aerators kWh formula (Number of Participants x Savings).
6 Kitchen Faucet Aerator kWh lifetime savings formula (Annual savings x Measure life).
Projected Savings from Kitchen Faucet Aerator Retrofit
Resource Action Programs®27Appendix A
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x

A
Bathroom Faucet Aerator retrofit inputs and assumptions:
Bathroom Faucet Aerator per electric DHW kit: 2
Number of electric DHW participants:19,715
Domestic electric hot water reported:100%1
Number of people per household:2.59 1
Savings:106 kWh2
Average daily use: 1.50 minutes 3
Bathroom Faucet Aerator (baseline): 2.20 gpm3
Bathroom Faucet Aerator (retrofit): 1.00 gpm
Measure life: 10.00 years3
Projected Water Savings:
Bathroom Faucet Aerator retrofit projects an annual reduction of:33,567,873 gallons4
Bathroom Faucet Aerator retrofit projects a lifetime reduction of:335,678,734 gallons4
Projected Electricity Savings:
Bathroom Faucet Aerator retrofit projects an annual reduction of:4,179,580 kWh5
Bathroom Faucet Aerator retrofit projects a lifetime reduction of:41,795,800 kWh6
1 Data Reported by Program Participants.
2 Applied Energy Group. Idaho Power Energy Efficiency Potential Study, 2012.
3 (March 20, 2014). Blessing Memo for LivingWise Kits for 2014, Paul Sklar, E.I., Planning Engineer Energy Trust of Oregon.
4 Bathroom Faucet Aerator gallons formula ((People per Household x Average daily use) x (Bathroom faucet baseline - Bathroom faucet retrofit) x Days per year x Number of
Participants).
5 Bathroom Faucet Aerator kWh formula (Number of participants x savings x Bathroom Faucet Aerators per electric DHW kit).
6 Bathroom Faucet Aerator kWh lifetime savings formula (Annual savings x Measure life).
Projected Savings from Bathroom Faucet Aerator Retrofit
Idaho Power Energy-Saving Kit Program Summary Report28Appendix A
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x

A
Energy Efficient Night Light Retrofit Inputs and Assumptions:
Average length of use: 4,380 hours per year1
Average night light uses:7 watts
Retrofit night light uses:0.5 watts
Measure life:10 years2
Energy saved per year:28 kWh per year
Energy saved over life expectancy:285 kWh
Installation / participation rate of:93.22%3
Number of participants:34,546 3
Projected Electricity Savings:
The Energy Efficient Night Light retrofit projects an annual reduction of:916,856 kWh4
The Energy Efficient Night Light retrofit projects a lifetime reduction of:9,168,559 kWh5
1 Assumption (12 hours per day)
2 Product life provided by manufacturer
3 Data reported by program participants
4 Energy Efficient Night Light kWh savings formula (Energy saved per year x Number of participants x Installation rate)
5 Energy Efficient Night Light kWh lifetime savings formula (Energy saved over life expectancy x Number of participants x Installation rate)
Projected Savings from LED Night Light Installation
Resource Action Programs®29Appendix A
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x

A
Projected Savings from Shower Timer Installation
Shower TImer inputs and assumptions:
% of water heated by gas:42.00%1
% of water heated by electricity:57.00%1
Installation / participation rate of Shower Timer:68.84%1
Average showerhead has a flow rate of:2.50 gallons per minute1
Retrofit showerhead has flow rate of:1.75 gallons per minute1
Number of participants:34,546 1
Average of baseline and retrofit showerhead flow rate:2.13 gallons per minute2
Shower duration:8.20 minutes per day3
Shower Timer duration:5.00 minutes per day4
Showers per capita per day (SPCD):0.67 showers per day3
Percent of water that is hot water:73%5
Days per year:365.00 days
Product life:2.00 years5
Projected Water Savings:
Shower Timer installation projects an annual reduction of:39,547,809 gallons6
Shower Timer installation projects a lifetime reduction of:79,095,617 gallons7
Projected Electricity Savings:
Shower Timer installation projects an annual reduction of:2,962,052 kWh8
Shower Timer installation projects a lifetime reduction of:5,924,104 kWh9
Projected Natural Gas Savings:
Shower Timer installation projects an annual reduction of:109,128 therms10
Shower Timer installation projects a lifetime reduction of:218,256 therms11
1 Data Reported by Program Participants.
2 Average of the baseline GPM and the retrofit GPM
3 (March 4, 2010). EPA WaterSense® Specification for Showerheads Supporting Statement. Retrieved from http://www.epa.gov/WaterSense/docs/showerheads_
finalsuppstat508.pdf
4 Provided by manufacturer.
5 Navigant EM&V Report for Super Savers Program in Illinois PY7
6 Annual water savings = Water Flow (Average of baseline and retrofit flow) × (Baseline Shower duration - Shower Timer duration) × Participants ×
Days per year × SPCD × Installation Rate of Shower Timer
7 Projected Annual Water Savings x Product Life
8 Projected Annual Water Savings x Percent of Water that is Hot Water x 0.18 kWh/gal x % of Water Heated by Electricity x Participants
9 Projected Annual Water Savings x Percent of Water that is Hot Water x 0.18 kWh/gal x % of Water Heated by Electricity x Product Life x Participants
10 Projected Annual Water Savings x Percent of Water that is Hot Water x 0.009 Therms/gal x % of Water Heated by Natural Gas x Participants
11 Projected Annual Water Savings x Percent of Water that is Hot Water x 0.009 Therms/gal x % of Water Heated by Natural Gas x Product Life x Participants
Idaho Power Energy-Saving Kit Program Summary Report30Appendix B
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x

B
1 How is the water heated in your home?
Electricity 57%
Gas 42%
Other 1%
2 Do you own or rent your home?
Own 78%
Rent 22%
3 What is the primary method of heating your home?
Gas forced air 53%
Heat pump 7%
Electric forced air 24%
Baseboard or ceiling cable 7%
Other 8%
4 What is the primary method of cooling your home?
Central A/C 66%
Window A/C 18%
Heat pump 6%
None 6%
Other 4%
5 What, if any, energy-saving improvements are you planning to make in the next two years?
Windows 25%
Furnace or A/C 12%
Insulation 9%
Appliances 17%
Smart thermostat 8%
Other 30%
6 How did you hear about this kit offering?
Direct mail 11%
Info in bill 3%
Social media 43%
Idaho Power website 7%
Idaho Power employee 3%
Other 33%
Enrollment Survey Response Summary
Due to rounding of numbers, percentages may not add up to 100%
Resource Action Programs®31Appendix B
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x

B
Due to rounding of numbers, percentages may not add up to 100%
Kit Survey Response Summary
1 What type of home do you live in?
Single family home - detached 83%
Apartment, Condo, Townhouses, or Multi-family with 2-3 units 5%
Apartment, Condo, Townhouses, or Multi-family with 4 or more units 5%
Mobile/Manufactured home 7%
2 How many people live in your home?
5 or more 11%
4 15%
3 15%
2 43%
1 17%
3 How many of the LEDs did you install?
All of them 57%
7-8 5%
5-6 14%
3-4 14%
1-2 7%
None 4%
4 If you did not install all of the LEDs, what did you do with the remainer?
Plan to install, just haven't yet 30%
Stored for later use 60%
Gave them to someone else 1%
Other _________8%
5 Have you installed the High-Efficiency Showerhead?
Yes 54%
Not yet, but will 36%
No, won't use 9%
6 Have you installed the Kitchen Faucet Aerator?
Yes 53%
Not yet, but will 28%
No, won't use 19%
7 Have you installed the Bathroom Faucet Aerator #1?
Yes 55%
Not yet, but will 32%
No, won't use 13%
8 Have you installed the Bathroom Faucet Aerator #2?
Yes 38%
Not yet, but will 36%
No, won't use 27%
Idaho Power Energy-Saving Kit Program Summary Report32Appendix B
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x

B
Due to rounding of numbers, percentages may not add up to 100%
Kit Survey Response Summary (continued)
9 Have you used the LED Night Light?
Yes 88%
Not yet, but will 11%
1%
10 Have you used the Shower Timer?
Yes 53%
31%
No, won't use 15%
11 Have you used the Flow-Rate Test Bag to test the flow rate of your shower or faucets?
26%
Not yet, but will 56%
No, won't use 18%
12 If you used the Digital Thermometer to check the temperature of your water, what was the temperature?
> 140 F 3%
9%
121 F - 130 F 25%
< 120 F 28%
36%
13 Did you adjust the temperature of your electric water heater?
Yes, I lowered it 19%
2%
No, I did not adjust 79%
14 Did you adjust the temperature of your refrigerator?
24%
Yes, I raised it 12%
No, I did not adjust 64%
15 Did you adjust the temperature of your freezer?
Yes, I lowered it 20%
Yes, I raised it 10%
70%
16 How satisfied were you with the kit ordering process?
Very satisfied 95%
4%
Somewhat dissatisfied 0%
Very dissatisfied 1%
17 Did you receive your kit within 3 weeks?
Yes 91%
No 9%
Resource Action Programs®33Appendix B
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x

B
Due to rounding of numbers, percentages may not add up to 100%
Kit Survey Response Summary (continued)
18 How likely would you be to tell a friend or family member to order a kit?
Very likely 94%
Somewhat likely 6%
Somewhat unlikely 0%
Very unlikely 1%
19 Prior to hearing about the Energy-Saving Kits, were you aware Idaho Power had energy efficiency
programs and incentives?
Yes 46%
No 54%
20 Have you ever gone to Idaho Power's website to look for information about energy efficiency programs
and incentives?
Yes 39%
No 61%
21 How likely are you to participate in another energy efficiency program?
86%
13%
1%
Very unlikely 0%
22 If you did not install some of the kit items, please tell us why.
Idaho Power Energy-Saving Kit Program Summary Report34Appendix C
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x

C
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x

C
Program Marketing
IDAHO ZIP CODES IDAHO CITIES & TOWNS DIRECT MAILERS PARTICIPANTS %
83201 - 83299 Pocatello, Americal Falls, Blackfoot 12 4 33.3%
83301 - 83399
Buhl, Gooding, Grangeville, Hagerman,
Jerome, Kimberly, Murtaugh, Twin Falls,
Wendell 9,072 2,240 24.7%
83401 - 83499 Ammon, Idaho Falls 6 0 0.0%
83501 - 83599 Grangeville, Lewiston, Orofino 67 4 6.0%
83601 - 83699
Caldwell, Cambridge, Cascade, Council,
Donnelly, Eagle, McCall, Meridian, Mesa,
Midvale, Mountain Home, Nampa, New
Meadows, New Plymouth, Payette, Star,
Weiser 4,065 1,018 25.0%
83701 - 83799 Boise, Garden City 1,097 265 24.2%
83801 - 83899 Coeur D'Alene, Moscow, Post Falls 35 2 5.7%
Idaho households who responded to Direct Mailing: 14,354 3,533 24.6%
Idaho households who participated in the program: 3,533
Idaho Power’s initial target audience was centered around rural communities with a higher
propensity for electric water-heating. Direct mailers were distributed by county as follows.
Household response to the direct mailing resulted in the following.
IDAHO COUNTIES IDAHO CITIES & TOWNS DIRECT MAILERS
Adams County
Cambridge, Council, Fruitvale, Indian Valley, McCall,
Mesa, New Meadows, Riggins 718
Gooding County Buhl, Gooding, Hagerman, Jerome, Wendell 3,084
Twin Falls County
Buhl, Castleford, Filer, Hagerman, Hansen, Hollister,
Kimberly, Murtaugh, Rogerson 5,998
Valley County Cascade, Donnelly, Lake Fork, McCall, Yellow Pine 3,349
Washington County Cambridge, Midvale, Payette, Weiser 1,205
TOTAL 14,354
Resource Action Programs®35Appendix D
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x

D
Idaho Cities & Towns Affected
IDAHO CITIES & TOWNS AFFECTED
ABERDEEN GREENLEAF NEW MEADOWS
AMERICAN FALLS HAGERMAN NEW PLYMOUTH
ARBON HAILEY NORTH FORK
BANKS HAMMETT NOTUS
BELLEVUE HANSEN OAKLEY
BLACKFOOT HAZELTON OLA
BLISS HEYBURN OREANA
BOISE HILL CITY PARMA
BRUNEAU HOLLISTER PAUL
BUHL HOMEDALE PAYETTE
BURLEY HORSESHOE BEND PICABO
CALDWELL IDAHO CITY PINE
CAMBRIDGE INDIAN VALLEY PINGREE
CAREY INKOM PLACERVILLE
CARMEN JACKSON POCATELLO
CASCADE JEROME POLLOCK
CASTLEFORD KETCHUM PRAIRIE
CENTERVILLE KIMBERLY RICHFIELD
CHUBBUCK KING HILL RIGGINS
CORRAL KUNA ROBIE CREEK
COUNCIL LAKE FORK ROCKLAND
DIETRICH LEADORE ROGERSON
DONNELLY LEMHI RUPERT
EAGLE LETHA SALMON
EDEN LOWMAN SHOSHONE
EMMETT MALTA SPRINGFIELD
FAIRFIELD MARSING STAR
FEATHERVILLE MCCALL STERLING
FILER MELBA SUN VALLEY
FORT HALL MERIDIAN SWEET
FRUITLAND MESA TENDOY
FRUITVALE MIDDLETON TWIN FALLS
GARDEN CITY MIDVALE WEISER
GARDEN VALLEY MONTOUR WENDELL
GIBBONSVILLE MOUNTAIN HOME WEST MAGIC
GLENNS FERRY MURPHY WILDER
GOODING MURTAUGH YELLOW PINE
GRAND VIEW NAMPA
TOTAL NUMBER OF CITIES & TOWNS AFFECTED: 113
TOTAL NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS AFFECTED: 33,682
Idaho Power Energy-Saving Kit Program Summary Report36Appendix D
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x

D
Oregon Cities & Towns Affected
OREGON CITIES & TOWNS AFFECTED
ADRIAN HUNTINGTON RICHLAND
BROGAN IRONSIDE UNITY
DREWSEY JAMIESON VALE
DURKEE JORDAN VALLEY WESTFALL
HALFWAY NYSSA
HARPER ONTARIO
HEREFORD OXBOW
TOTAL NUMBER OF CITIES & TOWNS AFFECTED: 18
TOTAL NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS AFFECTED: 864
Resource Action Programs®37Appendix D
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x

D
REGIONS (IDAHO)ELECTRIC NON-ELECTRIC
CANYON 3,308 2,893
CAPITAL 6,378 8,154
EASTERN 2,123 1,207
SOUTHERN 4,285 1,664
WESTERN 2,865 805
NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS IMPACTED:18,959 14,723
TOTAL NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS IMPACTED:33,682
REGIONS (OREGON)ELECTRIC NON-ELECTRIC
CANYON 5 0
WESTERN 751 108
NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS IMPACTED:756 108
TOTAL NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS IMPACTED:864
REGIONS (IDAHO POWER)ELECTRIC NON-ELECTRIC
NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS IMPACTED:19,715 14,831
TOTAL NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS IMPACTED:34,546
Idaho Power Regions Affected
©2017 Resource Action Programs
976 United Circle • Sparks, NV 89431
www.resourceaction.com • [phone]
©2017 Resource Action Programs®
N30000
Idaho Power
2016 Residential End-Use Survey
January 2016
Idaho Power
2016 Residential End-Use Survey
January 2016
M ARKETSTR ATEGI ES
INTERNATIONAL
Table of Contents
2
Research Background 3
Research Methodology 4
Executive Summary & Customer Profile Snapshots 6
Household Characteristics 12
Fuel Type Market Share 18
Market Saturation 20
Home Heating 25
Home Cooling 35
Water Heater 40
Kitchen Appliances 44
Laundry Appliances 52
Consumer Electronics 57
Lighting 64
Energy Efficiency 69
Demographics 73
Appendix A: End-Use Survey Methods “Cookbook”75
Research Background
3
The Residential End-Use Survey is a periodic market research study conducted by Idaho
Power Company. In December 2016, Idaho Power worked with Market Strategies
International to update the 2010 End Use Research study.
The 2016 study will be used to forecast residential energy needs and allow for the
development, enhancement and targeting of energy conservation programs to Idaho
Power’s residential customers. Residential profiles to be assessed are as follows:
Housing characteristics
Home demographics
Fuel sources
Home heating and cooling
Saturation of appliance and consumer electronics
Research Methodology
4
The targeted population of this study is Idaho Power’s base of residential customers across their entire service territory. A
single sample list consisting of residential customer names and addresses were provided by Idaho Power to be used in
the overall analysis.
A six-page survey was mailed to these customers and was the single source of survey responses. The survey was mailed
to a total of 6,150 customers for them to fill out and return over a one and a half month time frame (November thru
December).
Approximately one week after the initial mailing, a follow-up postcard was sent to all customers who received the first
mailing reminding them about completing the survey. About two weeks after the postcard was delivered a second survey
package was sent to those who had not yet completed the survey.
A total of 2,296 survey responses were returned from the mailings which resulted in a total response rate* of 38%.
During the data cleaning process, 24 cases were removed due to poor or incomplete data from the final sample leaving us with
2,272 cases to be analyzed.
Mailings Returns Cleaning Final Sample
(11-16-16)
Reminder
Postcard
(11-23-16)
2nd
Mailing
(12-9-16)
Total
Survey
Mail
Outs
Survey
Returns Rate*
Cases lost due to
incomplete
responses
Final cases
analyzed
2016 Main Sample 6,150 6,150 5,416 11,566 2,296 38%24 2,272
*Response Rate = 2,296 Survey Returns / (6,150 Sample Size –52 Undeliverable Mailings)
Research Methodology
5
Idaho Power provided a single list containing
customer name and address:
–Main sample: A random sample of residential
customers to be used for the overall analysis.
The list included five operating regions (Canyon,
Capital, Eastern, Western, Southern), in
addition to customers in Oregon.
Sample was pulled proportionally to the distribution
by region and state.
This report presents the results from the main
sample consisting of Idaho and Oregon sample.
The sampling error* associated with a total of 2,272
interviews is ±2.1% at a 95% confidence level.
The data are weighted* by region to accurately
reflect the actual Idaho Power customer population.
Weighting and Sampling Error
Surveys
Sampling
Error
Unweighted
Distribution
Weighted
Distribution
Region
Canyon 407 +5%17.9%17.8%
Capital 435 +5%19.1%43.1%
Eastern 481 +4%21.2%11.5%
Western 489 +4%21.5%12.2%
Southern 460 +5%20.2%15.5%
Total 2272
Jurisdiction
Idaho 2145 +2%
Oregon 127 +9%
*Definitions
Sampling error: The degree to which the results from the sample deviate from those that would be obtained from the entire population because of random error in the selection of
respondent and the corresponding reduction in reliability (e.g., the sampling error associated with Canyon (n=407) is +/-5%. Therefore, the Canyon sample estimate would range from
45% to 55% in 95 out of 100 samples for a true population proportion of 50%).
Weighting: A data weight is a multiplier that makes the contribution from a given case
(survey) larger or smaller . In this case, a data weight adjustment was applied to the System results to bring the region proportions in line with the overall population distribution.
Executive Summary with
Customer Profile Snapshots
by Region and Jurisdiction
6
Executive Summary
7
Housing Characteristics
78% live in a single-family home (consistent with 75% in 2010). (p. 14)
68% have one or two people living in the residence, consistent with 67% in 2010. (p. 15)
87% are home owners (compared to 84% in 2010). (p. 15)
29% live in a home built since 2010 (up from 24% in 2010). (p. 16)
53% of residences are under 1800 square feet (consistent with 56% in 2010). (p. 16)
78% have double pane windows and 58% have vinyl window frames, both up from 2010 (74% and 53%,
respectively). (p. 17)
Heating & Cooling
69% have natural gas available at their residence. (p. 26)
58% say natural gas is their primary heating fuel, while 30% use electricity. (p. 27)
73% use a central furnace as their primary heating source. (p. 28)
36% use an additional heating system, down from 47% in 2010. Among these residences, 44% use a stove,
fireplace, or fireplace insert. (p. 30, 32)
Among homes with air conditioning (82%), 75% use a central air conditioner and 12% have window units. (p.36-37)
One-half (50%) of homes have a programmable thermostat and 43% have manually adjusted thermostats (down
from 50% in 2010). (p. 40)
Among homes with a water heater (98%), 49% have an electric water heater and 48% use natural gas. Nearly all
(97%) of water heaters are conventional in style. (p. 41-43)
Executive Summary, cont.
8
Appliances & Electronics
Natural gas stove use is 21% and natural gas oven use is 14%. (p. 46-47)
The majority of households have one or more of the following –mid/full-size refrigerator (99%), electric dishwasher
(82%), and stand-alone freezer (59%). (p. 47-51))
Nearly all homes have a clothes washer (95%) and dryer (94%) for private use. (p. 53-56)
95% of dryers are electric and 5% use natural gas.
Just 46% of households have a standard TV, compared to 78% that have an LCD/LED TV or 23% that have a
Plasma TV. (p. 58)
More homes have a laptop computer (71%) than have a desktop computer (62%). (p. 61)
Lighting & Energy Efficiency
The incidence of CFL and LED bulbs are consistent with each other –25% of households have installed more than
10 CFLs and 25% of households have installed more than 10 LED bulbs. Slightly more homes –30% -have more
than 10 incandescent bulbs installed. (p. 65)
Within the past three years, 28% have installed or replaced their clothes washer, 28% have installed or replaced their
refrigerator, and 27% have installed or replaced their dishwasher. Likewise, 27% of households have replaced or
installed their thermostat in the past 3 years. (p. 70)
One-fourth of respondents (24%) have participated in an Idaho Power energy efficiency rebate program. (p. 72)
*Caution: small base size. Base is among customers answering the question (i.e., “missing” responses are not included in the “not aware” response category).
Profile Snapshots –By Region
9
Capital
•85% have natural gas available to their home.
•72% say natural gas is their primary heating fuel, while
23% use electricity.
•83% use a central furnace as their primary heating source.
•29% use an additional heating system.
•Among those with air conditioning (94%), 87% use a
central air conditioner.
•66% use a natural gas water heater.
•61% of households have programmable thermostats and
31% have manually adjusted thermostats.
•28% have participated in Idaho Power’s energy efficiency
programs.
•In terms of demographic and household characteristics of
respondents:
–40% are under 55, 45% are 55-74, and 16% are 75 or
older
–18% have a high school education or less, while 48%
graduated from college
–81% live in a single-family home, and 33% live in a
newer home (built after 1999)
Canyon
•70% have natural gas available to their home.
•61% say natural gas is their primary heating fuel while 31%
use electricity.
•79% use a central furnace as their primary heating source.
•29% use an additional heating system.
•Among those with air conditioning (93%), 83% use a central
air conditioner.
•53% use natural gas water heaters and another 45% use
electric gas water heaters.
•54% of households have programmable thermostats and 41%
have manually adjusted thermostats.
•27% have participated in Idaho Power’s energy efficiency
programs.
•In terms of demographic and household characteristics of
respondents:
–40% are under 55, 45% are 55-74, and 19% are 75 or
older
–31% have a high school education or less, while 28%
graduated from college
–79% live in a single-family home, and 40% live in a newer
home (built after 1999)
Note: Green and Red bolded text indicates a difference of 10 percentage points than in 2010
Profile Snapshots –By Region (cont’d)
10
Western
•32% have natural gas available to their home.
•22% say natural gas is their primary heating
fuel while 46% use electricity.
•50% use a central furnace as their primary
heating source.
•53% use an additional heating system.
•Among those with air conditioning (67%), 55%
use a central air conditioner. 26% use an
individual/window unit and another 22% use a
heat pump.
•79% use electric water heaters.
•37% of households have programmable
thermostats and 53% have manually adjusted
thermostats.
•20% have participated in Idaho Power’s energy
efficiency programs.
•In terms of demographic and household
characteristics of respondents:
–22% are under 55, 58% are 55-74, and
20% are 75 or older
–31% have a high school education or less,
while 34% graduated from college
–19% live in a manufactured or mobile
homes, while 72% live in a SFH. 75% say
their house was built before 1999
Eastern
•62% have natural gas available to their home.
•53% say natural gas is their primary heating
fuel while 30% use electricity.
•67% use a central furnace as their primary
heating source.
•45% use an additional heating system.
•Among those with air conditioning (61%), 61%
use a central air conditioner.
•63% use electric water heaters and another
35% use natural gas water heaters.
•38% of households have programmable
thermostats and 57% have manually adjusted
thermostats.
•18% have participated in Idaho Power’s energy
efficiency programs.
•In terms of demographic and household
characteristics of respondents:
–32% are under 55, 49% are 55-74, and
19% are 75 or older
–26% have a high school education or less,
while 32% graduated from college
–75% live in a single-family home, and 88%
live in an older home (built before 1999)
Southern
•56% have natural gas available to their home.
•46% say natural gas is their primary heating
fuel while 39% use electricity.
•59% use a central furnace as their primary
heating source.
•43% use an additional heating system.
•Among those with air conditioning (64%), 64%
use a central air conditioner. 17%-18% use
heat pumps or an individual/window unit.
•64% use electric water heaters while another
33% use natural gas water heaters.
•37% of households have programmable
thermostats and 56% have manually adjusted
thermostats.
•18% have participated in Idaho Power’s
energy efficiency programs.
•In terms of demographic and household
characteristics of respondents:
–31% are under 55, 49% are 55-74, and
20% are 75 or older
–27% have a high school education or less,
while 35% graduated from college
–72% live in a single-family home, and
77% live in an older home (built before
1999)
Note: Green and Red bolded text indicates a difference of 10 percentage points than in 2010
Profile Snapshots –By Jurisdiction
11
Oregon
•47% have natural gas available to their home.
•36% say electricity is their primary heating fuel while 34% use
natural gas.
•Six in ten customers (59%) use a central furnace as their
primary heating source.
•48% use an additional heating system.
•Among those with air conditioning (83%), 58% use a central
air conditioner and 29% use individual/window unites.
•78% use electric water heaters while another 17% use natural
gas water heaters.
•30% of households have programmable thermostats and 60%
have manually adjusted thermostats.
•19% have participated in Idaho Power’s energy efficiency
programs.
•Oregon respondents tend to be older (23% are under the age
of 55, 55% are 55-74, and 23% are 75 or older). They also
tend to have a lower percentage with college degrees (26%),
include more manufactured or mobile homes (21%), and live
in an older home (88% built before 1999) compared to
households in Idaho.
Idaho
•70% have natural gas available to their home.
•59% say natural gas is their primary heating fuel while 30%
use natural gas.
•73% use a central furnace as their primary heating source.
•36% use an additional heating system.
•Among those with air conditioning (82%), 78% use a central
air conditioner.
•Just under half (48%) use electric water heaters and another
49% use natural gas water heaters.
•51% of households have programmable thermostats and 42%
have manually adjusted thermostats.
•25% have participated in Idaho Power’s energy efficiency
programs.
•Idaho respondents tend to be younger (36% under the age of
55, 47% are 55-74, and 18% are 75 or older).They also tend
to have a higher percentage with college degrees (39%), live
in a single-family home (78%), and live in an newer home
(30% built after 1999) compared to households in Oregon.
Note: Green and Red bolded text indicates a difference of 10 percentage points than in 2010
2016 Household Characteristics
12
2016 Household Characteristics
13
Identical to 2010, the 2016 survey included several questions about household characteristics. Questions include:
Type of residence
Occupancy (primary residence occupied all or most of the year vs. seasonal/vacation home)
Number of people living in the residence
Own vs. rent
Year built
Approximate overall square footage
Type of windows
Type of window frames
Household Characteristics
14
An upper-case letter indicates a significant difference in proportions at the 95% confidence level between the current column and the column indicated by the letter. A1: Which of the following best describes this residence?A2: Is this residence occupied year-round or for only part of the year?
2010
A
2016
B
Canyon
C
Capital
D
Eastern
E
Western
F
Southern
G Idaho
H
Oregon
I
Residence Type
Single Family Home 75%78%79%FG 81%EFG 75%72%78%I 70%
Manufactured home 6%7%8%D 4%7%CDE 10%D 7%11%
Apartment,condo, townhouse –
2-3 units 8%6%5%7%F 7%F 9%CF 6%4%
Apartment,condo, townhouse –
4 or more units 5%5%3%5%4%6%C 5%2%
Mobile home 5%4%5%D 2%6%DG DG 3%3%11%H
Other 1%1%1%1%1%G 0%1%2%
Base (unweighted)1696 2192 396 425 467 462 442 2069 123
Base (weighted)1697 2202 ----------2131 --
Use of Home
All or most of year 94%95%99%EFG 98%FG 97%FG 88%F 95%96%
Seasonal home/vacation home 5%4%0%1%C 2%C CDE 11%CDE 4%3%
Other 1%1%0%1%1%0%1%1%
Base (unweighted)1699 2232 398 427 474 481 452 2107 125
Base (weighted)1700 2231 ----------2159 --
Household Characteristics
15
2010
A
2016
B
Canyon
C
Capital
D
Eastern
E
Western
F
Southern
G Idaho
H
Oregon
I
Number in Residence
1-2 67%68%60%69%C 70%C 76%CDG 68%C 68%77%H
3-5 29%28%34%28%F 24%21%29%F 28%22%
6 or more 4%4%7%3%6%F 3%4%4%2%
Base (unweighted)1560 2054 396 414 455 400 389 1935 119
Base (weighted)1574 2095 ----------2026 --
Own vs. Rent
Own 84%87%A 84%86%91%CD 89%C 88%87%85%
Rent 17%B 13%16%15%E 9%11%12%13%15%
Base (unweighted)1704 2217 396 427 470 476 443 2093 119
Base (weighted)1704 2217 ----------2148 --
An upper-case letter indicates a significant difference in proportions at the 95% confidence level between the current column and the column indicated by the letter.A3: If this is your primary residence, how many people live here?A4: Do you own or rent this residence?
Household Characteristics
16
2010
A
2016
B
Canyon
C
Capital
D
Eastern
E
Western
F
Southern
G
Idaho
H
Oregon
I
Year Built
Before 1960 20%18%14%12%33%CDFG 24%CD CD 17%38%H
1960-1979 26%26%18%25%C 36%CDFG 27%C C 26%31%
1980-1989 11%10%11%10%11%9%10%8%
1990-1999 20%B 17%18%E 20%EG 9%16%E E 17%11%
2000-2009*24%22%31%EFG 25%EG 8%21%E E 23%I 10%
2010-2016*0%7%A 9%EF 8%EF 4%5%7%I 2%
Base (unweighted)1551 2065 376 402 436 438 413 1956 109
Base (weighted)1553 2078 ----------2015 63
Square Footage
Less than 1,000 sq ft 13%12%11%11%13%14%12%13%
1,000-1,799 sq ft 43%41%47%DE 40%34%42%E E 41%47%
1,800-2,499 sq ft 24%27%25%29%27%26%27%21%
2,500-3,499 sq ft 14%15%13%16%17%15%15%16%
3,500-4,499 sq ft 4%4%3%4%5%3%4%3%
4,500 sq ft or more 2%2%2%1%3%1%2%1%
Base (unweighted)1623 2118 384 413 448 450 423 2009 109
Base (weighted)1627 2131 ----------2199 63
*Year categories changed between the 2010 and 2016 studies, interpret 2010 data with caution.
An upper-case letter indicates a significant difference in proportions at the 95% confidence level between the current column and the column indicated by the letter.A5: When was this residence originally built? (Select when the building was originally constructed, not when it was remodeled, added to, or converted.)A6: What is the approximate overall square footage of this residence? Include basement or garage ONLY if it is regularly heated or cooled by your heating and cooling system.
Household Characteristics
17
2010
A
2016
B
Canyon
C
Capital
D
Eastern
E
Western
F
Southern
G
Idaho
H
Oregon
I
Type of Windows
All or most are single pane B 12%17%DF 9%14%17%DF 13%11%
All or most are double pane 78%A 77%G 84%CEG 71%EG 69%78%71%
Mixture of both 10%7%7%15%C 14%CD 9%18%H
Base (unweighted)1608 2138 376 405 454 468 435 2017 121
Base (weighted)1607 2128 ----------2059 --
Type of Window Frames
All or most have vinyl frame 58%A 61%EG 61%EG 53%G 49%58%56%
All or most have wood frame B 13%11%10%14%20%CDEF 13%12%
All or most have metal frame B 16%18%16%16%16%16%18%
Mixture of all 13%A 11%13%17%15%13%14%
Base (unweighted)1603 2108 369 391 453 463 427 1988 115
Base (weighted)1602 2080 ----------2014 --
An upper-case letter indicates a significant difference in proportions at the 95% confidence level between the current column and the column indicated by the letter.A7: Choose the statement that best describes the type of windows at this residence.A8: Choose the statement that best describes the type of window frames at this residence.
Fuel Type Market Share
18
Fuel Type Market Share
19
30%
49%49%
75%
84%
95%
58%19%
48%
21%
14%
5%
3%
7%
2%4%2%6%
24%
1%1%
PrimaryHeating
System
AdditionalHeating
System
WaterHeater Stovetop Oven Dryer
%
o
f

R
e
s
p
o
n
d
e
n
t
s
Fuel Type Market Share
Electric Natural Gas Propane Wood Fuel oil Other
B2, B6, C2, C4, C5, C14. What one fuel is most often used….?
Bases: Primary Heating: 2148, Additional Heating: 877, Water Heater: 2148, Stovetop: 2247, Oven: 2246, Dryer: 2089
Market Saturation
20
21
11%
12%
78%
12%
29%
44%
8%
8%
73%
0%20%40%60%80%100%
Heat pump
Individual room or windowair conditioner
Central air conditioner
Central furnace with ducts
Portable room heaters
Stove, fireplace, orfireplace insert
Heat pump
Stove, fireplace, orfireplace insert
Central furnace with ducts
% of RespondentsB3. What type of heating system is used most often at this residence?B7. What type of additional heating system is used at this residence? B11. What type of air conditioning system is used at this residence?
Base: Primary heating: 2147, Additional Heating: 861, Cooling: 1672
Primary Heating
System (among
all fuel types)
(B3)
Additional
Heating
System
(Among those
with an additional
heating system)
(B7)
Cooling System
(Among those
with AC)
(B11)
Market Saturation
Most Frequently Mentioned Responses
22
94%
95%
59%
82%
99%
98%
0%20%40%60%80%100%
Clothes Dryer
Clothes Washer
Stand-Alone Freezer
Dishwasher
Mid/Full-SizeRefrigerator
Water Heater
% of Respondents
Kitchen (C6, C8, C10)
Laundry
(C11, C13)
Market Saturation (cont’d)
Water Heater
(C1)
C1, C6, C8, C10, C11, C13: % saying yes/have at least one in use at residence
Base: Water Heater: 2250, Mid-Full-Size Refrigerator: 2236, Stand-Alone Freezer: 2231, Dishwasher: 2259, Clothes Washer: 2256, Clothes Dryer: 2254.
23
23%
38%
47%
62%
71%
72%
76%
80%
0%25%50%75%100%
Plasma television
Video-game console
Standard television [tube orCRT]
Desktop computer
Laptop computer
Cable, satellite, or DVR set topbox
DVD/BluRay player
LCD/LED television
% of Respondents with One or More
E1A-E1H. % saying yes/have at least one in use at residence
Base: LCD/LED TV: 1867, DVD/BluRay Player: 1846, Cable/Satellite/DVR: 1948, Laptop Computer: 1933, Desktop Computer: 1868, Standard TV: 1758, Video-Game Console: 1677, Plasma TV: 1489.
E1A-E1H: Consumer Electronics
Market Saturation (cont’d)
24
Market Saturation (cont’d)
1994 2004 2010 2016
%%%%
-Elect. 37.3 34.8 31.1 30.4
Resistance 28.1 27.3 23.6 20.5
Electric Heat Pump 8.6 9.8 5.5 6.2
Portable Heaters1 na 36.9 29.7 30.7
Central A/C 33.8 59.5 69.0 72.8
Evaporative Swamp Coolers2 10.3 9.2 4.0 1.9
Room A/C Units1 24.4 31.5 20.9 20.2
Water Heater 72.3 56.1 49.3 46.7
Range 91.4 82.9 83.3 75.2
Refrigerators1 122.0 125.0 133.1 134.9
Freezer (% with 1+)56.4 53.2 56.1 59.3
Dishwasher 62.1 77.3 81.7 82.1
Clothes Washer 89.3 92.4 94.7 94.7
Clothes Dryer 85.2 86.6 88.1 88.4
Average number of units per 100 residences.
Saturation rate calculation changed in 2016 due to survey changes.
The following table lists electric appliance saturation rates for the 1994, 2004, 2010, and 2016 studies.
Although the survey instruments have changed somewhat from year to year, the saturation rates shown the following table were
calculated similarly across studies.
•For example, in 2004, the question “How many evaporate swamp coolers do you have?” was asked of everyone. In 2010,
the question was asked only among customers who indicated in a preceding question that they have air conditioning at
their residence. Therefore, the 2010 saturation rate for swamp coolers is based on the total number of customers
answering the question “Do you have air conditioning?” rather than only among those customers who have air
conditioning. A table describing how each saturation rate was calculated is included in the Appendix.
Home Heating
25
26
Yes
69%
No
31%
Natural Gas Available At Residence
Availability of Natural Gas
2010
A
2016
B
Canyon
C
Capital
D
Eastern
E
Western
F
Southern
G
Idaho
H
Oregon
I
Natural Gas Available At Residence
Yes 68%EFG 85%CEFG 62%F 32%56%F 70%I 47%
No 32%D 15%38%CD 68%44%CD 31%53%H
Base
(unweighted)1627 2188 394 418 468 465 443 2067 121
Base
(weighted)1629 2187 ----------2118 --
Among customers answering the question.An upper-case letter indicates a significant difference in proportions at the 95% confidence level between the current column and the column indicated by the letter.B1. Is natural gas available at this residence?
58%
30%
6%
3%1%
PrimaryHeating Fuel
20
1
6

%

o
f

R
e
s
p
o
n
d
e
n
t
s
Natural Gas
Electric
Wood
Propane
Fuel Oil
Other
Primary Heating Fuel
27
2010
A
2016
B
Canyon
C
Capital
D
Eastern
E
Western
F
Southern
G
Idaho
H
Oregon
I
Primary Heating Fuel
Natural Gas 58%61%EFG 72%CEFG 53%FG 22%F 59%I 36%
Electric 30%31%D 23%30%D 46%CDEG CDE 30%34%
Wood 6%5%4%6%18%CDEG D 6%20%
Propane 3%3%D 0%8%CDG 11%CDG D 3%10%
Fuel Oil 1%1%D —2%D 2%D CDF 1%—
Other 0%0%1%1%0%0%1%
Base
(unweighted)1673 2148 392 424 456 451 425 2032 116
Base
(weighted)1676 2170 ----------2104 --
Among customers answering the question.An upper-case letter indicates a significant difference in proportions at the 95% confidence level between the current column and the column indicated by the letter.
B2. What one fuel is most often used to heat this residence?
1%
1%
2%
7%
8%
8%
73%
0%20%40%60%80%100%
Other
Portable room
heaters
Ceiling cable
Wall or
baseboardheaters
Heat pump
Stove orfireplace
Central furnace
Heating System Used Most Often
28
Heating System Used Most Often
2010
A
2016
B
CanyonC CapitalD EasternE WesternF SouthernG Idaho
H
Oregon
I
Heating System Used Most Often
Central furnace 73%73%79%EFG 83%EFG 67%FG 50%59%F I 59%
Stove or
fireplace 8%8%5%4%11%CD 21%CDE
G 9%CD 22%H
Heat pump 7%8%9%E 6%4%11%DE 10%DE 7%
Wall or baseboard heaters 8%7%3%4%10%CD 12%CD 14%CDE 9%
Ceiling cable 2%2%2%1%5%CDG 3%D 2%2%
Portableroom
heaters
1%1%1%1%1%2%2%2%
Other 1%1%1%1%1%1%1%1%
Base(unwgt)1658 2147 392 412 452 457 434 2029 118
Base (wgt)1661 2152 ----------2084 --
Among customers answering the question.An upper-case letter indicates a significant difference in proportions at the 95% confidence level between the current column and the column indicated by the letter.
B3. What type of heating system is used most often at this residence?
Age of Primary Heating System
29
20%
32%
32%
16%
Age of Primary
Heating System
20
1
6

%

o
f

R
e
s
p
o
n
d
e
n
t
s
< 3 years
4-10 years
11-20 years
20 years +
2010
A
2016
B
Canyon
C
Capital
D
Eastern
E
Western
F
Southern
G
Idaho
H
Oregon
I
Age of Primary Heating System
< 3 years 19%20%23%EFG 23%15%14%20%17%
4-10 years 38%B 32%33%E 34%26%29%32%29%
11-20 years 27%32%A 33%31%30%33%32%27%
20 years +17%16%11%11%29%CDF CD 23%CD 16%27%H
Base
(unweighted)1500 1952 354 382 409 426 381 1845 107
Base
(weighted)1501 1965 ----------1903 --
Among customers answering the question.An upper-case letter indicates a significant difference in proportions at the 95% confidence level between the current column and the column indicated by the letter.B4. Approximately what is the age of the primary heating system at this residence?
30
Yes
36%
No64%
Use Additional Heating System
Additional Heating System
2010
A
2016
B
Canyon
C
Capital
D
Eastern
E
Western
F
Southern
G
Idaho
H
Oregon
I
Use Additional Heating System
Yes 47%B 36%29%45%CD 53%CDEG 43%CD 36%48%H
No 54%64%EFG 71%EFG 55%F 47%57%F 64%I 52%
Base
(unweighted)1686 2145 388 408 456 460 433 2030 115
Base
(weighted)1685 2142 ----------2076 --
Among customers answering the question.An upper-case letter indicates a significant difference in proportions at the 95% confidence level between the current column and the column indicated by the letter.B5. Do you use an additional heating system or equipment at this residence?
Additional Heating System Fuel (among customers with an
additional heating system)
31
49%
24%
19%
7%
1%
Additional
Heating Fuel
20
1
6

%

o
f

R
e
s
p
o
n
d
e
n
t
s
Electric Wood Natural Gas
Propane Fuel Oil Other
2010
A
2016
B
Canyon
C
Capital
D
Eastern
E
Western
F
Southern
G Idaho
H
Oregon
I
Additional Heating Fuel
Electric 49%55%45%45%53%50%48%66%H
Wood 24%23%24%20%30%E 23%24%21%
Natural Gas 19%16%28%CFG 22%F 4%17%F 19%I 8%
Propane 7%5%3%11%D 12%CD 8%8%3%
Fuel Oil 1%1%—1%0%2%1%2%
Other 0%——1%0%—0%—
Base
(unweighted)1 701 877 107 119 212 249 190 816 61
Base
(weighted)684 775 ----------740 --
Among customers answering the question.An upper-case letter indicates a significant difference in proportions at the 95% confidence level between the current column and the column indicated by the letter.
B6. What one fuel is used in the additional heating system?
1Caution: small base size.
32
Additional Heating System Used (among customers with an
additional heating system)
0%
1%
2%
3%
9%
12%
29%
44%
0%10%20%30%40%50%
None
Ceiling cable
Other
Heat pump
Wall/baseboardheaters
Central furnace
Portable roomheaters
Stove/fireplace
Additional Heating System Used
2010
A
2016
B
CanyonC CapitalD EasternE WesternF G Idaho
H
Oregon
I
Additional Heating System Used
Stove or fireplace 43%44%38%48%49%40%42%45%I 30%
Portable
room
heaters
27%29%37%28%25%25%34%30%28%
Central
furnace 13%12%13%15%E 7%15%9%12%15%
Wall or
baseboard heaters 9%9%5%6%13%CD 13%9%8%20%H
Heat Pump 2%3%6%2%2%3%4%3%3%
Other 3%2%1%2%1%2%2%2%2%
Ceiling
Cable 2%B 1%——3%1%1%1%2%
None 2%B 0%————1%0%—
Base
(unwgt)1 700 861 107 115 212 240 187 801 60
Base (wgt)684 759 ----------724 --
Among customers answering the question.An upper-case letter indicates a significant difference in proportions at the 95% confidence level between the current column and the column indicated by the letter.
B7. What type of additional heating system is used at this residence?
1Caution: small base size.
Number of Portable Electric Space Heaters (among
customers with an additional heating system)
33
45%
34%
17%
4%
Number of Portable,
Electric Space Heaters
20
1
6

%

o
f

R
e
s
p
o
n
d
e
n
t
s
None
One
Two
Three +
2010
A
2016
B
Canyon
C
Capital
D
Eastern
E
Western
F
Southern
G
Idaho
H
Oregon
I
Number of Portable, Electric Space Heaters
None 55%B 35%47%49%C 46%46%45%43%
One 30%40%EF 37%30%29%31%34%33%
Two 11%A 21%14%17%17%19%17%20%
Three+4%4%2%5%9%D 4%4%5%
Base
(unweighted)1 780 921 117 126 220 255 203 860 61
Base
(weighted)761 819 ----------784 --
Among customers answering the question.An upper-case letter indicates a significant difference in proportions at the 95% confidence level between the current column and the column indicated by the letter.B8. How many portable, electric space heaters do you use at this residence?
1Caution: small base size.
34
Type of Heat Pump
1%
1%
2%
9%
87%
0%20%40%60%80%100%
Ground source
Ductless
Water source
Air source
No heat pump
Type of Heat Pump
2010
A
2016
B
Canyon
C
Capital
D
Eastern
E
Western
F G
Idaho
H
Oregon
I
Type of Heat Pump
No heat
pump 86%87%84%90%CFG 91%CFG 81%84%87%84%
Air source 12%9%11%E 9%5%12%11%9%12%
Water
source 2%2%3%D 1%3%D 4%3%2%2%
Ductless 0%1%1%0%2%1%1%1%—
Ground
source 1%1%1%1%—2%1%1%1%
Base
(unwgt)1 1020 1675 298 331 370 361 315 1582 93
Base (wgt)1012 1686 ----------1633 --
Among customers answering the question.An upper-case letter indicates a significant difference in proportions at the 95% confidence level between the current column and the column indicated by the letter.
B9. If this residence has a heat pump, what kind of heat pump is it?
1Caution: small base size.
Home Cooling
35
36
Yes
82%
No
18%
Air Conditioning Available at Residence
Air Conditioning Availability
2010
A
2016
B
Canyon
C
Capital
D
Eastern
E
Western
F
Southern
G
Idaho
H
Oregon
I
Air Conditioning Available at Residence
Yes 85%93%EFG 94%61%67%64%82%83%
No 15%7%6%39%CD 33%CD 36%CD 18%17%
Base
(unweighted)1708 2236 403 431 469 482 451 2111 125
Base
(weighted)1708 2242 ----------2170 --
Among customers answering the question.An upper-case letter indicates a significant difference in proportions at the 95% confidence level between the current column and the column indicated by the letter.B10. Does this residence have air conditioning?
37
Type of Air Conditioning System (among customers with air
conditioning)
0%
2%
11%
12%
78%
0%20%40%60%80%
Other
Evaporative/swamp cooler
Heat pump
Individualroom orwindow air
conditioner
Central airconditioner
Type of Air Conditioning
System Used at this Residence
2010
A
2016
B
Canyon
C
Capital
D
Eastern
E
Western
F
Southern
G
Idaho
H
Oregon
I
Type of Air Conditioning System Used at this Residence
Central air
conditioner 75%78%83%EFG 87%EFG 61%55%64%F 78%I 58%
Individual
room or
window air
conditioner
14%12%7%7%23%CD 26%17%CD 11%29%
Heat pump 10%11%13%D 7%10%22%18%DE 11%16%
Evaporative/swamp
cooler
4%2%1%1%8%CDF 4%6%CD 2%2%
Other 1%0%1%0%1%0%0%0%1%
Base(unwgt)1364 1672 374 401 291 318 288 1569 103
Base (wgt)1391 1831 ----------1722 --
Among customers answering the question.An upper-case letter indicates a significant difference in proportions at the 95% confidence level between the current column and the column indicated by the letter.
B11. What type of air conditioning system is used at this residence?
Number of Individual/Window Air Conditioners (among
customers with air conditioning)
38
83%
12%
4%2%
Number of
Individual/WindowAir Conditioners
20
1
6

%

o
f

R
e
s
p
o
n
d
e
n
t
s
None
One
Two
Three +
Among customers answering the question.An upper-case letter indicates a significant difference in proportions at the 95% confidence level between the current column and the column indicated by the letter.B12. How many individual electric room or window air conditioners do you use at this residence? (Do not count evaporative/swamp coolers).
2010
A
2016
B
Canyon
C
Capital
D
Eastern
E
Western
F
Southern
G
Idaho
H
Oregon
I
Number of Individual/Window Air Conditioners
None 78%83%A 87%EFG 87%EFG 70%69%76%83%I 66%
One 16%12%8%9%18%20%CD 17%CD 12%23%H
Two 5%4%4%3%7%7%CD 5%4%4%
Three+2%2%1%1%4%4%CD 2%2%7%H
Base
(unweighted)1182 1671 371 400 288 322 290 1567 104
Base
(weighted)1195 1828 ----------1769 --
39
Type of Thermostat Used
3%
4%
43%
50%
0%20%40%60%
Do not have athermostat
Smartthermostat
Manually
adjusted
Programmable
Type of Thermostat Used at
Residence
2010
A
2016
B
Canyon
C
Capital
D
Eastern
E
Western
F G
Idaho
H
Oregon
I
Type of Thermostat Used at Residence
Programmable 47%50%54%61%CEFG 38%37%37%51%I 30%
Manually
adjusted 50%B 43%41%31%57%CD 53%CD 56%CD 42%60%
Smart
thermostat 3%4%4%5%E 1%3%E 3%4%I —
Do not have a
thermostat —3%A 2%3%4%7%CDE 4%C 3%10%
Base (unwgt)1659 2192 389 421 469 477 436 2071 121
Base (wgt)1661 2191 ----------2121 --
Among customers answering the question.An upper-case letter indicates a significant difference in proportions at the 95% confidence level between the current column and the column indicated by the letter.
B13. What best describes the heating and cooling thermostat at this residence?
Water Heater
40
Number of Water Heaters Used
41
2%
92%
6%
Number of Water
Heaters Used atResidence
20
1
6

%

o
f

R
e
s
p
o
n
d
e
n
t
s
None
One
Two
Three +
Among customers answering the question.An upper-case letter indicates a significant difference in proportions at the 95% confidence level between the current column and the column indicated by the letter.
C1. How many water heaters are used at this residence?
2010
A
2016
B
Canyon
C
Capital
D
Eastern
E
Western
F
Southern
G
Idaho
H
Oregon
I
Number of Water Heaters Used at Residence
None 1%2%2%2%0%1%3%2%2%
One 92%92%93%G 94%FG 93%G 90%86%92%89%
Two 7%6%5%4%6%8%CD 10%6%8%
Three+0%1%1%1%1%1%0%1%2%
Base
(unweighted)1699 2250 402 433 479 482 454 2125 125
Base
(weighted)1699 2253 ----------2181 --
Type of Water Heater Fuel (among customers with a water
heater)
42
49%
48%
2%
Type of Fuel Used by
Water Heater
20
1
6

%

o
f

R
e
s
p
o
n
d
e
n
t
s
Electric
Natural Gas
Propane
Among customers answering the question.An upper-case letter indicates a significant difference in proportions at the 95% confidence level between the current column and the column indicated by the letter.
C2. What type of fuel does the primary water heater at this residence use?
2010
A
2016
B
Canyon
C
Capital
D
Eastern
E
Western
F
Southern
G
Idaho
H
Oregon
I
Type of Fuel Used by Water Heater
Electric 52%49%45%D 63%CD 79%CDEG 64%48%78%
Natural Gas 45%48%53%EFG CEFG 35%F 12%33%49%I 17%
Propane 3%2%2%D 2%D 9%CDEG 3%2%5%
Other 0%0%——0%1%0%—
Base
(unweighted)1607 2148 383 411 466 468 420 2027 121
Base
(weighted)1607 2144 ----------2074 --
43
Type of Water Heater Used (among customers with a water
heater)
1%
2%
97%
0%20%40%60%80%100%
Heat pump
Tankless
Conventional
Type of Water Heater Used
at this Residence
2010
A
2016
B
Canyon
C
Capital
D
Eastern
E
Western
F G
Idaho
H
Oregon
I
Type of Water Heater Used at this Residence
Conventional 98%98%98%97%97%97%96%
Tankless 1%A 1%2%2%4%2%2%4%
Heat pump 1%1%0%0%0%1%1%—
Base (unwgt)1501 2054 359 392 451 447 405 1942 112
Base (wgt)1500 2046 ----------1981 --
Among customers answering the question.An upper-case letter indicates a significant difference in proportions at the 95% confidence level between the current column and the column indicated by the letter.
C3. Which of the following best describes the primary water heater used at this residence?
Kitchen Appliances
44
75%
21%
4%
Type of Stovetop
Fuel
%
o
f

R
e
s
p
o
n
d
e
n
t
s
Electric
Natural Gas
Propane
Stovetop Fuel Type
45
Among customers answering the question.An upper-case letter indicates a significant difference in proportions at the 95% confidence level between the current column and the column indicated by the letter.
C4. What type of fuel does the kitchen stovetop at this residence use?
2010
A
2016
B
Canyon
C
Capital
D
Eastern
E
Western
F
Southern
G
Idaho
H
Oregon
I
Type of Fuel Used by Stovetop
Electric 83%75%80%DG 69%86%CDFG 81%DG 74%75%86%H
Natural Gas 16%21%A 16%EF 30%CEFG 11%F 6%21%EF 22%6%
Propane 1%4%A 3%D 1%3%D 12%CDEG 5%D 3%6%
Base
(unweighted)1638 2247 402 433 477 483 452 2122 125
Base
(weighted)1645 2251 ----------2179 --
Oven Fuel Type
46
84%
14%
2%
Type of Fuel Used by
Oven
%
o
f

R
e
s
p
o
n
d
e
n
t
s
Electric
Natural Gas
Propane
Among customers answering the question.An upper-case letter indicates a significant difference in proportions at the 95% confidence level between the current column and the column indicated by the letter.
C5. What type of fuel does the kitchen oven at this residence use? (Do not include the microwave oven)
2010
A
2016
B
Canyon
C
Capital
D
Eastern
E
Western
F
Southern
G
Idaho
H
Oregon
I
Type of Fuel Used by Oven
Electric 89%84%86%D 81%89%85%83%84%89%
Natural Gas 10%14%A 12%F 18%CEFG 9%6%14%EF 14%I 6%
Propane 1%2%A 2%1%2%9%CDEG 2%D 2%6%H
Base
(unweighted)1655 2246 403 430 477 485 451 2121 125
Base
(weighted)1660 2245 ----------2174 --
Number of Mid/Full-size Refrigerators Used
47
1%
66%
31%
2%
Number of Mid/Full-
size Refrigerators Usedat Residence
%
o
f

R
e
s
p
o
n
d
e
n
t
s
None
One
Two
Three +
Among customers answering the question.An upper-case letter indicates a significant difference in proportions at the 95% confidence level between the current column and the column indicated by the letter.
C6. How many mid-and/or full-size refrigerators do you use at this residence?
2010
A
2016
B
Canyon
C
Capital
D
Eastern
E
Western
F
Southern
G
Idaho
H
Oregon
I
Number of Mid/Full-size Refrigerators Used at Residence
None 1%1%1%1%1%2%E 1%
One 69%B 66%61%65%C 67%71%C 66%
Two 27%31%A 34%33%EG 29%26%31%
Three+3%2%4%1%G 3%G 1%2%
Base
(unweighted)1705 2236 402 427 476 480 451 2112 124
Base
(weighted)1705 2234 ----------2163 --
Age of Refrigerator(s) (among customers with one or more
mid/full-size refrigerators)
48
Among customers answering the question.An upper-case letter indicates a significant difference in proportions at the 95% confidence level between the current column and the column indicated by the letter.
C7. How old is each mid-or full-size refrigerator at this residence?
2010
A
2016
B
Canyon
C
Capital
D
Eastern
E
Western
F
Southern
G
Idaho
H
Oregon
I
Age of Refrigerator (#1)
< 3 years 23%24%28%24%24%22%25%25%21%
4-10 years 50%47%48%48%43%45%46%47%45%
11-20 years 22%25%19%25%C 30%C 26%C 25%24%30%
20 years + 4%5%6%4%4%7%D 5%5%5%
Base (unweighted) 1560 2030 362 400 430 434 404 1925 105
Base (weighted) 1561 2047 ----------1986 --
Age of Refrigerator (#2)
< 3 years 12%8%13%3%12%D 13%D 10%D 8%8%
4-10 years 36%37%39%37%43%F 27%42%F 37%30%
11-20 years 38%41%38%46%E 33%40%37%41%35%
20 years + 14%14%11%14%13%21%C 12%13%28%H
Base (unweighted)1 480 694 140 148 135 151 120 654 40
Base (weighted) 481 722 ----------700 --
Age of Refrigerator (#3)
< 3 years 5%17%29%17%—22%—16%29%
4-10 years 32%29%36%17%33%28%50%31%14%
11-20 years 31%34%29%50%33%17%50%37%—
20 years + 32%19%7%17%33%33%—16%57%
Base (unweighted)1 44 57 14 6 15 18 4 50 7
Base (weighted) 45 49 ----------45 --
1Caution: small base size.
Number of Stand-alone Freezers Used
49
41%
49%
9%
1%
Number of Stand-
alone Freezers Usedat Residence
%
o
f

R
e
s
p
o
n
d
e
n
t
s
None
One
Two
Three +
Among customers answering the question.An upper-case letter indicates a significant difference in proportions at the 95% confidence level between the current column and the column indicated by the letter.
C8. How many stand-alone freezers (either chest or upright) do you use at this residence?
2010
A
2016
B
Canyon
C
Capital
D
Eastern
E
Western
F
Southern
G
Idaho
H
Oregon
I
Number of Stand-alone Freezers Used at Residence
None 44%41%36%E 48%CEFG 30%34%39%E 41%I 25%
One 45%49%54%D 45%57%DFG 48%48%49%53%
Two 10%9%8%6%11%D 16%11%D 9%20%H
Three+2%1%2%1%2%2%2%D 1%2%
Base
(unweighted)1694 2231 401 432 470 478 450 2106 125
Base
(weighted)1694 2239 ----------2168 --
Age of Freezer(s) (among customers with one or more stand-alone freezers)
50
Among customers answering the question.An upper-case letter indicates a significant difference in proportions at the 95% confidence level between the current column and the column indicated by the letter.
C9. How old is each stand-alone freezer at this residence?
2010
A
2016
B
Canyon
C
Capital
D
Eastern
E
Western
F
Southern
G
Idaho
H
Oregon
I
Age of Freezer (#1)
< 3 years 17%18%17%13%17%17%22%
4-10 years 36%A 40%44%36%38%41%38%
11-20 years 29%27%26%30%29%24%28%
20 years + 18%16%13%21%D 15%18%12%
Base (unweighted)1 911 1344 245 214 319 307 259 1254 90
Base (weighted) 902 1270 ----------1218 --
Age of Freezer (#2)
< 3 years 18%23%F 9%15%7%15%11%
4-10 years 32%28%44%41%40%46%43%
11-20 years 28%31%25%30%32%26%21%
20 years + 23%18%22%15%21%13%25%
Base (unweighted)1 181 273 39 32 61 87 54 245 28
Base (weighted) 174 234 ----------219 --
Age of Freezer (#3)
< 3 years 15%——11%20%—33%
4-10 years 41%57%—33%20%57%—
11-20 years 36%43%100%44%30%——
20 years + 8%——11%30%43%67%
Base (unweighted)1 21 36 7 3 9 10 7 33 3
Base (weighted) 20 30 ----------28 --
1Caution: small base size.
Number of Electric Dishwashers Used
51
18%
81%
1%
Number of Electric
Dishwashers Used atResidence
20
1
6

%

o
f

R
e
s
p
o
n
d
e
n
t
s
None
One
Two +
Among customers answering the question.An upper-case letter indicates a significant difference in proportions at the 95% confidence level between the current column and the column indicated by the letter.
C10. How many electric dishwashers do you use at this residence?
2010
A
2016
B
Canyon
C
Capital
D
Eastern
E
Western
F
Southern
G
Idaho
H
Oregon
I
Number of Electric Dishwashers Used at Residence
None 18%18%15%11%33%CDFG 26%24%CD 17%37%H
One 81%81%84%89%EFG 66%73%75%E 82%I 63%
Two +1%1%1%1%1%1%1%1%—
Base
(unweighted)1691 2259 406 434 476 488 455 2132 127
Base
(weighted)1692 2262 ----------2189 --
Laundry Appliances
52
53
Yes, Private
Use95%
Yes,
Common Area
1%
No
4%
Clothes Washer Used at
Residence
Clothes Washer Used
2010
A
2016
B
Canyon
C
Capital
D
Eastern
E
Western
F
Southern
G
Idaho
H
Oregon
I
Clothes Washer Used at Residence
Yes, in
residence for
private use
95%95%95%F 96%F 95%F 91%94%92%
Yes, in a
common area
than one
household
1%1%1%1%1%1%1%2%
No 4%4%4%3%4%8%CDE 5%6%
Base
(unweighted)1703 2256 406 434 477 485 454 2130 126
Base
(weighted)1703 2260 ----------2187 --
Among customers answering the question.An upper-case letter indicates a significant difference in proportions at the 95% confidence level between the current column and the column indicated by the letter.
C11. Do you have a clothes washer that is used at this residence?
Age of Clothes Washer (Among Those With Washer For
Personal Use)
54
25%
51%
22%
3%
Age of Washer
20
1
6

%

o
f

R
e
s
p
o
n
d
e
n
t
s
< 3 years
4-10 years
11-20 years
20 years +
2010
A
2016
B
Canyon
C
Capital
D
Eastern
E
Western
F
Southern
G
Idaho
H
Oregon
I
Age of Washer
< 3 years 28%B 25%26%25%23%27%25%24%
4-10 years 50%51%48%54%52%F 49%51%54%
11-20 years 17%22%A 25%21%20%DEG 19%22%18%
20 years +4%B 3%2%2%5%CD 5%CD 3%4%
Base
(unweighted)1536 2025 371 396 439 420 399 1916 109
Base
(weighted)1538 2040 ----------1977 --
Among customers answering the question.An upper-case letter indicates a significant difference in proportions at the 95% confidence level between the current column and the column indicated by the letter.
C12. Approximately how old is the clothes washer used at this residence?
55
Yes,
Private Use
94%
Yes,
Common Area
1%
No4%
Clothes Dryer Used
at Residence
Clothes Dryer Used
Among customers answering the question.An upper-case letter indicates a significant difference in proportions at the 95% confidence level between the current column and the column indicated by the letter.
C13. Do you have a clothes dryer that is used at this residence?
2010
A
2016
B
Canyon
C
Capital
D
Eastern
E
Western
F
Southern
G
Idaho
H
Oregon
I
Clothes Dryer Used at Residence
Yes, in
residence for
private use
95%94%F 96%F 95%F 90%93%94%90%
Yes, in a
common area
than one
household
1%1%2%1%1%2%1%2%
No 5%4%3%4%9%DE 5%4%7%
Base
(unweighted)1496 2254 405 435 476 484 454 2129 125
Base
(weighted)1498 2260 ----------2188 --
95%
5%
Type of Dryer Fuel
%
o
f

R
e
s
p
o
n
d
e
n
t
s
Electric
Natural Gas
Propane
Clothes Dryer Fuel (Among Those With Dryer For
Personal Use)
56
Among customers answering the question.An upper-case letter indicates a significant difference in proportions at the 95% confidence level between the current column and the column indicated by the letter.
C14. What type of fuel does the clothes dryer at this residence use?
2010
A
2016
B
Canyon
C
Capital
D
Eastern
E
Western
F
Southern
G
Idaho
H
Oregon
I
Type of Fuel Used by Dryer
Electric 95%95%96%93%D 97%D 95%99%H
Natural Gas 5%5%5%7%EF 1%F 5%I 1%
Propane 1%0%——1%CD 0%—
Base
(unweighted)1392 2089 377 412 449 435 416 1976 113
Base
(weighted)1396 2109 ----------2044 --
Consumer Electronics
57
Consumer Electronics
58
54%
77%
21%28%
62%
24%
38%
29%
28%
15%
31%
36%
27%
54%
52%
47%
13%
5%
29%
23%
8%
17%
9%
17%
4%2%
13%9%
2%4%1%6%2%6%4%1%1%1%
Standard
Television
Plasma
Television
LCD/LED
Television
Cable/
Satellite
Video Game
Console
DVD/BluRay
Player
Desktop
Computer
Laptop
Computer
20
1
6

%

o
f

R
e
s
p
o
n
d
e
n
t
s
None
1
2
3
4+
Among customers answering the question.E1A-H: For each of the following types of electronic equipment listed, indicate the number used at this residence.Base: Standard Television: 1758, Plasma Television: 1489, LCD/LED Television: 1867, Cable/Satellite: 1948, Video Game Console: 1677, DVD/BluRay Player: 1846, Desktop Computer: 1868, Laptop Computer: 1933
Consumer Electronics (among all customers)*
59
64%
85%
34%38%
71%
37%
49%
39%
21%
10%
26%
31%
20%
44%
43%
41%
10%
3%
25%
19%
6%
14%
7%
15%
3%
11%8%
2%3%1%5%1%5%4%1%1%1%
Standard
Television
Plasma
Television
LCD/LED
Television
Cable/
Satellite
Video Game
Console
DVD/BluRay
Player
Desktop
Computer
Laptop
Computer
20
1
6

%

o
f

C
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
s
None
1
2
3
4+
E1A-H: For each of the following types of electronic equipment listed, indicate the number used at this residence.Base: 2272
* “Missing” responses are recoded to “none.”
Consumer Electronics: Total Number of TVs and Computers
(among all customers)*
60
E1A-E1H: For each of the following types of electronic equipment listed, indicate the number used at this residence.
* “Missing” responses are recoded to “none.”
TVs –
Percent Customers
Computers –Percent of Customers
2010A 2016B
2010
C
2016
D
Number of TVs / Computers
None 6%7%25%D 20%
1 29%29%37%36%
2 31%35%A 25%28%C
3 20%B 17%9%11%
4 11%11%3%4%C
5 2%B 1%1%1%
6+1%2%A 0%1%
Base 1721 2272 1721 2272
61
2010A 2016B
Canyon
C
Capital
D
Eastern
E
Western
F
Southern
G IdahoH OregonI
Standard Television
None 15%54%59%EF 56%EF 46%48%51%54%50%
1 42%B 28%20%26%C 34%CD 35%30%C 27%33%
2 27%B 13%14%13%13%13%12%13%11%
3 11%B 4%4%4%6%4%5%5%4%
4+5%B 2%4%DFG 1%2%1%1%2%2%
Base (unweighted)1525 1758 310 327 394 373 354 1653 105
Base (weighted)1528 1739 ----------1678 --
Plasma Television
None 76%77%75%78%77%80%74%77%78%
1 18%15%16%16%14%12%19%F 16%15%
2 5%5%5%4%7%7%5%5%6%
3 1%2%2%3%2%2%3%2%1%
4+—1%3%DEFG —0%——1%—
Base (unweighted)1 1022 1489 278 290 322 292 307 1408 81
Base (weighted)1030 1503 ----------1456 --
LCD/LED Television*
None
NA
21%22%D 15%26%D 25%28%D 20%25%
1 31%29%32%30%35%27%31%36%
2 29%27%32%26%28%27%30%28%
3 13%15%F 13%F 14%F 8%12%13%7%
4+6%7%8%EF 4%4%5%6%5%
Base (unweighted)1 --1867 344 372 394 387 370 1766 101
Base (weighted)--1894 ----------1836 --
Consumer Electronics
*The LCD/LED Television category was asked in a different manner in 2010, comparisons are not available.
Among customers answering the question.
An upper-case letter indicates a significant difference in proportions at the 95% confidence level between the current column and the column indicated by the letter.
E1A-C: For each of the following types of electronic equipment listed, indicate the number used at this residence.
1Caution: small base size.
62
2010A 2016B
Canyon
C
Capital
D
Eastern
E
Western
F
Southern
G IdahoH OregonI
Cable, Satellite, or DVR Set Top Box*
None
NA
28%33%27%30%26%27%28%28%
1 36%34%34%34%40%41%36%41%
2 23%18%24%23%25%23%23%20%
3 9%10%11%F 10%F 6%7%9%7%
4+4%6%F 5%3%2%3%4%4%
Base (unweighted)--1948 357 373 409 416 393 1835 113
Base (weighted)--1951 ----------1886 --
Video-Game Console*
None
NA
62%55%60%59%75%68%CDE 61%79%H
1 27%30%F 28%F 30%FG 17%23%F 27%I 16%
2 8%12%FG 9%7%5%7%9%I 2%
3 2%3%3%3%2%1%2%3%
4+1%2%1%1%1%1%1%—
Base (unweighted)1 --1677 319 327 358 334 339 1587 90
Base (weighted)--1695 ----------1643 --
DVD/BluRay Player*
None
NA
24%26%21%24%28%30%D 24%28%
1 54%48%57%C 52%53%51%53%59%
2 17%20%17%19%15%15%17%11%
3 4%5%4%4%2%3%4%1%
4+1%2%1%1%1%1%1%1%
Base (unweighted)--1846 343 370 389 371 373 1745 101
Base (weighted)--1879 ----------1821 --
Consumer Electronics
*New items added in 2016
Among customers answering the question.
An upper-case letter indicates a significant difference in proportions at the 95% confidence level between the current column and the column indicated by the letter.
E1D-F: For each of the following types of electronic equipment listed, indicate the number used at this residence.
1Caution: small base size.
63
2010
A
2016
B
Canyon
C
Capital
D
Eastern
E
Western
F
Southern
G Idaho
H
Oregon
I
Desktop Computer
None 28%38%A 39%33%44%D 44%D 38%45%
1 60%B 52%51%55%48%50%52%49%
2 9%9%8%11%FG 6%6%9%5%
3 2%1%2%1%1%1%1%2%
4+1%0%1%—0%—0%—
Base (unweighted)1347 1868 347 359 397 385 380 1761 107
Base (weighted)1355 1876 ----------1814 --
Laptop Computer
None 35%B 29%34%23%34%D 36%D 29%37%
1 47%47%45%50%47%44%48%41%
2 14%17%A 16%18%15%17%17%17%
3 4%6%A 5%8%EFG 3%2%6%3%
4+1%1%1%1%2%2%1%3%
Base (unweighted)1247 1933 348 382 406 397 400 1825 108
Base (weighted)1254 1956 ----------1893 --
Among customers answering the question.An upper-case letter indicates a significant difference in proportions at the 95% confidence level between the current column and the column indicated by the letter.E1G-H: For each of the following types of electronic equipment listed, indicate the number used at this residence
Consumer Electronics
Lighting
64
65
27%23%
34%
61%
28%
89%
48%
47%
59%
34%
47%
6%
16%20%
6%4%
15%
3%5%6%
1%1%
6%
2%3%3%0%1%2%1%
CFL Bulbs IncandescentBulbs FluorescentTubes Halogen Bulbs LED Bulbs Other
20
1
6

%

o
f

R
e
s
p
o
n
d
e
n
t
s
None
1-10
11-20
21-30
31-40
41+
Among customers answering the question.F1A-F: Approximately how many of the following types of light bulbs are used in fixtures (including lamps) at this residence?Base: CFL Bulbs: 1653, Incandescent Bulbs: 1575, Fluorescent Tubes: 1593, Halogen Bulbs: 1329, LED Bulbs:1621, Other: 608
Lighting
66
46%47%53%
77%
48%
97%
36%33%
41%
20%
34%
2%
12%14%
4%2%
11%
1%4%4%
1%1%
4%
1%2%2%2%1%1%1%
CFL Bulbs IncandescentBulbs FluorescentTubes Halogen Bulbs LED Bulbs Other
20
1
6

%

o
f

R
e
s
p
o
n
d
e
n
t
s
None
1-10
11-20
21-30
31-40
41+
F1A-F: Approximately how many of the following types of light bulbs are used in fixtures (including lamps) at this residence?Base: 2272
Lighting (among all customers)*
* “Missing” responses are recoded to “none.”
67
2010
A
2016
B
Canyon
C
Capital
D
Eastern
E
Western
F
Southern
G
Idaho
H
Oregon
I
CFL Bulbs
None 16%27%A 35%23%25%32%DF 28%23%
1-10 52%48%40%53%CG 51%C 45%48%56%
11-20 20%B 16%16%15%15%16%16%14%
21-30 7%B 5%4%5%6%G 3%5%6%
31-40 3%3%3%3%2%3%3%1%
41+2%1%3%1%1%2%1%—
Base (unweighted)1 1346 1653 297 337 349 351 319 1563 90
Base (weighted)1351 1685 ----------1633 --
Incandescent Bulbs
None 14%23%A 29%18%22%31%DF 23%27%
1-10 45%47%40%52%CG 52%CG 37%47%48%
11-20 23%20%20%20%17%22%20%18%
21-30 10%B 6%8%6%7%5%6%4%
31-40 5%B 3%1%3%2%3%3%2%
41+4%B 2%2%1%1%3%2%1%
Base (unweighted)1 1301 1575 283 308 338 339 307 1490 85
Base (weighted)1307 1584 ----------1535 --
Among customers answering the question.An upper-case letter indicates a significant difference in proportions at the 95% confidence level between the current column and the column indicated by the letter.F1A-B: Approximately how many of the following types of light bulbs are used in fixtures (including lamps) at this residence?
Lighting
1Caution: small base size.
68
*New item added in 2016
Among customers answering the question.
An upper-case letter indicates a significant difference in proportions at the 95% confidence level between the current column and the column indicated by the letter.
F1C-E: Approximately how many of the following types of light bulbs are used in fixtures (including lamps) at this residence?
Lighting
2010
A
2016
B
Canyon
C
Capital
D
Eastern
E
Western
F
Southern
G
Idaho
H
Oregon
I
Bulbs
None 28%34%33%31%32%35%34%32%
1-10 64%B 59%61%59%61%56%59%57%
11-20 6%6%5%8%5%6%6%8%
21-30 2%1%1%2%2%2%1%3%
31-40 0%0%—0%0%0%0%—
41+0%0%————0%—
Base (unweighted)1 1191 1593 290 305 351 336 311 1503 90
Base (weighted)1196 1592 ----------1541 --
Halogen Bulbs
None 58%61%59%63%66%59%61%74%H
1-10 37%34%36%32%29%34%34%24%
11-20 4%4%5%3%4%5%4%3%
21-30 1%1%DF —2%D 0%1%1%—
31-40 1%1%0%—0%1%1%—
41+0%0%—0%0%—0%—
Base (unweighted)1 1000 1329 251 264 276 280 258 1257 72
Base (weighted)1010 1348 ----------1307 --
LED Bulbs*
None
NA
28%24%30%36%30%28%35%
1-10 47%48%45%46%48%47%49%
11-20 15%17%16%12%15%15%10%
21-30 6%6%6%3%5%6%4%
31-40 2%3%1%2%2%2%2%
41+2%2%1%1%1%2%—
Base (unweighted)1 --1621 303 320 347 323 328 1538 83
Base (weighted)--1642 ----------1595 --
1Caution: small base size.
Energy Efficiency
69
70
4%
5%
6%
11%
11%
14%
17%
19%
20%
27%
27%
28%
28%
0%10%20%30%40%
Whole-house fans
Heat pump
Duct sealing
Attic insulation
Stand-alone freezer(s)
Central AC
Furnace
Ceiling fan
Window(s)
Dishwasher
Thermostat
Refrigerator(s)
Clothes washer
Installed/Replaced (% Yes)2010A 2016B 2016 Base (weighted)2016 Base(unweighted)
Installed/Replaced (% Yes)
Clothes washer 29%28%1900 1901
Refrigerator(s)23%28%A 1890 1904
Thermostat*—27%1842 1846
Dishwasher 20%27%A 1856 1858
Window(s)19%20%1869 1877
Ceiling fan*—19%1810 1823
Furnace 14%17%1834 1832
Central AC 12%14%A 1810 1807
Stand-alone freezer(s)11%11%1777 1789
Attic insulation 10%11%1820 1829
Duct sealing 7%B 6%1726 1747
Heat pump 6%5%1670 1699
Whole-house fans*—4%1718 1729
*Items added in 2016Among customers answering the question.An upper-case letter indicates a significant difference in proportions at the 95% confidence level between the current column and the column indicated by the letter.D1A-M: In the past three years, have you installed or replaced any of the following at this residence?
Appliances Installed/Replaced
71
Canyon
C
Capital
D
Eastern
E
Western
F
Southern
G
Idaho
H
Oregon
I
%Base
unwtd %Base
unwtd %Base
unwtd %Base
unwtd %Base
unwtd %Base
wtd
Base
unwtd %Base
wtd
Base
unwtd1
Installed/Replaced (% Yes)
Clothes washer 29%345 29%362 28%396 25%414 29%384 28%1834 1787 31%--114
Refrigerator(s)29%340 28%357 27%400 26%426 26%381 28%1827 1794 26%--110
Thermostat 29%G 328 30%354 24%394 23%414 22%356 27%1781 1740 23%--106
Dishwasher 30%EFG 335 30%355 22%392 19%407 21%369 27%1794 1750 15%--108
Window(s)17%336 21%355 20%397 16%413 21%376 20%1808 1772 16%--105
Ceiling fan 19%F 326 20%342 18%392 13%400 19%F 363 19%1750 1720 12%--103
Furnace 20%EFG 338 21%351 12%386 10%401 10%356 17%1774 1728 14%--104
Central AC 18%EFG 333 18%347 7%376 10%400 7%351 14%1749 1701 15%--106
Stand-alone
freezer(s)12%319 10%337 12%379 13%401 13%353 11%1715 1681 19%H --108
Attic insulation 7%330 11%346 14%C 392 10%404 10%357 11%1759 1723 9%--106
Duct sealing 6%319 5%321 6%372 4%388 6%347 6%1667 1645 6%--102
Heat pump 8%E 305 5%309 4%362 7%386 5%337 5%1613 1600 5%--99
Whole-house
fans 4%310 4%325 4%365 4%383 5%346 4%1661 1630 3%--99
Among customers answering the question.An upper-case letter indicates a significant difference in proportions at the 95% confidence level between the current column and the column indicated by the letter.D1A-M: In the past three years, have you installed or replaced any of the following at this residence?
Appliances Installed/Replaced
1Caution: small base size.
72
Yes
24%
No76%
Idaho Power Offers Rebates on Energy Efficient Products
2010*
A
2016
B
Canyon
C
Capital
D
Eastern
E
Western
F
Southern
G
Idaho
H
Oregon
I
Idaho Power Offers Rebates on Energy Efficient Products
Yes
NA
24%27%EFG 28%EFG 18%20%25%19%
No 76%73%72%82%80%CD CD 76%81%
Base
(unweighted)--1923 345 373 391 426 388 1811 112
Base
(weighted)--1931 ----------1867 --
*Question added in 2016Among customers answering the question.An upper-case letter indicates a significant difference in proportions at the 95% confidence level between the current column and the column indicated by the letter.D2: Have you participated in any Idaho Power energy efficiency program?
Participation in Idaho Power Energy Efficiency Programs
Demographics
73
Demographics
74
Among customers answering the question.An upper-case letter indicates a significant difference in proportions at the 95% confidence level between the current column and the column indicated by the letter.G1: Are you…?G2: Which of the following categories best describes your age?G3: What is the highest level of education you completed?
2010
A
2016
B
Canyon
C
Capital
D
Eastern
E
Western
F
Southern
G Idaho
H
Oregon
I
Gender
Male 44%44%42%42%45%51%44%48%
Female 56%56%59%F 58%F 55%49%56%F 53%
Base (unweighted)1627 2131 383 413 452 460 426 2013 118
Base (weighted)1629 2138 ----------2070 --
Age
Under 35 13%B 8%10%F 8%F 8%F 3%7%F 4%
35-54 30%28%30%EFG 32%EFG 24%F 18%24%F I 19%
55-74 41%47%A 41%45%49%C 58%49%C 55%
75+16%18%19%16%19%20%20%23%
Base (unweighted)1670 2201 393 419 471 475 443 2077 124
Base (weighted)1670 2196 ----------2124 --
Education
High school grad or less 27%24%31%D 18%26%D 31%27%D 38%H
Trade/Tech/Some College 38%37%41%F 35%42%DF 34%38%36%
College Grad+36%39%A 28%48%CEFG 32%34%35%C I 26%
Base (unweighted)1658 2181 388 420 469 465 439 2061 120
Base (weighted)1659 2183 ----------2114 --
Appendix A: End-Use Survey Methods “Cookbook”
75
Research Methodology
76
Idaho Power and Market Strategies collaborated on the survey design. The survey includes a total of 70 questions.
The questions were organized around 7 categories:
Section A: Residence Characteristics (8 questions)
Section B: Heating & Cooling Equipment (13 questions)
Section C: Appliances (18 questions)
Section D: Home Improvements (15 questions)
Section E: Consumer Electronics (8 questions)
Section F: Lighting (6 questions)
Section G: Demographics (3 questions)
The survey materials are shown on the following six pages.
Survey
77
Survey
A7.Choose the statement that best describes the type of windows at this residence.
O All ormostare single pane
O All ormostare double pane
A8.Choose the statement that best describes the type of window frames at this residence.
O Mixture of vinyl,wood,and metal frames
O Don't know
O Mixture of single and double pane
O Don't know
SS9IDAHOE9P0UVB
An|CA£QQPLSn'p.p,
O Ail ormost have vinyl frame
O All ormost have woodframe
O All ormost have metal frame
Section B:Heating and Cooling Equipment
Heating
2016 Home Energy Survey
Please complete this survey for the residence at the service location address listed on the last page of this survey.
ESI.Is natural gas service available at this residence?
Section A:Your Residence
A1.Which of the following best describes this residence?
O Mobile home
O Manufactured home
O Single-family home—detached
O Apartment condo,townhouse,ormulti-familywith 2-3 units
O Apartment condo,townhouse,ormulti-familywith 4 or moreunits
O Other—please specify.
A2.Is this residence occupied year-round,or for only part of the year?
O Al!of the year,or most of the year
O As a seasonal home orvacation home skip to A4
O Other—please specify:
A3,If this is your primary residence,how many people live here?
O 3
O 4
O Don't knowOYesONo
B2.What one fuel is used most often to heat this residence?Mark one.
O Electricity
O Natural gas
O Wood
O Other—please specify.
O Propane
O Fuel oil
B3.What type of heating system is used most often at this residence?Mark one.
O Central furnace with ducts
O Heat pump
O Ceiling cable
O Built-in wall or baseboard
heaters with noducts
O Portable room heaters
O Stove,fireplace,orfireplace
insert
O Other—please specify
B4.Approximately what is the age of the primary heating system at this residence?
O 3 years or less
O 4-10years
B5.Do you use an additional heating system/equipment atthis residence?
O Yes
O Don't knowO11-20year5
O More than 20 years
O 1
O 2
A4,Do you own or rent this residence?
O Own
A5,When was this residence originally built?
(Please select when thebuilding was originallyconstructed,not when it was remodeled,added tor orconverted.)
O Before 1960
O 1960-1979
A6,What is the approximate overall square footage of this residence?
(include basementor garage ONLYifitis regularly heated or cooled byyourheatingandcoolingsystem.)
O Lessthan 1,000 square feet(ft7)
O 1,000-1,799 ft2
O 1,800-2,499 ft7
O 2,500-3,499 ft2
O 5
O 6ormore O Don't know skipTO B9ONOSKIPTOB9
B6.What one fuel is used in this additional heating system?Mark one.
O Electricity
O Natural gas
O Rent O Wood
O Other—please specify
O Propane
O Fuel oil
O Don'tknowO1980-1989 O 2000-2009
B7.What type of additional heating system is used at this residence?Mark one.
O Central furnace with ducts
O Heat pump
O Ceiling cable
O 1990-1999 O 2010-2016
O Built-in wall or baseboard
heaters with no ducts
O Portable room heaters
O Stove,fireplace,orfireplace
insert
O Other—please specifyO3,500-4,499 ft2
O 4,500 ft2 or more
O if you know the exact square footage,write it here:B8.How many portable electric space heaters do you use at this residence?
O Two O ThreeormoreONoneOOne
1
2
77
Survey
78
Survey
B9.Ifthis residence has a heat pump,what kind of heat pump Is It?
O Airsource
O Ground source
O Don't know
C6,How many mid-and/or full-size refrigeratorfs)do you use at this residence?
O NoneSKIPTO C8ONoheatpump
O Water source
O Ductless
O Other—please specify:O Threeor moreOOneOTwo
C7,How old is each mid-or full-size refrigerator at this residence?
3 years or less 11-20 years More than 20years4-10 years Don't knowCoolingFirstrefrigerator
Second refrigerator
Third refrigerator
O O O O O
0 O o o oB10.Does this residence have air conditioning?
O NoSKIPTO B13 0 o o o oODon't know SKIPto B13OYes
C8,How many stand-alone freezers (either chest or upright)do you use at this residence?
O None skipTO C10
B1 1.What type of air conditioning system is usedat this residence?Markall that apply.
O Other—please specify:O ThreeormoreOOneOTwoOIndividualroomorwindow
airconditioner
O An evaporative/swamp cooler
B12.How many individual electric room or window air conditioners do you use atthis residence?
Do not count evaporative/swamp coolers.
O None
O A central air conditioner
O A heat pump C9.How old is each stand-alone freezer at this residence?
3years orless 11-20 years More than 20years Don't know4-1 0 years
First freezer O O o o o
Second freezer O O O O O
O Three ormoreOOneOTwo Third freezer O O O O O
B13.What best describes the heating and cooling thermostat at this residence?
O Manuallyadjusted
O Programmable
Section C:Appliances
Water Heater
C10.How many electric dishwashers do you have at this residence?
O Nodtswasher
LaundryAppliances
C1 1 .Do you have a clothes washer at this residence?
O Yes,in residence for private use
O Yes,in a common area for useby more than one householdskipto Ct3
O No SKIP TO C13
O Smart thermostat
{wr-fi enabled)
O Do not havea thermostat
O Don't know
O One O Two or more
CI.How many water heaters are used at this residence?
O None SKIPTOC4 O Three ormoreOOne
C2.What type of fuel does the primary water heaterat this residence use?
O Electricity
O Natural gas
C3.Which of the following best describes the primary water heater used at this residence?
O Conventionalstorage tank
O Tankless
Kitchen Appliances
O Two
Approximately how old is the clothes washer used at this residence?
O 3 years or less
O 4-10 years
Do you have a clothes dryer at this residence?
O Yes,in residence for private use
O Yes,in a common area for useby more than one householdskipTO D1
O No SKIP TO Di
C12.
O Other—please specify:O Propane
O Don't know
O Don't knowO11-20 years
O Morethan 20 years
C13.
O Other—please specify:O Heat pump
O Don't know
C4.What type of fuel does the kitchen stovetop at this residence use?
O Electricity
O Natural gas
What type of fuel does the clothes dryer at this residence use?
O Electricity
O Natural gas
C14.
O Don't know
O Other—please specify:
O Propane
O Donot have a stovetop
O Don't know
O Other—please specify:
O Propane
O Do not havea clothes dryer
C5.What type of fuel does the kitchen oven at this residence use?
Do not include the microwave oven.
O Electricity
O Natural gas
O Don't know
O Other—please specify:
O Propane
O Donothave an oven
3 4
78
Survey
79
Survey
Section D:Home Improvements
D1.In the past three years,have you installed or replaced any of the following at this residence?
Check allthat apply.
Don'tknowYesNo
Attic insulation 0 O o
Duct sealing 0 0 o
Windowfc)0 O o
Furnace
Heat pump
Central air conditioning system
Whole-housefans
Ceiling fan
Thermostat
Refrigerators)
Stand-alonefreezerfc)
Dishwasher
Clotheswasher
O O O
O O O
O O o
0 o o
0 o o
0 o o
o o o
o o o Section G:About your household
O o o
G1.Are you ...?
O Male
0 O o
O Female
D2.Have you participated in any Idaho Power energy efficiency program?
O Yes
Section E:Consumer Electronics
G2.Which of the following best describes your age?
O Under 25
O 25-34
O Don't knowONo
O 35-44 O 55-64 O 75 or over
O 45-54 O 65-74
El.For each of the electronic equipment listed below,please indicate the number used at this residence.G3.What isthe highest level of education you have completed?
ThreeNoneOneTwo Fouror more O Did rot attend high school
O Some high school
O High-school graduate/GED
O Some college
O 2-year associate degree or tradeAechnical school
O 4-year collegedegree
O Some graduate courses
O Advanced degree
Standardtelevision (tube orCRT)
Plasma television
LCD/LEDtelevision
O 0 o o o
0 0 o o o
o o o o o
Cable,satellite,orDVR settop bo*O o o o o
Video-game console O o o o o
Comments
Is there anything else you would like to tell us about this survey or Idaho Power?If so,please use this
space for your comments.
DVD/BluRaypteyer
Desktop computer
Laptop computer
0 0 O O 0
O 0 0 O O
o 0 o o o
Section F:Lighting
F1,Approximately how many of the following types of light bulbs are used In fixtures.Including lamps,
at this residence?
Morathan 40Nonet-10 11-20 21-30 31-40
Compact fluorescent (CFL)bulbs
Incandescent bulbs
Fluorescent tubes
Halogen bulbs
LED bulbs
Other—please specify:
0 ?O O O o
0 0 o o o o
0 0 o o o o
o o o o Q o
o o o o o o
Thank you for yourtime and assistance.Your participation is greatly appreciated and will be used in
determining how to meet future electricity needs of our customers.To find more information about
Idaho Power,please visit idahopower.com.
O o o o 0 o
5 6
79
80
Cover Letter: 1st and 2nd MailingCoverLetter:1st and 2nd Mailing
IDAHO
POWERPOWER
[Insert Data {insert uaisi
[Namel]
[Address1][AckJress2]
[maii_City].[maii_State][mail_Zip]
[Namel]
[Addressi}[Address2[
[mail_City],[mall_State][maiLZip]
[servicelocation]
[pftysicaLaddress]
{physical_cityl[physicaLstate]
(physicaLzip]
[servicelocation]
[physicai_address]
[physical_cityj,Iphysical_state]
[physical_zip3Dear[firstjiamejetter]Dear Idaho PowerCustomer:
At Idaho Power,we like heanng from our customers and we'd like you to complete a survey
aboutyourenergy usage so we can learn more about how our customers use electricity.
A coupleof weeks ago,Idaho Power mailed out the 2016 Home Energy Survey to some ofour
residential customers-Ifyou havealready completed it thank you and please ignore this letter.
We know your time is valuable,andifyou have nothad a chance to completethe survey,we
would still like to hear from you about your energy usage.If you would like to have yourAnimportantpartofourbusinessinvolveslisteningtocustomerstogainabetterunderstanding
ofhew you useenergy.The inputyou provide helps us plan forthefuture and develop services
and programs to meetyourenergy needs.
responses included in ourstudy,pleasemail your completed survey by Tuesday,December 27,
2:
Participating inthissurveyiseasy.Simply complete the enclosed mall survey and use the pre
paid postage envelope to return it to us.
Participating in this survey is easy.Simply completethe enclosed mail survey and use the pre
paid postageenvelope to return itto us.
This survey is concerning [physicaLaddress],[physical_cityL [physical_state][physical_zip]and
how youand yourhousehold use electricity at that location.All survey results are confidential
and are only usedtohelp Idaho Power make planning decisionsaround programs and services
in the future 1f you haveany questions,please give us a call at 1-208-333-2323 in the Treasure
Valleycalling area or 1-800-4B8-6151 outside oftoeTreasureValley calling area.
This survey is concerning [physica|_address],[physical_city],Iphysical_statej [physjca|_zip]and
how you and yourhousehold use electricity atthat location..All survey resultsare confidential
and are only usedtohelp Idaho Power make planning decisions around programs and services
in the future.If you have any questions,please give us a call at 1-208-388-2323 in the Treasure
Valley calling area or 1-3DQ-4BS-61 51 outside of the Treasure Valleycalling area.
Weappreciate the opportunity toserve you and thank you fortaking the time tocompletethe
survey.
We appreciate the opportunity to serve you and thank youfortaking toe time to completethis
survey.
Sincerely ,Sincerely,
"/estJ•i
j-.t£a 1 l7v.
!
I
Lisa A.Grow
SeniorVice PresidentofOperations
Lisa A.Grow
SeniorVice President of Operations
Enclosure Enclosure
¦Mitt*
80
81
Reminder PostcardReminderPostcard
SIDAHO POWER,
J«n |DACa:I?P Campa ny
Dear <<First_Name_letter»,
Last week,Idaho Power mailed the 2016 Home Energy Survey to you.
We would still like to hear from you;if you have already returned the
survey,thank you and disregard this postcard.
We know your time is valuable,and if you have not completed the
survey,we'd still like to hear about your home energy usage.
If you have any questions,call Idaho Power at 1-S00-48S-6151
or email your questions to [e-mail].
Best Wishes,
J)
Lisa Grow,Senior Vice President of Operations
81
Sample Design
82
As noted in the methodology section of this report, the targeted
population of this study is Idaho Power’s base of residential
customers across the entire service territory.
Idaho Power provided a single list containing customer name and
address:
–Main sample: A random sample of residential customers to be
used for the overall analysis. The list included five operating
regions (Canyon, Capital, Eastern, Western, Southern), in
addition to customers in Oregon.
Sample was pulled proportionally to the distribution by region and
state.
Sample cleaning involved identifying duplicates and working with
Idaho Power to review on a case-by-case basis which records to
leave in the valid mailing sample.
Sample record addresses were cleaned and updated prior based
on USPS information to the first survey mail out.
Sample Variables
Region
ID
County
State
Phys_Address
City
ZIP
First_Name_Letter
First_Name
Mid_Name
Last_Name
Name1
Name2
Address1
Address2
Address3
Installn_Type_Cd
2010
•Mail and web, administered by
Market Strategies
•Survey mailed to 5,407
customers across the five
regions, an oversample of
Oregon customers, and Load
Research customers
•Of the 5,407 surveys, 1943
were returned.
•Design included an initial survey
mailing, a follow up postcard, and a
second survey mailing.
•Sample was stratified by region
•Data weighted by region
•Distribution by region provided
by Idaho Power
Changes in Study Design: 2010 vs. 2016
83
2016
•Mail only, administered by Market
Strategies
•Survey mailed to 6,150
customers across the five
regions
•No oversample of Oregon or
Load Research customers
•Of the 6,150 surveys, 2,296
were returned
•Mailing schedule methodology
unchanged from 2010
•Sample design unchanged from
2010
•Data weighting unchanged from
2010
•Weighted by region with the
region distribution provided by
Idaho Power
Survey Differences: 2010 vs. 2016
84
2016The following list of questions were either new in 2016 or worded differently
compared to the 2010 survey
Residence•No changes made
Heating
•No changes made
Cooling•No changes made
Appliances
•No changes made
Electronics
•Combined LCD/LED TV categories
•Question added regarding number of cable, satellite, or DVR set top boxes
Lighting•Question added regarding number of LED bulbs
Home Improvement
•Added questions for having installed or replaced whole-house fans, ceiling fans, and thermostats•Added question on participating in Idaho Power’s energy efficiency program
Demographics
•No changes made
2010
The following list of questions were either asked in 2010 but not in 2016 or were
worded differently compared to the 2016 survey
Residence
•No changes made
Heating•No changes made
Cooling
•One question removed regarding evaporative/swamp coolers (number owned)
Appliances•Question removed regarding microwave ovens (number owned)
•Question removed regarding mini-fridges/beverage coolers (number owned)
Electronics•Individual questions regarding LCD and LED TVs combined in 2016
Lighting
•No changes made
Energy Efficiency•Entire section removed regarding Energy Star qualified equipment
•Question regarding awareness of Idaho Power offering energy efficiency rebates
Home Improvement•No changes made
Demographics
•No changes made
Project Task Responsibilities
85
Idaho Power provided a final survey instrument and handled the graphic design of the survey.
Idaho Power was responsible for drafting the cover letter, reminder postcard, and follow-up letter. Idaho Power also
provided the outbound envelopes (window #10) for both mail outs.
Market Strategies was responsible for printing the surveys, cover letters, and reminder postcards and provided return
envelopes with postage.
An outside vendor (Allegra Print & Imaging) was selected by Market Strategies to provide printing and mailing
services.
Survey returns were sent directly to Market Strategies. The PIN for each survey was logged the day it arrived in the
mail. Completed surveys were then sent to an outside vendor (Data Direction) for data entry.
Undeliverable surveys were returned to Idaho Power.
Idaho Power completed a spreadsheet as to which surveys were undeliverable and Market Strategies logged the
pins numbers in an internal case tracking system to aid in calculating an accurate response rate.
Data Cleaning
86
•Data cleaning included the following steps:
−A “no response” code (-9) was added to all questions where a respondent was qualified to answer the question
but did not (i.e, the question blank was left blank).
−Applied data cleaning on filtered questions A3, B6, B7, B8, B11, B12, C2, C3, C7, C9, C12, and C14 based on
questionnaire skip patterns.
•For example using A2, in the questionnaire the filter is: IF A2=”all or most of the year” or “other”, go to
A3.Anyone who answers “a seasonal home” skips to A4. Therefore, in the mail data, if A2 is “a seasonal
home” but there are responses in A3, A3 is set to missing (as if the respondent had followed the skip pattern
correctly).
Saturation Rate Calculation Definitions
87
1994 2004 2010 2016
- Elect.
% using electricity as primary
heat source
% using electricity as primary
heat source (pg. 35)
% using electricity as primary
heat source (B2)
% using electricity as primary
heat source (B2)
Resistance
Primary electric: central furnace,
baseboards, ceiling cables, wall
heaters (p 39)
Electric central furnace,
baseboard, ceiling cables, wall
heaters, radiant heat, other
(B2/B3)
Electric central furnace,
baseboard, ceiling cables, wall
heaters, radiant heat, other
(B2/B3)
Heat Pump
% with electric heat pump
(Question reads: do you have an
electric heat pump) (pg. 46)
% with a heat pump / % electric
heat pump
% with a heat pump / % electric
heat pump
Portable Heaters na
Average number of portable
electric heaters (pg. 28)
Average number of portable
electric heaters (B8)
Average number of portable
electric heaters (B8)
Central A/C
% with central air or heat
pump
% with central air or heat pump
(pg. 52)
% with central air or heat pump
(B10/B11)
% with central air or heat pump
(B10/B11)
Evaporative Swamp Coolers
% with one or more swamp
coolers
% with one or more swamp
coolers (pg. 54)
% with one or more swamp
coolers (B10/B13) % with swamp coolers (B11)
Room A/C Units
Avg number of room A/C
units
Avg number of room A/C units
(pg. 54)
Avg number of room A/C units
(B10/B12)
Avg number of room A/C units
(B12)
Water Heater % with electric water heater
% with electric water heater (pg
56)
% with electric water heater
(C1/C2) % with electric water heater (C2
Range % with electric range % with electric range % with electric range (C4) % with electric range (C4)
Refrigerators Avg number of refrig. Avg number of refrig. Avg number of refrig. (C7) Avg number of refrig. (C6)
Freezer % with one or more freezers % with one or more freezers
% with one or more freezers
(C10) % with one or more freezers
Dishwasher % with one or more % with one or more % with one or more (C12) % with one or more (C10)
Clothes Washer % with one % with one % with one (C13) % with one (C11)
Clothes Dryer % with electric dryer % with electric dryer % with electric dryer (C15/C16) % with electric dryer (C13)
A/C Efficiency Survey Results
July/August 2016
Survey was sent to 1037 empowered community members
Participation rate was 67%
Survey was sent to all empowered community members regardless of heat source
Respondent data
84% homeowners / 10% renters
49% male / 51% female
23% from CanyonWest region / 54% from Capital region / 23% from SouthEast region
26% from electrically heated homes / 66% from natural gas heated homes / 7% from homes heated by other fuel
sources
QUESTION TOTAL:692
DID NOT ANSWER:0
TOTAL
O1 554
O2 138
EE tips:
Even if you don't have central air conditioning, here are a few tips that can help keep
your home cooler in summer:
Keep draperies drawn and windows closed. This will prevent cool air from escaping
and warm air from seeping in through glass areas. Weather-strip and seal around all
doors and windows.
Try to limit the afternoon use of heat-producing appliances in the kitchen and laundry
areas.
Insulate your home. Wall, ceiling, floor and attic insulation will keep the heat out
during the summer and the warmth in during the winter.
No 19.94%
Do you have central air conditioning in your home?
OPTIONS PERCENT
Yes 80.06%
80.06%
19.94%
Yes
No
QUESTION TOTAL:554
DID NOT ANSWER:0
TOTAL
O1 373
O2 70
O3 111
EE tips:
Don't fiddle with thermostats. Set your thermostat at 78° F or higher for cooling – every degree above 78
can save you on your energy bill. For additional savings, modify the temperature setting further when you
leave home or go to bed.
Check the reliability of your thermostat. Place a thermometer next to the thermostat and check the degree
readings of each. If they vary more than a couple of degrees, replace the thermostat.
Keep draperies drawn and windows closed. This will prevent cool air from escaping and warm air from
seeping in through glass areas. Weather-strip and seal around all doors and windows.
Help your air conditioner work more efficiently. During the summer, try to limit the afternoon use of heat-
producing appliances in the kitchen and laundry areas.
Insulate your home. Wall, ceiling, floor and attic insulation will keep the heat out during the summer and
the warmth in during the winter.
~ Additional home cooling tips include:
~ Nearly half of US homes have a programmable thermostat, but many have not actually programmed it. And,
it needs to be set appropriately for the season. Keeping your thermostat at the same temperature all year
long, regardless of time of day or year, can impact your electricity bill.
~ If you have a programmable thermostat and haven’t programmed it, dig out that owner’s manual and learn
how to use yours to maximize the efficiency of your heating and cooling systems. Program your thermostat to
turn itself down or off when you’re sleeping or are at work or school. And change the setting for summer so
that the temperature increases during the day when you are away from home and cools down just before you
return in the evening.
~ If you haven’t installed a programmable thermostat, it is a great way to keep comfortable and save energy.
Never turn your thermostat way up or way down to speed up the cooling or heating process. This will
force your unit to, stay on longer and use more energy.
Do you have a programmable thermostat in your home?
OPTIONS PERCENT
Yes, and I have programmed it 67.33%
asked only of customers with central air
Yes, but I haven’t programmed it 12.64%
No 20.04%
67.33%
12.64%
20.04%
Yes, and I have programmed it
Yes, but I haven’t programmed it
No
QUESTION TOTAL:554
DID NOT ANSWER:0
TOTAL
O1 119
O2 357
O3 78
EE tip:
This statement is false. Never shut off a supply vent going into a room – this will actually
decrease the amount of air circulating throughout the home.
OPTIONS PERCENT
True 21.48%
asked only of customers with central air
Shutting off air supply vents going into a room is a good way to save energy.
False 64.44%
Unsure 14.08%
21.48%
64.44%
14.08%
True
False
Unsure
QUESTION TOTAL:554
DID NOT ANSWER:0
TOTAL
O1 81
O2 445
O3 28
EE tip:
Always keep the Air Conditioner fan on “Auto”. Placing the fan in the “On” position will use
more energy and put more wear and tear on the fan.
Which Air Conditioner fan setting is best: 'On' or 'Auto'?
OPTIONS PERCENT
On 14.62%
asked only of customers with central air
Auto 80.32%
Unsure 5.05%
14.62%
80.32%
5.05% On
Auto
Unsure
QUESTION TOTAL:554
DID NOT ANSWER:0
TOTAL
O1 445
O2 28
O3 81
EE tip:
Pleated filters are your best bet , removing 35% to 40% of harmful particles in the air. Standard
filters are only capable of removing 10% of airborne pollutants.
Dirt and neglect are the top causes of heating and cooling system inefficiency and failure. Clean
or replace the Air Conditioner filter regularly to help your unit run more efficiently and trim
cooling costs.
Which of the following is the better type of filter for your Air Conditioner?
OPTIONS PERCENT
Pleated (also known as Extended-Surface)80.32%
asked only of customers with central air
Standard Panel (usually made of woven, fiberglass 5.05%
Unsure 14.62%
80.32%
5.05%
14.62%
Pleated (also known as Extended-Surface)
Standard Panel (usually made of woven,
fiberglass strands)
Unsure
QUESTION TOTAL:692
DID NOT ANSWER:0
TOTAL
O1 194
O2 349
O3 149
EE tip:
Ceiling fans are a great way to keep your home cooler in warmer months – they make a room 4-
6 degrees cooler. They can also keep your home warmer in winter months (when in winter
mode).
Be sure to turn off your ceiling fan when you leave the room to save energy.
Which of the following describes your usage of ceiling fans?
OPTIONS PERCENT
I use ceiling fans to help keep my home cooler, 28.03%
asked of all respondents
I use ceiling fans to help keep my home cooler, but 50.43%
I do not have/use ceiling fans 21.53%
28.03%
50.43%
21.53%
I use ceiling fans to help keep my home
cooler, and leave them running whether
I’m home or not
I use ceiling fans to help keep my home
cooler, but turn them off when I leave the
room/home.
I do not have/use ceiling fans
Question
1. How much would you like to save?
$22 - Install the LED light bulbs, LED night light, and the Kitchen faucet aerator
$138 - Install the above items, unplug an unused refrigerator or freezer, and install the indoor clothes line
$240 - Complete all the Easy Savings® Quick Start Guide Steps
2. Have you lowered your heat during the day?
Yes, I lowered it
Yes, I plan to lower it
No
3. Have you lowered your heat at night?
Yes, I lowered it
Yes, I plan to lower it
No
4. Did you place the Thermostat Temperature Sticker near your thermostat?
Yes, I placed it
Yes, I plan to place it
No
5. Did you install the first 9-watt Light-Emitting Diode (LED)?
Yes, I installed it
Yes, I plan to install it
No
6. Did you install the second 9-watt Light-Emitting Diode (LED)?
Yes, I installed it
Yes, I plan to install it
No
7. Did you install the third 9-watt Light-Emitting Diode (LED)?
Yes, I installed it
Yes, I plan to install it
No
8. Did you install the LED Night Light?
Yes, I installed it
Yes, I plan to install it
No
9. Did you install the Draft Stoppers?
Yes, I installed them
Yes, I plan to install them
No
10. Do you turn off lights in empty rooms more often now?
Yes
No
11. Did you install the Kitchen Faucet Aerator?
Yes, I installed it
Yes, I plan to install them
No, it does not fit pipes
No
12. Do you use cold water when you do your laundry?
Yes, always
Yes, sometimes
Never
13. Did you place the Wash in Cold Water Magnet on your washing machine?
Yes, I placed it
Yes, I plan to place it
Don't have a washing machine
No
14. Did you use the Digital Thermometer to check the temperature of your water?
Yes
Yes, I plan to use it
No
15. Did you change the temperature setting of your water heater?
Yes, I raised it (warmer)
Yes, I lowered it (cooler)
No
16. Did you check the temperature of your refrigerator(s) and freezer(s)?
Yes
Yes, I plan to check it
No
17. Did you adjust the temperature of your refrigerator(s) and freezer(s)?
Yes, turned up (warmer)
Yes, turned down (colder)
No
18. Did you unplug your old or unused refrigerator(s) and freezer(s)?
Yes, I unplugged 1 unit
Yes, I plan to unplug 1 unit
Yes, I unplugged 2 units
Yes, I plan to unplug 2 units
Not applicable
No
19. Did you install the Indoor Clothes Line?
Yes
Yes, I plan to install it
No
20. Did you place the Turn Your Computer Off Sticker on your computer?
Yes
I don't have a computer
No
21. How many items from your Easy Savings® Kit did you install?
All
4 or more
3
2
1
None
22. How effective was the Easy Savings® Quick Start Guide in helping you become more energy efficient?
Very effective
Somewhat effective
Not effective at all
Didn't use
23. Now that you have completed the Easy Savings® Quick Start Guide, how much have you learned about
I learned a lot
I learned a little
Nothing
Survey Response Summary Dated: 6/30/2016
% Answered Qty Answered Total Answered
9%19
100%209
212
88%186
9%20
3%6
100%212
205
54%111
37%76
9%18
100%205
209
99%207
1%2
100%209
210
54%114
18%38
23%49
4%9
100%210
210
69%145
28%59
3%6
100%210
208
61%126
9%19
15%31
15%32
208
206
60%123
26%54
14%29
100%206
206
6%13
42%86
52%107
100%206
210
76%160
19%40
5%10
100%210
209
30%63
27%56
43%90
100%209
207
9%19
0%1
7%14
1%2
77%159
6%12
100%207
204
38%77
30%62
32%65
100%204
209
43%90
42%87
15%32
209
211
39%82
48%101
9%19
2%5
1%2
1%2
100%211
205
15021 A0060 IP-CAPAI
9.DidyouInstallthe Draft Stoppers?
0 Yes.linslalledlhem 0 Yes.Iplantoinstall them 0 No
18.Dldyon unplugyouroldorunusedrefrlgeratoifs)andfreezers(s)?
0 Yes,Iunplugged1 unit 0 Yes.Iunplugged2unils 0 Notapplicable
0 Yes.Iplantounplug 1unit 0 Yes.Iplantounplug2 units 0 No
Usingablackpenorpencil fillin diebubblecompletely.
Pleasedonotcopyorfold terms.
YIS NO 10.Doyouturnofflights in emptyroomsmoreoftennow?
0 Yes
usingLEDsamshuttingoilunusedlights cmSAVEuptosirormorea yean
SAVINGS URGE!
0 No 19.DidyouinstalltheIndoorClothesLine?
1.Howmuchwouldyoullketosave?
0 S22-lnstalltheLEDlightbulbs.LEDnightlightandtheKitchen FaucetAerator.
0 SliS-InslalItheaboveitems.unpluganunusedrefrigeratororfreezer,andinstall
theindoordothesline.
0 $320-CompleteallIheEasySavings'QuiekSMGuideSleps.
0 Yes.l plantoinstallit 0 No
UnpluggingoldrefrigeratorsandfreezersandusingtheindoorClothesLine
canSAVEupto$116ayear!
0 Yes
20.DidpplacetheTurnYourComputerOffStickeronprcomputer?
0 Yes 0 Idon'lhaveacompuler 0 No
turningyourcomputerandmonitoroflwhenunusedcanSAVESUayeail
11.Did you installthe KitchenFaucetAerator?
0 Yes.linstalledit 0 Yes.lplantoinstallit
0 No,itdeesnotlitpipes 0 No
ByinstallingaKitchenFaucetAerator,youcouldsAVEuptoS9ayear!EASY SAVINGS®QUICK STARTGUIDE2.Haveyoulowered prheatdurlng Iheday?
0 lbs,Iloweredit 0 Yfes.Iplanloloweril 0 No 12.Doyouusecoldwaterwhenyoudoprlaundry?
0 Yes.always 0 Yes.Soirelimes 0 Never
2LHowmanyItemsfromyour Easy Savings'KltdldyouInstall?
0 All
0 4ormore 0 2
3.Haveyoulowered prheaiatnight?
0 lbs.Iloweredit 0 Yes.lplantolowerit 0 No
0 3 0 1
13.DidyouplacetheWashInColdWaterMagnetonprwashingmachine?
0 Yes.lplacedil
0 Yes.lplanloplaceii 0 No
BywasningyourlaundryIncoldrwatecyoucouIdSAVEuptosazperyear
0 None
0 Don'lhaveawashingmachine4.DidyouplacetheThermostatTemperatureStickernearprthermostat?
0 %s.Iplaced it 0 Yes,Iplantoplaceit 0 No
*1 22.HoweffectivewastheEasySavings QuickStartGuide inhelpingpbecome
5,moreenergyeffictent?
2'0 VeryeSecSve 0 Somewhateffective 0 NoieSediveatall 0 Didn'tuse
5 ?
s
Asseasonschange,adjustingyourIhermostatJuslSdegreesormorecouIdSAVEupto
$117peryear!i
3314.DidpuseIheDigitalThermometertocheckthetemperatureolpr water?
0 Yes,Iplantouseit
Se 23.Nowthatphavecompleted theEasySavings'Quick StartGuide,howmuch
haveyou learnedaboutsavingenergyand money Inpr home?
0 Ilearnedalol
0 Yes 0 No
0 Ileanedalisle 0 Nothing15.Didpchangethetemperaturesetting olprwaterheater?
0 Yes,Iraisedit(warmer)0 Yes,IIcr/vered it(cooler)0 No
Loweringthe temperatureonyourwetefheatercanSAVEupto$10ayeail
5.Didpinstall Ihe fiist9-waitLight-EmittingDiode(LED)?
O Yes,I installed it O Yes,Iplantoinstall it O No
6.DidpInstallthe second9-wattLight-Emitting Diode(LED)?
O Yes,I installed it O Yes,Iplantoinstall it O No
16.Didpcheckthetemperatureolyourrefrlgeratorts)andfreezerts)?
0 fejplantocheekit 0 No
7,DidpInstall the third9-wattIJght-EmlttlngDiode(LED)?
0 %s,I installed it O fajplantoinstallit O No O Yes
17.Didpadjustthe temperatureolpr refrlgeratorts)andfreezerts)?
O Yes,furnedup(warmer)0 Yes,turneddown(cooler)O No
AdjustingthesellingofyourrefrigeratorcanSAVEupto$5 ayear!
8.DidpInstall the LEDNightLight?
0 Yhs.Iplacedit O fe.Iplantoplaceil O No INSIDE THE KIT ORVISITWWW.DETWISE.ORG/SURVEY/IP-CAMI AND
RESPOND ONLINE FORACHANCETOWIN$TOO!
IftMIUWAIEBhnirfcti W ii»ib taw
IDAHO POWER-CAPAI
EASY SAVINGS SURVEY
SiP&fcyJof)ojotro tado
POWER.
An IQACDBPCo-rnany
COMPLETE AND RETURN THIS
SURVEY FOR A CHANCE TO WIN
$100
I
£ALL YOU HAVE TO DO IS
s1.INSTALL THE ENERGY-EFFICIENCY PRODUCTS in your
Easy Savings kit at your home.&
2 IMPLEMENT THE QUICK STEPS outlined in the Quick
Start Guide and try the energy saving tips.
3.COMPLETE AND RETURN THIS SURVEY for a chance to
win a $1O01*(Postage paJcf envelope included.)
OR COMPLETE IT ONLINE.
Visit www.getwise.org/survey/IP-CAPA!
SAVINGSl-KSldOritaw nqco-»MWarmaior.oanuci CAMIJt 'SA-iTT-JJC
''ill sningt tr*U—si od .J.rjntzily b•juU \0tl.o HouMhoUt jniinq Jlsuggartad-dian&s.
tu>[xr-cnal OMlngsni^'VGiy.
ma»
ni»iPcw«eBew.»i t iiawa sgitH
Do you use a clothes washer at your home?Total Percentage
Yes, in the home for private use 2,066 97.45%
Yes, in a common area for use by more than one household 28 1.32%
No 26 1.23%
Grand Total 2,120 100.00%
Total
Yes, in the home for private use
Yes, in a common area for use
by more than one household
No
Approximately how old is the clothes washer used at your
home?Total Percentage
Less than 5 years old 717 34.70%
5-10 years old 872 42.21%
11-15 years old 309 14.96%
16-20 years old 89 4.31%
Over 20 years old 34 1.65%
I don't know 45 2.18%
Grand Total 2,066 100.00%
Total
Less than 5 years old
5-10 years old
11-15 years old
16-20 years old
Over 20 years old
I don't know
Which of the following best describes the clothes washer you
use at your home?Total Percentage
Front loading clothes washer 713 34.10%
Top loading clothes washer with a center agitator 1,053 50.36%
Top loading clothes washer without a center agitator 325 15.54%
Grand Total 2,091 100.00%
Total
Front loading clothes washer
Top loading clothes washer
with a center agitator
Top loading clothes washer
without a center agitator
What water temperature do you use most often to wash your
laundry?Total Percentage
Cold 994 47.49%
Warm 1,023 48.88%
Hot 63 3.01%
Don't know 13 0.62%
Grand Total 2,093 100.00%
Total
Cold
Warm
Hot
Don't know
What water temperature do you use most often to rinse your
laundry?Total Percentage
Cold 1,702 81.44%
Warm 328 15.69%
Hot 20 0.96%
Don't know 40 1.91%
Grand Total 2,090 100.00%
Total
Cold
Warm
Hot
Don't know
On average, how many washer loads of laundry do you do
per week?Total Percentage
2 or fewer 251 12.00%
3 - 5 1,073 51.29%
6 - 10 643 30.74%
More than 10 125 5.98%
Grand Total 2,092 100.00%
Total
2 or fewer
3 - 5
6 - 10
More than 10
Do you use a clothes dryer at your home?Total Percentage
Yes, in the home for private use 2,037 96.08%
Yes, in a common area for use by more than one household 29 1.37%
No 54 2.55%
Grand Total 2,120 100.00%
Total
Yes, in the home for private
use
Yes, in a common area for
use by more than one
household
No
What type of fuel does your clothes dryer at your home use?Total Percentage
Electricity 1,894 92.98%
Natural Gas 110 5.40%
Don't know 26 1.28%
Other (please specify)7 0.34%
Grand Total 2,037 100.00%
Other (please specify)
Propane
Propane
Propane
Propane
Propane
I haven't plugged it in
Cabin is electric and resident is natural gas.
Total
Electricity
Natural Gas
Don't know
Other (please specify)
Approximately how old is the clothes dryer used at your
home?Total Percentage
Less than 5 years old 609 29.91%
5-10 years old 872 42.83%
11-15 years old 367 18.03%
16-20 years old 101 4.96%
Over 20 years old 41 2.01%
I don't know 46 2.26%
Grand Total 2,036 100.00%
Total
Less than 5 years old
5-10 years old
11-15 years old
16-20 years old
Over 20 years old
I don't know
What percent of your laundry do you currently dry in a
dryer?Total Percentage
100%605 29.28%
75-99%1,094 52.95%
50-74%276 13.36%
25-49%57 2.76%
Less than 25%34 1.65%
Grand Total 2,066 100.00%
Total
100%
75-99%
50-74%
25-49%
Less than 25%
How do you currently dry the laundry that is not dried in a
dryer?Total Percentage
Hang to dry indoors 1,257 72.08%
Hang to dry outdoors 371 21.27%
Other (please specify)116 6.65%
Grand Total 1,744 100.00%
IN winter indoors and summer outdoors
Depends on the season. If warm might take out there
Drape over furniture overnight.
Lay flat to dry
Depends on weather.
Or lay flat
Doors and chairs
lay flat or over furniture
in the garage
When weather allows outside
On the back of chairs
Indoors in winter and totally outdoors in spring and summer and fall
indoors in winter, outdoors in summer
Hang both inside and out
Lay flat on bed.
Hang or lay flat delicates.
Hang both indoors and outdoors with weather permitting
Lay on drying rack
depends on the time of the year. Winter I use hangers, and a bar for light clothes. Summer, I
have a small clothes line I use for heavy items like rugs
depends on the time of the year. If it is warm, we try to hang heavy things outside, and delicate
Other (please specify)
Total
Hang to dry indoors
Hang to dry outdoors
Other (please specify)
Hang to dry indoors in winter but outdoors in warm spring, summer and fall days
Hang indoors to dry but only a few fragile items...thus 99%
Lay out sweaters to dry
Summer outdoors winter indoors
Lay flat on sweater rack on the countertop.
Sweaters laid flat
Hang on shower curtain rod, over doors, etc.
indoor in winter and outdoor in summer
In the warm weather I dry outside on a line; in the cold weather I dry fewer items on a drying rack
in the laundry room
If weather permits, hang out to dry outside, otherwise inside.
I hang my clothes outside all summer.
Both
Winter: dry some on line inside. Summer: dry heavy items on line outside
Drying rack
On my shower curtain or doors
Both indoor & outdoor
I mostly hang inside until summer sun is out.
Lay flat
Though, this is not on a typical clothesline, I have a very unstable small drying rack and I hang
stuff on patio chairs!
In the summer I try to dry the clothes on a clothes line outside.
When the weather is warm enough to do so.
weather permitting outdoors
When the weather cooperates, I hang clothes outside. So, in winter I use dryer more than other
times of the year.
On hangers
both indoors and outdoors
Indoors in winter; outdoors when the weather gets warm enough to dry clothes efficiently.
I hang both indoors & outdoors.
Lay out indoors
In door in winter outdoor in summer
in the summer, we have an outdoor rack...in the winter, some small stuff gets hung on hangars in
the bathroom.
Both
I would do outdoor but we havent got a good place for a line yet :)
Would prefer to dry outdoors but don't have a clothesline at this time
Hang to dry indoors during cool months; Hang to dry outdoors in warmer months.
When it's summertime, I try to dry my laundry on the line, but because I live in an apartment,
there's no real good solution to do that when there's bad weather.
Only in the summer.
Lay on towels on the beds
Outdoors if it is warm, indoor during the winter.
Depends on weather and season
Outside in the summer
Lay flat on a clean surface.
Some clothing (blankets, delicates etc) I use the Sun in the summer on our patio table
Lay flat
I dry inside when it's winter and outside when it's summer
Lay flat to dry
Both depending on weather
It depends on the season, when its warm, mostly outside besides special delicates, which I always
air dry inside.
Lay out on table inside. Or table outside when weather is nice
Lay flat on tables indoors
Outdoors during warm months
Outdoors only in the summer.
Both
It depends on the weather and what I wash
Outdoors in warm weather
Hang outside in summer and inside in wintee
lay flat
Some is dried flat on a drying rack that is coming apart--it's old!
We attempt to dry more in summer time. More challenging in winter - takes longer to dry.
Hang both indoor and outdoor depending on season
Lay flat to dry
Both, depending on the season.
When it's warmer I do both inside and outside.
Indoors in winter. Outside in summer.
When weather permits, I hang clothes outdoors.
Spread out on top of washer & dryer; hang items from any avail. rod.
Lay flat indoors
put outside draped across chairs
Sweaters on a towel on the kitchen table
Use tiny drying rack outside if 32*F or higher, inside if colder.
sit on top of dryer
Or lay flat to dry for delicates
Or lay on rails, or flat
sometimes just lay them flat on bed to dry
and in the garage
Lay flat to dry
Both indoor and outdoor, depending on the weather.
lay out - sweaters
lay on flat surface
Depends on the season. Outdoors June-Sept. Indoors Oct-May
Partially dry in the dryer then hang in doors.
Hang blankets and sheets over doors to dry...then throw in dryer for 15 min to fluff w fabric
softener sheet.
Over kitchen table chairs
Lay on top of the washer and dryer
drape over chairs, hang on doorknobs.
Lay flat to dry
Hang indoors and outdoors, depending on item and weather.
Lay it across chairs or back of couch.
Indoors and outdoors - weather permitting
In winter, I dry indoors. In summer I dry outdoors.
Indoors and some outdoors in summer
Drape over washer, dryer...
have an old clothes rack
lay on a towel
U
Outside in the summer, inside in the winter
lay sweaters on kitchen counter to dry
You indicated that you dry [Q10] of your laundry in a dryer.
How likely is it you'll shift an additional 25% or more of your
drying to the drying rack?Total Percentage
Very likely 1,481 71.75%
Somewhat likely 546 26.45%
Somewhat unlikely 27 1.31%
Very unlikely 10 0.48%
Grand Total 2,064 100.00%
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
1,600
Very likely Somewhat
likely
Somewhat
unlikely
Very unlikely
Total
Total
As you think about using the drying rack in your home, what
are you more likely to do?(Check all that apply)Total Percentage
More likely to air-dry full loads 655 24.53%
More likely to air-dry partial loads 1,374 51.46%
More likely to remove items from the dryer early 641 24.01%
Grand Total 2,670 100.00%
Total
More likely to air-dry
full loads
More likely to air-dry
partial loads
More likely to remove
items from the dryer
early
What is your gender?Total Percentage
Female 1,833 87.04%
Male 273 12.96%
Grand Total 2,106 100.00%
Total
Female
Male
Which of the following best describes your age?Total Percentage
Under 18 2 0.09%
18-24 29 1.37%
25-34 301 14.25%
35-44 543 25.71%
45-60 758 35.89%
Over 60 479 22.68%
Grand Total 2,112 100.00%
Total
Under 18
18-24
25-34
35-44
45-60
Over 60
What is the highest level of education you have completed?Total Percentage
4-year college degree 519.00 24.55%
Graduate degree 305.00 14.43%
High school or equivalent 285.00 13.48%
Less than high school 20.00 0.95%
Some college/technical school 855.00 40.44%
Some graduate courses 130.00 6.15%
Grand Total 2,114.00 100.00%
Total
4-year college degree
Graduate degree
High school or
equivalent
Less than high school
Energy Efficiency Campaign Awareness Survey Results
July 2016
2015 Study Results vs. 2016 Study Results
QUESTION TOTAL:588
NO RESPONSE:0
OPTIONS TOTAL
O1 Yes 167
O2 No 421
2015 Study
28.40%
Do you remember seeing or hearing one or more of these ads?
PERCENT
71.60%
28.40%
71.60%
Yes
No
QUESTION TOTAL:254
NO RESPONSE:0
TOTAL
O1 Yes 111
O2 No 143
OPTIONS PERCENT
43.70%
56.30%
2016 Study
Do you remember seeing or hearing one or more of these ads?
43.70%
56.30%
Yes
No
2015 2016
Yes 28.40%43.70%
No 71.60%56.30%
Do you remember seeing or hearing one or more of
these ads?
28.40%
43.70%
71.60%
56.30%
2015
2016
Do you remember seeing or hearing one or more of these
ads?
2015 vs. 2016
Yes No
QUESTION TOTAL:167
NO RESPONSE:0
TOTAL
O1 41
O2 40
O3 121
O4 85
O5 76
(asked only of respondents who said they recalled seeing the ads before taking the
survey)
2015 Study
Which of the following ad themes do you recall seeing or hearing before taking this
survey?
OPTIONS PERCENT
Insulation 24.55%
Caulking 23.95%
Thermostat 72.46%
Light bulb 50.90%
Refrigerator 45.51%
24.55%
23.95%
72.46%
50.90%
45.51%
Insulation
Caulking
Thermostat
Light bulb
Refrigerator
QUESTION TOTAL:111
NO RESPONSE:0
TOTAL
O1 31
O2 42
O3 83
O4 55
O5 47
(asked only of respondents who said they recalled seeing the ads before taking the
survey)
2016 Study
Light bulb 49.55%
Save Energy 42.34%
Insulation 27.93%
Caulking 37.84%
Thermostat 74.77%
Which of the following ad themes do you recall seeing or hearing before taking this
survey?
OPTIONS PERCENT
27.93%
37.84%
74.77%
49.55%
42.34%
Insulation
Caulking
Thermostat
Light bulb
Save Energy
2015 2016
Insulation 24.55%27.93%
Caulking 23.95%37.84%
Thermostat 72.46%74.77%
Light bulb 50.90%49.55%
Which of the following ad themes do you
recall seeing or hearing before taking this
survey?
24.55%
23.95%
72.46%
50.90%
27.93%
37.84%
74.77%
49.55%
Insulation
Caulking
Thermostat
Light bulb
Which of the ad themes do you recall seeing or hearing
before taking this survey?
2016 2015
QUESTION TOTAL:167
NO RESPONSE:0
TOTAL
O1 90
O2 15
O3 45
O4 53
2015 Study
Television 53.89%
(asked only of respondents who said they recalled seeing the ads before taking the
survey)
Where did you see, or hear, the ad(s) before taking this survey?
OPTIONS PERCENT
Radio 8.98%
Newspaper 26.95%
Online 31.74%
53.89%
8.98%
26.95%
31.74%
Television
Radio
Newspaper
Online
QUESTION TOTAL:111
NO RESPONSE:0
TOTAL PERCENT
O1 55 49.55%
O2 7 6.31%
O3 39 35.14%
O4 34 30.63%
O5 7 6.31%
Radio
Newspaper
Online
2016 Study
Facebook
Where did you see, or hear, the ad(s) before taking this survey?
(asked only of respondents who said they recalled seeing the ads before taking the
survey)
OPTIONS
Television
49.55%
6.31%
35.14%
30.63%
6.31%
Television
Radio
Newspaper
Online
Facebook
2015 2016
Television 53.89%49.55%
Radio 8.98%6.31%
Newspaper 26.95%35.14%
Online 31.74%30.63%
Where did you see, or hear, the ad(s) before taking this survey?
53.89%
8.98%
26.95%
31.74%
49.55%
6.31%
35.14%
30.63%
Television
Radio
Newspaper
Online
Where did you see, or hear, the ad(s) ?
2015 2016
QUESTION TOTAL:167
NO RESPONSE:0
TOTAL PERCENT
O1 132 79.04%
O2 34 20.36%
O3 1 0.60%
Positive
Neutral
Negative
2015 Study
Overall, how did you feel about the ad(s) you saw or heard?
OPTIONS
(asked only of respondents who said they recalled seeing the ads before taking the
survey)
79.04%
20.36%
0.60%
Positive
Neutral
Negative
QUESTION TOTAL:111
NO RESPONSE:0
TOTAL PERCENT
O1 91 81.98%
O2 19 17.12%
O3 1 0.90%
Positive
Neutral
Negative
(asked only of respondents who said they recalled seeing the ads before taking the
survey)
Overall, how did you feel about the ad(s) you saw or heard?
OPTIONS
2016 Study
81.98%
17.12%
0.90%
Positive
Neutral
Negative
OPTIONS 2015 2016
Positive 79.04%81.98%
Neutral 20.36%17.12%
Negative 0.60%0.90%
Overall, how did you feel about the ad(s) you saw or heard?
79.04%
20.36%
0.60%
81.98%
17.12%
0.90%
Positive
Neutral
Negative
2015 2016
(asked only of respondents who said they
had a positive feeling about the ad(s) they
recalled)
(asked only of respondents who said they
had a positive feeling about the ad(s) they
recalled)
What is it about the ad(s) that gave you a
positive feeling?
What is it about the ad(s) that gave you a
positive feeling?
2015
Verbatim Responses
2016
Verbatim Responses
Simple and to the point a good reminder to remember you dont need
your A/C set super low. I think people tend to
go oh its hot, i better make sure house is cold.
$$ Savings per degree warmer thermostat bright, clear colors. strong lines. not too
detailed.
a company that was showing us how to save
energy in a laid back easy format
cartoony character makes it less preachy
A demonstration on saving energy that is easy
to do.
caulking windows
A good plan for most people.Clever, to the point, whimsical
Always want to save on energy bills.colorful
An understanding of what you could save by
cleaning the coils on your fridge
colorful photos...drawings appealing to the eye
Because the message resonates with me.CONSERVE
clear consise to the point colorful eye catching Cool graphics
Common sense reminder Correct information.
Conservation is necessary and helps keep the
cost of power down
Direct message. Illustrations are simple.
Conservation of energy and saving money.Easy changes to save energy and money
contemporary use of illustration style,
simplr/direct message
Encourage people to look into conservation.
cut my bills, conserver Eye catching.
Cute drawings Following the advice given could save energy
and money for the individual.
cutting power usage Gave an exact number for your thermostat so I
would know what to set it at.
Direct to the point. Self explanatory.Getting people's attention to how easy it is to
save powere.
don't know Good content first of all.. but I also really liked
the graphics/color scheme. If something is
visually interesting, it causes me to look closer
Easy concept to get & easy to do!Good ideas to help save money
Easy fix.Good information.
Easy to read and the graphics correlated with
the written message.
Good reminder of how to save energy and
money.
What is it about the ad(s) that gave you a
positive feeling?
What is it about the ad(s) that gave you a
positive feeling?
2015
Verbatim Responses
2016
Verbatim Responses
easy to understand and direct and to the point graphics caught attention; potential to save $
was appealing
Encouraged me to follow some if not all of the
suggestions.
Great advice. I've been afraid of LED because
of the fires, but if you're promoting, I guess
that's a concern of the past.
encouragement of saving energy and money I enjoyed the simple and fun cartoons! I think
those adds can reach young and old and I
believe that's important because the old dogs
need to learn new tricks and the young puppies
can get trained early!
Encouragement to save energy, and help cut
costs.
I like that you are encouraging people to be
aware of and conserve energy.
Encourages all to try to save.I like the fact that Idaho Power is promoting
energy efficiency and conservation
Engaging art work and provides a quick, easy,
and free way to act.
I think being reminded to turn down the
thermostat or change to energy efficient light
bulbs to save money is great
felt it was a good reminder on ways to reduce
energy costs.
I thought it was good advice, and it made me
more aware of how to set my thermostat.
felt like I understood the message and
appreciated it too.
I was encouraged to know that even something
as simple as regulating my A/C by one degree
or two can effect my energy bill so much.
For the most part, all the messages are showing
that anyone can save money, and help the
environment.
I'm all for ways to reduce our energy use!
Fun graphics, simple concise message heading
even if I didn't read the entire text.
In a friendly way, explained how a person can
save energy and money!!
glad you are informing the public so energy can
be saved for the good of the environment
IPCO interest in energy conservation, rather
than generating more expensive "green"
energy.
good advise It gave me good tips for my own home.
Good color It isn't hard to save energy if you just think
about it
Good for saving energy and good for
environment.
It reminded me to take measures to save some
energy
good information It was good ideas to help with power
consumption
Good information. Easy to understand. Like the
nostalgic look of the photos.
It was nice of you to make people aware of how
to save on electrical energy costs.
good message It was straightforward a dick made logical
sense.
What is it about the ad(s) that gave you a
positive feeling?
What is it about the ad(s) that gave you a
positive feeling?
2015
Verbatim Responses
2016
Verbatim Responses
good program It was the common senes. You should not have
to be told to do these things to save money.
got the point across easily. liked the color It wasn't just a statement, but it suggests a way
to save energy and money.
got your attention Just a reminder that the new light bulbs help
save
Great reminders to pay attention.Just that a message was going out, reminding
what can be done.
Happy to see public education about energy
conservation.
Just the fact that Idaho Power is sending
information to it's customers.
I enjoyed the color and whimsical design.Keeping your house cool in the summer but not
cold and saving money at the same time
I feel the best way to answer this is by saying I
am conscience of saving power , but to so many
they just don't care.
Knowing it is I P we can trust the content
I felt like I really wanted to participate in being
better about conserving energy in my home. I
was inspired to buy light bulbs. I'm also going
to contact Idaho Power to see what I qualify for
in terms of a home energy audit.
Knowing that Idaho Power continues to do
positive things for their customers.
I felt reassured that I am doing what I can to
save energy
Like the design and the message.
I keep my thermostat at that already so it
reenforced behavior
Making small changes in things such as
lowering your thermostat by a few degrees or
changing out your old light bulbs, Such simple
changes that can make an overall huge
difference.
I like any ads that promote environmental
conservation.
N/A
I like our area doing more to stay green & make
less pollution.
Not sure. I liked the animation, wasn't in your
face, just calm facts I guess.
I never really thought of a second appliance in
the house. It made me stop and think, do I really
need that appliance.
Proactive conservation
I understood the old refrigerator in the garage
ad, but I don't think many people received that
message.
Reinforced my prior knowledge.
I was glad that Idaho Power is trying to help
their customers conserve energy and save
money.
Reminder to check on a household thing to
save money
I was wondering what would be the best temp
for my ac and this is how i found out.
reminder to set thermostat higher on hot days
and switch to led bulbs
What is it about the ad(s) that gave you a
positive feeling?
What is it about the ad(s) that gave you a
positive feeling?
2015
Verbatim Responses
2016
Verbatim Responses
Idaho Power is working to help consumers be
smarter with power use and savings
Saves money.
in that they reflect my knowledge and belief.Saving enegry
IPC is interested in me Saving energy
It was a positive message that was
implemented a wonderful way.
Savongs
It came from Idaho Power shows how easy it is to save energy & $
It helped me to remember to adjust my
thermostat, not only in cool weather, but also in
hot weather
Shows the most important factors in saving
energy at a home
It is every ones job to save energy.Shows you are trying to educate the public
It is something I do already it made me feel like
I was making a difference.
simple and to the point
It made sense.simple easy message
It reminded me to check for leaks around
windows and doors.
Simple message plus I have already taken
those actions.
It reminds folks that wasting energy carries a
price
Simple tasks produce money saving results.
It suggests a practical step to save energy and
money.
small things can make large savings
It was a great reminder on where to set the
thermostat, I like to get reminders like that
That I have control to decrease my own power
bill :)
It was to improve my home...that i use my thermostat
it will help people understand how to save
power
That Idaho Power is helping everyone to save
money but putting out this information to
everyone.
It's nice that Idaho Power wants to help it's
customers use electricity more efficiently
That it save me money
Letting people know that something so simple
can make a difference.
That we have ideas about how to conserve
energy
Light bulbs fascinate me. So I paid more
attention to it.
The ad had hints to save money, the best
feeling ever!
Like the colors, thought it was funny when
somebody said goodbye to their old refrigerator
like it was an old friend.
The ads are good advice on how to save energy
and keep my power bill lower. I have done a
several of these suggestions.
Made me realize how I can save energy.The ads help to remind me ofsome ways to dial
down the costs of my electricity bill.
made you think and question if you have done
any of those suggestions, and make you want
to mark calendar and get those changed out or
done.
the artwork was catching and the words were
common sense and easy to follow.
maybe lowering power bill with temp contol The cat throwing out the refrigerator is
confusing.
What is it about the ad(s) that gave you a
positive feeling?
What is it about the ad(s) that gave you a
positive feeling?
2015
Verbatim Responses
2016
Verbatim Responses
NIce to built on what I already know and to
affirm that it actually does make a difference.
LIghtbulbs are expensive.
The importance of saving energy to not only the
consumer but for Idaho power as well.
picture
large heading
They are from a neutral source, giving good
information.
Positive message, easy to accomplish energy
savings, message completely delivered in
graphic.
They are simple and effective
POssible and easy to save energy and save
money.
They catch your eye, so you see what it's telling
you.
Promotion of conservation and mindfulness.
Information to educate self and others
They caught my eye and the message about
saving money was positive.
Recycling message, money for old fridge They depicted ideas that are energy saving
steps
The ads were clean colorful easy to glance at &
understand the messages intended. (I saw the
ads because they were tucked in my energy
usage statement.)
Reminder that LED bulbs are out there They were creative but simple.
Saving energy is always a good idea!They were doable.
Saving energy is always good!They were focused, interesting and easily
understood. The cartoon art was well done and
communicated the message clearly.
Saving energy is important.to lower my bills
saving money Very informative in a short and friendly way.
Did not offend my intelligence.
savings Very simple and clear in message, colorful and
eye catching.
Seeing the number on the thermostat gave me
the idea to do better and set mine at 76....
Visually attractive. Short, direct message.
short, to the point, upbeat, easy to understand
the message
We bought new light bulbs and we're saving for
a new refrigerator :)
Showed a simple idea to save energy. Simple
to do and relatively pain free.
you are helping people get rid of big heavy
inefficient old machines.
Showed the ease of how to achieve the best for
your home.
Showed ways to conserve energy
Simple
simple and easy to understand not too preachy
Simple and straight forward. Nice art work.
Simple easy to understand message
What is it about the ad(s) that gave you a
positive feeling?
What is it about the ad(s) that gave you a
positive feeling?
2015
Verbatim Responses
2016
Verbatim Responses
Simple graphics with a simple message, but one
that we all need to be reminded of every once in
a while!
Simple message with eye-catching simple
graphics
Simple positive message.
Simple to understand and clear.
simple, less "noise", direct
That following the ads would help to keep my
electric bill down.
that saving energy doesn't have to be
expensive or complicated. that anyone can do
their part
The ad gave specific information on how to
conserve energy
The ads confirmed for us that we're doing our
best to save energy.
The ads were very specific and easy to follow. I
got the point. Not too complicated.
The amount you can save by adjusting your
thermostat.
the graphics were nice and casual, and I felt like
we are not the only home with insulation issues,
everyone can do well to look at energy saving
solutions.
The message to conserve energy.
The rhyme in the refrigerator ad is catchy and
memorable; the lightbulb ad just makes sense,
changing to energy efficient bulbs. The visuals
are cute ad clever.
the theme
The theme and the message.
There is something to be done that will save
energy and have little effect on me
There were small things that I could do.
They all let me know what I can do to help.
They are all simple things that can be done to
save energy!
They are clear, concise and get the point
across! Plus the ideas they are conveying are
easy to achieve.
They are simple ways to save energy
They make sense and are easy to understand.
they tell it like it is == good thinking
What is it about the ad(s) that gave you a
positive feeling?
What is it about the ad(s) that gave you a
positive feeling?
2015
Verbatim Responses
2016
Verbatim Responses
They were easy to understand with a clear
message.
They were helpful and clear.
They were written in language that was
understandable to most people.
Turning down your thermostat saves energy.
Very much needed with our energy situation.
We all can save energy
We are comfortable at 78-80 degrees. We're
saving money!!
We need to conserve energy, it is good to get a
reminder.
Would reduce expenses
You would have to know me to completely
understand, but I could almost write a book in
answer to this question. But simply put, in my
opinion, these simple ads should wake up
simple minds to the need of conserving energy.
and show them some simple ways to do it. But
how do you get a landlord like mine to fix or
replace both outside doors that light shows
through most of the way around, and cold and
hot laugh at their feeble attempt to stop them
from going through? Yet it is me who pays the
price while he gets off scott free.
(asked only of respondents who said
they had a negative feeling about the
ad(s) they recalled)
(asked only of respondents who said
they had a negative feeling about the
ad(s) they recalled)
What is it about the ad(s) that gave you
a negative feeling?
What is it about the ad(s) that gave you
a negative feeling?
2015
Verbatim Responses
2016
Verbatim Responses
I can't stand to be too warm, especially when
I'm pregnant. So the idea of turning up the
thermostat to save money will not work for me.
It annoys me when I hear it suggested. If the
thermostat is at 74, my upstairs (where my
bedroom is) will be 80.
everyone gets a bill. Information can be
provided through the bill. On line or hard copy.
Idaho Power does not need to advertise or
spend money on these sorts of things. Just
give me power at the least expensive cost you
can. Does the word monopoly mean anything?
These advertising costs can reduce overhead
thereby reducing consumer costs.
QUESTION TOTAL:167
NO RESPONSE:0
TOTAL
O1 65
O2 76
O3 15
O4 11
Somewhat likely 45.51%
Not very likely 8.98%
Not likely at all 6.59%
OPTIONS PERCENT
Very likely 38.92%
2015 Study
(asked only of respondents who said they recalled seeing the ads before taking the
survey)
How likely are you to make any energy saving changes in your home after seeing
or hearing these ads?
38.92%
45.51%
8.98%
6.59%
Very likely
Somewhat likely
Not very likely
Not likely at all
QUESTION TOTAL:111
NO RESPONSE:0
TOTAL
O1 43
O2 52
O3 13
O4 3 2.70%
11.71%Not very likely
Not likely at all
Very likely
Somewhat likely
PERCENT
38.74%
46.85%
2016 Study
How likely are you to make any energy saving changes in your home after seeing
or hearing these ads?
OPTIONS
(asked only of respondents who said they recalled seeing the ads before taking the
survey)
38.74%
46.85%
11.71%
2.70%
Very likely
Somewhat likely
Not very likely
Not likely at all
2015 2016
Very likely 38.92%38.74%
Somewhat likely 45.51%46.85%
Not very likely 8.98%11.71%
Not likely at all 6.59%2.70%
How likely are you to make any energy saving changes in your home after seeing
or hearing these ads?
38.92%
45.51%
8.98%
6.59%
38.74%
46.85%
11.71%
2.70%
Very likely
Somewhat likely
Not very likely
Not likely at all
How likely are you to make any energy saving changes in your
home after seeing or hearing these ads?
2015 2016
QUESTION TOTAL:141
NO RESPONSE:0
TOTAL
O1 19
O2 20
O3 39
O4 96
O5 92
O6 18
Install more insulation 13.48%
Get rid of an old or second refrigerator or freezer 14.18%
Put more caulking or weatherstripping around 27.66%
Replace old light bulbs with LED light bulbs 68.09%
Turn up the thermostat on your air conditioner 65.25%
Other (Please specify)12.77%
What energy saving changes are you most likely to make after seeing or
hearing these ads?
OPTIONS PERCENT
2015 Study
(asked only of respondents who said they recalled seeing the ads before
taking the survey and said they are likely to make energy saving changes)
13.48%
14.18%
27.66%
68.09%
65.25%
12.77%
Install more insulation
Get rid of an old or second refrigerator
or freezer
Put more caulking or weatherstripping
around windows or doors
Replace old light bulbs with LED light
bulbs
Turn up the thermostat on your air
conditioner
Other (Please specify)
QUESTION TOTAL:111
NO RESPONSE:0
TOTAL PERCENT
O1 19 20.78%
O2 36 38.96%
O2 59 68.83%
O2 54 57.14%
O5 23 27.27%
Install more insulation
Put more caulking or weatherstripping around
Replace old light bulbs with LED light bulbs
Turn up the thermostat on your air conditioner
2016 Study
What energy saving changes are you most likely to make after seeing or
hearing these ads?
(asked only of respondents who said they recalled seeing the ads before
taking the survey and said they are likely to make energy saving changes)
OPTIONS
Other (Please specify)
20.78%
38.96%
68.83%
57.14%
27.27%
Install more insulation
Put more caulking or weatherstripping
around windows or doors
Replace old light bulbs with LED light
bulbs
Turn up the thermostat on your air
conditioner
Other (Please specify)
2015 2016
13.48%20.78%
14.18%
27.66%38.96%
68.09%68.83%
65.25%57.14%
12.77%27.27%
Replace old light bulbs with LED
light bulbs
Turn up the thermostat on your air
conditioner
Other (Please specify)
Install more insulation
Get rid of an old or second
refrigerator or freezer
Put more caulking or
weatherstripping around windows or
doors
What energy saving changes are you most likely to make after seeing or
hearing these ads?
13.48%
14.18%
27.66%
68.09%
65.25%
12.77%
20.78%
38.96%
68.83%
57.14%
27.27%
Install more insulation
Get rid of an old or second refrigerator
or freezer
Put more caulking or weatherstripping
around windows or doors
Replace old light bulbs with LED light
bulbs
Turn up the thermostat on your air
conditioner
Other (Please specify)
What energy saving changes are you most likely to make?
2015 2016
replaced old doors for a better seal.
New windows
Not much change. We have been implementing
Open up crawlspace, shutting blinds during day,
put electronic adapters on a switch
Repalce windows
Turn donw the heat settings when not needed
We had implamented moste of the
We have already installed, replaced, added,
We have done all of these
Other (Please Specify) Responses
adjust shades as sun moves
allowed Idaho Power to install switch on my AC
Better window coverings are easy and effective
have an energy audit done
I already do positive energy-saving practices. I
have an all-electric house. See my very
reasonable electric bills. I already turn up the thermostat, but I'm thinking
about switching furnaces from gas to electric and
getting solar panels. I did all of above in my own home. Including
replaced windows.
I would love to participate in your energy programs
install energy star windows and doors
insulated draperies
Lowr the shades durring the day when I am not
QUESTION TOTAL:421
NO RESPONSE:0
TOTAL
O1 243
O2 168
O3 10
(asked only of respondents who said they did not recall seeing the ads before
taking the survey)
Neutral 39.90%
Negative 2.38%
Positive 57.72%
2015 Study
Now that you have seen them, overall, how did you feel about these ad(s) ?
OPTIONS PERCENT
57.72%
39.90%
2.38%
Positive
Neutral
Negative
QUESTION TOTAL:143
NO RESPONSE:0
TOTAL PERCENT
O1 84 58.74%
O2 56 39.16%
O3 3 2.10%
(asked only of respondents who said they did not recall seeing the ads before
taking the survey)
2016 Study
Negative
Now that you have seen them, overall, how did you feel about these ad(s) ?
OPTIONS
Positive
Neutral
58.74%
39.16%
2.10%
Positive
Neutral
Negative
2015 2016
Positive 57.72%58.74%
Neutral 39.90%39.16%
Negative 2.38%2.10%
Now that you have seen them, overall, how did you feel about these ad(s) ?
57.72%
39.90%
2.38%
58.74%
39.16%
2.10%
Positive
Neutral
Negative
Now that you have seen them, overall, how did you feel
about these ad(s) ?
2015 2016
(asked only of respondents who said they
did not recall seeing the ads before taking
the survey but had a positive feeling
towards the ads after seeing them)
(asked only of respondents who said they
did not recall seeing the ads before taking
the survey but had a positive feeling
towards the ads after seeing them)
What is it about the ad(s) that gave you a
positive feeling?
What is it about the ad(s) that gave you a
positive feeling?
2015
Verbatim Responses
2016
Verbatim Responses
Colorful Attractive
saving money Bright colors and clear messages.
A good way to remind people of saving money
and resources if they can follow suggestions
By making simple changes that I can be more
comfortable in my home.
Any attempt to spread the word about
conservation is good. :)
Care about costs and the environment.
artistic, easy to read, and positive messages
about energy savings
cartoon character gave a casual feel, not pushy,
but the message was clear and easy to
attractive, put positive spin on RE Cartoon character s
Bright and colorful, short concise captions Catching
bright colors and simple graphics. concise
message.
Cheery graphics and positive, brief messages
Bright colors, fun, contemporary graphic
elements
color and simplicity
Bright colors, simple illustrations of the point,
positive, not pushing guilt.
Colorful and clearly stated.
Bright colors, simple message colorful, clever and short to-the-point message
therefore easy to understandBright, sounded friendly, focused on both
conservation and helping people lower power
bills
Colorful, noninvasive personally, informative
Cartoonie light. Specific suggestions provided.
Dialing it in was not clear.
Colorful.
I was out of the country so I missed the ads
catchy colors. hip. etc.Colors and cartoons are eye-catching. The tone
of the ads is helpful and positive.Catchy, quick to the message. Graphics tie in w
the message.
Colors, designs.
Changing a light bulb is easy and saves energy.
Giving up a fridge is probably not easy for a lot
of people.
Colors, graphics,and succinct message with
specific things to do.
Changing a lightbulb and dial it in r the only
good memorable ones
Conserving resources.
Clean, informative and attractive.Creative, specific, and practical suggestions.
Clever sayings. Suggested actions are all easy
to implement.
Cute and fun and no pressure/judgement
Color choice. Short statment. Picture makes it
easy to understand.
Each ad shows examples of how to reduce
energy loss instead of just words..the pictures
color, graphics and catchy phrases easy to read. fun to look at
colorful and good ideas easy to understand
What is it about the ad(s) that gave you a
positive feeling?
What is it about the ad(s) that gave you a
positive feeling?
2015
Verbatim Responses
2016
Verbatim Responses
Colorful!!Encouragement to save energy.
colorful, noticeable, short, to the point, common
sense-able, easy to incorporate
Eye-catching, simple understandable message.
Colorful, simple Fun vibe. Informative.
Colors and graphics made me want to read the
entire ad.
Good graphics, save energy messaging
colors and they are friendly Good illustrations, and a positive message to
reduce energy consumption.common sense Good information. Very colorful.
common sense reminders good message, colorful graphics
Concrete actions to take. That's always good.
Any time a problem is brought up or mentioned,
it is great to have attached to it, what YOU can
do about it. Thanks.
Great graphics that get the point across easily. I
like that they stressed saving money.
Concrete ideas for saving energy and thus
saving money (and helping the global warming
environment by having less of a carbon
footprint.)
have not seen ads
Conservation and efficiency I feel I want to be helped out with my home.
conserving energy I feel that the ads keep IPCo visible as a brand
and is good PR policy in terms of promoting the Conveys a simple message, clearly.I get a positive feeling because the ads are
encouraging people to conserve energy.Cute, colorful, good ideas I liked the artwork
Cutting energy use I liked the colors and drawings, they seemed
fundifferent ways to save electricity I liked the relaxed look of the artwork. The
simple artwork also helps a person to remember Doing something good about your energy usage I'm always about saving energy and saving
money while doing it.
easy on eyes, colorful, simple thinks to safe.Inviting colors, not busy, easy to read, cause a
person to think!
Easy steps to make a difference It get's the message out there
Easy tips and information about programs that
could be useful.
it seems that Idaho Power will help you save on
your bill.
Easy tips, fun hip design It very simply displays simple ways to save
energy. The pictures make it even easier to Easy to read and good graphics - also it makes
this tips seem simple and positive to do.
It's easy to save energy
Easy to read and understand the message.just eye apelling
Easy to read, not cluttered. Not preachy. They
don't make me feel guilty.
Kind of whimsical/colorful. Drew my attention to
them.
Easy to relate to offering simple fixes that
anyone can do.
Nice graphics, simple message.
easy to understand People likely do not even pay attention to such
ads, but of those who read them the takeaway Easy to understand and apply to dait life and
they also conveyed the impact these changes
would make.
positive message: here is something you can
do, and it is easy. The graphics are good also.
What is it about the ad(s) that gave you a
positive feeling?
What is it about the ad(s) that gave you a
positive feeling?
2015
Verbatim Responses
2016
Verbatim Responses
easy to understand what to do and nice
graphics
Responsibility, choices, positive power
Easy to understand, familiar catch-phrases saving
Easy ways to conserve energy. Little things we
can all do. I have heard "see you later,
refrigerator " but not in this particular ad
campaign.
Saving money
Educational in nature.saving money and helping the economy
Encouraging households to use less energy!savings on utility bill
Energy conservation ideas is always helpful.Simple & direct messaging that with art work
that appeals to the general public.
Energy saving simple and direct
Energy saving tips Simple and easy to understand
Eye catching and informative Simple and I like how they are demonstrating
how to save.eye catching designs with simple, easy to
understand messages about saving energy and
money
Simple and visual
Friendly graphics, simple message Simple but effective ideas
Fun, simple, bright.Simple direct colorful
Gave examples of how to be energy efficient in
the summer.
Simple message and simple solution.
Gentle reminders of simple things we can do to
save energy.
Simple message presented in a few words &
with bright meaningful graphics
Good advice with easy and fast information Simple message repeated, unique graphics
Good advice.simple messages
Good ideas to think about on saving energy and
money.
Simple, to the point, appealing to the eye.
Good information simple. straight forward
Good message to conserve energy & money simplicity
good pictures, simple messages, good color
schemes.
Since didn't see in paper or hear on radio, hard
to say.
good reminders The color drew me in. Easy to read and easy
things to do to save energy.Good reminders, easy to read and understand The colors of the ads and way they are worded.
Good suggestions and colorful the conservation aspect as well as the simplicity
of the ideasGood, simple, messages.The messages to save u money
graphics The slogans are cute & catchy. Simple but to
the point.Graphics and messages were catchy and didn't
feel "preachy".
They are all about saving money. In very
simple ways.
graphics are friendly, and the text emphasizes
easy things to do
They are catchy, fun, short lines, while giving a
tidebit of information on how to save money and
Happy graphics.They remind me of the different ways to save
energy witch also saves me money and that is
What is it about the ad(s) that gave you a
positive feeling?
What is it about the ad(s) that gave you a
positive feeling?
2015
Verbatim Responses
2016
Verbatim Responses
helpful information They remind us that we can help ourselves say
money and be more energy conscience.I can be part of the change to save energy into
home
they remind us to update older homes for better
effiency
I enjoy the conservative illustrations, catchy
slogans, and to the point messages...
They seemed slightly juvenile, fun-loving easy
messages.
I like saving money. The ads reminded me to
check into options I'd saving energy which
equals saving money.
They v were bright
I like that customers and Idaho Power are
learning about energy efficiency.
They were colorful and the images were
relatable.
I like the colors and the font.Tips on how to conserve energy, it's helpful to
knowI like the content and the reminder of ways to
conserve energy.
Use of color.
I like the design. Ads are straightforward and
easy to understand.
Ways I can save money
I like the emphasis on saving energy.
I like the idea of people not only saving $, but of
being environmentally conscious.
I like the message that saving energy is easy
and can make one's life more comfortable.
I like the one about keep warm air in cold air out
or vise versa. Refers to need of insulation
I like the ones with specific details...like 3%
saved on the bill for each degree on thermostat!
I like the suggestions on ways to help save
energy
I liked the fact that they were cartoons,
something original and different from the norm.
I really like the designs.
Idaho power is doing something to help the
environment and the community
Ideas for saving money are always a good
thing.
Ideas on how to be more energy efficient.
Idaho Power is a willing partner to help
homeowners increase their efficiency
Ideas to save money
It is easy to make small changes.
What is it about the ad(s) that gave you a
positive feeling?
What is it about the ad(s) that gave you a
positive feeling?
2015
Verbatim Responses
2016
Verbatim Responses
It was easy to get the message of the ads
because of the simplicity of the colors and
drawings. The message was short and straight
forward.
It's an educational step. :)
Just easy ways to save energy.
Just the idea of thinking about simple things we
can do to save energy and $$$$.
Like how clear the energy savings were
displayed
Looks of adds draw attention to energy savings
which saves money.
message and artistic delivery was non
confrontational
Most had some sort of assistance offered for all
electric homes which I have.
N/A
New look, graphic makes the point of the ad.
Nice graphics, bright and colorful, positive.
not complicated. The average person should
understand them all.
Options to save energy
Positive & good information
positive approach to keep control of my power
bill
positive message about saving energy
Practical ideas but why not promote solar hot
water heating and solar electric to reduce
reliance on fossil fuels
Proactive efforts bring positive results.
Promoting conservation
quick message
Quick short things that can be done to save
energy which equates to saving money, which
helps the environment.
relative to the current situation, especially with
this upcoming heat wave. Always nice to have
specific ideas on how to save energy and stay
comfortable.
reminding me to check lights, filters, windows
and doors for leaks
Retro graphics are great.
Saving energy always give me a positive feeling
What is it about the ad(s) that gave you a
positive feeling?
What is it about the ad(s) that gave you a
positive feeling?
2015
Verbatim Responses
2016
Verbatim Responses
Saving energy by sealing out the hot air
Saving energy is a no brainer, but I feel most
people don't care or just don't know how. This
seems to make it easy to do.
Saving energy IS easy
Saving energy is good for everyone.
Saving energy is important. The illustrations
were very cute.
Saving energy is VERY IMPORTANT
saving energy, education, cute images, nice
vivid colors
Saving energy, money and addressing climate
change were doable with some simple steps.
Saving energy=saving money
Nice cartoonish ads
saving engergy
saving money and energy
Saving money and/or energy and it seems easy
to do
saving money.
Short and informative. Good graphics-modern
and illustrative of message.
Short, quick messaging
simple actions to take to save energy
simple and common sense
Simple and cute.
Simple and true
Simple attractive graphics. Conservation
message
Simple bright colors, fun
Simple ideas
simple message, colorful graphics
Simple message, message fits graphic,
message is action oriented.
Simple message. Simple drawings.
simple statements that hit home
Simple things anyone can do to conserve
energy.
Simple, actionable steps I can take to reduce
energy consumption.
Simple. Colorful. Easy to understand.
Simplicity
simplicity and power savings awareness
What is it about the ad(s) that gave you a
positive feeling?
What is it about the ad(s) that gave you a
positive feeling?
2015
Verbatim Responses
2016
Verbatim Responses
Simplicity of message on ways to save.
Some are not practical (or likely to happen) for
the average homeowner... insulation/caulking,
but a few are easily doable for the average
homeowner. These are the ones that caught my
eye. We've already replaced most of our bulbs
with LED's (spendy though) and raised the
thermostat setting. Also, for many, ditching the
garage refer. is not an option. I know we always
use ours. Just hope there's not a long term
power outage.
Specific and friendly messages that promote
conservation.
Specific problem to solve. Ad nice and clean.
Specific ways to save energy and money.
Straightforward language and simple actions
that anyone can do.
Suggestions that saving energy and money is
doable.
Supportive message. Cute pictures. Fun colors.
Sustainability
That Idaho Power is making efforts to educate
folks about energy saving.
That there are ways to save electricity and
many aren't too difficult.
That we could save energy
That we should do our best to save energy and
money and that Idaho Power cares about that.
The are obviously designed by someone who
wants to catch attention. The portray a message
quickly.
The artwork used and the information
presented.
The bright colors caught my eye. The message
to save money is motivational.
The bright, fun colors and fun graphics with
easy to read messages.
The cartoons make it easier and more fun to
read.
What is it about the ad(s) that gave you a
positive feeling?
What is it about the ad(s) that gave you a
positive feeling?
2015
Verbatim Responses
2016
Verbatim Responses
The catchy phrase and fun picture we good to
pull me and and the information on the bottom
was simple, easy to understand, and they all
seemed like doable ideas.
the colorful pictures
The coloring of the ads and the sayings tend to
click more. It had a nice simple feeling to it
making me feel that I can do simple things to
save me some money on my utility bills.
The colors were bright and eye catching and the
captions were encouraging about ways to save
power and money.
the colors.
The indicate things you can do to cut energy
use.
the layout.
The look (cartoonish)
The look and colors. Also the short message
The message
The phrases captured my interest and then I
was able to read the details.
The priority of energy conservation
The simple design, the clear messages, the
HOW TO do something to help with costs.
The style makes it look like it is simple to make
the change
The suggestion that someone might not of
thought of. They are bright and catch your eye
Their simple, and show that saving energy can
be pretty simple too.
There are number of ways to save energy
These are very mild. They could have a larger
impact.
They all encourage saving energy, reducing
dependence of existing generating and delivery
infrastructure and saving money.
They appear happy.
they are "upbeat" rather thn threatening or
warning.
They are attractive and send a message
They are colorful, easy to read.
What is it about the ad(s) that gave you a
positive feeling?
What is it about the ad(s) that gave you a
positive feeling?
2015
Verbatim Responses
2016
Verbatim Responses
they are cute with the rhyming
They are encouraging people to be responsible
about conserving energy.
they are just a reminder and we all need
reminded once in a while
They are things that we are already doing.
they are upbeat, generally light and great
content
They are visually appealing and easy to read.
They are visually please and have a simple,
straight-forward message.
they are well presented and give me a lot of
"food for thought"
They gave an action that I can choose to do and
why its go to do it.
They gAve examples of steps to take.
They gave great tips on saving energy
They give information about specific things
people can do to save energy, which is a good
thing.
They give solutions and options to problems.
They give you something you can do.
They had a good message. I feel the "cartoon"
design made them more fun and worth looking
at.
They identify positive steps that are easy to
understand.
They look good and gave good advise
They make simple suggestions and
explanations on saving electrical energy.
They might remind some people, who weren't
already thinking about it, of some simple ways
to conserve energy.
They present easy, and practical ways to
reduce energy use and costs.
They seem friendly and provide clear
suggestions to save energy.
They urge people to be more proactive when it
comes to energy use.
They were all helpful, non-intrusive tips that
could be relevant to various customers.
They were cheerful and colorful
What is it about the ad(s) that gave you a
positive feeling?
What is it about the ad(s) that gave you a
positive feeling?
2015
Verbatim Responses
2016
Verbatim Responses
They were short and simple and applied one
positive thing about electrical use.
They were simple, easy & quick to read, and
gave great tips that would benefit me.
They were simple, easy to get the message
They were very clear about some easy options I
could consider to save energy and money.
They're all about conserving energy costs.
They're bright, catchy phrases and good
information
They're colorful
They're cute and easy to read and understand.
They're eye catching and have a good and
simple message
To help the environment
Upbeat
Very educational and helpful ways to lower your
electric bill.
Very straightforward and simple ways to save
energy
Very young and kid-dish in presentation,
cartoon-like = fun.
visual
Ways to save electricity as well as money.
ways to save energy and stay cooler
We all like saving money on the electric bill.
We all want to save energy
We always need reminders even if we are
familiar with the messages the ads give. These
ads were simple, easy to read, straight to the
point, and if followed can save money.
we are reducing our dependence on burning
fossil fuels
well done, helpful hints and reminders
You care about us customers saving energy
(asked only of respondents who said they
did not recall seeing the ads before taking
the survey but had a negative feeling
towards the ads after seeing them)
(asked only of respondents who said they
did not recall seeing the ads before taking
the survey but had a negative feeling
towards the ads after seeing them)
What is it about the ad(s) that gave you a
negative feeling?
What is it about the ad(s) that gave you a
negative feeling?
2015 Verbatim
Responses
Absolute waste of money. If someone wants to
save energy, they can look on a web site
somewhere or do research.
I'd rather the money spent on said ads be given
back to customers, thus...saving us actual
money!Cartoons are not interesting. I see enough with
my kids.
I don't like that they are cartoons.
Idaho power should be investing more
resources in renewable generation rather than
investing money in advertising conservation
The cost .
The font of the text is ugly. The graphics are
simplistic as is the message. The ads are not
specific and don't provide enough information.
They strike me as childish and aimed at
someone who wouldn't get the point.
They're ugly. Hate the font.
To childish.
You are spending profit I have to pay for.
Where else can I buy power, you put a boat
load of PSA in with every bill. Maybe you could
lower my monthly annual power adjustment cost
if you weren't spending thousands or millions of
bucks on ada.
2015
Verbatim Responses
A waist of money....no body reads newspapers
and most certainly, nobody reads ads from the
power company. You need a better team in
your Communications Department!
They are so obvious, seems like a waste of
Idaho Power's money and resources to have to
tell people this stuff...
Too cartoon like, didn't catch my attention and
QUESTION TOTAL:588
NO RESPONSE:0
TOTAL
O1 359
O2 203
O3 22
O4 4
Somewhat agree 34.52%
Somewhat disagree 3.74%
Strongly disagree 0.68%
How much would you agree, or disagree, that Idaho Power encourages energy
efficiency and saving energy with its customers?
OPTIONS PERCENT
2015 Study
Strongly agree 61.05%
61.05%
34.52%
3.74%
0.68%
Strongly agree
Somewhat agree
Somewhat disagree
Strongly disagree
QUESTION TOTAL:254
NO RESPONSE:0
TOTAL PERCENT
O1 188 74.02%
O2 57 22.44%
O3 7 2.76%
O4 2 0.79%
2016 Study
How much would you agree, or disagree, that Idaho Power encourages energy
efficiency and saving energy with its customers?
OPTIONS
Strongly agree
Somewhat agree
Somewhat disagree
Strongly disagree
74.02%
22.44%
2.76%
0.79%
Strongly agree
Somewhat agree
Somewhat disagree
Strongly disagree
2015 2016
Strongly agree 61.05%74.02%
Somewhat agree 34.52%22.44%
Somewhat disagree 3.74%2.76%
Strongly disagree 0.68%0.79%
How much would you agree, or disagree, that Idaho Power encourages
energy efficiency and saving energy with its customers?
61.05%
34.52%
3.74%
0.68%
74.02%
22.44%
2.76%
0.79%
Strongly agree
Somewhat agree
Somewhat disagree
Strongly disagree
Idaho Power encourages energy efficiency and saving
energy with its customers
2015 2016
(asked only of respondents who said they
somewhat or strongly disagreed that Idaho
power encourages energy efficiency)
(asked only of respondents who said they
somewhat or strongly disagreed that Idaho
power encourages energy efficiency)
What could Idaho Power do differently to
encourage customers to be more energy
efficient or to save energy?
What could Idaho Power do differently to
encourage customers to be more energy
efficient or to save energy?
2015
Verbatim Responses
2016
Verbatim Responses
Coupons, free inspections done by Idaho
Power, other types of incentives.
- Variable pricing based on peak demand or
energy availability should be used. Lower price
when surplus energy is available. HIgher price
when peak demand.
- Better incentives for LED lights
- Collection stations in stores for used
flourescent lights.
Don't have any good ideas. The apathy of the
consuming public is the reason for many of the
world's problems.
Advertising that features the CEO advocating
for energy efficiency. He is a central part of the
"don't text and drive" campaign, but is not a part
of any EE advertising.
Encourage renewables, stop coal generated
purchases, encourage solar at both a personal
and commercial level.
Give options.
Encourage the use of renewables. Encourage
the construction of renewable sources by
retaining the 20 year contract provision.
i don't know.
Evolve from fossil fuels or become part of the
problem
Not sure
Fully embrace the AC Cool Credit and repeal
the rollback. Incentives/penalties for utilizing
power at peak times. Reward instead of
discouraging roof top solar and other distributed
generation.
nothing
Get more wind and solar energy moving in
Idaho and use sustainable and renewable
sources NOW!
Offer rebates for those who have natural gas
heating and electric cooling and cooking ovens.
Have a time of day program, help with low cost
loans for windows, doors and insulation and not
just for needy families but for houses that use
alot of energy.
Provide an incentive for those that use gas
heat. Or maybe partner with Intermountain gas.
Help customers convert from electric heating to
gas heating.
Help customers install solar panels or other
green power.
the more you use the more you pay
What could Idaho Power do differently to
encourage customers to be more energy
efficient or to save energy?
What could Idaho Power do differently to
encourage customers to be more energy
efficient or to save energy?
I don't see active programs anymore for doing
energy audits and home retrofitting. Idaho
Power also appears to be fighting alternate
energy methods that it does not benefit from.
I saw no ads. Most effective advertising now is
on the internet, and they certainly weren't there.
I think that you have to go out and actively
recruit customers. Also the incentives/help
need to not be pathetic.
I would focus more on the actual approximate
monetary savings. 3% doesn't sound worth the
trouble.
Improve targeting and marketing to customers
Incorporate the extent to which Idaho Power
believes that more energy efficiency reduces
the need for dirty generation. People want e-e,
no question, but getting rid of fossil fuels is a
motivator.
it's all about money, show examples of savings
Monetary incentives
More of the energy saving education. With
statistics, it's compelling
More promos with a dedicated separate
websites for upgrading appliances, insulation
and simple upgrades like LED bulbs and smart
power strips.
Most energy use at this point is realistically
fixed. You're not going to cook less, or lower
the heat below what's comfortable, or bother to
run climate control at all unless it makes you
...comfortable.
Offer incentives and rebates. I recently looked
to see if there were any rebates for replacing
old air conditioning units or furnaces and there
was only a rebate for a heat pump. Our old city
used to offer a lot of rebates to get people to
upgrade units to more energy efficient models
Offer larger financial incentives for efficiency.
Also, actively developing renewable sources of
energy rather than putting money into coal and
gas plants.
Promote promote promote
What could Idaho Power do differently to
encourage customers to be more energy
efficient or to save energy?
What could Idaho Power do differently to
encourage customers to be more energy
efficient or to save energy?
reduce rates for reduced consumption
reward energy efficiency with cash rewards; like
washing dishes at 11 pm instead of 6 pm,
recommending best times to run appliances,
what to do with hot water heaters when going
out of town
The best way to encourage efficiency is to
increase the price of electricity. The second
best way would be to show people their real
time energy use with a monitor most likely
placed in their kitchen.
QUESTION TOTAL:206
DID NOT ANSWER:0
TOTAL
O1 71
O2 124
O3 11
2016 Study Only
Save money 60.19%
Home improvement 5.34%
Considering these advertisements, which of the following topics is most meaningful
to you?
OPTIONS PERCENT
Save energy 34.47%
34.47%
60.19%
5.34%
Save energy
Save money
Home improvement
QUESTION TOTAL:588
NO RESPONSE:0
TOTAL PERCENT
O1 253 43.03%
O2 242 41.16%
O3 64 10.88%
O4 29 4.93%
OPTIONS
Somewhat interested
Not very interested
Not interested at all
2015 Study
Very interested
How interested would you be in getting more information from Idaho Power about
energy saving programs for your home?
43.03%
41.16%
10.88%
4.93%
Very interested
Somewhat interested
Not very interested
Not interested at all
QUESTION TOTAL:254
NO RESPONSE:0
TOTAL PERCENT
O1 102 40.16%
O2 110 43.31%
O3 30 11.81%
O4 12 4.72%
2016 Study
How interested would you be in getting more information from Idaho Power about
energy saving programs for your home?
OPTIONS
Very interested
Somewhat interested
Not very interested
Not interested at all
40.16%
43.31%
11.81%
4.72%
Very interested
Somewhat interested
Not very interested
Not interested at all
2015 2016
Very interested 43.03%40.16%
Somewhat interested 41.16%43.31%
Not very interested 10.88%11.81%
Not interested at all 4.93%4.72%
How interested would you be in getting more information from Idaho Power about
energy saving programs for your home?
43.03%
40.16%
43.31%
11.81%
4.72%
Very interested
Somewhat interested
Not very interested
Not interested at all
Interest in getting energy efficiency information from
Idaho Power
2015 2016
Energy-Savings Improvements Survey Results
February 8, 2016
Survey was sent to 822 empowered community members
Participation rate was 65%
Survey was sent to all empowered community members regardless of heat source
Respondent data
49% male / 51% female
21% from CanyonWest region / 55% from Capital region / 24% from SouthEast region
27% from electrically heated homes / 66% from natural gas heated homes / 7% from homes heated by other fuel
sources
QUESTION TOTAL:536
NO RESPONSE:0
TOTAL
O1 57
O2 479
Rent 10.63%
Do you rent or own the home you currently live in?
OPTIONS PERCENT
Own 89.37%
10.63%
89.37%
Rent
Own
Page 3
QUESTION TOTAL:479
NO RESPONSE:0
TOTAL
O1 156
O2 198
O3 99
O4 26
How likely are you to make energy-saving improvements to your
home in the next 2-3 years?
OPTIONS PERCENT
Asked only of homeowners
How likely are you to make energy-saving improvements to your
home in the next 2-3 years?
Somewhat likely 41.34%
Not very likely 20.67%
Not likely at all 5.43%
Very likely 32.57%
32.57%
41.34%
20.67%
5.43%
Very likely
Somewhat likely
Not very likely
Not likely at all
QUESTION TOTAL:354
NO RESPONSE:0
TOTAL
O1 228
O2 126
Asked only of those who said they are likely to make energy-saving
improvements in the next 2-3 years
What would be the primary motivator for you to make energy-saving
improvements to your home?
What would be the primary motivator for you to make energy-saving
improvements to your home?
OPTIONS PERCENT
Save money 64.41%
Home improvement 35.59%
64.41%
35.59%
Save money
Home improvement
QUESTION TOTAL:228
NO RESPONSE:0
TOTAL
O1 132
O2 106
O3 150
O4 177
O5 99
O6 49
O7 20
Return on investment 43.42%
Spend less on electricity than my neighbors 21.49%
Fix something that is broken 46.49%
Idaho Power incentives to help offset the cost 65.79%
Saving energy saves money in the long run 77.63%
Which of the following would influence you to make energy-saving
OPTIONS PERCENT
Which of the following would influence you to make energy-saving
improvements to your home to save money?
Asked only of those who said saving money would be the primary
motivator for making energy-saving improvements
Other (please specify)8.77%
Cost to make the improvement 57.89%
57.89%
46.49%
65.79%
77.63%
43.42%
21.49%
8.77%
Cost to make the improvement
Fix something that is broken
Idaho Power incentives to help offset the cost
Saving energy saves money in the long run
Return on investment
Spend less on electricity than my neighbors
Other (please specify)
Other (please specify) Verbatim Responses
Added temperature Comfort
Collaborate Climate Improvement/Control
Environmental benefits
fix problem & add comfort
good for the earth
Good for the environment
Help reduce my CO2 footprint by reducing fossil fuel usage
helping environment with saving
I don't have to take a loan do make the improvement
If I felt that a given change would be better for the environment.
Improve resale value and appeal of the home at sale
Know what to do to improve
More information about how to fix things or take real action to save
electricity
reduce carbon and protect our children's climate
Reduce carbon footprint
Reduce fossil carbon emissions
Reducing my contribution to global warmig.
the environment
trying to go off grid
Using new technology.
Which of the following would influence you to make energy-
saving improvements to your home to save money? Other
(please specify)
QUESTION TOTAL:126
NO RESPONSE:0
TOTAL
O1 68
O2 82
O3 8
O4 92
O5 19
Save energy!
slow down the carbon footprint
To address a problem with mold in attic from the past
to help save the planet from unnecessary use of fossil fuels
Use less energy
Which of the following would influence you to make energy-saving
improvements to your home?
Improve the look and value of your home 65.08%
Life event - having children, moving 6.35%
Improve the comfort and health of your home 73.02%
OPTIONS PERCENT
Fix something that is broken 53.97%
Asked only of those who said home improvement would be the primary motivator for
making energy-saving improvements
Other (please specify)15.08%
Which of the following would influence you to make energy-saving
53.97%
65.08%
6.35%
73.02%
15.08%
Fix something that is broken
Improve the look and value of your home
Life event - having children, moving
Improve the comfort and health of your home
Other (please specify)
Verbatim Responses Total
43 year old furnace 1
climate change 1
Climate change mitigation 1
Cost savings over time 1
Deals that might come along 1
Environmental considerations.1
Finish tasks not completed when building 1
Good for the environment 1
help the environment 1
New roof adding Insulation and a vent area.1
Rebate 1
Reduce our consumption of fossil fuel generation.1
replace water heater with energy star and put in dual pane glass 1
Save energy and reduce our carbon footrpint 1
Save energy!1
slow down the carbon footprint 1
To address a problem with mold in attic from the past 1
to help save the planet from unnecessary use of fossil fuels 1
Use less energy 1
Which of the following would influence you to make energy-saving
improvements to your home? Other (please specify)
QUESTION TOTAL:354
NO RESPONSE:0
TOTAL PERCENT
O1 160 45.20%
O2 131 37.01%
O3 159 44.92%
O4 174 49.15%
O5 74 20.90%
heating system
Heating- would like to convert to ductless heat pump
hot water heater
hot water tank
HVAC--heat pump, on-demand water heater, solar panels
I would like to be more self sustaing
install solar panels
insulated window shades
Asked only of those who said they are likely to make energy-saving
improvements in the next 2-3 years
Which of the following energy-saving improvements are you likely to make
in the next 2-3 years?
Insulation
Appliances
Lighting
OPTIONS
Windows
Other (please specify)
Which of the following energy-saving improvements are you likely to make
in the next 2-3 years?
45.20%
37.01%
44.92%
49.15%
20.90%
Windows
Insulation
Appliances
Lighting
Other (please specify)
Other (please specify) Verbatim Responses Total
solar panels 7
Solar 4
Furnace 3
siding 2
Tankless water heater 2
A/C 1
AC 1
add pv cells 1
air con 1
air conditioning upgrade to modern 1
air leaks 1
Blinds 1
Carpet & painting 1
caulking windows 1
Central heat and air!1
Control 1
Door 1
door weather stripping 1
Doors 1
doors, stripes around edges 1
ducts 1
Evaluating solar panels; not really energy saving, I realize.1
Front door 1
furnace and ac 1
Furnace and air conditioner 1
Have done most of the above 1
heat insert in fireplace 1
heating A/C 1
Heating Source 1
heating system 1
Heating- would like to convert to ductless heat pump 1
hot water heater 1
hot water tank 1
HVAC--heat pump, on-demand water heater, solar panels 1
I would like to be more self sustaing 1
install solar panels 1
insulated window shades 1
Which of the following energy-saving improvements are you likely to
make in the next 2-3 years?
lookingtopurchase another home 1
More efficient heating 1
More solar panels for electric phev car purchase this year 1
Natural gas 1
New Door 1
new furnace 1
New Roof 1
None 1
possibly solar 1
Radiant heating 1
Remodel Bathrooms 1
Replace heat pump 1
Replace wood burning old stove with gas and close a room off for
heat and cool.
1
roof 1
solar power 1
solar water heating 1
splitpump 1
Storm door 1
trees and landscape 1
Washing in cold water, drying clothes, LED lights, turning off cable
boxes and more
1
water heater, air conditioner 1
water system 1
We added a heat pump to go with our solar panels 1
with 1 exception have made most in last couple yrs, would like to
improve lighting mostly for esthetics
1
QUESTION TOTAL:354
NO RESPONSE:0
TOTAL PERCENT
O1 127 35.88%
O2 24 6.78%
O3 7 1.98%
O4 75 21.19%
O5 121 34.18%
What time of year are you most likely to make home improvements
in general?
OPTIONS
Asked only of those who said they are likely to make energy-saving
improvements in the next 2-3 years
What time of year are you most likely to make home improvements
in general?
Fall
Winter
Spring
Summer
Varies
35.88%
6.78%
1.98%
21.19%
34.18%
Summer
Fall
Winter
Spring
Varies
354
0
OPTIONS TOTAL PERCENT TOTAL PERCENT
O1 Very important 244 68.93%211 59.60%
O2 Somewhat important 100 28.25%111 31.36%
O3 Not very important 8 2.26%26 7.34%
O4 Not important at all 2 0.56%6 1.69%
Using less energy or
natural resources
68.93%28.25%2.26%0.56%
Because saving energy
is the right thing to do 59.60%31.36%7.34%1.69%
How important are the following factors in deciding to make energy-saving home
improvements?
Asked only of those who said they are likely to make energy-saving improvements in the next
2-3 years
QUESTION TOTAL:
NO RESPONSE:
Because saving energy is
the right thing to do
Very important Somewhat
important
Not very
important
Not important at
all
Using less energy or
natural resources
How important are the following factors in deciding to make energy-saving home
improvements?
68.93%
59.60%
28.25%
31.36%
2.26%
7.34%
0.56% 1.69%
Using less energy or natural resources Because saving energy is the right thing to do
Very important Somewhat important Not very important Not important at all
QUESTION TOTAL:126
NO RESPONSE:1
TOTAL PERCENT
O1 46 36.51%
O2 12 9.52%
O3 18 14.29%
O4 45 35.71%
O5 46 36.51%
O6 5 3.97%
O7 10 7.94%
Cost
What prevents you from making energy-saving improvements to
your home?
What prevents you from making energy-saving improvements to
your home?
OPTIONS
Asked only of those who said they are likely to make energy-saving
improvements in the next 2-3 years
Already made improvements to my home
Not interested
Other priorities
Time
Lack of knowledge and/or expertise
Home is newer - no energy saving improvements
36.51%
9.52%
14.29%
35.71%
36.51%
3.97%
7.94%
Cost
Time
Lack of knowledge and/or expertise
Home is newer - no energy saving improvements
necessary
Already made improvements to my home
Not interested
Other priorities
QUESTION TOTAL:479
NO RESPONSE:0
OPTIONS TOTAL PERCENT
O1 Free products or services 332 69.31%
O2 Information about how 212 44.26%
O3 Energy saving educational 146 30.48%
O4 Financial incentives 401 83.72%
O5 Understanding how
programs can help you
improve the comfort and
232 48.43%
O6 Understanding how 169 35.28%
O7 Other (please specify)20 4.18%
O8 Nothing 12 2.51%
What would motivate you to participate in an Idaho Power energy-saving program?
What would motivate you to participate in an Idaho Power energy-saving program?
Asked only of homeowners
69.31%
44.26%
30.48%
83.72%
48.43%
35.28%
4.18%
2.51%
Free products or services
Information about how programs work
Energy saving educational resources
Financial incentives
Understanding how programs can help you improve
the comfort and health of your home
Understanding how programs can help you improve
the look and value of your home
Other (please specify)
Nothing
Other (please specify) Verbatim Responses
A home visit assessment so we know what to prioritize
Assurance that Idaho power will support energy savings and will not compromise
the return on the homeowners capital investment in energy savings improvements.
bring back the A/C Cool Credit program
But really I do not need to be motivated as I would do it for our planet earth and
future generations to reduce global warming
Certified contractor
Environmental impact
have already participated is some & been glad I did
If I were eligible (but I am not because not all electric)
Information about whether gas heating prevents us from participating. Do the
programs only apply to houses with electrac pased heating?
Knowing how much energy I would save
linked to good for environment
Meet a real need e.g. longer lasting lights (CFLs don't count as their light is
horrible)
motivating my husband to care
payback calculations
some unit dying forever and needing a new one. Always go for the most energy
saving replacement
specific help and instructions
State and Federal Tax Incentives
To reduce the amount of power that we use.
we are moving and do not want to invest in it
You already worked with us. Think it was in 2012
What would motivate you to participate in an Idaho Power energy-
saving program?
QUESTION TOTAL:479
NO RESPONSE:0
OPTIONS TOTAL
O1 Yes 435
O2 No 44
Would you be interested in receiving energy-saving tips or suggestions through
future empowered community newsletters or survey invitations?
9.19%
Asked only of homeowners
Would you be interested in receiving energy-saving tips or suggestions through
future empowered community newsletters or survey invitations?
PERCENT
90.81%
90.81%
9.19%
Yes
No
QUESTION TOTAL:57
NO RESPONSE:0
OPTIONS TOTAL
O1 Appliances (eg. washer, dryer, 10
O2 Lighting (eg. CFL or LED lightbulbs)39
O3 None 16
O4 Other (please specify)4
Which of the following energy-saving improvements are you likely to make in the next 2-3
years?
Asked only of renters
68.42%
28.07%
7.02%
PERCENT
17.54%
Which of the following energy-saving improvements are you likely to make in the next 2-3
years?
17.54%
68.42%
28.07%
7.02%
Appliances (eg. washer, dryer, refrigerator)
Lighting (eg. CFL or LED lightbulbs)
None
Other (please specify)
New roof
Which of the following energy-saving improvements are you likely to
make in the next 2-3 years?
Other (please specify) Verbatim Responses
Because I rent, i don't intend to upgrade any major appliances.. However----i
would if there were incentives to renters/landlords to help with this type of
scenario!
just had an energy audit and my landlord may do something
new drapes/curtains
QUESTION TOTAL:57
NO RESPONSE:0
OPTIONS TOTAL PERCENT
O1 Free products or services 39 68.42%
O2 Information about programs available to renters 35 61.40%
O3 Energy saving educational resources 15 26.32%
O4 Financial incentives 39 68.42%
O5 Nothing 2 3.51%
O6 Other (please specify)1 1.75%
Asked only of renters
What would motivate you to participate in an Idaho Power energy-saving
program?
What would motivate you to participate in an Idaho Power energy-saving
program?
68.42%
61.40%
26.32%
68.42%
3.51%
1.75%
Free products or services
Information about programs available to renters
Energy saving educational resources
Financial incentives
Nothing
Other (please specify)
What would motivate you to participate in an Idaho Power energy-
saving program?
Other (please specify) Verbatim Responses
We would like to own our own home before we do that.
QUESTION TOTAL:57
NO RESPONSE:0
OPTIONS TOTAL
O1 Yes 47
O2 No 10
Asked only of renters
Would you be interested in receiving energy-saving tips or suggestions through future
empowered community newsletters or survey invitations?
17.54%
PERCENT
82.46%
82.46%
17.54%
Yes
No
IDAHO POWER
ENERGY WISE® PROGRAM
SUMMARY REPORT

SUBMITTED BY:
RESOURCE ACTION PROGRAMS®
Submitted by:
July 2016
Idaho Power Energy Wise®
Program Summary Report
2015-2016
Made possible by:
Idaho Power Energy Wise® Program Summary Report2
“My students were able to connect
their everyday lives to energy used.
For example the peak time which
happens to be around the time they
are home.”
Lisa Godinez, Teacher
Groveland Elementary
Resource Action Programs®3
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ......................................................................................5
Program Overview ........................................................................................9
Program Materials .......................................................................................11
Program Implementation ...........................................................................15
Program Team ..............................................................................................17
Program Impact ...........................................................................................19
A. Home Survey ....................................................................................19
B. Pre-Program and Post-Program Tests ..........................................24
C. Home Activities—Summary ...........................................................26
D. Teacher Program Evaluation ..........................................................27
E. Parent/Guardian Program Evaluation ..........................................28
F. Teacher Letters ................................................................................29
G. Student Letters ................................................................................32
Appendix A ..................................................................................................42
Projected Savings from Showerhead Retrofit ...................................42
Projected Savings from FilterTone® Alarm Installation ....................43
Projected Savings from First 9-watt LED Light Bulb Retrofit .........44
Projected Savings from Second 9-watt LED Light Bulb Retrofit ....45
Projected Savings from Third 9-watt LED Light Bulb Retrofit ........46
Projected Savings from LED Night Light Retrofit .............................47
Appendix B ...................................................................................................48
Home Check-Up......................................................................................48
Home Activities ......................................................................................51
Appendix C ...................................................................................................55
Participant List .......................................................................................55
Appendix D ..................................................................................................65
Teacher Program Evaluation Data .......................................................65
Appendix E ...................................................................................................66
Parent/Guardian Program Evaluation Data ........................................66
Idaho Power Energy Wise® Program Summary Report4Executive Summary
“The program did such an effective job
correlating the lessons with the Idaho
ISAT Science standards. A big thank
you for the detail. It raised the bar for
5th graders.”
Vicki Mathews-Burwell, Teacher
New Plymouth Elementary School
Resource Action Programs®5Executive Summary
Resource Action Programs® (RAP) is pleased to present this Program
Summary Report to Idaho Power, which summarizes the 2015-2016
Idaho Power Energy Wise® Program. The program was implemented
in the Idaho Power service area in the state of Idaho by 6,305
teachers, students, and their families.
The following pages provide an overview of the program and
materials, outline of program implementation, introduction to the
program team, description of program enhancements, impact of
the program, and summary of results from the home activities. In
addition to this information, evaluations, letters, and comments
are provided for a glimpse into actual participant feedback. Lastly,
projected savings from the individual measures found within the
Energy Wise Kit are also included.
Participant Satisfaction
A successful program excites and engages participants. Students,
parents, and teachers are asked to evaluate the program and
provide personal comments. A sample of the feedback is given in
the margin. 
Executive Summary
95+5+F
Teachers who indicated
parents supported
the program.
95%
100+0+F
Teachers who indicated
they would recommend
this program to
other colleagues.
100%
97+3+F
Teachers who indicated
they would conduct this
program again.
97%
A summary of responses can be found
in Appendix D.
Idaho Power Energy Wise® Program Summary Report6Executive Summary
Knowledge Gained
Identical tests were administered to the students prior to the
program and again upon program completion to measure
knowledge gained. Scores and subject knowledge improved from
59% to 74%.
Measures Installed
Students completed take-home activities as part of the program
and reported on the kit measures they installed in their homes.
A summary of responses can be found in Appendix B.47+53+F
Students who reported
they installed the High-
Efficiency Showerhead.
47%80+20+F
Students who
reported they used the
Shower Timer.
80%84+16+F
Students who indicated
they installed the LED
Night Light.
84%
68+32+F
Students who reported
they installed the first
9-watt LED.
68%50+50+F
Students who reported
they installed the third
9-watt LED.
50%57+43+F
Students who reported
they installed the second
9-watt LED.
57%
_______________________100
_______________________95
_______________________90
_______________________85
_______________________80
_______________________75
_______________________70
_______________________65
_______________________60
_______________________55
_______________________50
_______________________45
_______________________40
_______________________35
_______________________30
_______________________25
_______________________20
_______________________15
_______________________10
_______________________5
_______________________0Pr
e
-
P
r
o
g
r
a
m

S
c
o
r
e

59
%
Po
s
t
-
P
r
o
g
r
a
m

S
c
o
r
e

74
%
Resource Action Programs®7Executive Summary
Energy and Water Savings Results
In addition to educating students and their parents, a primary program goal is to generate
cost-effective energy and water savings. Student home surveys not only provided the data
used in the savings projections, but also reinforced the learning benefits.
Projected Resource Savings
A list of assumptions and formulas used for these calculations can be found in Appendix A.
PROJECTED ANNUAL SAVINGS
10,882,978 gallons of water saved
1,541,661 kWh of electricity saved
44,377 therms of gas saved
10,882,978 gallons of wastewater saved
PROJECTED ANNUAL SAVINGS
PER HOME
1,726 gallons of water saved
245 kWh of electricity saved
7 therms of gas saved
1,726 gallons of wastewater saved
PROJECTED LIFETIME SAVINGS
108,829,784 gallons of water saved
16,557,701 kWh of electricity saved
443,773 therms of gas saved
108,829,784 gallons of wastewater saved
PROJECTED LIFETIME SAVINGS
PER HOME
17,261 gallons of water saved
2,626 kWh of electricity saved
70 therms of gas saved
17,261 gallons of wastewater saved
Total Capital Canyon Eastern Southern Western
Total Participants 6,305 1,305 2,405 1,234 783 578
Students 6,086 1,262 2,319 1,191 753 561
Surveys Received 4,294 790 1,784 893 440 387
Percent Response 71%63% 77% 75% 58% 69%
Student Survey Response by Region
Idaho Power Energy Wise® Program Summary Report8Program Overview
“What I liked best about the program
was the conversations that the
students and I had about how
they can keep conserve by doing
things themselves.”
Jackie Sodaro, Teacher
Desert Springs Elementary School
Resource Action Programs®9Program Overview
The Idaho Power Energy Wise® Program, a
school-based energy efficiency education
program, is designed to generate immediate
and long-term resource savings by bringing
interactive, real-world education home to
students and their families. The 2015-2016
program was taught in grades 4-6 throughout
the Idaho Power service area.
The Idaho Power Community Education
Representative program team identifies and
enrolls students and teachers within the
designated service area. The program physically
begins with classroom discussions in a Student
Guide that provide the foundations of using
energy and water efficiently, followed by
hands-on, creative, problem solving activities
led by the classroom teacher.
All program materials support state and
national academic standards to allow the
program to fit easily into a teacher’s existing
curriculum and requirements. The participating
classroom teachers follow the Teacher Book
and lesson plan. Information is given to guide
lessons throughout the program in order to
satisfy each student’s individual needs, whether
they are visual, auditory, or kinesthetic learners.
The Energy Wise Kit and Student Workbook
comprise the take-home portion of the program.
Students receive a kit containing high-
efficiency measures they use to install within
their homes. With the help of their parents/
guardians, students install the kit measures and
complete a home survey. The act of installing
and monitoring new energy efficiency devices
in their homes allows students to put their
learning into practice. Here, participants and
their parents/guardians realize actual water and
energy savings within their home, benefitting
two generations.
A critical element of RAP program design is
the use of new knowledge through reporting.
At the end of the program, the Idaho Power
program team tabulates all participant
responses—including home survey information,
teacher responses, student letters, and
parent feedback—and generates this Program
Summary Report.
Program Overview
Idaho Power Energy Wise® Program Summary Report10Program Materials
“My favorite part of the program was
the ease of it! Everything is laid out in
easy-to-teach lessons and all supplies
are provided.”
Lisa Jauregui, Parent
Desert Springs Elementary School
Resource Action Programs®11Program Materials
Each participant in the Idaho Power Energy Wise® Program receives classroom materials and energy
efficiency kits containing high-efficiency measures to perform the program’s take-home activities.
Program materials for students, parents/guardians, and teachers are outlined below.
Program Materials
Each Student & Teacher Receives
Student Guide
Student Workbook
Parent/Guardian Program Introduction Letter*
Student Survey Form
Certificate of Achievement
Energy Wise Kit Containing:
• High-Efficiency Showerhead*
• Shower Timer
• LED Night Light
• (3) 9-watt LED Light Bulbs*
• FilterTone® Alarm*
• Digital Thermometer*
• Reminder Stickers and Magnet Pack
• Flow Rate Test Bag
• Natural Resource Fact Chart
• Parent/Guardian Program Evaluation
• Installation DVD
Idaho Power “Get Wise” Wristband
Website Access at:
http://www.idahopower.com/wise
Toll-Free HELP Line
Each Teacher/Classroom Receives
Teacher Book
Idaho Power Custom Introduction Video Flash Drive
Step-by-Step Program Checklist
Lesson Plans
Idaho State and National Academic
Standards Chart
Extra Activities
Teacher Program Evaluation
Pre/Post Student Survey Answer Keys
Electricity Poster
Self-Addressed Postage-Paid Envelope
* Materials / Installation Instructions provided in English and Spanish
Idaho Power Energy Wise® Program Summary Report12Program Materials
Custom Branding
In addition to increasing resource awareness and efficiency,
the program has been designed to strengthen bonds between
Idaho Power and the community. One of the steps taken to
ensure the greatest possible exposure is to feature the Idaho
Power logo throughout each Energy Wise Kit. In addition to the
kit, the Teacher Program Evaluation, Parent/Guardian Program
Introduction Letter, and Idaho Power exclusive Introduction Video
(flash drive) also feature Idaho Power branding. Further, a custom
Teacher Solicitation Flyer was created for Community Education
Representatives’ program promotion.
_______________________100
_______________________95
_______________________90
_______________________85
_______________________80
_______________________75
_______________________70
_______________________65
_______________________60
_______________________55
_______________________50
_______________________45
_______________________40
_______________________35
_______________________30
_______________________25
_______________________20
_______________________15
_______________________10
_______________________5
_______________________0Te
a
c
h
e
r
s

w
h
o

w
o
u
l
d

r
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d

t
h
i
s

p
r
o
g
r
a
m

t
o

o
t
h
e
r

c
o
l
l
e
a
g
u
e
s

10
0
%
Pa
r
e
n
t
s

w
h
o

i
n
d
i
c
a
t
e
d

t
h
e
y

w
o
u
l
d

l
i
k
e

t
o

s
e
e

t
h
i
s

p
r
o
g
r
a
m

c
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d

i
n

l
o
c
a
l

s
c
h
o
o
l
s

10
0
%
Idaho Power’s Energy Wise Program provides
4th – 6th grade students in schools served by
Idaho Power with quality, age-appropriate
instruction regarding the wise use of
electricity. Each student that participates
receives a take-home kit containing products
to encourage energy savings at home and
engage families in activities that support and
reinforce the concepts taught at school.
For more information, contact:
Continued on back
Participate in Idaho Power’s 4th – 6th grade
Energy Wise Program
2015-2016 Idaho Power Energy Wise® Program
© 2015 Resource Action Programs®
1486
Russ Weedon208-388-5087
[e-mail]
Each Student/Teacher Receives:
Student GuideStudent WorkbookProgram Introduction Letter to Parent/Guardian
Scantron form
Certificate of Achievement
Energy Wise Kit:
• LED night light
• Flash drive (video presentation)
• (3) 9-watt LED light bulbs (800 lumens, 60-watt equivalent)
• Shower timer• Digital thermometer• FilterTone® Alarm• Water Flow Rate Test Bag
• High-efficiency shower head
• Natural Resource Fact Chart
• Parent/Guardian Program Evaluation
“Get Wise” wristband reward
Unlimited access to program website
Toll-free HELP Line
Each Teacher/Classroom Receives:
Teacher Book with lesson plans included
Step-by-step program checklist
Teacher Materials Folder:
• State education standard correlation charts
• Pre/post scantron survey answer keys
• Extra Activities booklet
• Electricity poster for classroom
• Mini-grant requirements• Teacher program welcome letter/evaluation form
• Self-addressed postage-paid envelope
Installation video (DVD)
Website access for additional program activities
Toll-Free telephone support
Mini-grant of up to $100 (see back for details)
There is no cost to participate
When you enroll, you will be asked to provide a student count
and the month you would like to receive your materials.
1Results derived from the Program Summa
r
y

R
e
p
o
r
t

p
r
o
d
u
c
e
d

b
y

Resource Action Programs, spring 2015 and http://
w
w
w
.
e
p
a
.
g
o
v
/
c
l
e
a
n
e
n
e
r
g
y
/
e
n
e
r
g
y
-
r
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
/
c
a
l
c
u
l
a
t
o
r
.
h
t
m
l
#
r
e
s
u
l
t
s
.
Teachers who participate September–
N
o
v
e
m
b
e
r

w
i
l
l

b
e

e
l
i
g
i
b
l
e

f
o
r

a

m
i
n
i
-
g
r
a
n
t

o
f

u
p

t
o

$
1
0
0

w
h
e
n

t
h
e
y

r
e
t
u
r
n

their Student Survey forms in the postage-
p
a
i
d

e
n
v
e
l
o
p
e

b
y

December 31, 2015. Spring participa
n
t
s

a
r
e

e
l
i
g
i
b
l
e

when surveys are returned before Ma
y

1
5
,

2
0
1
6
.

M
i
n
i
-
g
r
a
n
t
s

w
i
l
l

b
e

m
a
i
l
e
d

2
-
3

w
e
e
k
s

a
f
t
e
r

r
e
c
e
i
p
t

o
f

t
h
e

completed Student Survey forms.
Idaho Power Energy Wise Program R
e
s
u
l
t
s
1:• Of teachers, 94% indicate parents supported the pr
o
g
r
a
m

a
n
d

9
8
%

s
a
i
d

t
h
e

p
r
o
d
u
c
t
s

i
n

t
h
e

k
i
t

w
e
r
e

e
a
s
y

f
o
r

students to use.• Of parents, 98% say the program was easy to use and 100% indicate they wou
l
d

l
i
k
e

t
o

s
e
e

t
h
e

p
r
o
g
r
a
m

continued in local schools.• The 2014-2015 school year’s participants sav
e
d

e
n
o
u
g
h

e
l
e
c
t
r
i
c
i
t
y

t
o

p
o
w
e
r

5
8
,
5
9
5

h
o
m
e
s
’

e
n
e
r
g
y

u
s
e

f
o
r

o
n
e

year and the natural gas equivalent of n
o
t

b
u
r
n
i
n
g

1
,
4
9
2

r
a
i
l

c
a
r
s

o
f

c
o
a
l
.
1
Return Rate Mini-Grant Award80-100 percent
$10065-79 percent
$7550-64 percent
$5025-49 percent
$25
Resource Action Programs®13Program Materials
Program Materials
Pledging to save energy and water is an importa
n
t

s
t
e
p

i
n

c
o
n
s
e
r
v
i
n
g

o
u
r

n
a
t
u
r
a
l

r
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s

a
n
d

will save your family money on utility bills. As you g
o

t
h
r
o
u
g
h

t
h
e

P
r
o
g
r
a
m
,

y
o
u

w
i
l
l

l
e
a
r
n

w
h
y

i
t

i
s

important to conserve energy and water. The Progra
m

w
i
l
l

t
e
a
c
h

y
o
u

s
i
m
p
l
e

w
a
y
s

t
o

s
a
v
e

e
n
e
r
g
y
,

w
a
t
e
r
,

and money. Taking the Pledge shows that you want to b
e

m
o
r
e

e
n
e
r
g
y

a
n
d

w
a
t
e
r

e
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t

t
o

r
e
d
u
c
e
your family’s utility bills.
STUDENTS
PLEDGE FORM
TAKE THE PLEDGE

We have helped you out by writing your first pled
g
e
.

A
l
l

y
o
u

h
a
v
e

t
o

d
o

t
o

c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e

t
h
e

f
i
r
s
t

p
l
e
d
g
e

is install the items from your kit. Now, write two mo
r
e

p
l
e
d
g
e
s

d
e
s
c
r
i
b
i
n
g

h
o
w

y
o
u

w
i
l
l

b
e

m
o
r
e

e
n
-
ergy and water efficient at home. Remember, a pledge

i
s

a

promise. 1.
2.
3.
Name:Date:School:Teacher:
These Kits are made possible by:
Developed by:
SIGN THE PLEDGEI have written and reviewed my pledges above and

b
y

s
i
g
n
i
n
g

t
h
i
s

f
o
r
m
,

I

p
r
o
m
i
s
e

t
o

u
s
e

e
n
e
r
g
y

a
n
d

water more efficiently at home.

Student Signature Parent Signature
Comprometerse a ahorrar energía y agua es un paso i
m
p
o
r
t
a
n
t
e

p
a
r
a

c
o
n
s
e
r
v
a
r

n
u
e
s
t
r
o
s

r
e
c
u
r
s
o
s
naturales y le ahorrará dinero a su familia en las facturas

d
e

s
e
r
v
i
c
i
o
s

p
ú
b
l
i
c
o
s
.

A

m
e
d
i
d
a

q
u
e

a
t
r
a
v
i
e
s
a

por el Programa, aprenderá por qué es importante ahorrar

e
n
e
r
g
í
a

y

a
g
u
a
.

E
l

P
r
o
g
r
a
m
a

l
e

e
n
s
e
ñ
a
r
á
formas sencillas de ahorrar energía, agua y dinero. Asumir el

C
o
m
p
r
o
m
i
s
o

m
u
e
s
t
r
a

q
u
e

u
s
t
e
d

q
u
i
e
r
e
ahorrar más energía y agua para reducir las facturas de los serv
i
c
i
o
s

p
ú
b
l
i
c
o
s

d
e

s
u

f
a
m
i
l
i
a
.
ESTUDIANTES
FORMULARIO DE COMPROMISO
ASUMIR EL COMPROMISO

Usted ha ayudado escribiendo su primer compromiso.
T
o
d
o

l
o

q
u
e

t
i
e
n
e

q
u
e

h
a
c
e
r

p
a
r
a

c
o
m
p
l
e
t
a
r

e
l

primer compromiso es instalar los artículos de su kit. Aho
r
a
,

e
s
c
r
i
b
a

d
o
s

c
o
m
p
r
o
m
i
s
o
s

m
á
s

q
u
e

d
e
-scriban cómo ahorrará energía y agua en el hogar. Recuerd
e
,

u
n

c
o
m
p
r
o
m
i
s
o

e
s

u
n
a

p
r
o
m
e
s
a
.
1.
2.
3.
Nombre:
Fecha:Escuela:
Docente:
Estos Kits son posibles gracias a:
Developed by:
FIRMAR EL COMPROMISO
He escrito y revisado mis anteriores compromisos y

a
l

f
i
r
m
a
r

e
s
t
e

f
o
r
m
u
l
a
r
i
o
,

p
r
o
m
e
t
o

u
s
a
r

l
a

e
n
e
r
g
í
a

y el agua de manera más eficiente en casa.
Firma del Estudiante Firma del Padre

I pledge to do my part by installing all of the items in m
y

k
i
t

t
o

s
a
v
e

e
n
e
r
g
y

a
n
d

water as well as reduce my family’s utility bills.
Me comprometo a hacer mi parte instalando todos los artículos de
m
i

k
i
t

p
a
r
a

a
h
o
r
r
a
r
energía y agua así como para reducir las facturas de serv
i
c
i
o
s

p
ú
b
l
i
c
o
s

d
e

m
i

f
a
m
i
l
i
a
.

©2015 Resource Action Programs®
©2015 Resource Action Programs®
STUDENT GUIDE
109949
976 United Circle Sparks, NV 89431www.resourceaction.com • [phone]©2015 Resource Action Programs®
Energy Wise® is a registered trademark of Resource Action Programs
Energy Wise® is developed by:
109949 Idaho Power EW Student Guide Cover.pdf 1 8/28/15 8:24 AM
STUDENT WORKBOOK
109959
976 United Circle Sparks, NV 89431www.resourceaction.com • [phone]©2015 Resource Action Programs®
Energy Wise® is a registered trademark of Resource Action Programs
Energy Wise® is developed by:
109959 Idaho Power EW Student Workbook Cover_0715.pdf 1 8/28/15 8:30 AM
PLEASE FILL IN THE CIRCLE THAT BEST DESCRIBES YOUR OPINION:
1. The materials were clearly written and well organized.m Strongly Agree m Agree m Disagree m Strongly Disagree
2. The products in the Kit were easy for students to use.m Strongly Agree m Agree m Disagree m Strongly Disagree
3. Which classroom activities did you complete? (Mark all that apply)m Biomass to Biogas m Conservation Cookie m Global Candysm Heat From Light Bulbs m How Much Do We Use? m Mini Water Cyclem School Survey m Solar Power At Work m Expanding Gas
4. Students indicated that their parents supported the program.m Yes m No
5. Would you conduct this program again?m Yes m No
6. Would you recommend this program to other colleagues?m Yes m No
7. Would you be willing to participate on a local Teacher Advisory Board?m Yes m No
8. If my school is eligible for participation next year, I would like to enroll.m Yes m No
9. What did students like best about the program? Explain.
10. What did you like best about the program? Explain.
11. What would you change about the program? Explain.
TEACHER EVALUATION FORM
Date: �������������������������������������
School: �����������������������������������Teacher name: ������������������������������
E-mail: ������������������������������������
Number of Student Survey Forms returned: ������
Teacher Signature: ��������������������������
By submitting this survey I hereby waive any fee or other compensation from Resource Action Programs® for the use of said quotation in any republication, reprint, transcription, electronic medium, or recording of the article containing said quotations. © 2015 Resource Action Programs®
Please assess the LivingWise® Program by filling out this Teacher Evaluation Form. Upon completion, return
this evaluation, your Student Survey Forms, student thank-you notes, and a letter from you to Idaho Power in the postage-paid return envelope provided.
Program brought to you by:
GET UP TO $100.00 MINI GRANT!
Return the following by December 31, 2015 (fall), May 15, 2016 (spring)• 80% of Student
Survey Forms• This evaluation form• Student thank-you notes• A letter from you
If you don’t have 80%, return the following percentages and earn these Mini Grants:
65-79% $7550-64% $5025-49% $25
CERTIFICATE OF ACHIEVEMENTAwarded to
for making a difference in your community by successfully
completing the Energy Wise® program.
N30265 1486
©2014 Resource Action Programs®
Energy Wise® is developed by:
Diane Sumner, Ed.D., Director of Education
Teacher BookStudent Guide Student Workbook
Teacher Evaluation Form
Certificate of Achievement Kit Box Introduction Video (flash drive) Pen
TEACHER BOOK
N30205 1486
976 United Circle Sparks, NV 89431www.resourceaction.com • [phone]©2015 Resource Action Programs®
Energy Wise® is a registered trademark of Resource Action Programs
Energy Wise® is developed by:
N30205 Idaho Power EW Teacher Book Cover.pdf 1 9/14/15 4:29 PM
Parent Letter/Pledge Form
QUESTIONS? • 1-888-GET-WISE • www.idahopo
w
e
r
.
c
o
m
/
w
i
s
e
PARENTS
SIGN INSTALL
=+
CONGRATULATIONS!
Your child’s class has been selected to participate in the excit
i
n
g

E
n
e
r
g
y

W
i
s
e
® Program. The Program
is designed to teach your child the importance of using reso
u
r
c
e
s
,

l
i
k
e

e
n
e
r
g
y

a
n
d

w
a
t
e
r
,

w
i
s
e
l
y

a
n
d

responsibly. This Program is being provided by Idaho Powe
r

a
t

n
o

a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l

c
o
s
t

t
o

y
o
u
,

y
o
u
r

c
h
i
l
d
’
s

school or the school district.
The average U.S. household pays at least $2,000 per ye
a
r

i
n

u
t
i
l
i
t
y

b
i
l
l
s

a
n
d

c
a
n

o
f
t
e
n

r
e
d
u
c
e

t
h
e
s
e

costs with just a few simple changes. Your child will be

g
i
v
e
n

a

k
i
t
,

v
a
l
u
e
d

a
t

o
v
e
r

$
6
0
,

w
h
i
c
h

i
n
c
l
u
d
e
s

free, high-quality products that will help you and you
r

f
a
m
i
l
y

m
a
k
e

t
h
e
s
e

c
h
a
n
g
e
s

a
n
d

b
e
c
o
m
e

m
o
r
e

energy efficient. To participate, please do the following:
n Have your child talk to you about the ways they wo
u
l
d

l
i
k
e

t
o

s
a
v
e

e
n
e
r
g
y

a
n
d

w
a
t
e
r

a
n
d

complete the Pledge Form located on the next pa
g
e
.
n Watch the installation DVD included in your kit.
n Install all of the kit items. You and your child can

d
o

m
o
s
t

o
f

t
h
e

a
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s

i
n

l
e
s
s

t
h
a
n

1
5

minutes. If you need additional help installing the kit items, vis
i
t

w
w
w
.
i
d
a
h
o
p
o
w
e
r
.
c
o
m
/
w
i
s
e

t
o

view installation videos, see the printed instruction booklet o
r

c
a
l
l

1
-
8
8
8
-
G
E
T
-
W
I
S
E
.

n Work with your child to answer all of the survey q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n
s

i
n

t
h
e

S
t
u
d
e
n
t

W
o
r
k
b
o
o
k
.
We hope the Energy Wise® Program will be an easy and fun experience for your ent
i
r
e

f
a
m
i
l
y

a
n
d

will provide an opportunity for your child to be a lead
e
r

i
n

y
o
u
r

h
o
m
e

a
n
d

c
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
.

T
h
a
n
k

y
o
u

for your participation.
LET’S GET STARTED!
1486
$$$Pledging to save energy and water is an import
a
n
t

s
t
e
p

i
n

c
o
n
s
e
r
v
i
n
g

o
u
r

n
a
t
u
r
a
l

r
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s

a
n
d

w
i
l
l

save your family money on utility bills. As you go through th
e

L
i
v
i
n
g
W
i
s
e

P
r
o
g
r
a
m
,

y
o
u

w
i
l
l

l
e
a
r
n

w
h
y

it is important to conserve energy and water. T
h
e

P
r
o
g
r
a
m

w
i
l
l

t
e
a
c
h

y
o
u

s
i
m
p
l
e

w
a
y
s

t
o

s
a
v
e

e
n
e
r
g
y
,

water, and money. Taking the Pledge shows that you want
t
o

b
e

m
o
r
e

e
n
e
r
g
y

a
n
d

w
a
t
e
r

e
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t

t
o

reduce your family’s utility bills.
STUDENTS
PLEDGE FORM
TAKE THE PLEDGE

We have helped you out by writing your first pledge. A
l
l

y
o
u

h
a
v
e

t
o

d
o

t
o

c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e

t
h
e

f
i
r
s
t

p
l
e
d
g
e

is install the items from your Kit. Now, wr
i
t
e

t
w
o

m
o
r
e

p
l
e
d
g
e
s

d
e
s
c
r
i
b
i
n
g

h
o
w

y
o
u

w
i
l
l

b
e

m
o
r
e

e
n
-
ergy and water efficient at home. Remember, a pledg
e

i
s

a

promise.
I pledge to do my part by installing all of
t
h
e

i
t
e
m
s

i
n

m
y

K
i
t

t
o

s
a
v
e

e
n
e
r
g
y

a
n
d

water as well as reduce my family’s ut
i
l
i
t
y

b
i
l
l
s
.1.2.
3.
Name:
Date:
School:
Teacher:
©2012 Resource Action Programs®Developed by:
SIGN THE PLEDGE
I have written and reviewed my pledges above a
n
d

b
y

s
i
g
n
i
n
g

t
h
i
s

f
o
r
m
,

I

p
r
o
m
i
s
e

t
o

u
s
e

e
n
e
r
g
y

a
n
d

water more efficiently at home.

Student Signature

Parent Signature
Comprometerse a ahorrar energía y agua es un paso
i
m
p
o
r
t
a
n
t
e

p
a
r
a

c
o
n
s
e
r
v
a
r

n
u
e
s
t
r
o
s

r
e
c
u
r
s
o
s

naturales y le ahorrará dinero a su famil
i
a

e
n

l
a
s

f
a
c
t
u
r
a
s

d
e

s
e
r
v
i
c
i
o
s

p
ú
b
l
i
c
o
s
.

A

m
e
d
i
d
a

q
u
e

a
t
r
a
v
i
e
s
a

por el Programa LivingWise, aprenderá por qué es im
p
o
r
t
a
n
t
e

a
h
o
r
r
a
r

e
n
e
r
g
í
a

y

a
g
u
a
.

E
l

P
r
o
g
r
a
m
a

l
e

enseñará formas sencillas de ahorrar e
n
e
r
g
í
a
,

a
g
u
a

y

d
i
n
e
r
o
.

A
s
u
m
i
r

e
l

C
o
m
p
r
o
m
i
s
o

m
u
e
s
t
r
a

q
u
e

u
s
t
e
d

quiere ahorrar más energía y agua para reducir las
f
a
c
t
u
r
a
s

d
e

l
o
s

s
e
r
v
i
c
i
o
s

p
ú
b
l
i
c
o
s

d
e

s
u

f
a
m
i
l
i
a
.
ESTUDIANTES
FORMULARIO DE COMPR
O
M
I
S
O
ASUMIR EL COMPROMISO

Usted ha ayudado escribiendo su primer compromiso. Todo
l
o

q
u
e

t
i
e
n
e

q
u
e

h
a
c
e
r

p
a
r
a

c
o
m
p
l
e
t
a
r

el primer compromiso es instalar los artículos d
e

s
u

K
i
t
.

A
h
o
r
a
,

e
s
c
r
i
b
a

d
o
s

c
o
m
p
r
o
m
i
s
o
s

m
á
s

q
u
e

describan cómo ahorrará energía y agua en el hogar. Recue
r
d
e
,

u
n

c
o
m
p
r
o
m
i
s
o

e
s

u
n
a

p
r
o
m
e
s
a
.
Me comprometo a hacer mi parte instalando todos los a
r
t
í
c
u
l
o
s

d
e

m
i

K
i
t

p
a
r
a

ahorrar energía y agua así como para reducir
l
a
s

f
a
c
t
u
r
a
s

d
e

s
e
r
v
i
c
i
o
s

p
ú
b
l
i
c
o
s

d
e

mi familia.1.2.
3.
Nombre:
Fecha:
Escuela:
Docente:
©2012 Resource Action Programs®Developed by:
FIRMAR EL COMPROMISO
He escrito y revisado mis anteriores compromisos y al firma
r

e
s
t
e

f
o
r
m
u
l
a
r
i
o
,

p
r
o
m
e
t
o

u
s
a
r

l
a

e
n
e
r
g
í
a

y el agua de manera más eficiente en casa.

Firma del Estudiante

Firma del Padre
PREGUNTAS? • 1-888-GET-WISE • www.idahopow
e
r
.
c
o
m
/
w
i
s
e
PADRES
¡FELICITACIONES!
La clase de su hijo ha sido seleccionada para participar en

e
l

f
a
s
c
i
n
a
n
t
e

P
r
o
g
r
a
m
a

E
n
e
r
g
y

W
i
s
e
®.
El Programa está diseñado para enseñarle a su hijo la im
p
o
r
t
a
n
c
i
a

d
e
l

u
s
o

d
e

l
o
s

r
e
c
u
r
s
o
s
,

c
o
m
o

l
a

energía y el agua, con sabiduría y responsabilidad. Este

P
r
o
g
r
a
m
a

l
o

p
r
o
v
e
e

Idaho Power sin costo
para usted, la escuela de su hijo ni el distrito escolar.
La vivienda promedio estadounidense paga por la m
í
n
i
m
a

$
2
,
0
0
0

p
o
r

a
ñ
o

e
n

f
a
c
t
u
r
a
s

d
e

s
e
r
v
i
c
i
o
s

públicos y puede reducir a menudo estos costos si
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
e

c
o
n

a
l
g
u
n
o
s

c
a
m
b
i
o
s

s
e
n
c
i
l
l
o
s
.

A

s
u

hijo se le dará un kit que tiene un valor de más de

$
6
0

y

i
n
c
l
u
y
e

p
r
o
d
u
c
t
o
s

g
r
a
t
u
i
t
o
s

d
e

a
l
t
a

c
a
l
i
d
a
d

que le ayudarán a usted y a su familia a hacer es
t
o
s

c
a
m
b
i
o
s

y

s
e
r

m
á
s

e
f
i
c
i
e
n
t
e
s

e
n
e
r
g
é
t
i
c
a
m
e
n
t
e
.

Para participar, por favor haga lo siguiente:
nHaga que su hijo hable con usted sobre las form
a
s

e
n

l
a
s

q
u
e

l
e

g
u
s
t
a
r
í
a

a
h
o
r
r
a
r

a
g
u
a

y

energía y complete el Formulario de Compromiso ubicado e
n

l
a

p
r
ó
x
i
m
a

p
á
g
i
n
a
.
nMire el DVD de instalación incluido en su kit.
nInstale todos los artículos del kit. Usted y su hijo pueden h
a
c
e
r

l
a

m
a
y
o
r
í
a

d
e

l
a
s

a
c
t
i
v
i
d
a
d
e
s

en menos de 15 minutos. Si necesita ayuda adicional con
l
a

i
n
s
t
a
l
a
c
i
ó
n

d
e

l
o
s

a
r
t
í
c
u
l
o
s

del kit, visite www.idahopower.com/wise para ver video
s

d
e

i
n
s
t
a
l
a
c
i
ó
n
,

v
e
a

e
l

m
a
n
u
a
l

d
e

instrucciones de instalación o llame al 1-888-GET-WISE
.

nTrabaje con su hijo para responder todas las pregunta
s

d
e

l
a

e
n
c
u
e
s
t
a

e
n

e
l

L
i
b
r
o

d
e

T
r
a
b
a
j
o

del Estudiante.
Esperamos que el Programa Energy Wise
® sea una experiencia fácil y divertida para toda la

familia y sea una oportunidad para que su hijo

s
e
a

u
n

l
í
d
e
r

e
n

s
u

h
o
g
a
r

y

c
o
m
u
n
i
d
a
d
.

G
r
a
c
i
a
s

por su participación.
¡COMENCEMOS!
SAVE
FIRMAINSTALACIÓN
+$$$
AHORRO
Pledging to save energy and water is an importan
t

s
t
e
p

i
n

c
o
n
s
e
r
v
i
n
g

o
u
r

n
a
t
u
r
a
l

r
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s

a
n
d

w
i
l
l

save your family money on utility bills. As you go through the
L
i
v
i
n
g
W
i
s
e

P
r
o
g
r
a
m
,

y
o
u

w
i
l
l

l
e
a
r
n

w
h
y

it is important to conserve energy and water. Th
e

P
r
o
g
r
a
m

w
i
l
l

t
e
a
c
h

y
o
u

s
i
m
p
l
e

w
a
y
s

t
o

s
a
v
e

e
n
e
r
g
y
,

water, and money. Taking the Pledge shows that you want to

b
e

m
o
r
e

e
n
e
r
g
y

a
n
d

w
a
t
e
r

e
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t

t
o

reduce your family’s utility bills.
STUDENTS
PLEDGE FORM
TAKE THE PLEDGE

We have helped you out by writing your first pledge. All

y
o
u

h
a
v
e

t
o

d
o

t
o

c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e

t
h
e

f
i
r
s
t

p
l
e
d
g
e

is install the items from your Kit. Now, writ
e

t
w
o

m
o
r
e

p
l
e
d
g
e
s

d
e
s
c
r
i
b
i
n
g

h
o
w

y
o
u

w
i
l
l

b
e

m
o
r
e

e
n
-
ergy and water efficient at home. Remember, a pledge
i
s

a

promise.
I pledge to do my part by installing all of th
e

i
t
e
m
s

i
n

m
y

K
i
t

t
o

s
a
v
e

e
n
e
r
g
y

a
n
d

water as well as reduce my family’s util
i
t
y

b
i
l
l
s
.1.2.
3.
Name:
Date:
School:
Teacher:
©2012 Resource Action Programs®Developed by:
SIGN THE PLEDGE
I have written and reviewed my pledges above and

b
y

s
i
g
n
i
n
g

t
h
i
s

f
o
r
m
,

I

p
r
o
m
i
s
e

t
o

u
s
e

e
n
e
r
g
y

a
n
d

water more efficiently at home.

Student Signature

Parent Signature
Comprometerse a ahorrar energía y agua es un pas
o

i
m
p
o
r
t
a
n
t
e

p
a
r
a

c
o
n
s
e
r
v
a
r

n
u
e
s
t
r
o
s

r
e
c
u
r
s
o
s

naturales y le ahorrará dinero a su fam
i
l
i
a

e
n

l
a
s

f
a
c
t
u
r
a
s

d
e

s
e
r
v
i
c
i
o
s

p
ú
b
l
i
c
o
s
.

A

m
e
d
i
d
a

q
u
e

a
t
r
a
v
i
e
s
a

por el Programa LivingWise, aprenderá por qué es

i
m
p
o
r
t
a
n
t
e

a
h
o
r
r
a
r

e
n
e
r
g
í
a

y

a
g
u
a
.

E
l

P
r
o
g
r
a
m
a

l
e

enseñará formas sencillas de ahorrar energía, agua y dinero. As
u
m
i
r

e
l

C
o
m
p
r
o
m
i
s
o

m
u
e
s
t
r
a

q
u
e

u
s
t
e
d

quiere ahorrar más energía y agua para reducir la
s

f
a
c
t
u
r
a
s

d
e

l
o
s

s
e
r
v
i
c
i
o
s

p
ú
b
l
i
c
o
s

d
e

s
u

f
a
m
i
l
i
a
.
ESTUDIANTES
FORMULARIO DE COMPR
O
M
I
S
O
ASUMIR EL COMPROMISO

Usted ha ayudado escribiendo su primer compromiso. Tod
o

l
o

q
u
e

t
i
e
n
e

q
u
e

h
a
c
e
r

p
a
r
a

c
o
m
p
l
e
t
a
r

el primer compromiso es instalar los artículo
s

d
e

s
u

K
i
t
.

A
h
o
r
a
,

e
s
c
r
i
b
a

d
o
s

c
o
m
p
r
o
m
i
s
o
s

m
á
s

q
u
e

describan cómo ahorrará energía y agua en el hogar. Rec
u
e
r
d
e
,

u
n

c
o
m
p
r
o
m
i
s
o

e
s

u
n
a

p
r
o
m
e
s
a
.
Me comprometo a hacer mi parte instalando todos los

a
r
t
í
c
u
l
o
s

d
e

m
i

K
i
t

p
a
r
a

ahorrar energía y agua así como para reduc
i
r

l
a
s

f
a
c
t
u
r
a
s

d
e

s
e
r
v
i
c
i
o
s

p
ú
b
l
i
c
o
s

d
e

mi familia.1.2.
3.
Nombre:
Fecha:
Escuela:
Docente:
©2012 Resource Action Programs®Developed by:He escrito y revisado mis anteriores compromisos y al firm
a
r

e
s
t
e

f
o
r
m
u
l
a
r
i
o
,

p
r
o
m
e
t
o

u
s
a
r

l
a

e
n
e
r
g
í
a

y el agua de manera más eficiente en casa.

Firma del Estudiante

Firma del Padre
=
QUESTIONS? • 1-888-GET-WISE • www.idahopo
w
e
r
.
c
o
m
/
w
i
s
e
PARENTS
SIGN INSTALL
=+
CONGRATULATIONS!
Your child’s class has been selected to participate in the excit
i
n
g

E
n
e
r
g
y

W
i
s
e
® Program. The Program
is designed to teach your child the importance of using reso
u
r
c
e
s
,

l
i
k
e

e
n
e
r
g
y

a
n
d

w
a
t
e
r
,

w
i
s
e
l
y

a
n
d

responsibly. This Program is being provided by Idaho Powe
r

a
t

n
o

a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l

c
o
s
t

t
o

y
o
u
,

y
o
u
r

c
h
i
l
d
’
s

school or the school district.
The average U.S. household pays at least $2,000 per ye
a
r

i
n

u
t
i
l
i
t
y

b
i
l
l
s

a
n
d

c
a
n

o
f
t
e
n

r
e
d
u
c
e

t
h
e
s
e

costs with just a few simple changes. Your child will be

g
i
v
e
n

a

k
i
t
,

v
a
l
u
e
d

a
t

o
v
e
r

$
6
0
,

w
h
i
c
h

i
n
c
l
u
d
e
s

free, high-quality products that will help you and you
r

f
a
m
i
l
y

m
a
k
e

t
h
e
s
e

c
h
a
n
g
e
s

a
n
d

b
e
c
o
m
e

m
o
r
e

energy efficient. To participate, please do the following:
n Have your child talk to you about the ways they wo
u
l
d

l
i
k
e

t
o

s
a
v
e

e
n
e
r
g
y

a
n
d

w
a
t
e
r

a
n
d

complete the Pledge Form located on the next pa
g
e
.
n Watch the installation DVD included in your kit.
n Install all of the kit items. You and your child can

d
o

m
o
s
t

o
f

t
h
e

a
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s

i
n

l
e
s
s

t
h
a
n

1
5

minutes. If you need additional help installing the kit items, vis
i
t

w
w
w
.
i
d
a
h
o
p
o
w
e
r
.
c
o
m
/
w
i
s
e

t
o

view installation videos, see the printed instruction booklet o
r

c
a
l
l

1
-
8
8
8
-
G
E
T
-
W
I
S
E
.

n Work with your child to answer all of the survey q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n
s

i
n

t
h
e

S
t
u
d
e
n
t

W
o
r
k
b
o
o
k
.
We hope the Energy Wise® Program will be an easy and fun experience for your ent
i
r
e

f
a
m
i
l
y

a
n
d

will provide an opportunity for your child to be a lead
e
r

i
n

y
o
u
r

h
o
m
e

a
n
d

c
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
.

T
h
a
n
k

y
o
u

for your participation.
LET’S GET STARTED!
1486
$$$Pledging to save energy and water is an import
a
n
t

s
t
e
p

i
n

c
o
n
s
e
r
v
i
n
g

o
u
r

n
a
t
u
r
a
l

r
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s

a
n
d

w
i
l
l

save your family money on utility bills. As you go through th
e

L
i
v
i
n
g
W
i
s
e

P
r
o
g
r
a
m
,

y
o
u

w
i
l
l

l
e
a
r
n

w
h
y

it is important to conserve energy and water. T
h
e

P
r
o
g
r
a
m

w
i
l
l

t
e
a
c
h

y
o
u

s
i
m
p
l
e

w
a
y
s

t
o

s
a
v
e

e
n
e
r
g
y
,

water, and money. Taking the Pledge shows that you want
t
o

b
e

m
o
r
e

e
n
e
r
g
y

a
n
d

w
a
t
e
r

e
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t

t
o

reduce your family’s utility bills.
STUDENTS
PLEDGE FORM
TAKE THE PLEDGE

We have helped you out by writing your first pledge. A
l
l

y
o
u

h
a
v
e

t
o

d
o

t
o

c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e

t
h
e

f
i
r
s
t

p
l
e
d
g
e

is install the items from your Kit. Now, wr
i
t
e

t
w
o

m
o
r
e

p
l
e
d
g
e
s

d
e
s
c
r
i
b
i
n
g

h
o
w

y
o
u

w
i
l
l

b
e

m
o
r
e

e
n
-
ergy and water efficient at home. Remember, a pledg
e

i
s

a

promise.
I pledge to do my part by installing all of
t
h
e

i
t
e
m
s

i
n

m
y

K
i
t

t
o

s
a
v
e

e
n
e
r
g
y

a
n
d

water as well as reduce my family’s ut
i
l
i
t
y

b
i
l
l
s
.1.2.
3.
Name:
Date:
School:
Teacher:
©2012 Resource Action Programs®Developed by:
SIGN THE PLEDGE
I have written and reviewed my pledges above a
n
d

b
y

s
i
g
n
i
n
g

t
h
i
s

f
o
r
m
,

I

p
r
o
m
i
s
e

t
o

u
s
e

e
n
e
r
g
y

a
n
d

water more efficiently at home.

Student Signature

Parent Signature
Comprometerse a ahorrar energía y agua es un paso
i
m
p
o
r
t
a
n
t
e

p
a
r
a

c
o
n
s
e
r
v
a
r

n
u
e
s
t
r
o
s

r
e
c
u
r
s
o
s

naturales y le ahorrará dinero a su famil
i
a

e
n

l
a
s

f
a
c
t
u
r
a
s

d
e

s
e
r
v
i
c
i
o
s

p
ú
b
l
i
c
o
s
.

A

m
e
d
i
d
a

q
u
e

a
t
r
a
v
i
e
s
a

por el Programa LivingWise, aprenderá por qué es im
p
o
r
t
a
n
t
e

a
h
o
r
r
a
r

e
n
e
r
g
í
a

y

a
g
u
a
.

E
l

P
r
o
g
r
a
m
a

l
e

enseñará formas sencillas de ahorrar e
n
e
r
g
í
a
,

a
g
u
a

y

d
i
n
e
r
o
.

A
s
u
m
i
r

e
l

C
o
m
p
r
o
m
i
s
o

m
u
e
s
t
r
a

q
u
e

u
s
t
e
d

quiere ahorrar más energía y agua para reducir las
f
a
c
t
u
r
a
s

d
e

l
o
s

s
e
r
v
i
c
i
o
s

p
ú
b
l
i
c
o
s

d
e

s
u

f
a
m
i
l
i
a
.
ESTUDIANTES
FORMULARIO DE COMPR
O
M
I
S
O
ASUMIR EL COMPROMISO

Usted ha ayudado escribiendo su primer compromiso. Todo
l
o

q
u
e

t
i
e
n
e

q
u
e

h
a
c
e
r

p
a
r
a

c
o
m
p
l
e
t
a
r

el primer compromiso es instalar los artículos d
e

s
u

K
i
t
.

A
h
o
r
a
,

e
s
c
r
i
b
a

d
o
s

c
o
m
p
r
o
m
i
s
o
s

m
á
s

q
u
e

describan cómo ahorrará energía y agua en el hogar. Recue
r
d
e
,

u
n

c
o
m
p
r
o
m
i
s
o

e
s

u
n
a

p
r
o
m
e
s
a
.
Me comprometo a hacer mi parte instalando todos los a
r
t
í
c
u
l
o
s

d
e

m
i

K
i
t

p
a
r
a

ahorrar energía y agua así como para reducir
l
a
s

f
a
c
t
u
r
a
s

d
e

s
e
r
v
i
c
i
o
s

p
ú
b
l
i
c
o
s

d
e

mi familia.1.2.
3.
Nombre:
Fecha:
Escuela:
Docente:
©2012 Resource Action Programs®Developed by:
FIRMAR EL COMPROMISO
He escrito y revisado mis anteriores compromisos y al firma
r

e
s
t
e

f
o
r
m
u
l
a
r
i
o
,

p
r
o
m
e
t
o

u
s
a
r

l
a

e
n
e
r
g
í
a

y el agua de manera más eficiente en casa.

Firma del Estudiante

Firma del Padre
PREGUNTAS? • 1-888-GET-WISE • www.idahopow
e
r
.
c
o
m
/
w
i
s
e
PADRES
¡FELICITACIONES!
La clase de su hijo ha sido seleccionada para participar en

e
l

f
a
s
c
i
n
a
n
t
e

P
r
o
g
r
a
m
a

E
n
e
r
g
y

W
i
s
e
®.
El Programa está diseñado para enseñarle a su hijo la im
p
o
r
t
a
n
c
i
a

d
e
l

u
s
o

d
e

l
o
s

r
e
c
u
r
s
o
s
,

c
o
m
o

l
a

energía y el agua, con sabiduría y responsabilidad. Este

P
r
o
g
r
a
m
a

l
o

p
r
o
v
e
e

Idaho Power sin costo
para usted, la escuela de su hijo ni el distrito escolar.
La vivienda promedio estadounidense paga por la m
í
n
i
m
a

$
2
,
0
0
0

p
o
r

a
ñ
o

e
n

f
a
c
t
u
r
a
s

d
e

s
e
r
v
i
c
i
o
s

públicos y puede reducir a menudo estos costos si
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
e

c
o
n

a
l
g
u
n
o
s

c
a
m
b
i
o
s

s
e
n
c
i
l
l
o
s
.

A

s
u

hijo se le dará un kit que tiene un valor de más de

$
6
0

y

i
n
c
l
u
y
e

p
r
o
d
u
c
t
o
s

g
r
a
t
u
i
t
o
s

d
e

a
l
t
a

c
a
l
i
d
a
d

que le ayudarán a usted y a su familia a hacer es
t
o
s

c
a
m
b
i
o
s

y

s
e
r

m
á
s

e
f
i
c
i
e
n
t
e
s

e
n
e
r
g
é
t
i
c
a
m
e
n
t
e
.

Para participar, por favor haga lo siguiente:
nHaga que su hijo hable con usted sobre las form
a
s

e
n

l
a
s

q
u
e

l
e

g
u
s
t
a
r
í
a

a
h
o
r
r
a
r

a
g
u
a

y

energía y complete el Formulario de Compromiso ubicado e
n

l
a

p
r
ó
x
i
m
a

p
á
g
i
n
a
.
nMire el DVD de instalación incluido en su kit.
nInstale todos los artículos del kit. Usted y su hijo pueden h
a
c
e
r

l
a

m
a
y
o
r
í
a

d
e

l
a
s

a
c
t
i
v
i
d
a
d
e
s

en menos de 15 minutos. Si necesita ayuda adicional con
l
a

i
n
s
t
a
l
a
c
i
ó
n

d
e

l
o
s

a
r
t
í
c
u
l
o
s

del kit, visite www.idahopower.com/wise para ver video
s

d
e

i
n
s
t
a
l
a
c
i
ó
n
,

v
e
a

e
l

m
a
n
u
a
l

d
e

instrucciones de instalación o llame al 1-888-GET-WISE
.

nTrabaje con su hijo para responder todas las pregunta
s

d
e

l
a

e
n
c
u
e
s
t
a

e
n

e
l

L
i
b
r
o

d
e

T
r
a
b
a
j
o

del Estudiante.
Esperamos que el Programa Energy Wise
® sea una experiencia fácil y divertida para toda la

familia y sea una oportunidad para que su hijo

s
e
a

u
n

l
í
d
e
r

e
n

s
u

h
o
g
a
r

y

c
o
m
u
n
i
d
a
d
.

G
r
a
c
i
a
s

por su participación.
¡COMENCEMOS!
SAVE
FIRMAINSTALACIÓN
+$$$
AHORRO
Pledging to save energy and water is an importan
t

s
t
e
p

i
n

c
o
n
s
e
r
v
i
n
g

o
u
r

n
a
t
u
r
a
l

r
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s

a
n
d

w
i
l
l

save your family money on utility bills. As you go through the
L
i
v
i
n
g
W
i
s
e

P
r
o
g
r
a
m
,

y
o
u

w
i
l
l

l
e
a
r
n

w
h
y

it is important to conserve energy and water. Th
e

P
r
o
g
r
a
m

w
i
l
l

t
e
a
c
h

y
o
u

s
i
m
p
l
e

w
a
y
s

t
o

s
a
v
e

e
n
e
r
g
y
,

water, and money. Taking the Pledge shows that you want to

b
e

m
o
r
e

e
n
e
r
g
y

a
n
d

w
a
t
e
r

e
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t

t
o

reduce your family’s utility bills.
STUDENTS
PLEDGE FORM
TAKE THE PLEDGE

We have helped you out by writing your first pledge. All

y
o
u

h
a
v
e

t
o

d
o

t
o

c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e

t
h
e

f
i
r
s
t

p
l
e
d
g
e

is install the items from your Kit. Now, writ
e

t
w
o

m
o
r
e

p
l
e
d
g
e
s

d
e
s
c
r
i
b
i
n
g

h
o
w

y
o
u

w
i
l
l

b
e

m
o
r
e

e
n
-
ergy and water efficient at home. Remember, a pledge
i
s

a

promise.
I pledge to do my part by installing all of th
e

i
t
e
m
s

i
n

m
y

K
i
t

t
o

s
a
v
e

e
n
e
r
g
y

a
n
d

water as well as reduce my family’s util
i
t
y

b
i
l
l
s
.1.2.
3.
Name:
Date:
School:
Teacher:
©2012 Resource Action Programs®Developed by:
SIGN THE PLEDGE
I have written and reviewed my pledges above and

b
y

s
i
g
n
i
n
g

t
h
i
s

f
o
r
m
,

I

p
r
o
m
i
s
e

t
o

u
s
e

e
n
e
r
g
y

a
n
d

water more efficiently at home.

Student Signature

Parent Signature
Comprometerse a ahorrar energía y agua es un pas
o

i
m
p
o
r
t
a
n
t
e

p
a
r
a

c
o
n
s
e
r
v
a
r

n
u
e
s
t
r
o
s

r
e
c
u
r
s
o
s

naturales y le ahorrará dinero a su fam
i
l
i
a

e
n

l
a
s

f
a
c
t
u
r
a
s

d
e

s
e
r
v
i
c
i
o
s

p
ú
b
l
i
c
o
s
.

A

m
e
d
i
d
a

q
u
e

a
t
r
a
v
i
e
s
a

por el Programa LivingWise, aprenderá por qué es

i
m
p
o
r
t
a
n
t
e

a
h
o
r
r
a
r

e
n
e
r
g
í
a

y

a
g
u
a
.

E
l

P
r
o
g
r
a
m
a

l
e

enseñará formas sencillas de ahorrar energía, agua y dinero. As
u
m
i
r

e
l

C
o
m
p
r
o
m
i
s
o

m
u
e
s
t
r
a

q
u
e

u
s
t
e
d

quiere ahorrar más energía y agua para reducir la
s

f
a
c
t
u
r
a
s

d
e

l
o
s

s
e
r
v
i
c
i
o
s

p
ú
b
l
i
c
o
s

d
e

s
u

f
a
m
i
l
i
a
.
ESTUDIANTES
FORMULARIO DE COMPR
O
M
I
S
O
ASUMIR EL COMPROMISO

Usted ha ayudado escribiendo su primer compromiso. Tod
o

l
o

q
u
e

t
i
e
n
e

q
u
e

h
a
c
e
r

p
a
r
a

c
o
m
p
l
e
t
a
r

el primer compromiso es instalar los artículo
s

d
e

s
u

K
i
t
.

A
h
o
r
a
,

e
s
c
r
i
b
a

d
o
s

c
o
m
p
r
o
m
i
s
o
s

m
á
s

q
u
e

describan cómo ahorrará energía y agua en el hogar. Rec
u
e
r
d
e
,

u
n

c
o
m
p
r
o
m
i
s
o

e
s

u
n
a

p
r
o
m
e
s
a
.
Me comprometo a hacer mi parte instalando todos los

a
r
t
í
c
u
l
o
s

d
e

m
i

K
i
t

p
a
r
a

ahorrar energía y agua así como para reduc
i
r

l
a
s

f
a
c
t
u
r
a
s

d
e

s
e
r
v
i
c
i
o
s

p
ú
b
l
i
c
o
s

d
e

mi familia.1.2.
3.
Nombre:
Fecha:
Escuela:
Docente:
©2012 Resource Action Programs®Developed by:He escrito y revisado mis anteriores compromisos y al firm
a
r

e
s
t
e

f
o
r
m
u
l
a
r
i
o
,

p
r
o
m
e
t
o

u
s
a
r

l
a

e
n
e
r
g
í
a

y el agua de manera más eficiente en casa.

Firma del Estudiante

Firma del Padre
=
Idaho Power Energy Wise® Program Summary Report14Program Implementation
“They loved the kits. When I gave
them the kits they acted as if I gave
them the greatest gift ever. Many
of them couldn’t wait to get started
using it.”
Michelle Jenkins, Teacher
Roosevelt Elementary
Resource Action Programs®15Program Implementation
The 2015-2016 Idaho Power Energy Wise® Program followed this comprehensive
implementation schedule:
1. Identification of Idaho state and national academic standards & benchmarks
2. Curriculum development and refinement (completed annually)
3. Curriculum correlation to Idaho state and national academic standards & benchmarks
4. Materials modification to incorporate Idaho Power branding
5. Incentive program development
6. Teacher outreach and program introduction by Idaho Power CERs
7. Teachers enrolled in the program individually by Idaho Power CERs
8. Implementation dates scheduled with teachers by Idaho Power CERs
9. Program material delivered to coincide with desired implementation date
10. Delivery confirmation
11. Periodic contact to ensure implementation and teacher satisfaction
12. Program completion incentive offered
13. Results collection
14. Program completion incentive delivered to qualifying teachers
15. Thank you cards sent to participating teachers
16. Data analysis
17. Program Summary Report generated and distributed
Participating teachers are free to implement the program to coincide with their lesson plans and class
schedules. Appendix C provides a comprehensive list of classrooms in grades 4-6 that participated
during the 2015-2016 school year.
Program Implementation
Idaho Power Energy Wise® Program Summary Report16Program Team
For more than 23 years, Resource Action Programs (RAP) has
designed and implemented Measure-Based Education® programs
that inspire change in household energy and water use while
delivering significant, measurable resource savings. All RAP
programs feature a proven blend of innovative education,
comprehensive implementation services, and hands-on activities
to put efficiency knowledge to work in students’ homes.
RAP has a strong reputation for providing a high level of client
service as part of a wide range of energy efficiency education
solutions for utilities, municipalities, states, community agencies,
corporations, and more. In 2013, RAP was the only conservation
services provider honored by the American Council for an
Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE) and the Alliance for Water
Efficiency (AWE) as one of 12 top programs that provides sustained
achievement. RAP was honored for market penetration, innovative
design, and its ability to achieve substantial/sustained energy and
water savings.
Resource Action Programs®17Program Team
RAP implements nearly 300 individual programs
that serve more than 400,000 households each
year. All-inclusive program delivery occurs in
its 80,000 square-foot Nevada Program Center
where implementation teams and support
departments work together to provide:
• 1:1 teacher support
• Curriculum development
• Customized materials
• Data tracking and reporting
• Energy and water efficiency measures
• Graphic and web design
• Kit assembly
• Marketing communications
• Shipping
• Printing
• Program management
• Participant enrollment
• Warehousing
The Implementation Team
For the Idaho Power Energy Wise® Program,
RAP assigned a specific implementation team
to Idaho Power made up of a PMP®-designated
Program Manager, CEM®-designated energy
analyst, graphic designer, outreach personnel,
educator, and administrative staff. This team
immersed themselves into the Idaho Power
brand, and handled all program implementation
for Idaho Power. Idaho Power also received the
benefit of fully staffed support departments,
which worked with the implementation team
to define success for Idaho Power. These
departments include education, marketing,
information technology, and warehouse/
logistics.
Continuous Improvement
In addition to successful implementation of the
Idaho Power Energy Wise Program, RAP engages
in continuous program improvement, as well as
enhancements to educational materials, with
modifications based on emerging technology,
industry trends, and EM&V findings.
As part of this plan, RAP utilizes an extensive
network of educators for program feedback. This
feedback ensures that educational components
meet the changing needs of educators, keep
information relevant to students, and, in turn,
provide increased water and energy literacy
amongst program participants.
Program Team
Idaho Power Energy Wise® Program Summary Report18Program Impact
“The light bulb consumption was an
eye opening exercise. I was unaware
of the pros of LED bulbs.”
Tyler Hepworth, Parent
Edahow Elementary School
Resource Action Programs®19Program Impact
The Idaho Power Energy Wise® Program has had a significant impact within the community. As
illustrated below, the program successfully educated participants about energy and water efficiency
while generating resource savings through the installation of efficiency measures in homes. Home
survey information was collected to track projected savings and provide household consumption and
demographic data. Program evaluations and comments were collected from teachers, students, and
parents. The following program elements were used to collect this data:
A. Home Survey for Capital Region
Participating teachers were asked to return their students’ completed home check-up and home
activities results. Of the 43 participating teachers in the Capital region, 32 (74%) returned survey
results for the program. Parents and students were asked to install the kit measures and complete
the home activities. Of the 1,262 participating children in the Capital region, 790 (63%) returned
completed surveys.
Did your family install the first 9-watt LED Light Bulb? Yes - 70%
Did your family install the new High-Efficiency Showerhead? Yes - 42%
Did your family change the way they use energy? Yes - 72%
Program Impact
70+30+F
Students who indicated they installed the
first 9-watt LED Light Bulb.
70% Yes
30% No 42+58+F
Students who indicated they installed
the High-Efficiency Showerhead.
42% Yes
58% No 72+28+F
Students who indicated their family
changed the way they use energy.
72% Yes
28% No
Idaho Power Energy Wise® Program Summary Report20Program Impact
Home Survey for Canyon Region
Participating teachers were asked to return their students’ completed home check-up and home
activities results. Of the 86 participating teachers in the Canyon region, 73 (85%) returned survey
results for the program. Parents and students were asked to install the kit measures and complete
the home activities. Of the 2,319 participating children in the Canyon region, 1,784 (77%) returned
completed surveys.
Did your family install the first 9-watt LED Light Bulb? Yes - 70%
Did your family install the new High-Efficiency Showerhead? Yes - 50%
Did your family change the way they use energy? Yes - 69%70+30+F
Students who indicated they installed the
first 9-watt LED Light Bulb.
70% Yes
30% No 50+50+F
Students who indicated they installed
the High-Efficiency Showerhead.
50% Yes
50% No 69+31+F
Students who indicated their family
changed the way they use energy.
69% Yes
31% No
Resource Action Programs®21Program Impact
Home Survey for Eastern Region
Participating teachers were asked to return their students’ completed home check-up and home
activities results. Of the 43 participating teachers in the Eastern region, 37 (86%) returned survey
results for the program. Parents and students were asked to install the kit measures and complete
the home activities. Of the 1,191 participating children in the Eastern region, 893 (75%) returned
completed surveys.
Did your family install the first 9-watt LED Light Bulb? Yes - 64%
Did your family install the new High-Efficiency Showerhead? Yes - 44%
Did your family change the way they use energy? Yes - 71%64+36+F
Students who indicated they installed the
first 9-watt LED Light Bulb.
64% Yes
36% No 44+56+F
Students who indicated they installed
the High-Efficiency Showerhead.
44% Yes
56% No 71+29+F
Students who indicated their family
changed the way they use energy.
71% Yes
29% No
Idaho Power Energy Wise® Program Summary Report22Program Impact
Home Survey for Southern Region
Participating teachers were asked to return their students’ completed home check-up and home
activities results. Of the 30 participating teachers in the Southern region, 20 (67%) returned survey
results for the program. Parents and students were asked to install the kit measures and complete
the home activities. Of the 753 participating children in the Southern region, 440 (58%) returned
completed surveys.
Did your family install the first 9-watt LED Light Bulb? Yes - 67%
Did your family install the new High-Efficiency Showerhead? Yes - 47%
Did your family change the way they use energy? Yes - 70%67+33+F
Students who indicated they installed the
first 9-watt LED Light Bulb.
67% Yes
33% No 47+53+F
Students who indicated they installed
the High-Efficiency Showerhead.
47% Yes
53% No 70+30+F
Students who indicated their family
changed the way they use energy.
70% Yes
30% No
Resource Action Programs®23Program Impact
Home Survey for Western Region
Participating teachers were asked to return their students’ completed home check-up and home
activities results. Of the 17 participating teachers in the Western region, 12 (71%) returned survey
results for the program. Parents and students were asked to install the kit measures and complete
the home activities. Of the 561 participating children in the Western region, 387 (69%) returned
completed surveys.
Did your family install the first 9-watt LED Light Bulb? Yes - 68%
Did your family install the new High-Efficiency Showerhead? Yes - 44%
Did your family change the way they use energy? Yes - 62%68+32+F
Students who indicated they installed the
first 9-watt LED Light Bulb.
68% Yes
32% No 44+56+F
Students who indicated they installed
the High-Efficiency Showerhead.
44% Yes
56% No 62+38+F
Students who indicated their family
changed the way they use energy.
62% Yes
38% No
Idaho Power Energy Wise® Program Summary Report24Program Impact
B. Pre-Program and Post-Program Tests
Students were asked to complete a 10-question test before the program was introduced and then again
after it was completed to determine the knowledge gained through the program. The average student
answered 5.9 questions correctly prior to being involved in the program and then improved to answer
7.4 questions correctly following participation. Of the 6,086 student households participating, 4,294
returned survey responses.
Scores improved from 59% to 74%.
Pre-Program Score 59%
Post-Program Score 74%
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100
Pre-Program and Post-Program Test Questions
Pre Post
1 Which layer of Earth do we live on?
Crust 66%86%
Mantle 6%3%
Inner Core 9%3%
Outer Core 18%7%
2 Non-Potable water is safe to drink.
True 25%15%
False 75%85%
3 Which of these is not a renewable resource?
Wind 23%11%
Plants 5%3%
Gold 57%78%
Animals 15%9%
4 Saving water saves energy.
True 85%94%
False 15%6%
Resource Action Programs®25Program Impact
Pre-Program and Post-Program Test Questions
Pre Post
5 Which are fossil fuels?
Coal 25%18%
Oil 12%6%
Natural Gas 14%8%
All of the above 49%68%
6 Which type of energy is created in the process of Photosynthesis?
Nuclear Energy 21%17%
Thermal Energy 24%20%
Chemical Energy 29%51%
Electric Energy 26%13%
7 Which Kit item will save the most natural resources?
Compact Fluorescent Lamp 17%13%
High-Efficiency Showerhead 36%59%
FilterTone® Alarm 17%9%
LED Night Light 30%19%
8 Which major appliance uses the most energy?
Dishwasher 20%15%
Refrigerator 61%68%
Dryer 19%17%
9 An LED (light emiting Diode) light bulb uses more energy than an incandescent bulb.
True 42%30%
False 57%70%
10 On-peak time is the best time to play video games.
True 30%17%
False 70%83%
Idaho Power Energy Wise® Program Summary Report26Program Impact
C. Home Activities—Summary
As part of the program, parents and students installed resource efficiency measures in their homes.
They also measured the pre-existing devices to calculate savings that they generated. Using the family
habits collected from the home survey as the basis for this calculation, 6,305 households are expected
to save the following resource totals. Savings from these actions and new behaviors will continue for
many years to come. Of the 6,086 student households participating, 4,294 returned survey responses.
Projected Resource Savings
A list of assumptions and formulas used for these calculations can be found in Appendix A.
Number of Participants:6,305
Annual Lifetime
Projected reduction from Showerhead retrofit:10,882,978 108,829,784 gallons
Product Life: 10 years 680,262 6,802,621 kWh
37,481 374,809 therms
Projected reduction from first 9-watt LED Light Bulb:222,364 2,668,368 kWh
Product Life: 25,000 hours (12 years)
Projected reduction from second 9-watt LED Light Bulb:186,787 2,241,439 kWh
Product Life: 25,000 hours (12 years)
Projected reduction from third 9-watt LED Light Bulb:161,397 1,936,763 kWh
Product Life: 25,000 hours (12 years)
Projected reduction from LED Night Light retrofit:151,662 1,516,624 kWh
Product Life: 10,000 hours
Projected reduction from FilterTone® installation:139,189 1,391,886 kWh
Product Life: 10 years 6,896 68,964 therms
TOTAL PROGRAM SAVINGS:10,882,978 108,829,784 gallons
1,541,661 16,557,701 kWh
44,377 443,773 therms
TOTAL PROGRAM SAVINGS PER HOUSEHOLD: 1,726 17,261 gallons
245 2,626 kWh
7 70 therms
Resource Action Programs®27Program Impact
D. Teacher Program Evaluation
Program improvements are based on participant feedback received. One of the types of feedback
obtained is from participating teachers via a Teacher Program Evaluation Form. They are asked to
evaluate relevant aspects of the program and each response is reviewed for pertinent information. The
following is feedback from the Teacher Program Evaluation for the Idaho Power Energy Wise Program.
Of the 219 participating teachers, 174 returned teacher program evaluation surveys.
Teacher Response
(A summary of responses and regional data can be found in Appendix D)
97% of participating teachers indicated they would conduct the program again given the opportunity.
100% of participating teachers indicated they would recommend the program to their colleagues.
What did students like best about the program? Explain.
“Working with their family to install kit items.”
Sandra Otero, Wilson Elementary School
“Extra class experiments, home kit.”
Lori Murphy, Ustick Elementary School
“They told me that they enjoyed using all the products at home. Many said they used everything.”
Amy Hirsch, Ustick Elementary School
“The activities.”
Rose Marie Warrell, Oakley Elementary School
“Students enjoyed the presentation, the kits, and the experiments I’ve conducted.”
Brenda Fly, Birch Elementary School
“They liked the at home activities.”
Juilana Lookhart, Birch Elementary School

What did you like best about the program? Explain.
“The teacher guide made it easy to choose lessons and teach them.”
Sandra Otero, Wilson Elementary School
“The interactive pieces... Classroom activities were fun!”
Lori Murphy, Ustick Elementary School
“I really enjoyed the classroom activities. They are very simple, but a powerful teaching tool!”
Amy Hirsch, Ustick Elementary School
“Lesson plans included along with activities.”
Rose Marie Warrell, Oakley Elementary School
Idaho Power Energy Wise® Program Summary Report28Program Impact
E. Parent/Guardian Program Evaluation
Parent involvement with program activities and their children is of paramount interest to both Idaho
Power and teachers in the program. When parents take an active role in their child’s education it
helps the schools and strengthens the educational process considerably. When students successfully
engage their families in retrofit, installation, and home energy efficiency projects, efficiency messages
are powerfully delivered to two generations in the same household. The program is a catalyst for this
family interaction, which is demonstrated by feedback from Parent/Guardian Program Evaluations.
The following is feedback from the Parent/Guardian Program Evaluations for the Idaho Power Energy
Wise Program. Of the 6,305 participating families, 80 parents returned program evaluation surveys.
Parent Response
(A summary of responses and regional data can be found in Appendix E)
100% of participating parents indicated that the program was easy to use.
100% of participating parents indicated they would continue to use the kit items after the completion
of the program.
100% of participating parents indicated they would like to see this program continued in local schools.
As a parent, which aspect of the program did you like best?
"I thought it was a great way for them to understand how to save energy which saves money."
Chris Niuer, Alturas Elementary
"Focus on saving energy."
Chris Conant, Amity Elementary School
"Loved the LED bulbs. The kit explaining all and the workbook was great as well."
Victoria Rogers, Amity Elementary School
"I love that the program is educating kids for their future"
Virginia Farr, Amity Elementary School
"The encouragement to be aware of power use."
Andrea Gabion, Birch Elementary School
"Teaching my kids how to save energy and money."
Jeni Kikendall, Birch Elementary School
"The filter alarm and how interested my child was in trying it all out and learning from it."
Nikol McKean, Birch Elementary School
"How it showed my child the importance of conservation with household items."
Stephen Muhonen, Claude A. Wilcox Elementary School
Resource Action Programs®29Program Impact
F. Teacher LettersF.Teacher Letters
Dear Idaho Power,
Thank you very much for allowing my class to
participate in The Energy Wise Program again this
year.Once again,it was a fantastic experience,
both in the classroom and for families at home.
We were able to apply energy conservation
ideas to our environment at school,as well as at
home.I believe the students are more aware of
their energy consumption,and are working hard to
limit use.
As a low-income school,it is afways fun to
hear how the home kits bless the families.Some
families don't even have money to buy lightbulbs,
so free items are very special.The look on their
faces when they receive the kit is incredible...you
are providing more than energy education.
Thanks^so much,
Lori Murphy /
//1
/
4th grade teacher,Ustick Elementary
Program ImpactResourceActionPrograms'"
Idaho Power Energy Wise® Program Summary Report30Program Impact
Teacher Letters
(continued)
Teacher Letters
(continued)
October 21.2015
Dear Idaho Power,
Thank yon very much for letting my class participate in the Idaho
Power Energywise Program.This is the fourth year I have had this program
in my class and I love having it as part of my science curriculum.My
colleagues,Rhonda Wilson,Michael Palmer,Britney Schulz,and I were
impressed with this program.Thank you for sponsoring this program.Wc
also greatly appreciate your representative,Afldie Root,for introducing this
program each year and signing us up lor this program .
My students loved this program.They loved the kits the best and
were amazed at ail that they received in the kit.Every student in my class
tried at least 2or more objects from the kit.About half of them told me they
used aimost everything in the kit,I heard wonderful stories about how they
are trying to be more conservative of our natural resources.I also
appreciated receiving a kit for myself—which I try to implement almost
everything in it.
I felt that this program was wei!written and well organized.It was
easy to follow and read.This is the fourth year for my cJ ass to participate in
this program,I felt thai the student kits were amazing.J was also very
grateful to have the student guide to use in class.Our district is really
restrictive on copies of assignments to use in our class.Since I had the
student guide to use as I taught the lessons,I was able to do so much more
and I didn't have to look for activities on my own that didn't require copying
something.I especially appreciated that the hidden message was in the back
of the student guide this year along with the extra activities,I love doing
hidden message activity because it went really well with coordinates and
latitude/longitude lessons that we have been discussing in class.
I hank you so much again for all the time,money,and effort that your
company puts into this program.It shows how we can all be
conservationists by using little steps to get there.Please consider me again
for this program next year.I would love to teach this program every year.
Sincerely,
Michelle Jenkins
4rh Grade Teacher
Franklin U.Roosevelt Elementary
Nampa School District
Nampa,ID
Program Impact Idaho Power Energy Wise®Program Summary Report
Resource Action Programs®31Program Impact
Teacher Letters
(continued)
Teacher Letters
(continued)
October 27,2015
Dear Idaho Power,
Thank you for the Energy Wise Kits,Students were so excited to
receive theml Parent response to the learning materials provided was
excellent.Several parents took the time to email me commenting on
how thrilled they were to use the items as a tool to teach their children
about how they could conserve energy at home.What a great
opportunity to get kids excited about learning—and to teach them how
to be considerate consumers.
Learning about energy,where it comes from,how it works,how
we can protect it for future generations,has been an excellent basis for
teaching Common Core State Standards.I appreciate the Student
Workbook,Guide Book,and lesson plan book prepared for parents,
students,and teachers.The variety of strategies suggested to teach this
important concept were engaging and interesting.I look forward to
implementing these ideas again in the future,and truly appreciate the
$100 grant.This contribution to education allows my students to
participate in activities that would otherwise be impossible.
Sincerely,
rMrs.Brenda Fly
Program ImpactResourceActionPrograms'"
Idaho Power Energy Wise® Program Summary Report32Program Impact
G. Student LettersG.Student Letters
.!_£ I r"'r7 ¦'frji.-t,,-<lA
•*""*it ¦'
rjjL4 ^i 4——.*—¦#-
jjgni -H4,
l H .We t /•/.r i
tL,
-
¦L_
Prv.r^cvrv
1
?+i
--
W-"\J
¥L
UTt§7
r-_
)ed ''I )Vjj-Mn®tcw^r
\V\<aak)£m (oY~
U-
*¦
^*1 -
%\6^1 CAe.v4
*$f§\4$*
>'
I f.r\y*i
S CiV';1^fh>c;'*
\l-w-fJ '
It
J_V0Y
IV t
-*"Ai o\cp>i j
£^i 1
3
-=4:
.-C
Program Impact Idaho Power Energy Wise®Program Summary Report
Resource Action Programs®33Program Impact
Student Letters
(continued)
Student Letters
(continued)
£Pearr^daho Power
fa
\s m.Thank aou -fbrfh-o
t n£(~i\5dvinc
r Kiv.'1
t Mu-PoAJon-)4 -vj
\tjfeLEOn\ah
'II
I if_g
u
LU -.U i 1
ight
rhanKr;
Again,
;3]_Lixatfdm
- -¦
v
TM<
Enejif^"
s»**•
V I
¦ten \ti ibt
j
"thanfe tkjZn,
-k Ifc Hilal tlifalii --.¦—+*aJ,
Program ImpactResourceActionPrograms®
Idaho Power Energy Wise® Program Summary Report34Program Impact
Student Letters
(continued)
Student Letters
(continued)
L f-ibu.cJt1t
1 Ol.!-¦1 '¦J-''-'¦'¦'¦'^
"¦'¦(-'''1 "r '¦'-'j Ll_.'I I '_¦¦-¦
6l'U-lEVT lii Ll i-11"k.Ji '.J
tflQj J ),,j ¦.T CJL 2
-w \Dr>Kt
'i.-j-¦'.¦U ¦¦¦¦''
16
fjtaif-S.r,tyuh#-
i Vf71'1-^r -
finely ki 't o -F a1W 1 !He
y jWiy fas a_htc 14'H,ndprcF "S
'Tcueryw y ,,Fti-n ate.FWf-ile^ftrJ
!(5 >3k"£.
Tl^lI .^kntyL ..tJfl.Wi:-
KdJL?.^:v..v
,'ij
f:--1 "¦¦e5/"//?v
Lg a /r /\A '11 I ;-!¦<vy-c '-¦/y
ib P«-Cf7£*&y CUi&H>..j4~/'
fh't jta?/--J ¦Jl ?%;fti,A,ft ^
L1 y y h Zr?!*..;,*a>$t .~ov-/-(J'*r
t//+i'•?cj c/eLfr/L-te-e /e r J .i yx.-
':•¦¦r .'-¦¦¦/¦--
ItA er-'y.rht 0we ~ff?cy
-I
f:t?~cTf-K-.j,rv,j .
ILJ'J i/ffi ¦¦¦¦>¦•''/V-f t'qpi<Uitf I/ah?'i
J-1 no ¦*>;¦}¦¦\-hi}L'<OG$—->>1
I -L"¦'.r/>ZjZ^d >f '/twWi !r ¦A""-:r"^5 ^
ycbyz-e.TH4/V&i&ot ,,
T//7¦_l
Lt\yOM
to WrL oi&'ai._L\Use.^J
Lki't Open —
a tJ
t id.fe,rv/^P ..L.
flj
1
«3f'i rf-in
EM J _,.F
''yS'k.>-1 ¦¦1 ,
¦1 ":¦"»J -;"'"¦¦'Jov tki.I M'
tul^'-.rt|¦"lf--
^JbiS
!_¦.?tSi _•—
i.i
-r"V'«l.'nt t11
^ !hU_
.nHtuvy-.1 i*¦f r-jr
l(!h'".i|V .i
'!v iJ Vl'*ie k;pl>y Vi.d r-",,-•«^A'i.oTu-
i_¦-fi VIC,plltiKf|,1
dw(
r L ._^:"*ri(L
f!r«"i D -j—I Jj i.a.4i 1¦
_
a,Lt,L4-+•":
¦i;i ^uv iL
Ij^rt ¦,bQ.V I ¦
rE4 .-i_._
Zhn ./T I ,JL-lLfct -"Vt-ltLt 1 fiSZ.Jl»
^-'¦^'rL.i ¦.:_]..L- f'\--an
,j r .'ji-11 H t \
f—-i\Y r
M .I--L H
¦U.0.
iro i .
^3^Program Impact Idaho Power Energy Wise®Program Summary Report
Resource Action Programs®35Program Impact
Student Letters
(continued)
Student Letters
(continued)
X*X—I nrtiiK v^joia O*Sporvs
LoUE rTMcctfi.J
_Xv*nK £.¦<¦|nm .r Lvfe r^-
C ,leQfrffcA tv bV ft&ooA V1 S-iy¥-£ri<r®ji.
han k ^£br txYi +Wi +lirgb ,nik 11 ¦
d\l tV\l +Ml$it VV V-1 (Ijt wM-
^ddatia&_r
M£S-Jefl k.ns'ttU <?ra <t c l«?:
r D £.E if IV^Aif^^xO
ow I*Ai
Eik?,^
¦mlk..^.-,Otar Xdaho ?Qumj^
TXqsg V.&
aveat
ao qju*\the
gtvmg us
KS"S»T-<x\l
V*g y &r\ci
Kt\tvgM-A^d X also
rmr\qs 1 dvdWi l^now.I M&fcsUsd
ow -\W-ite^s in my JLi±_-h^y
avc ,>rea [[u .us&P v I -*t *
Idako "Poiue^*locks I
•t i »*^»**i i.v
iZf-yf
ft wt''»—-''•*-Er Ji.i(K
^**)Wlxjr**''
&fln$evvEi^
r£
<~Vn
brvjf,,
TKqnW
^-\W7oit^T -r i-l 'Q^
^££reJy-CX^
V f&W M ftM-Ui&%w-ix
hjearnej m
w re-u if r
IS i)/i tH
tji
it 4|ia(^Ar
>Up*,?n«
"JrJpKo feV^r
,4 Ji for -L^TJ-cha
fouOn
1L*5 T '(#d "*lV™
XI
rf snf:f ;&/6'
V 3^
Program ImpactResourceActionPrograms'"
Idaho Power Energy Wise® Program Summary Report36Program Impact
Student Letters
(continued)
Student Letters
(continued)
T
^(VifJtoVL^tirn&t oiae.5cnT.t
\-*iA 'oti''j't-V-L Of
"L ??A\^Vm.ju WiL Wmjv
vV^-^Lt"--vj;1!'-'.'SMf ar,d A
?y>i ^>y.\!*•£fijm.vi
^\t>*L Yti
_for ^VM3UitCr"W Wlfl^
'.'l ¦i r ,~\V-ot*v*i j.¦i .j ^^-y¦i ¦*)*
rn£W< li^nLiii _0
iiM lVjj -
«V.-'IH tvirf_fc»jr>,
a tlfAj I-It f*L J:.
"
-Bfe |i--,
,
¦.'\<_fEL^.MXIi
/
i1 t.
P6*i in
t»*
to.ft
S^ixsp q.e*ttv
CM&
r Vj
>
%»
GO^ytXs >rft
Bear XCciho PoL-ct,M«yr
.'-l-jjAanv
_LJIj.J-o pxirtf;-'.'-•r
'i "e,cr 1 1 -j i\jfJ|T*y
filjA C1,<x.\JE__li3 tiie_Ei fi
ah U C_k t.
^ar&a.7 1"j^.^4-
uJ-b^&=r
£
-^V-y '>*¦The Ki f
X bai
y^i;i^ild AM
.l.,F.d _A>y\y
-.Kflw-:t~L''d.Vi>
.I e -if -j "o
.¦¦:"¦-4Tll .r y
T)i'.rtt t>r all V^c
Pdl WAt*G
Ike Ij"i &y .1 -fKn.t i'f-s
hthp^H,rui
il tianie.'-'fAr^
^iij)[L^rni JflnJ.;(btfuj 15%jf
Wftitf.iWf tjan vtfiJ
La 7-ki i,'ty d rnaf^s mJ
l11^Li).hy ^kioL (UVJCj
i.jq.S
.'¦a LV,ir"i
,~KlWi**I"•*"pPTC r
f~r<j*«,L /ly
UOjt.tz 'i.i-i'.L-"!A 1 -tf
<flQT
J.WcJI.I £J"-Xki-,^qccu>r
T ^I:
h"0jTi iAd¦-.
.Sinter!=[/aOililrn/lfi
J7
-.;1 \V/
/y
iV\71 hAi•.
'-
_
^6^Program Impact Idaho Power Energy Wise®Program Summary Report
Resource Action Programs®37Program Impact
Student Letters
(continued)
Student Letters
(continued)
i<taV>4ha
ouo&if toc Tfi
Pow^rl i reau<h
rflc^-heci ij^£I I
liaKti
0II'/N-i
I5i fiQl'Jmtii J
17 rjfld otwd-
*wfkV?ofci TVunh
SrffeBrl j,
OsaJS'I
•I ¦"

beif X i¦"'¦j Tkiv i iX ftjf
I 'uHlk f)tr IfTur;"tii c
j».-j i»j,"X r--.il y \.kiJ XKfli'
±aV Xy ii >*J
J ¦I JfK.'fl
X iji ,-j tt.i"-ca'.f j I .n,j -H-.'--.l ¦
n >¦liak/.c -1 [Lta 'olS
c iui Lif.».ii Jw jlftin^y i
X Lkrj Xdvj tv£¦jujV Xa b"A/>,
r i i-/L#nk y >t X/,
L#fl£J J?1
X,
*J h ¦TT,l M.Iftw^-.r '
I JMf
?*¦;
r¦-
v t
S iff I y ..¦(
>4 iyj
Ts-W ^jfi^c
J'[j F
XT)
.-'!
ft C T£,J-
JlfilrJ^J Yoli 'I riim grtJW&WV fiwfnlfliy
f4l4)
¦¦H'^y*
I %v,Hi tr.«^I .'Vt -My.
f -tr,li-il r .i i ^kl-J'¦tLfty £¦''Hint-Vr-
k,*¦V1 #Wi )jV Xi 1 '11
¦fk*W Jri '^
1 1 <"V fet«uu.
"ft I lie,ri rr>n I.Jfllf,
i m?
','i ¦-<-¦i j-.i¦-i :j,If
ft-(t fbV i,ui IV'
%V\fftkUfi i^ri
T *X *j ri
',11 "V
01-^.^
i i W
T^,t ('1(^1"'
d>^i£rtWi)
Program ImpactResourceActionPrograms'"
Idaho Power Energy Wise® Program Summary Report38Program Impact
Student Letters
(continued)
Student Letters
(continued)
Hf
_u_JJ^i Pfflsffr
TWk,vj&.*W 1 0'.'
l-be «h c l rv
tDeafIdAt-o ifa/tr*
ilicLrtk^dn.for oJ:the JaSSont
l i "rha (wo^i c-ieo h ^c *u
lUC f-'crffy,Hi <*J+dldrfj-hv yr:
fflvi'1 rv
¦^¦¦!P»-p\rf^rl *-X ;j,<j*jd
v(C uf J '"^5 a r t'cfy fctif-
f^TC-Iff:!tfrJ "d ^.--l a fa^i £lajCcL
fa ^n»"fiaA TV 'pf n n^A flfay
vli^O (jm*?;M-^st i X »lfo l!l^^
"M*-fw.U —f«.jf'cle ih
fiv?¦cat/*¦"£r*
p>f r.
Or
1 'Y 'r.-i tjiUtjwider,ggffift .y 4J0U :'WlJ,s
H,C fH '-.Cf,_L cji0 \\WL,
Wl!l4t
¦U"
far tV,£Lutes .filled waV^Vta
¦-iiyfV t'O'i:nUlt M Ch£J ".!
V _?vi
Ifrl'.lL
¦).I '.1 MMtu*
^(JiA Qjr
^»X6cJ ^a>V|C t b ".t1.tt
ja|ktvOiv itiut..Ml in IW^
O
jjpyi L i-jG £t jOiY-rfV"»
Lftsthj ,-i-'H 4V--i...
V\ti,V nUi se^J .I
a Sj
SnytTtl^,HciEa
'i lie*1 rftj ih
£sy*fr/
a,jAf/s«';//
mM
m Vi E
j
¦r>-J ifff/W,!:11
\l
h m
W \N»/
^o<7/'t ^<.
L>
n
T
-X
'/Y*
^3^Program Impact Idaho Power Energy Wise®Program Summary Report
Resource Action Programs®39Program Impact
Student Letters
(continued)
Student Letters
(continued)
Dear o
H QH -.toc
UL
mm
¦T^^TUK&gEuf \|N{V•a*--—"">5
OOlf'/
fC-rv
hi -i i i-j ^rr\[
fc >!Ka^.¦(Arid gjj jj«'».^aL
/T
WlBIME53^
bjs ij ¦j ¦ifSflLfJrl --.f]''/¥?f%»nI /r Lyfff
i_.£i»y>MefcSi
i r:
S£®/I iSidKVi.-<^K 5 )t)ecH¦>1 ,r >
>BP
v a//
UecemiSer jj,jojif
TV lhJrfli/io Tower
750 4"'
Sjtarfa,:W .MV.
To-Wh&mltMay Ccmcerm
I XuOitUl W-ti'to~&\tW)Jt/yatfjr wJwificmy
ifcrf-all yCn-l^C'd-oruj'/bv uy i.Ciui'tJii-
leo«riit^fl/mi-the'?u£',it if cuveit>ma
Tfuitxfc'yiin^for"tJu+ifcivL^-cUxrtAf eve+y!>otiy
ic woco+v jcwe*mcmey.Vow-ct+-&ve#y
ouruis$e*\ercm4 ter^tve-ui-LED li#hr buW*y,
the-thav/etr headi ifaowmr n>ne+"wui'
Li^JU'fnot"Cfuir I rieedsonej but thccnk
yotufor thirdtir\g'of u&-.We^aH appreciate
it.fh&rthyou*
,fl|!Clt
te
ftm
Sievc&rely,
Ale*U&iiu
Program Impact ^39ResourceActionPrograms'"
Idaho Power Energy Wise® Program Summary Report40Appendices
“The students told me that they enjoyed
using all the products at home. Many
said they used everything.”
Amy Hirsch, Teacher
Ustick Elementary School
Resource Action Programs®41Appendices
Appendix A
Projected Savings from Showerhead Retrofit ..................................42
Projected Savings from FilterTone® Alarm Installation ....................43
Projected Savings from First 9-watt LED Light Bulb Retrofit ........44
Projected Savings from Second 9-watt LED Light Bulb Retrofit ....45
Projected Savings from Third 9-watt LED Light Bulb Retrofit .......46
Projected Savings from LED Night Light Retrofit .............................47
Appendix B
Home Check-Up ....................................................................................48
Home Activities ......................................................................................51
Appendix C
Participant List .......................................................................................55
Appendix D
Teacher Program Evaluation Data .......................................................65
Appendix E
Parent/Guardian Program Evaluation Data ......................................66
Appendices
Idaho Power Energy Wise® Program Summary Report42Appendix A
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x

A
Showerhead Retrofit Inputs and Assumptions:
Average household size: 5.12 people1
Average number of full bathrooms per home:2.02 full bathrooms per home1
% of water heated by gas:52.42%1
% of water heated by electricity:47.57%1
Installation / participation rate of:46.52%1
Average Showerhead has a flow rate of:1.99 gallons per minute1
Retrofit Showerhead has a flow rate of:1.26 gallons per minute1
Number of participants: 6,305 1
Shower duration:8.20 minutes per day2
Showers per day per person:0.67 showers per day2
Product life:10 years3
Projected Water Savings:
Showerhead retrofit projects an annual reduction of:10,882,978 gallons4
Showerhead retrofit projects a lifetime reduction of:108,829,784 gallons5
Projected Electricity Savings:
Showerhead retrofit projects an annual reduction of:680,262 kWh2,6
Showerhead retrofit projects a lifetime reduction of:6,802,621 kWh2,7
Projected Natural Gas Savings:
Showerhead retrofit projects an annual reduction of:37,481 therms2,8
Showerhead retrofit projects a lifetime reduction of:374,809 therms2,9
1 Data Reported by Program Participants.
2 (March 4, 2010). EPA WaterSense® Specification for Showerheads Supporting Statement. Retrieved from http://www.epa.gov/WaterSense/docs/showerheads_
finalsuppstat508.pdf
3 Provided by manufacturer.
4 [(Average Household Size x Shower Duration x Showers per Day per Person) ÷ Average Number of Full Bathrooms per Home] x (Average Showerhead Flow Rate - Retrofit
Showerhead Flow Rate ) x Number of Participants x Installation Rate x 365 days
5 [(Average Household Size x Shower Duration x Showers per Day per Person) ÷ Average Number of Full Bathrooms per Home] x (Average Showerhead Flow Rate - Retrofit
Showerhead Flow Rate ) x Number of Participants x Installation Rate x 365 days x Product Life
6 Projected Annual Water Savings x Percent of Water that is Hot Water x 0.18 kWh/gal x % of Water Heated by Electricity
7 Projected Annual Water Savings x Percent of Water that is Hot Water x 0.18 kWh/gal x % of Water Heated by Electricity x Product Life
8 Projected Annual Water Savings x Percent of Water that is Hot Water x 0.009 Therms/gal x % of Water Heated by Natural Gas
9 Projected Annual Water Savings x Percent of Water that is Hot Water x 0.009 Therms/gal x % of Water Heated by Natural Gas x Product Life
Projected Savings from Showerhead Retrofit
Resource Action Programs®43Appendix A
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x

A
FilterTone® Installation Inputs and Assumptions:
Annual energy (electricity) use by a central air conditioner:4,467 kWh1
Annual energy (natural gas) use by a central space heating or furnace:421 therms1
Projected increase in efficiency (electricity):1.75%2
Projected increase in efficiency (natural gas):0.92%2
Product life:10 years3
Installation / participation rate of:28.24%4
Number of participants:6,305 4
Projected Electricity Savings:
The FilterTone installation projects an annual reduction of:139,189 kWh5
The FilterTone installation projects a lifetime reduction of:1,391,886 kWh6
Projected Natural Gas Savings:
The FilterTone installation projects an annual reduction of:6,896 therms7
The FilterTone installation projects a lifetime reduction of:68,964 therms8
1 U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration 2005 Residential Energy Consumption Web site for Mountain West States: http://www.eia.gov/
consumption/residential/data/2005/
2 Reichmuth P.E., Howard. (1999). Engineering Review and Savings Estimates for the ‘Filtertone’ Filter Restriction Alarm.
3 Provided by manufacturer.
4 Data reported by program participants.
5 Annual energy (electricity) use by a central air conditioner, heat pump or furnace x Projected increase in efficiency (electricity) x Installation rate x Number of participants
6 Annual energy (electricity) use by a central air conditioner, heat pump or furnace x Projected increase in efficiency (electricity) x Installation rate x Number of participants
x Product life
7 Annual energy (natural gas) use by a central air conditioner, heat pump or furnace x Projected increase in efficiency (natural gas) x Installation rate x Number of
participants
8 Annual energy (natural gas) use by a central air conditioner, heat pump or furnace x Projected increase in efficiency (natural gas) x Installation rate x Number of
participants x Product life
Projected Savings from FilterTone® Alarm Installation
Idaho Power Energy Wise® Program Summary Report44Appendix A
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x

A
LED Retrofit Inputs and Assumptions:
Product life:25,000 hours1
Watts used by the LED light bulb:9 watts1
Hours of operation per day:2.81 hours per day2
Watts used by the replaced incandescent light bulb:59.46 watts3
Installation / participation rate of:68.15%3
Number of participants: 6,305 3
Projected Electricity Savings:
The LED retrofit projects an annual reduction of:222,364 kWh2,4
The LED retrofit projects a lifetime reduction of:2,668,368 kWh2,5
1 Provided by manufacturer.
2 Frontier Associates. (2011). Oncor’s LivingWise Program: Measurement & Verification Update.
3 Data reported by program participants.
4 {[(Wattage of incandescent light bulb replaced - Wattage of LED light bulb) x Hours of operation per day x 365 Days] ÷ 1,000} x Number of participants x Installation rate
5 {[(Wattage of incandescent light bulb replaced - Wattage of LED light bulb) x 12 years] ÷ 1,000} x Number of participants x Installation rate
Projected Savings from First 9-watt LED Light Bulb Retrofit
Resource Action Programs®45Appendix A
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x

A
LED Retrofit Inputs and Assumptions:
Product life:25,000 hours1
Watts used by the LED light bulb:9 watts1
Hours of operation per day:2.81 hours per day2
Watts used by the replaced incandescent light bulb:59.36 watts3
Installation / participation rate of:57.36%3
Number of participants: 6,305 3
Projected Electricity Savings:
The LED retrofit projects an annual reduction of:186,787 kWh2,4
The LED retrofit projects a lifetime reduction of:2,241,439 kWh2,5
1 Provided by manufacturer.
2 Frontier Associates. (2011). Oncor’s LivingWise Program: Measurement & Verification Update.
3 Data reported by program participants.
4 {[(Wattage of incandescent light bulb replaced - Wattage of LED light bulb) x Hours of operation per day x 365 Days] ÷ 1,000} x Number of participants x Installation rate
5 {[(Wattage of incandescent light bulb replaced - Wattage of LED light bulb) x 12 years] ÷ 1,000} x Number of participants x Installation rate
Projected Savings from Second 9-watt LED Light Bulb Retrofit
Idaho Power Energy Wise® Program Summary Report46Appendix A
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x

A
LED Retrofit Inputs and Assumptions:
Product life:25,000 hours1
Watts used by the LED light bulb:9 watts1
Hours of operation per day:2.81 hours per day2
Watts used by the replaced incandescent light bulb:58.63 watts3
Installation / participation rate of:50.29%3
Number of participants: 6,305 3
Projected Electricity Savings:
The LED retrofit projects an annual reduction of:161,397 kWh2,4
The LED retrofit projects a lifetime reduction of:1,936,763 kWh2,5
1 Provided by manufacturer.
2 Frontier Associates. (2011). Oncor’s LivingWise Program: Measurement & Verification Update.
3 Data reported by program participants.
4 {[(Wattage of incandescent light bulb replaced - Wattage of LED light bulb) x Hours of operation per day x 365 Days] ÷ 1,000} x Number of participants x Installation rate
5 {[(Wattage of incandescent light bulb replaced - Wattage of LED light bulb) x 12 years] ÷ 1,000} x Number of participants x Installation rate
Projected Savings from Third 9-watt LED Light Bulb Retrofit
Resource Action Programs®47Appendix A
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x

A
Energy Efficient Night Light Installation Inputs and Assumptions:
Average length of use: 4,380 hours per year1
Average night light uses:7 watts
Retrofit night light uses:0.5 watts
Product life:10 years2
Energy saved per year:28 kWh per year
Energy saved over life expectancy:285 kWh
Installation / participation rate of:84.49%3
Number of participants:6,305 3
Projected Electricity Savings:
The Energy Efficient Night Light installation projects an annual reduction of:151,662 kWh
The Energy Efficient Night Light installation projects a lifetime reduction of:1,516,624 kWh
1 Assumption (12 hours per day)
2 Product life provided by manufacturer
3 Data reported by program participants
Projected Savings from LED Night Light Retrofit
Idaho Power Energy Wise® Program Summary Report48Appendix B
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x

B
Home Check-Up
Due to rounding of numbers, percentages may not add up to 100%
Total Capital Canyon Eastern Southern Western
1 What type of home do you live in?
Single Family Home (Mobile)10%8%10%10%14%13%
Single Family Home
(Manufactured)8%4%6%11%10%11%
Single Family Home (Built)67%71%68%64%57%67%
Multi-Family (2-4 units)9%8%9%11%9%7%
Multi-Family (5-20 units)5%7%5%4%6%1%
Multi-Family (21+ units)1%2%1%0%3%0%
2 Was your home built before 1992?
Yes 40%33%30%58%46%53%
No 60%67%70%42%54%47%
3 Is your home owned or rented?
Owned 71%78%70%71%64%70%
Rented 29%22%30%29%36%30%
4 How many kids live in your home (age 0-17)?
1 13%16%12%13%12%14%
2 28%34%28%28%27%24%
3 26%25%27%25%26%29%
4 17%14%18%19%16%18%
5+15%11%16%15%18%16%
Total Capital Canyon Eastern Southern Western
Total Participants 6,305 1,305 2,405 1,234 783 578
Students 6,086 1,262 2,319 1,191 753 561
Surveys Received 4,294 790 1,784 893 440 387
Percent Response 71%63% 77% 75% 58% 69%
Resource Action Programs®49Appendix B
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x

B
Home Check-Up
(continued)
Due to rounding of numbers, percentages may not add up to 100%
Total Capital Canyon Eastern Southern Western
5 How many adults live in your home (age 18+)?
1 10%10%10%13%9%11%
2 71%75%71%69%69%67%
3 12%10%12%12%13%13%
4 4%3%5%4%5%6%
5+3%2%3%3%4%3%
6 Does your home have a programmable outdoor sprinkler system?
Yes 66%88%74%49%51%41%
No 34%12%26%51%49%59%
7 Does your home have a programmable thermostat?
Yes 74%86%78%65%63%65%
No 26%14%22%35%37%35%
8 What is the main source of heating in your home?
Natural Gas 47%68%51%43%27%19%
Electric Heater 39%26%36%39%56%55%
Propane 3%1%3%5%5%4%
Heating Oil 1%0%1%1%2%2%
Wood 5%1%4%5%6%15%
Other 5%4%5%6%4%6%
9 What type of air conditioning unit do you have?
Central Air Conditioner 68%89%74%48%55%59%
Evaporative Cooler 6%3%6%8%8%7%
Room Unit 15%5%13%22%19%25%
Don’t Have One 11%3%7%22%18%10%
10 Does your home have a Dishwasher?
Yes 84%97%88%75%75%73%
No 16%3%12%25%25%27%
Idaho Power Energy Wise® Program Summary Report50Appendix B
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x

B
Home Check-Up
(continued)
Due to rounding of numbers, percentages may not add up to 100%
Total Capital Canyon Eastern Southern Western
11 How many half-bathrooms are in your home?
0 63%47%59%75%71%76%
1 30%44%34%19%19%18%
2 5%5%5%3%8%3%
3 2%2%2%1%1%2%
4+1%1%0%1%0%1%
12 How many full bathrooms are in your home?
1 23%12%19%31%32%33%
2 56%55%64%43%51%58%
3 17%26%13%23%12%7%
4 3%5%3%3%3%2%
5+1%1%1%0%1%0%
13 How many toilets are in your home?
1 17%6%13%25%26%27%
2 43%27%45%45%52%56%
3 30%48%34%23%13%12%
4 7%15%6%6%8%4%
5+2%4%2%1%2%0%
14 How is your water heated?
Natural Gas 52%72%57%46%33%25%
Electricity 48%28%43%54%67%75%
Resource Action Programs®51Appendix B
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x

B
Home Activities
Due to rounding of numbers, percentages may not add up to 100%
Total Capital Canyon Eastern Southern Western
1 What is the flow rate of your old showerhead?
0 - 1.0 GPM 13%9%12%16%13%14%
1.1 - 1.5 GPM 18%16%17%17%20%21%
1.6 - 2.0 GPM 22%25%21%21%18%26%
2.1 - 2.5 GPM 22%26%21%20%24%17%
2.6 - 3.0 GPM 17%16%19%14%17%13%
3.1+ GPM 10%8%10%12%9%10%
2 Did you install the new High-Efficiency Showerhead?
Yes 47%42%50%44%47%44%
No 53%58%50%56%53%56%
3 If you answered “yes” to question 2, what is the flow rate of your new showerhead?
0 - 1.0 GPM 26%22%24%28%25%33%
1.1 - 1.5 GPM 41%47%40%41%45%34%
1.6 - 1.75 GPM 33%31%36%31%30%34%
4 Did you use the Shower Timer?
Yes 80%78%83%78%77%78%
No 20%22%17%22%23%22%
5 Did your family install the first 9-watt LED Light Bulb?
Yes 68%70%70%64%67%68%
No 32%30%30%36%33%32%
Total Capital Canyon Eastern Southern Western
Total Participants 6,305 1,305 2,405 1,234 783 578
Students 6,086 1,262 2,319 1,191 753 561
Surveys Received 4,294 790 1,784 893 440 387
Percent Response 71%63% 77% 75% 58% 69%
Idaho Power Energy Wise® Program Summary Report52Appendix B
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x

B
Home Activities
(continued)
Due to rounding of numbers, percentages may not add up to 100%
Total Capital Canyon Eastern Southern Western
6 If you answered “yes” to question 5, what is the wattage of the incandescent bulb you replaced?
40-watt 17%13%17%18%22%13%
60-watt 39%47%38%34%35%37%
75-watt 16%13%15%18%14%19%
100-watt 10%13%10%8%9%13%
Other 18%13%19%22%20%18%
7 Did your family install the second 9-watt LED Light Bulb?
Yes 57%59%60%53%53%56%
No 43%41%40%47%47%44%
8 If you answered “yes” to question 7, what is the wattage of the incandescent bulb you replaced?
40-watt 17%14%15%19%22%17%
60-watt 37%42%40%34%31%30%
75-watt 17%16%17%17%18%24%
100-watt 10%13%9%6%10%11%
Other 19%15%19%24%19%19%
9 Did your family install the third 9-watt LED Light Bulb?
Yes 50%50%54%47%45%47%
No 50%50%46%53%55%53%
10 If you answered “yes” to question 9, what is the wattage of the incandescent bulb you replaced?
40-watt 17%14%16%20%21%15%
60-watt 35%42%35%31%32%29%
75-watt 17%14%18%17%14%25%
100-watt 9%12%9%7%9%11%
Other 22%18%22%26%23%20%
11 Did your family install the FilterTone® Alarm?
Yes 28%30%32%24%21%27%
No 72%70%68%76%79%73%
Resource Action Programs®53Appendix B
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x

B
Home Activities
(continued)
Due to rounding of numbers, percentages may not add up to 100%
Total Capital Canyon Eastern Southern Western
12 How much did your family turn down the thermostat in winter for heating?
1 - 2 Degrees 19%27%17%20%18%12%
3 - 4 Degrees 18%21%19%16%16%16%
5+ Degrees 13%12%14%11%14%13%
Didn’t Adjust Thermostat 50%40%50%53%52%59%
13 How much did your family turn up the thermostat in summer for cooling?
1 - 2 Degrees 16%22%15%15%14%9%
3 - 4 Degrees 16%20%17%14%16%11%
5+ Degrees 15%14%16%16%14%13%
Didn’t Adjust Thermostat 53%44%51%56%57%67%
14 Did you install the LED Night Light?
Yes 84%85%86%82%83%83%
No 16%15%14%18%17%17%
15 Did your family lower your water heater settings?
Yes 26%29%29%22%24%22%
No 74%71%71%78%76%78%
16 Did your family raise the temperature on your refrigerator?
Yes 17%16%20%15%18%14%
No 83%84%80%85%82%86%
17 Did you complete the optional online energy use activity?
All of it 8%5%9%8%7%8%
Some of it 16%13%16%13%21%21%
None 77%82%76%79%72%71%
18 Did you work with your family on this Program?
Yes 69%73%68%69%69%63%
No 31%27%32%31%31%37%
Idaho Power Energy Wise® Program Summary Report54Appendix B
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x

B
Home Activities
(continued)
Due to rounding of numbers, percentages may not add up to 100%
Total Capital Canyon Eastern Southern Western
19 Did your family change the way they use water?
Yes 62%65%62%61%69%56%
No 38%35%38%39%31%44%
20 Did your family change the way they use energy?
Yes 69%72%69%71%70%62%
No 31%28%31%29%30%38%
21 How would you rate the Idaho Power Energy Wise® Program?
Great 52%57%52%50%52%44%
Pretty Good 31%28%32%31%30%32%
Okay 15%12%15%16%15%21%
Not So Good 3%3%2%3%3%3%
Resource Action Programs®55Appendix C
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x

C
Participant List
Note: “T” represents number of teachers and “S” represents number of students
REGION SCHOOL TEACHER T S SURVEYS
RETURNED
Southern Alturas Elementary 1 16 YES
Southern Alturas Elementary 1 17 YES
Southern Alturas Elementary 1 16 YES
Southern Alturas Elementary 1 17 YES
Eastern American Falls Intermediate School 1 6 NO
Capital Amity Elementary School 1 30 YES
Capital Amity Elementary School 1 28 NO
Capital Amity Elementary School 1 28 YES
Capital Barbara Morgan STEM Academy 1 25 YES
Capital Barbara Morgan STEM Academy 1 25 YES
Capital Barbara Morgan STEM Academy 1 25 NO
Canyon Birch Elementary School 1 25 YES
Canyon Birch Elementary School 1 26 YES
Canyon Birch Elementary School 1 25 YES
Canyon Birch Elementary School 1 25 YES
Canyon Central Canyon Elementary School 1 30 NO
Canyon Central Canyon Elementary School 1 30 YES
Canyon Central Canyon Elementary School 1 30 YES
Canyon Central Canyon Elementary School 1 30 YES
Canyon Central Elementary School 1 33 NO
Canyon Central Elementary School 1 36 YES
Canyon Desert Springs Elementary School 1 27 YES
Canyon Desert Springs Elementary School 1 28 YES
Idaho Power Energy Wise® Program Summary Report56Appendix C
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x

C
REGION SCHOOL TEACHER T S SURVEYS
RETURNED
Canyon Desert Springs Elementary School 1 28 YES
Canyon Desert Springs Elementary School 1 27 YES
Eastern Donald D. Stalker Elementary School 1 22 YES
Eastern Donald D. Stalker Elementary School 1 23 YES
Eastern Donald D. Stalker Elementary School 1 23 YES
Canyon East Canyon Elementary 1 26 YES
Canyon East Canyon Elementary 1 26 NO
Canyon East Canyon Elementary 1 24 NO
Canyon East Canyon Elementary 1 27 YES
Canyon East Canyon Elementary 1 25 YES
Eastern Edahow Elementary School 1 24 YES
Eastern Edahow Elementary School 1 24 YES
Southern Filer Intermediate School 1 26 YES
Southern Filer Intermediate School 1 26 NO
Southern Filer Intermediate School 1 25 YES
Southern Filer Intermediate School 1 25 NO
Southern Filer Intermediate School 1 26 NO
Southern Filer Intermediate School 1 25 YES
Southern Filer Intermediate School 1 25 NO
Eastern Greenacres Elementary School 1 25 YES
Eastern Greenacres Elementary School 1 25 YES
Eastern Groveland Elementary 1 27 YES
Eastern Groveland Elementary 1 30 YES
Participant List
(continued)
Note: “T” represents number of teachers and “S” represents number of students
Resource Action Programs®57Appendix C
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x

C
Note: “T” represents number of teachers and “S” represents number of students
REGION SCHOOL TEACHER T S SURVEYS
RETURNED
Western Homedale Middle School 1 88 YES
Capital Hunter Elementary School 1 26 YES
Capital Hunter Elementary School 1 28 YES
Capital Hunter Elementary School 1 28 YES
Capital Hunter Elementary School 1 27 YES
Canyon Indian Creek & Ross Elementary School 1 22 NO
Canyon Indian Creek & Ross Elementary School 1 22 YES
Canyon Indian Creek & Ross Elementary School 1 22 YES
Canyon Iowa Elementary 1 32 YES
Canyon Iowa Elementary 1 32 YES
Canyon Iowa Elementary 1 32 YES
Eastern Jefferson Elementary 1 23 YES
Eastern Jefferson Elementary 1 25 YES
Eastern Jefferson Elementary 1 25 YES
Eastern Lewis and Clark Elementary 1 30 YES
Eastern Lewis and Clark Elementary 1 30 YES
Capital Meridian Elementary 1 36 NO
Capital Meridian Elementary 1 36 NO
Canyon Nampa Christian 1 17 YES
Canyon Nampa Christian 1 16 YES
Western New Plymouth Elementary School 1 27 YES
Western New Plymouth Elementary School 1 27 NO
Participant List
(continued)
Idaho Power Energy Wise® Program Summary Report58Appendix C
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x

C
Note: “T” represents number of teachers and “S” represents number of students
REGION SCHOOL TEACHER T S SURVEYS
RETURNED
Western New Plymouth Elementary School 1 27 NO
Western New Plymouth Elementary School 1 22 YES
Western New Plymouth Elementary School 1 23 YES
Western New Plymouth Elementary School 1 23 YES
Southern Oakley Elementary School 1 16 YES
Southern Oakley Elementary School 1 16 YES
Southern Oregon Trail Elementary School 1 27 NO
Southern Oregon Trail Elementary School 1 28 NO
Southern Oregon Trail Elementary School 1 26 YES
Southern Oregon Trail Elementary School 1 28 NO
Western Park Intermediate 1 23 YES
Western Park Intermediate 1 23 YES
Western Park Intermediate 1 25 YES
Capital Peregrine Elementary School 1 32 NO
Capital Peregrine Elementary School 1 32 NO
Capital Prospect Elementary 1 32 YES
Capital Prospect Elementary 1 32 NO
Capital Prospect Elementary 1 32 YES
Capital Prospect Elementary 1 32 YES
Canyon Purple Sage Elementary School 1 26 YES
Canyon Purple Sage Elementary School 1 26 YES
Canyon Purple Sage Elementary School 1 26 YES
Participant List
(continued)
Resource Action Programs®59Appendix C
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x

C
Note: “T” represents number of teachers and “S” represents number of students
Participant List
(continued)
REGION SCHOOL TEACHER T S SURVEYS
RETURNED
Eastern Ridge Crest Elementary School 1 28 YES
Eastern Ridge Crest Elementary School 1 25 NO
Eastern Ridge Crest Elementary School 1 27 YES
Eastern Rockland Elementary School 1 10 NO
Canyon Roosevelt Elementary 1 25 YES
Canyon Roosevelt Elementary 1 24 YES
Canyon Roosevelt Elementary 1 23 NO
Canyon Roosevelt Elementary 1 27 NO
Canyon Sacajawea Elementary School 1 27 YES
Canyon Sacajawea Elementary School 1 29 YES
Canyon Sacajawea Elementary School 1 28 YES
Western Shadow Butte Elementary School 1 32 YES
Canyon Silver Trail Elementary School 1 25 YES
Canyon Silver Trail Elementary School 1 29 YES
Canyon Silver Trail Elementary School 1 25 YES
Canyon Snake River Elementary 1 31 YES
Canyon Snake River Elementary 1 32 YES
Canyon Snake River Elementary 1 30 YES
Eastern Stoddard Elementary School 1 27 YES
Eastern Stoddard Elementary School 1 27 YES
Eastern Stoddard Elementary School 1 27 NO
Southern Summit Elementary School 1 29 YES
Idaho Power Energy Wise® Program Summary Report60Appendix C
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x

C
Participant List
(continued)
Note: “T” represents number of teachers and “S” represents number of students
REGION SCHOOL TEACHER T S SURVEYS
RETURNED
Southern Summit Elementary School 1 30 YES
Southern Summit Elementary School 1 30 YES
Southern Summit Elementary School 1 29 YES
Southern Summit Elementary School 1 29 YES
Southern Summit Elementary School 1 29 YES
Southern Summit Elementary School 1 30 YES
Southern Summit Elementary School 1 29 NO
Southern Summit Elementary School 1 28 YES
Southern Summit Elementary School 1 30 NO
Southern Summit Elementary School 1 28 NO
Eastern Tendoy Elementary 1 24 YES
Eastern Tendoy Elementary 1 24 YES
Eastern Tyhee Elementary School 1 25 NO
Capital Ustick Elementary School 1 30 YES
Capital Ustick Elementary School 1 30 YES
Capital Ustick Elementary School 1 30 YES
Southern Valley Elementary 1 23 YES
Southern Valley Elementary 1 24 YES
Capital Valley View Elementary School 1 31 YES
Capital Valley View Elementary School 1 31 NO
Eastern Wapello Elementary School 1 21 YES
Eastern Wapello Elementary School 1 21 YES
Canyon Washington Elementary School 1 21 YES
Resource Action Programs®61Appendix C
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x

C
Participant List
(continued)
Note: “T” represents number of teachers and “S” represents number of students
REGION SCHOOL TEACHER T S SURVEYS
RETURNED
Canyon Washington Elementary School 1 21 YES
Canyon Washington Elementary School 1 25 YES
Canyon Washington Elementary School 1 26 YES
Canyon Washington Elementary School 1 27 YES
Canyon Washington Elementary School 1 26 YES
Capital Whittier Elementary School 1 21 YES
Capital Whittier Elementary School 1 32 NO
Capital Willow Creek Elementary 1 35 YES
Capital Willow Creek Elementary 1 35 YES
Canyon Wilson Elementary School 1 26 YES
Canyon Wilson Elementary School 1 26 NO
Canyon Wilson Elementary School 1 25 YES
Canyon Wilson Elementary School 1 16 NO
Capital Cecil Andrus Elementary 1 31 YES
Capital Cecil Andrus Elementary 1 31 NO
Capital Cecil Andrus Elementary 1 29 YES
Capital Cecil Andrus Elementary 1 14 YES
Capital Cecil Andrus Elementary 1 14 YES
Eastern Claude A. Wilcox Elementary School 1 24 YES
Eastern Claude A. Wilcox Elementary School 1 24 YES
Eastern Claude A. Wilcox Elementary School 1 24 YES
Eastern Claude A. Wilcox Elementary School 1 24 YES
Capital Cynthia Mann Elementary School 1 26 YES
Idaho Power Energy Wise® Program Summary Report62Appendix C
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x

C
Participant List
(continued)
Note: “T” represents number of teachers and “S” represents number of students
REGION SCHOOL TEACHER T S SURVEYS
RETURNED
Capital Cynthia Mann Elementary School 1 30 NO
Capital Eliza Hart Spalding Elementary School 1 33 YES
Capital Eliza Hart Spalding Elementary School 1 33 NO
Capital Eliza Hart Spalding Elementary School 1 32 YES
Capital Eliza Hart Spalding Elementary School 1 29 YES
Eastern Ellis Elementary School 1 29 YES
Eastern Ellis Elementary School 1 29 NO
Eastern Ellis Elementary School 1 29 YES
Canyon Endeavor School 1 100 NO
Western Fruitland Elementary School 1 28 YES
Western Fruitland Elementary School 1 28 NO
Western Fruitland Elementary School 1 28 YES
Western Fruitland Elementary School 1 28 NO
Western Fruitland Elementary School 1 28 NO
Eastern Grace Lutheran School 1 40 YES
Eastern Indian Hills Elementary 1 29 YES
Eastern Indian Hills Elementary 1 29 YES
Eastern Indian Hills Elementary 1 29 YES
Eastern Indian Hills Elementary 1 29 YES
Canyon Lake Ridge Elementary School 1 27 YES
Canyon Lake Ridge Elementary School 1 26 YES
Canyon Lake Ridge Elementary School 1 27 YES
Canyon Lake Ridge Elementary School 1 27 YES
Resource Action Programs®63Appendix C
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x

C
Participant List
(continued)
Note: “T” represents number of teachers and “S” represents number of students
REGION SCHOOL TEACHER T S SURVEYS
RETURNED
Canyon Lakevue Elementary School 1 26 YES
Canyon Lakevue Elementary School 1 25 YES
Canyon Lakevue Elementary School 1 23 YES
Canyon Lakevue Elementary School 1 25 YES
Canyon Lakevue Elementary School 1 26 YES
Eastern Lewis and Clark Elementary 1 31 NO
Capital Longfellow Elementary School 1 31 YES
Capital Longfellow Elementary School 1 27 YES
Western Marsing Middle School 1 81 YES
Capital Mary McPherson Elementary School 1 31 YES
Capital Mary McPherson Elementary School 1 31 YES
Capital Mary McPherson Elementary School 1 31 YES
Canyon Mill Creek Elementary School 1 25 YES
Canyon Mill Creek Elementary School 1 25 YES
Canyon Mill Creek Elementary School 1 27 YES
Canyon Mill Creek Elementary School 1 26 YES
Canyon Owyhee Elementary 1 19 YES
Canyon Owyhee Elementary 1 19 YES
Canyon Owyhee Elementary 1 19 YES
Canyon Owyhee Elementary 1 18 YES
Canyon Reed Elementary 1 23 YES
Canyon Reed Elementary 1 22 YES
Canyon Reed Elementary 1 29 YES
Idaho Power Energy Wise® Program Summary Report64Appendix C
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x

C
Participant List
(continued)
Note: “T” represents number of teachers and “S” represents number of students
REGION SCHOOL TEACHER T S SURVEYS
RETURNED
Canyon Reed Elementary 1 22 YES
Canyon Ronald Reagan Elementary School 1 31 YES
Canyon Ronald Reagan Elementary School 1 31 NO
Canyon Ronald Reagan Elementary School 1 31 NO
Eastern Salmon Middle/High School 1 33 NO
Eastern Salmon Middle/High School 1 32 YES
Canyon West Canyon Elementary 1 27 YES
Canyon West Canyon Elementary 1 28 YES
Canyon West Canyon Elementary 1 28 YES
Canyon West Canyon Elementary 1 28 YES
Eastern William Thomas Middle School 1 108 YES
Canyon Willow Creek Elementary School 1 28 YES
Canyon Willow Creek Elementary School 1 28 YES
Canyon Willow Creek Elementary School 1 29 YES
Canyon Willow Creek Elementary School 1 29 YES
TOTALS 219 6086
TOTAL PARTICIPANTS 6305
TOTAL PARTICIPATING FALL TEACHERS 219
172 79%YES
47 21% NO
TOTAL STUDENT SURVEYS RETURNED 4,294
TOTAL INCENTIVE PAID OUT $16,500
FULL YEAR SURVEY RETURN PERCENTAGE 71%
Resource Action Programs®65Appendix D
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x

D
Teacher Program Evaluation Data
Total Capital Canyon Eastern Southern Western
Participants 219 43 86 43 30 17
Surveys Received 174 32 73 37 20 12
Percent Response 79%74% 85% 86% 67% 71%
Percent Number
1 The materials were clearly written and well organized.
Strongly Agree 67%100
Agree 33%49
Disagree 0%0
Strongly Disagree 0%0
2 The products in the Kit were easy for students to use.
Strongly Agree 56%84
Agree 42%63
Disagree 1%2
Strongly Disagree 0%0
3 Students indicated that their parents supported the program.
Yes 95%139
No 5%8
4 Would you conduct this Program again?
Yes 97%146
No 3%4
5 Would you recommend this program to other colleagues?
Yes 100%148
No 0%0
6 If my school is eligible for participation next year, I would like to enroll.
Yes 97%143
No 3%5
Due to rounding of numbers, percentages may not add up to 100%
Idaho Power Energy Wise® Program Summary Report66Appendix E
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x

E
Total Capital Canyon Eastern Southern Western
Participants 6,305 1,305 2,405 1,234 783 578
Surveys Received 80 20 27 16 7 10
Percent Response 1.3%1.5% 1.1% 1.3% 0.9% 1.7%
Total Parent Responses 80
Number Percent
1 Was the Program easy for you and your child to use?
Yes 80 100%
No 0 0%
2 Will you continue to use the Kit items after the completion of the Program?
Yes 80 100%
No 0 0%
3 Would you like to see this Program continued in local schools?
Yes 80 100%
No 0 0%
Parent/Guardian Program Evaluation Data
Due to rounding of numbers, percentages may not add up to 100%
976 United Circle • Sparks, NV 89431
www.resourceaction.com • [phone]
©2016 Resource Action Programs®
Flex Peak 2016 Survey Results
Response
Percent
Response
Count
38.2%13
8.8%3
14.7%5
11.8%4
26.5%9
34
0
Flex Peak Program Survey
Operations Director/Manager/Supervisor
Answer Options
Other (please specify)
Maintenance Director/Manager/Supervisor
skipped question
What is your role at your company? (Mark one)
Plant Director/Manager/Supervisor
Facilities Director/Manager/Supervisor
answered question
What is your role at your company? (Mark one)
Facilities
Director/Manager/Supervisor
Maintenance
Director/Manager/Supervisor
Operations
Director/Manager/Supervisor
Plant
Director/Manager/Supervisor
Other (please specify)
What is your role at your company? (Mark one)
Other (please specify)
Base Energy Manager
Energy Manager
Corporate Energy Manager
Water and Wells Director/Supervisor
Building Systems Controls Specialist
Owner
Envirnonmental Health Safety and Sanitation Manager
Energy Buyer
Energy Engineer
Verydissatisfie
d
Somewhat
dissatisfied
Somewhat
satisfied Verysatisfied Not applicable Response
Count
1 0 4 29 0 34
1 3 7 22 0 33
1 2 3 27 0 33
3 1 5 24 0 33
1 0 1 30 1 33
1 1 5 25 1 33
34
0
How satisfied were you with the following steps in the Flex Peak Program?
Post event performance data
Enrollment process
Incentive amount
Flex Peak Program Survey
Program support from Idaho Power
skipped question
Answer Options
Timeliness of receiving the incentive payment
Notification process
answered question
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
En
r
o
l
l
m
e
n
t

pr
o
c
e
s
s

Pr
o
g
r
a
m

su
p
p
o
r
t

f
r
o
m

Id
a
h
o

P
o
w
e
r

Tim
e
l
i
n
e
s
s

o
f

re
c
e
i
v
i
n
g

t
h
e

in
c
e
n
t
i
v
e

pa
y
m
e
n
t

How satisfied were you with the following steps in the Flex Peak Program?
Verydissatisfied
Somewhat dissatisfied
Somewhat satisfied
Verysatisfied
Not applicable
Response
Percent
Response
Count
47.1%16
50.0%17
2.9%1
0.0%0
34
0
How satisfied were you with your ability to reduce demand in your facility during
scheduled events?
Very dissatisfied
Very satisfied
skipped question
Flex Peak Program Survey
Somewhat dissatisfied
Answer Options
answered question
Somewhat satisfied
How satisfied were you with your ability to reduce demand in your facility during
scheduled events?
Very satisfied
Somewhat satisfied
Somewhat dissatisfied
Very dissatisfied
Response
Count
1
1
33skipped question
Flex Peak Program Survey
What could Idaho Power do to help increase the ability to reduce
demand in your facility for scheduled events?
Answer Options
answered question
What could Idaho Power do to help increase the ability to
reduce demand in your facility for scheduled events?
Response Text
Bring back real time metering. I was running blind and did not
meet quota for the last two events.
Response
Percent
Response
Count
76.5%26
23.5%8
34
0
Flex Peak Program Survey
skipped question
Did you utilize the text message notification option?
Answer Options
Yes
No
answered question
Did you utilize the text message notification option?
Yes
No
Response
Percent
Response
Count
91.2%31
8.8%3
0.0%0
0.0%0
34
0
How likely would you be to re-enroll in the Flex Peak Program next year?
Very unlikely
Very likely
skipped question
Flex Peak Program Survey
Somewhat unlikely
Answer Options
answered question
Somewhat likely
How likely would you be to re-enroll in the Flex Peak Program next year?
Very likely
Somewhat likely
Somewhat unlikely
Very unlikely
Response
Percent
Response
Count
58.8%20
41.2%14
34
0
Flex Peak Program Survey
skipped question
How would you like to be re-enrolled in the program in future years?
Answer Options
Enroll automatically annually
Submit a new application each year
answered question
How would you like to be re-enrolled in the program in future years?
Enroll automatically annually
Submit a new application each
year
Response
Count
15
15
19
Give us the tools so we can monitor the Flex peak demand program
skipped question
Flex Peak Program Survey
Is there anything Idaho Power could do to improve the program?
Answer Options
answered question
Is there anything Idaho Power could do to improve the program?
Response Text
It would be nice if IPCo representative could help prepare a presentation (review/assist in creating) and be
present at the 3x meetings for buy off and implementation.

Thanks !!!
Provide individual store breakdown for accounting for customers with multiple locations
I realize this program is weather driven with notification normally occurring hours within the time of shutdown.
With more predictable weather models, suggest expanding notification window to allow for more participation.
Perhaps earlier in the morning of the event.
There must be new approaches, many new methods of automating the process are becoming more common.
tentative dates schedule. Its hard to be ready with just a few hours notice. Even if the event doesn't happen.
Too many notifications for pending event, actual event, pending event ending, actual event ending, etc.
I am not sure,but I am sure that somebody can think of something.
Nothing at this time.
It would be nice if we'd get a little more grace for issues outside of our control that prevent load shedding or have
us already down during an event. Otherwise I think it worked great.
obviously as much lead time prior to events would be great, we realize this is not possible.
No
We still have issues with the uncertainty of the "call", and the short notification timeline. We understand that you
do not want people to "game" the system and I'm not sure what to do to prevent that. I just know that, as another
public utility that provides a critical service, additional notification would allow us to build additional storage over a
longer period in preparation for the Flexpeak events. This additional storage acts like a battery backup and
permits us to perform at our peak.
To be an effective program real-time data similar to what ENERNOC had available in the past would be
necessary... Remote Data Analysis via a mobile AP. The ability to induce demand response via scheduling would
be beneficial as well. If the customers would be able to forecast production around demand response windows I
believe the response could be double or triple reductions we contribute today. This would require 72 hour
guidance to facilitate...
Provide the ability to see real time data - actual demand, baseline demand, and demand response targets.

Provide notification if our nomination exceeds our baseline demand ahead of time.

Use an average across the demand response event to determine success, rather than an hourly determination of
success.
Give us the tools so we can monitor the Flex peak demand program
Response
Percent
Response
Count
84.8%28
12.1%4
3.0%1
0.0%0
33
1
Overall, how satisfied are you with Idaho Power's Flex Peak Program?
Very dissatisfied
Very satisfied
skipped question
Flex Peak Program Survey
Somewhat dissatisfied
Answer Options
answered question
Somewhat satisfied
Overall, how satisfied are you with Idaho Power's Flex Peak Program?
Very satisfied
Somewhat satisfied
Somewhat dissatisfied
Very dissatisfied
Response
Count
5
5
29skipped question
Flex Peak Program Survey
Please provide any additional comments about Idaho Power's Flex Peak
Program.
Answer Options
answered question
Please provide any additional comments about Idaho Power's Flex Peak Program.
Response Text
Good program - I'm glad that IPCo is handling the program now!
We are happier working with Idaho Power directly as compared to the Enernoc system.
Would Like To Enroll some other sites next year.

Thanks
It is a good program to have, it benefits both parties.
Thank you for the opportunity.

With reference to my previous comment on additional notice on Flexpeak events: It seems that the usage
history of our facilities to calculate the baseline power usage prevents "gaming" of the Flexpeak events. I think
that you might try to test or pilot longer notice times or alerts that an event may happen.
Response
Percent
Response
Count
94.1%32
5.9%2
34
0
Flex Peak Program Survey
skipped question
May Idaho Power follow up with you regarding any questions from this survey?
Answer Options
Yes
No
answered question
May Idaho Power follow up with you regarding any questions from this survey?
Yes
No
HEAP 2016 Survey Results
Survey was sent to 482 Home Energy Audit Program participants.
The number of respondents was 208.
Participation rate was 43%.
Response
Percent
Response
Count
79.3%161
18.2%37
2.5%5
0.0%0
203
5
How easy was it for you to apply for the Home Energy Audit program?
Very difficult
Very easy
skipped question
2016 Home Energy Audit Program Survey
Somewhat difficult
Answer Options
answered question
Somewhat easy
How easy was it for you to apply for the Home Energy Audit program?
Very easy
Somewhat easy
Somewhat difficult
Very difficult
Response
Count
13
13
195skipped question
2016 Home Energy Audit Program Survey
If the application process was difficult what was it about that process
Answer Options
answered question
If the application process was difficult what was it about that
process that made it difficult?
Response Text
I 'applied' three times over a period of five months.
Calling the correct person to set up appointment.
I found online application hard to find. Just used your phone number
and got a person to schedule me fast and easy.
Ez
It was not difficult, it was easy and most helpful
Nothing
Filled 1st time tried
Nothing, everything was alright
Had to wait for someone to contact me back which took several days
at least. It was awhile ago so don't remember exactly.
As I recall, I did not (at first) know who at Idaho Power to contact,
people at 388-2323 not sure about program-would call back. No
return call. Finally contacted Andrea S. and OK after that.
I tried several times without success to use the internet connection.
Finally I made app
I had difficulty with the provider service
Was unable to talk to someone, didn't know if my request even made
it to the right people. It took a long time to hear back about my
request for an audit.
Response
Percent
Response
Count
20.0%33
26.7%44
4.2%7
1.8%3
0.0%0
5.5%9
41.8%69
165
43skipped question
Brian Bennett, The Energy Auditor
Rod Burk, Home Energy Management
2016 Home Energy Audit Program Survey
Dallen Ward, Home Energy Efficiency Technologies
answered question
Answer Options
Robert Johnson, Savings Around Power
Chris Callor, Affordable Energy Improvements, LLC
Tad Duby, On Point, LLC
Please identify the auditor that you used for your home audit.
Jessie Lumbreras, Energy Zone, LLC
Please identify the auditor that you used for your home audit. Brian Bennett, The Energy
Auditor
Chris Callor, Affordable Energy
Improvements, LLC
Dallen Ward, Home Energy
Efficiency Technologies
(H.E.E.T.)
Jessie Lumbreras, Energy
Zone, LLC
Robert Johnson, Savings
Around Power
Rod Burk, Home Energy
Management
Tad Duby, On Point, LLC
Excellent Good Fair Poor Response
Count
172 20 0 0 192
163 22 5 1 191
154 28 9 0 191
145 32 9 5 191
154 24 9 4 191
192
16
2016 Home Energy Audit Program Survey
Explanation of work/measurements to be performed as
Answer Options
Overall experience with auditor (from scheduling an
Professionalism
skipped question
Please rate your home auditor on each of the following:
Explanation of recommendations resulting from audit
Courteousness
answered question
0
50
100
150
200
250
Co
u
r
t
e
o
u
s
n
e
s
s

Ex
p
l
a
n
a
t
i
o
n

o
f

wo
r
k
/
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
m
e
n
t
s

to

b
e

p
e
r
f
o
r
m
e
d

a
s

pa
r
t

o
f

t
h
e

a
u
d
i
t

Ov
e
r
a
l
l

e
x
p
e
r
i
e
n
c
e

wi
t
h

a
u
d
i
t
o
r

(
f
r
o
m

sc
h
e
d
u
l
i
n
g

a
n

ap
p
o
i
n
t
m
e
n
t

t
o

f
o
l
l
o
w

up

a
f
t
e
r

t
h
e

a
u
d
i
t
)

Please rate your home auditor on each of the following:
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Response
Count
57
57
151
Tad was a great representative for you!
I had to make 5 call and it took almost two months to get the written results of the audit.

Very helpful and very nice guy!
The audit took too much time. I didn't feel the cost was worth the benefit.

Nicely done!
Very thorough and we appreciated that. Explained things so well.
He was excellent in all aspects. We really appreciated his honesty and insight.
Tad is great, and I would strongly recommend him to others.
Very happy with Chris.
skipped question
2016 Home Energy Audit Program Survey
If you have additional comments you would like to offer about your home
Answer Options
answered question
If you have additional comments you would like to offer about your home auditor, please enter them in the
space below.
Response Text
He used quite a few CFLs. LED-did not ask what lights we used the most--installed in a guest room we used 2-3
time a year. no exterior lights were replaced. no shower heads were returned initially.
ticked all the boxes for a great customer service rep. of Idaho Power. Very patient with my 1001 questions and
answered them on a level I could understand. A++
Friendly, helpful and willing to take time to do a good job!
we had some trouble finding contractors who worked with Idaho Power
works GREAT with the public & very professional.
It would have been more valuable if the home auditor could have done the audit when I could have been present
at home in addition to my wife, so I could have heard some of his observations first-hand that weren't explained
Brian was very friendly and helpful, he explained so much to me and my son-in-law that was there for the audit
Very professional. An outstanding individual!
They were very professional and amazing to work with.
He took the time to do the job right!
There was so much information, I would have liked to discuss with the auditor exactly what I needed to do to
make my house more energy efficient and whom I would need to contact to complete the job. It was all written in
the report, but I still had questions after reading the report.
Perhaps I was expecting more out of the audit. I was a little disappointed with the whole process and felt it was a
waste of money. Our house is cold in the winter and I was hoping for some definitive answers. Maybe I was
hoping there would be a magic bullet that wouldn't cost me alot of money to fix the problem. It's been a long time
now since the audit so it's hard to remember. He seemed like a nice guy, just not real confident and convincing. I
think I was expecting a better explanation of his findings.
Identified significant air leaks that we are working to seal. Hope to have him come back and test again once the
major leakage is fixed to further identify air leaks.
Forgot to lock the door. Was left unlocked for two days.
He spaced the first appointment and we had to reschedule. Neglected to send the full report until I called him and
told him we did not get it.
Tad was a great representative for you!
enjoyed working with him on this very comfortable and explained everything. also called and asked If I had
I had to make 5 call and it took almost two months to get the written results of the audit.

I was clueless about what to do with the air leaks in my house. But Chris showed me what to do-What I could do
myself such as using mastic paste on ducts.
Very helpful and very nice guy!
The audit took too much time. I didn't feel the cost was worth the benefit.

Nicely done!
Very thorough and we appreciated that. Explained things so well.
He was excellent in all aspects. We really appreciated his honesty and insight.
Came and charged 99.00 was here maybe 15 minutes and said we had done all we could our improvements.All
we could do was a heat pump and would send info about them. Never heard a word about from anyone after
Tad is great, and I would strongly recommend him to others.
Very happy with Chris.
Tad, I appreciate all of your information and enjoyed speaking with you.. Sorry to keep missing your phone calls
to check on our report status , I have received the report but have not as yet scheduled any services..Ugh busy
lives.. currently looking for insulation service.. and have spoken with my hvac guy to have a deep cleaning and
Tad called twice to ensure that I received my energy audit report, and was available to answer further questions
of mine once I received the report.
Very knowledgeable and helpful. He also called weeks afterwards to check if I had any further questions or
concerns. Highly recommended!!
Brian was very courteous and was able to explain things at my level of understanding
Auditor brought girlfriend who sat in car - didn't feel that was professional. My report from him was excellent and
helpful. He did not do the air test 2nd auditor did perform this test.
He was so thorough. I wish he could do the work that he recommended!!!
Very courteous and professional
Very knowledgable
Don't remember the auditors name
Very efficient.

Don't recall the name of the auditor
I was not present, and cannot remember the name of the auditor. My mother-in-law was present for the audit. I
will be requesting another audit when energy-changes are made.
I didn't know he was supposed to come back. I haven't had the insulation done yet!
Brian was very thorough in explaining his recommendations to improve the energy efficiency in our home.We
appreciated having a list of items to address to reduce our power bill.
Chris was low key and explained things well. Not pushy when I refused the CFL's.
Very amiable and did not rush through to complete the audit
Very personal and helpful
He was great about delivering the backorder light bulbs after they came in (out of our home audit time.)
ad was AWESOME and very helpful with all of our questions.
I thought I would see a written report with recommendations. I haven't seen that yet
our home is pretty energy efficient to begin with so this just confirmed what we hoped it would/was/is.
(Not sure it was Chris Callor)
I don't remember (my auditor's name).
They were very complimentary on what we had already done
Sorry, I do not remember the gentleman's name. He was fabulous: personable, knowledgeable, and courteous. I
I have never heard back from anyone after the audit was completed
Sorry but this happened so long ago that I do not remember the name of the person that performed the audit
I never received the information from the audit. He came out, did the audit, cashed my check and that was the
we are not real sure of our auditors name we did no know there would be a test
Said we would receive a full printed report, which we did not.
Response
Percent
Response
Count
34.4%64
37.6%70
28.0%52
186
22
2016 Home Energy Audit Program Survey
Both
Answer Options
skipped question
Received paper copy
How did you receive your Home Energy Audit report?
answered question
Accessed report online
How did you receive your Home Energy Audit report?
Accessed report online
Received paper copy
Both
Response
Percent
Response
Count
48.3%84
15.5%27
7.5%13
2.3%4
26.4%46
174
34
2016 Home Energy Audit Program Survey
Somewhat difficult
Answer Options
N/A
Somewhat easy
skipped question
How difficult was it for you to access the report online?
Very difficult
Very easy
answered question
How difficult was it for you to access the report online?
Very easy
Somewhat easy
Somewhat difficult
Very difficult
N/A
Response
Percent
Response
Count
37.8%71
47.3%89
10.6%20
4.3%8
188
20
How much did the audit influence you to reduce the amount of electricity you consume?
Didn't influence me at all
Influenced me a lot
skipped question
2016 Home Energy Audit Program Survey
Didn't influence me much
Answer Options
answered question
Influenced me some
How much did the audit influence you to reduce the amount of electricity you
consume?
Influenced me a lot
Influenced me some
Didn't influence me much
Didn't influence me at all
Strongly agree Somewhat
agree
Somewhat
disagree
Strongly
disagree N/A Response
Count
114 63 4 4 1 186
60 67 7 7 42 183
70 80 18 10 6 184
96 67 9 7 4 183
117 55 5 5 1 183
186
22
2016 Home Energy Audit Program Survey
I am more informed about energy efficiency programs that
Answer Options
I know what next steps I should take
Other members of my household are more informed
skipped question
As a result of the Home Energy Audit program, please indicate how strongly you agree or disagree with the following statements.
I know what no- to low-cost actions I can take
I am more informed about energy usage in my home
answered question
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
I am more informed about energy usage in my home
Other members of my household are more
informed about
our household
energy usage
I am more informed about energy efficiency
programs that
are available to
me through
Idaho Power
I know what no- to low-cost actions I can take
I know what next steps I should take
As a result of the Home Energy Audit program, please indicate how strongly you agree or
disagree with the following statements.
Strongly agree
Somewhat agree
Somewhat disagree
Strongly disagree
N/A
Yes No Response
Count
83 91 174
88 87 175
56 112 168
130 50 180
36 37 73
42
181
27
Will have more insulation installed/changed out most light bulbs
bought energy saving lights
Talked to Idaho Power. Put our home up for sale. Made a lot of changes in our home but not the big ones.
Led bulbs everywhere
Solicited bids for a mini-heat pump.
Installed additional LED lights. Installed new air conditioner. Installed outlet covers.
Added insulation to attic, improved vapor barrier in crawl space, plugged a number of identified air leaks
I have already done many of the above actions, so the audit couldn't change those behaviors.
Made some changes.
Added additional attic insulation
We have sold the home and moved but I did give the report to the new owner.
We have not been home since the audit was done and hope to address some things when we do return home
Scheduling energy "repairs" to lower energy footprint.
Continued to replace old light bulbs with energy efficient bulbs
Put barrier insulation over attic access panel
Added insulation to my attic.
Our contractor and plumber and heating company were noifided.
our upstairs furnace "died" a few days after the audit so we have replaced it with a more energy efficient unit
Completed some of the suggestions
I wasn't aware I could access the audit online and do not know how
replaced my heat pump, new ceiling and floor insulation, replaced light bulbs, new trim around doors
After receiving your audit through the Home Energy Audit program, please indicate if you have taken any
of the following actions:
Shared my energy audit experience with relatives and/or
friends
Visited the Idaho Power website
If you selected "other", please specify what other actions you have taken:
2016 Home Energy Audit Program Survey
Signed up for myAccount
skipped question
Answer Options
Other
Unplugged appliances when not in use
answered question
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
Visited the
Idaho Power
website
Unplugged
appliances
when not in use
Signed up for
myAccount
Shared my
energy audit
experience with
relatives and/or
friends
Other
After receiving your audit through the Home Energy Audit program, please
indicate if you have taken any of the following actions:
Yes
No
After receiving your audit through the Home Energy Audit program, please indicate if you have taken any of
the following actions:
If you selected "other", please specify what other actions you have taken:
purchased more insulating materials for door gaps
closing off parts I'm not using
I had already signed up for myAccount
replaced furnace/ac. turn off lights more frequently. sealed duct work
I do not leave my appliances plugged in anyway.

hired contractor to correct deficiencies
Sealed air leaks
I have contacted the company that Chris recommended to improve the crawl space situation.
Contacted Western Heating and Air to caulk areas the audior said were causing leakage; exchange returns.
Made arrangements to have the electric fireplace removed since it's not being used and leaks cold air into the
Made the energy conservation improvements suggested--insulated the foundation & completed duct repair.
Replaced some more bulbs with LED ones.
We are having our ductwork resealed and cleaned. We are adding insulation.
Had solar panels installed to reduce amount of energy consumed from Idaho Power.
we improved insulation in our attic, considering insulating under floors on first floor
Will have more insulation installed/changed out most light bulbs
bought energy saving lights
Talked to Idaho Power. Put our home up for sale. Made a lot of changes in our home but not the big ones.
Have scheduled a contractor to implement many of the suggestions. I am looking forward to seeing the difference
Led bulbs everywhere
Solicited bids for a mini-heat pump.
I had already signed up for myAccount, not as a result of the Audit. I've installed lower flow aerators in our
bathroom faucets. I already had new lower water use shower heads on order from the start-up Nebia.
Installed additional LED lights. Installed new air conditioner. Installed outlet covers.
Added insulation to attic, improved vapor barrier in crawl space, plugged a number of identified air leaks
I have already done many of the above actions, so the audit couldn't change those behaviors.
Made some changes.
Added additional attic insulation
Recognized need to insulate and plug HVAC ducts-- very leaky, which is a major issue. Also aware that
replacement of aging A/C system would be beneficial-- alternatives to address hot/cold rooms.
We have sold the home and moved but I did give the report to the new owner.
We have not been home since the audit was done and hope to address some things when we do return home
Scheduling energy "repairs" to lower energy footprint.
Continued to replace old light bulbs with energy efficient bulbs
Put barrier insulation over attic access panel
shared with the landlord and then put in new bulbs-Thanks. Also it motivated me to check into the dryer rack
Added insulation to my attic.
Our contractor and plumber and heating company were noifided.
I HAD INSTALLATION BLOWN IN MY ATTIC AND NEW STORM DOORS AND NEW INSTALLED DOORS
INSTALLED BUT DON'T SEE MUCH REDUCTION ON ELECTRIC BILL, IF ANY.
I have insulated my rental that received the energy audit and am also in the process of insulating another rental
our upstairs furnace "died" a few days after the audit so we have replaced it with a more energy efficient unit
Completed some of the suggestions
I wasn't aware I could access the audit online and do not know how
replaced my heat pump, new ceiling and floor insulation, replaced light bulbs, new trim around doors
I have eaten girl scout cookies!!!!
Already
completed
Plan to in next
6 months
Plan to in 6-12
months
Want to but not
sure when
Do not plan to
at all
Home does not
need
Response
Count
145 18 9 5 8 0 185
49 25 1 17 37 49 178
23 4 9 20 34 91 181
18 10 9 49 25 67 178
68 36 11 21 11 36 183
63 31 13 17 11 46 181
37 21 16 50 13 42 179
7 3 5 24 53 84 176
22 16 14 41 35 49 177
42 52 17 27 9 34 181
37 29 9 29 14 56 174
8 4 1 6 2 18 3924
185
23
If you selected "other", please specify what other actions you have taken or plan to take:
Service heating equipment
Seal air leaks
Replace additional showerheads with low-flow models
skipped question
Increase attic insulation
Other
Replace an older, inefficient appliance with a new
Increase underfloor insulation
answered question
Service cooling equipment
2016 Home Energy Audit Program Survey
Seal duct work
Recycle an extra refrigerator or freezer
Increase wall insulation
Answer Options
Since receiving your audit through the Home Energy Audit program, please indicate when, or if, you will complete any of the following improvements:
Replace additional incandescent light bulbs with more
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
Re
p
l
a
c
e

ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l

…
Re
c
y
c
l
e

a
n

ex
t
r
a

…
Se
r
v
i
c
e

he
a
t
i
n
g

…
In
c
r
e
a
s
e

att
i
c

…
In
c
r
e
a
s
e

un
d
e
r
f
l
o
o
r

…
Se
a
l

d
u
c
t

wo
r
k

Since receiving your audit through the Home Energy Audit program, please indicate when, or
if, you will complete any of the following improvements:
Already completed
Plan to in next 6 months
Plan to in 6-12 months
Want to but not sure when
Do not plan to at all
Home does not need
Since receiving your audit through the Home Energy Audit program, please indicate when, or if, you will complete any of the following improvements:
If you selected "other", please specify what other actions you have taken or plan to take:
apparently need an additional vent of some sort
need to replace whole house fan with something that is more efficient
seal openings cold air return areas w master. Seal openings in closets where furnace and hot water heater are located.
attic ventilation, fireplace air leakage, attic door, range, electric outlets and plumbing penetrations, wrapping hot water pipes in crawlspace, install thermoslip on hot water heater,
install baffles in attic, adjust doors for tight fit.
plan to replace water heater
Have insulating Styrofoam cut to fit bedroom windows
replacing one of the bathroom ceiling exhaust fans as it is letting a lot of outside air in.
Put plastic on windows, even though they were not reported to leak

Brian replaced most of the light bulbs
replaced 6 ceiling lights with LED's when we bought the home
I plan to have wall insulation installed in the crawl space.
Remove the electrical fireplace.
Replaced old Aluminum windows with vinyl energy star windows.
Will upgrade appliances to Energy Star models as they need replacement.
installed 4 Anderson patio slider doors
dryer vent cleaning
Will consider ductless heat pump system
I would like to install a mini ductless heat pump.
Added shade tree
Some of the recommendations I would like to do but have found they are cost prohibitive at current time. Duct sealing and attic insulation are the 2 items.
I live in a small studio house and made the bedroom into a studio room- place to sit and read and table to sit at and right--easier to heat or cool the smaller space.
I have a brick home so wall installation would be unlikely of a practical thing to do, and underfloor installation is already here. I may invest in window bubble type installation in one or two of the windows I feel that might not be sealed as they should be. I have a large picture window which is an Anderson Window which appears to be an excellent weather
proof window. Other windows are storm type windows.
already replaced light bulbs, plan to replace more
unplug second water heater
Response
Count
51
51
157
planning on selling home. will let new owners decide what they want to do.
cost
Pretty good shape- only needed the new windows
Selling home.
No need, we currently generate electricity far in excess of our usage, and are not compensated.
The cost doesn't outweigh the benefit or in other cases, would be difficult to do in my home.
Too expensive to increase wall insulation, and my home is only 11 years old.
money
Newer Parade home that is already efficient and doesn't need some of the suggested repairs.
skipped question
2016 Home Energy Audit Program Survey
For any improvements you indicated you do not plan to do, please tell us
why.
Answer Options
answered question
For any improvements you indicated you do not plan to do, please tell us why.
Response Text
$
I don't like low-flow showerheads; wall insulation would be too difficult an experience
House and appliances 4 years old or younger. Was told when shopping for more wall insulation it
couldn't be installed in a house that has the walls finished because the pressure would blow the
interior walls out or loosen nails.
do not need wall insulation
Have a basement so no floor insulation, would need to replace siding, not ready for large expense.
have top of the line shower head already
I do not like the low flow showerheads I've had and have replaced them
additional wall and attic insulation totally impractical the way our house was built.
My stove, fridge and microwave is new. Just remodeled and bought all new
we only have 1 refrigerator and freezer
okay with current status
Lights ~ most of them were replaced with the audit, but the ones that were not I like that lighting.

we use extra freezer and fridg!

We think our walls are fine!
I have an old refrigerator in the garage that I plan to give to my daughter. Actually, I have two. I am
keeping one of them. He mentioned that I should replace the seal around the front door, but I can't
see anything wrong with it. Also got a second opinion from a friend and he couldn't see anything
wrong with it either. He suggested that I put my furnace fan on "auto" which I can't stand to do. Can't
stand the "stagnate air" in the house and my HVAC guy said the fan doesn't draw nearly the amount
of electricity the energy audit guy said it does. I do need to plug the gaps around my attic fan above
the garage, but will probably wait until spring to do that as it's not in use during the winter.
I will not replace the regular shower heads with low pressure because I do not like them. I have had
tried them in the past and removed them. We have 4"walls and the cost of increasing wall insulation
would be cost-prohibitive.
planning on selling home. will let new owners decide what they want to do.
cost
My attic, floor, and wall insulation meet code and at this time in my life increasing them would be too
expensive for me to undertake.
Pretty good shape- only needed the new windows
Selling home.
No need, we currently generate electricity far in excess of our usage, and are not compensated.
I plan to replace hot water heater sometime in the next few years, we have no cooling equipment,
and we just replaced our baseboard heaters in 2015. No duct work to seal.
The cost doesn't outweigh the benefit or in other cases, would be difficult to do in my home.
Too expensive to increase wall insulation, and my home is only 11 years old.
money
Newer Parade home that is already efficient and doesn't need some of the suggested repairs.
Increase wall insulation is too costly. Walls were constructed with 6 inches of insulation. Recently
replaced garage refrigerator.
Contractors indicated - "Not necessary"
See above I chcked other and put explanation there.
Wall insulation: Walls are currently insulated. Additional insulation would be very difficult and
expensive, with limited improvement.
Money
MIL stopped the auditor.

Low-flow shower heads do not have adequate water pressure.

Don't know how/if wall insulation can be increased.

Subfloor insulation is already present.

I am moving and selling the house. There was not much that I would be able to do to lower my bill.
Cost vs. benefit
Increasing the wall insulation would require re-building the house
Low flow showerhead in the master bath already. The other bathroom is used almost daily however
the shower head existing is a specialty head and I am not wanting to discard it.

Wall insulation. I mostly would not do this one because our utility bills are already so reasonable. we
are at $1400 annually for electric and gas combined. the R value in the wall is only 4-5 which is very
poor however for the effort of adding insulation the payback would take many many years.
Showerhead is a pulsing type. Refrig & freezers are fairly new and work. Too much of a problem to
get to space between studs.
Have appliances in compliance

This summer my landlord plans to look into insulation for attic and garage door side.
I use the extra refrigerator.
It's too expensive and we have concerns using wall insulation with lath and plaster walls.
Wall and under floor insulation is not cost effective, Appliance not called out in audit and won't
replace until it fails. Shower head replacement not practical. All bulbs than could be replaced had
been before the audit.
Not cost effective
Cost/benefit is not sufficient.
The refrigerator is fairly new, so, I don't have plans to replace at this time.
no way to access underfloor insulation
home does not need it
expense to value
too busy right now
Good wall insulation (2x6) not planning to add to, would not be cost effective. Crawl space is
insulated all ready, so not planning to insulate floors.
My freezer which is old, but still runs good is worth more to me to pay for electricity rather than spent
over $1000 for a new energy star mode.
Don't feel we are loosing a lot of energy through the shower heads
Response
Percent
Response
Count
60.8%107
73.3%129
75.6%133
36.9%65
48.9%86
43.8%77
4.5%8
11
176
32skipped question
Personal satisfaction
Other
What benefits did you experience from the Home Energy Audit program? (Check all that
apply)
Benefit to the environment
answered question
Cost savings
Comfort
2016 Home Energy Audit Program Survey
Raised awareness of energy use
(please specify)
Answer Options
Home improvement
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
Co
s
t

s
a
v
i
n
g
s

Pe
r
s
o
n
a
l

sa
t
i
s
f
a
c
t
i
o
n

Ra
i
s
e
d

aw
a
r
e
n
e
s
s

o
f

en
e
r
g
y

u
s
e

Be
n
e
f
i
t

t
o

t
h
e

en
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t

Ho
m
e

im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t

Co
m
f
o
r
t

Ot
h
e
r

What benefits did you experience from the Home Energy Audit program?
(Check all that apply)
What benefits did you experience from the Home Energy Audit program? (Check all that apply)
(please specify)
peace of mind, less worry
I got some LED lightbulbs. And the satisfaction of knowing that I have adequate insulation in the attic.
I learned there really wasn't much we could go. My husband knew it would be a waste of time. I wanted to know
if there was SOMETHING we could do.
None
Learned more about LED felt audit was better for all electric and not so much for gas homes.
Very good to have a 3rd party consultant-- one who provides unbiased improvement suggestions.
The benefit we experienced was additional information about our 1950's home and when we have a bucket of
money we now have a road map. definitely a cool peace of mind to have the gas backdraft checked.
it has one a lot more serious and I started reading my meter
none, I never rec4eived a report to know what I could do
none
Not aware of savings - have to go to your web site to see degree differences and usage differences.
Response
Percent
Response
Count
77.4%130
26.8%45
19.0%32
20.2%34
15.5%26
10.1%17
168
40
none
Have newer windows throughout; possible improvement would be a heat pump.
What barriers do you encounter in making energy savings changes in your home?
(Check all that apply)
Lack of necessity
Cost
Other (please specify)
2016 Home Energy Audit Program Survey
Convenience
skipped question
Answer Options
Do not know who to contact
Time
answered question
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
90.0%
Cost Time Convenience Lack of
necessity
Do not know
who to contact
Other (please
specify)
What barriers do you encounter in making energy savings changes in your
home? (Check all that apply)
What barriers do you encounter in making energy savings changes in your home? (Check all that apply)
Other (please specify)
scammers that tell me anything and over charge
disability
have called two companies for bid on attic insulation- have not had a reply from them.
retrofit is difficult
too lazy.
Window and insulation installations were delayed one week each for various things
waiting on contractor
been too sick to deal with it
Lack of full family committment
Many contractors do not return phone calls.
Changes would require significant remodeling of the house-- to remedy poor construction practices done at time
when building codes were minimal
The man who came out said everything has been updated and there's really not much I can do to lower my bill or
None now.
rent- so most is up to landlord
none
My house is pretty well insulated (supper good sense home). Upgrading heating and washing appliances when
they fail or become more cost effective to tackle.
Have newer windows throughout; possible improvement would be a heat pump.
Response
Percent
Response
Count
13.4%24
17.9%32
30.2%54
21.2%38
58.7%105
49.7%89
26.8%48
72.1%129
6.1%11
179
29skipped question
2016 Home Energy Audit Program Survey
Communicate information on the Idaho Power website
Send information in monthly Idaho Power bill
Answer Options
Offer a minimal cost home audit service
answered question
Communicate information in local newspapers
Send email communications to homeowners
The most effective method for Idaho Power to provide information about energy efficiency
is to: (Check all that apply)
Communicate information on social media
Other (please specify)
Offer classes in convenient locations
Send newsletters or information directly to homeowners
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
Of
f
e
r

c
l
a
s
s
e
s

i
n

co
n
v
e
n
i
e
n
t

lo
c
a
t
i
o
n
s

Co
m
m
u
n
i
c
a
t
e

in
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n

o
n

th
e

I
d
a
h
o

…
Of
f
e
r

a

m
i
n
i
m
a
l

co
s
t

h
o
m
e

a
u
d
i
t

se
r
v
i
c
e

Se
n
d

e
m
a
i
l

co
m
m
u
n
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s

to

h
o
m
e
o
w
n
e
r
s

Ot
h
e
r

(
p
l
e
a
s
e

sp
e
c
i
f
y
)

The most effective method for Idaho Power to provide information about energy
efficiency is to: (Check all that apply)
The most effective method for Idaho Power to provide information about energy efficiency is to: (Check all that
Other (please specify)
I read the monthly Idaho Power bill and receive most of my information from there.
I believe that Idaho Power does a great job providing information about energy efficiency - it is the consumer who
needs to see the importance of becoming educated!
Need specific recs to area people who can implement REC actions. (Emily entry comments: REC? Renewable
Energy Certificates, I think is what the customer is talking about)
Idaho Power already does many/most of these...and that's how we found out about the audit. :)
I find most people in general do not think applies to them. Running lights when no one is room, TV's left on when
no one is watching, Air Conditioning and fans running all day when no one is home. How to communicate this
baffles me as no one is listening or reading how important it is.
Do not send anything "Presorted Standard". Most people destroy these 'letters' as soon as they are received
send Idaho Power Rep's into homes to talk about electricity basic's and what uses what?
not having home internet and being a senior, paper mail is best
Not believe there is one way. Doubt may read was it included in monthly bill, I don't. The audit service was a great
way of us to become better informed. Classes may be well attended as costs continue to increase. Educational
Not sure why our bill is high when the heater and or air conditioner is not on at all.
Have a free BBQ!!!!!!!
Strongly agree Somewhat
agree
Somewhat
disagree
Strongly
disagree
Response
Count
140 35 3 3 181
133 38 3 4 178
131 39 6 4 180
183
25
2016 Home Energy Audit Program Survey
I am satisfied with my overall experience with the Home
Answer Options
skipped question
I would recommend the Home Energy Audit program to
How much do you agree with the following statements:
answered question
My Home Energy Audit report contained valuable
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
My Home Energy Audit
report contained
valuable information
I would recommend the
Home Energy Audit
program to a friend or
relative
I am satisfied with my
overall experience with
the Home Energy Audit
program
How much do you agree with the following statements:
Strongly agree
Somewhat agree
Somewhat disagree
Strongly disagree
Response
Count
12
12
196skipped question
2016 Home Energy Audit Program Survey
If you disagree with any of these statements, please tell us why.
Answer Options
answered question
If you disagree with any of these statements, please tell us why.
Response Text
auditor spoke as if I knew what he was trained for, explaining things on a layman's level would have been
helpful
I never received a copy of my audit. Tried emailing them for it, never got an answer.
No really sure that it was worth the money.
It just wasn't that helpful to me.
I don't totally trust the auditor we had.
The 36 solar panels that we have were not considered in the audit results.
Nothing done
Recommendations were made to me that I would like to do but are not in my budget at the current time.
I have no idea what my landlord thought but I think it was favorable and especially helping with the high ceiling
lightbulbs
I spent $99 for 4 light bulbs-one being an older "energy saving" bulb that needed 10 min to "warm up" in a
location that I need light when I turn light on now, (Bathroom Toilet Area) not there long enough to warm up!!
Audit was advertised as getting "free" replacement bulbs, No. I paid $99 for these bulbs really.
I never received anything after the audit was completed
Did not receive the report other than verbally when completed.

Heat pump was recommended as improvement over current heat; we did put in the recommended insulation
but not sure it improved anything; do not plan to remove any windows.

Response
Percent
Response
Count
0.6%1
4.4%8
7.7%14
38.7%70
48.6%88
181
27
2016 Home Energy Audit Program Survey
36-50
Answer Options
Over 65
26-35
skipped question
Please identify your age in the ranges below:
51-65
Under 25
answered question
Please identify your age in the ranges below:
Under 25
26-35
36-50
51-65
Over 65
Response
Percent
Response
Count
0.6%1
0.0%0
11.1%20
16.1%29
12.2%22
24.4%44
10.6%19
25.0%45
180
28skipped question
Some high school
Some graduate courses
What is the highest level of education you completed?
Some college
answered question
Less than high school
Four year college degree
2016 Home Energy Audit Program Survey
High school graduate or equivalent
Advanced degree
Answer Options
Two year Associate degree orTrade/Technical school
What is the highest level of education you completed?
Less than high school
Some high school
High school graduate or
equivalent
Some college
Two year Associate degree
orTrade/Technical school
Four year college degree
Some graduate courses
Advanced degree
Response
Percent
Response
Count
50.5%92
49.5%90
182
26
2016 Home Energy Audit Program Survey
skipped question
May we use your name and comments in Idaho Power's communication efforts?
Answer Options
Yes
No
answered question
May we use your name and comments in Idaho Power's communication
efforts?
Yes
No
Response
Percent
Response
Count
11.2%20
88.8%159
179
29
2016 Home Energy Audit Program Survey
skipped question
Do you have any issues or concerns you would like us to contact you about?
Answer Options
Yes
No
answered question
Do you have any issues or concerns you would like us to contact you about?
Yes
No
Response
Count
58
58
150
Would have appreciated completing this survey online
most if not all home owners would receive considerable benefit from this audit!
At our age it's too expensive to carry out modifications that will benefit us significantly
:-)
Thanks for the $ on the window rebate.
glad I had it done well worth the price
Heat pump does not work properly in winter when cold out.
Del Dickerson
You all do a great job - keep up the fantastic work!
who can implement recs
Excellent experience!
Still waiting for info.
skipped question
2016 Home Energy Audit Program Survey
Thank you for taking the time to participate in this survey. We value your
opinions and comments. If you have any additional comments, please
Answer Options
answered question
Thank you for taking the time to participate in this survey. We value your opinions and comments. If you have
any additional comments, please share your thoughts in the space below.
Response Text
I need to know more about the extra floor vent he recommended
This response is late, but I do appreciate having had the audit.
I really appreciated the opportunity for this audit and the professional (Tad Duby) you send out as well as the
It kind of left me hanging not knowing if Idaho Power would help on some items, like vents and under floor
I'm glad I had the audit. I was reassured I was doing the best I could do!
I like it that you send information with the bill. Over time, I have learned much that I otherwise not have known.
I believe Home Energy Audits are a very useful tool and a teaching aid for many families, probably more people
I'm sure that I have already completed this form during the summer. A 2nd guy came out to check the 1st guys
My biggest regret is that heat pump/AC unit we put in in August 2014! Thought our power bill was bad before, not
looking forward to getting this months bill or next! Glad we will be moving Spring of 2017 & want to go on level
I find asking for education level offensive. I hate to have level of formal education used to measure me in any
way. I called the number on the audit for a bid on insulation. We have called twice and have had no reply!
We have already done everything that we can to conserve energy. Our power bill is high in the winter when we
I have let some friends know about the Energy Efficiency tab on the wedsite and they can get a free kit for their
Andrea, I am so grateful for you help to me and my daughter Janet in getting an Energy Home Audit by Brian
Bennett and thank you. I showed the audit to rural development when I applied for a grant and loan to make
Auditor Tad Duby provided a courteous and professional audit and explained recommendations that were easy to
Would have appreciated completing this survey online
most if not all home owners would receive considerable benefit from this audit!
At our age it's too expensive to carry out modifications that will benefit us significantly
I forgot to mention that I had new windows installed in the main living area of the house and that has

definitely helped with drafts. Thank You for all that you are doing!
Tad Duby was very professional. After the audit I would have preferred to discuss with him in person what
changes needed to occur to make my home more energy efficient and suggestions on whom to contact, rather
:-)
I would like to know if it is possible to get another blower test during 2017 after I have finished sealing the air
leaks I know about to determine where I may still be getting air leakage and determine how well my repairs are
I would like to take advantage of the next time that you provide outdoor clothes hangers. I like drying clothes
Thanks to Idaho Power, I was given a free furnace in 2015-Ihad been without for two winters. Thank you so very
much.

Thanks for the $ on the window rebate.
glad I had it done well worth the price
Heat pump does not work properly in winter when cold out.
Del Dickerson
For a number of years you would only have audits available to all electric homes. Now you have extended it to
people like me with gas heat. But I find that public still thinks you cannot audit a home that uses gas.
You all do a great job - keep up the fantastic work!
The issue I'd like to discuss is how do you provide more education with success stories on residential and
who can implement recs
Our income is $2864 per month, family of 2. We would like to have information about no-cost or low cost energy
efficiency improvements, especially under floor insulation, who to contact, and what steps to take, what we need
Excellent experience!
Our home is relatively new and we were focused on energy efficiency when we built. It's good to know that much
of what we did, and have done since, were the right things. We have just a few items to address now.
Still waiting for info.
This is a great program that perfectly builds upon the MyAccount system. If knowledge is power, this program
allows you to better understand the usage patterns you see in My Account and most importantly understand what
I have gas heat. I was glad to see IP extend the Home Energy Audit Program to include me. Additional
information about advances in home energy usage (e.g. whole house surge protector, circuit surge protectors,
Thank you for offering the Home Energy Audit Program so i can be better informed of the energy consumption in
my older home..Was surprised at the low cost measures i could take to be more energy efficient!
The energy audit was very helpful.
Website is full of good information
We would like to have some duct work done but could only find vendors in the Boise area. Are there any in south
Thank you for making this service available to us!!
Your survey was very beneficial to me and very useful. I was very grateful to find out the information on getting
Please make sure the web site has information on incentive programs to replace windows. I thought the audit
wold confirm that our windows need to be replaced but it did not. They let dirt in, so it seems like they would let
I would definitely recommend Chris Callor. It was a good value for $149. I understand the energy savings may
You need to communicate why IPC wants to increase the rate charges and why there is so much variance in the
(INCOMPLETE SURVEY) This is a 420 sq. ft. rental "alley house". The occupant is on a fixed income from ? Due
to health issues and pays $300/mo rent plus electricity bill. She kept the heat @ 80Fahrenheit for her comfort and
complained about the costs. I had to reroof the front hall of house plus porch over hang earlier and cannot afford
any major repairs. There are apparently no low cost programs for these as I was informed by Idaho Power that
I am even more excited about your dryer rack program. I got one and bought one so now most of my laundry can
be dried on a rack. I only used my dryer twice since I got the racks! I think summer will give a better idea of how
I had my energy audit in January. It is now the end of May. It seems like an awfully long time between the audit
I expected it to be a drudgery and messy. However, it was swift and Rod was very efficient and thorough and
When we built this house in 2002 (moved in in 2003) we built it to be high energy efficient as was available at that
time. It would be valuable to have classes in rural Canyon County on landscaping/xeroscaping to save water and
Good program!
We have an all electric home built into the earth for energy efficiency. Because we are all electric & use a little
more we get "bumped" into higher cost brackets. We are considering having natural gas brought into our home as
Kenneth Johnson. 208-376-0819. Please make this service available to all Idaho Power customers!
Thanks for making this available
it would probably have been a good experience if I know what the audit results were.
More information and explanation of there suggestions.
Will see if I can see a difference in usage versus temperature changes online.

Holiday Lighting Study
Final Results
December 28, 2016
Survey was sent to 1,014 empowered community members
Participation rate was 65%
A similar survey was conducted in 2015 therefore:
1. Community members who completed the 2015 survey were skipped to a question asking if they had added any new
LED holiday lights in 2016
2. Community members who joined after 12/17/15, did not respond or did not complete the 2015 study were asked the
questions about their use of holiday lighting
3. Community members who indicated in either the 2015 or 2016 study that they use LED holiday lights were asked if
they had noticed a reduction in their power bill since converting to LED lights
4. All respondents were asked if they use other holiday decorations that use electricity and how they control their lights
and decoration and when they put their lights and decoratioins up
Respondent data
84% homeowners / 11% renters
49% male / 51% female
24% from CanyonWest region / 54% from Capital region / 22% from SouthEast region
19% from electrically heated homes / 65% from natural gas heated homes / 7% from homes heated by other fuel
sources
QUESTION TOTAL:419
DID NOT ANSWER:0
OPTIONS TOTAL
O1 Yes 235
O2 No 184 43.91%
asked only of community members who joined the community after 12/17/15, did not complete the 2015
study, OR indicated they did not use holiday lights in the 2015 study
Do you use strings of holiday lights at your home?
PERCENT
56.09%
56.09%
43.91%
Yes
No
QUESTION TOTAL:235
DID NOT ANSWER:0
OPTIONS TOTAL
O1 Indoors 79
O2 Outdoors 29
O3 Both indoors and outdoors 127
asked only of community members who joined the community after 12/17/15, did not complete the 2015
study, OR indicated they did not use holiday lights in the 2015 study AND said they use holiday lights
12.34%
54.04%
Where do you use strings of holiday lighting?
PERCENT
33.62%
33.62%
12.34%
54.04%
Indoors
Outdoors
Both indoors and outdoors
QUESTION TOTAL:235
DID NOT ANSWER:0
OPTIONS TOTAL
O1 Mini lights 185
O2 Medium bulb lights 70
O3 Large bulb lights 33
O4 Icicle lights 29
O5 Rope lights 32
O6 Don't know 4
O7 Other 12
LED
All
bubble
iTwinkle and LED Snowman
led lights outside
LED small bulb lights
LED String lamps
meteor shower lights
sometimes flicker lights
Strobe
variety
What type of holiday light strings do you use? Other (please specify)
asked only of community members who joined the community after 12/17/15, did not complete the 2015
study, OR indicated they did not use holiday lights in the 2015 study AND said they use holiday lights
13.62%
1.70%
5.11%
29.79%
14.04%
12.34%
What type of holiday light strings do you use?
PERCENT
78.72%
78.72%
29.79%
14.04%
12.34%
13.62%
1.70%
5.11%
Mini lights
Medium bulb lights
Large bulb lights
Icicle lights
Rope lights
Don't know
Other
QUESTION TOTAL:235
DID NOT ANSWER:0
TOTAL
O1 142
O2 77
O3 16
Are any of your holiday light strings LED lights?
OPTIONS PERCENT
Yes 60.43%
asked only of community members who joined the community after 12/17/15,
did not complete the 2015 study, OR indicated they did not use holiday lights
in the 2015 study AND said they use holiday lights
No 32.77%
Not sure 6.81%
60.43%
32.77%
6.81%
Yes
No
Not sure
QUESTION TOTAL:142
DID NOT ANSWER:0
OPTIONS TOTAL
O1 100%56
O2 75% - 99%30
O3 50% - 74%35
O4 25% - 49%13
O5 Less than 25%7
O6 Not sure 1
asked only of community members who joined the community after 12/17/15, did not complete the 2015 study, OR
indicated they did not use holiday lights in the 2015 study AND said they use LED holiday lights
4.93%
0.70%
21.13%
24.65%
9.15%
What proportion of your holiday light strings are LED's?
PERCENT
39.44%
39.44%
21.13%
24.65%
9.15%
4.93%
0.70%
100%
75% - 99%
50% - 74%
25% - 49%
Less than 25%
Not sure
QUESTION TOTAL:337
DID NOT ANSWER:0
OPTIONS TOTAL
O1 Yes 66
O2 No 266
O3 Not sure 5
asked only of community members who completed the 2015 Holiday Lighting Survey and said they use LED
holiday lights
Last year you told us that some, or all, of your holiday light strings are LED lights. Have you added any new LED
holiday light strings this year?
78.93%
1.48%
PERCENT
19.58%
19.58%
78.93%
1.48%
Yes
No
Not sure
QUESTION TOTAL:299
DID NOT ANSWER:0
OPTIONS TOTAL
O1 Yes 44
O2 No 105
O3 Not sure 150
Have you noticed any reduction in your power bill since switching to LED holiday lights?
asked only of respondents who said they use LED holiday lights in either the 2015 study or the 2016
study
35.12%
50.17%
PERCENT
14.72%
14.72%
35.12%
50.17%
Yes
No
Not sure
QUESTION TOTAL:657
DID NOT ANSWER:0
OPTIONS TOTAL
O1 Yes 117
O2 No 540 82.19%
asked of all community members who use holiday lights
Other than strings of lights, do you use any other holiday decorations that use electricity like lawn
decorations, light projectors/lasers or inflatables?
PERCENT
17.81%
17.81%
82.19%
Yes
No
QUESTION TOTAL:486
DID NOT ANSWER:0
OPTIONS TOTAL
O1 Turn them on and off manually 296
O2 Have them on a timer 119
O3 Have some on a timer and turn others on 71
60.91%
asked of all community members who use holiday lights
How do you turn your holiday lights and/or decorations on and off?
PERCENT
24.49%
14.61%
60.91%
24.49%
14.61%
Turn them on and off manually
Have them on a timer
Have some on a timer and turn others on
and off manually
QUESTION TOTAL:486
DID NOT ANSWER:0
OPTIONS TOTAL
O1 Before Thanksgiving 13
O2 Thanksgiving weekend 140
O3 Early December 197
O4 Mid-December 79
O5 Leave them up year round 4
O6 No certain time just whenever you can 45
O7 Other 8
When do you typically put up your holiday lights and/or decorations? Other
(please specify).
As close to Thanksgiving we can assuming the weather is good.
before it gets cold
Didn't put any up this year
EVERY YEAR IS DIFFERENT. DEPENDS ON MOOD AND WHAT IS GOING ON AT THE TIME
BUT LIKE TO BEFORE T-DAY
Honestly, no outside lights, can't imagine increasing our already too high power bill
No longer. cutting elect bill.
week before Christmas
While it is still warm out, but don't plug them in until after Thanksgiving
2.67%
asked of all community members who use holiday lights
When do you typically put up your holiday lights and/or decorations?
PERCENT
28.81%
40.53%
16.26%
0.82%
9.26%
1.65%
2.67%
28.81%
40.53%
16.26%
0.82%
9.26%
1.65%
Before Thanksgiving
Thanksgiving weekend
Early December
Mid-December
Leave them up year round
No certain time just whenever you can get
them up
Other
Lighting Study
Final Results
July 25, 2016
Survey was sent to 1,023 empowered community members
Participation rate was 68%
Respondent data
82% homeowners / 11% renters
48% male / 52% female
22% from CanyonWest region / 54% from Capital region / 23% from SouthEast region
26% from electrically heated homes / 66% from natural gas heated homes / 8% from homes heated
by other fuel sources
82% from single-family homes, 4% from apartments/condos/townhouses with 2-3 units, 3% from
apartments/condos/townhouses with 4 or more units, 4% from manufactured homes
Average total number of bulbs in the household was 47
QUESTION TOTAL:
DID NOT ANSWER:
OPTIONS PERCENT
Mean Conventional / Incandescent light bulbs 33%
Compact fluorescent light bulbs(CFLs)34%
Halogen light bulbs 8%
LED light bulbs 20%
Other 5%
Average Number of Light Bulbs in High-Use Areas of House
619
0
The following question refers ONLY to light bulbs installed in light fixtures or lamps in the following areas of your
home: kitchen, living room, family room and/or great room.For each type of bulb shown below, please tell us the overall
percentage of each type of bulb you have installed in the kitchen, living room, family room, and/or great room areas of
your home.If some of your bulbs are not shown in the pictures, please use the other category. Your total among all the
bulb types must equal 100%.
33%
34%
8%
20%
5%
Conventional / Incandescent light bulbs
Compact fluorescent light bulbs(CFLs)
Halogen light bulbs
LED light bulbs
Other
QUESTION TOTAL:
DID NOT ANSWER:
PERCENT
Mean 38%
36%
5%
17%
5%

LED light bulbs
Other
The following question refers ONLY to light bulbs installed in light fixtures or lamps in other areas of your home like
bedrooms, bathrooms, hallways, closets, laundry rooms, basements, garages, etc. For each type of bulb shown below,
please tell us the overall percentage of each type of bulb you have installed in the other areas of your home.If some of
your bulbs are not shown in the pictures, please use the other category. Your total among all the bulb types must equal
100%.
619
0
Average Number of Light Bulbs in Low-Use Areas of House
OPTIONS
Conventional / Incandescent light bulbs
Compact fluorescent light bulbs(CFLs)
Halogen light bulbs
38%
36%
5%
17%
5%
Conventional / Incandescent light bulbs
Compact fluorescent light bulbs(CFLs)
Halogen light bulbs
LED light bulbs
Other
QUESTION TOTAL:
DID NOT ANSWER:
PERCENT
Mean 32%
31%
18%
15%
4%
LED light bulbs
Other
This question refers ONLY to the light bulbs you have on the outside of your house. DO NOT include bulbs in your
garage or inside your house. For each type of bulb shown below, please tell us what percentage of all bulbs outside your
house are that type of bulb. If some of your bulbs are not shown in the pictures, please use the other category. Your total
among all the bulb types must equal 100%.​ 
619
0
Average Number of Light Bulbs Outside of House
OPTIONS
Conventional / Incandescent light bulbs
Compact fluorescent light bulbs(CFLs)
Halogen light bulbs
32%
31%
18%
15%
4%
Conventional / Incandescent light bulbs
Compact fluorescent light bulbs(CFLs)
Halogen light bulbs
LED light bulbs
Other
QUESTION TOTAL:619
DID NOT ANSWER:0
OPTIONS PERCENT
Incandescent light bulbs 17%
Compact fluorescent light bulbs (CFLs)30%
Halogen light bulbs 2%
LED light bulbs 50%
Other (please specify)1%
daylight bulbs
depends on where they are needed
solar
Other (please specify)
night light
tiny ones for lamps
Florescent tubes
florescent tubes
depends on price
If you needed to buy light bulbs for your home tomorrow, which of the following type of bulbs would you most likely
buy?
17%
30%
2%
50%
1%
Incandescent light bulbs
Compact fluorescent light bulbs (CFLs)
Halogen light bulbs
LED light bulbs
Other (please specify)
QUESTION TOTAL:619
DID NOT ANSWER:0
OPTIONS PERCENT
Yes 95%
No 4%
Not sure 1%
Do you have any spare light bulbs in your home that are not currently in a light fixture or lamp?
95%
4%
1%
Yes
No
Not sure
QUESTION TOTAL:587
DID NOT ANSWER:0
OPTIONS PERCENT
Incandescent light bulbs 73%
Compact fluorescent light bulbs (CFLs)72%
Halogen light bulbs 32%
LED light bulbs 33%
Other (please specify)7%
fancy shaped ones
Round bathroom lights
florescent tubes
Flourescent
night light and candle warmer bulbs
fan bulbs
Chandelier lights
fluorescent tubes
not sure, I just assume there's something
ffluorescent tubes
florescent
flood
fluorescent tube bulbs
Fluorescent tube
Fluorescent tubes
fluorescent tubes
flourescent tube
long fluorescent tubes
black light
Fluorescent
florescent
Fluorescent tube
heatlamp bulbs
florecent tubes
T8 bulbs
Unusual sized lije heat bulbs for food warmer and chandeliers
Special
Florescent
solar
Which of the following types of spare bulbs do you have in your home that are not currently in a light fixture or lamp?
73%
72%
32%
33%
7%
Incandescent light bulbs
Compact fluorescent light bulbs (CFLs)
Halogen light bulbs
LED light bulbs
Other (please specify)
Other (please specify)
heat bulbs for animals...
night lights
fluorescent tubes
florescent long for kitchen
Fluorescent Linear
appliance bulbs
Regular
florescent
Flood light bulbs
fluorescent
T4 flourescent for plant growing
Fluorescent tubes
Flourescent tubes
nightlight bullbs
fancy shaped ones
Round bathroom lights
florescent tubes
Flourescent
night light and candle warmer bulbs
fan bulbs
Chandelier lights
fluorescent tubes
not sure, I just assume there's something
ffluorescent tubes
florescent
flood
fluorescent tube bulbs
Fluorescent tube
Fluorescent tubes
fluorescent tubes
flourescent tube
long fluorescent tubes
black light
Fluorescent
florescent
Fluorescent tube
heatlamp bulbs
florecent tubes
T8 bulbs
Unusual sized lije heat bulbs for food warmer and chandeliers
Special
Florescent
solar
QUESTION TOTAL:619
DID NOT ANSWER:0
OPTIONS PERCENT
LT 1,000 sq ft 8%
1,000 - 1,499 sq ft 23%
1,500 -1,999 sq ft 26%
2,000 - 2,499 sq ft 19%
GE 2,500 sq ft 24%
What is the approximate square footage of your home?
(If you don't know the exact square footage please enter your best guess)
8%
23%
26%
19%
24%
LT 1,000 sq ft
1,000 - 1,499 sq ft
1,500 -1,999 sq ft
2,000 - 2,499 sq ft
GE 2,500 sq ft
Shade Tree 2016 Survey Results
Survey was sent to 1,112 Shade Tree Project participants.
The number of respondents was 531.
Participation rate was 48%
Response
Percent
Response
Count
34.3%182
35.8%190
7.0%37
4.9%26
20.7%110
531
0
Facebook
On-line
Website
Facebook post
Idaho Power Website
Facebook
Facebook
website
Radio
Facebook
on facebook
Co-worker posted it on FB
Email from Patti Best
And the website
Announcement on Facebook
Idaho Power website
Facebook
Idaho Power website
Fall 2015 Fall Newsletter, main story was about the free tree program.
Radio
City of Boise employee
Saw post on FB
Posting on social media
Friend's post on Facebook
Online?
Checked online - had participated last year
Facebook group member shared
city of nampa
Facebook
Public Website
unsure...read it somewhere
Facebook
Idaho Power Shade Tree Survey
Neighbor
Answer Options
Other (please specify)
Friend or relative
skipped question
How did you hear about Idaho Power's Shade Tree Project? (Check all that apply)
Idaho Power employee
Letter from Idaho Power
answered question
0.0%
5.0%
10.0%
15.0%
20.0%
25.0%
30.0%
35.0%
40.0%
Letter from Idaho
Power
Friend or relative Neighbor Idaho Power
employee
Other (please
specify)
How did you hear about Idaho Power's Shade Tree Project? (Check all that
apply)
How did you hear about Idaho Power's Shade Tree Project? (Check all that apply)
Other (please specify)
IEF meeting
Saw them delivering the prior years trees
Facebook
In the park when they were handing trees out.
Mom Group
Online email
Internet
Co worker
Found on internet
Facebook
Facebook
missed last year - had it on my calendar - think notice was in with my bill
FB GROUP
A friend at work sent me the link to the website.
Facebook
On-line
Website
Facebook post
Idaho Power Website
Facebook
Facebook
website
Radio
Facebook
on facebook
Co-worker posted it on FB
Email from Patti Best
And the website
Announcement on Facebook
Idaho Power website
Facebook
Idaho Power website
Fall 2015 Fall Newsletter, main story was about the free tree program.
Radio
City of Boise employee
Saw post on FB
Posting on social media
Friend's post on Facebook
Online?
Checked online - had participated last year
Facebook group member shared
city of nampa
Facebook
Public Website
unsure...read it somewhere
Facebook
facebook posting from a friend
facebook post from Idaho Power
In my bill
facebook
Through work
Next door app
radio, Home Fix show
Facebook or the website
North End Neighborhood Assoc. newsletter.
A forward on Facebook
drove by event... signed up for future event
Facebook
Drive by delivery area
shared facebook post
facebook
can't remember
Doctor's office
Facebook
Facebook post
University of Idaho Extension Canyon County
Facebook
Facebook
Website
Sat AM Radio Program
Facebook
Facebook
Facebook
City employee
nextdoor.com
Timmy's Tree Service
Aware of other similar programs and checked out website
looking for free treed via google
ID Power Facebook page
Facebook post
Facebook Post
Friends FB post
Coworker
Friend on Facebook
facebook
Idaho power web site
www.reddit.com/r/boise
facebook
Facebook
Social media
Facebook
Facebook
Idaho Power website
Facebook
Facebook
Co-worker
Co-worker
I participated in 2015 so I contacted IPower about this year
Facebook
It was posted in www.reddit.com/r/Boise
Email
Coworker
facebook group
Facebook.com
email
Nextdoor app
Facebook
Reddit
Boise Subreddit
Saw a post on Facebook from a friend
Response
Percent
Response
Count
20.5%109
21.1%112
16.2%86
10.7%57
19.6%104
5.8%31
6.0%32
531
0
just bought my first house and wanted to plant a couple trees
Had no trees on my property, so I wanted a tree for some shade
previous honey locust died due to boers
All of the above
add shade for my house
All of the above
Need shade in back yard and for all the other reasons not chosen
Tree was free AND I needed shade on the side of my house.....would've planted a tree there anyway.
I had a dead tree that needed to be replaced
To shade window from direct sunlight
Moved in to a new house and wanted to get some trees planted
shade sun from child's room on west side of house in summer to help them go to and stay asleep
Needed a tree
Hoping to block some road noise some day
For my house but we got forced to move and couldn't take our tree with us :( 208-297-0272
Tree was free and wanted to reduce energy bill
skipped question
Tree was free
Help the environment
Idaho Power Shade Tree Survey
Reduce energy bill
answered question
Answer Options
Wanted a tree
Home too warm in the summer
Other (please specify)
What was the primary reason you participated in the program? (Mark one)
Improve landscape/property value
What was the primary reason you participated in the program? (Mark one)
Tree was free
Home too warm in the summer
Reduce energy bill
Improve landscape/property
value
Wanted a tree
Help the environment
Other (please specify)
What was the primary reason you participated in the program? (Mark one)
Other (please specify)
Our backyard had no shade
Had a "hole" in my western property line in terms of shade. Plus I love birch trees.
existing trees shading the house are old and deseased
need more shade for my yard, it burns up in the summer
to replace a tree that died
Wanted to replace some trees that had died a few years ago.
Required by HOA
We had to remove an old maple and wanted to replace it with another shade tree
Replace a dead tree.
all of the above
my old tree was dead from poor trimming need one to replace it
I have aging trees that I have removed, and need to replace them for the shade and also for the Squirrels
All of the above reasons are important to me
Just lost a big tree to bug indestation
to give shade in summer and replace the black walnut trees that are so old. Property needs more trees to help
with savings.
just bought my first house and wanted to plant a couple trees
Had no trees on my property, so I wanted a tree for some shade
previous honey locust died due to boers
All of the above
add shade for my house
All of the above
Need shade in back yard and for all the other reasons not chosen
Tree was free AND I needed shade on the side of my house.....would've planted a tree there anyway.
I had a dead tree that needed to be replaced
To shade window from direct sunlight
Moved in to a new house and wanted to get some trees planted
shade sun from child's room on west side of house in summer to help them go to and stay asleep
Needed a tree
My existing tree died and my HOA requires one tree i the yard. Since I just moved in and limited on funds a
free tree was the way to go for me. Plus the tree was drought tolerant and a great water saver.
Hoping to block some road noise some day
For my house but we got forced to move and couldn't take our tree with us :( 208-297-0272
Tree was free and wanted to reduce energy bill
Response
Percent
Response
Count
13.6%72
55.1%292
11.1%59
20.2%107
530
1
focus
We had just removed a maple in the backyard that needed to be replaced
Bought home in 2012 and haven't got to landscape yet
Needed more trees for shade
just moved to idaho
Planted 2 in 2016
Got trees 2yrs in a row from Arbor Day & they came dead
Was unaware of program
Just moved in
already had a tree that was lost to bugs
Weren't sure we wanted another tree
JUST HADN'T GOTTEN AROUND TO IT
talked about placement of another tree but had not followed through
Space where needed was small, tried to plant in neighbors yard but they didn't want to.
Just move there
New build, hadn't gotten to it yet
No house yet
I planted others but didn't have much success with them
Recently purchased this home.
was not aware of program
New (to us) home
Other trees planted did not thrive
Just moved in to this house this past summer. New to the valley.
Had tree and it died
Lost a tree from winter want sure if should replace
There was another tree in that same spot that we had to take out.
Buy one and was not the correct tree for the property
Lots of other projects in the works
just moved in to new home
We had just moved into the house and hadn't picked one out yet.
What kept you from planting a tree prior to the Shade Tree Project? (Mark one)
Other (please specify)
Lack of knowledge
skipped question
Idaho Power Shade Tree Survey
Time
Answer Options
answered question
Cost
What kept you from planting a tree prior to the Shade Tree Project? (Mark
one)
Lack of knowledge
Cost
Time
Other (please specify)
What kept you from planting a tree prior to the Shade Tree Project? (Mark one)
Other (please specify)
Availability of tree type
Had not heard of this project before.
We have planted other trees on the property.
Replaced dead tree cut down earlier in the summer
Had a tree that died.
New home, just hadn't got that far yet
Just moved in.
Hoping a suffering tree would improve
Awareness and convenience.nce
just purchased home
Just bought a home
We had a tree
I never took the time to research it. The program tools made it easy.
All of the above, cost, time, and lack of knowledge
focus
We had just removed a maple in the backyard that needed to be replaced
Bought home in 2012 and haven't got to landscape yet
Needed more trees for shade
just moved to idaho
Planted 2 in 2016
Got trees 2yrs in a row from Arbor Day & they came dead
I have planted other trees prior to the Shade Tree Project. I still have 4 old trees to remove and will plant
additional as I am able to remove the aged trees remaining.
Was unaware of program
Just moved in
already had a tree that was lost to bugs
Weren't sure we wanted another tree
JUST HADN'T GOTTEN AROUND TO IT
talked about placement of another tree but had not followed through
Space where needed was small, tried to plant in neighbors yard but they didn't want to.
Just move there
New build, hadn't gotten to it yet
No house yet
I planted others but didn't have much success with them
Recently purchased this home.
was not aware of program
New (to us) home
Other trees planted did not thrive
Just moved in to this house this past summer. New to the valley.
Had tree and it died
Lost a tree from winter want sure if should replace
There was another tree in that same spot that we had to take out.
Buy one and was not the correct tree for the property
Lots of other projects in the works
just moved in to new home
We had just moved into the house and hadn't picked one out yet.
other pressing issues
Just moved to the house a month prior
We had just moved in & there were no trees. we thought, why not? It's awesome!
I did plant trees, just wanted more
I was going to buy one when i got the letter
this was just an addition to what I have already done
Moved to a new house
We just moved in and haven't had the time or money to landscape properly yet.
New home
We were in the middle of deciding when the program happened. We are new to this home.
Was planning on it just hadnt gotten around to it yet
just purchased home
timing, waiting until we were ready/ far enough along on landscape ideas/ project
I didn't realize that side of the house wasn't shaded until this summer.
I have already planted over 100 trees, a free one is great.
recently moved into home - had not prioritized yet
I have been adding trees, IP offer complemented my plan
Tree died completly this year
Didn't think about it
First time home buyer
Not enough room
I've planted lots of trees prior
The tree that was there originally was old and died.
Just hadn't gotten around to it.
new landscaping
Nothing - I'm a new home owner. The more trees in my yard, the better!
We have 12 acres and have planted lots of trees. One more is always welcome.
Water supply and waiting to see other trees survived
Just haven't thought about it, until I heard about the shade project
I didn't think about it
a bunch of trees died when winter came too fast in 2014
Just bought house.
had/have other trees; but 2 died in the past few years
Not necessary
we had already planted several trees in our yard but needed more!
I have other trees- wanted more
I had 38 trees prior that I paid for. 2 free sounded fun.
Had to replace a tree that died, the timing was right.
Just hadn't considered it.
None, last one died. ID Power timing was perfect.
Combination of all three
we plant lots of trees
Just moved into the house last summer
Location
NOT FINISHED LANDSCAPING YET
Had just purchased the home
Had older trees that were removed
Didn't own our home
My former property was too small
Just moved into our home
We had plenty of shade until our trees were cut in half by Idaho Power
Just bought home
Just moved into house
Moved into house less than a year ago.
Money
Timing
Combination of time and lack of knowledge.
Planting lots of trees. Needed more
New home
Have purchased a tree twice for west side of house but one ended up too short and the other half of the
tree died. Also added a garage which needed a tree to the west of it for shade.
Already have number of shade trees
$
Response
Percent
Response
Count
34.0%177
64.0%333
1.9%10
520
11
Idaho Power Shade Tree Survey
Other (please specify)
Answer Options
skipped question
Nursery/garden store
Where would you typically purchase a new tree? (Mark one)
answered question
Garden section of a do-it-yourself/home improvement
Where would you typically purchase a new tree? (Mark one)
Garden section of a do-it-yourself/home improvement
store
Nursery/garden store
Other (please specify)
Where would you typically purchase a new tree? (Mark one)
Other (please specify)
I probably wouldn't have bought them
online
both
We have gotten all of our trees we planted as reject trees from nursery
local tree nursery
costco
place with good tree selection
Not sure
Friends needing transplany
Arborist
Response
Percent
Response
Count
58.9%309
30.5%160
6.1%32
4.0%21
0.6%3
525
6
Idaho Power Shade Tree Survey
21-30 minutes
Answer Options
Not applicable
11-20 minutes
skipped question
How long did you spend on the online enrollment tool? (Mark one)
31 minutes or more
10 minutes or less
answered question
How long did you spend on the online enrollment tool? (Mark one)
10 minutes or less
11-20 minutes
21-30 minutes
31 minutes or more
Not applicable
Response
Percent
Response
Count
68.5%361
26.8%141
3.8%20
0.6%3
0.4%2
527
4
Idaho Power Shade Tree Survey
Somewhat difficult
Answer Options
Not applicable
Somewhat easy
skipped question
Overall, how easy was it for you to use the online enrollment tool?
Very difficult
Very easy
answered question
Overall, how easy was it for you to use the online enrollment tool?
Very easy
Somewhat easy
Somewhat difficult
Very difficult
Not applicable
Response
Percent
Response
Count
28.2%149
71.8%379
528
3
Idaho Power Shade Tree Survey
skipped question
How many trees did you pick up at the Shade Tree event?
Answer Options
One
Two
answered question
How many trees did you pick up at the Shade Tree event?
One
Two
Response
Percent
Response
Count
30.2%45
55.0%82
8.1%12
6.7%10
0.0%0
149
382
Idaho Power Shade Tree Survey
4-7 days after the tree pickup
Answer Options
Did not plant the tree
1-3 days after the tree pickup
skipped question
When did you plant your shade tree?
More than 1 week after the tree pickup
Same day as the tree pickup
answered question
When did you plant your shade tree?
Same day as the tree pickup
1-3 days after the tree pickup
4-7 days after the tree pickup
More than 1 week after the tree
pickup
Did not plant the tree
Response
Percent
Response
Count
1.4%2
4.1%6
5.4%8
6.1%9
10.9%16
22.4%33
41.5%61
8.2%12
147
384skipped question
Northeast
West
On which side of your home did you plant your shade tree?
Southeast
answered question
North
Southwest
Idaho Power Shade Tree Survey
East
Northwest
Answer Options
South
On which side of your home did you plant your shade tree?
North
Northeast
East
Southeast
South
Southwest
West
Northwest
Response
Percent
Response
Count
36.9%55
53.0%79
9.4%14
0.7%1
149
382
How far from the home did you plant your shade tree?
More than 60 feet
20 feet or less
skipped question
Idaho Power Shade Tree Survey
41-60 feet
Answer Options
answered question
21-40 feet
How far from the home did you plant your shade tree?
20 feet or less
21-40 feet
41-60 feet
More than 60 feet
Response
Percent
Response
Count
2.6%10
95.8%363
1.6%6
379
152
Idaho Power Shade Tree Survey
Did not plant trees
Answer Options
skipped question
Both trees
How many shade trees did you plant?
answered question
One tree
How many shade trees did you plant?
One tree
Both trees
Did not plant trees
Response
Percent
Response
Count
0.0%0
80.0%8
20.0%2
0.0%0
10
521
When did you plant your shade tree?
More than 1 week after the tree pickup
Same day as the tree pickup
skipped question
Idaho Power Shade Tree Survey
4-7 days after the tree pickup
Answer Options
answered question
1-3 days after the tree pickup
When did you plant your shade tree?
Same day as the tree pickup
1-3 days after the tree pickup
4-7 days after the tree pickup
More than 1 week after the tree
pickup
Response
Percent
Response
Count
20.0%2
20.0%2
0.0%0
0.0%0
30.0%3
0.0%0
20.0%2
10.0%1
10
521skipped question
Northeast
West
On which side of your home did you plant your shade tree?
Southeast
answered question
North
Southwest
Idaho Power Shade Tree Survey
East
Northwest
Answer Options
South
On which side of your home did you plant your shade tree?
North
Northeast
East
Southeast
South
Southwest
West
Northwest
Response
Percent
Response
Count
40.0%4
50.0%5
10.0%1
0.0%0
10
521
How far from the home did you plant your shade tree?
More than 60 feet
20 feet or less
skipped question
Idaho Power Shade Tree Survey
41-60 feet
Answer Options
answered question
21-40 feet
How far from the home did you plant your shade tree?
20 feet or less
21-40 feet
41-60 feet
More than 60 feet
Same day as
the tree pickup
1-3 days after
the tree pickup
4-7 days after
the tree pickup
More than 1
week after the
tree pickup
Response
Count
89 167 55 53 364
77 160 52 58 347
Question
Totals
364
167skipped question
When did you plant your shade trees?
Answer Options
answered question
Idaho Power Shade Tree Survey
Tree 2
Tree 1
North Northeast East Southeast South Southwest West Northwest

Response
Count
22 26 46 28 31 57 116 20 346
19 27 39 31 42 55 102 25 340
Question
Totals
346
185skipped question
On which side of your home did you plant your shade trees?
Answer Options
answered question
Idaho Power Shade Tree Survey
Tree 2
Tree 1
20 feet or less 21-40 feet 41-60 feet More than 60
feet

Response
Count
128 185 30 13 356
103 177 43 21 344
Question
Totals
356
175skipped question
How far from the home did you plant your shade trees?
Answer Options
answered question
Idaho Power Shade Tree Survey
Tree 2
Tree 1
Response
Percent
Response
Count
87.5%455
9.6%50
1.0%5
0.6%3
1.3%7
520
11
Idaho Power Shade Tree Survey
Somewhat dissatisfied
Answer Options
Not applicable
Somewhat satisfied
skipped question
How satisfied are you with the information you received on the planting and care of your
shade tree?
Very dissatisfied
Very satisfied
answered question
How satisfied are you with the information you received on the planting and
care of your shade tree?
Very satisfied
Somewhat satisfied
Somewhat dissatisfied
Very dissatisfied
Not applicable
Response
Percent
Response
Count
54.3%282
11.2%58
11.4%59
7.7%40
7.3%38
8.1%42
519
12
facing direction.
All the info was valuable since it was my 1st time planting a tree
The guy was very helpful answered all my question
Everything - I have never planted before
All of the above..
All
All of the above
All of it!
all
all of it
All of the above
Prevously took a class for volunteering for Releaf Boise
BOTH TREES DIED
All the info was thorough and professional looking
I found all the info provided most valuable
All of the above; the arborist was very helpful and informative
all information
Location to place them
How much to fertilize and what not to use.
all of the above
All
I had planted trees before and was somewhat knowledgeable already
How to treat tulip tree for aphids
This is not my first tree so I already knew
All of the information offered was helpful
All info was equally as valuable.
What information did you find most valuable?
Watering
Planting depth
Other (please specify)
Idaho Power Shade Tree Survey
Staking
skipped question
Answer Options
Not applicable
Circling roots
answered question
What information did you find most valuable?
Planting depth
Circling roots
Staking
Watering
Not applicable
Other (please specify)
What information did you find most valuable?
Other (please specify)
Planting depth and not to mulch too close to the trunk. A mistake I've been making for 25 years.
All of the above. I knew how to plant a tree, I was just doing small things incorrectly.
The arbonist from City of Kuna was very helpful in explaining and what to expect from the tree
Mulching
All above
Info from on site arborist
all info was useful
All
the mature size of the trees
All of the above other than not applicable
all of the above
Trees planted where noted on tool
All was helpful!
We have planted many trees over the years so we knew all the info provided alrady
facing direction.
All the info was valuable since it was my 1st time planting a tree
The guy was very helpful answered all my question
Everything - I have never planted before
All of the above..
They gave good instruction and explained how to plan. they explained what was happening to the older trees.
People very knowledgeable.
All
All of the above
All of it!
all
I liked the whole brochure. I sis not really get to talk to somebody because there were quite a few people and I
did not have the time to wait.
all of it
All of the above
Prevously took a class for volunteering for Releaf Boise
BOTH TREES DIED
All the info was thorough and professional looking
I found all the info provided most valuable
All of the above; the arborist was very helpful and informative
all information
Location to place them
How much to fertilize and what not to use.
all of the above
All
I had planted trees before and was somewhat knowledgeable already
How to treat tulip tree for aphids
This is not my first tree so I already knew
All of the information offered was helpful
All info was equally as valuable.
Strongly agree Somewhat
agree
Somewhat
disagree
Strongly
disagree
Response
Count
472 41 5 2 520
463 52 4 0 519
495 17 3 2 517
483 32 3 2 520
521
10
How much do you agree with the following statements:
I am satisfied with my overall experience with the Shade
I am satisfied with the Shade Tree Project pick up event
skipped question
Idaho Power Shade Tree Survey
I would recommend the Shade Tree Project to a friend
Answer Options
answered question
It was easy to plant my shade tree
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
I am satisfied
with the Shade
Tree Project pick
up event
It was easy to
plant my shade
tree
I would
recommend the
Shade Tree
Project to a
friend or relative
I am satisfied
with my overall
experience with
the Shade Tree
Project
How much do you agree with the following statements:
Strongly agree
Somewhat agree
Somewhat disagree
Strongly disagree
Response
Count
171
171
360
Trees are so so tiny ;)
Thank you for my tree!
Great program!
Thank you!!
Please let me know if this is going to happen again. Great way to naturally minimize energy usage.
Thank you for offering this program!
Would have like more selection of a slightly smaller tree (at maturity).
This is a great idea for energy savings!
Great program! I think this program will make a huge difference in peoples lives.
awesome experience
skipped question
Idaho Power Shade Tree Survey
If you have additional comments you would like to offer about the Shade
Tree Project, please enter them in the space below.
Answer Options
answered question
If you have additional comments you would like to offer about the Shade Tree Project, please enter them in
the space below.
Response Text
I was sad that I could not get trees for our cabin in McCall. Our natural forested area is dying out and we need
trees to shade us in the summer.
Fantastic experience. Love my tree. Was surprised that it was a real tree and not just a twig. Could not use your
online program. However, the person I talked to when I called was wonderful--a great help
very friendly folks giving out the trees. The "planting teacher" was very knowledgable and personable
Some of the trees looked very sad. I really wonder if some of the trees will survive if the people that got them
don't give them some extra care.
We truly appreciated the Volunteers & their advice as well as information. The Volunteers were very friendly &
I am excited to watch it grow and plant around it. thank you
The staff was very knowledgeable about the trees when picking them up and clarified planting directions. Overall
my experience with the shade tree project was great. Thank you!
We wanted two trees, however I could not get the sign up to accept.
I wish the trees had been a bit bigger and a broader selection available. That said, I do appreciate a free tree.
Love this program in every way!

I think it would have been more beneficial if the trees were bigger
This was an amazing project. One of our trees is struggling, the other seems great. I wish there had been
information about calling digline when registering or emailed. By the time I got our letter we had trees and had
to wait for digline. Otherwise we have hopes for some future shade and beauty!
Thanks...

It was a very shady experience.

It was so much FUN picking up my clumping birch at Storey Park in Meridian. The staff was extremely
welcoming and helpful with the planting instructions.

Thank you very, very much!!!
I would like another tree when another of these projects becomes available. Only one tree was available when I
got in contact about this project.
Trees from the event seemed to go fast. When I first signed up the tree's I wanted were available, but somewhere
along the way I got an error and then the tree was gone.
This is a great program, I hope you continue it. Thanks for the free trees! We are looking forward to watching
I found out about this project late in sign up. The trees I wanted were already sold out when I signed up. Still a
Trees are so so tiny ;)
Thank you for my tree!
Great program!
Thank you!!
Please let me know if this is going to happen again. Great way to naturally minimize energy usage.
The pick up process was so well organized . The people helping with the trees etc. were very friendly and gave
Thank you for offering this program!
Would have like more selection of a slightly smaller tree (at maturity).
This is a great idea for energy savings!
The trees were pretty picked over and our tree was not in the best of health. It was also smaller than expected.
We are hoping that it will make it through the winter
This was just a great project. It helped me make my landscape better while saving energy and helping the earth.
Great program! I think this program will make a huge difference in peoples lives.
awesome experience
The leaves were heavily battered... when I asked about it the employee said it was from the wind in the truck. I'd
suggest you somehow cover everything so they aren't so beaten up. Otherwise my kids and I very much
Would have loved the opportunity to get more trees, even if we had to buy them through the program. Just would
have been good to get more of the same variety and size. Great program though
Picking them up in Oct. Made it a little hard to dig in the ground.
I would like to participate again next year!
Thank you very much! Excellent program!
The trees were free, but still a great idea. Planted them to shade my house and yard, and help environment too.
only difficulty I had was with the selection form on line. I made a selection and wanted to change it but was not
able to navigate successfully.
Orientation question hard, I have no idea (south, west etc.)
good idea who ever came up with it
This was such a great idea and so appreciated.. Please continue to provide such opportunities.

Thank you for the opportunity to plant trees and for the friendly and helpful people at the tree pick up process.
I had to go out of town unexpectedly on the day I was supposed to pick up my trees, so I went online and called
the number for the Shade Tree Project to either cancel my pick-up, or make other arrangements. I only got a
recorded message, but was able to leave a voice message. I really didn't expect to hear back from anyone. I
received a call back that same day! She moved my scheduled pick-up day and location so I could pick-up my
trees. I was very surprised and impressed that I received a callback and was able to get my trees with only a
We appreciate the program and hope our trees survive and live for many years to provide shade for future
generations. I know quality trees are very expensive and hesitate to purchase given budget constraints - so
I really appreciate the opportunity to participate in the program. The online tool was helpful to show energy
savings depending on where I planted my tree, but I was limited on where I could plant it, and could not plant it in
the most beneficial area on the west side because there just was not enough room.
Hopefully they live!
Find a better distribution area for Nampa with more parking for a more organized and less congested project.
Thank you very much!
This was a great program to 1. Save cost per household 2. Help with the environment 3. Help with a family of low
income to acquire a tree. This was great and I hope you are able to continue this program.
I was out of town on the day of the tree pick up. So, I am not sure what information was provided regarding
I think this is a great project and appreciate all of the help Idaho Power has provided as far as the trees and the
light bulb packages. I have recommended this tree project to friends as well.
It was very helpful to have a tree arborist that knew about the tree and how to take of it
I tell everyone about the free tree program. At least one of my co-workers received a free tree this fall. And I've
told 2 more about the program who have recently bought homes. Its a great program! The tree I received this
past spring has already grown about a foot taller! I can't wait to see how much the tree I received this fall grows.
Thank you i would not have trees in my back yard without this project
Thank you. Tree is small but will be a great asset in the future
Think it is a great project, wish I had applied earlier for more choice in selection.
Thank you for offering this program!!
Bigger/older trees! Though we appreciate that the trees are free, it will take years for energy savings/heat
The map on the website is not compatible with an iPad. I was not able to select the tree placement on my own.
After fussing with it forever I had to call customer service to do this for me; and they got the placement wrong. It
didn't matter though, I got the trees anyway. I would just like the website to be more user-friendly for tablet users.
It was not clear how to sign up for two trees. I was allowed two trees at pick up . Staff was knowledgeable and
I liked the interactive map helping with placement, & the ability to go back & forth with tree choices. VERY user
friendly. The planting advice was so clear that my 14-yr-old took on the project and did a great job.
I was very impressed by the knowledge that was shared during the pick up. There was take home information
printed out as well as knowledgeable people there to show how to plant and answer any questions that one
would have. I was also very pleased with the variety of trees I had to choose from. It was a little intimidating at
first, I wanted to make sure to get the trees that would fit best in my yard. I spent extra time googling each tree
and how tall/wide they grow as well as pros and cons. I am very happy with the project and look forward to many
The men who instructed us about the trees knew their stuff and were MOST helpful. We were so blessed to get
these much-needed trees. Thanks for the great program!
This is a great program, not only for the home owners efficiency, but also for our environment! I really hope this
program can continue and grow! Thank you for the opportunity!
These trees are pathetic. It will take 5 years just to get 20 square feet of shade. 5-6' tall but less than 1/2" thick.
Planted trees in back yard garden so one day I can transplant to the SW side and not be embarrassed for
Great program. Only suggestion is allow people to participate more than once. Every other year, every 3 yrs etc.
I am VERY happy with the project as it came at a time when I needed a tree and was a little perplexed at to
where to go & how much money I could spare...( which was not much) so seriously

thank you very much for the project..

Carole
Loved this, passed in the info to relatives, they got trees too...looking forward to shadier days.
I wish the trees were a little bigger in diameter and a little taller!! They look funny in my big front yard!!
It would be helpful if delivery and planting was also included. I had to have a friend with a larger car pick up the
trees. This friend delivered the trees to the wrong address and I couldn't get them home.
Thank you, thank you, thank you! I would rather have trees than money!! What a wonderful program. I have
recommended your program to multiple neighbors, who said they will apply for trees next year.
The shade tree project was very organized and people at the pick up site were great.
Great program! Thank you so much.
Thank you for allowing me to participate. The way my house is situated on my lot, I could not plant the tree in the
most ideal spot to help with heat, but I hope it might help a little!
It is a shame that more people did not know about the project including the IP employees I talked to about it. Also
had a hard time to decide about what type of tree and when we finally figured out what would work the trees were
all gone. We were able to take another type of tree to work. This is a blessing for people.
Would like to thank the people responsible for making this possible!
I should have got 2!
It was difficult to determine which trees would work best for us given the info about each specific tree. I looked up
each tree and read about them online first and found either conflicting info or more useful info. For instance, the
sweetgum sounded amazing. Until I read elsewhere how it can be quite the messy tree. And some say the Tulip
tree doesn't bloom until it's around 15 years old. Other than that, I love this program and gave let neighbors know
Thank you!
Thank you very much. I think this is a wonderful program for our community. Utilizing green methods to
conserve energy is going to be the direction of the future. Thanks again.
Thanks, I hope you do it again next year.
The mapping was a bit difficult to get right....kept making me put my tree outside my actual yard
I was not impressed with the arborist knowledge of the trees at the pick up. The arborist I spoke with was only
able to read from their flash card about the trees and. It provide any other information.
One tree was a good size for its growth rate, but the other one was literally a grafted stick from a bigger tree in a
pot of dirt. It is a slower growing breed, and I'll probably end up replacing it in the spring for a more substantial,
faster growing one. But thank you for the generosity and the thought!
The only part I didn't care for was the limit of 2 per household in a lifetime. I bought my house in April and didn't
know that the previous owner had already done 1 tree in a previous run of the program. It then turned into an
issue because I registered for 2 but could only get 1 and the system wouldn't accept it anymore because they
sold out of the tree I requested, etc., etc. I ended up getting the tree I wanted with the backups they had available
but still only got 1. Trees can get diseased, die, get damaged by the elements and humans. It seems very
restrictive to only allow two trees for the life of the house. I get that you have to keep costs down and all that also
though and unfortunately, I'm sure there are tons of people out there that order these and never pick them up or
never plant them so then it's a waste. Maybe customers with a lengthy positive history could earn more? Overall
it was a good experience and I have told friends, I just wish I had the opportunity to get the other tree or another
We didn't really get time to find out anything about the trees, as soon as I turned in the paperwork someone
working there ran off and grab two trees and put them in the back of our truck, we weren't able to even look at
any of the trees or talk to anyone because they were so busy it was all a bit overwhelming. Luckily I used online
Thank you!
Thank you so much
The trees were barely a sapling. I was embarrassed to plant them in my yard. I picked the common hackberry.
Thanks so much! We love our little Oak!
Thank you for the trees!
great experience.. helpful folks at pick up....thanks so much
Great idea! Another reason why I love Boise!
I wish the tree was a little bigger.
This is a wonderful ides. Thank you.
The trees were far smaller than the site led us to believe. We purchased additional trees to match the description
of 3-5 gallon trees and we dissapointed to find the trees we were given were 1-2 gallon root balls. The time and
additional investment we made into the program was not worth the saplings we received in exchange.
Thank you! so excited!
Unfortunately, my horse ate one of the trees. :(
its a great program and brings more trees/vegetation to the valley
Great Program for the City of Trees!!
Wow! Fantastic program!
Thank you for doing this!
Thank you for this wonderful project.
One is very vigorous and one is kind of iffie
THANK YOU!
This is a great program from Idaho Power! It was very easy to place our order, we received clear communication
on picking up and planting our trees, and everyone at the pick up event was really friendly and knowledgeable.
The process seemed unnecessarily long and convoluted. I had to indicate interest (email sign up), wait for the
tool, play with the tool )which was very cool!), then I got a series of notifications, and finally went to the event.
The only time dig line was mentioned was in a letter about a week before the pick up event, but that could've
The people who were at the pick up event were so friendly and made the process fun. I learned cool facts about
the trees and had a great time. I was really excited to get picked and to go home and plant the trees. The
BOTH TREES DIED
Trees were delivered too late. Lost one tree to heat or was dead on arrival. Should have delivered at leat 30 days
or more prior to the April pickup.
Thanks !!
Everyone was very helpfull
Thank you so much for making trees available to help with future energy costs.
I strongly support this program and believe it is very worthwhile
On the online tool I was going to plant the second tree on the southwest side of my house. It looked like a good
location based on your map tool. But after selecting the tree and talking to the folks when I picked up the tree,
my selected site / tree is not appropriate. It will be too big for that location. But Overall things went great and I
The tape that held the stick to the tree needs to be stronger. I didn't realize my tape had ripped and when the
first winds started I almost lost the tree.
A fantastic program!
Wonderful project. I love my trees. Thank you.

I just want to say THANK YOU for my 2 beautiful trees. They are thriving and growing!! THANK YOU
Thank you for my free trees. I love them!!!
Thank you so much for my trees! They are doing very well and I truly appreciate them. While one will not end up
providing much shade to my home, it will provide more shade to my yard, and my neighbors will appreciate it in
We got a Kentucky coffee tree. I read up on them and found that the fruits are poisonous. Did we get male or
A job very well done. The arborist was knowledgeable, helpful, friendly, and informative. I would participate again
if allowed, but for now I'll just tell everyone I know about the project. The trees are beautiful and provide so many
My new northern red oak tree is doing great and we are looking forward to the shade it will soon provide.
One tree already died, I don't think the other one is going to make it either.
This is a nice project, but the advertising that the trees will save money is somewhat in error-- most people don't
stay in there homes long enough for these "trees" to be of any shade value for 5-10 years from planting--they're
just too small to provide any volume of shade. The cost of water for the trees outweighs the savings in power
that won't come for several years. It is nice to get trees, but the advertising of the benefits vs. the actual costs
I not only would recommend the Shade Tree Project to friends, I have recommended it to several. And at least
one has gone online to sign up for the next time. I know I have also signed up to get a second tree.
Great program
Great idea. Promotes tree life and tree Abu dance in our city of trees. Very proud to be lucky enough to have
Love the trees I got and all the helpful planting tips, although I thought maybe the trees would be a little bigger
than they were but I didn't really know what to expect.
Cool project, thanks!
Great program!! Thank you for this generous program.
it was a wonderful and fun day..:-)
We think it is so awesome that Idaho Power offers this service. Do wish that they would allow us to get more then
2 trees-I know, sounds greedy. So glad that people are excited about the program and are putting more trees in
Thanks for helping with cooling down my yard and home.
I would like care instructions for the future. Pruning? Fertilizer?
I think this was a great project. The whole process was very simple, the people that were at the pickup event
were very knowledgable and helped me understand how to plant the tree with confidence.
Thanks for the free trees!
If possible, I would like to get two more trees next year. They're great and doing well.
Awesome program. Thank you.
Offer more varieties of trees.
I only waited to plant my tree because I wasn't physically able. I kept it watered and it is doing beautifully.
Have told my friends about this program! Thank You
Great program
I've already mentioned it to several friends who may be looking to plant a tree at some point.
My only regret after planting was that I didn't have any fertilizer/special soil/root ball treatments to add. About a
month after I planted the shade tree, I later planted another tree I purchased at Farwest and they were very
knowledgable about what fertilizer to add, etc. It would be ideal to either receive treatments to add when planting
I AM VERY GRATEFUL TO HAVE PARTICIPATED IN THIS PROJECT
When picking up the tree they didn't have names or anything. You just told them you were picking up trees.
Hopefully everyone got their trees.
This program is great. The trees are small but will grow. I passed this program on to several clientsand friends.
One of the trees looked to be dead when it was given to us. We planted it but it did not survive.
The tree I was given was in very poor health. I have planted many trees in my yard and this the first one that
died. I was able to get it to grow from the root base, but the tree is in poor shape. I will be removing the dead
tree and possibly replacing it with a new shade tree in the spring.
Would love to see larger tree options - even if there was a 'pay extra for a larger tree' opportunity. Maybe at a
I was told at the tree pick up to remove the stake from the tree so it could "learn to grow strong in the wind." They
completely bent over and we had to re-stake them. We had stakes a few inches away from them, but not right on
the trunk like they came. One of them might not make it.
If you offer this project again, please contact us who participated this year, so we can refer family/friends to the
Please call me. I have questions. 208-297-0272
Great program. I now have my second and last tree. Too bad. I got this 2016 tree to replace a tree that is dying in
backyard. Wish you would acquire large corner property in Meridian and create a forest of your own. It would
alleviate air pollution from all this traffic. Meridian downtown and ALL parking lots need more trees. It would also
help absorb rain for much needed ground water. Can't say enough good things about this program. Also thanks
my tree was doing great, budded out into leaves then we got a hot spell and all the leaves turned became dry
One tree was almost dead, it never leafed out and has instead grown as a bush from the roots. Disappointed to
receive an almost dead tree
Our tree is doing great!
This is a great opportunity. Our trees are very healthy and we were highly impressed with the quality. Thank you
Idaho Power for your wonderful program!
I've been recommending this program to friends and family. Hopefully it continues!
I am struggling to keep my trees alive. I have been told by a local nursery that Burr Oaks are not a good choice
for the soil in the Kuna area. I am hoping that the trees will survive, but I would suggest that Idaho Power provide
trees that are actually suited to the Kuna soil conditions.
This is the best program ever I wish I could enroll every year
Nice job! I think this a better solution than building more coal power plants.
Thank you!
Maybe offer a few maple trees next time. Also if it weren't for my friends I would have never known about this and
not received a tree. I don't think I received any info about it and I live in a new home.
Pay for delivery?
Thank you, Idaho Power!
I found the Shade Tree project to be incredibly helpful and beneficial. Part of this was timing, admittedly - I'd just
recently purchased a home with a large west-facing backyard and no landscaping in the backyard, so it was
basically your ideal scenario - but the overall ease of use and information was fantastic. I didn't even think of a
Your web site sucks
Would like to receive a follow-up when it is offered again. This is a great idea and think it is impactful to the
energy use of homes in our sunny environment.
Response
Percent
Response
Count
54.4%280
45.6%235
515
16
Idaho Power Shade Tree Survey
skipped question
May we use your name and comments in Idaho Power's communication efforts?
Answer Options
Yes
No
answered question
May we use your name and comments in Idaho Power's communication
efforts?
Yes
No
Response
Percent
Response
Count
58.5%299
41.5%212
511
20
Idaho Power Shade Tree Survey
skipped question
May we follow up with you if we have any questions regarding your responses to the
survey questions?
Answer Options
Yes
No
answered question
May we follow up with you if we have any questions regarding your responses
to the survey questions?
Yes
No
Response
Percent
Response
Count
8.4%43
5.3%27
2.7%14
16.5%85
4.7%24
16.0%82
21.2%109
24.7%127
0.6%3
514
17skipped question
Idaho Power Shade Tree Survey
1960–1969
2007–2015
Answer Options
1980–1989
answered question
1950–1959
2000–2006
When was this residence originally built? (Select when the building was originally
constructed, not when it was remodeled, added to, or converted.)
1970–1979
Don't know
Before 1950
1990–1999
When was this residence originally built? (Select when the building was
originally constructed, not when it was remodeled, added to, or converted.)
Before 1950
1950–1959
1960–1969
1970–1979
1980–1989
1990–1999
2000–2006
2007–2015
Don't know
Response
Percent
Response
Count
24.1%124
69.6%358
1.0%5
0.6%3
2.9%15
1.8%9
514
17
What one fuel is most often used to heat this residence? (Mark one)
Fuel Oil
Electricity
Other (please specify)
Idaho Power Shade Tree Survey
Propane
skipped question
Answer Options
Wood
Natural gas
answered question
What one fuel is most often used to heat this residence? (Mark one)
Electricity
Natural gas
Propane
Fuel Oil
Wood
Other (please specify)
What one fuel is most often used to heat this residence? (Mark
one)
Other (please specify)
Geothermal
Geothermal
combinationof wood and gas
Geothermal
pellets
Wood Pellets
Pellets
I
Pellet stove
Response
Percent
Response
Count
0.8%4
87.4%450
6.6%34
5.6%29
1.0%5
1.6%8
515
16
What type of air conditioning system is used at this residence? (Check all that apply)
Individual room or window air conditioner
None
Other (please specify)
Idaho Power Shade Tree Survey
Heat pump
skipped question
Answer Options
Evaporative/swamp cooler
Central air conditioner
answered question
0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0% 100.0%
No
n
e

Ce
n
t
r
a
l

a
i
r

co
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
e
r

He
a
t

p
u
m
p

In
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l

r
o
o
m

o
r

wi
n
d
o
w

a
i
r

co
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
e
r

Ev
a
p
o
r
a
t
i
v
e
/
s
w
a
m
p

co
o
l
e
r

Ot
h
e
r

(
p
l
e
a
s
e

sp
e
c
i
f
y
)

What type of air conditioning system is used at this residence? (Check all that
apply)
What type of air conditioning system is used at this residence? (Check
all that apply)
Other (please specify)
Geo-thermal
Geothermal
Geothermal
water to air heat pump
Gas Furnace
Box fans
Swamp cooler
Ceiling fans, air circulation, open windows and floor fans at night
Response
Percent
Response
Count
60.5%306
39.5%200
506
25
Idaho Power Shade Tree Survey
skipped question
What is your gender?
Answer Options
Female
Male
answered question
What is your gender?
Female
Male
Response
Percent
Response
Count
0.0%0
1.0%5
25.5%129
28.1%142
30.0%152
15.4%78
506
25
Which of the following best describes your age?
35-44
Under 18
Over 60
Idaho Power Shade Tree Survey
25-34
skipped question
Answer Options
45-60
18-24
answered question
Which of the following best describes your age?
Under 18
18-24
25-34
35-44
45-60
Over 60
Response
Percent
Response
Count
0.4%2
10.1%51
33.7%170
34.3%173
7.9%40
13.7%69
505
26
What is the highest level of education you have completed?
4-year college degree
Less than high school
Graduate degree
Idaho Power Shade Tree Survey
Some college/technical school
skipped question
Answer Options
Some graduate courses
High school or equivalent
answered question
What is the highest level of education you have completed?
Less than high school
High school or equivalent
Some college/technical
school
4-year college degree
Some graduate courses
Graduate degree
Smart-saver Pledge 2016 Survey Results
Response
Percent
Response
Count
74.3%303
54.4%222
11.3%46
18.9%77
55.9%228
408
3
2016 Smart-saver Pledge Follow-Up Survey
Register for myAccount, and review my energy use once
Answer Options
Use the crockpot or BBQ once a week instead of the
Wash full loads of laundry in cold water and hang dry
skipped question
Which of the following pledges did you commit to? (Select all that apply)
Have a "no electronics" night once a week (no TV,
Turn my thermostat down one to three degrees
answered question
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
Turn my
thermostat down
one to three
degrees
Wash full loads
of laundry in cold
water and hang
dry when
possible
Register for
myAccount, and
review my
energy use once
a week
Have a "no
electronics" night
once a week (no
TV, computer,
etc.)
Use the crockpot
or BBQ once a
week instead of
the stove
Which of the following pledges did you commit to? (Select all that apply)
Response
Percent
Response
Count
95.9%394
4.1%17
411
0
2016 Smart-saver Pledge Follow-Up Survey
skipped question
Were you able to meet your pledge(s) for the full 21 days?
Answer Options
Yes
No
answered question
Were you able to meet your pledge(s) for the full 21 days?
Yes
No
Response
Percent
Response
Count
0.0%0
13.3%2
0.0%0
13.3%2
73.3%11
15
396
2016 Smart-saver Pledge Follow-Up Survey
Low priority
Answer Options
Other (please specify)
Time
skipped question
What kept you from meeting the Smart-saver pledge?
Other individuals in my household were not aligned
Comfort
answered question
What kept you from meeting the Smart-saver pledge?
Comfort
Time
Low priority
Other individuals in my household were not aligned
Other (please specify)
forgot about checking useage
Tv
Too cold most days to hang laundry outside.
hard to hang laundry outside when it is cold, or too wet. It doesn't dry very
well
I forgot to turn thermostat down one day after I left for work.
cold laundry wahes DON'T give me clean I want. Did purchase energ ef
washing machine and do hang clothes outside. . .until it snowed :(
I forgot to check the usage during the second week.
Time to reprogram the thermostat
havent got around to it
Had to do laundry for my folks a couple times and they did not have full
loads
I had lots of company. Hard to manage their use. Back in schedule now
will do better
What kept you from meeting the Smart-saver pledge?
Other (please specify)
Response
Percent
Response
Count
99.7%393
0.3%1
394
17
2016 Smart-saver Pledge Follow-Up Survey
skipped question
Will you continue with your energy-saving change(s) now that the pledge has ended?
Answer Options
Yes
No
answered question
Will you continue with your energy-saving change(s) now that the pledge has
ended?
Yes
No
Response
Percent
Response
Count
11.7%46
48.6%191
10.4%41
22.9%90
6.4%25
393
18
All of the above!!!!
I don't need electronics in my lifestyle every day.
Adds variety to meals consumed.
All of the above
Not home all the time
All of the above
All of the above
Preference
All of the above
2016 Smart-saver Pledge Follow-Up Survey
Help the environment
Answer Options
Other (please specify)
Save money
skipped question
What is the primary reason you will continue with the energy-saving change(s)?
It's the right thing to do
Save energy
answered question
What is the primary reason you will continue with the energy-saving change(s)?
Save energy
Save money
Help the environment
It's the right thing to do
Other (please specify)
Save money and energy and help the environment
all of the above
Save money and energy both
Do hand washables at home. Go out to wash when need a big wash.
I have always done these things - my parents taught me long ago
all the above
All are very important to us
all of the above
All of the above
All of the above plus decrease screen time
All of the above
Line-dried clothes smell SO good and ultraviolet light kills germs.
It is an easy enough change to implement in order to save energy & money without having to alter
our daily patterns too much.
All of the above factor into my decision
All of the above!!!!
I don't need electronics in my lifestyle every day.
Adds variety to meals consumed.
All of the above
Not home all the time
All of the above
All of the above. It started as a money saving endeavor but it's always the right thing to do to save
energy and the environment.
The crock pot has been super nice as I've been making meals in the morning when I personally still
have energy. It's harder to make dinner after a long day chasing a baby and toddler.
All of the above
Preference
All of the above
What is the primary reason you will continue with the energy-saving change(s)?
Other (please specify)
Response
Percent
Response
Count
0.0%0
0.0%0
0.0%0
0.0%0
100.0%1
1
410
2016 Smart-saver Pledge Follow-Up Survey
Low priority
Answer Options
Other (please specify)
Time
skipped question
What is the primary reason why you won't continue with the energy-savings change(s)?
Other individuals in my household are not aligned
Comfort
answered question
What is the primary reason why you won't continue with the energy-savings
change(s)?
Comfort
Time
Low priority
Other individuals in my
household are not aligned
Other (please specify)
What is the primary reason why you won't continue with the energy-savings change(s)?
Other (please specify)
I think warm water gets my clothes cleaner, and we've both had colds recently, so I want to get rid of the germs.
Response
Percent
Response
Count
29.7%121
51.1%208
19.2%78
407
4
2016 Smart-saver Pledge Follow-Up Survey
Did not affect my awareness
Answer Options
skipped question
Made me somewhat more aware
How did taking the Smart-saver pledge affect your awareness of your energy habits?
answered question
Made me much more aware
How did taking the Smart-saver pledge affect your awareness of your energy
habits?
Made me much more aware
Made me somewhat more aware
Did not affect my awareness
Response
Percent
Response
Count
54.0%221
44.5%182
1.5%6
0.0%0
409
2
After taking the Smart-saver pledge, how likely are you to seek out additional ways to
save energy?
Not likely at all
Very likely
skipped question
2016 Smart-saver Pledge Follow-Up Survey
Not very likely
Answer Options
answered question
Somewhat likely
After taking the Smart-saver pledge, how likely are you to seek out additional
ways to save energy?
Very likely
Somewhat likely
Not very likely
Not likely at all
Response
Percent
Response
Count
16.9%69
56.1%229
24.0%98
2.9%12
408
3
What is your level of awareness of other Idaho Power Energy Efficiency programs?
Not aware at all
Very aware
skipped question
2016 Smart-saver Pledge Follow-Up Survey
Not very aware
Answer Options
answered question
Somewhat aware
What is your level of awareness of other Idaho Power Energy Efficiency
programs?
Very aware
Somewhat aware
Not very aware
Not aware at all
Response
Percent
Response
Count
58.1%172
39.2%116
2.7%8
0.0%0
296
115
After taking the Smart-saver pledge, how likely are you to participate in an Idaho Power
Energy Efficiency program?
Not likely at all
Very likely
skipped question
2016 Smart-saver Pledge Follow-Up Survey
Not very likely
Answer Options
answered question
Somewhat likely
After taking the Smart-saver pledge, how likely are you to participate in an
Idaho Power Energy Efficiency program?
Very likely
Somewhat likely
Not very likely
Not likely at all
Response
Percent
Response
Count
52.1%213
11.2%46
0.0%0
2.4%10
15.2%62
2.4%10
12.5%51
4.2%17
409
2
online I think
Idaho Power pamphlet sent to me
Mail. It came with my bill
skipped question
Facebook
Friend, relative or neighbor
How did you first learn about the Smart-saver pledge?
TV
answered question
Bill insert
Idaho Power employee
2016 Smart-saver Pledge Follow-Up Survey
Twitter
Other (please specify)
Answer Options
Idaho Power website
How did you first learn about the Smart-saver pledge?
Bill insert
Facebook
Twitter
TV
Idaho Power website
Idaho Power employee
Friend, relative or neighbor
Other (please specify)
How did you first learn about the Smart-saver pledge?
Other (please specify)
Sweepstakes
E mail notice
dont remember
Item in The Boise Weekly
Email
can't remember - either bill insert or e-mail from Idaho Power Empowered Community
Email
Email
sent me an e-mail
Article in the Boise Weekly
Received and emial from Idaho Power about it.
If I recall correctly it showed up in an email or through the emPowered community
empowered community
Nextdoor
online I think
Idaho Power pamphlet sent to me
Mail. It came with my bill
Response
Percent
Response
Count
32.9%134
60.7%247
2.0%8
2.9%12
1.5%6
407
4
2016 Smart-saver Pledge Follow-Up Survey
Propane
Answer Options
Other
Natural gas
skipped question
What is the primary fuel used to heat your home?
Wood
Electricity 
answered question
What is the primary fuel used to heat your home?
Electricity
Natural gas
Propane
Wood
Other
Response
Count
330
330
81
Response
Text
83705
83686
83716
83702
83704
83607
83646
83204
83702
83646
83651
83712
83313
83646
83686
83646
83605
83646
83686
83221
83301
83634
83705
83634
83301
83709
83617
83467
83616
83607
83676
83686
83338
83646
83686
83709
83712
83712
83646
skipped question
2016 Smart-saver Pledge Follow-Up Survey
What is your zip code?
Answer Options
answered question
83612
83713
83349
83656
83709
83705
83634
83647
83651
83704
83704
83211
83301
83706
83639
83651
83713
83646
83628
83714
83647
83202
83301
86386
83705
83704
83706
83702
83646
83703
83709
83647
83687
83629
83706
83716
83201
83628
83622
83651
83713
83301
83301
83314
83619
83334
83301
83686
83712
83703
83642
83201
83714
83709
83352
83201
83202
83651
83704
83714
83651
83705
83716
83709
83647
83301
83465
83204
83706
83642
83626
83686
83703
83709
83616
83642
83202
83328
83646
83714
83705
83605
83333
83642
83338
83686
83629
83204
83706
83703
83622
83638
83301
83713
83702
83716
83301
83646
83686
83704
83330
83642
83651
83686
83706
83330
83660
83713
83605
83709
83204
83702
83210
83686
83686
83706
83617
83642
83646
83672
83617
83704
83713
83301
83651
83350
83651
83704
83301
83642
83709
83201
83647
83705
83467
83703
83709
83646
83704
83616
83686
83651
83702
83650
83642
83714
83629
83202
83204
83335
83714
83605
83646
83713
83703
83709
83705
83686
83646
83202
83702
83714
83704
83642
83646
83605
83301
83705
83704
83706
83705
83079
83704
83201
83202
83611
83713
83638
83210
83622
83642
83338
83607
83467
83616
83646
83301
83706
83687
83642
83703
83714
83607
83301
83705
83676
83340
83333
83202
83713
83221
83642
83669
83687
83709
83642
83646
83646
83651
83716
83714
83709
83706
83642
83646
83702
83709
83607
83669
83709
83709
83301
83647
83651
83714
83709
83333
83201
83686
83201
83716
83201
83651
83709
83686
83712
83211
83705
83612
83706
83301
83709
83607
83716
83605
83201
83712
83201
83716
83616
83709
83713
83709
83335
83646
83641
83687
83634
83672
83615
83634
83201
83712
83709
83619
83344
83350
83702
83714
83647
83328
83642
83642
83702
83204
83301
83201
83716
83647
83709
83703
83702
83713
83706
83301
83713
83703
83607
83706
83316
83334
Response
Percent
Response
Count
22.1%89
77.9%314
403
8
2016 Smart-saver Pledge Follow-Up Survey
skipped question
What is your gender?
Answer Options
Male
Female
answered question
What is your gender?
Male
Female
Response
Percent
Response
Count
2.7%11
23.8%97
32.4%132
26.7%109
14.5%59
408
3
2016 Smart-saver Pledge Follow-Up Survey
36-50
Answer Options
Over 65
26-35
skipped question
Which of the following best describes your age?
51-65
Under 25
answered question
Which of the following best describes your age?
Under 25
26-35
36-50
51-65
Over 65
Response
Percent
Response
Count
0.5%2
0.7%3
10.3%42
23.5%96
14.2%58
28.9%118
5.6%23
16.2%66
408
3skipped question
Some high school
Some graduate courses
What is the highest level of education you completed?
Some college
answered question
Less than high school
Four year college degree
2016 Smart-saver Pledge Follow-Up Survey
High school graduate or equivalent
Advanced degree
Answer Options
Two year Associate degree orTrade/Technical school
What is the highest level of education you completed?
Less than high school
Some high school
High school graduate or equivalent
Some college
Two year Associate degree
orTrade/Technical school
Four year college degree
Some graduate courses
Advanced degree
Response
Percent
Response
Count
63.3%257
36.7%149
406
5
2016 Smart-saver Pledge Follow-Up Survey
skipped question
May we use your name and comments in Idaho Power's communication efforts?
Answer Options
Yes
No
answered question
May we use your name and comments in Idaho Power's communication
efforts?
Yes
No
Response
Count
92
92
319
Power pledge is a good one thanks;

I was grateful for the opportunity to
My bills may not effect any decreased usage as I recently purchased a hot tub.
Loved the program. :)
I appreciate what Idaho Power is doing to inform consumers about ways to use energy
efficiently.
making the public of energy saver & environment awareness is a bright idea. reminder is
awareness with incentive is motivating. it is a good idea specially for those who needs it.
Thank You for taking the time to educate others and encourage awareness in our
communities.
Good to see Idaho Power reaching out to promote energy awareness. 😊
i verey much want to save power. will take all the help i can get.
Thanks for caring!
Thank you to Idaho Power for reaching out in order to educate and support our
community and state.
I already filled this out. Why did I receive it again?
I'd love more emails on ways to save on energy and programs you will be running.
Take the time to help save energy and lower your monthly bill! 😊
The drying rack broke about a week after I received it.
I love all the energy savings programs that you do! Though I often hear about them after
they are done. It would be nice if people interested in participating in such programs
could sign up to be notified of upcoming programs beforehand.
My power usage was less November 2016 when I was not using my oven as much to
save power compared to November 2015
skipped question
Thank you for taking the time to participate in this survey. We value your opinions and
comments. If you have any additional comments, please share your thoughts in the
space below.
Response Text
I have learned some things. I have not been able to change the shower head as I can't
get the old one off. I am not changing the kitchen faucet because I have a portable
dishwasher attachment on it. I have replaced all my incandescent bulbs. I checked all
the temperatures and found them okay. It will be interesting to see the results.
2016 Smart-saver Pledge Follow-Up Survey
Thank you for taking the time to participate in this survey. We value your opinions and
Answer Options
answered question
I appreciate your efforts to save energy.
Thanks for giving us the information to start with the energy saving program. We have
had the inspection, which changed out some light bulbs and pointed out household
repairs that needed to be made, planted two trees and are getting ready to sign up for
additional light bulbs.
Thanks for giving ideas and incentives to save power.
none
Thank you for everything you provided for my home.
Please commit to a participants complete and total privacy. Several survey questions
were offensive wherein they do not give desired privacy and anonymity.
If you have additional boxes of bulbs etc. We would be grateful. As our incomehas
dramatically declined. Thank you for the information. It's very helpful and makes me think
about how we can save a little here and there.
I would like to learn about more ways to save as a renter.
Idaho Power is a good company. I like its innovation and initiatives.
Thank you for all you do to increase energy savings and to preserve our beautiful
environment in Idaho. Very important work you are doing!
I have always tried to be very energy conscious, shutting off lights when leaving a room,
adjust washer per load, not stand with the door open when cooling or heating. But by
conserving the way that I had this time was a challenge. I have always left my heating set
at 70 degrees, which was still a bit cool for me at times. I pledged to turn down my heat. I
figured that I would decrease by 4 instead. I need to decrease my bills anyway because
of being on a very limited income. I found that I could survive at 66 degrees with a very
warm blanket while stationary. My dogs are happier with the lower temperature and I will
continue to be also. Thank you Idaho Power for giving me that extra little nudge that I
needed to meet a new & lasting goal.
I always thought I was energy efficient, until I read more of Idaho Power's energy saving
tips and took this pledge! I have shared this information with my friends, relatives, &
everyone at work as well. Thank you!
Now that we've gone solar, we are getting a plug in hybrid car, and a ceramic core heater
which we'll use in our living room in the evenings.
I have always tried to be conscious of energy use and saving money. When the energy
saving list bulbs first came out years ago, I switched to using them all over my house,
and it significantly lowered my ID. Power bill. Plus, have always turned off lights when
leaving a room.
I am always looking for ways to save energy. We have been given such a gift with our
heating and cooling system and I want to make it last a long time. Thank you
It really makes you aware of how much energy you are using by logging on to Idaho
Power Website and looking at your Usage.
This is a great program. I think that the investment cost for energy efficient light bulb,
faucets, showers, etc. keep people from doing these things, even when they know the
benefits. Combining free products, education, and follow-up is a perfect combination.
Thank you.
I am glad to see that there is an effort to help people learn about conserving energy.
None
Great service, great projects great communication, thank you
I really appreciate the energy news" insert in the monthly bill. Also, my family
appreciates the energy contest you have each year. This "smart-saver" idea was a
wonderful, quick and easy way to make a difference, both economically and
environmentally. Similar to your A/C credit. Fantastic ideas! Speaking of money....I am
surprised you have color inserts. That is a lot of money, energy use, and expensive ink.
Maybe, you could go black & white and pass on the savings.... As an educator, I really
appreciate that you have provided wonderful learning opportunity tours of the
hydroelectric facility for our youth. Keep up the great work! Idaho Power is truly part of
the community!!
I was glad to see this pledge on Channel 7 News in Boise, Idaho. It definitely gave me
more ideas of how to save energy.
It has been quite easy for me to lower my thermostat 3-5 degrees. The dogs are not as
hot and I simply snuggle up with a blanket while watching tv or sitting down.
I hope many of your customers took the pledge to be energy smarter and not for
hopefully a monetary reward but for pride and satisfaction for just doing it. Here are some
of my family's experiences - seeing my adult children's young faces and now
grandchildren's as they burrow in outdoor dried bed sheets taking in the smell of fresh air
and sunlight, tasting awesome flavors of charcoal grilled meats and vegetables all year
long not just in the summer (the Weber knows all seasons), sleeping better at night by
turning down the temp during the winter or opening the windows/patio doors during the
summer, and never turning on the bathroom and laundry room lights during the day since
installing solar tube lighting. When my husband and I installed the last of the solar tubes
in the darkest rooms of our house (2 bathrooms and laundry room), I started tracking our
monthly electric usage and cost for two years. My thought was following for two years
would give me a good compare to see if the investment was worth it. Boy, was it! I'll
continue to monitor; it's become habit and actually fun to follow the monthly progress and
figure out what caused a difference if any. Habit is the key to becoming an energy smart
saver and, for our multi-generations family, has become a daily and normal practice to
us. We're instilling this lifestyle to our grandchildren so they too will be good energy
smart ambassadors. I apologize for the lengthy comment but I could go on and on but will
stop now. :)
I think Idaho Power is the best.
Could sure use another box of those great light bulbs. Cost way to much to buy in McCall.
Great job bringing awareness to your customers.
Thanks for the kit.
I think these challenges and incentives are highly effective in getting the community on
board with saving e energy and becoming more aware of other options they have in
helping our environment thrive. Thank you!
The changes that I make to my electricity usage would never be driven by the Pledge.
The Pledge was a fun way to test my awareness and enter the drawing. Changes to my
household energy usage are driven by personal circumstances, economics, and
somewhat by environmental concerns.
Although I did not make all the changes I had planned to, they are still on my to-do list.
Thank you for the reminders and encouragement!
n/aWe sit in dark w/;only TV going most nights. I was taught to turn out light when leaving
room. Have few "new" lights that are frustrating kuz they take 10 min to actually come on
and then lend to not turning them off when you leave room so that when you come back
into the room you'll be able to see what you want and then leave again. Have visited
energy efficiant vacation resorts and VERY frustrated that the lights DON'T give the light
needed to see! It doesn't seem like anything is saved if instead of turning lights off when
you are done w/them you are encouraged to LEAVE them on so that when you return
I really learned a lot about my electricity consumption during this pledge. Thank you.
I love stuff like this. It makes us just more aware of the things we "should" be doing and
helps us make smarter choices...like using a BBQ or Crock-pot and turning down that
temperature a few degrees.
I was very pleased with the items in the Energy Saving Kit and put them all to use right
away! I have been practicing energy conservation for several years on my own, so the kit
just reinforces my efforts. I really like the LED nightlight and the shower timer!
I'm glad you are doing this type of program to bring greater awareness to our community
members. If people realize they can save money AND help the environment, everyone
wins!
Great program! Thank you to whoever organized this effort!
Always willing to help out the environment and save money along the way. Thank you
for offering various saving programs.
Thank you for the box of energy saving light bulbs!
I wouldn't have know about the smart-saver program unless I had seen the insert in my
monthly bill. My furnace repairman didn't even about it.
We moved here from California and did the same thing there. We keep the temp at the
same temp and the and it is easier keeping the house at one temp and it gets to worm
and the temp has to be turned down even with it being cold outside.
I will be watching for the free drying rack you offer. I wasn't able to hang every thing
because I only could put in one line. It will certainly be a continued process. Thanks
Keep helping us make smart choices in energy consumption!
I always have my heat turned down in the winter to about 64*. I work at night so I don't
get to watch much t.v. I changed all the light bulbs in the home to ones you sent. They
are very nice.
Thanks for having a program!

Please continue to offer more and continue to educate all users to the benefits of
efficiency!
I'd really like to see an expansion / more info on the clothes racks. I think it's a great tool,
but many people don't have them, know where to get them, know enough about them. I'd
like to normalize this practice : )
I have implemented more of the energy saving ideas like changing my usage for both
washer/dryer and dishwasher, changing house temperature, using the windows for more
solar energy/heat etc.; also qualified for the Weatherization project for needed upgrades.
Glad to do my part to save energy and lower my bill.
I appreciate the modern technological advances but know that life is possible with less of
them. I lived as a child where oil lamps were all that was available. Electric lights are a
real blessing. The solar farms are fascinating to me. What a great idea!! Thanks for the
steady, economical supply of electricity
I liked taking the pledge and trying something new that saves energy and money. I knew
that using cold water to wash my clothes would save energy but I didn't think my clothes
would come clean. After taking the pledge and 21 days of washing with cold water I
discovered the clothes come just as clean. I will be using cold water from now on.
Thank you......
This is the lowest months power bill I have ever had! Thanks!
Thank you for the opportunity and the helpful information regarding saving energy and
conserving our resources.
Happy to see Idaho Power taking the initiative to make Idaho more energy efficient!
Don't use dishwasher. Turn therm. down to 68 degrees at night. Hang clothes when
possible. Use less water.

I appreciate Idaho Power encouraging everyone to save energy and help the
environment!
I think this was a great idea. We need to try more things like this and keep doing it so it
reaches more and more people.
I try to save power and be energy efficient most the time. So that's why I answered being
part of the challenge did not cause me to be more aware.
I was already aware that turning my thermostat down saves energy but this challenge
pushed me to actually do it. We usually have it set at 71 and we turned it down to 68. It
was a little cold for a day or two but we soon got used to it. Now that Idaho powers
challenge is over we have left it there because we had gotten used to it. We may as well
continue to save the money and the energy. Thanks for the push, Idaho Power.
When I called Idaho Power with a question the CSR walked me thru your website & I
really liked being made aware of all the savings programs offered there I'd just never
seen before.
Thank you for recognizing and rewarding power saving efforts!
Also switched over to all leds.
Please keep trying and helping others to save money on there electricity.
I value your outreach. It is a beneficial reminder, in which I take action. Thank you.
Happy Holidays!
I love Idaho Power my father, grandfather and uncle all have been employed by the
company.
Love that the survey is always short and to the point. No unnecessary questions
Love Idaho Power.
Pledge helped me be more aware of energy usage and small and easy ways to save
energy.
I want to say that it's great that Idaho Power is helping customers understand and lower
there power bill. It is so important to help others and our environment!!
Continue these types of programs which will help reduce energy use and save money!
Thank you for the free drying rack I use it ALL the time and it does help on lowering our
energy bills and the environment...Happy Holidays to each and everyone...May God
Bless!
It will be an additional incentive if people are able to visually see the difference on before
and after the changes were made. Eg cost or energy used before each change.
I think your energy efficiency programs are great. I've participated in 3 (shade trees,
home energy kit, and this one) and I think it's a great service to the customers
Good idea to make me more aware of my energy use. I wasn't 100%, but I did think
about my energy consumption more often.
Final Results
Thanksgiving Cooking Efficiency Study
November 30, 2016
Survey was sent to 1,017 empowered community members
Participation rate was 66%
Respondent data
83% homeowners / 11% renters
49% male / 51% female
23% from CanyonWest region / 55% from Capital region / 22% from SouthEast region
27% from electrically heated homes / 65% from natural gas heated homes / 8% from homes heated
by other fuel sources
QUESTION TOTAL:659
DID NOT ANSWER:0
OPTIONS TOTAL
O1 At your home 298
O2 At a friend's or family
member's home
302
O3 At a restaurant 32
O4 Other 27
45.83%
4.86%
4.10%
Where do you plan to have Thanksgiving dinner?
PERCENT
45.22%
45.22%
45.83%
4.86%
4.10%
At your home
At a friend's or family member's home
At a restaurant
Other
QUESTION TOTAL:659
DID NOT ANSWER:0
OPTIONS TOTAL
O1 Turkey 535
O2 Ham 42
O3 Roast beef / Prime rib 22
O4 Fish 4
O5 Vegetarian main dish 27
O6 Other 29
Lamb
Lasagna
Lobster
Not sure yet
Pork roast
tacos
Thai food
Turduckin
Turkey if we could afford
unknow
Vegan Main Dish
vegetables
Whatever is affordable
4.10%
4.40%
6.37%
3.34%
0.61%
What is your preferred main course for Thanksgiving dinner?
PERCENT
81.18%
81.18%
6.37%
3.34%
0.61%
4.10%
4.40%
Turkey
Ham
Roast beef / Prime rib
Fish
Vegetarian main dish
Other
What is your preferred main course for Thanksgiving dinner? Other (please specify).
Verbatim Responses
Pizza
Game Hens
cheese fondue
chinese takeout
cornish hen
depends on what we want to cook
desserts
Don't celebrate and too poor too if I did.
eclectric
Enchiladas
Escargot/Crusty Baguettes/Ceasar salad
Fried chicken
i dont have anywhere to go
Lamb
Lasagna
Lobster
Not sure yet
Pork roast
tacos
Thai food
Turduckin
Turkey if we could afford
unknow
Vegan Main Dish
vegetables
Whatever is affordable
QUESTION TOTAL:298
DID NOT ANSWER:0
OPTIONS TOTAL
O1 4 or less 129
O2 5-10 109
O3 11-15 39
O4 16-20 12
O5 More than 20 9 3.02%
asked only of respondents who said they were having Thanksgiving dinner at their home
36.58%
13.09%
4.03%
How many people will you be preparing dinner for?
PERCENT
43.29%
43.29%
36.58%
13.09%
4.03%
3.02%
4 or less
5-10
11-15
16-20
More than 20
QUESTION TOTAL:298
DID NOT ANSWER:0
OPTIONS TOTAL
O1 Conventional oven 201
O2 Convection oven 40
O3 Barbecue grill (including rotisserie)8
O4 Deep-fat fryer 5
O5 Traditional smoker 6
O6 Wood pellet grill/smoker 18
O7 Countertop roaster oven 26
O8 Other 19
someone else will prepare
stove top
Stove top (boiling water)
Turkey frying pot using propane burner
unknow
Energy Efficiency Tips offered related to cooking
Here are a few energy efficiency tips to consider while preparing your Thanksgiving dinner:
- Using a grill, countertop roaster, smoker or other means of cooking uses less energy than a conventional oven.
If you are using a conventional oven:
- Set the oven to the exact temperature you intend to use. The oven won't heat up any faster at a higher setting.
- Turn off the oven 10-15 minutes prior to completion. Your oven will maintain the temperature for that length of time.
- Cook as many items in the oven as can be cooked at one time.
6.38%
How will you prepare the main course for your Thanksgiving dinner (regardless of whether it is a turkey or other meat or
meat alternative)?
2.01%
6.04%
8.72%
13.42%
2.68%
1.68%
PERCENT
67.45%
asked only of respondents who said they were having Thanksgiving dinner at their home
67.45%
13.42%
2.68%
1.68%
2.01%
6.04%
8.72%
6.38%
Conventional oven
Convection oven
Barbecue grill (including rotisserie)
Deep-fat fryer
Traditional smoker
Wood pellet grill/smoker
Countertop roaster oven
Other
How will you prepare the main course for your Thanksgiving dinner? Other (please specify).
Verbatim Responses
crock pot
Big Easy Infrared fryer
cooktop
Crockpot
Crock-Pot
Dutch oven with charcoal briquettes
electric range
Grill no rotisserie
in a juicer
Induction cooktop
microwave
Microwave - Subway Turkey Sandwich heated up!
oven
someone else will prepare
stove top
Stove top (boiling water)
Turkey frying pot using propane burner
unknow
Energy Efficiency Tips offered related to cooking
Here are a few energy efficiency tips to consider while preparing your Thanksgiving dinner:
- Using a grill, countertop roaster, smoker or other means of cooking uses less energy than a conventional oven.
If you are using a conventional oven:
- Set the oven to the exact temperature you intend to use. The oven won't heat up any faster at a higher setting.
- Don't preheat the oven unless the recipe specifically calls for it. There's no need to preheat long-cooking foods like a
turkey.
- Turn off the oven 10-15 minutes prior to completion. Your oven will maintain the temperature for that length of time.
- Limit the number of times you open the oven door. Every time you open it, the temperature drops about 25-30 degrees
and more energy is used to generate the desired level of heat.
- Cook as many items in the oven as can be cooked at one time.
QUESTION TOTAL:302
DID NOT ANSWER:0
OPTIONS TOTAL
O1 Yes 209
O2 No 93 30.79%
asked only of respondents who said they were going to a friend or family member's for Thanksgiving dinner
Will you be preparing any dishes at your home to take to Thanksgiving dinner at your friend's or family member's
home?
PERCENT
69.21%
69.21%
30.79%
Yes
No
QUESTION TOTAL:507
DID NOT ANSWER:0
OPTIONS TOTAL
O1 Electric 379
O2 Natural gas 110
O3 Propane 14
O4 Other 4
What type of kitchen range do you have in your home? Other (please specify).
Verbatim Responses
Gas cooktop, electric wall oven
gas top, electric oven
Gas top, electric oven ( propane )
NGas top, Elec oven
asked only of respondents who said they were cooking Thanksgiving dinner at their home or going to a
friend or family member's for Thanksgiving dinner
21.70%
2.76%
0.79%
What type of kitchen range do you have in your home?
PERCENT
74.75%
74.75%
21.70%
2.76%
0.79%
Electric
Natural gas
Propane
Other
QUESTION TOTAL:507
DID NOT ANSWER:0
OPTIONS TOTAL
O1 Conventional oven 277
O2 Convection oven 84
O3 Stove-top 381
O4 Microwave oven 237
O5 Crockpot 123
O6 Countertop roaster oven 23
O7 Other 26
no cooking required
none
none - salad and cranberry sauce
none, all cold items
Pressure cooker
Propane Turkey Fryer
Salad components from refrigerator
Solar Oven (if sunny)
take along and prepare there
toaster oven
Traeger
Treager Grill
asked only of respondents who said they were cooking Thanksgiving dinner at their home or going to a friend or
family member's for Thanksgiving dinner
Which of the following appliances will you use to prepare side-dishes for your Thanksgiving dinner?
24.26%
4.54%
5.13%
16.57%
75.15%
46.75%
PERCENT
54.64%
54.64%
16.57%
75.15%
46.75%
24.26%
4.54%
5.13%
Conventional oven
Convection oven
Stove-top
Microwave oven
Crockpot
Countertop roaster oven
Other
Which of the following appliances will you use to prepare side-dishes for your Thanksgiving dinner? Other (please specify).
Verbatim Responses
refrigerator
barbecue
BBQ
blenders/mixers
Conduction cooktop.
Egg boiler
George Foreman Grill
Griddle
Grill no rotisserie
I will take a cold dish
Induction Plate
infared
juicer
no cooking required
none
none - salad and cranberry sauce
none, all cold items
Pressure cooker
Propane Turkey Fryer
Salad components from refrigerator
Solar Oven (if sunny)
take along and prepare there
toaster oven
Traeger
Treager Grill
QUESTION TOTAL:445
DID NOT ANSWER:0
OPTIONS TOTAL
O1 Less than 1 58
O2 1-2 127
O3 2-3 115
O4 3-4 95
O5 5 or more 50
- Using glass baking or roasting dishes helps retain the heat better, helps food cook faster and you can usually use a
- Using a microwave, crockpot, pressure cooker, toaster oven or countertop roaster helps reduce your energy use.
- Keeping the inside of your microwave clean, improves the efficiency of microwave heating.
Energy Efficiency Tips offered related to cooking
More energy efficiency tips:
- If you use the stovetop...
* Remember to put lids on pots and pans to prevent heat loss.
* Match the pot to the size of the burner to prevent heat from escaping around the sides.
* Use the lowest-possible heat setting necessary to cook foods.
11.24%
asked only of respondents who said they were cooking Thanksgiving dinner at their home or going to a friend or
family member's for Thanksgiving dinner
Approximately how many hours do you estimate you will be using your oven and/or stovetop to prepare your
Thanksgiving dishes?
28.54%
25.84%
21.35%
PERCENT
13.03%
13.03%
28.54%
25.84%
21.35%
11.24%
Less than 1
1-2
2-3
3-4
5 or more
QUESTION TOTAL:507
DID NOT ANSWER:0
OPTIONS TOTAL
O1 Dishwasher 137
O2 By hand 97
O3 Both in a dishwasher and by hand 273
asked only of respondents who said they were cooking Thanksgiving dinner at their home or going to a friend or
family member's for Thanksgiving dinner
19.13%
53.85%
How do you wash dishes at your home?
PERCENT
27.02%
27.02%
19.13%
53.85%
Dishwasher
By hand
Both in a dishwasher and by hand
QUESTION TOTAL:410
DID NOT ANSWER:0
OPTIONS TOTAL
O1 1 247
O2 2 136
O3 3 20
O4 4 or more 7
asked only of respondents who said they use a dishwasher to wash dishes
Approximately how many loads of dishes do you anticipate washing in your dishwasher related to preparing
and serving Thanksgiving dinner?
Remember to always wash full loads of dishes in your dishwasher for highest efficiency!
Energy Efficiency Tip offered related to washing dishes
33.17%
4.88%
1.71%
PERCENT
60.24%
60.24%
33.17%
4.88%
1.71%
1
2
3
4 or more
QUESTION TOTAL:659
DID NOT ANSWER:0
OPTIONS TOTAL
O1 Yes 369
O2 No 176
O3 Not sure 114
26.71%
17.30%
Will you, your family and/or your guests be watching parades or football games on TV on Thanksgiving
Day?
PERCENT
55.99%
55.99%
26.71%
17.30%
Yes
No
Not sure
QUESTION TOTAL:369
DID NOT ANSWER:0
OPTIONS TOTAL
O1 Less than 1 11
O2 2-3 102
O3 4-5 133
O4 More than 5 123
Approximately how many hours do you estimate your television will be on during
Thanksgiving Day?
Energy Efficiency Tip offered related to watching TV
Remember to turn off the television and lights when no one is in the room.
27.64%
36.04%
33.33%
asked only of respondents who said they would be watching TV
PERCENT
2.98%
2.98%
27.64%
36.04%
33.33%
Less than 1
2-3
4-5
More than 5
Thermostatic Shut-off Valve Study
November 8, 2016
Final Results
Survey was sent to 1021 empowered community members
Participation rate was 67%
Survey was sent to all empowered community members regardless of heat source
Customers were dropped from the survey at three different decision points:
1. No shower in home
2. Do not warm up shower prior to getting in
3. Warm up shower using tub spout only
Respondent data
89% homeowners / 11% renters
49% male / 51% female
22% from CanyonWest region / 54% from Capital region / 23% from SouthEast region
28% from electrically heated homes / 64% from natural gas heated homes / 8% from homes heated by other fuel
sources
QUESTION TOTAL:677
DID NOT ANSWER:0
OPTIONS TOTAL
O1 0 2
O2 1 151
O3 2 or more 524
22.30%
77.40%
How many showers do you have in your home?
PERCENT
0.30%
0.30%
22.30%
77.40%
0
1
2 or more
Number of Showers in Home
QUESTION TOTAL:675
DID NOT ANSWER:0
OPTIONS TOTAL
O1 Yes 317
O2 No 358
Asked only of respondents with at least one shower in the home
53.04%
Please answer the following questions about the shower you yourself use most often in your home
Is it a shower/tub combination?
PERCENT
46.96%
46.96%
53.04%
Yes
No
Shower/Tub Combo?
QUESTION TOTAL:675
DID NOT ANSWER:0
OPTIONS TOTAL
O1 Yes 393
O2 No 282
Asked only of respondents with at least one shower in the home
Please answer the following questions about the shower you yourself use most often in your home
41.78%
Does it have a high-efficiency showerhead?
PERCENT
58.22%
58.22%
41.78%
Yes
No
High-Efficiency Showerhead?
QUESTION TOTAL:675
DID NOT ANSWER:0
OPTIONS TOTAL
O1 Yes 111
O2 No 564
Asked only of respondents with at least one shower in the home
Please answer the following questions about the shower you yourself use most often in your home
83.56%
Does it have a two-handled water system where one handle is for hot water and the other is for cold water?
PERCENT
16.44%
16.44%
83.56%
Yes
No
Two-handled Water System?
QUESTION TOTAL:675
DID NOT ANSWER:0
OPTIONS TOTAL
O1 Yes 588
O2 No 87 12.89%
Those with more than one shower were instructed to respond based on the shower they use and their personal
shower behaviors.
Do you turn the water on to warm up prior to getting in the shower?
PERCENT
87.11%
87.11%
12.89%
Yes
No
Warm Up Water Before Shower?
QUESTION TOTAL:266
DID NOT ANSWER:0
OPTIONS TOTAL
O1 Tub spout 115
O2 Shower 127
O3 Both 24
47.74%
9.02%
PERCENT
43.23%
Those with more than one shower were instructed to respond based on the shower they use and their personal
shower behaviors.
Asked only of respondents who say they warm the water up prior to getting in the shower
Do you warm the water up using the tub spout or the shower?
Asked only of respondents that have a tub/shower combo
43.23%
47.74%
9.02%
Tub spout
Shower
Both
Use Tub Spout, Shower or Both to Warm Water Before Shower?
QUESTION TOTAL:473
DID NOT ANSWER:0
OPTIONS TOTAL
O1 Turn faucet to hottest setting to warm up faster 187
O2 Turn faucet to your approximate desired temperature 269
O3 Neither (Please explain what actions you take to warm up the water)17
Asked only of respondents who say they warm the water up prior to getting in the shower
Those with more than one shower were instructed to respond based on the shower they use and their personal
shower behaviors.
(Please explain what actions you take to warm up the water)
When you turn on the water to warm up, which of the following actions do you take?
56.87%
3.59%
PERCENT
39.53%
Turn to hot and capture water while it heats up.
Turn to slightly warmer than normal setting.
Water temperature is preset by the faucet
Verbatim Responses
Hotter than normal but not max
I set the temp on the dial for my tankless water heater and turn the hot water on.
I turn the water to full hot, but I have shower heads that shut off once the water gets hot. When ready to shower a reset is ativated to
It takes less than half a gallon to get warm
Run it into bucket to use for toilet flushing
Turn on the hot water only and when it gets to tub, adjust temp using cold and get in.
Turn the facet to a little past the tempature that I use to shower with
step in tub section and wait for cold to became luke warm
The temp is preset.
Turn it about 2/3rd full hot
Turn my sink faucet on
Turn on Sink Faucet while shaving. Hot only
39.53%
56.87%
3.59%
Turn faucet to hottest setting to warm up faster
Turn faucet to your approximate desired temperature
Neither (Please explain what actions you take to warm
up the water)
Warm-Up Water Behavior
When it starts to get warm I get in, and when it gets too hot I quit
QUESTION TOTAL:473
DID NOT ANSWER:0
OPTIONS TOTAL
O1 Every time 295
O2 Most of the time 64
O3 Some of the time 68
O4 Never 46
Asked only of respondents who say they warm the water up prior to getting in the shower
Those with more than one shower were instructed to respond based on the shower they use and their personal
shower behaviors.
How frequently do you test the temperature of the water and adjust it before getting in the shower?
13.53%
14.38%
9.73%
PERCENT
62.37%
62.37%
13.53%
14.38%
9.73%
Every time
Most of the time
Some of the time
Never
Test Water Temperature Before Getting In Shower?
QUESTION TOTAL:473
DID NOT ANSWER:0
OPTIONS TOTAL
O1 Gets hot immediately 15
O2 Less than 30 seconds 186
O3 Between 30 seconds and 1 minute 212
O4 More than 1 minute 54
O5 Not sure 6
Those with more than one shower were instructed to respond based on the shower they use and their personal
shower behaviors.
Asked only of respondents who say they warm the water up prior to getting in the shower
1.27%
Approximately how long does it take for the water in this shower to reach your desired temperature?
39.32%
44.82%
11.42%
PERCENT
3.17%
3.17%
39.32%
44.82%
11.42%
1.27%
Gets hot immediately
Less than 30 seconds
Between 30 seconds and 1 minute
More than 1 minute
Not sure
How Long For Shower to Get Hot?
QUESTION TOTAL:473
DID NOT ANSWER:0
OPTIONS TOTAL
O1 Always 27
O2 Frequently 31
O3 Occasionally 44
O4 Seldom 119
O5 Never 252
Asked only of respondents who say they warm the water up prior to getting in the shower
Those with more than one shower were instructed to respond based on the shower they use and their
personal shower behaviors.
53.28%
How frequently would you say you let the water run a bit before you get in the shower while you do others tasks like
perhaps brushing your teeth, getting a cup of coffee, picking out your clothes for the day, etc.?
6.55%
9.30%
25.16%
PERCENT
5.71%
5.71%
6.55%
9.30%
25.16%
53.28%
Always
Frequently
Occasionally
Seldom
Never
Let Water Run While Doing Other Tasks
QUESTION TOTAL:221
DID NOT ANSWER:0
OPTIONS TOTAL
O1 Less than 1 minute 107
O2 1-2 minutes 88
O3 2-3 minutes 22
O4 3-5 minutes 3
O5 more than 5 minutes 1
Approximately how long would you estimate the water typically runs before you get in the shower?
39.82%
9.95%
1.36%
PERCENT
48.42%
Asked only of respondents who say they warm the water up prior to getting in the shower
Those with more than one shower were instructed to respond based on the shower they use and their
personal shower behaviors.
Asked Only of respondents who say they do other tasks while water is warming up
0.45%
48.42%
39.82%
9.95%
1.36%
0.45%
Less than 1 minute
1-2 minutes
2-3 minutes
3-5 minutes
more than 5 minutes
Length of Time Water Runs While Doing Other Tasks
QUESTION TOTAL:473
DID NOT ANSWER:0
OPTIONS TOTAL
O1 Very likely 160
O2 Somewhat likely 146
O3 Not very likely 103
O4 Not likely at all 64
How likely would you be to use a thermostatic shut-off shower valve in your home (for you or anyone else in your
household)?
Asked only of respondents who say they warm the water up prior to getting in the shower
Those with more than one shower were instructed to respond based on the shower they use and their
personal shower behaviors.
30.87%
21.78%
13.53%
PERCENT
33.83%
As part of its energy efficiency programs, Idaho Power is investigating a thermostatic shut-off valve to help eliminate hot-
water waste. The shut-off valve is easy to install behind most showerheads. It allows cold water to flow out of the
showerhead when the shower is first turned on, then, once the temperature of the water reaches 95 degrees, it shuts off
the flow of water until you are ready to shower. When you are ready, you simply pull the cord and the shower will return
to full pressure.
Below is an example of a thermostatic shut-off valve:
33.83%
30.87%
21.78%
13.53%
Very likely
Somewhat likely
Not very likely
Not likely at all
Likelihood To Use Thermostatic Shut-Off Valve
Why would you not be interested in a thermostatic shut-off valve?
QUESTION
TOTAL:
153
DID NOT
ANSWER:
0
Verbatim Responses
Although it's sad to admit it, our shower head has a specific style that clashes with the style of the shut-off valve. And we
jump in the shower right at the time it heats up (we don't let it run hot without us in it).
As soon as the water is at the wanted temperature, I get in.
As soon as the water is warm enough, I get in, this device would turn off the water when I'm getting in.
As soon as the water warms, I'm in the shower anyways
Basically, I do the same function and sometimes enter the shower even before the temperature reaches what the valve is
set at. Also, it's a minor inconvenience to have to pull a string and still have to adjust the temperature.
Because as soon as the water gets warm enough i get into the shower.
Installation
A step that seems unecssasary.
Adds complexity. As soon as the water is hot I begin to wash.
Aesthetically, it fails every mantra in the book. If you can get a shut-off valve with a pull string to be idolized in a Better
Homes & Gardens-style magazine, then maybe it would have more wife-acceptance-factor.
Already pretty careful not to run shower unnecessarily.
cost, appearance, another thing to go wrong
Don't feel it would make any difference
don't need
Don't need it
Don't need it. You provide the electricity, I will decide how to use it!!
Don't see a need, the shower only takes a few seconds to warm up.
because I get right into the shower now. The water warms right away.
Because I stand in the shower but out of the water flow until it's hot, then step into the water immediately. I also turn off
the water while applying soap or shampoo. So I don't think I need an extra device. I am sorry that I can't control the
amount of water that flows out of the shower head.
Because I use the sink hot faucet to shave. Then turn on shower and get in. It is seconds until the shower water hits 95.
because we start the shower and get right in.
being I turn on the hot water faucet first then the cold then check the temp and might need minor adjustment in all is only
a few seconds, then get in the shower, so don't see the need for it.
clutter, hassle, wouldn't use
hassle to install
Have a tankless water heater,don't need a valve like that.
have it rigged so we get hot water quickly, so never takes very long; don't wait very long before get in
Hot water comes quick enough that it doesn't sound like much savings would be realized.
I am at the shower attending it waiting for it to warm up. You already asked this question earlier
Don't see the need
Don't want to
Fine the way it is.
for my personal experience, it's like tripping over dollars to save pennies. Not a good use of money for us. Other habits
may have different results
gadgets complicate things
Generally get right in the shower with minimal warm up time.
I am more interested in a recirculating system for the shower and a electrical heater at each of the taps in the house.
I don't feel I waste water, I get in the shower immediately when the water is warm enough. I don't see the need.
I don't feel that I waste water.
I don't just let the shower run. Once it gets warm enough, I get in.
I don't leave the hot water running for more than a few seconds.
I don't let the water run long enough to make a difference.
I don't let the water run very long before getting in. Sounds like it would be a hassle to deal with.
I am not sure if it would be economical. What would be the cost to install the device?
I am standing near the shower as it is warming up and once warm may only run for 30 seconds prior to stepping in.
I control the temperature and make my shower as short as possible, while running adequate water to do my purposes.
I've lived in CA and HATED what they do to you.
I do not think we waste hot water and that it is necessary
I don't believe it would be beneficial.
I don't do anything else while waiting for the temperature to come up
I don't think it's necessary. I don't think we have much hot water waste.
I don't wait to get into the shower after turning on the water
I don't want something else controlling the water temp
I get in the shower as soon as it gets warm! I don't mess around and waste hot water! It is too expensive!
I get in the shower as soon as it is warm, so I wouldn't want the water to shut off soon after I get in.
I get in when the water first gets warm...my whole family does
I don't like putting low flow or any valves on my water faucets.
I don't need any extra complication to my morning and I don't see that it would save enough to be worth the extra hassle.
I don't run water that long
I don't see that it would have much value in my situation.
I don't take hot showers, in fact I usually shower in cool water.
I don't think I waste hot water. I get in as soon as it's hot most of the time.
I really don't have a reason, it just didn't interest me
I really don't see any value or savings in it!
I stand in the shower while it heats up and use it as soon as it's ready. Just don't see a need for this.
I stand right there to get water hot. Only about 5 seconds since the hot water heater is on the other side of the wall
(garage) from the shower.
I take "GI" showers. I wet down, turn the water off while I wash my body and shave my legs and then turn it back on to
rinse off and wash my hair. I don't think I waste much water.
I tend to get into my shower as soon as it is warm. Doubt it would save water in my specific case. It's a great idea though,
and I recommend you pursue.
I get into the shower as soon as the water is warm enough. The shutoff valve would not be useful to me.
I have a tankless gas water heater.
I have entered an answer three times in this box. Each Time I am bounced out. I give up.
I have very brief showering habits learned from the military. I only have the water on to get wet then rinse. This device
seems unnecessary considering the brevity of my showers
I installed a Grundfos hot water circulation pump years ago that works great. The water is instantly WARM. After a few
seconds it is hot.
I just don't think we would want to be bothered with such a devise. We both turn on the shower when we are ready to inter
it. Very little wait time.
I think a tank less water heater would be more efficient
I turn on the water at a flow rate such that it is just starting to get warm when I get in.
I turn the water on, wait about half a minute to hop in, get in, shower and get out. Every time.
I turn water on, as soon as its warm I get in and quickly shower. dont feel this is necessary
I usually get into the shower before the desired temperature is reached.
I want hot water when I want it.
I would have to real evidence that it would save me money to make the effort to install it.
I would not qualify for the program since my water heater is fueled by propane.
If it's going to let the cold water out, the shower floor will be cold when I get in, so what's the point of letting it warm up?
I'm an old person
I typically don't leave the shower running long enough to warrant such a device.
I use a tankless waterheater approx4 feet from shower.
It is an extra unnecessary step as I am generally already in the shower waiting for the hot water. I turn the shower head to
the side and as soon as the water is just warm I turn it back and begin to shower. Such a device would turn the water off
while I am showering!
It sounds like to much trouble, I shower for about 5 min., not 35 minutes.
Its a mental thing.
It's no big deal to wait 30 seconds.
It's not necessary. I turn the water on, in 30 seconds it's ready and I begin showering.
Just another gadget.
I'm not sure. Just looks funky and I don't really understand what it will do. I only let the water get warmed up before
showering so I don't think it would save much (for me).
I'm satisfied with how quickly the water warms up and I don't feel I waste any water in getting it ready to shower
I'm usually right there monitoring the temperature.
Invalid husband also uses this shower.
it appears that you would have to reinstall the plug every time you use it.
It doesn't take long to heat the water, and we jump in quickly and shower, then shut it off - never more than 5 minutes.
more stuff to master
My current shower-heads work fine and I don't let the water run very long to warm up. The instant hot water heater is just
on the other side of the wall.
my folks have one and I don't like it.
My hot water heater is directly on the other side of the shower so it does not take anytime at all to heat up. No water is
being wasted in 'warm up' time. I turn both hot and cold on and pull the shower.
My shower is a long way from the hot water heater. I only run the water until the hot water starts coming out.
My water heater is turned down to save energy I do not feel I need it.
just another piece of equipment to worry about
just one more thing to adjust and get right I need to get in shower and get out fast, this sounds like a way to waste time
and I would need someone to prove it really would save hot water.
Just seems like a hassle and another junky Chinese thing to break or get clogged. I wait for the hot water to come it
doesn't take that long.
Labor involved in installation.
Like the sound of running water as background noise in the morning
Looks klunky and probably wouldn't help much given we have recirc and water is nearly always at time we turn on spigot.
My well water is about 55 degrees, waiting for the cold to heat up to 95 will happen about the same time as hell freezes
over.
Never leave the shower unattended. When it's warm enough I'm in.
Never turn on the shower unless I'm ready to step in immediately.
never walk away from shower
no point - once the water warms up, I get into the shower. It would be annoying to have to start the water again!
Not interested
Not knowing cost and effectiveness
not my kind of thing
Not necessary since I get in as soon as the water is warm.
Not needed
Not needed. We have recirculating hot water thus I turn the water on full hot for less than 5 seconds then set the
temperature and get right in.
Not sure what it does.
Seems like it would break
Seems like something that is going to break, and then I will have to remove it (maybe the cord). Then, there's the issues
of aesthetics.
Seen them in California and it's a pain to figure out how to get the hot water back on.
Shower has premixed hot and cold set to desired temp
On3 more step
One more part that can fail. seems like it would further reduce height of shower head.
one more step to take. not interested in complicating the morning
Our shower is already temperature controlled. The hottest temp. is very comfortable, not scalding. I close the shower
door, turn on the water(dial is always kept at hottest setting), wait 30-45 secs., and begin showering.
Our water is up to temperature in a very short time and I get in immediately afterwards.
Overkill don't take too many showers that it would provide much savings and when my solar water heater is installed it
won't matter if I use some extra sunshine
Probability of reduced water pressure. Don't like being controlled by others.
Really don't think it would make any difference in the amount of water I use.
Too much of a bother.
Ugly
There are days that I would want hotter than 95
These devices promise but my experience has shown they seldom deliver.
Tired of these ecodevices that cause dismal end user experience to be honest.
To small of shower space. Also Cost
Too difficult to install.
too many items already in line of the shower head (shut off, diverter for hand held)
The new shower we installed last year is only about 20 feet from the hot water heater, so we don't have to wait that long
for the water to get hot. We also installed pex tubing so the water comes directly to the shower.
The room is cold so the hot shower heats the whole bathroom,
The shower gets warm pretty quick. I often step into the stall while it is still cold and let it hit my feet. When it is warm it's
go time.
The shower I use is close to the water heater so hot water arrives in 10 seconds, no savings with the device.
The way I use water in the shower it would provide no benefit.
there are better solutions
Something to malfunction
That's not the problem the hot water heater is to far for our shower .
The cost for the device would be much more than the minute to run the shower.
The cost. I'd be interested if Idaho Power paid for it.
the minerals in our private well make faucets and shower heads a mess. They get plugged up. I'd question how this
device is just one more thing to maintain.
The new regulations for new plumbing installations in Oregon require some weird plumbing where the shower will not
reach a HOT temperature anyway, probably to prevent scalding, but if you like a hot shower, it never will reach the temp
you want. So, we built a new bathroom and I refuse to use it because I can't stand how chilly the shower water is. I get in
an old fashioned shower the second the water gets warm and that's the way I like it. No special conservation needed
here.
We typically don't let the water run and do other tasks.
we usually use the shower as soon as it warms up, it would not benefit us.
Why do I have to have a reason. I'm not interested, period.
worried about install and we usually get right into a shower as soon as the hot water has arrived
would have to remember to put it back into position once I'm finished in the shower
Wouldn't like it's look
You haven't mentioned the cost. Since my energy costs are generally quite low, I doubt that I waste much water. When I
take a shower, I stay in the bathroom and am generally in the shower as soon as the hot water is coming out.
We don't let it run longer than needed to warm up
We don't use too much extra hot water at the beginning of showers.
We have a recirculating pump that gets water to shower quickly, and hi effeficency shower head already.
We have a tiny bathroom and I don't think it would fit in our little shower. Our space that we do have is very precious to
us!
We have tankless water heater so we have to wait for it to heat up and then it comes in. So, we don't have hot water
sitting in a tank 24/7.
We just built a new house and those were not an option.
We save all shower water in 5 gallon buckets.
We are not big water wasters. With the tankless water heater, everything is so easy and dialed in we wouldn't need it.
QUESTION TOTAL:167
DID NOT ANSWER:0
OPTIONS TOTAL
O1 Yes 27
O2 No 60
O3 Not sure 80
If Idaho Power were to offer thermostatic shut-off valves at no cost to you, would you be more inclined to use one?
35.93%
47.90%
PERCENT
16.17%
16.17%
35.93%
47.90%
Yes
No
Not sure
More Inclined To Use Shut-Off Valve If Free?
QUESTION TOTAL:473
DID NOT ANSWER:0
OPTIONS TOTAL
O1 Strongly agree 218
O2 Somewhat agree 191
O3 Somewhat disagree 45
O4 Strongly disagree 19
Asked only of respondents who say they warm the water up prior to getting in the shower
How much do you agree, or disagree, that Idaho Power should offer no-cost thermostatic shut-off valves to its
customers as part of its energy efficiency programs?
40.38%
9.51%
4.02%
PERCENT
46.09%
46.09%
40.38%
9.51%
4.02%
Strongly agree
Somewhat agree
Somewhat disagree
Strongly disagree
Should Idaho Power Offer No-Cost Thermostatic Shut-Off Valves?
Great idea.
sounds like a great idea
Already have one. Is part of daily routine. One interesting problem with using it is we have a tankless water heater. After the water
comes up to temperature the thermostatically controlled valve reduces the flow to less than the minimum flow of the water heater, so
Are they easy to install?
Asked only of respondents who say they warm the water up prior to getting in the shower
Do you have any additional thoughts, or concerns, about thermostatic shut-off valves you would like to share?
Verbatim Responses
Behind the shower head? So... in the wall? If I have to open up the wall to put it in, no thanks. If it simply screws onto the head itself,
that sounds pretty easy. Does it need power? Do I have somehow have to plug this thing in? Great idea, very forward thinking. Please
tell us more. Hi Becky!Being aware of the product is helpful. Some folks may like to use it. It would not benefit me.
Can the user adjust the shut off temperature or is it fixed at 95 degrees?
Can you put one on every shower?
charge to cover costs
Do they come in finishes to match existing shower heads or does it only come in chrome?
are they easy to use?
Are they more efficient than a circulation loop?
are they safe for older people and kids to operate?
As far as I am concerned, i don't think they are necessary in our home. As for other people, they need to decide for themselves.
As long as it does not reduce water flow. We do not have great water pressure. Flow restricted faucets and shower heads do not
work in our household.
As long as the operation would be easy to learn for all family members, I would be all for it.
Great idea!
Great idea. I'm in.
has to be an incentive for me to install it.
How do they hold up with hard water build up?
I absolutely believe that Idaho Power should offer low-flow showerheads before this thermostatic gizmo is even considered. People
would consider a functional showerhead way before favorably considering your current gizmo brainstorm.
I am afraid Id Pwr would find a way to charge all of us for something we do not need. I have learned to not trust free offers from utilities
or any
Do you get to take the cost of these free items off your taxes? My concern is about the cost.
does it take a plumber to install? If so, it would not be cost effective.
For home owners there is no problem to install thermostatic shut-off valves. The issue is for rented properties. Renters cannot install
anything without the authorization of the landlord.
For most UT should save hot water overuse
Good idea for those that turn on the shower and walk away.
Great idea but users should share the cost of these devices with Idaho Power that way you can be assured they will be installed and
used!
I am impressed that you would even look at this. Technology that would seem to solve a problem that some would not see as an
issue.
I am interested.
I am not sure rate payers should pay the cost.
I believe most homes hot water is gas
I believe most people would install this in their home especially if it was given to them for free. You may have to look into hiring an
installer for people with disabilities. Overall, I believe it is a good idea. Help lessen the amount of water wasted.
I can say it could help some people
I didn't know such a device is available, so haven't thought about it before.
I do appreciate the effort and thought!!! I wish there were more efforts for efficient systems. Like furnaces that heat water and generate
electricity while heating the house. Idaho power wants to build new natural gas plants....almost every home already has one sitting
there burning gas, generating nothing but exhaust.
I don't like the idea that Idaho Power or it's consumers should foot the bill for getting customers to conserve resources however I
realize that many people are not concerned about conservation and waste energy and resources and will only do what is right if it is
free and easy to use.
I feel like if a person or household is cognizant of taking an efficient, quick shower they don't need one. If they are not, they will not
use one. It might educate people though and they'll be more thoughtful.
I guess that with many showers that don'the warm up quickly, it may be a good idea.
I believe that if it were offered at no cost to your customers that people would be more likely to use it.
I like it.
I like this concept, I am all about saving and not wasting
I live in a rental , can I take it with me if I move?
I might buy the temp sensor if it is proven to save me money. But nothing is free so having Idaho Power give them out just means a
rate increase so not thrilled about that. However if Idaho Power gets a bulk rate ando made it cheaper to buy. That's not so bad.
I only take maybe 3 to 5 min shower.
I see no reason to offer it "no cost". There is no such thing as "no cost."
I have a gas hot water heater. Why would IP give me this and not IG? I use the 5 minute hour glass you supplied with the LED Bulbs
and other efficiency items but if I flip it over when I turn the water on it is a very short shower once the water heats up until the sand is
gone. :-) Long way from water heater to shower. Poor design on a 25 year old house. I appreciate IPs conservation efforts but I can't
help but think I am paying for this as a part of my bill. I am sure it is mot coming from the VIPs bonuses. Thank you for being a good
company and doing what you do very well (most of the time) .
I have a gas water heater, so I don't think it makes sense for Idaho Power to provide shutoff valves to people who don't use electricity
to heat water. For those who do have electric water heaters, a cost-benefit analysis is needed to determine if free valves benefit all
rate payers. If not, then please determine the amount of a subsidy that is appropriate, so the rest of use who use gas are not
subsidizing those who use a less efficient method to heat water.
I have a hot water recirculating system in my home (that runs during common shower times), so I don't usually need to wait long for
the water to warm up and therefore almost never leave the shower running when the water is hot.
I have explored a recirculating pump to solve this problem
I have never heard of a thermostatic shut-off valve and am interested in having one as soon as possible.
I have used shower heads with thermostatic shut-off for several years now.
I think it sounds like an amazing idea and I personally believe most customers would use the item.
I think it's a great idea and if it ultimately helps Idaho Power in its energy efficiency efforts, great - but I don't think Idaho Power should
be obligated to provide them - personal responsibility plays a role.
I think it's a great idea for someone if they do wait to get into the shower after turning it on. The best measure of course though is to
practice water conservation by not turning it on until you're ready for it
I think it's a great idea. It would help control the waste my children have.
I think on demand hot water makes more sense but could not be within the scope of any of your programs since it would be gas
powered.
I suspect if offered for "free", we would all end up paying for them one way or another.
I think for the majority of your customers this is a fantastic solution.
I think high efficiency shower head would be better than a thermostatic valve.
I think it is a great idea to try, especially for households that don't manage use of resources like water and electric well.
I think it is a great idea, anything to reduce usage is helpful, and for Idaho power to show that they care about their customers by even
the possibility of providing equipment and accessories to do so is very comforting from a customer's perspective.
I think it is a great improvement and I would buy one. Second generation would allow collection of the water on warm up, rather than
wasting it!
I think our family would try it.
I worry my 7 year old wouldn't be able to reach it.
I would agree to paying for my own, everyone paying for their own, or giving them for free as long as it doesn't make our rates go up!
I would be more interested in a timer to force renters to do reasonable length showers
I would be very excited about this product.
I would be willing to at least try it.
I would like to know how difficult it is to turn the water back on when I'm ready to get into the shower.
I think the use of these devices would be a good idea and ultimately would save in energy costs.
I think there are other options that are more efficient like a high efficiency hot water heater.
I think they should be no cost for people who ask for them. It would be too expensive to send them to every household unasked as
many people might not use them.
I use natural gas to heat my water, not electricity. I think that the gas company should offer this sort of device instead of the electric
company.
I wonder how much of an issue this really is. People should be able to just not have the water run for so long.
I wonder if it would be cost effective.
I'd like to learn more about how they work and save energy.
If I thought I needed one, I would want it, but don't think I need it.
If it restricts how hot the water is when you are showering then I wouldn't use it and neither would any one in my house. We like hot
showers.
if the hot water line is shut off till the water reaches 95 degrees how does the water from water heater to outlet that is cool get out so
that the hot water can reach the outlet? if hot water flow is opening at 95 degrees and cold is not obstructed why the pull cord? and
does the cord close again once it is shut off?
If the thermostatic shut-off valves helps lower my power bill, then I'm all for it.
If you offer them at no-cost, who is buying them? Will you raise all our rates to pay for those that decide to get one? Am I paying for
my neighbor's 3 showers??? I don't think so.
I would prefer a circulator
I would start out giving it to people who would volunteer to use the shut-off valve. Collect data on it's use to decide whether it would
be cost effect for Idaho Power to offer it to the general public for free.
I would use it if it were possible with my tankless water heater
I would worry about cold water waste as people will think they are not wasting even though they are wasting cold water.
I wouldn't want to see any cost increase on my electric invoice that came from the distribution of these "no cost" devices.
I'd like to have a little more information about how they work and how much energy they save.
Interested
Interesting product that may save both energy and water.
Is it easy to install and are there any downsides to it.
Is there a bypass option for those with arthritis that like to take very hot showers?
Is this for electric water heaters or does it include gas heaters with water from a private well with an electric pump
It seems like a solution in search of a problem
I'm curious what the approximate cost is/would be to purchase one if Idaho Power decides not to provide them for free.
I'm okay with it!
I'm sure this new mechanism would be a great benefit for some households with several members or with motels/hotels.
In SE Idaho most of the water has high mineral concentrations. If you don't have a water softener shower heads and other devices get
clogged easily. It would be unfortunate to offer the valves to have them clog quickly and then get thrown away.
Instant electric water heaters are the way to go.
instead of no cost, maybe offer a one time credit for people who install them
It sounds like a good idea for folks who don't get in the shower right away, but folks should! It would save wasting heating the water.
It sounds like a good idea for those who let the water run too long.
It sounds like a hassle to install and I have very limited space in my shower. I wouldn't want any extra gadgets in my shower.
It would be interesting to try. If it works, I would have no problem with it.
It would be nice to offer these to our tenants, since we pay for their water bills.
It's a great idea to help save on water waste.
its an interesting idea. I prefer baths and even if I use more water I retain it and it helps heat the bathroom if i wait until it cools to drain
it.
ITS REALLY POSITIVE THINKING and fits planning (uses) for the 7th Generation
Just a question. If you waited so long to get in the shower that the temperature of the water in the pipe went below 95 degrees, would
the water start flowing again? Or would you get blasted with cold water?
It sounds like a neat idea.
It would be good for people who warm up their showers for 30 seconds or longer. We don't do that.
It would be helpful to consider a solution that would address the water waste as well as the energy waste of running the shower to get
to the right temperature. Perhaps Idaho Power could partner with Suez Water.
Maybe offer at a discouted price for users
Might clog due to hard water...
most urban water heaters are gas, how would this benefit IPCO rate payers? If it saved an appreciable amount of energy I suppose I
would be more in favor. Perhaps if the gas utilities furnished the valve to nat. gas heater users it would make more sense.
My hot water heater is gas. It seems like Intermountain Gas should be helping.
Just that it would be a wonderful addition to any water conservation program
like to save where I can.Natural gas is reasonable as is water, why waste either I think. My "jewish" attitude.
Love technology and hate waste. Good job
Love to save money, any way I can thank you!
Just don't like the idea of the water shutting off in the middle of a shower.
Just dont see why this would be a useful item
No thoughts.
No.
No. Most people shower for 30 minutes, I shower for 5 minutes.
nope
not enough information to decide one way or the other
Not for me, but certainly an option for some people.
Need to look "nice" so people are not put off by them.
No - it just doesn't sound like it's something for us.
no thank you
No thanks.
No thoughts about the thermostat at this time. What I would like to see is getting away from hot water heaters with big tanks that have
to keep the water warm at all times and convert to instant water heating elements that heat only the water that is needed at the time! I
know they exist but are too expensive and don't provide a good water flow or pressure (last I checked anyway!)
Offer to customers at cost
Not really
Not sure how it would work, but if it would more efficiently heat the water, I would for sure use it.
Not sure it should be Idaho Pwers expense
Not sure?? Does it only run at 95 degrees? In my case if it shut off & I did not get immediately into shower, if left for any length of time
likely to have cooled. My water heater is in basement, shower on first floor, especially sink and shower but also appliances on first
floor have to run a long time before I get hot water. I think that must really be energy waster but don't know what other option I might
have.
Not today.
Nothing that I can think of.
One more device that can fail. Besides, it takes energy to mfg. the valve - what about that? We have hard water and there are
always problems generated from that - don't need another device to become fouled.
Only how long it would take for mineral deposits to build up in the valve, making it less efficient and necessary to clean with vinegar.
Others in my household might be more wasteful of pre-shower hot water.
Our showers are at the other end of the house from the hot water heater so it takes quite a while for the hot water to arrive. So one is
tempted to do other things while waiting. This device would sure help save the hot water once it arrives at the shower head.
Probably not.
Sounds like a good idea for my kids bathroom!
Sounds like a great idea! I'd be happy to try one out and share my experience.
Sounds like a great idea. Anything to help cut down on waste and immprove efficency should be promoted.
Sounds like a great item
Sounds like a scam to me
Sounds useful.
Seems like a "better" idea if the users have electric hot water heaters. Also wonder if the trend toward tankless water heaters
(properly installed) might have some impact on benefits??? (not totally sure what I am thinking...more about I guess if your setup is
already highly efficient, is this not overkill?).
Shouldn't Idaho Power be working with local water companies on a program of this type? Isn't it as much a water conservation issue
as an electricity conservation issue?
Show them on TV and explain them. Talk about them on radio. Show demos at expos
sounds exciting
SOUNDS GOOD IF IT WORKS
sounds like a good idea
That would be a lot of money for Idaho Power to spend on shut-off valves. I would be paying for them in my electric rate. I would rather
Idaho Power energy costs.
The consumer should share the cost.
The issue will be ease of installation
The only such device I have ever encountered (Maryland Hotel) did not work well.
The shut-off valves should be free to all idaho power customers.
The valve needs to be intuitive
Still confused as to how this all works and what it saves. If I get into the shower as soon as the temperature is where I want, how
would this help?
Sure would like to try one.
Switch to an instant-hot type of system so the water doesn't have to run as long.
Thank you for caring! We are always supportive of energy efficiency.
Thank you for investigating the possibility of the shut off valve! I would install them on the 4 faucets we have in our home.
Thanks. Never knew something like this existed
this is the first time I've heard of them. I investigated installing some sort of water recycling device so it would take the 'cold' water and
'reuse' it until it came to temp but the unit was big! this would be better
They may have value in saving energy for those who have long warm up times and have to leave the area while their water heats up.
They scare me big brother.
They sounds like it should work real well. Let me know when we can get one.
They would be great!
They would only be of benefit if one was in the habit of turning on the water and then waiting to get in for a long period of time.
This is a great idea!
Would like to see it in real life to see the quality before giving 100% commitment.
would like to see one work and see the savings
Would like to try to make sure it would work in our home. Don't recommend for rentals.
Would need more info...is it compatible with all showers? How easy is it to install and/or remove? Would it be easy to clean out
calcium deposits if needed? How big is it? What maintenance might be needed? Etc.?
You need to explain the estimated cost of this item and the program you are proposing and the effect on a persons power bill. Who it
would help and who it would not from a cost payback. Also the cost payback to Idaho Power
You're going to have to describe the impact of said valve on the actual experience.
When you give something away to others, I still end up having to pay for it. How about you give me free solar panels?
While the thermostatic shut-off valves are not for me, I can see that there may be many customers who would want to take advantage
of it.
Who and how is it maintained? Can the temperature be altered manually?
Why would an electric utility provide a device that would save natural gas and waster but not electrical usage?
Why would Idaho Power buy thermostatic shut-off valves for water heated by natural gas??
WILL IDAHO POWER INCLUDE THE COSTS OF THE SHUT OFF IN IT'S RATE BASE IN IT'S NEXT RATE CASE?
Will it cause a hammer affect and cause a leak in the wall? Shower risers do not normally see much actual pressure but with the
valve at the head it will and if it shuts to fast it will hammer it.
Will it work with all types of water heaters, especially tankless?
Would be nice to test one.
Ways to save energy & water are always important to explore. I do not have any info on this products help, ease in use, cost to use,
etc. Need more info.......
We have 3 levels in our older, historical area home and the GAS (not electric) hot water heater is located in the basement which is
why it takes a while for the temp of the water to reach the upstairs showers.
We have a low flow shower head on all showers in the home with filters inline too.
We have pressure balance shower valves that limit water temp at 95 degrees but they don't shut the water off when temp is reached. I
think the shutoff valve is an excellent idea.
We installed the shower head from the Idaho Power kit. If a thermostatic shut off valve had been included we would have installed it
as well. Sounds like a useful item.
We would be glad to test it for you.
What are the dimensions of it?
What other options are there?
When ordering Idaho power energy efficiency products I should be able to choose which ones to receive rather than ordering the
whole package. Also, you should offer incentives like discounts for home owners of energy star accredited homes.
This type of device would be more beneficial to me for use at the kitchen sink. I would prefer an under-counter install with above
counter release, or installed at the base of the faucet rather than the spout.
This seems like a really stupid idea. If forced to use one, I would disable it. I pulled out the low flow shower heads we had to buy in
CA and punched out the flow inhibitor so we could get adequate flow.
This sounds like a great tool to help conserve both water and energy. Thanks for your efforts to conserve these resources.
WAQC 2016 Survey Results
Answer Options Response
Percent
Response
Count
CCOA - Aging, Weatherization and Human Services 19.3%46
Eastern Idaho Community Action Partnership 1.7%4
El Ada Community Action Partnership 43.7%104
South Central Community Action Partnership 15.5%37
Southeastern Idaho Community Action Agency 15.1%36
Community in Action 4.6%11
238
0
Idaho Power Weatherization Programs
skipped question
answered question
Agency/Contractor Name:
CCOA - Aging,
Weatherization and
Human Services, 19.3%
Eastern Idaho
Community Action
Partnership, 1.7%
El Ada Community
Action Partnership,
43.7%
South Central
Community Action
Partnership, 15.5%
Southeastern Idaho
Community Action
Agency, 15.1%
Community in Action,
4.6%
Answer Options Response Percent Response Count
Agency/Contractor flyer 22.8%52
Idaho Power employee 4.4%10
Idaho Power web site 4.8%11
Friend or relative 37.3%85
Letter in mail 7.9%18
Other (please specify)22.8%52
228
10
El Ada
bill insert
El Ada Called us
landlord
landlord
landlord
landlord
management
landlord
landlord
property manager
landlord decided
apt. manager
bill insert
bill insert
apt manager
apartment manager
landlord
bill insert
bill insert
Idaho Power Bill insert
TV
Canyon County Fair
Johns Heating & Plumbing
Idaho Power bill insert
SEICAA
don't remember
Head Start
El Ada
Bill insert
unknow
Community in Action
WICAP
SEICAA
place in Blackfoot
SEICAA
How did you learn about the weatherization program(s)?
Idaho Power Weatherization Programs
skipped question
answered question
Agency/Contractor
flyer, 22.8%
Idaho Power employee,
4.4%
Idaho Power web site,
4.8%
Friend or relative,
37.3%
Letter in mail, 7.9%
Other (please specify),
22.8%
Help packet
Dr. Office
El-Ada
El-Ada
El Ada
El-Ada
El Ada
El Ada
Idaho Power bill insert
Human
just listed other
just listed other
Community in Action
bill stuffer
El Ada
bill insert
El Ada Called us
landlord
landlord
landlord
landlord
management
landlord
landlord
property manager
landlord decided
apt. manager
bill insert
bill insert
apt manager
apartment manager
landlord
bill insert
bill insert
Idaho Power Bill insert
TV
Canyon County Fair
Johns Heating & Plumbing
Idaho Power bill insert
SEICAA
don't remember
Head Start
El Ada
Bill insert
unknow
Community in Action
WICAP
SEICAA
place in Blackfoot
SEICAA
How did you learn about the weatherization program(s)?
Other (please specify)
Answer Options Response
Percent
Response
Count
Reduce utility bills 84.4%195
Improve comfort of home 39.8%92
Furnace concerns 24.2%56
Water heater concerns 6.1%14
Improve insulation 20.8%48
Other (please specify)7.4%17
231
7
furnace broke down
needed new doors
air vent & crawl space look at
What was your primary reason for participating in the weatherization program? (check all that apply)
Idaho Power Weatherization Programs
skipped question
answered question
84.4%
39.8%
24.2%
6.1%
20.8%
7.4%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Reduce utility bills Improve comfort of
home
Furnace concerns Water heater
concerns
Improve insulation Other (please
specify)
Make sure my house is in optimal condition
I've been without a usable furnace for two years, I so appreciate my new furnace!
Windows from 1979
Windows leaked
Leaking roof
just listed other
applied for assistance
windows
management
owner decided
improve AC
no comment
Leaky doors
leaking windows
furnace broke down
needed new doors
air vent & crawl space look at
What was your primary reason for participating in the weatherization program? (check all that apply)
Other (please specify)
Answer Options Response
Percent
Response
Count
Completely 84.3%188
Somewhat 12.1%27
Not at all 3.6%8
223
15
Idaho Power Weatherization Programs
skipped question
If you received any energy efficiency equipment upgrade as part of the weatherization, how well was the equipment's
operation explained to you?
answered question
Completely, 84.3%
Somewhat, 12.1%
Not at all, 3.6%
Answer Options Response
Percent
Response
Count
How air leaks affect energy usage 73.3%165
How insulation affects energy usage 67.6%152
How to program the new thermostat 49.3%111
How to reduce the amount of hot water used 31.1%70
How to use energy wisely 56.4%127
How to understand what uses the most energy in my home 45.8%103
Other (please specify)4.9%11
225
13skipped question
Idaho Power Weatherization Programs
answered question
Which of the following did you learn about from the auditor or crew during the weatherization process? (Check all that apply)
73.3%
67.6%
49.3%
31.1%
56.4%
45.8%
4.9%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
How air leaks
affect energy
usage
How insulation
affects energy
usage
How to program
the new
thermostat
How to reduce
the amount of
hot water used
How to use
energy wisely
How to
understand
what uses the
most energy in
my home
Other (please
specify)
how a heat pump functions
none from installers. The auditor did explain clearly my questions and concerns. Very nice man.
just listed other
none of the above, just a book
none of the above
none of the above
none of the above
my water heater was too cold
got a booklet for information
how to connect the breaker to reduce energy use
to keep fans running for health
Which of the following did you learn about from the auditor or crew during the weatherization process? (Check all that apply)
Other (please specify)
Answer Options Response
Percent
Response
Count
Very likely 75.1%169
Somewhat likely 20.4%46
Not very likely 3.6%8
Not likely at all 0.9%2
225
13
Based on the information you received from the agency/contractor about energy use, how likely are you to change your
habits to save energy?
skipped question
Idaho Power Weatherization Programs
answered question
Very likely, 75.1%
Somewhat likely, 20.4%
Not very likely, 3.6% Not likely at all, 0.9%
Answer Options Response
Percent
Response
Count
All of it 65.9%151
Some of it 17.5%40
None of it 3.1%7
N/A 13.5%31
229
9
How much of the information about energy use have you shared with other members of your household?
skipped question
Idaho Power Weatherization Programs
answered question
All of it, 65.9%
Some of it, 17.5%
None of it, 3.1%
N/A, 13.5%
Answer Options Response
Percent
Response
Count
Very likely 64.2%145
Somewhat likely 22.6%51
Somewhat unlikely 1.8%4
Very unlikely 0.9%2
N/A 10.6%24
226
12
Idaho Power Weatherization Programs
skipped question
If you shared the energy use information with other members of your household, how likely do you think household
members will change habits to save energy?
answered question
Very likely, 64.2%
Somewhat likely, 22.6%
Somewhat
unlikely, 1.8%
Very unlikely, 0.9%
N/A, 10.6%
Answer Options Response
Percent
Response
Count
Washing full loads of clothes 61.0%133
Washing full loads of dishes 43.6%95
Turning off lights when not in use 86.2%188
Unplugging electrical equipment when not in use 55.5%121
Turning the thermostat up in the summer 53.7%117
Turning the thermostat down in the winter 65.6%143
17
218
20
I was raised with power conservation training!
already do loads of clothes and dishes
we try to do these already
skipped question
Idaho Power Weatherization Programs
answered question
Other (please specify)
What habits are you and other members of your household most likely to change to save energy? (check all that
apply)
61.0%
43.6%
86.2%
55.5% 53.7%
65.6%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Washing full loads
of clothes
Washing full loads
of dishes
Turning off lights
when not in use
Unplugging
electrical
equipment when
not in use
Turning the
thermostat up in
the summer
Turning the
thermostat down in
the winter
Already doing all of this
I have been doing all of the above to save energy already.
Use dryer less; hang clothes instead
do all already
just listed other
we already have tried to save energy in the past
does all of the above already
changing out light bulbs for LED's
leaving thermostat at one temperature
am aware and practice all
already do these things
no one told me anything
already do all of the above
already do all of these
I was raised with power conservation training!
already do loads of clothes and dishes
we try to do these already
What habits are you and other members of your household most likely to change to save energy? (check all that
apply)
Other (please specify)
Answer Options Response
Percent
Response
Count
Significantly 87.1%196
Somewhat 11.1%25
Very little 0.4%1
Not at all 1.3%3
225
13
How much do you think the weatherization you received will affect the comfort of your home?
skipped question
Idaho Power Weatherization Programs
answered question
Significantly, 87.1%
Somewhat, 11.1%
Very little, 0.4% Not at all, 1.3%
Answer Options Excellent Good Fair Poor Response
Count
Courteousness 210 13 1 0 224
Professionalism 200 18 2 0 220
Explanation of work to be performed on your home 189 20 9 1 219
Overall experience with Agency/Contractor 199 18 2 1 220
226
12
Excellent Good Fair Poor
Courteousness 93.8%5.8%0.4%0.0%
Professionalism 90.9%8.2%0.9%0.0%
Explanation of work to be performed on your home 86.3%9.1%4.1%0.5%
Overall experience with Agency/Contractor 90.5%8.2%0.9%0.5%
Rate the Agency/Contractor based on your interactions with them.
Rate the Agency/Contractor based on your interactions with them.
skipped question
Idaho Power Weatherization Programs
answered question
93.8%
90.9%
86.3%
90.5%
5.8%
8.2%
9.1%
8.2%
0.4% 0.9%
4.1%
0.9% 0.5% 0.5%
75%
80%
85%
90%
95%
100%
Courteousness Professionalism Explanation of work to be
performed on your home
Overall experience with
Agency/Contractor
Excellent Good Fair Poor
Answer Options Response
Percent
Response
Count
Yes 73.2%164
No 26.8%60
224
14
Idaho Power Weatherization Programs
skipped question
Were you aware of Idaho Power's role in the weatherization of your home?
answered question
Yes, 73.2%
No, 26.8%
Answer Options Response
Percent
Response
Count
Very satisfied 93.9%214
Somewhat satisfied 5.3%12
Somewhat dissatisfied 0.9%2
Very dissatisfied 0.0%0
228
10
Overall how satisfied are you with the weatherization program you participated in?
skipped question
Idaho Power Weatherization Programs
answered question
Very satisfied, 93.9%
Somewhat satisfied,
5.3%
Somewhat dissatisfied,
0.9%
Answer Options Response
Percent
Response
Count
Improved 84.2%192
Stayed the same 15.8%36
Decreased 0.0%0
228
10
Idaho Power Weatherization Programs
skipped question
How has your opinion of Idaho Power changed as a result of its role in the weatherization program?
answered question
Improved, 84.2%
Stayed the same, 15.8%
Answer Options Response
Percent
Response
Count
0 additional people 26.1%58
1 additional person 30.2%67
2 additional people 13.5%30
3 additional people 9.0%20
4 additional people 7.7%17
5 additional people 6.8%15
6 or more additional people 6.8%15
222
16skipped question
Idaho Power Weatherization Programs
answered question
How many people beside yourself live in your home year-round?
0 additional people,
26.1%
1 additional person,
30.2%
2 additional people,
13.5%
3 additional people,
9.0%
4 additional people,
7.7%
5 additional
people, 6.8%
6 or more
additional
people, 6.8%
Answer Options Response
Percent
Response
Count
Less than 1 year 3.1%7
1 - 10 years 24.6%56
11 - 25 years 25.4%58
26 years or more 46.9%107
228
10
How long have you been an Idaho Power customer?
skipped question
Idaho Power Weatherization Programs
answered question
Less than 1 year, 3.1%
1 - 10 years, 24.6%
11 - 25 years, 25.4%
26 years or more, 46.9%
Answer Options Response
Percent
Response
Count
Under 25 2.2%5
25 - 34 13.4%31
35 - 44 11.7%27
45 - 54 13.0%30
55 - 64 17.3%40
65 - 74 22.9%53
75 or older 19.5%45
231
7skipped question
Idaho Power Weatherization Programs
answered question
Please select the category below that best describes your age:
Under 25, 2.2%
25 - 34, 13.4%
35 - 44, 11.7%
45 - 54, 13.0%
55 - 64, 17.3%
65 - 74, 22.9%
75 or older, 19.5%
Answer Options Response
Percent
Response
Count
Less than High School 18.5%42
High School graduate or GED 34.8%79
Some College or Technical School 28.6%65
Associate Degree 6.2%14
College Degree (including any graduate school or graduate degrees)11.9%27
227
11
Idaho Power Weatherization Programs
skipped question
Select the response below that best descirbes the highest level of education you have attained:
answered question
Less than High School,
18.5%
High School graduate or
GED, 34.8%
Some College or
Technical School, 28.6%
Associate Degree,
6.2%
College Degree
(including any graduate
school or graduate
degrees), 11.9%
Answer Options Response
Count
89
answered question 89
skipped question 149
Response Text
Everyone was great and furnace is fantastic.
The team that worked on my house were very friendly , efficient, and informative. Quick and efficient. Thanks for the help...
We are so happy there is a program like this. Our house is so much more comfortable and the savings on our power bill will
be tremendous.
Everything that was done has been a very big blessing. We feel very thankful for the way we have been provided for. Thank
you ! (not a strong enough expression)
I think this is a wonderful program. With only 1 income right now and furnace was out we could not afford a new one. Friends
of ours told us about the program. This program has gone above & beyond what we expected so we want to thank you for
this service.
I am so thrilled to have all this work done. Fantastic. It is so great that I received this work and now everything is new and no
charge.
I am very grateful for the services my family has received. I was not able to be home for any explanations by the employees,
but I have tons of pamphlets & instruction manuals that were left for me.
Very good program for people who don't make much money and can't afford power bills
Excellent Program thanks for your help. (Excellente Programa Gracias Por Su Ayuda)
would be nice to know how to use thermostat
Very happy with the improvements
They (HVAC) never returned my phone calls. Other than that, my experience was wonderful.
I need help paying my utility bill during winter months Dec-Feb/March
customer did not finish survey
Very pleased with all of installs thanx soo much
They did a wonderful job on the windows and the furnace was totally unexpected. Gentlemen were very professional
This program has changed my lifestyle tremendously. Having just a wood stove was hard because I could never leave the
house in winter. Having AC made it so I didn't get heat exhaustion after installation! The insulation/windows helped with
temperature regulation and I don't have to put cardboard in the windows every morning-and fans every night. That will give
me hours every summer that I won't spend doing that. Thank you.
Very helpful and needed.
Thank you!
everyone was very kind.
client refused to fill out
I'm very much surprised, about how much that Idaho Power is willing to re-invest back into their customers with programs
like this.
Thank you.
client did not complete survey
Thank you
Idaho Power Weatherization Programs
Please share any other comments you may have regarding Idaho Power's weatherization programs. Thank you.
Thank you- such a wonderful service for our elderly citizens.
Thanks it will help us as an older couple
All contractors and El Ada folks were excellent. I couldn't be happier.
I am extremely happy with all the work provided and excellent communication. For someone with limited income what an
exceptional program. Thank you very much
This is a great program for hard working people trying to make ends meet but just don't have anything extra to spend on
weatherization
Excellent programs
The combination of insulation-vent sealing, pipe insulation, ceiling insulation--have resulted in more heat retention. Still
some inconvenience with furnace pipes sticking out in hallway and furnace filter is an obsolete size and doesn't fit properly.
Overall, we are very pleased with the personel and program! Thank you!
My home is so much better- in all ways so I intend to stay here as long as I can- until I have to go to a nursing home!
Thank you very much
Very Pleased with everything done
If I'm to learn something new, it's best if I get to push the buttons.
None of your business what my education is, I have no comments, this is a joke.
Great work.
Thanks and bless you all
Very pleased with the program, thank you.
This is a wonderful program. I am so thankful for all that has been done in my home to help with my power bill!
This program is a God send!
I love the fact that you help people ho are not able to do all of this themselves. I want to thank everyone involved in this
program. I thank everyone for their hard work.
Very helpful with reducing power bill
All the subcontractors were awesome! Explained what they were doing and why. Thank you!
The guys were nice. I'm the one who asked about how things work. Most of the time it was one guy who did most of the
work. Sometimes there were 3 others standing around talking to each other. They did a good job of cleaning up.
Did not appreciate the fact that the person who installed the a/c and heating unit did not use screws in all the assigned
locations for screws to make the unit stable and safe.
My electric bill was reduced immediately! Great!
I appreciate the program so much as I could never afford to do all of the improvements. Thank you. The weatherization program was so educational and informative and would improve all homes even new homes. Thank you
Idaho Power for your concern and help.
Thank you so very much for everything! I am very impressed and grateful for all you have done for me and my family!
Great for people!
Thank you for all your help. Looking forward to seeing the savings in the following months.
Thank you so much for all the work you did on my home this is such a wonderful program.
Wonderful program. We are very blessed to have participated.
Such a blessing and improvement! Thank you for all you have done!Thank you so much, without your help, we would not have been able to keep up with the bills and would have continued to
cover and block out windows and doors.
wish you would have done more with heating
Thank you for all your help I appreciate it a lot, especially for my escalating power bills. Thank you for the work.

Gracias portodo su ayuda fuedo mucho, ayuda para mi y mes hijos fue on escalente. Trabajo gracias.
Very good program

Just that we are very thankful for the help. We are nice and warm this year!
thank you!
Excellent program, all states should have the same, the program has helped me more than you can imagine.
its a good thing
As I'm on a fixed income insulating the attic helped greatly and the weather stripping around the doors.
Outstanding in ALL ways. Professional people doing outstanding work.
keep up the good work and thank you very much
Thank you very much for you help. They were very kind. (Muchas gracias partuda su alluda fueron muy amabres.)
Absolutely love it. Am amazed & very appreciative. Great community service.
We are very thankful for Idaho Power and this marvelous program that improved our home efficiency. Looking forward to
utility bill decreasing as we are all electric home.
Idaho residents are very fortunate to have Idaho Power providing our energy use, compared to other states. Good Job!
Thank you so much.
Everything and everyone was great.
We appreciate all the things that have been done & it was done quickly and efficiently and everyone involved was very
courteous. Our home now stays warmer than it did before!

Very Pleased
Thank you so much you made this little house a home. Everyone was so nice. From beginning to end!
I love it and thank you so very much
Did a great job
I am very satisfied with everyone, they were very professional. (Muy satisfecha con todo muy profecional.)
Inspectors went up above andn beyond their work, making sure my front door didn't leak at the bottom!
I would be homeless if it weren't for your help
I am very very happy--I will sleep very much better
The different contractors were excellent
I didn't know about this program until a friend told me at school. My trailer was horrible to live in, but since the
weatherization, I am liking my new home.
I felt very grateful for everything the program did. I was amazed at the amount of help I received.
A great program, Help me to save money on cost & heating
This program has been the most extraordinary experience! I bought a house that had been empty for 2 years. I thought I
might need weather stripping for the doors- how wrong- ? The weather stripping was fine- other issues were needing
attention. It's hard to comprehend all the improvements and impact they will have on my life! Thank you.
Thank you so much
Your weatherization team has been wonderful to work with. Thank you so much for the repairs and improvements.
Weatherization Solutions 2016 Survey Results
Answer Options Response
Percent
Response
Count
Energy Zone, LLC 34.6%45
Home Energy Management 27.7%36
Savings Around Power 17.7%23
Power Savers 18.5%24
Energy Solutions 1.5%2
130
0
Idaho Power Weatherization Programs
skipped question
answered question
Agency/Contractor Name:
Energy Zone, LLC,
34.6%
Home Energy
Management, 27.7%
Savings Around Power,
17.7%
Power Savers, 18.5%
Energy Solutions, 1.5%
Answer Options Response
Percent
Response
Count
Agency/Contractor flyer 13.1%17
Idaho Power employee 5.4%7
Idaho Power web site 8.5%11
Friend or relative 22.3%29
Letter in mail 26.9%35
Other (please specify)23.8%31
130
0skipped question
answered question
How did you learn about the weatherization program(s)?
Idaho Power Weatherization Programs
Agency/Contractor
flyer, 13.1%
Idaho
Power
employee,
5.4%
Idaho Power web site,
8.5%
Friend or relative,
22.3%
Letter in mail, 26.9%
Other (please specify),
23.8%
CCOA
Idaho Power Bill
idaho power newsletter
IPC bill insert
IPC bill insert
idaho power bill insert
Idaho Power bill insert
Bill insert
bill insert
Mtn. Home Newspaper
American Red Cross
bill insert
Idaho Power pamphlet
bill insert
bill stuffer
bill insert
bill insert
Home Energy Fair Idaho Power Flyer
bill insert
bill insert
bill stuffer
bill stuffer
bill stuffer
idaho power flyer in bill
flyer in idaho power bill
bill stuffer
How did you learn about the weatherization program(s)?
Other (please specify)
facebook
Spring Fair Idaho Power Booth
SEICAA
bill stuffer
Answer Options Response
Percent
Response
Count
Reduce utility bills 86.9%113
Improve comfort of home 33.8%44
Furnace concerns 23.8%31
Water heater concerns 5.4%7
Improve insulation 18.5%24
Other (please specify)6.9%9
130
0skipped question
answered question
What was your primary reason for participating in the weatherization program?
Idaho Power Weatherization Programs
86.9%
33.8%
23.8%
5.4%
18.5%
6.9%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Reduce utility bills Improve comfort of
home
Furnace concerns Water heater
concerns
Improve insulation Other (please
specify)
especially water heater
Furnace went out. Ended up getting on at Home Depot.
I was cold
was unable to do these things ourself and had lost hope after rough stroke last year. I'm overwhelmed by everything your doing
to help us help you in saving energy. God Bless~
Better heating
What was your primary reason for participating in the weatherization program?
Other (please specify)
seal home better when windy
utility bills and heating efficiency
electrical problem
replace old doors
Answer Options Response
Percent
Response
Count
Completely 84.5%98
Somewhat 6.9%8
Not at all 8.6%10
116
14skipped question
If you received any energy efficiency equipment upgrade as part of the weatherization, how
well was the equipment's operation explained to you?
answered question
Idaho Power Weatherization Programs
Completely, 84.5%
Somewhat, 6.9%
Not at all, 8.6%
Answer Options Response
Percent
Response
Count
How air leaks affect energy usage 85.3%110
How insulation affects energy usage 79.1%102
How to program the new thermostat 42.6%55
How to reduce the amount of hot water used 41.1%53
How to use energy wisely 59.7%77
How to understand what uses the most energy in my home 51.9%67
Other (please specify)5.4%7
129
1
Idaho Power Weatherization Programs
answered question
Which of the following did you learn about from the auditor or crew during the weatherization process? (Check all that apply)
skipped question
85.3%
79.1%
42.6% 41.1%
59.7%
51.9%
5.4%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
How air leaks
affect energy
usage
How insulation
affects energy
usage
How to program
the new
thermostat
How to reduce
the amount of
hot water used
How to use
energy wisely
How to
understand
what uses the
most energy in
my home
Other (please
specify)
Which of the following did you learn about from the auditor or crew during the weatherization process? (Check all that apply)
Other (please specify)
where the cold air was coming from
info about attic insulation
info from booklets
air flow & circulation
what they were doing and very in-depth explanations
We also learned how Id. Power cares, can't thank you enough
That the ceiling heat was still drawing power
Answer Options Response
Percent
Response
Count
Very likely 79.1%102
Somewhat likely 20.2%26
Not very likely 0.8%1
Not likely at all 0.0%0
129
1
Based on the information you received from the agency/contractor about energy use, how
likely are you to change your habits to save energy?
skipped question
Idaho Power Weatherization Programs
answered question
Very likely, 79.1%
Somewhat likely,
20.2%
Not very likely, 0.8%
Answer Options Response
Percent
Response
Count
All of it 71.3%92
Some of it 15.5%20
None of it 1.6%2
N/A 11.6%15
129
1
How much of the information about energy use have you shared with other members of your
household?
skipped question
Idaho Power Weatherization Programs
answered question
All of it, 71.3%
Some of it, 15.5%
None of it, 1.6%
N/A, 11.6%
Answer Options Response
Percent
Response
Count
Very likely 63.6%82
Somewhat likely 23.3%30
Somewhat unlikely 0.8%1
Very unlikely 0.8%1
N/A 11.6%15
129
1skipped question
If you shared the energy use information with other members of your household, how likely do
you think household members will change habits to save energy?
answered question
Idaho Power Weatherization Programs
Very likely, 63.6%
Somewhat likely,
23.3%
Somewhat unlikely,
0.8%
Very unlikely, 0.8%
N/A, 11.6%
Answer Options Response
Percent
Response
Count
Washing full loads of clothes 56.3%71
Washing full loads of dishes 46.8%59
Turning off lights when not in use 77.0%97
Unplugging electrical equipment when not in use 61.9%78
Turning the thermostat up in the summer 64.3%81
Turning the thermostat down in the winter 69.0%87
16
126
4
Idaho Power Weatherization Programs
answered question
Other (please specify)
What habits are you and other members of your household most likely to change to save energy? (check all that apply)
skipped question
56.3%
46.8%
77.0%
61.9%
64.3%
69.0%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Washing full loads
of clothes
Washing full loads
of dishes
Turning off lights
when not in use
Unplugging
electrical
equipment when
not in use
Turning the
thermostat up in
the summer
Turning the
thermostat down
in the winter
already do all of these
we do all this now :)
we do all of the above already
Close outside doors
Run Fans
Use natural cooling/heating
already do all of this
already do some of these
customer already does all of the above
customer already does all of the above
already do all of the above
already do most of these
What habits are you and other members of your household most likely to change to save energy? (check all that apply)
Other (please specify)
drying clothes on line or rack
change out all light bulbs to energy efficient bulbs
we do most of them
info from booklets
Answer Options Response
Percent
Response
Count
Significantly 90.8%118
Somewhat 8.5%11
Very little 0.8%1
Not at all 0.0%0
130
0
How much do you think the weatherization you received will affect the comfort of your home?
skipped question
Idaho Power Weatherization Programs
answered question
Significantly, 90.8%
Somewhat, 8.5%
Very little, 0.8%
Answer Options Excellent Good Fair Poor Response
Count
Courteousness 128 2 0 0 130
Professionalism 125 4 1 0 130
Explanation of work to be performed on your home 122 6 2 0 130
Overall experience with Agency/Contractor 121 8 1 0 130
130
0
Excellent Good Fair
Courteousness 98.5%1.5%0.0%
Professionalism 96.2%3.1%0.8%
Explanation of work to be performed on your home 93.8%4.6%1.5%
Overall experience with Agency/Contractor 93.1%6.2%0.8%
Rate the Agency/Contractor based on your interactions with them.
skipped question
Idaho Power Weatherization Programs
answered question
98.5%
96.2%
93.8% 93.1%
1.5%
3.1%
4.6% 6.2%
0.8% 1.5% 0.8%
75%
80%
85%
90%
95%
100%
Courteousness Professionalism Explanation of work to be
performed on your home
Overall experience with
Agency/Contractor
Excellent Good Fair
Answer Options Response
Percent
Response
Count
Yes 85.2%109
No 14.8%19
128
2
Idaho Power Weatherization Programs
skipped question
Were you aware of Idaho Power's role in the weatherization of your home?
answered question
Yes, 85.2%
No, 14.8%
Answer Options Response
Percent
Response
Count
Very satisfied 91.5%118
Somewhat satisfied 8.5%11
Somewhat dissatisfied 0.0%0
Very dissatisfied 0.0%0
129
1
Overall how satisfied are you with the weatherization program you participated in?
skipped question
Idaho Power Weatherization Programs
answered question
Very satisfied, 91.5%
Somewhat satisfied,
8.5%
Answer Options Response
Percent
Response
Count
Improved 86.2%112
Stayed the same 13.8%18
Decreased 0.0%0
130
0skipped question
How has your opinion of Idaho Power changed as a result of its role in the weatherization
program?
answered question
Idaho Power Weatherization Programs
Improved, 86.2%
Stayed the same,
13.8%
Answer Options Response
Percent
Response
Count
0 additional people 28.7%37
1 additional person 42.6%55
2 additional people 11.6%15
3 additional people 6.2%8
4 additional people 4.7%6
5 additional people 3.9%5
6 or more additional people 2.3%3
129
1
Idaho Power Weatherization Programs
answered question
How many people beside yourself live in your home year-round?
skipped question
0 additional people,
28.7%
1 additional person,
42.6%
2 additional people,
11.6%
3 additional
people, 6.2%
4 additional
people, 4.7%
5 additional
people, 3.9% 6 or more additional
people, 2.3%
Answer Options Response
Percent
Response
Count
Less than 1 year 0.8%1
1 - 10 years 23.3%30
11 - 25 years 27.1%35
26 years or more 48.8%63
129
1
How long have you been an Idaho Power customer?
skipped question
Idaho Power Weatherization Programs
answered question
Less than 1 year, 0.8%
1 - 10 years, 23.3%
11 - 25 years, 27.1%
26 years or more,
48.8%
Answer Options Response
Percent
Response
Count
Under 25 0.8%1
25 - 34 7.8%10
35 - 44 10.9%14
45 - 54 10.1%13
55 - 64 17.8%23
65 - 74 28.7%37
75 or older 24.0%31
129
1
Idaho Power Weatherization Programs
answered question
Please select the category below that best describes your age:
skipped question
Under 25, 0.8%
25 - 34, 7.8%
35 - 44, 10.9%
45 - 54, 10.1%
55 - 64, 17.8%
65 - 74, 28.7%
75 or older, 24.0%
Answer Options Response
Percent
Response
Count
Less than High School 3.9%5
High School graduate or GED 28.9%37
Some College or Technical School 36.7%47
Associate Degree 7.8%10
College Degree (including any graduate school or graduate 22.7%29
128
2skipped question
Select the response below that best descirbes the highest level of education you have
attained:
answered question
Idaho Power Weatherization Programs
Less than High School,
3.9%
High School graduate
or GED, 28.9%
Some College or
Technical School,
36.7%
Associate Degree,
7.8%
College Degree
(including any
graduate school or
graduate degrees),
22.7%
Answer Options Response
Count
74
answered question 74
skipped question 56
Other comments regarding Idaho Power's weatherization programs.
What an awesome program and such great workers. Everyone was very helpful and professional, explain
what and why they were doing things. I learned a lot. They even found some issues I never knew were
there with the mobile home. They even vacuumed up when they were done. So blessed to have this
program and the wonderful crew.
I believe this is a fantastic program that Idaho power has to improve energy efficiency for people that have
older homes and that live on low or limited incomes. I continue to read all the inserts you send out with the
power bills and that is how I leaned about this program. Thank you! thank you! Thank you! All of the guys
who worked on this weatherization program including Bonnie were very friendly, courteous and
informative.
Very good
Thank you so much for doing this!!
I would like to see a review of what will happen after the audit and work will be performed
excellent program
All work was very thorough and we were always informed about what the crew was doing.
Great crew and service. Thank you for all that was done for our family and home. Awesome program!
Great program, great people, great work done. Looking forward to the future savings and comfort.
What a great program! A great way to give back and educate families on Energy efficiency!
I am grateful for your program. Booklets helpful!
thank you!
The manager and contractors were very pleasant and efficient, courteous and knowledgeable. Would
recommend them to anyone.
The El Ada people were terrific! Personal but professional and very clean!
Because of the program we will most likely be able to stay in this home longer than planned-Thanks.
I sincerely appreciate the help. They were courteous and helpful. Thank you
Thank you for helping us. Great program. Great bunch of people doing the work!
I feel very blessed and am very thankful to Idaho Power and Energy Zone for all they have done.
Thank you very much!
Thank you very much for the things you have done for us.
I appreciate this aid in upgrading my energy conservation. Thank you
You will never know how much this has meant to us. We could not have done it ourselves and we can tell
a difference now. From my heart- Thank you so much!
My thanks to everyone. It was a job well done.
We thank Idaho Power for this program and will enjoy it for years.
Wonderful program. Everything has been extremely positive. All employees have been great and answer
any questions I have.
So appreciate you.
Carter comfort people did a great job. Metro contractor services did a great job also.
We're very appreciative of our new furnace, heat pump weatherization and new bathroom fan.
Very good contractors
Thank you very much.
Idaho Power Weatherization Programs
Please share any other comments you may have regarding Idaho Power's weatherization programs. Thank you.
We definitely appreciate all that you have done to help us get our electric bill under control. thank you.
I believe it to be a very good program that can help anyone, especially those that may be on fixed incomes
or lower incomes.
Very pleased with this program. Thank you. Looking forward to improved power bills.
I have been telling everyone about what you have done for me. I have worked hard all my life and I hate
that it came down to that I had to ask for help but thank you so much.
It has helped me a lot in understanding how to cut down on energy use
I am very pleased to have qualified for this program, it has helped me significantly-thank you! The
gentleman answered all questions I had and even gave me info--
Everyone was very professional and kind. The care and workmanship was outstanding we thank everyone
very much.
I can't say enough about the courtesy of the crew that worked on my house. They went above and beyond
to make my house more efficient and the windows and doors are beautiful. Thanks and God Bless.

I think this is a fantastic program. It benefits so many people in so many ways. I can't say enough about
this program, great job, well done.
Thanks to Idaho Power for this program.
What a great program. Thank you so much.
Thank you for the work performed on my home-it will make such a difference! I so appreciate this!
To Idaho Power, you will never believe how much we appreciate what you have done. Thank you very
much and God Bless you.
I was treated very well the people that came to my home were very nice and did a great job.
Great crew, I was amazed at how extensive your assistance is! Amazing!! Thank you!! Idaho is a great
state.
I am so pleased with my new heater and air conditioner. I could never have gotten this fixed on my own.
Thank you so much and to all your wonderful staff.
I think it is a wonderful program for those who are elderly and on fixed incomes
They are out there. People just need to be told about them.
This has been just a wonderful program and we are excited to see the difference our new improvements
make in lowering our power bill.
Everyone was very nice and accommodating. Very sweet, I have referred several people.
We truly appreciate all you have done for us. The workers worked hard and did a great job. Thank you
again.
Every phase of the improvements to my home completed by individuals who were courteous, friendly and
very polite. They worked diligently and were considerate of keeping my home clean. Thank you for such a
great Blessing!
I am very pleased with all work performed. The workers were very informative on all work done. They were
very respectful of all my needs. I also can't thank Idaho Power enough for the help, changed my life. Thank
you.
Thank you!
Thank you very much, to Idaho Power and Home Energy Management.
Our family has deep gratitude and appreciation to everyone that has helped make our house a home. It is
a great relief to have the confidence in knowing that the risk of extreme temperatures and negative
consequences will no longer be a threat to my children's health. Thank you.
Very Satisfied. Thank you
Excellent work. Thank you.
We would like to thank Idaho Power and Home Energy Management for everything. We really appreciate
it.
Satisfied with program overall. Good explanations and very professional. Thank you! So happy and
grateful for the program.

Very satisfied. Work was done quickly and efficiently. Installation workers were polite and professional.
Thank you!
Great Job! Great Crew! Excellent Job! Thanks!
Thank you- they did a very good job and we appreciate all they have done.
Thanks so much- Great Program.
Thank you for this helpful service & info.
Very grateful for the service.
Thank whomever for the help to conserve energy.
Wait list is too long. Took through the whole winter to winterize the house and while waiting, energy use
skyrocketed.
I can't say thank you enough for all you have done for us! Our home was so cold and we didn't have the
money to change it, due to medical bills and medical issues I haven't been able to work. We thank you so
much for helping us, and Thank all the many workers who came to our home! they were truly amazing!
I am grateful for the help. It wouldn't get down without this program.
Very helpful program.
As a disabled senior widow who lost her home of 27 years due to medical bills-This program was a God
Send- It would have been years, if ever, before I could have made these improvements on my own. God
Bless all of you.
It is so nice to have a program to help the elderly and people on Social Security they do a very very good
job. Thanks again
It's wonderful to know that you care enough to have help for us elderly who can't get these things done on
our own. God Bless
We are very appreciative of the work that was done and how it will impact our comfort and budget.
This is an amazing program and such a blessing to us. Thank you so much- we're telling everyone about
what you've done for us.
Supplement 2: Evaluation Idaho Power Company
Page 724 Demand-Side Management 2016 Annual Report
This page left blank intentionally.

Idaho Power Company Supplement 2: Evaluation
Demand-Side Management 2016 Annual Report Page 725
EVALUATIONS
Table 4. 2016 Evaluations
Report Title Program or Sector
Analysis Performed
by
Study
Manager
Study/Evaluation
Type
2016 Flex Peak Program End-of-Season Annual Report Commercial/Industrial Idaho Power Idaho Power Impact
2016 Irrigation Peak Rewards Program Report Irrigation Idaho Power Idaho Power Impact
A/C Cool Credit Program 2016 Impact Evaluation Residential CLEAResult Idaho Power Impact
Easy Upgrades Impact Evaluation Commercial Leidos Engineering Idaho Power Impact
Flex Peak Demand Response Program 2016 Impact Evaluation Commercial/Industrial CLEAResult Idaho Power Impact
Impact and Process Evaluation of the Irrigation Efficiency Rewards
Program
Irrigation Leidos Engineering Idaho Power Impact/Process
Impact and Process Evaluation Rebate Advantage Residential Leidos Engineering Idaho Power Impact/Process
Impact Evaluation of New
Construction (Building Efficiency) Program
Commercial Leidos Engineering Idaho Power Impact
Residential Energy Efficiency Education Initiative Best Practices
Review
Residential Leidos Engineering Idaho Power Best Practices
Supplement 2: Evaluation Idaho Power Company
Page 726 Demand-Side Management 2016 Annual Report

This page left blank intentionally.

November 3, 2016

2016 Flex Peak Program
End-of-Season Annual Report

Flex Peak Program Report Page i
Table of Contents

Table of Contents ............................................................................................................. i
List of Tables .................................................................................................................... ii
List of Figures ................................................................................................................... ii
Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 1
Background ..................................................................................................................... 1
Program Details ......................................................................................................... 1
Program Incentives .................................................................................................... 2
Program Results ............................................................................................................. 3
Participation ............................................................................................................... 4
Operations ................................................................................................................. 7
Load Reduction Analysis ........................................................................................... 8
Program Costs ......................................................................................................... 13
Benefit-Cost Analysis ............................................................................................... 14
Customer Satisfaction Results ...................................................................................... 14
Program Activities for 2017 ........................................................................................... 15
Conclusion .................................................................................................................... 16

Idaho Power
Page ii Flex Peak Program Report
List of Tables
Table 1. 2016 Incentive Structure. ........................................................................... 3
Table 2. Realization Rate per Event - 2016. ............................................................ 9
Table 3. Realization Rate per Participant for Each Event - 2016. .......................... 11
Table 4. Annual Program Costs - 2016. ................................................................. 14

List of Figures
Figure 1. Idaho Power Service Area ......................................................................... 5
Figure 2. 2016 Site Participation by Region Based on Nomination ........................... 6
Figure 3. 2016 Site Participation by Business Type Based on Nomination ............... 7
Figure 4. Range of Nominated Load Reduction (kW) ............................................... 9
Figure 5. Average Versus Max Reduction Achieved per Event .............................. 10
Figure 6. Average Realization Rate by Each Nomination Size Class ..................... 13

Attachments
CLEAResult Impact Evaluation

Idaho Power Company
Flex Peak Program Report Page 1
Introduction
The Flex Peak Program (“Program”) has been operated by Idaho Power Company
(“Idaho Power” or “Company”) for two years. Prior to 2015, a similar demand response
(“DR”) program for commercial and industrial customers was operated by a third-party
vendor. The results presented in this report are from the Company’s second year of operating the Program. In its second year, the Program experienced a growth in
participation (both in number of participants and size diversity), increased load
reduction, high realization rates, and improved customer satisfaction. There were 67
new sites added and the increased participation resulted in the highest hourly load
reduction for the season of 41.5 megawatts (“MW”). The average realization rate for the three load reduction events that occurred in the 2016 Program season was 98.8
percent. Customer satisfaction remained high with survey results indicating a
satisfaction level of 3.6 out of 4. Enrollment in the Program increased for the season
and 97 percent of previous sites re-enrolled in the Program. The total Program costs
through October 1, 2016, were $744,955. The cost of having this resource available was $17.95 per kilowatt (“kW”) based on (1) the maximum demand reduction achieved
on July 26, 2016, of 41.5 MW for the season compared to $39.48 per kW and (2) the
maximum demand reduction of 39.6 MW under the prior commercial and industrial DR
program in 2014.
Background
The Program is a voluntary DR program available to industrial and large commercial
customers that are capable of reducing their electrical energy loads for short periods
during summer peak days. By reducing demand on extreme system load days during
summer months, the Program reduces the amount of generation and transmission
resources required to serve customers. This Program, along with Idaho Power’s other DR programs, Irrigation Peak Rewards and the Residential Air Conditioner Cycling
Program, has helped to delay the need to build supply-side resources.
As part of Order No. 33292, the Idaho Public Utilities Commission (“Commission”)
ordered the Company to file an annual end-of-season report that should include the
number of participants, number of participating sites, MW of DR under contract, MW of DR realized and incented per dispatch, percent of nominated MW achieved in each
dispatch event by participant, and a detailed program cost analysis. This report
addresses the annual end-of-season reporting requirements.
Program Details
The Program pays participants a financial incentive for reducing load within their facility
and is active June 15 to August 15, between the hours of 2 p.m. and 8 p.m. on non-holiday weekdays.
Customers with the ability to nominate or provide load reduction of at least 20 kW are
eligible to enroll in the Program. The 20 kW threshold allows a broad range of
Idaho Power Company
Page 2 Flex Peak Program Report
customers the ability to participate in the Program. Participants receive notification of a load reduction event (“event”) two hours prior to the start of the event, and events last
between two to four hours.
The parameters of the Program are in Schedule 82,1 and include the following:
 A minimum of three load reduction events will occur each program season.
 Events can occur any weekday, excluding July 4, between the hours of 2 p.m.
and 8 p.m.
 Events can occur up to four hours per day and up to 15 hours per week, but no more than 60 hours per program season.
 Idaho Power will provide notification to participants two hours prior to the
initiation of an event.
 If prior notice of a load reduction event has been sent, Idaho Power can choose
to cancel the event and notify participants of cancellation 30 minutes prior to the
start of the event.
Program Incentives
The Program includes both a fixed and variable incentive payment. The fixed incentive
is calculated by multiplying the actual kW reduction by $3.25 for weeks when an event
is called or the weekly nominated kW amount by $3.25 for weeks when an event is not
called. The variable energy incentive is calculated by multiplying the kW reduction by the event duration hours to achieve the total kilowatt-hour (“kWh”) reduction during an
event. The variable incentive payment is $0.16 per kWh and is implemented for events
that occur after the first three events.
The Program also includes an incentive adjustment of $2.00 when participants do not
achieve their nominated amount during load reduction events. This adjustment amount is used for the first three events. After the third event, the adjustment is reduced to
$0.25 per kW. Incentives are calculated using Idaho Power’s interval metering billing
data and participants received the incentive checks within 30 days of the end of the
Program season. Participants were mailed their incentive checks by September 15 in
2016. The incentive structure offered for the 2016 season is listed in Table 1.

1 Idaho Power Company, I.P.U.C. No. 29, Tariff No. 101, Schedule 82
Idaho Power Company
Flex Peak Program Report Page 3
Table 1.
Fixed-Capacity Payment Rate* Variable Energy Payment Rate**
$3.25 per Weekly Effective kW Reduction

Adjustment for first three events
$2.00 per kW not achieved up to nomination
$0.16 per kWh (Actual kW x Hours of Event)

Adjustment after first three events
$0.25 per kW not achieved up to nomination
*To be prorated for partial weeks **Does not apply to first three Program events
Program Results
The results reported throughout this report are at the generation level and system
losses have been taken into account. Idaho Power called three load reduction events in
2016. The first event occurred on June 30, the second on July 26, and the third on July 28. The maximum realization rate during the season was 120 percent and the average for all three events combined was 98.8 percent. The realization rate is the percentage
of load reduction achieved versus the amount of load reduction committed for an event.
The highest hourly load reduction achieved was during the July 26 event at 41.5 MW.
Participants had a committed load reduction of 34.2 MW in the first week of the Program, which was the peak committed load reduction for the season. This weekly commitment, or “nomination”, was comprised of 65 participants totaling 137 sites. Out
of the total number of sites, 70 sites participated in the 2015 season, and 67 sites were
newly added in 2016. There were two sites that did not re-enroll from the 2015 season.
One of the sites closed down and the other site felt the program did not fit its business operations. The committed load reduction at the end of the season was 33.9 MW, which was achieved by 137 facility sites.
The first event was called on Thursday, June 30. Participants were notified at 2 p.m. for
a four hour event from 4-8 p.m. The total nomination for this event was 34.2 MW. The
average load reduction was 32.8 MW. The highest hourly load reduction was 34.8 MW during hour three. The realization rate for this event was 96 percent.
The second event was called on Tuesday, July 26. Participants were notified at 2 p.m.
for a four hour event from 4-8 p.m. The total nomination for this event was 33.5 MW.
The average load reduction was 40.3 MW. The highest hourly load reduction was 41.5
MW during hour one. The realization rate for this event was 120 percent.
The third event was called on Thursday, July 28. Participants were notified at 2 p.m. for a four hour event from 4-8 p.m. The total nomination for this event was 33.9 MW. The
average load reduction was 27 MW. The highest hourly load reduction was 27.7 MW
during hour one. The realization rate for this event was 80 percent. The lower
realization rate for this event was primarily due to some larger sites that underperformed or reduced participation as a result of having two events in one week.
Idaho Power Company
Page 4 Flex Peak Program Report
Participation
Idaho Power utilized direct customer mailings to encourage both past participants and new customers to enroll in 2016. Idaho Power launched a marketing campaign early in
2016 using Customer Representatives to recruit new participants. The Company also
developed new Program literature, as well as a new Program brochure. Potential
commercial and industrial participants were identified early winter with field visits from
Idaho Power Customer Representatives and had a follow up communication in early spring. This marketing campaign focused on identifying customer characteristics that
make for successful Program participants and also highlighted available incentive
amounts based on customers load size.
The Program was jointly marketed along with Idaho Power’s energy efficiency
programs. In addition, the marketing campaign goals were to increase the number and size diversity (in terms of nominated load reduction) of sites enrolled. By having a
larger diversity of customer sizes enrolled, the Program should be less prone to volatility
in its realization rate. The Company utilized Customer Representative support for the
sites with the largest nominated load reduction with the goal of ensuring all large sites
were able to participate when load reduction events were called. The Company also used several advertisements in the Energy at Work spring edition of Idaho Power’s
quarterly newsletter and included an article promoting the Program in its commercial
and industrial newsletter, Energy Insights.
Idaho Power implemented an educational campaign with both currently enrolled
participants and potential new participants to inform them of DR strategies with the goal of refining the amount of nominated load reduction from each site to more realistically
align with load reduction potential.
The number of sites enrolled in the Program for 2016 was 137. Of those 137 sites, 67
were newly enrolled during the 2016 season. The total number of sites enrolled in 2016
increased by approximately 90 percent compared to 2015.

Idaho Power Company
Flex Peak Program Report Page 5
Figure 1 represents Idaho Power’s service area divided into five regional areas: Western, Canyon, Capital, Southern, and Eastern.
Figure 1.

Idaho Power Company
Page 6 Flex Peak Program Report
Figure 2 represents the 137 sites that were enrolled in 2016 and their distribution by Idaho Power’s regional service areas.
Figure 2.

Canyon
7%
Capital
22%
Eastern
12%
Southern
18%
Western
41%
2016 Site Participation by Region Based on
Nomination
Idaho Power Company
Flex Peak Program Report Page 7
Figure 3 represents the 137 sites that were enrolled in 2016 and their diversity based on business type.
Figure 3.

Operations
Interval metering data provides Idaho Power the ability to view all participants’ load after
events. This metering data was used to calculate the reduction achieved per site during load reduction events. Using this data, Idaho Power provided participants post-event
usage reports that showed hourly baseline, actual usage, and reduction during an
event. The data assisted participants in refining their nomination for future events. This
data also provides information useful in determining which participating sites may have
opportunity to provide more reduction or change their reduction strategy if nomination amounts were not achieved.

Agriculture
5% Commercial Property
8%
Other
2%
Education
3%
Refrigerated
Warehouse
11%
Government
7% Water &
Wastewater
Treatment
Facility
14%
Asphalt, Concrete,
Gravel
29%
Light Industrial
6% Food Processing
13%
2016 Site Participation by Business Type Based
on Nomination
Idaho Power Company
Page 8 Flex Peak Program Report
Load Reduction Analysis
Potential load reduction impacts in 2016 were verified by an impact evaluation performed by a third-party contractor, CLEAResult. The impact evaluation report
performed by CLEAResult is included as an attachment to this report. The goal of the
impact evaluation was to calculate load reduction in MW under Idaho Power’s
methodology used for the Program. The evaluation also analyzed and verified load
reduction per site and per event.
The baseline that load reductions are measured against during load reduction events is
calculated using a 10-day period. The baseline is the average kW of the highest energy
usage days during the event availability time (2-8 p.m.) from the highest three days out
of the last 10 non-event weekdays. Individual baselines are calculated for each facility
site. Once the original baseline is calculated, there is an additional piece included in the methodology called the Day-of-Adjustment (“DOA”) that is used to arrive at the adjusted
baseline.
Adjustments address situations where load is lower or higher than it has historically
been and the baseline does not accurately reflect the load behavior immediately prior to
the event. The DOA is applied to each site’s original baseline by accounting for the difference between the average baseline kW and the average curtailment day kW
during hours 2-3 prior to the start of the event. The DOA is calculated as a flat kW and
is applied to all baseline hours and capped at +/- 20 percent of the original baseline kW.
The DOA is symmetrical, having either an upward or downward adjustment to the
baseline, and is applied to the original baseline kW for each facility site for each hour during the Program event.
The average nominated kW per site was 247 kW, while the average load reduction was
244 kW per site. The 137 enrolled sites nominated an average of 33.8 MW across the
three events and included 65 unique participants. The average number of sites enrolled
per participant was 2.1.
As Figure 4 below depicts, the most common nominated load reduction was in the 0-50
kW range, accounting for 40 percent of the sites. The 0-50 kW group accounted for 41
of the 67 new sites, which is 61 percent of the new site participation. These results
indicate that expanding the Program availability to smaller customers has been
successful.

Idaho Power Company
Flex Peak Program Report Page 9
Figure 4.

CLEAResult also analyzed the realization rate for each event with all sites aggregated
together, as well as on an individual site basis. Table 2 shows the Program realization
rates for 2016 based on average load reduction per event.
Table 2.

Curtailment Event Event Timeframe Nominated Demand
Reduction
Average Demand
Reduction (MW)
Max Demand Reduction
(MW)
Realization Rate*
June 30 4-8 pm 34.2 32.8 34.8 95.9%
July 26 4-8 pm 33.5 40.3 41.5 120.3%
July 28 4-8 pm 33.9 27.0 27.7 79.6%
Average 33.8 33.4 34.7 98.8%
* Based on average reduction
Figure 5 below shows both the average and peak demand reduction achieved during
each of the three curtailment events. The maximum demand reduction achieved
ranged from a low of 27.7 MW for the July 28 event to a high of 41.5 MW for the July 26
event. The July 28 event’s 27.7 MW reduction achieved a realization rate of 79.6 percent, while the July 26 event’s 41.5 MW reduction achieved a realization rate of 120
percent. When considered together, the three events had an average realization rate of
98.8 percent.
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
0-50 51-200 201-500 501+
Co
u
n
t

o
f

S
i
t
e
s

Nominated amount
Range of Nominated Load Reduction (kW)
2016
2015
6 6
55
14
48
30 28
21
Idaho Power Company
Page 10 Flex Peak Program Report
The realization rate analysis shows that maximum load reduction was achieved in the middle of the Program season during the second event, which correlates with Idaho
Power’s overall summer system peak.
Figure 5.

0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
June 30th July 26th July 28th
Me
g
a
w
a
t
t
s

(
M
W
)

Event Date
Average Versus Max Reduction Achieved per
Event
Average Demand
Reduction
Max Demand
Reduction
Idaho Power Company
Flex Peak Program Report Page 11
Table 3 shows the realization rate for each participant in the Program for 2016.
Table 3.

Participant Number June 30 Event Realization July 26 Event Realization July 28 Event Realization
Season Average Realization
1 170% 149% 164% 161%
2 72% 77% 62% 70%
3 8% 64% 67% 46%
4 82% 86% 97% 88%
5 95% 27% 50% 57%
6 118% 100% 74% 97%
7 138% 431% 38% 202%
8 118% 124% 120% 121%
9 34% 92% 158% 95%
10 203% 216% 38% 152%
11 79% 176% 93% 116%
12 27% 0% 0% 9%
13 58% 65% 58% 60%
14 68% 87% 87% 81%
15 96% 71% 93% 87%
16 76% 71% 76% 75%
17 59% 5% 14% 26%
18 92% 47% 44% 61%
19 86% 73% 119% 93%
20 72% 153% 112% 112%
21 231% 153% 150% 178%
22 54% 149% 194% 132%
23 78% 98% 96% 91%
24 138% 93% 101% 111%
25 23% 6% 27% 19%
26 72% 64% 81% 72%
27 173% 212% 182% 189%
28 79% 3% 3% 28%
29 54% 66% 60% 60%
30 2% 60% 89% 50%
31 111% 139% 132% 127%
32 227% 264% 31% 174%
33 19% 228% 229% 158%
34 62% 221% 84% 122%
35 83% 195% 229% 169%
36 100% 107% 123% 110%
Idaho Power Company
Page 12 Flex Peak Program Report
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65

When broken out across four size classes, the sites with the smallest nominated load
reduction, 0–50 kW, achieved the highest average realization rate across the three
events at 130 percent. The 0-50 kW group had the largest portion of sites enrolled in the Program, totaling 55 sites that accounted for 40 percent of total enrolled sites. The second smallest size class, 51–200 kW, had 48 sites enrolled and achieved the lowest
average realization rate at 73 percent. The 201-500 kW group had 28 sites enrolled
and achieved a realization rate of 111 percent. The largest size class, 501+ kW, had six
sites enrolled and achieved a realization rate of 95 percent. Idaho Power will continue to work with all customer segments to help refine nominations to align closer with realistic reduction opportunities which will increase the realization rate specific to this
group.

Idaho Power Company
Flex Peak Program Report Page 13
Figure 6 below represents the realization rate achieved by each nomination group, averaged across all three events. To calculate the results, each site’s average load
reduction (across three events) was divided by its average nomination across the three
events and then grouped by size.
Figure 6.

Program Costs
Program costs totaled $744,955 through October 1, 2016. Incentive payments were the largest expenditure comprising 86 percent of total costs. The incentive payments were
fixed-capacity payments resulting from the three events called during the 2016 Program
season. Variable energy payments were not made during the season because the
variable energy payment is implemented starting with the fourth event. Total Program
costs for 2016 were $17.95 per kW based on the maximum demand reduction of 41.5 MW, or $22.30 per kW, based on average load reduction for the season of 33.4 MW.
Table 4 below displays the 2016 Program costs by category.

0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
140%
0-50 51-200 201-500 501+
Re
a
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n

R
a
t
e

Range of Nominated Load Reduction (kW)
Average Realization Rate by Each Nomination
Size Class
130%
73%
111%
95%
Idaho Power Company
Page 14 Flex Peak Program Report
Table 4.
Item 2016 Program Costs
Total $744,955
Benefit-Cost Analysis
The Benefit-Cost analysis for the Program is based on a 20-year model that uses
financial and demand-side management alternate cost assumptions from the 2015
Integrated Resource Plan (“IRP”). As part of the public workshops in conjunction with
Case No. IPC-E-13-142, Idaho Power and other stakeholders agreed in a settlement agreement (“Settlement”) on a new method for valuing DR. The Settlement, as approved in Commission Order No. 32923, defined the annual cost of operating
Idaho Power’s three DR programs for the maximum allowable 60 hours must be no
more than $16.7 million. This amount was reevaluated in the 2015 IRP, as agreed upon
in the Settlement, to be $18.5 million.
In 2016, the preliminary cost estimate of operating all three of Idaho Power’s DR programs was $8.9 million through October 1, 2016. It is estimated that if the three
programs were dispatched for the full 60 hours, the total costs would have been
approximately $12.2 million which is below the total annual costs agreed upon in the
Settlement as revised in the 2015 IRP.
Idaho Power’s cost-effectiveness for DR programs is updated annually. A more comprehensive cost-benefit analysis will be included in the Company’s 2017 Demand-
Side Management Annual Report when all the data will be available.
Customer Satisfaction Results
Idaho Power conducted a post season survey that was sent via email to all participants enrolled in the Program. The survey focused on quantifiable questions that encouraged customer feedback and could be used to improve the Program in future years.
Questions were based on a four point rating scale. Idaho Power received feedback
from 34 of the 64 (excluding Idaho Power) participants enrolled for a response rate of

2 In the Matter of the Continuation of Idaho Power Company’s A/C Cool Credit, Irrigation Peak Rewards, and Flexpeak Demand Response Programs for 2014 and Beyond
Idaho Power Company
Flex Peak Program Report Page 15
53 percent. The results of the survey were favorable and participants were satisfied, as shown below:
 When asked, how satisfied were you with the enrollment process, 4 being “very
satisfied,” the average response was 3.8.
 When asked, how satisfied were you with the notification process, 4 being “very
satisfied,” the average response was 3.4.
 When asked, how satisfied were you with the program support from Idaho Power, 4 being “very satisfied,” the average response was 3.6.
 When asked, how satisfied were you with the post event performance data, 4 being
“very satisfied,” the average response was 3.4.
 When asked, how satisfied were you with the timeliness of receiving the incentive payment, 4 being “very satisfied,” the average response was 3.6.
 When asked, how satisfied were you with the incentive amount, 4 being “very
satisfied,” the average response was 3.5.
 When asked, how satisfied were you with the ability to reduce demand in your facility
during scheduled events, 4 being “very satisfied,” the average response was 3.4.
 When asked, overall how satisfied are you with Idaho Power’s Flex Peak Program, 4
being “very satisfied,” the average response was 3.8.
 When asked, how likely would you be to re-enroll in the Flex Peak Program in the
future, 4 being “very likely,” the average response was 3.9.
Program Activities for 2017
Recruitment efforts for the 2017 season will begin the first quarter of 2017 to encourage participation. Idaho Power will meet with existing participants during the off-season to
discuss past-season performance and upcoming season details.
Similar to 2016, the Program will be jointly marketed along with Idaho Power’s
applicable energy efficiency programs. The Company will utilize its Customer Representatives to retain the currently enrolled sites and encourage new sites to participate.
For the upcoming season, Idaho Power plans to focus on retaining current enrolled
customers and enroll new customers that show interest and are a good fit for the
Program. However, the Company does not plan to actively market the program like it
did in 2016 because the capacity from this past season remained around 35 MW, which is in line with the desired Program capacity set forth in the Settlement agreement.
Idaho Power Company
Page 16 Flex Peak Program Report
Conclusion
The Program is successful in achieving DR load reduction at a lower cost to customers
when compared to the former commercial and industrial DR program. When analyzing
the Program at the generation level, industrial and commercial customers have made
noteworthy contributions to Idaho Power’s DR programs. The Program currently contributes approximately 10-12 percent of the Company’s overall DR portfolio and can
be relied on to provide dispatchable load reduction to the electrical grid. The Program
had a total of 137 sites reducing peak demand by 41.5 MW with 67 new sites enrolling
in 2016. The Program retained 97 percent of past enrolled sites (70 of 72) from the
2015 season. Load reduction event results showed maximum load reductions of 34.8, 41.5, and 27.7 MW, respectively, for the three events, and an average of 34.7 MW. The
events achieved realization rates of 96 percent, 120 percent, and 80 percent,
respectively, averaging 98.8 percent. The total Program costs for 2016 through October
1 were $744,955. The cost of having this resource available was $22.30 per kW based
on average reduction for the season. The Program continues to enjoy high customer satisfaction results among participants with average survey responses at 3.6 on a scale
of 1 to 4.

2016 Irrigation Peak Rewards
Program Report

February 15, 2017
Idaho Power 2017

Idaho Power
Irrigation Peak Rewards i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary .........................................................................................................................1
Summary of Program Results ..........................................................................................................1
Introduction ......................................................................................................................................2
Program Details .........................................................................................................................2
Interruption Options .............................................................................................................2
Program Parameters .............................................................................................................3
Program Incentives ..............................................................................................................3
Program Opt Out ..................................................................................................................4
Review of Program Results .............................................................................................................5
Participation ...............................................................................................................................5
Operations ..................................................................................................................................7
Equipment and Monitoring ..................................................................................................7
Program Analysis .......................................................................................................................8
Data Gathering and Processing ..................................................................................................8
Baseline for Interval Metering Data ..........................................................................................8
Demand Reduction Calculation Method ....................................................................................9
Load Reduction Results – Interval Metering Data ............................................................10
Realization Rate Analysis ........................................................................................................12
Load Reduction Results – Total System Load Data ................................................................16
Program Costs ..........................................................................................................................17
Conclusions ....................................................................................................................................17

Idaho Power
ii Irrigation Peak Rewards
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. 2016 incentive rates ....................................................................................................... 4
Table 2. 2016 Eligible service locations and participation levels by area ................................... 7
Table 3. Manual Dispatch Option sites - meter level DR .......................................................... 11
Table 4. Automatic Dispatch Option sites - meter level DR ..................................................... 11
Table 5. Demand reduction results for each event by hour ....................................................... 12
Table 6. Average realization rates ............................................................................................. 14
Table 7. Annual program costs 2016 ......................................................................................... 17

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Idaho Power service areas ............................................................................................. 6
Figure 2. Distribution by service area of 2016 participants .......................................................... 6
Figure 3. Demand Reduction (Demand Response) – June 29 .................................................... 12
Figure 4. Realization rate distribution – June 29 ........................................................................ 14
Figure 5. Realization rate distribution – July 27 ......................................................................... 14
Figure 6. Realization rate distribution – July 29 ......................................................................... 15
Figure 7. 2016 Program season potential realization rate ........................................................... 15
Figure 8. Total system load on June 29, July 27 and July 29 ..................................................... 16
Idaho Power
Irrigation Peak Rewards 1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Irrigation Peak Rewards program (the Program) is a voluntary demand response program
that pays irrigation participants a financial incentive for the ability to turn off participating
irrigation pumps at potential system peak load periods. The Program success is measured by the
amount of demand reduction, in MW, available to Idaho Power during potential system peak
periods.
SUMMARY OF PROGRAM RESULTS
The following items summarize the key components of the 2016 Irrigation Peak Rewards
program.
 The Program had an estimated actual generation level load reduction of 302.7 MW on
June 29.
 The Program had a maximum estimated load reduction potential of 316.9 MW.
 The Program dispatched three load reduction events; June 29, July 27 and July 29.
 Customers were divided into one of four dispatch groups; 2:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m., 3:00
p.m. to 7:00 p.m. 4:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m., or 5:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m.
 623 eligible participants chose to participate.
 2,286, or 82% of the 2,778 eligible service points, enrolled in 2016.
 Total billing demand enrollment of participating sites was 415,583 (kW).
 The total program costs for 2016 were $7,600,075.

Idaho Power
2 Irrigation Peak Rewards
INTRODUCTION
The Irrigation Peak Rewards Program (the Program) is a voluntary demand response program
that has been available to Idaho Power’s agricultural irrigation participants since 2004. The
Program pays irrigation participants 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. Idaho Power estimates future capacity
shortfalls through the Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) and then plans resources to mitigate these
shortfalls. The Program is a result of this planning process. The Program success is measured by
the amount of demand reduction, in MW, available to Idaho Power during potential system peak
periods.
The Program continually increased demand response resource capacity to 340 megawatts (MW)
in 2012. Following the 2012 program season, Idaho Power determined through the 2013 IRP that
there would be no capacity shortfalls for a few years into the future. 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.
These workshops resulted in settlement agreements reached in Case No. IPC-E-13-14 and UM
1653. The Program was again offered as a demand response program in 2014, with some
modifications. Under the terms of the settlement agreement, the Program was only available to
service locations that currently had a Load Control Device (Device) installed or that participated
in the Manual Dispatch Option in 2012. In the most recent 2015 IRP, Demand Response (DR)
programs were considered as committed resources as part of the load and resource balance. This
new way of considering DR, contributed to the development of a new load and resource balance
indicating no capacity shortfalls until 2026. There were no changes to the Program for the 2016
program season. This report provides a review of the Program’s activities, performance and
expenditures for 2016 and is a supplement to the 2016 DSM Annual Report.
Program Details
Interruption Options
The Program is available to Idaho Power irrigation participants taking service under Schedule 24
in both Idaho and Oregon, had service locations that currently had a Device installed or that had
previously participated in the Manual Dispatch Option. Participants are placed in one of two
Interruption Option classes:
Automatic Dispatch Option
For each Metered Service Point (service points) in the Automatic Dispatch Option, Idaho Power
installs a Device which provides the ability to send a signal that controls the associated irrigation
pumps. The Device operates a contact to control the associated irrigation pumps to turn off
Idaho Power
Irrigation Peak Rewards 3
during dispatched Load Control Events. This option requires that all pumps at the service points
be controlled.
Manual Dispatch Option
Service points with at least 1,000 cumulative HP, or that Idaho Power has determined to have
limited communication availability are eligible for the Manual Dispatch Option. Customers
under this classification choose to manually control which pumps are turned off during a Load
Control Event. Manual Dispatch Option participants are required to select a nomination for the
amount of kilowatts (kW) available to dispatch during load control events.
Program Parameters
The parameters of the Program included the following:
A minimum of three (3) load control events occur each program season.
Dispatch load control events could occur any weekday or Saturday, excluding July 4,
between the hours of 1 p.m. and 9 p.m.
Customers were divided into one of four dispatch groups:
o 2:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.
o 3:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m.
o 4:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m.
o 5:00 p.m. to 9:00 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 provides notification to Manual Dispatch Option participants four hours
prior to the initiation of a control event. Idaho Power may not always provide prior
notification of a load control event for Automatic Dispatch Option participants.
If prior notice of a load control event had been sent, Idaho Power could choose to cancel
the event and notify participants of cancellation up to 30 minutes prior to the load control
event.
The provisions for this program did not apply to system emergencies or events outside
the control of Idaho Power.
Program Incentives
Automatic Dispatch Option participant’s incentive appeared as a demand credit and an energy
credit applied to the monthly bills June 15 through August 15. The demand and energy credits
for the Manual Dispatch Option participants for the period of June 15 through August 15 are
paid with a check.
The demand credit was calculated by multiplying the monthly billing kW by the demand-related
incentive amount. The energy credit was calculated by multiplying the monthly billing
Idaho Power
4 Irrigation Peak Rewards
kilowatt-hour (kWh) usage by the energy-related incentive amount. Credits were prorated for
periods when meter reading/billing cycles did not align with the Program season dates from June
15 to August 15.
The incentive structure includes a “Fixed” and “Variable” payment, with an increased variable
credit amount for service points that voluntarily participate in the “Extended” 9 p.m. interruption
period. All participants’ “Fixed” incentives in the Automatic and Manual Dispatch options were
calculated using Idaho Power metered billing data.
Automatic Dispatch Option participants’ received a credit on their monthly bill calculated and
applied by Idaho Power’s Customer Relations and Billing software (CR&B).
Manual Dispatch Option participants’ incentives were calculated using billing kW and kWh from
2016 interval metering data and nominated kW, and participants received the incentives in the
form of a check. Any “Variable” incentive payments (applied to events occurring after the first
three) would be paid by check no more than 45 days after the end of the program season. The
incentive rates for 2016 are listed in Table 1. There were no “Variable” incentive payments made
in 2016.
Table 1. 2016 incentive rates
Option
Fixed Demand Credit Fixed Energy Credit

Variable Energy Credit Extended 9 p.m. Variable Energy Credit (5-9 p.m.)
($/billing kW) ($/billing kWh) ($/event kWh) ($/event kWh)
Automatic and Manual Options $5.00 $0.0076 $0.148 $0.198

Program Opt Out
Under the rules of the Dispatch Option, participants had the ability to opt out of dispatch events
up to five times per service point. Each opt out incurred a fee. The opt out fee was $5.00 per kW
of demand for the first three events, and $1.00 per kW of demand for remaining events
(Variable) based on the current month’s billing demand (kW). Opt out penalty fees never
exceeded the incentive amount. Manual Dispatch Option service locations were charged opt out
penalty fees based on the nominated kW that was not turned off during a load control event.
In 2016, 25 participants received opt out penalties for one or more of the event dates. The opt out
penalties were low due to a communication error in the EnerNoc notification system. Many
participants were not notified of the event happening on June 29. This created a situation where
some participants turned pumps back on not realizing there was an event. Charging a penalty
unless participants explicitly opted out would not have been correct.
Idaho Power
Irrigation Peak Rewards 5
REVIEW OF PROGRAM RESULTS
Participation
Idaho Power presented the Program details at irrigation workshops across the service area. In
addition, each year Idaho Power staff participates in four agriculture shows and discusses the
Program and changes to the Program with customers/participants. After the Program suspension
in 2013, Idaho Power has made a concerted effort to encourage past participants to re-enroll in
the Program. In 2016, Idaho Power presented the details of the Program at eight workshops
across five regional areas. Additionally, Idaho Power agriculture representatives answered
specific participant’s questions by phone, email, and face to face contact to inform participants
about the program details.
In March 2016, Program enrollment packets were mailed to all participants that currently had a
Device(s) installed or past participants in the Manual Dispatch Option. Contents of this packet
included program details, a program application, incentive structure, eligible pump locations and
an estimated incentive for each program option listed by pump locations.
For 2016 the total billing demand enrollment was 415,583 (kW) on 2,286 service points.
This accounted for approximately 82 % of the eligible service points. This was a 1 % increase
over 2015.
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.
Idaho Power
6 Irrigation Peak Rewards
Figure 1. Idaho Power service areas

Figure 2. Distribution by service area of 2016 participants

4% 6%
14%
36%
40%
2016 Participation by Area
Western
Canyon
Capital
Southern
Eastern
Idaho Power
Irrigation Peak Rewards 7
Table 2. 2016 Eligible service locations and participation levels by area
Idaho Power
Area State Eligible Service
Locations
Automatic
Device Manual Total Enrolled by Area
Eligible Enrolled (%)
Western Idaho 60 41 0 41 68%
Oregon 66 42 4 46 70%
Canyon Idaho 151 129 8 137 91%
Oregon 4 3 0 3 75%
Capital Idaho 386 299 24 323 84%
Southern (Twin Falls) Idaho 525 420 3 423 81%
Southern (Mini-Cassia) Idaho 456 399 0 399 88%
Eastern Idaho 1,127 914 0 914 81%
Total Service Points 2,775 2,247 39 2,286
Operations
Equipment and Monitoring
Idaho Power contracted with EnerNOC (originally M2M Communications) in 2016 to provide
equipment, installation, and service for the Irrigation Peak Rewards devices that were not
controlled by Idaho Power’s Automated Metering Infrastructure (AMI) system. Idaho Power
initiated Irrigation Peak Rewards dispatch control events on a customized EnerNOC Web site.
The Web-to-wireless remote control system, developed by EnerNoc utilizes cell or satellite
devices installed in participants’ pump motor control circuit to turn off or prevent the pump from
running during an interruption event. The Web service allows Idaho Power to dispatch, schedule
and carry-out interruption events. Communication from the Device provided feedback to
determine the status of the participants’ equipment surrounding an interruption event.
Idaho Power has also been expanding the use of power line carrier technology used for its
automated metering system. The power line carrier technology provides the ability to turn off
pumps for the Program. This technology utilizes an Aclara Demand Response Unit (DRU),
installed in the participants’ pump motor control circuit to turn off or prevent the pump from
running during a load control event. The DRU receives commands via Idaho Power owned
power line carrier technology.
The AMI technology allows Idaho Power to monitor status of the majority of participating
irrigation pumps during load control events by supplying hourly usage reports. These reports
provide useful information in determining which service locations had Devices that functioned
properly or failed to turn off pumps during events.
Idaho Power
8 Irrigation Peak Rewards
In addition to using the AMI technology with DRUs, Idaho Power has developed its own load
control device. The load control device is installed on the participant’s pump panel and turns off
the pump when signaled by a text message communicated by a cell signal. This device will be
used where AMI technology is not available.
Program Analysis
Idaho Power conducted the 2016 Irrigation Peak Rewards load reduction evaluation through the
use of four primary data sources: AMI interval data (hourly kWh readings), MV-90 meter
interval data (hourly kW readings), a program participant list and total system load data for event
days.
The participant list included for each enrolled pump and curtailment event day:
Dispatch group
Nominated kW
Opt out status
Pump number
Meter number
All interval meter data included error codes for cases where the source data was missing or
estimated. This data was removed from event days before results were tabulated. Due to not
having AMI or interval data for approximately 15% of Automatic Dispatch Option pumps, the
results of the sites with AMI data were assumed to represent the rest of the sites. Calculations
were extrapolated to total program sites in the Automatic Dispatch Option to estimate total
reduction for the Program. Also total system load data was reviewed as a secondary check of
total estimated load reduction.
Data Gathering and Processing
Two distinct datasets were created: one for Automatic Dispatch Option pumps where AMI data
was available and one for all Manual Dispatch Option sites. Idaho Power system load was used
as a comparison for impact of the DR events. The system load used for comparison consists of
total MW readings in 5 minute increments on event days as well as one comparative non event
day.
Baseline for Interval Metering Data
The baseline load for each pump was calculated by averaging the hourly interval readings in the
second, third and fourth hours preceding the beginning of each pumps’ curtailment event. The
reasons for not including the immediately preceding hour (first hour) in the baseline
determination are:
Idaho Power
Irrigation Peak Rewards 9
The frequent practice of pump operators manually shutting off the pump prior to the start
of the curtailment event (up to an hour prior to the event).
The dispatch system does not communicate with the load control devices at exactly the
same moment in time. This causes the load control devices to turn off at slightly different
times at the beginning of the event. This causes usage to be recorded in the first hour of
the event, therefore, the first hour of usage data was ignored for analysis purposes.
Each pump’s baseline is summed to arrive at a unique baseline for each dispatch group.
Demand Reduction Calculation Method
The Demand Reduction (in kW) for each pump (with hourly metering) was calculated during the
last three hours of each curtailment event was calculated as follows:
Demand ReductionPump = Baseline LoadPump - Average Event Load Pump
The aggregated demand reduction (in kW) for all pumps within a dispatch group yield a total
hourly reduction for each group in each event as follows:
Demand ReductionGroup = ∑ Demand Reduction Pump in Groups 1-4
The total Demand Reduction for the Automatic Dispatch Option was calculated as follows:
Demand ReductionAutomatic Dispatch Option = ∑ Demand Reduction Group
Usage data for The Manual Dispatch Option was collected by AMI meters or other Company
owned hourly meters (MV90). The total Demand Reduction for the Manual Dispatch Option was
calculated by the following method:
Demand Reduction Manual Dispatch Option Group = ∑ Demand Reduction Manual Dispatch Option Pump-AMI
+∑ Demand Reduction Manual Dispatch Option Pump-MV90 Groups 1-4
The total Demand Reduction for the Manual Dispatch Option was calculated as follows:
Demand ReductionManual Dispatch Option = ∑ Demand Reduction Manual Dispatch Option Groups 1-4
The total Program Demand Reduction was calculated by summing the Automatic Dispatch
Option sites and the Manual Dispatch Option sites calculated reduction:
Total Program Demand Reduction = Demand Reduction Manual Dispatch Option
+ Demand Reduction Automatic Dispatch Option
Idaho Power
10 Irrigation Peak Rewards
The total Program results represent the estimated reduction for all pumps in the Program, not just
those analyzed. Idaho Power applied the realization rate to the nominated load (kW) of all pumps
where AMI data was not available in order to estimate the total demand reduction achieved
during each curtailment event. This could be the result of a manually read meter (i.e. no AMI
available) or AMI data that was removed as part of the data cleaning process.
Load Reduction Results – Interval Metering Data
In 2016 the Program dispatched three load control events with a maximum meter level demand
reduction:
June 29 – 275.8 MW 302.7 MW with line losses
July 27 – 222.8 MW 244.6 MW with line losses
July 29 – 227.1 MW 249.3 MW with line losses
Idaho Power has determined that the full value of the demand reductions at the generation level
include an average 9.76 % line loss. The events achieved realization rates of 70.6 %, 53.8 % and
54.6 %, respectively.
During the first event of 2016 (June 29), Idaho Power experienced an AMI communication issue
that reduced potential load reduction by approximately 12.9 MW at the meter level. The issue
occurred because it was the first actual dispatched event using a new dispatch control interface.
The new interface provides a method that allows Idaho Power Load Serving Operators to
dispatch each of the demand response programs from one screen.
Based on the analysis of the data the expected maximum load reduction for the season should
have happened on June 29, which absent the AMI communication issue would have resulted in
an estimated 316.9 MW of load reduction at the generation level. This was calculated by using
the actual load reduction of 302.7 MW and adding back the estimated load that would have
turned off without the AMI communication issue of 14.2 MW (12.9 MW at meter level).
The interface was developed in late 2015 and completed in early 2016 for use in the 2016 season.
The interface caused a communications problem with irrigation AMI dispatched DRUs for the
first two groups on June 29. The cause of the problem was that the time limit for the AMI
communication process was not timed sufficiently. In essence, the “time-out” limit to send the
control signals for the event to the DRU was not long enough to communicate with all of the
Devices. Many of the Devices were not dispatched in the first two groups.
Prior to the start of the season the interface had been successfully tested on a few Devices.
However, not enough Devices were tested at one time to cause the issue to occur during testing.
The problem was discovered and corrected before the last two groups dispatched. The interface
dispatched properly the rest of the season. Discovering and rectifying problems such as this is
Idaho Power
Irrigation Peak Rewards 11
part of the reason Idaho Power uses the Program at least three times each season. Other reasons
include testing the processes, procedures and to engage customers in program operation.
As discussed above, load reduction is calculated separately for the Manual Dispatch Option Sites
and the Automatic Dispatch Option Sites. Following are tables and graphs displaying this
information.
Table 3. Manual Dispatch Option sites - meter level DR
Group and Event Date
Enrolled Demand
(Billing)
Nominated
Demand
Load Off in Baseline Hours
Load on during Event
(Nonresponsive)
Load Reduction
(kW) (kW) (kW) (kW) (kW)
Jun 29 2-6 p.m. 100,157 7,630 1,156 0 6,473
Jun 29 3-7 p.m. 105,811 15,134 3,194 4 11,936
Jun 29 4-8 p.m. 91,212 51,462 4,955 6,427 40,080
Jun 29 5-9 p.m. 118,403 7,842 2,344 966 4,532
Jul 27 2-6 p.m. 100,157 7,630 907 0 6,723
Jul 27 3-7 p.m. 105,811 15,134 957 4 14,173
Jul 27 4-8 p.m. 91,212 51,462 8,074 6,204 36,288
Jul 27 5-9 p.m. 118,403 7,842 2,332 1,732 3,778
Jul 29 2-6 p.m. 100,157 7,630 1,464 2 6,163
Jul 29 3-7 p.m. 105,811 15,134 3,314 3 11,816
Jul 29 4-8 p.m. 91,212 51,462 8,074 6,412 36,976
Jul 29 5-9 p.m. 118,403 7,842 2,612 1,790 3,440
Table 4. Automatic Dispatch Option sites - meter level DR
Group and Event Date
Nominated
Demand
Load Off in
Baseline
Auto
Opt out
AMI Communication
Problem
Load on during event
(Nonresponsive)
Load
Reduction
(kW) (kW) (kW) (kW) (kW) (kW)
Jun 29 2-6 p.m. 92,527 15,116 860 5,606 5,382 65,563
Jun 29 3-7 p.m. 90,677 25,648 0 7,306 9,942 47,782
Jun 29 4-8 p.m. 39,750 12,675 52 0 1,952 25,072
Jun 29 5-9 p.m. 110,561 30,136 221 0 5,803 74,401
Jul 27 2-6 p.m. 92,527 56,137 229 0 2,851 33,310
Jul 27 3-7 p.m. 90,677 34,878 0 0 5,563 50,235
Jul 27 4-8 p.m. 39,750 9,748 47 0 2,417 27,539
Jul 27 5-9 p.m. 110,561 55,076 149 0 4,559 50,777
Jul 29 2-6 p.m. 92,527 49,870 7 0 3,157 39,493
Jul 29 3-7 p.m. 90,677 35,140 0 0 4,690 50,847
Jul 29 4-8 p.m. 39,750 13,298 13 0 2,379 24,060
Jul 29 5-9 p.m. 110,561 51,388 16 0 4,844 54,313
Idaho Power
12 Irrigation Peak Rewards
Table 5. Demand reduction results for each event by hour
Interval (Hour)
Date and Description 2-3 p.m. 3-4 p.m. 4-5 p.m. 5-6 p.m. 6-7 p.m. 7-8 p.m. 8-9 p.m.
(kW) (kW) (kW) (kW) (kW) (kW) (kW)
29-June 72,036 131,754 196,905 275,838 203,802 144,085 78,933
w/losses 79,067 144,613 216,123 302,760 223,693 158,147 86,637
27-July 40,033 104,440 168,267 222,822 182,789 118,382 54,555
w/losses 43,940 114,634 184,690 244,569 200,629 129,936 59,880
29-July 45,656 108,320 169,356 227,109 181,453 118,790 57,753
w/losses 50,112 118,892 185,885 249,275 199,163 130,384 63,390

Figure 3. Demand Reduction (Demand Response) – June 29

Realization Rate Analysis
For the purposes of this report, Realization Rate is defined as the likelihood an irrigation service
point is not operating during the demand response event (interruption period) and includes
equipment failures, opt outs and load left on during an event. Realization rate is used to
determine the Program impacts. The realization rate can be characterized as the percentage of
monthly billing demand expected to result in an actual load reduction on the system during a
given interruption period in a typical summer. This rate is highest at the end of June and the
beginning of July when many irrigation pumps are operating nearly 24 hours per day and 7 days
0.0
50.0
100.0
150.0
200.0
250.0
300.0
350.0
10
a
m
- 11
a
m

11
a
m
- 12
p
m

12
p
m
- 1p
m

1p
m
- 2p
m

2p
m
- 3p
m

3p
m
- 4p
m

4p
m
- 5p
m

5p
m
- 6p
m

6p
m
- 7p
m

7p
m
- 8p
m

8p
m
- 9p
m

9p
m
- 10
p
m

10
p
m
- 11
p
m

11
p
m
- 12
p
m

MW

Baseline Load
Idaho Power
Irrigation Peak Rewards 13
per week. The realization rate is lower later in the irrigation season when many irrigation pumps
are not operating due to reduced irrigation demands because of crop maturity (primarily small
grain crops).
Device failures also affect realization rates because they reduce how much load reduction is
achieved during each event. The Program staff engages in a continual effort to mitigate Device
failures caused by communication problems, problems with customer’s electrical panels, and
actual inoperative Devices. The Device failure rates for each event in 2016 were:
June 29 – 5.45%
July 27 – 3.65%
July 29 – 3.57%
The rate on June 29 was higher due to a notification problem in the EnerNoc outbound calling
system. Many customers were not notified of the event and a few turned their pumps back on not
realizing that an event had been dispatched.
Realization rate is calculated as follows:
Realization RatePotential = Nominated Load Total
- Nominated Load Off during Baseline Period
- Average Opt Out
- Average Device Failure/Communication Errors
- Did Not Reduce Total Nominated Load
The first quarter of the Program season (June 15–July 30) showed an average expected
realization rate of 65.2 %, the expected realization rate in the last three quarters of the Program
season (July 1–August 15) reduced significantly, to an average of 54.9 %. This reduction in
realization rate is due to a higher percentage of pumps not operating during the baseline period.
The analysis determined that the highest potential realization rate for the season was 70.6 %.
Idaho Power
14 Irrigation Peak Rewards
Table 6. Average realization rates
Date Range
Load Off in Baseline Hours
Average Opt-Out Rate
Average Device Failure Rate (options 1&2)
Did not reduce total nominated load (Manual Dispatch Option)
Potential Realization Rate Total
Jun 15-30 28.52% 0.13% 4.29% 1.89% 65.17% 100%
Jul 1-15 35.18% 0.13% 4.29% 1.89% 58.51% 100%
Jul 16 -31 38.99% 0.13% 4.29% 1.89% 54.70% 100%
Aug 1-15 42.32% 0.13% 4.29% 1.89% 51.37% 100%
Note: Table includes the average percent categorized load expected to operate during a load control event had it
occurred during each respective two week period throughout the Program season.

Figure 4. Realization rate distribution – June 29

Figure 5. Realization rate distribution – July 27

0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
All Groups 2-6PM 3-7PM 4-8PM 5-9PM
Dispatch Group
Realization Rate Opt-Out Rate
Pump OFF in Baseline Rate Load Remaining Rate
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
All Groups 2-6PM 3-7PM 4-8PM 5-9PM
Dispatch Group
Realization Rate Opt-Out Rate
Pump OFF in Baseline Rate Load Remaining Rate
Idaho Power
Irrigation Peak Rewards 15
Figure 6. Realization rate distribution – July 29
Figure 7. 2016 Program season potential realization rate
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
All Groups 2-6PM 3-7PM 4-8PM 5-9PM
Dispatch Group
Realization Rate Opt-Out Rate
Pump OFF in Baseline Rate Load Remaining Rate
58
.
0

%

59
.
5

%

59
.
9

%

63
.
3

%

66
.
8

%

68
.
0

%

69
.
5

%

62
.
4

%

67
.
2

%

69
.
7

%

70
.
6

%

67
.
3

%

66
.
9

%

61
.
5

%

61
.
0

%

62
.
0

%

60
.
9

%

50
.
3

%

56
.
0

%

54
.
5

%

55
.
2

%

56
.
6

%

54
.
8

%

56
.
0

%

54
.
6

%

56
.
0

%

54
.
0

%

52
.
6

%

54
.
9

%

53
.
8

%

55
.
7

%

54
.
6

%

50
.
4

%

51
.
6

%

50
.
9

%

53
.
5

%

52
.
6

%

51
.
2

%

50
.
9

%

51
.
0

%

51
.
5

%

51
.
4

%

50
.
2

%

0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
6/
1
3
/
2
0
1
6

6/
2
0
/
2
0
1
6

6/
2
7
/
2
0
1
6

7/
4
/
2
0
1
6

7/
1
1
/
2
0
1
6

7/
1
8
/
2
0
1
6

7/
2
5
/
2
0
1
6

8/
1
/
2
0
1
6

8/
8
/
2
0
1
6

8/
1
5
/
2
0
1
6

Re
a
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n

R
a
t
e

(
%
)

Date
Potential Realization Rate
Idaho Power
16 Irrigation Peak Rewards
Load Reduction Results – Total System Load Data
Idaho Power measures system load data in 5 minute intervals. This data was also used to
estimate load reduction for the Program. Each event day was viewed to see results of the
Program operation. Load reduction is very clear from graphs of each event day (see Figure 8).
However, the magnitude of what would have happened absent an event is what makes the load
reduction an estimate. Idaho Power estimated what total system load would have been on June
29 using data from June 28 as a surrogate day to determine the shape of the load. For this
analysis the data from June 28 was adjusted upward to match the shape and magnitude of the
system load on June 29 from before the event till after the event was over. The graph of this data
shows an approximate reduction of 300 MW at 6 p.m. on June 29, which correlates well with
the interval metering data analysis which estimated a maximum 302 MW reduction also at
6 p.m.
Figure 8. Total system load on June 29, July 27 and July 29
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
7:
0
0

7:
5
0

8:
4
0

9:
3
0

10
:
2
0

11
:
1
0

12
:
0
0

12
:
5
0

1:
4
0

2:
3
0

3:
2
0

4:
1
0

5:
0
0

5:
5
0

6:
4
0

7:
3
0

8:
2
0

9:
1
0

10
:
0
0

10
:
5
0

11
:
4
0

12
:
3
0

1:
2
0

2:
1
0

3:
0
0

3:
5
0

4:
4
0

5:
3
0

6:
2
0

MW

6/29/2016
Est 6/29/2016
7/27/2016
7/29/2016
Idaho Power
Irrigation Peak Rewards 17
Program Costs
In 2016, the Program had a total cost of $7,600,075 with the incentive credit being the largest
expenditure at 84.3% of total costs. Table 7 displays the annual program costs by category.
Table 7. Annual program costs 2016
Item 2016 Program Costs
Materials and Equipment $ 133,154
Installation and Contract Services $ 961,777
Incentive Payments $ 6,406,340
Marketing and Administration $ 98,805
Total $7,600,075
CONCLUSIONS
The Program had a demand reduction potential of 316.9 MW and an actual reduction of 302.7
MW.
The Program increased its enrollment from 2015 to include over 82% of eligible service
locations in 2016.
The Program had a total of 2,286 service points with total enrolled billing demand of 415.5 MW.
When looking at the Program at the generation level, irrigation participants have made
significant contributions to Idaho Power’s DR programs. The Program currently contributes
approximately 80% of Idaho Power’s overall demand response portfolio.
The cost of having this resource available to Idaho Power was $23.98 per kW in 2016.

© CLEAResult, 2014 We change the way people use energyTM
A/C Cool Credit Program
2016 Impact Evaluation

November 3, 2016

PREPARED BY CLEAResult
PREPARED FOR Idaho Power Company
REPORTING PERIOD July – August 2016

A/C Cool Credit Program October 2016
0
We change the way people use energy
Table of Contents
Executive Summary.................................................................................................................................................. 1
Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................... 1
Background ................................................................................................................................................................. 1
Analysis Methodology ................................................................................................................................................. 1
Results ....................................................................................................................................................................... 3
Curtailment Events Summary ..................................................................................................................................... 3
June 30th Curtailment .................................................................................................................................................. 5
July 26th Curtailment ................................................................................................................................................... 6
July 28th Curtailment ................................................................................................................................................... 7
Predictive Model ......................................................................................................................................................... 8
Conclusions ............................................................................................................................................................ 10

List of Tables
Table 1: Unit Counts by Curtailment Event ............................................................................................................... 2
Table 2: 2016 Curtailment Event Schedule ............................................................................................................... 3
Table 3: 2016 Summary Results of Executed Control Events .................................................................................. 4
Table 4. Predictive Model Outputs Compared to Actual - Boise ............................................................................... 8
Table 5. Predictive Model Outputs Compared to Actual - Pocatello/Twin Falls ........................................................ 9

List of Figures
Figure 1: Summary of 2016 Events ........................................................................................................................... 4
Figure 2: June 30 Curtailment Event Results - Boise ................................................................................................ 5
Figure 3: June 30 Curtailment Event Results - Pocatello/Twin Falls ........................................................................ 5
Figure 4: July 26 Curtailment Event Results - Boise ................................................................................................. 6
Figure 5: July 26 Curtailment Event Results - Pocatello/Idaho Falls ........................................................................ 6
Figure 6: July 28 Curtailment Event Results - Boise ................................................................................................. 7
Figure 7: July 28 Curtailment Event Results - Pocatello/Idaho Falls ........................................................................ 7
A/C Cool Credit Program October 2016
1
We change the way people use energy
Executive Summary
Idaho Power Company contracted CLEAResult to complete an impact evaluation of the 2016 A/C Cool Credit
program. The goal of the impact evaluation was to calculate the estimated demand reduction achieved by three
A/C Cool Credit curtailment events and update the program’s existing predictive model to account for the 2016
curtailment event results.
CLEAResult completed analyses of curtailment events held on June 30th, July 26th, and July 28th, 2016, each with
a three hour duration. The results of the analyses showed maximum single hour demand reductions of 1.07, 1.06,
and 1.11 kW per participant, respectively, for the three events. The average hourly demand reduction was 0.98,
0.96, 1.01 kW per participant, respectively, for the three events. Due to the distinct weather patterns between the
Boise and Pocatello/Twin Falls regions, each curtailment event analysis includes region-specific results.
The impact evaluation demonstrated that Idaho Power’s A/C Cool Credit program functions as intended, and, if
properly maintained, can be relied on to provide dispatchable demand reduction to the electricity grid.
Introduction
Background
Summer use of air conditioning (A/C) systems places a burden on Idaho Power Company’s power supply, power
contracts, and transmission and distribution systems. Demand reduction programs in which customers agree to
curtail A/C use in times of high demand have proven to successfully deliver significant and dispatchable demand
(kW) reduction.
Idaho Power’s A/C Cool Credit is one such program that curtails demand from residential A/C units. After being
suspended for the 2013 season, the program has been reinstated since 2014 on a limited basis, completing three
curtailment events each year during the June 15th through August 15th program season as required under the
provisions of the program. The program’s function is to curtail residential A/C demand during periods of peak
demand by utilizing direct load control technology to cycle A/C units OFF for a portion of each curtailment event
period. A/C Cool Credit program curtailment events are limited to non-holiday weekdays with a maximum of 60
hours per curtailment season (with the exception of a system emergency). In exchange for having their A/C units
curtailed, program participants receive a $5 credit on their July, August, and September electric bills.
CLEAResult completed impact evaluations on the A/C Cool Credit program in 2011, 2012, 2014 and 2015. The
2012 evaluation also included a research component, investigating how different cycling strategies and
temperatures impacted kW reduction results, as well as indoor air temperatures of participating homes. The
outcome of that research was used to develop a predictive model (the “IPC Curtailment Calculator”) that uses
regression formulas to estimate load reductions based on cycling strategy and temperature inputs. The calculator
has been updated with every impact evaluation, resulting in the sample size of events informing the calculator’s
regression formulas, as well as the calculator’s accuracy, to increase with each passing season.
The goals of this 2016 impact evaluation were to:
 Determine and verify the demand reduction (MW) during a minimum of three events in 2016
 Utilize data analysis results to update regressions informing the existing predictive model
Analysis Methodology
The demand reduction impact evaluation was conducted through the analysis of hourly Advanced Metering
Infrastructure (AMI) data provided by Idaho Power. This approach was supported by the findings of the 2012
impact evaluation, which analyzed both AMI and logger data, and showed both sources to produce similar
estimations of energy reduction per curtailment event.
A/C Cool Credit Program October 2016
2
We change the way people use energy
Analysis of the AMI data was conducted using the SAS analytics program. SAS provides a robust platform for
analyzing large amounts of data in a consistent manner. The SAS model developed as part of the 2012 and 2014
A/C Cool Credit research projects was utilized to complete the analysis for each 2016 curtailment event. The
model first imports the relevant AMI data from Comma Separated Values (CSV) files; second, processes the data
to configure it in a way suitable for analysis; and third, analyzes the data to produce the desired result metrics.
The sub-sections below describe the project’s methodology related to the sampling plan, demand reduction
analysis, and updating of the predictive model.
Sampling Plan
The availability of AMI data for all program participants allowed the project’s sampling plan to be a census of
program participants. Table 1 below details the number of participants included in each of the curtailment event
analyses. Participants were not analyzed if their interval meter data included an error code during the curtailment
event period of the baseline period. With an average of 99.7% of all participants analyzed, the results calculated
from the analyzed participants have been extrapolated to all participants in the results section.
Table 1: Unit Counts by Curtailment Event
Curtailment
Event
Count of Total
Participants
Count of Participants
Analyzed
Percent of Total
Participants Analyzed
June 30 28,372 28,153 99.2%
July 26 28,306 27,970 98.8%
July 28 28,228 27,991 99.2%
Average 28,302 28,038 99.1%

Demand Reduction Analysis
A. Baseline Data
The load reduction achieved during curtailment events was calculated by comparing the average load from each
curtailment day against the average load developed from non-curtailment days selected for the baseline. The
“previous days” approach was used, which utilizes the average load data from the previous 10 non-weekend,
non-curtailment days. Baseline kW was calculated as the average of the three days with the greatest demand
from these previous ten non-curtailment days, as ranked by the highest hourly demand occurring during the
curtailment timeframe. Curtailment days normally occur on hot, high demand days, thus selecting high demand
days for the baseline ensures a similar load profile is used for the baseline days as the curtailment days.
B. Offset Factor
In order to effectively compare baseline and curtailment day loads, the baseline load was adjusted using an offset
factor, calculated as the difference in kW between the baseline and curtailment event day load during the hour
prior to the start of the curtailment. The offset factor was applied to the baseline day to “normalize” the baseline
kW to the curtailment day kW. The offset factor mitigates underlying differences in load due to slight differences in
outdoor temperature or other external factors.
A/C Cool Credit Program October 2016
3
We change the way people use energy
Predictive Model
The “IPC Curtailment Calculator” was developed using data results from the seven curtailment events from the
2012 AC Cool Credit Research Project with the aim of providing Idaho Power with a tool for estimating demand
reduction levels based on temperature and cycling percentage inputs. The calculator was then updated after the
2014 impact evaluation to include regression formulas that accounted for the 2012, 2014 and 2015 event results.

The calculator is Excel-based and driven by regression formulas developed in the SAS analytics program. Users
can input expected temperature at the start of the curtailment event and percent cycling strategy and the model
will provide an estimated kW reduction per unit and total MW for the population of program participants.
Alternatively, users can input temperature and a requested MW reduction amount and the model will estimate the
percent cycling required to achieve the requested MW reduction.

The model uses a regression formula developed for both regions (Boise and Pocatello/Twin Falls) based on an
independent variable representing the interaction of “Temperature at start of curtailment event” and “Percent
cycling.” This variable was shown in the 2012 Research Project to produce the most statistically significant
results.
As part of the 2016 impact evaluation, the predictive model was updated to account for the results of the 2016
curtailment events. This entailed developing new regression formulas that used as inputs results from 2012, 2014,
2015 and 2016 curtailment events
Results
Curtailment Events Summary
A total of three curtailment events were completed as part of the 2016 A/C Cool Credit program. Table 2 below
details the characteristics of these events, including high temperature, event time period, and cycling percent. All
A/C Cool Credit participants were included in each curtailment event that Idaho Power called. The maximum
temperature in Boise during event days ranged from 97 degrees to 99 degrees on event days. The maximum
temperature in Pocatello during event days ranged from 95 to 97 degrees.
Table 2: 2016 Curtailment Event Schedule
Curtailment
Event
Boise Temp
(high)
TF/Pocatello
Temp (high)
Control Event
Start Time
Control Event
End Time
Length
(hrs)
Cycling
Percent
June 30 97 97 4:00pm 7:00pm 3 55%
July 26 99 95 4:00pm 7:00pm 3 55%
July 28 99 95 4:00pm 7:00pm 3 55%

A/C Cool Credit Program October 2016
4
We change the way people use energy

Table 3 summarizes the AMI data analysis results for each curtailment event. Figure 1 also shows an overview of
the results for each curtailment event in kilowatt (kW) reduction at the meter level. The meter level results do not
include line losses. Because temperatures in Boise differ from the Twin Falls/Pocatello area, they are treated as
separate events and results are reported individually. The July 28th event showed the highest maximum and
average kW reductions for both Boise and Pocatello/Twin Falls regions.
Table 3: 2016 Summary Results of Executed Control Events
Date and High
Temp
Percent
Curtailment Region
Avg. kW
Reduction per
Participant
Max kW
Reduction per
Participant
Avg. kW
Reduction -
Total
Max kW
Reduction -
Total
June 30
Boise: 97
Poc/TF: 97
55%
All 0.98 1.07 27,637 30,165
Boise 1.02 1.11 24,521 26,733
Poc/TF 0.76 0.84 3,125 3,443
July 26
Boise: 99
Poc/TF: 95
55%
All 0.96 1.06 26,981 29,770
Boise 1.00 1.10 23,889 26,274
Poc/TF 0.76 0.86 3,096 3,496
July 28
Boise: 99
Poc/TF: 95
55%
All 1.01 1.11 28,264 30,935
Boise 1.04 1.13 24,765 27,129
Poc/TF 0.86 0.93 3,496 3,802

Figure 1: Summary of 2016 Events

A/C Cool Credit Program October 2016
5
We change the way people use energy
June 30th Curtailment
The event called on June 30th implemented a 55 percent curtailment strategy and resulted in a system wide
average demand reduction of 0.98 kW per participant across the three hours of the event, and a maximum single
hour demand reduction of 1.11 kW per participant. In the Boise region, the average demand reduction for the
event was 1.02 kW per participant, whereas in Pocatello/Twin Falls it was 0.76 kW per participant. The maximum
demand reduction for the Boise area was 1.11 kW per participant and in Pocatello/Twin Falls it was 0.84 kW per
participant. Figure 2 and 3 below present the aggregate load profiles for the Boise and Pocatello/Twin Falls
participants, respectively, for the June 30th curtailment event .
Figure 2: June 30 Curtailment Event Results - Boise

Figure 3: June 30 Curtailment Event Results - Pocatello/Twin Falls

A/C Cool Credit Program October 2016
6
We change the way people use energy
July 26th Curtailment
The event called on July 26th implemented a 55 percent curtailment strategy and resulted in a system wide
average demand reduction of 0.96 kW per participant across the three hours of the event, and a maximum single
hour demand reduction of 1.06 kW per participant. In the Boise area, the average demand reduction for the event
was 0.64 kW per participant, whereas in Pocatello/Twin Falls it was 0.50 kW per participant. The maximum
demand reduction for the Boise area was 1.10 kW per participant and in Pocatello/Twin Falls it was 0.86 kW per
participant. Figure 4 and 5 below present the aggregate load profiles for the Boise and Pocatello/Twin Falls
participants, respectively, for the July 26th curtailment event.
Figure 4: July 26 Curtailment Event Results - Boise

Figure 5: July 26 Curtailment Event Results - Pocatello/Idaho Falls

A/C Cool Credit Program October 2016
7
We change the way people use energy
July 28th Curtailment
The event called on July 28th implemented a 55 percent curtailment strategy and resulted in a system wide
average demand reduction of 1.01 kW per participant across the three hours of the event, and a maximum single
hour demand reduction of 1.11 kW per participant. In the Boise area, the average demand reduction for the event
was 1.04 kW per participant, whereas in Pocatello/Twin Falls it was 0.86 kW per participant. The maximum
demand reduction for the Boise area was 1.13 kW per participant and in Pocatello/Twin Falls it was 0.93 kW per
participant. Figure 6 and 7 below present the aggregate load profiles for the Boise and Pocatello/Twin Falls
participants, respectively, for the July 28th curtailment event.
Figure 6: July 28 Curtailment Event Results - Boise

Figure 7: July 28 Curtailment Event Results - Pocatello/Idaho Falls

A/C Cool Credit Program October 2016
8
We change the way people use energy
Predictive Model
As part of the 2012 impact evaluation, a predictive model was developed that estimates load reductions based on
cycling strategy and temperature inputs. The model utilizes a regression formula for each region (Boise and
Pocatello/Twin Falls) based on an independent variable representing the interaction of “Temperature at start of
curtailment event” and “Percent cycling.” As discussed in the Methodology section above, the model was updated
in 2016 to account for the results of the 2012, 2014, 2015 and 2016 curtailment events for the Pocatello/Twin
Falls region. The year 2012 was removed for the Boise region due to a statistically significant discrepancy
between the model’s output for 2012 events and the 2014 and 2015 events. This is presumably due to the 2012
program’s device communication challenges.
Table 4 and 5 below compare the actual maximum demand reduction results in the 2012, 2014, 2015 and 2016
impact evaluations with the estimated maximum demand reductions output by the model. The results of this
comparison show a high amount of variability between model outputs and actual results for both regions. The
model over predicted reductions in 2015, and under predicted reductions in the 2016 event days.
Table 4. Predictive Model Outputs Compared to Actual - Boise
Curtailment
Event
Temp at Start
of Event
Percent
Cycling
Max kW Reduction
Predicted by Model
Actual Maximum
kW Reduction
Percent
Difference
14-Jul-14 100 65% 1.35 1.34 1.1%
31-Jul-14 93 55% 0.88 0.98 -10.1%
11-Aug-14 101 55% 1.16 1.15 1.4%
30-Jun-15 102 55% 1.20 1.16 3.3%
21-Jul-15 92 55% 0.84 0.67 26.0%
31-Jul-15 96.1 55% 0.99 0.88 12.4%
30-Jun-16 95 55% 0.95 1.11 -14.4%
26-Jul-16 98 55% 1.06 1.1 -3.9%
28-Jul-16 98 55% 1.06 1.13 -6.5%
Average 97 56% 1.05 1.06 1.0%

A/C Cool Credit Program October 2016
9
We change the way people use energy
Table 5. Predictive Model Outputs Compared to Actual - Pocatello/Twin Falls
Curtailment
Event
Temp at Start
of Event
Percent
Cycling
Max kW Reduction
Predicted by Model
Actual Maximum
kW Reduction
Percent
Difference
12-Jul-12 99 60% 0.74 0.69 6.7%
19-Jul-12 93 65% 0.70 0.66 7.3%
31-Jul-12 94 70% 0.74 0.90 -17.9%
13-Aug-12 93 50% 0.64 0.44 48.0%
16-Aug-12 91 75% 0.72 0.59 22.7%
20-Aug-12 85 65% 0.63 0.52 21.0%
22-Aug-12 87 100% 0.76 0.75 1.5%
31-Jul-14 89 55% 0.63 0.56 12.3%
11-Aug-14 93 55% 0.66 0.60 10.6%
30-Jun-15 92 55% 0.66 0.78 -15.8%
21-Jul-15 89 55% 0.63 0.54 17.9%
31-Jul-15 93 55% 0.66 0.49 35.6%
30-Jun-16 86 55% 0.61 0.84 -27.6%
26-Jul-16 94 55% 0.67 0.86 -21.8%
28-Jul-16 94 55% 0.67 0.93 -27.7%
Average 91 62%

0.68

0.68 4.8%

A/C Cool Credit Program October 2016
10
We change the way people use energy

Conclusions
The 2016 impact evaluation of the A/C Cool Credit program’s curtailment events confirmed that the program is
operating as intended, and, properly maintained, can be relied on to provide dispatchable demand savings to the
electricity grid. The results of the analyses showed maximum single hour demand reductions of 1.07, 1.06, and
1.11 kW per participant, respectively, for the curtailment events held on June 30th, July 26th, and July 28th, 2016.
The average hourly demand reduction was 0.98, 0.96, 1.01 kW per participant, respectively, for the three events.
Due to the distinct weather patterns between the Boise and Pocatello/Twin Falls regions, each curtailment event
analysis includes region-specific results. Driven by cooler temperatures, the 2016 maximum demand reductions
seen in the Pocatello/Twin Falls region were on average 21 percent less than those in the Boise region. For the
curtailment events from the 2014, 2015 and 2016 seasons, the maximum demand reductions seen in the
Pocatello/Twin Falls region were on average 36 percent less than those in the Boise region.
To better understand the program’s demand reduction potential, it’s recommended to utilize a variety of cycling
percentages (other than 55%) during future curtailment events. Doing so will provide a broader set of data points
for the program’s predictive model, increasing the statistical significance of its regression formulas (i.e. increasing
its accuracy), and providing more value to Idaho Power and grid operators when demand response resources are
more urgently needed.
FINAL REPORT 
Easy Upgrades Impact Evaluation 

January 30, 2017 

Prepared for: 
Idaho Power Company 

Prepared by: 

Leidos Engineering, LLC 
301 Plainfield Road, Suite 310 
Syracuse, NY 13212 
315.434.7200 

Leidos Engineering, LLC   ii | P a g e  
Contents 
Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................................ 1 
1.0 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 3 
1.1 Program Description .................................................................................................................................... 3 
1.2 Program Reported Energy Savings ............................................................................................................. 4 
1.3 Overview of Evaluation Approach .............................................................................................................. 4 
2.0 Methodology ......................................................................................................................................... 5 
2.1 Overall Sampling Methodology .................................................................................................................. 5 
2.2 Overview of Impact Evaluation Approach .................................................................................................. 7 
3.0 Analysis and Verified Savings ................................................................................................................. 9 
3.1 Tracking System Review .............................................................................................................................. 9 
3.2 Review of Projects ....................................................................................................................................... 9 
4.0 Conclusions and Recommendations ...................................................................................................... 13 

Table 1. Easy Upgrades Program Evaluation Results ........................................................................................... 2 
Table 2. Energy Program Savings Metrics ............................................................................................................ 4 
Table 3. Easy Upgrades Project Ex‐Ante Savings by Measure ............................................................................... 4 
Table 4. Program Review Sample Characteristics ................................................................................................ 5 
Table 5. Primary and Backup Sample Projects ..................................................................................................... 6 
Table 6. On‐Site Sample Characteristics .............................................................................................................. 7 
Table 7. Cooling Savings .................................................................................................................................... 10 
Table 8. HVAC Control Savings ........................................................................................................................... 10 
Table 9. Lighting Savings ................................................................................................................................... 11 
Table 10. Lighting Control Savings ..................................................................................................................... 12 
Table 11. Motors and Drive Savings ................................................................................................................... 12 
Table 12. Easy Upgrades Program Evaluation Results ......................................................................................... 13 

Leidos Engineering, LLC   1 | P a g e 
Executive Summary 
This executive summary presents findings from an evaluation of the 2015 Easy Upgrades program 
offered by Idaho Power Company (Idaho Power).  The Easy Upgrades commercial and industrial retrofit 
incentive program, launched in 2007, covers standard prescribed energy efficiency measures.  In 2015, 
there were 1,222 projects completed with ex‐ante savings of 23,594,701 kWh determined from a 
defined set of measures.   
The impact evaluation study was designed with the following objectives: 
 Verify the ex‐ante energy savings attributable to the projects 
 Provide credible and reliable impact estimates and ex‐post realization rates attributed to the 
program 
 Review program applications and provide recommendations to enhance the effectiveness of 
future ex‐ante energy savings estimates and accurate and transparent reporting of program 
savings 
The study approach began with an interview with the Program Specialist to determine how the program 
is marketed, savings are claimed, goals are set and achieved, and explore research questions of interest.  
Review of program collateral and tracking database contents followed.  A random sample of 35 projects, 
tiered by magnitude of kWh savings and then screened for representation of each eligible measure, 
resulted in a total of 41 measures across 7 measure types and 19.7% of the program‐reported savings 
being sampled.   Nine measures received on‐site inspections.   
All indications are that the program is well designed, well managed and well implemented.  The project 
documentation was adequate for verifying most measure impacts, and project data are recorded and 
tracked with high accuracy. 
The study determined a high level of ex‐post realization for program energy savings, as well as high 
realizations at the measure level.  

Leidos Engineering, LLC   2 | P a g e 
The results of the Easy Upgrades program impact evaluation were high annual kWh savings realization 
rate of 0.99 with 90% confidence at +/‐ 0.2% precision.  A total of 23,408,947 kWh are attributable to 
the 2015 Easy Upgrades program.  
Table 11. Easy Upgrades Program Evaluation Results  

Additional observations that may be considered for program improvement that arose during the review 
of individual projects are summarized below: 
 Default wattage values for the certain types of lighting should be checked in the lighting 
calculator   
 Clarification of how energy savings are attributed between measures that may be overlapping 
should be considered.  It may be reasonable to consider setting guidelines or flagging 
applications for potential duplication of similar measures 
 While most of the project files had good explanatory notes, for projects that are multi‐phased, 
reviewers should especially be vigilant to note in the files the differences between the 
supporting invoicing and/or other documentation and the measures that are approved for the 
particular phase. 

Measure Type
Ex‐ante kWh 
Gross 
Ex‐post kWh 
Gross
Realization 
Rate
Appliances 64,157 61,887 0.96
Building Envelope 29,305 28,328 0.97
Cooling 71,092 76,361 1.07
HVAC Controls 1,300,825 1,153,599 0.89
Lighting 19,414,518 19,372,620 1.00
Lighting Controls 230,739 230,738 1.00
Motors & Drives 2,423,314 2,424,663 1.00
Refrigeration 60,752 60,752 1.00
Track total 23,594,701 23,408,947 0.99
Relative Precision at 90% 
Confidence 0.2%

Leidos Engineering, LLC   3 | P a g e 
1.0 Introduction 
This report documents the results of an impact evaluation performed on Idaho Power Company’s 2015 
Easy Upgrades non‐residential incentive program, which was launched in 2007 and covers standard 
energy efficiency measures.  In 2015, there were 1,222 projects completed with ex‐ante savings of 
23,594,701 kWh determined from a defined set of measures. 
1.1 Program Description 
The program targets all existing commercial and industrial customers through the service territory, 
which includes a market of approximately 64,000 customers. 
The incentive structure of the program is based on an average incentive amount of approximately 
$0.18/kWh.  The non‐lighting measures follow a deemed savings method for both the incentives and 
savings values derived from the Technical Reference Manual (TRM). 
Projects are initiated by customers, trade allies, and energy services companies for applications that are 
expected to have incentives equal to or greater than $1,000, customers are encouraged to seek pre‐
approval.  Projects are selected for inspection based on incentive amount, contractor experience with 
the program and past project submittals, and type of project. 
The program had goals of 18,000,000 kWh and 1300 projects and contributes approximately 19% to the 
overall Idaho Power portfolio of energy savings programs.  In 2015, there were 1,222 projects 
completed with an ex‐ante savings of 23,594,701 kWh.   
Measures for incentive under the program include: 
 Appliances (reach‐in or open freezers and coolers, convection ovens, dishwashers)  
 Building Envelope (high‐efficiency windows, reflective roof treatments and wall insulation) 
 Cooling (air conditioners, heat pumps and variable refrigeration flow) 
 HVAC Controls (economizers, occupancy control, optimum start/stop, demand controlled 
ventilation, supply air reset, chilled water reset, condenser water reset) 
 Lighting (new fixtures, lamp/ballast replacement, redesign) 
 Lighting Controls (occupancy sensors) 
 Motors & Drives (variable speed drives) 
 Refrigeration (floating head pressure control, floating suction pressure control, anti‐sweat 
heaters) 

Leidos Engineering, LLC   4 | P a g e 
1.2 Program Reported Energy Savings 
Table 2 shows the Easy Upgrades participants and energy savings metrics for 2015.  A total of 1,333 
measures installations were delivered through  1,222 participant projects. 
Table 2. Energy Program Savings Metrics 
Metric 2015 
Participants 1,222 
kWh Savings 23,594, 701 

The ex‐ante energy savings are presented for each measure type in the following table.  
Table 3. Easy Upgrades Project Ex‐Ante Savings by Measure 

1.3 Overview of Evaluation Approach 
A kick‐off meeting was held to review the proposed evaluation approach and to make sure the approach 
aligned with the program design.  Following the kick‐off meeting a final work plan was developed and 
submitted to Idaho Power for approval before subsequent evaluation work began. 
Key elements of the impact evaluation approach of this program were: 
 Verify the ex‐ante energy savings attributable to the projects 
 Provide credible and reliable impact estimates and ex‐post realization rates attributed to the 
program at 90% confidence within +/‐ 10% precision 
 Review program applications and provide recommendations to enhance the effectiveness of 
future ex‐ante energy savings analysis and accurate and transparent reporting of program 
savings 

Measure Type Number 
Gross kWh 
Savings
Percent of 
Total
Appliances                4 64,157 0.3%
Building Envelope             12 29,305 0.1%
Cooling             24 71,092 0.3%
HVAC Controls             57 1,300,825 5.5%
Lighting        1,128 19,414,518 82.3%
Lighting Controls             93 230,739 1.0%
Motors & Drives             12 2,423,314 10.3%
Refrigeration                3 60,752 0.3%
Total        1,333 23,594,701 100%

Leidos Engineering, LLC   5 | P a g e 
2.0 Methodology 
2.1 Overall Sampling Methodology 
The sampling methodology applied to this program resulted in a total of 35 projects for the primary 
sample with 2 projects in the backup sample.  This represents an increase in the primary sample from 
the evaluation work plan because there were so few projects that had more than one measure type in 
the program. 
The kWh savings values for this program were divided into three strata: 
1. Over 85,000 kWh savings. 
2. Over 26,000 kWh savings AND less than 85,000 kWh savings. 
3. Less than 26,000 kWh savings. 
A random value was then assigned to each project and the projects were ranked by the product of the 
random value and their kWh savings.  The top 7‐8 projects in each strata were considered for the initial 
primary sample and then the individual measure types and their recorded savings were analyzed. For 
measure types that were underrepresented in the initial sample, additional projects were selected 
within each strata that had the underrepresented measure types until a sufficient amount of kWh 
savings was represented for each measure type.  We explored adding projects with multiple measure 
types, but the program had so few projects with multiple measure types, particularly between lighting 
and non‐lighting measures, that this approach was abandoned.  The goal was to obtain a sample with 
each measure type having 40% of the kWh savings in the sample, with the exception of the lighting and 
lighting controls where the goal was 12% of savings.  Table 4 below shows the results of the measure 
types within the sample. 
Table 4. Program Review Sample Characteristics 

Table 5 below shows the projects that were selected for the primary and backup samples.  The backup 
projects were chosen for certain measure types so that they could be pulled into the primary sample, if 
necessary, to replace projects that may have issues as we go through the evaluation.  Several measure 
types have projects critical to achieving the necessary savings review goals due to the magnitude of their 
savings relative to the overall population.   
Measure Types
Program 
Measures
Measures 
Sampled
Ex‐ante kWh 
Savings % kWh
Appliances 4 1 58,603 91.3%
Building Envelope 12 1 18,000 61.4%
Cooling 24 2 32,109 45.2%
HVAC Controls 57 6 519,409 39.9%
Lighting 1,128 22 2,340,120 12.1%
Lighting Controls 93 4 20,018 8.7%
Motors & Drives 12 4 1,617,260 66.7%
Refrigeration 3 1 38,080 62.7%
Total 1,333 41 4,643,599 19.7%

Leidos Engineering, LLC   6 | P a g e 
Table 5. Primary and Backup Sample Projects 
Project ID Strata Lighting 
Non‐
Lighting 
kWh 
Savings Sample 
130596 1 No Yes 956,340 Primary 
140970 1 Yes No 339,199 Primary 
150769 1 No Yes 101,246 Primary 
150048 1 Yes No 173,138 Primary 
140831 1 Yes No 209,424 Primary 
150204 1 Yes No 266,903 Primary 
140830 1 No Yes 166,976 Primary 
150435 1 Yes No 200,726 Primary 
140944 1 Yes No 236,171 Primary 
150733 1 Yes No 196,387 Primary 
151039 2 No Yes 76,352 Primary 
150572 2 Yes No 80,056 Primary 
150581 2 No Yes 39,220 Primary 
140654 2 No Yes 58,603 Primary 
150652 2 No Yes 28,346 Primary 
141008 2 Yes No 80,453 Primary 
140779 2 No Yes 38,080 Primary 
150516 2 Yes No 58,618 Primary 
150183 2 Yes No 79,990 Primary 
140974 2 Yes No 78,094 Primary 
150807 2 No Yes 68,656 Primary 
150184 2 Yes No 77,129 Primary 
150808 2 No Yes 80,683 Primary 
150466 2 Yes No 79,646 Primary 
151010 2 Yes No 60,921 Primary 
150202 3 Yes No 25,409 Primary 
141050 3 Yes No 25,723 Primary 
150281 3 Yes No 25,360 Primary 
150867 3 Yes No 25,783 Primary 
140891 3 Yes No 25,517 Primary 
150981 3 No Yes 13,400 Primary 
150174 3 No Yes 18,000 Primary 
141150 3 Yes No 25,240 Primary 
150499 3 Yes No 25,904 Primary 
140725 3 Yes No 25,268 Primary 
130569 1 No Yes 637,560 Backup 
150775 1 Yes No 106,229 Backup 

Leidos Engineering, LLC   7 | P a g e 
On‐Site Inspections 
The on‐site inspections were chosen based on the project file review results; projects with more 
complex measures and higher savings measures were prioritized and selected for on‐site inspections. 
Table 6 summarizes the characteristics of on‐site sample selected. 
Table 6. On‐Site Sample Characteristics 

2.2 Overview of Impact Evaluation Approach 
The impact evaluation for the Easy Upgrades program consisted of conducting project file reviews, desk 
reviews and on‐site inspections to verify key energy savings characteristics.   
Information from the program savings  determination methods, file and desk reviews and on‐site 
inspections was used to develop estimates of energy impacts at the program and measure levels.  The 
analysis provides an estimation of program realization rates to assist in determining ex‐post gross 
energy savings.  Each step of the analysis is discussed briefly below.  
Step 1: Review Program Documentation 
A review of the current data tracking system, associated documentation, and the calculation of energy 
savings, including an assessment of the adherence to the energy savings protocol values on a measure 
basis is first conducted.  Corrections to the ex‐ante savings identified in this step are implemented as 
needed.  
Step 2: Determine Desk Review Sample 
The desk review/site review samples for the Easy Upgrades program were drawn from the population of 
projects that accounted for the savings claimed for the 2015 program year.  A total of 35 projects 
comprising 41 measures were sampled, along with 2 backup projects.  

Measure Types
Program 
Measures
Measures 
Sampled
Ex‐ante 
kWh 
Savings % kWh
Appliances 4 0 ‐
Building Envelope 12 0 ‐
Cooling 24 1 3,763 5.3%
HVAC Controls 57 1 97,483 7.5%
Lighting 1,128 4 628,881 3.2%
Lighting Controls 93 1 5,608 2.4%
Motors & Drives 12 1 956,340 39.5%
Refrigeration 3 1 38,080 62.7%
Total 1,333 9 1,730,156 7.3%

Leidos Engineering, LLC   8 | P a g e 
Step 3: File Review 
The project files for sampled projects were requested from Idaho Power and were reviewed for 
evaluability. 
For a project to be evaluable, proper information must be available in the project documentation to 
determine the proper deemed measure savings algorithm and to determine evidence of the project 
completion.  Evaluable projects typically contain: 
 A project application, which identifies the entity requesting the incentive and the equipment 
being incented 
 Invoices for purchased equipment identifying make and model of purchased equipment and 
categorizing labor activities.  Invoices also provide documentation for purchase dates confirming 
adherence with program rules 
 Documentation of the calculations, assumptions and QA/QC procedures, as appropriate 
If projects are determined to not be evaluable, additional documentation was requested or alternate 
backup projects were selected   
Step 4: Desk Reviews 
Desk reviews were conducted for the sample of projects from Step 2 that were validated in Step 3.  The 
desk reviews consisted of reviewing the inputs for energy savings and determining the adherence to the 
protocols for individual measures, as evidenced by the project documentation.  The desk reviews 
verified that the project tracking data were consistent with the project documentation.  Project 
documentation was used where any discrepancies were found.  Project documentation reviewed 
included project application, equipment specifications, invoices, calculation spreadsheets, and the 
database tracking and reporting information, as available. 
The key output from the desk reviews is the evaluated savings of the sampled projects. This evaluation 
also helps to guide what was to be inspected during the site visits.  
Step 5:  Site Visits 
Site inspections were conducted on a subset of the desk review sample.  During the site visits, 
installation and quantities of measures as recorded in the tracking database, project documentation, 
and as observed through the desk review were verified to the extent reasonable, focusing  on the 
energy consuming equipment and characteristics associated with the projects.  
Step 6: Adjusting Savings Estimates 
For this prescriptive program, the adjustments for savings estimates were made through identifying 
differences from the ex‐ante savings, and differences caused from the measure characteristics such as 
specific measure equipment, quantities, sizing, etc. and savings determination protocol.  Further, on‐site 
inspection information was used to further inform the savings estimates. 

Leidos Engineering, LLC   9 | P a g e 
3.0 Analysis and Verified Savings 
Review of the Easy Upgrades program database, project documentation, and site visit results were 
supportive and consistent with how the ex‐ante savings were calculated, with any inconsistencies having 
minimal overall impact to energy savings realization. 
3.1 Tracking System Review 
We compared the recorded energy savings and incentive value in the Easy Upgrades database to those 
found in the project application and worksheet for each project in the sample, and found the database 
accurately reflects the project documentation at the project and measure level.  
3.2 Review of Projects 
Sampled projects were subject to independent energy savings calculations given measure quantities, 
sizes, and other characteristics found in the application, worksheets, manufacturer data sheets, invoices 
and site inspections.  Calculation methodologies followed the TRM v.1.7 as well as those applied by 
Idaho Power in 2014 Demand Side Management, Supplement 1.  These documents provided deemed or 
calculated energy savings rules and methods followed for 2015 Easy Upgrades applications.  
The following provides a summary of the ex‐post findings and the major causes for any deviation from 
the ex‐ante savings for each of the measures.  These measure‐level data are presented for general 
information only to illustrate the measure level assessments and potential factors of uncertainty.  It is 
emphasized that these measure‐level data are not statistically valid or individually representative of the 
program savings impact findings; program results are presented later in this report. 
Appliances 
One project was in the desk review sample for Appliances as the replacement of refrigeration case doors 
on an existing unit, and the installation of a new efficient refrigeration case to replace another older 
unit.  These appliance measures were fully deemed in the TRM v.1.7 on a per linear foot basis.  The 
energy savings for this measure have a realization rate of 0.96 upon making some minor adjustments 
based on the project documentation for the linear feet of new cases by case type and climate zone.  
Building Envelope 
One sample site for a reflective roof was included in the desk review.  This measure has an ex‐post 
savings realization rate of 0.97.  Reflective roofing was fully deemed per square foot of roof area, and 
these deemed values were used to calculate ex‐post savings based on the application documentation 
and specifications.  The only adjustment was that the TRM‐stated unit savings value is 0.116 kWh/sf 
while the program estimated 0.12 kWh/sf; this is a minor rounding differential. 
Cooling 
This measure has 2 sample projects, one which also received an on‐site inspection.  The inspection 
confirmed the quantity, capacity and efficiency of the installed air conditioning equipment. Adjustments 
to the energy savings estimates for project 150769, an air conditioning efficiency improvement 

Leidos Engineering, LLC   10 | P a g e  
measure, were made in the desk review to match the processes of the TRM considering Consortium for 
Energy Efficiency (CEE) Tiers.   
Table 7. Cooling Savings 

Heating Ventilating and Air Conditioning (HVAC Controls 
A total of six projects were sampled for this measure, with one receiving an on‐site inspection.  Overall, 
the documentation supported the measure types and counts.  Ex‐post savings calculations of HVAC 
control measures resulted in close to 100% realization, excepting Project 150769, which was adjusted.  
Here, the original estimate applied energy savings for both the repair of an economizer and then the 
installation of an economizer on the same HVAC unit.  An adjustment was made at the desk review to 
only count the savings attributed from the economizer repair.  
Table 8. HVAC Control Savings 

Lighting 
Lighting measures comprise the largest savings of all measures in the program. A total of 22 lighting 
projects were sampled of which 5 received site inspections.    Ex‐post savings were determined by using 
the standard lighting calculator. Quantities and types of lighting were determined through invoicing and 
other supporting documentation during the desk reviews.   The on‐site inspections were able to verify 
for these sites that 1) the equivalent full load hours (EFLH) were reasonable, 2) the space types were 
appropriate, and 3) the fixture types and quantities were reasonable.  Across the sample however, it is 
noted that some invoices were not itemized to be able to confirm the specific equipment.1  Invoices for 
some fluorescent retrofit projects did not include lamp and or ballast manufacturer or model.  While 
specification sheets were provided for the most prevalent fixtures, some fixtures (and projects) did not 
have specifications. Additionally, some of the default input wattages for selected lighting types did not 

1 The program staff reports that they will sometimes elect to accept incomplete or non‐detailed invoice submittals 
and obtain information through other means such as through the lighting calculation entries, supplier invoices, etc.   
Project ID
Ex‐Ante kWh 
Savings
Ex‐Post kWh 
Savings
Realization 
Rate
140830 166,976 166,976              1.00 
150581 29,260 29,260              1.00 
150769 97,483 38,665              0.40 
150807 68,656 68,688              1.00 
150808 80,683 80,683              1.00 
151039 76,352 76,352              1.00 
6       519,409        460,623              0.89 

Leidos Engineering, LLC   11 | P a g e  
seem correct in the lighting calculator.  For example, Input watts for some preexisting HO T12 and High 
Pressure Sodium (70 & 100 Watt) equipment appear to be low, and input watts seemed high for 100 
watt Metal Halide fixtures. 
Overall, the lighting projects were typically well‐documented and properly calculated providing an 
overall ex‐post realization rate of 1.0.  
Table 9. Lighting Savings 

 Lighting Controls 
Lighting projects also had lighting controls were sampled; these controls were nearly all occupancy 
sensors.  In total, four projects were sampled and one of these received an on‐site inspection.  Ex‐ante 
energy savings were determined by using the lighting calculator and estimated that 25% of the 
connected controlled circuit kWh load was attributable to the controls.   All lighting control components 
were able to be verified, thus applying the program savings estimation methods, the  ex‐post measure 
savings realization rate is 1.0.  
Project ID
Ex‐Ante kWh 
Savings
Ex‐Post kWh 
Savings
Realization 
Rate
140725 25,021 26,182               1.05 
140831 209,424 209,743               1.00 
140891 25,517 25,515               1.00 
140944 230,563 230,562               1.00 
140970 339,199 339,198               1.00 
140974 78,094 77,838               1.00 
141008 80,453 80,254               1.00 
141050 25,723 25,358               0.99 
141150 25,240 25,240               1.00 
150048 167,867 167,838               1.00 
150183 79,990 80,004               1.00 
150184 77,129 77,129               1.00 
150202 25,409 25,350               1.00 
150204 266,903 266,903               1.00 
150281 25,360 25,360               1.00 
150435 200,726 200,751               1.00 
150466 79,646 79,646               1.00 
150499 25,904 21,092               0.81 
150516 49,727 49,732               1.00 
150572 80,056 80,056               1.00 
150733 196,387 196,387               1.00 
150867 25,783 24,930               0.97 
22    2,340,120     2,335,070                1.00 

Leidos Engineering, LLC   12 | P a g e  
Table 10. Lighting Control Savings 

Motors and Drives 
This measure encompasses Variable Frequency Drives (VFDs).  The sample was comprised of four 
projects, two of these for process VFD applications and two for HVAC applications.  One of the process 
VFD sites received an on‐site inspection, also.  While the 2014 program has discontinued support for 
VFDs for process applications, the two included in this 2015 program are holdovers from their original 
application in 2013 and were not processed for payment until 2015.  VFD ex‐post energy savings are 
determined through application of deemed energy savings per unit of Horsepower.  The process 
projects were under the deemed savings approach in effect when the applications were submitted. The 
deemed amount was 3,542 kWh per Horsepower.  At this point, Easy Upgrades no longer has VFDs on 
process applications on its incentive menu, however, it is noted that current TRM values for process 
VFDs are about one‐third of this prior deemed unit savings.  
The ex‐post measure realization ratio for the VFD projects is shown below.  
Table 11. Motors and Drive Savings 

Refrigeration 
One refrigeration site received a desk review and site inspection.  The measure specifically was for 
floating head and suction pressure controls.  On‐site horsepower was verified and the deemed savings 
values were applied for an ex‐post energy savings realization ratio of 1.0 

Project ID
Ex‐Ante kWh 
Savings
Ex‐Post kWh 
Savings
Realization 
Rate
140725 247 247               1.00 
140944 5,608 5,608               1.00 
150048 5,271 5,271               1.00 
150516 8,891 8,891               1.00 
4         20,018          20,018                1.00 
Project ID
Ex‐Ante kWh 
Savings
Ex‐Post kWh 
Savings
Realization 
Rate
130569 637,560 637,560               1.00 
130596 956,340 956,340               1.00 
150581 9,960 9,960               1.00 
150981 13,400 14,300               1.07 
4    1,617,260     1,618,160                1.00 

Leidos Engineering, LLC   13 | P a g e  
4.0 Conclusions and Recommendations 
The results of the Easy Upgrades program impact evaluation were high annual kWh savings realization 
rate of 0.99 with 90% confidence at +/‐ 0.2% precision.  As shown in Table 12, total of 23,408,947 kWh 
ex‐post savings are attributable to the 2015 Easy Upgrades program.  

Table 12. Easy Upgrades Program Evaluation Results 

In general, application data and measure characteristics are accurately transcribed in the Easy Upgrades 
database, and the applications and supporting documentation for the projects are reasonable to 
describe the projects.  Overall, the program‐reported savings and measure‐level savings were found to 
be reasonable and the documentation reliable. 
 Review of the files showed reasonable documentation considering that the Easy Upgrades 
program is prescriptive 
 Review of the data tracking system information and the applications showed good correlation 
 On‐site inspections verified that the measures were reflected properly 

Measure Type
Ex‐ante kWh 
Gross 
Ex‐post kWh 
Gross
Realization 
Rate
Appliances 64,157 61,887 0.96
Building Envelope 29,305 28,328 0.97
Cooling 71,092 76,361 1.07
HVAC Controls 1,300,825 1,153,599 0.89
Lighting 19,414,518 19,372,620 1.00
Lighting Controls 230,739 230,738 1.00
Motors & Drives 2,423,314 2,424,663 1.00
Refrigeration 60,752 60,752 1.00
Track total 23,594,701 23,408,947 0.99
Relative Precision at 90% 
Confidence 0.2%

Leidos Engineering, LLC   14 | P a g e  

Additional observations that may be considered for program improvement that arose during the review 
of individual projects are summarized below: 
 Default wattage values for the certain types of lighting should be checked in the lighting 
calculator.  For example, Input watts for some preexisting HO T12 and High Pressure Sodium (70 
& 100 Watt) equipment appear to be low, and input watts seemed high for 100 watt Metal 
Halide fixtures 
 Clarification of how energy savings are attributed between measures that may be overlapping 
should be considered.  In one instance in this study, there appeared to be savings and incentives 
taken for both the repair of an economizer and the installation of an economizer controller for 
the same air conditioning unit.  While the specific magnitude of these potential areas for 
duplication is unknown, it may be reasonable to consider setting guidelines or flagging 
applications for potential duplications 
 A select few projects seemed to be multi‐phased, where not all equipment shown on the 
invoicing was being applied for in the particular application.  This caused extra equipment 
(which happened to be technically eligible) to be listed in supporting documentation, but not 
part of the incentivized equipment.  While most of the project files had good explanatory notes, 
for projects that are multi‐phased, reviewers should especially be vigilant to note in the files the  
differences between the supporting invoicing and/or other documentation and the measures 
that are approved for the particular phase. 

0

We change the way people use energyTM
Flex Peak Demand Response Program
2016 Impact Evaluation

October 2016

PREPARED BY CLEAResult
PREPARED FOR Idaho Power Company
REPORTING PERIOD June 15th – August 15th, 2016

1
We change the way people use energyTM
Table of Contents
Executive Summary.................................................................................................................................................. 2
Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................... 2
Background ................................................................................................................................................................. 2
Impact Evaluation Goals ............................................................................................................................................. 2
Methodology ............................................................................................................................................................... 2
Findings ..................................................................................................................................................................... 4
Participant Characterization ....................................................................................................................................... 4
Curtailment Event Results .......................................................................................................................................... 5
Conclusions .............................................................................................................................................................. 9

List of Tables
Table 1. Error Code Key ............................................................................................................................................ 3
Table 2: Number of Sites by Processing Step ........................................................................................................... 4
Table 3: Summary of Demand Reduction and Resulting Realization Rate (MW) ..................................................... 5
Table 4: June 30th Curtailment Event Results by Hour (MW) .................................................................................... 6
Table 5: July 26th Curtailment Event: Baseline Results by Hour (MW) .................................................................... 7
Table 6: July 28th Curtailment Event Results by Hour (MW) .................................................................................... 8
List of Figures
Figure 1. Summary of Demand Reduction (MW) ...................................................................................................... 5
Figure 2. June 30th Curtailment Event Load Profile ................................................................................................... 6
Figure 3. July 26th Curtailment Event Load Profile .................................................................................................... 7
Figure 4. July 28th Curtailment Event Load Profile ................................................................................................... 8

2
We change the way people use energyTM
Executive Summary
Idaho Power Company contracted CLEAResult to complete an impact evaluation of the 2016 Flex Peak Program,
a voluntary demand response (DR) program that has been available to Idaho Power’s commercial and industrial
customers. The goals of the impact evaluation were to determine the demand reduction (in MW) and realization
rate for at least three curtailment events during the program’s June 15th - August 15th season.
CLEAResult completed analyses of curtailment events held on June 30th (4-8pm), July 26th (4-8pm), and July 28th
(4-8pm), 2016. The results of the curtailment event analyses showed maximum demand reductions of 31.7, 37.8,
and 25.3 MW, respectively, for the three events, and an average of 30.4 MW at the meter level. The events
achieved realization rates of 96.0%, 120.8%, and 79.5%, respectively, averaging 98.8%.
The results of the impact evaluation show that Idaho Power’s 2016 Flex Peak Program functioned as intended
and provided up to 37.8 MW to the electricity grid at the meter level. In addition, the Flex Peak Program is
scalable and with additional participants and more diversity among participants, could contribute more reduction
as future capacity requirements dictate.
Introduction
Background
The Flex Peak Program is a voluntary demand response (DR) program available to Idaho Power’s commercial
and industrial customers. The program’s objective is to reduce the demand on Idaho Power’s system during
periods of extreme peak electricity use. The program is designed to reduce peak load by paying a financial
incentive to customers to turn off or reduce electrical system load at their facilities during called events. The
program has a fixed payment amount of $3.25/kW per week of nominated load reduction (or actual load reduction
if an event was called) during the program season, and a variable payment amount of $0.16/kWh for energy
savings achieved during curtailment events after the third event.
The Flex Peak Program provides customers with a notification two hours prior to the start of curtailment events
via phone, text message and email. Events can be called from June 15th - August 15th anytime from 2 - 8pm and
can last from 2 - 4 hours.
Impact Evaluation Goals
Idaho Power contracted CLEAResult to complete an impact evaluation of the 2016 Flex Peak Program. This 2016
impact evaluation has two primary goals:
1. Determine and verify the demand reduction (MW) during 2016 curtailment events
2. Determine realization rate for each event
The results contained in this report will enable Idaho Power to better define the impact of the program on the
electricity grid and provide more accurate estimates of the program’s load reduction in the future.
Methodology
The section below describes the data used to complete the impact evaluation, the sampling plan, and the
methodology for gathering and processing data, determining baseline, calculating the demand reduction, and
determining the curtailment event realization rates. Throughout this report the event reduction is calculated using

3
We change the way people use energyTM
customers metering data. (meter-level). Actual reductions seen by the Idaho Power system would be larger if
distribution/transmission line losses of 9.76% were included.
Data Sources
CLEAResult conducted the 2016 Flex Peak impact evaluation through the use of two primary data sources:
interval data (hourly kW readings) and an event-specific participant list. The participant list included site ID,
nomination kW, and the customer’s aggregated option. Some interval meter data included error codes for cases
where the source data was missing or estimated. See Table 1 for a list of error codes included in the data.
Table 1. Error Code Key
Error Code Description
1 Power Outage
9 Missing Reading
Q Estimated Reading

Sampling Plan
The use of hourly interval metering data allowed the impact evaluation’s sampling plan to be a census of program
participants (i.e. all participants were considered in the analysis).
Data Gathering and Processing
CLEAResult processed all data provided by Idaho Power using the analytics platform SAS®. The use of SAS®
created a consistent and appropriate data format for all three curtailment events. The interval metering data was
reviewed to identify the presence of error codes during the curtailment event period or in the baseline period, and
two occurrences were found in the second event, which lead to those sites being excluded from the analysis.
Determine the Baseline
CLEAResult determined site-specific baselines by first identifying the three days with the greatest demand from
the previous ten non-weekend/holiday and non-curtailment days (hereto called comparison days). The greatest
demand was determined as the day with the highest average demand during the hours of 2pm - 8pm.
CLEAResult then determined each site’s unadjusted baseline demand during the event timeframe by averaging
the demand for each hour across all three comparison days.
CLEAResult then calculated a day-of-adjustment (DOA) for each site. The DOA was calculated using the average
of hours 12pm and 1pm (hours 3 and 4 prior to the beginning of the curtailment period) for both the comparison
days and the event day. The DOA was calculated as a flat kW, and was capped at +/- 20% of the value for the
same time period during the original baseline window. The DOA was applied to all baseline hours. This was done
to avoid the baseline being affected by participant action to prepare for the curtailment event (e.g. pre-cool the
building). This DOA approach was applied to each service location and summed to arrive at the program’s
aggregate baseline.

4
We change the way people use energyTM
Calculate Demand Reduction
CLEAResult calculated the demand reduction for each participant by subtracting its load during each hour of the
curtailment event from the participant’s adjusted baseline load (determined in the previous steps). The hourly
demand reductions were then aggregated for all participants. Note that to maintain consistency with the
program’s methodology for calculating demand reduction estimates, participants’ hourly demand reduction
estimates that resulted in net load increases were zeroed out. The total event impact (both average and
maximum reduction) was calculated by aggregating each participant’s results.
Determine Curtailment Event Realization Rate
CLEAResult determined the realization rates for each curtailment event by dividing the aggregate maximum
demand reductions calculated in the previous step by the total nominated load for the all participants included in
the analysis.

Findings
The section below presents the findings of the 2016 Flex Peak Program impact evaluation, beginning with a
characterization of the sites enrolled in the program and ending with a presentation of the results of each
curtailment event. Note that numbers presented in tables are expressed in MW, unless otherwise indicated.
Participant Characterization
The 2016 Flex Peak Program included 137 enrolled sites, accounting for an average of 30.8 nominated MW
across the three events. The 137 sites were accounted for by 65 unique customers.
Table 2: Number of Sites by Processing Step
Curtailment Event Nominated MW Count of Total
Sites
Count of Sites
Analyzed
Percent of Total
Sites Analyzed
June 30th 31.1 137 137 100%
July 26th 30.5 137 135 98.5%
July 28th 30.9 137 137 100%
Average 30.8 137 136 100%

When site’s nominated kW was averaged across the three events, the average nominated load reduction was 220
kW, while the median reduction was 90 kW.

5
We change the way people use energyTM
Curtailment Event Results
Table 3 and Figure 2 below summarize the estimated demand reduction achieved during each of the three
curtailment events and the resulting realization rate. The maximum demand reduction achieved ranged from a low
of 25.3 MW for the July 28th event to a high of 37.8 MW for the July 26th event. When considered together, the
three events had an average realization rate of 98.8%.
Table 3: Summary of Demand Reduction and Resulting Realization Rate (MW)
Curtailment Event Event
Timeframe
Nominated
Demand
Reduction
Avg. Demand
Reduction (MW)
Max Demand
Reduction (MW)
Realization
Rate*
June 30th 4-8pm 31.1 29.9 31.7 96.0%
July 26th 4-8pm 30.5 36.8 37.8 120.8%
July 28th 4-8pm 30.9 24.6 25.3 79.5%
Average 30.8 30.4 31.6 98.8%
* Based on average reduction

Figure 1. Summary of Demand Reduction (MW)

-
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Jun 30 Jul 26 Jul 28
De
m
a
n
d

R
e
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

(
M
W
)
Avg Demand Reduction (MW)Max Demand Reduction (MW)

6
We change the way people use energyTM

June 30th Curtailment Event
Table 4 below breaks out demand reduction for each hour of the curtailment event. The hour between 6pm and
7pm experienced the largest total reduction (31.7 MW).
Table 4: June 30th Curtailment Event Results by Hour (MW)
Curtailment Event Date 4-5pm 5-6pm 6-7pm 7-8pm Avg.
Reduction
Max.
Reduction
June 30th 29.7 29.6 31.7 28.5 29.9 31.7

Figure 2 below presents the load profile of the June 30th curtailment event and its baseline, graphically depicting
the results from Table 4 above.
Figure 2. June 30th Curtailment Event Load Profile

Notes:
- Energy usage for a given hour is reported in the time reading at the beginning of the hour. For example, energy usage from
4-5pm is depicted in the 4pm reading.
- The Baseline Energy and Curtailment Event Energy lines do not intersect at the beginning of the event due to the Day-of-
Adjustment (DOA) being calculated prior to the event start time. The DOA’s +/-20% cap results in the baseline energy not
intersecting with the curtailment event energy during the period the DOA is calculated.

-
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
11
a
m
12
p
m
1p
m
2p
m
3p
m
4p
m
5p
m
6p
m
7p
m
8p
m
9p
m
10
p
m
MW
Time
Baseline Energy Curtailment Event Energy

7
We change the way people use energyTM

July 26th Curtailment Event
The second Flex Peak event was called in the last week of July. The July 26th event achieved the highest demand
reduction results out of the three events.
Table 5 below breaks out demand reduction for each hour of the curtailment event. The hour between 4pm and
5pm experienced the largest total reduction (37.8 MW).
Table 5: July 26th Curtailment Event: Baseline Results by Hour (MW)
Curtailment Event Date 4-5pm 5-6pm 6-7pm 7-8pm Avg.
Reduction
Max.
Reduction
July 26th 37.8 36.8 36.3 36.3 36.8 37.8

Figure 3 below presents the load profile of the July 26th curtailment event and its baseline, graphically depicting
the results from Table 5 above.
Figure 3. July 26th Curtailment Event Load Profile

Notes:
- Energy usage for a given hour is reported in the time reading at the beginning of the hour. For example, energy usage from
4-5pm is depicted in the 4pm reading.
- The Baseline Energy and Curtailment Event Energy lines do not intersect at the beginning of the event due to the Day-of-
Adjustment (DOA) being calculated prior to the event start time. The DOA’s +/-20% cap results in the baseline energy not
intersecting with the curtailment event energy during the period the DOA is calculated.

-
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
11
a
m
12
p
m
1p
m
2p
m
3p
m
4p
m
5p
m
6p
m
7p
m
8p
m
9p
m
10
p
m
Mk
W
Time
Baseline Energy Curtailment Event Energy

8
We change the way people use energyTM
July 28th Curtailment Event
The third Flex Peak event was called two days after the second event. The July 28th event saw the lowest
demand reduction out of the three events.
Table 6 below breaks out demand reduction for each hour of the curtailment event. The hour between 4pm and
5pm experienced the largest total reduction (25.3 MW).
Table 6: July 28th Curtailment Event Results by Hour (MW)
Curtailment Event Date 4-5pm 5-6pm 6-7pm 7-8 pm Avg.
Reduction
Max.
Reduction
July 28th 25.3 24.3 24.3 24.5 24.6 25.3

Figure 4 below presents the load profile of the July 28th curtailment event and its baseline, graphically depicting
the results from Table 6 above.
Figure 4. July 28th Curtailment Event Load Profile

Notes:
- Energy usage for a given hour is reported in the time reading at the beginning of the hour. For example, energy usage from
4-5pm is depicted in the 4pm reading.
- The Baseline Energy and Curtailment Event Energy lines do not intersect at the beginning of the event due to the Day-of-
Adjustment (DOA) being calculated prior to the event start time. The DOA’s +/-20% cap results in the baseline energy not
intersecting with the curtailment event energy during the period the DOA is calculated.
When considering the relatively poor performance of the July 28th event compared to the other two events, the
reduced realization rate can be attributed to 22 low performing sites (realization rate <10%) and a lack of
performance by the site with the largest nominated load reduction in the program. Had the realization rates for
these underperforming sites been 100%, the event’s realization rate would’ve increased by 14.9% to 94.4%.

-
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
11
a
m
12
p
m
1p
m
2p
m
3p
m
4p
m
5p
m
6p
m
7p
m
8p
m
9p
m
10
p
m
Mk
W
Time
Baseline Energy Curtailment Event Energy

9
We change the way people use energyTM
Conclusions
The goals of the 2016 Flex Peak impact evaluation were to determine and verify the demand reduction (MW)
during curtailment events and determine the realization rate for each event.
CLEAResult completed analyses of curtailment events held on June 30th (4 – 8pm), July 26th (4 – 8pm), and July
28th (4 – 8pm). The events had an average of 136 unique sites, with an average load reduction of 30.4 MW
across the three events. The results of the analyses showed maximum demand reductions of 31.8, 37.8, and 25.3
MW, respectively, for the three events, and an average of 31.6 MW. The events achieved realization rates of
96.0%, 120.8%, and 79.5%, respectively, averaging 98.8%.
The results of the impact evaluation show that Idaho Power’s 2016 Flex Peak Program functioned as intended
and provided up to 38 MW to the electricity grid at the meter level. In addition, the Flex Peak Program is scalable
and with additional participants and more diversity among participants, could contribute more reduction as future
capacity requirements dictate.
FINAL REPORT 
Impact and Process Evaluation 
of the 
Irrigation Efficiency Rewards Program 

December 23, 2016 

Prepared for: 
Idaho Power Company 

Prepared by: 

Leidos Engineering, LLC 
301 Plainfield Road, Suite 310 
Syracuse, NY 13212 
315.434.7200 

Leidos Engineering, LLC   ii | P a g e  
Contents 
Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................................ 1 
Program Materials ............................................................................................................................................. 3 
1.0 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 4 
1.1 Program Description .................................................................................................................................... 4 
1.2 Program Reported Energy Savings ............................................................................................................... 6 
1.3 Overview of Evaluation Approach ................................................................................................................ 6 
1.3.1 Goals of the Evaluation ............................................................................................................................ 7 
1.3.2 Evaluation Methodologies ....................................................................................................................... 7 
1.3.3 Site Visits and Participant Interviews ...................................................................................................... 7 
1.3.4 Program Energy and Demand Savings ..................................................................................................... 8 
1.3.5 Process Evaluation ................................................................................................................................. 10 
2.0 Overall Sampling Methodology ............................................................................................................. 11 
2.1 Menu Option Sample .................................................................................................................................. 11 
2.2 Custom Option Sample ............................................................................................................................... 13 
3.0 Impact Evaluation ................................................................................................................................. 15 
3.1 Sampling Results ........................................................................................................................................ 15 
3.2 Verification of Impacts ............................................................................................................................... 15 
4.0 Non‐Electric Benefits (NEB) Review ....................................................................................................... 17 
4.1 Menu Option .............................................................................................................................................. 17 
4.2 Avoided C02 Emissions ............................................................................................................................... 18 
4.3 Custom Incentive Option ............................................................................................................................ 18 
5.0 Process Evaluation Findings .................................................................................................................. 20 
5.1 Program staff interviews ............................................................................................................................ 20 
5.2 Process Findings from Desk Reviews and Site Visits ................................................................................... 20 
5.4 Materials Review ........................................................................................................................................ 23 
5.5 Benchmarking ............................................................................................................................................ 25 
5.5.1 Menu Option Benchmark Comparisons ................................................................................................. 27 
6.0 Conclusions and Recommendations ...................................................................................................... 29 
6.1 Impact Evaluation Recommendations ........................................................................................................ 29 
6.2 Process Evaluation Recommendations ....................................................................................................... 30 

Leidos Engineering, LLC   iii | P a g e  
Table 1. Summary of Impact Evaluation Results .................................................................................................. 2 
Table 2. Process Evaluation Recommendations and Observations ....................................................................... 3 
Table 3. Menu Option Incentives ........................................................................................................................ 5 
Table 4. Irrigation Efficiency Rewards ................................................................................................................. 6 
Table 5. Process and Impact Evaluation Components .......................................................................................... 7 
Table 6. Menu Option Sample Measure Types ................................................................................................... 11 
Table 7. Menu Option Primary and Backup Samples Projects ............................................................................. 12 
Table 8. Custom Samples Savings Summary ....................................................................................................... 13 
Table 9. Custom Primary and Backup Sampled Projects ..................................................................................... 14 
Table 10. Final Sampling Characteristics ............................................................................................................ 15 
Table 11. Summary of Impact Evaluation Results ............................................................................................... 15 
Table 12. Irrigation Efficiency Rewards – Non‐Electric Benefits Metrics .............................................................. 17 
Table 13. Irrigation Hardware Benefits and Values in the RTF ............................................................................ 18 
Table 14. Self‐Reported Non‐Electric Benefits from Custom Incentive Component Projects by Category............. 19 
Table 15. Program Materials ............................................................................................................................. 24 
Table 16. Irrigation Efficiency Program Offerings by Utilities in States with High Irrigation Water Use ................ 26 
Table 17. Comparison of Rebate Amounts for Irrigation Measures* ................................................................... 27 
Table 18. Process Evaluation Recommendations and Observations .................................................................... 30 

Leidos Engineering, LLC   1 | P a g e 
Irrigation Efficiency Rewards 
Executive Summary 
This executive summary presents findings from an evaluation of the Irrigation Efficiency Rewards 
program offered by Idaho Power Company (Idaho Power).  The evaluation included an impact 
evaluation, a review of the program non‐electric benefits, and a process evaluation. 
The Irrigation Efficiency Rewards program promotes the use of energy‐efficient equipment in the design 
and implementation of new irrigation systems and the improvement of existing systems.  To accomplish 
this, the program offers customer education, training, and irrigation‐system assessments, as well as 
financial incentives to offset the costs of installing more efficient equipment and/or systems. 
The program has one Engineer/Segment Coordinator and six Agriculture Representatives (Ag Reps) 
covering different regions of the utilities service area.  The Ag Reps organize and conduct educational 
workshops for irrigation customers, conduct pump testing and system evaluations to estimate 
customers’ potential savings, and engage with agricultural irrigation equipment dealers. 
The program offers two ways to participate ‐ the Custom Incentive Option and the Menu Option.  The 
Custom Incentive Option addresses extensive retrofits of existing systems or new irrigation systems, 
providing component upgrades and large‐scale improvements.  Idaho Power reviews, analyzes, and 
makes recommendations on each Custom Incentive Option application and reviews all project 
information on completed projects before it is approved for final payment.  The Menu Option offers 
prescribed per unit incentives to cover a portion of the costs of repairing and replacing specific 
components that help with the irrigation system efficiency.   
In 2015 the program had 902 participants (799 in the Menu Option and 103 in the Custom Incentive 
Option), with ex‐ante savings of 14,027 MWh and a budget of approximately $1.8 million. 
The evaluation team conducted forty‐six (46) desk reviews; thirty (30) for a stratified sample of Menu 
Option projects and sixteen (16) for a stratified sample of Custom Option projects. The team also 
completed site visits for eleven (11) custom incentive projects. 
The findings from the impact evaluation are shown in Table 1, with a realization rate of 0.98, with a 
relative precision of +/‐ 2.4% overall at 90% confidence, on the ex‐post kWh savings for both the Menu 
Option and the Custom Option savings combined.  The realization rate on the ex‐post kW impacts was 
0.97 for the Menu Option and 0.75 for the Custom Option, respectively.  The overall combined 
realization rate for the program demand savings was 0.90 with a relative precision of +/‐ 3.3% at 90% 
confidence. 

Leidos Engineering, LLC   2 | P a g e 
Table 1. Summary of Impact Evaluation Results  

Idaho Power operates a comprehensive irrigation efficiency program, specifically targeted to the 
important agricultural customer segment that is delivered by a team of regional Agricultural 
Representatives (Ag Reps) who are highly knowledgeable about irrigation and efficiency.  While the use 
of account representatives is not a unique way to serve the needs of customers in programs, none of the 
other similar utility programs reviewed offered the level of account representative support that is 
provided by Idaho Power.   
All indications are that the program is well designed, well managed and well implemented. However, 
there are a few recommendations presented for consideration, which could support incremental 
improvements in program operations.  
Impact evaluation recommendations and observations include: 
 Continue to make improvements in the quality of the project level documentation such as 
through annotations on invoicing and specification sheets, and summary tables for measure 
counts 

 Assess the viability of developing more specific default values for the hours of operation 
considering the various factors that may influence operation time such as geographic location, 
crop type and irrigation system type, possibly using data from projects that have already been 
completed 

Program Option
Ex-ante kWh
Gross
Ex-post kWh
Gross
Realization
Rate
Ex-ante kW
Gross
Ex-post kW
Gross
Realization
Rate
Menu Option 11,261,548 10,953,996 0.97 2,203.8 2,144 0.97
Custom Option 2,675,788 2,641,560 0.99 1,203.5 906 0.75
Program Total 13,937,336 13,595,555 0.98 3,407.3 3,050 0.90
Relative Precision at 90%
Confidence 2.4%3.3%

Leidos Engineering, LLC   3 | P a g e 
Process evaluation recommendations and observations are summarized in Table 2: 
Table 2. Process Evaluation Recommendations and Observations 
Program Materials  Update the program handbook to a more user‐friendly electronic format 
Program Design 
 Review whether adding measures to the Menu Option component of the 
program would add value to the program and program participants 
 Assess the impact of increased rebates on program cost‐effectiveness and 
participation 
 Take a deeper look at the program participation trends over time to better 
understand drivers for the 20% reduction in participation from 2014 to 2015.1 
 Consider conducting a market assessment that would review cost‐
effectiveness, incentives, market size for the agricultural sector. 
 Assess whether there are more program opportunities for savings from 
motors, and pumps 
 Increase the methods in which awareness of the green rewind program is 
promoted through the program 

Non‐Electric Benefits 
((NEBs) 
 Be prepared to integrate water and CO2 values into NEBs estimates if the 
Regional Technical Forum (RTF)  approves values from the pending research on 
those topics 
 Conduct some additional research on NEBs related to irrigation efficiency to 
better understand and support the self‐reported NEBs values provided by 
participants 
 Consider establishing caps on self‐reported estimates to avoid overstating the 
value of NEBs 

1 Idaho Power’s program managers report that participation has increased in 2016. 

Leidos Engineering, LLC   4 | P a g e 
1.0 Introduction 
This report presents findings from an evaluation of the Irrigation Efficiency Rewards program offered by 
Idaho Power Company.  The evaluation included an impact evaluation, a review of the program non‐
electric benefits, and a process evaluation.  The report is organized accordingly with the following 
sections, in addition to this introduction:  
 Estimation of Program Energy and Demand Savings 
 Non‐Electric Benefits 
 Process Evaluation Findings 
 Conclusions and Recommendations 
The impact evaluation and review of non‐electric benefits focused on program ex‐ante savings claimed 
for the 2015 program year. 
This introduction provides a brief description of the program, presents the program reported energy 
savings, and provides an overview of the evaluation approach. 
1.1 Program Description 
The Irrigation Efficiency Rewards program promotes the use of energy‐efficient equipment in the design 
and implementation of new irrigation systems and the improvement of existing systems.  To accomplish 
this, the program offers customer education, training, and irrigation‐system assessments, as well as 
financial incentives to offset the costs of installing more efficient equipment and/or systems. 
The program has six Ag Reps covering different regions of the utility service area, who organize and 
conduct educational workshops for irrigation customers, conduct pump testing to evaluate prospective 
customers’ potential savings, and engage with agricultural irrigation equipment dealers. 
Qualified irrigators in Idaho Power’s Idaho and Oregon service area are made aware of the program 
through direct mailings, advertisements in agricultural publications, radio spots, direct customer and 
equipment dealer interaction, participation in agricultural conferences, and through workshops and 
training sessions. 
The program offers two ways to participate in the program: The Custom Incentive Option and the Menu 
Option.  The Custom Incentive Option addresses extensive retrofits of existing systems or new irrigation 
systems, providing component upgrades and large‐scale improvements. Idaho Power reviews, analyzes, 
and makes recommendations on each Custom Incentive Option application and reviews all project 
information on completed projects before it is approved for final payment.  
Under the Custom Incentive Option, the incentive structure varies slightly depending on whether it is a 
new system or an upgrade to an existing system: 

Leidos Engineering, LLC   5 | P a g e 
New System2 $0.25 per kWh saved in the first year, capped at 10% of the cost 
of the new system. 
Upgrade to Existing System The greater of $0.25 per kWh saved in the first year or $450 per 
kW demand reduction, capped at 75% of the total project cost. 
The Menu Incentive Option covers a portion of the costs of repairing and replacing eleven specific 
components that help the irrigation system use less energy. The prescribed incentive amount paid for 
each of those eleven components is presented in Table 3 below. 
Table 3. Menu Option Incentives 
Component Description 
Incentive per 
Unit 
New flow‐control type nozzles $1.50
New nozzles for impact, rotating or fixed head sprinklers $0.25
New or rebuilt impact or rotating type sprinklers $2.75*
New or rebuilt wheel line levelers $0.75
New complete low‐pressure pivot package (per sprinkler head, nozzle and regulator)$8.00
New drains for pivot and wheel lines $3.00*
New riser caps and gaskets for hand lines, wheel lines or portable mainline $1.00*
New wheel line hubs (on Thunderbird wheel lines)$12.00
New gooseneck with drop tube or boom back $1.00 per 
outlet 
Cut and pipe press or weld 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
*These incentive options are limited to the lesser of the incentive or 50 percent of the invoice cost, and also limited to a 
maximum of 2 measure units per measure type per acre. 

2 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. 

Leidos Engineering, LLC   6 | P a g e 
1.2 Program Reported Energy Savings 
The reported program savings and funding information are presented in Table 4 below for the program 
years 2014 and 2015.  
Table 4. Irrigation Efficiency Rewards 
2015 2014 
Participation and Savings 
Participants (projects) 902 1,128
Energy Savings (kWh)3 14,027,411 18,463,611
Demand Reduction (MW) N/A 4.6
Average Savings per Project 15,551 16,368
Program Costs by Funding Source 
Idaho Efficiency Rider $1,714,399 $2,256,235 
Oregon Efficiency Rider $61,295 $144,392 
Idaho Power Funds $60,018 $45,880 
Total Program Costs—All Sources $1,835,711 $2,446,507 
Program Levelized Costs 
Utility Levelized Cost ($/kWh) $0.016 $0.016 
Total Resource Levelized Cost ($/kWh) $0.085 $0.119 
Benefit/Cost Ratios 
Utility Benefit/Cost Ratio 6    
Total Resource Benefit/Cost Ratio 3.84    
Source: Idaho Power Company Demand‐Side Management 2015 Annual Report, page125 
1.3 Overview of Evaluation Approach 
A kick‐off meeting was held to review the proposed evaluation approach and to make sure the approach 
aligned with the program design.  Following the kick‐off meeting a final work plan was developed and 
submitted to Idaho Power for approval before subsequent evaluation work began. 
Key elements of the impact evaluation approach of this program were: 
1. Conducting the impact evaluation efficiently with a small sample size that provides evaluated 
results at 90% confidence within +/‐ 10% precision. 
2. Accessing customer sites and systems with minimal disruption to the customer. 
3. Re‐assessment of NEB values for this program. 
4. Review of implementation of Regional Technical Forum calculations for impact estimates of 
Menu Option measures. 

3 Includes kWh savings from Green Rewind projects 

Leidos Engineering, LLC   7 | P a g e 
1.3.1 Goals of the Evaluation 
The goals of the evaluation are to:
 Provide actionable recommendations based on a solid foundation of knowledge about the 
program 
 Assess program implementation including quality control, operational practice, and outreach in 
the context of industry best practices and comparable programs 
 Identify areas of risk 
 Identify program strengths and areas for improvement 
 Assess program administration including program oversight, staffing, management, training, 
documentation, and reporting 
 Provide an estimation of program realization rates to assist in determining ex‐ante gross energy 
savings based on an assessment of whether program impacts are consistent with the RTF 
(where applicable) or a review of best practice engineering calculations and assumptions when 
measures are custom calculated 
1.3.2 Evaluation Methodologies 
The evaluation methodologies utilized for the process and impact evaluations are listed below.  
Discussion regarding each of these methodologies is presented in Table 5 below. 
Table 5. Process and Impact Evaluation Components 
Process Evaluation 
 Program staff interviews 
 Summary of process findings from impact reviews 
 Review of recommendations from previous evaluations 
 Materials review 
 Process mapping 
 Benchmarking and best practice review 

Impact Evaluation 
 RTF review 
 Desk review 
 Site visits 
 Impact analysis 

1.3.3 Site Visits and Participant Interviews 
The Leidos Team worked with Idaho Power Ag Reps prior to making contact with any customers selected 
for the site visits. Information provided by program participants is considered confidential in terms of 
attribution and is not shared with any other party. 
Participant Interviews 
Participant interviews were conducted with program participants during the site visits.  The participant 
interviews assessed participant’s interactions with the program, assessed the participant’s satisfaction 

Leidos Engineering, LLC   8 | P a g e 
with various elements of the program and further explored participant’s valuation on non‐electric 
benefits realized from the program. 
Site Visits 
The Leidos Team conducted site visits with 11 participants (out of a total sample of 16) in the Custom 
Option component of the program.4  The participants were selected at random after being assigned to 3 
strata, with a minimum of 5 participants (and 1 backup) selected from each strata.  
During the site visits, installation and quantities of measures as recorded in the tracking database, 
project documentation, and as observed through the desk review were verified to the extent that was 
reasonable given large and distributed nature of most of these projects. There was a focus on the 
energy consuming equipment associated with the projects, such as pump motors.  
The field data collection reports are shown in Appendix A along with photographs of key aspects of 
measures such as nameplate data, to allow for review of information in the analysis of the field data for 
the impact analysis. 
1.3.4 Program Energy and Demand Savings 
The data collected during the site visits was analyzed along with the data from the RTF review and the 
desk reviews to develop estimates of energy impacts at the program and measure levels.  The analysis 
provides an estimation of program realization rates to assist in determining ex‐post gross energy 
savings.  Each step of the analysis is discussed briefly below.  
Step 1: Review Program Documentation 
The Leidos Team conducted a thorough review of the current data tracking system, associated 
documentation, and the calculation of energy savings, including an assessment of the adherence to the 
RTF energy savings values on a measure basis.  Corrections to the ex‐ante savings identified in this step 
are implemented as needed.  For this step, all measures included in the Menu Option were assessed.   
Step 2: Determine Desk Review Sample 
The desk review/site review samples for the Irrigation Efficiency Rewards program were drawn from the 
population of 902 projects that accounted for the ex‐ante savings claimed for the 2015 program year.  
Sampling was separately performed for the Menu Options and the Custom Options projects.   A total of 
30 projects plus 3 backups were sampled for the Menu Options.   For the Custom track, a total of 15 
project plus 3 backups were selected for the sample.  

4 While the sample was designed to complete 15 Custom projects for desk reviews with 10 of these also receiving on-
site inspections, an additional project was completed for a total of 16 desk reviews and 11 on-site inspections. This occurred because one particular site was initially unresponsive to accepting the site visit, therefore a backup project was selected for desk review and site visit. After completion of the backup project, however, the original participant
accepted an on-site visit; the inspection was then completed by the evaluators to fulfill commitments to the participant. 

Leidos Engineering, LLC   9 | P a g e 
Step 3: File Review 
The project files for sampled projects were requested from Idaho Power and were reviewed for 
evaluability. 
For a project to be evaluable, proper information must be available in the project documentation to 
determine the proper deemed measure savings algorithm and to determine evidence of the project 
completion.  Evaluable projects typically contain: 
 A project application, which identifies the entity requesting the rebate and the equipment being 
rebated 
 Invoices for purchased equipment identifying make and model of purchased equipment and 
categorizing labor activities.  Invoices also provide documentation for purchase dates confirming 
adherence with program rules 
 Documentation of the calculations, assumptions and QA/QC procedures adhered to by the 
program staff 
If projects are determined to not be evaluable, additional documentation was requested or alternate 
backup projects were selected.   
Step 4: Desk Reviews 
Desk reviews were conducted for the sample of projects from Step 2 that were validated in Step 3.  The 
desk reviews for Custom Option Incentive projects consisted of reviewing the algorithms and inputs for 
energy savings and determining the adherence to the protocols for individual measures, as evidenced by 
the project documentation.  The desk reviews for the Menu Option projects consisted of verification 
that the project tracking data was consistent with the project documentation.  Project documentation 
was used where any discrepancies were found. 
Project documentation reviewed included project application, equipment specifications, invoices, 
calculation spreadsheets, and the database tracking and reporting information.   
The key output from the desk reviews is the evaluated savings of the sampled projects.  For the Custom 
Option projects, this evaluation also helped guide what was to be inspected during the site visits.  
Step 5: Adjusting Savings Estimates 
For the Menu Option projects in the Irrigation Efficiency Rewards program, the adjustments for savings 
estimates were made through identifying differences from the RTF values, and differences in the unit 
quantities per measure type.   
For the Custom Option projects, an engineering review of the detail project documentation was 
completed.  This included review of invoices for quantities and equipment sizing; equipment 
specifications for sizing, efficiency and performance; calculation worksheets for estimation of savings, 
and database tracking and reporting information.  On‐site inspection information was used to further 
inform the savings estimates for 11 of the Custom projects. 

Leidos Engineering, LLC   10 | P a g e  
1.3.5 Process Evaluation 
The following activities were conducted for the process evaluation: 

 Program staff interviews 
 Process findings coming out of the data reviews, desk reviews and site visits 
 A review of the program logic model 
 A review of actions taken is response to recommendations from previous evaluations 
 A review of program educational and marketing materials 
 A re‐assessment of the process flow diagrams for the Menu Option and Custom Incentive 
Option components of the program
 Benchmarking of the Idaho Power Program as compared to similar programs

Leidos Engineering, LLC   11 | P a g e  
2.0 Overall Sampling Methodology 
The sampling methodology applied to this program selected a total of 45 projects for the primary 
sample with 6 projects in the backup sample.  The samples were determined separately for the Menu 
Option and the Custom Option projects. 
2.1 Menu Option Sample 
For the Menu Option projects, the kW savings were found to be proportional to the kWh savings for 
each project, so stratification was only necessary on the kWh values.  The project‐level kWh savings 
values in the program database were divided into three strata: 
1. Over 55,000 kWh savings. 
2. Over 16,000 kWh savings AND less than 55,000 kWh savings. 
3. Under 16,000 kWh savings. 
A random value was assigned to each project and the projects were ranked by the product of the 
random value and their kWh.  The top 10 projects in each strata were considered for the initial primary 
sample and then the individual measure types and their recorded savings were analyzed.  For measure 
types that were underrepresented in the initial sample, lower ranked projects in the initial primary 
sample were dropped in favor of selecting projects with the underrepresented measure types.  Where 
possible, alternate projects were selected within the same strata, this process was repeated until the 
quantity of the measure types or the number of projects was adequately represented in the sample.  
The goal was to obtain a sample with at least 15% of the total quantity of that measure or at least 10 
projects represented in the sample.  Table 6 shows the Menu Option sample projects by measure and 
the percentage of the total program measure count for each measure type in the sample. 
Table 6. Menu Option Sample Measure Types 
Measure Types 
# of 
Projects 
% of Populaton 
Measures Count 
Flow Cont 5 52.7% 
New Nozzle 14 27.3% 
Impact SP 15 35.1% 
Levelers 8 19.3% 
Low Press 21 7.1% 
Drains 11 17.2% 
Risercaps/Gaskets 17 25.8% 
Wheel line hubs 3 17.2% 
Gooseneck 11 9.7% 
Pipe Press 7 17.3% 
Boot Gasket 4 16.0% 
Total 30 21.7% 
Table 7 below shows the project IDs that were selected for the primary and backup samples.  The 
backup projects were chosen so that they cover all of the measure types under the program and can be 

Leidos Engineering, LLC   12 | P a g e  
pulled into the primary sample, if necessary, to replace projects that may have issues as the evaluation 
progressed. 
Table 7. Menu Option Primary and Backup Samples Projects 
Project ID Strata 
Measure 
Types Quantity 
kWh 
Savings 
kW 
Savings Sample 
IRRM7195 1 4 18,129 512,019 100.2 Primary 
IRRM7307 2 7 1,463 30,738 6.0 Primary 
IRRM7326 1 6 1,795 183,957 36.0 Primary 
IRRM7341 3 1 134 13,400 2.6 Primary 
IRRM7343 2 1 484 48,400 9.5 Primary 
IRRM7418 2 5 2,314 42,088 8.2 Primary 
IRRM7440 1 5 1,827 107,036 21.0 Primary 
IRRM7442 1 7 1,190 77,358 15.1 Primary 
IRRM7449 1 4 1,531 199,315 39.0 Primary 
IRRM7505 2 6 2,432 20,994 4.1 Primary 
IRRM7513 3 1 248 12,911 2.5 Primary 
IRRM7537 3 5 150 3,039 0.6 Primary 
IRRM7560 3 3 191 12,623 2.5 Primary 
IRRM7561 1 6 1,348 100,151 19.6 Primary 
IRRM7577 3 3 139 15,194 3.0 Primary 
IRRM7603 2 3 786 48,039 9.4 Primary 
IRRM7611 3 3 249 14,300 2.8 Primary 
IRRM7658 1 2 240 275,351 53.9 Primary 
IRRM7679 2 5 1,542 31,782 6.2 Primary 
IRRM7700 2 4 881 26,892 5.3 Primary 
IRRM7705 2 2 716 41,170 8.1 Primary 
IRRM7710 2 5 488 40,002 7.8 Primary 
IRRM7833 3 1 151 15,100 3.0 Primary 
IRRM7917 3 1 151 15,100 3.0 Primary 
IRRM7975 1 8 4,305 149,641 29.3 Primary 
IRRM7986 1 6 1,349 157,540 30.8 Primary 
IRRM8017 3 2 260 12,864 2.5 Primary 
IRRM8050 2 2 217 36,914 7.2 Primary 
IRRM8057 1 6 1,424 140,372 27.5 Primary 
IRRM8060 3 3 209 15,061 3.0 Primary 
IRRM7302 1 7 2,661 188,964 37.0 Backup 
IRRM7564 2 7 1,636 22,490 4.4 Backup 
IRRM7967 3 3 2,532 1,220 0.2 Backup 
For the desk reviews of Menu Option participants, the following information was requested for each 
project in the Primary and Backup samples: 

Leidos Engineering, LLC   13 | P a g e  
 Application forms 
 Supporting cost estimate information 
 Project invoices 
 Proof of incentive payments 
 Savings calculations spreadsheets (if any) 

2.2 Custom Option Sample 
For the Custom projects, the project‐level kW and kWh savings values in the program database were 
divided into three strata: 
1. Over 75,000 kWh savings OR 50 kW savings. 
2. Over 25,000 kWh savings OR 17 kW savings, AND Less than 75,000 kWh Savings AND 50 kW 
savings. 
3. Under 25,000 kWh savings AND 17 kW savings. 
A random value was assigned to each project and the projects were ranked by the product of the 
random value and their kWh and kW savings.  The top 5 projects in each strata were considered for the 
initial primary sample and a backup project was selected for each strata. The goal was to obtain a
sample with at least 35% of the kWh and kW savings represented in the sample.  The Table 8 below 
shows the breakdown of the savings in the primary. 
Table 8. Custom Samples Savings Summary 
Savings Sampled % of Total 
kWh 37% 
kW 50% 

Leidos Engineering, LLC   14 | P a g e  
Table 9 below shows the project IDs that were selected for the primary and backup samples.  The 
backup projects were chosen so that they can be pulled into the primary sample, if necessary, to replace 
projects that may have issues as the evaluation progressed. 
Table 9. Custom Primary and Backup Sampled Projects 
Project 
ID Strata 
kWh 
Savings 
kW 
Savings Sample 
On‐Site 
Inspection 
1893 1 235,783 293.1 Primary Yes 
1947 1 83,632 35.3 Primary Yes 
1969 1 83,227 35.0 Primary   
1992 1 150,439 64.1 Primary Yes 
1993 1 86,726 34.7 Primary   
1925 2 35,553 17.8 Primary   
1957 2 42,675 3.4 Primary Yes 
1961 2 51,351 35.3 Primary   
1987 2 66,379 19.6 Primary Yes 
1899 3 24,353 13.9 Primary Yes 
1948 3 20,890 0.0 Primary Yes 
1985 3 17,814 14.7 Primary Yes 
1986 3 24,408  ‐3.8 Primary Yes 
1994 3 23,838 11.9 Primary Yes 
1918 1 105,349 57.9 Primary Yes 
1971 2 35,535 23.4 Primary   
1927 2 50,161 25.1 Backup   
1904 3 16,796 9.0 Backup   

For the desk reviews and the on‐site data collection for this program, the following information was 
requested for each project in the Primary and Backup samples, where available: 
 Applications (both Pre‐Application and Final Application) 
 Supporting cost estimate information 
 Product cut sheets 
 Project invoices 
 Proof of incentive payments 
 Correspondence for pre and final approval 
 Relevant correspondence between Agricultural Rep and Irrigation Vendor 
 On‐Site Agricultural Rep inspection information (photos and notes) 
 Sequences of operations 
 Savings calculation spreadsheets 
 Applicable design drawings 
 Third‐party engineering reports 
 Internal audit documentation 

Leidos Engineering, LLC   15 | P a g e  
3.0 Impact Evaluation 
The impact evaluation for the Irrigation Efficiency program consisted of conducting project file review, 
desk audits and on‐site inspections to verify key energy savings and demand characteristics. 
3.1 Sampling Results 
The project review and site inspection sample sites were adjusted as the evaluation progressed to 
overcome restrictions such as lack of information or inability to gain access to the site.  In such 
instances, the backup sample sites were substituted for primary sites.  Characteristics of the final sample 
for this evaluation are presented in Table 10. 
Table 10. Final Sampling Characteristics 

3.2 Verification of Impacts 
The ex‐post savings impacts for each of the Menu Options and the Custom projects were determined 
independently for each of these programs for their separate samples.  From this, the total integrated 
program impacts are determined through weighting of the two program option tracks.  The Realization 
Rate is the ratio of the Ex‐post to Ex‐ante savings representing the savings that are verified through the 
sample and statistically weighted to the program participation.  The impact evaluation results of the 
total impacts for energy and demand savings are shown on Table 11.   
Table 11. Summary of Impact Evaluation Results  

The total energy savings of 13,937,336 kWh for the 2015 program year are a direct summation from the Idaho Power program 
tracking database that was used for this evaluation.  However, this total differs slightly from the 14,027,411 kWh of energy 
savings reported in Idaho Power Company Demand‐Side Management 2015 Annual Report, page125.  The reason for this 0.64% 
differential is because the savings from a separate program, Green Motor Rewind, is reported as part of the Irrigation Efficiency 
program for agricultural motors.  
Measure N nproject kWhn, ex ante kWnex ante % kWh % kW
Menu Option 799 30 2,399,350 469.5 21.3% 21.3%
Custom Option 103 16 1,087,952 656.3 40.7% 54.5%
Total 902 46 3,487,302 1,125.8 25.0% 33.0%
Measure N nonsite honsite,ex ante onsite, ex ante % kWh % kW
Menu Option 799 - 0.0%
Custom Option 103 11 795,560 510.1 29.7% 42.4%
Total 902 11 795,560 510.1 5.7% 15.0%
Project File Evaluation Sample
Onsite M&V Sample Subset
Program Option
Ex-ante kWh
Gross
Ex-post kWh
Gross
Realization
Rate
Ex-ante kW
Gross
Ex-post kW
Gross
Realization
Rate
Menu Option 11,261,548 10,953,996 0.97 2,203.8 2,144 0.97
Custom Option 2,675,788 2,641,560 0.99 1,203.5 906 0.75
Program Total 13,937,336 13,595,555 0.98 3,407.3 3,050 0.90
Relative Precision at 90%
Confidence 2.4%3.3%

Leidos Engineering, LLC   16 | P a g e  

Overall, the realization rate for ex‐post energy savings is 0.98 at 90% confidence and +/‐ 2.4% precision, 
delivering energy savings of 13,595,555 kWh for the total Irrigation Efficiency program.  The Menu 
Option had an energy saving realization rate at 0.97, while the Custom Option had a realization rate of 
0.99.  The Menu Option is the larger of the two program tracks and thus is the dominate influence on 
the total realization rate, and savings, for the program.   
 For Menu Options energy savings, verification of the measures across the sample was reliable, 
with 26 of the 30 sample projects close to unity on their individual realization rates.  The 
variance in ex‐post savings realization rate is simply due to a mix of changes in the count of 
measures for a select few projects.  This indicates that there are no systemic problems with the 
Menu Options program savings determination, but rather the realization rate is just the 
reflection of a mix of adjustments. 

 For the Custom Options program track, the ex‐post savings realization result is near unity at 
0.99.  There were minor adjustments made across all projects in this sample, with a fairly 
balanced mix between projects with slightly increased and slightly decreased energy savings. 
This also indicates that there are no systemic problems with the Custom Options program 
savings determination. 
The program ex‐post demand savings evaluation resulted in a 0.90 realization rate at 90% confidence at 
+/‐ 3.3% precision, delivering demand savings of 3,050 kW.  The Menu Options sample, individually, has 
a realization rate of 0.97, but as previously noted, the demand savings are derived from the energy 
savings in this program track; thus the realization on demand savings should equal that for the energy 
savings.  For the Custom Option, the demand savings realization rate is 0.75.  It is noted that one 
particular site is the primary driver of this lower realization rate.  For one of the largest sites in the 
Custom evaluation sample, adjustments were made in the energy savings to account for limited capacity 
in the local electrical feeder capacity, however, the demand savings estimates were not adjusted to 
consider this limited capacity.  As a result, the evaluation adjusted the demand savings from a recorded 
293kW to 117 kW for this one site.  

Leidos Engineering, LLC   17 | P a g e  
4.0 Non‐Electric Benefits (NEB) Review 
Non‐electric benefits as recorded by Idaho Power in their data tracking system for the Irrigation 
Efficiency Rewards program are valued at almost $1.5 million dollars per year, with just over $1 million 
of that coming from the Custom Incentive Option component of the program.  For the Menu component 
of the program, this translates to $2.05 per acre or 3 cents per ex ante kWh saved.  For the Custom 
component of the program this translates to $7.83 per acre, or 38 cents per kWh saved. The NEBs 
estimates for each program component are discussed in more detail below. 
Table 12. Irrigation Efficiency Rewards – Non‐Electric Benefits Metrics 
Program 
Component Ex Ante NEBs 

Acres 
Ex Ante kWh 
Saved $/Acre $/kWh 
Menu $492,026 239,674 17,825,400 $2.05 $0.03 
Custom $1,017,946 129,970 2,675,788 $7.83 $0.38 
Total $1,494,672 369,644 20,501,188 $4.04 $0.07 

4.1 Menu Option 
Idaho Power estimates the value of non‐electric benefits for the Menu Option participants are 
approximately $2 per acre, which is applied across all program participants. This is based on a report 
titled Irrigation Uniformity5 produced by the University of Idaho College of Agriculture which estimated 
that an increase in irrigation uniformity from 70% to 90% would increase the gross receipts per acre of 
Russet Burbank potatoes by $144, primarily due to increased yield, but also due to a moderate increase 
in price.  
Almost all of the measures offered through the Menu Option program component contribute to 
improvement in how evenly the irrigation distributes water over the field area, i.e. increasing irrigation 
uniformity.  While, the irrigation measures installed through the program are not necessarily affecting 
all of the acres for the affected field and uniformity will have differently levels of impacts on other crops, 
and the crops in the affected fields may well be lower value crops than potatoes, the application of a 
significantly discounted value of $2 per acre is reasonable and likely underestimates the non‐electric 
benefits realized through implementation of irrigation efficiency measures through the Menu Option 
component of the program.  
Table 13 shows the benefits and values for the irrigation hardware found in the RTF. The irrigation 
hardware measures are largely the same measures offered through the Idaho Power Irrigation Efficiency 
Rewards program.  While the RTF has values for each measure, in this case, the values were the same 
for each measure. 

5 Irrigation Uniformity, Bradley A. King, Jeffrey C. Stark, and Dennis Kincaid, University of Idaho College of 
Agriculture, BUL 824. 

Leidos Engineering, LLC   18 | P a g e  
Table 13. Irrigation Hardware Benefits and Values in the RTF 
Benefits $/kWh
Present Value Electric Energy Savings $0.060
Present Value of Transmission & Distribution System Benefits $0.000
Present Value of Region Act’s 10% Conservation Credit $0.006
Present Value of Non‐Electric System Benefits $0.000
PV Regional Electric Deferred Generation Capacity Credit $0.000
Present Value Carbon Dioxide Reduction Benefits $0.000
Source AgIrrigationHardware_V3_2.xlsm 
The RTF has a value of $0.000 for Non‐Electric System Benefits.  This does not mean that these benefits 
do not exist. The irrigation hardware measures are classified as “small savers”, and resources have not 
yet been expended to quantify those benefits.  The RTF is working on establishing a value for diverted 
water, which is relevant for these measures. The report will not be completed until sometime in 2017. 
Following delivery of the report a decision will need to be made on adding the value of diverted water to 
the measure, before it is added to the RTF. 
4.2 Avoided C02 Emissions 
The RTF is also working on a time‐variable carbon pricing for avoided CO2.  A white‐paper on that topic 
is expected in the first half of 2017. 
For the 2015 program year, the Menu Option measures implemented will avoid 185,003 tons of CO2 
over their lifetime6.  While the RTF has not yet established a value for these avoided CO2 emissions, 
California recently updated their avoided cost estimates in August of 2016.  Using a value of $15.84 
cents per ton, derived from the results of that avoided cost study, the value of these avoided emissions 
is roughly $2,931,106.  The value of this non‐electric impact is almost six times the value of non‐electric 
impacts currently estimated by Idaho Power.  Though, it is important to note that the value of the 
avoided CO2 emissions as determined by the RTF study may differ significantly from the findings in the 
California study.  And while these estimates of the value of CO2 are often based on active trading 
markets for CO2, it is somewhat academic until there is policy adopted that is driving avoidance of CO2 
or until Idaho Power is eligible to participate in an active market for CO2. 
4.3 Custom Incentive Option 
Estimates of non‐electric benefits for the Custom Incentive Option are based on self‐reported estimates 
provided by participants. 
Ag Reps ask customers to fill out a “Non‐Energy Benefits Attachment” form which asks: 
On the Irrigation Efficiency project that you are doing, there are significant energy 
savings benefits you will experience when it is completed.  Are there additional non‐
energy benefits and other reasons that you are doing the project? 

6 Based on the per unit, lifetime savings estimates in the RTF ([C02 Reduction (tons over expected measure life)] in 
AgIrrigationHardware_v3_2.xlsx) 

Leidos Engineering, LLC   19 | P a g e  
Please check all the reasons for doing your project and estimate a dollar per year for 
each reason.  
o Reduces my Labor costs by $_____________/yr (estimate) 
o Increases by Yield by $_____________/yr (estimate) 
o Higher Value crops can be grown $_____________/yr (estimate) 
o Higher Rent $_____________/yr (estimate) 
o Operation and Maintenance Savings $_____________/yr (estimate) 
o Other___________________________________________ $_____________/yr 
The values provided are captured in the project tracking system. Thirty‐seven percent of participants 
provided estimates of labor savings and increased yields, while twenty‐two percent of participants 
provided estimates of maintenance savings.  Thirteen participants provided values in all three of these 
categories.  Fifty participants (just less than half) provided a value in at least one of these categories, 
meaning that just over half did not provide any values for non‐electric benefits. 
Table 14. Self‐Reported Non‐Electric Benefits from Custom Incentive Component Projects by Category 
Non‐Electric Benefit Dollars per Acre*
Average Minimum Maximum
Labor Savings $24.67 $0.05 $149.77
Maintenance Savings $34.00 $0.89 $153.69
Water Savings $0 $0 $0
Increased Yield $116.64 $1.30 $400.00
VFD $7.80 $0.00 $24.78
*Based on self‐reported estimates from program participants 
A review of the values provided showed that the vast majority of the estimates seemed reasonable 
relative to the expected value of the crops grown and total labor and maintenance costs.  However, the 
values provided by at least two of the participants seemed to push the boundaries of reasonableness 
without more information on the underlying assumptions made when the estimates were provided.  
Idaho Power should consider application of some caps for the various categories to ensure that reported 
values of NEBs are reasonable.  Also, since just less than half of participants provided any NEBs values, it 
would be worthwhile to add an entry on the form that would allow a participant to clearly indicate that 
they do not expect to realize any non‐electric benefits from the project.  That would allow a more 
definitive assessment of the non‐electric benefits for the population of participants, by extrapolation of 
benefits for participants who did not complete the form because they felt they could not provide a 
reasonable estimate of the benefits, and not because they did not expect any benefits to be realized. 

Leidos Engineering, LLC   20 | P a g e  
5.0 Process Evaluation Findings 
5.1 Program staff interviews 
Interviews were conducted with the program staff to get an overview of program operations and an 
orientation to program activities.  A second interview with the program manager was conducted 
following the review of program tracking data, project files, and program materials to answer follow up 
questions.  Interviews were also conducted with the staff responsible for providing marketing services 
for the program.   
5.2 Process Findings from Desk Reviews and Site Visits 
Throughout the evaluation of the program impacts, several observations and findings were developed 
for the Irrigation Efficiency program as noted in the following: 
1. Project documentation is solid and reliable. 
For both the Menu Options and the Custom program tracks, the project technical files were 
largely complete, and provided information that made the project evaluable.  In a select few 
cases of the Menu Options documentation, the invoices were very extensive where the qualified 
equipment was dispersed over dozens of pages and intermixed with other equipment 
itemizations.   In these and other situations where there are complex or extensive documents, 
document annotations and summary notes were very informative for understanding the project 
details.  Idaho Power program personnel should be encouraged to continue to practice good 
project documentation, including annotations from reviews, measure count summaries, 
separate invoices for multi‐phase projects, and applicable project communications.  
2. Determination of the energy and demand savings followed the proper protocol and is 
reasonable for both Menu Options and Custom programs tracks. 
For the Menu Options, deemed energy savings values are applied as specified in the RTF 
guideline on a per unit of equipment basis, and these values are properly varied for two 
geographic climate regions.   The maximum energy savings for projects is also reasonably limited 
to roughly no more than 15% of the total energy use.  Idaho Power employs this limit because 
the standard deemed values of savings from the RTF can often accumulate to be a significant 
portion of the total electrical use of the affected irrigation system.  These “adjusted energy 
savings” are what are reported in the tracking and reporting systems.  Demand savings are not 
specified in the RTF, so they are calculated by dividing the adjusted energy savings (kWh) by the 
RTF deemed operation hours for the climate regions.  
For Custom projects, specialized engineering calculations are completed that are specific to the 
project.  Idaho Power program representatives and engineers work with equipment suppliers, 
system designers, and the farmers to gather project‐specific information to build a custom 
energy and demand savings calculation.  For upgrades to the existing irrigation systems where 
the basic system design is maintained, the baseline energy is determined by averaging the latest 
5‐year historical metered energy use, and dividing by the pre‐existing equipment power (kW) to 
determine annual operation hours.  These operation hours are then used to determine the 

Leidos Engineering, LLC   21 | P a g e  
energy savings based on the demand differential between the pre‐existing base case and the 
proposed improved case.   This is a very robust method of energy savings and demand 
determination since it applies real historical energy use data.    
For Custom irrigation projects that are either new designs, or are significant changes to pre‐
existing systems such as to essentially constitute a new design, the program baseline is a 
theoretical system.  This theoretical system case considers what would be built as a standard 
system to provide a comparison case for determining the savings to the new system.  Equipment 
capacities and performance are determined by specifically sizing to the design cases.  Demand 
savings are determined as the power differentials between the cases.  Then to determine 
energy savings a standard default of 2,000 hours of annual operation are applied. 
3. Default annual hours of operation may be researched for future “new” irrigation projects. 
In the Custom option of the Irrigation program, a standard default value of 2000 hours is used to 
for the annual operation of the irrigation system to estimate the savings for cases where the 
actual hours of operation are not derivable from historical meter readings.  This is applied when 
the irrigation system improvement is significantly different from the prior system, or the project 
is the installation of a new irrigation system.   However, for those sites where the project was for 
an upgrade of the existing system, the annual hours of operation are calculated based on the 
historical metered energy use (kWh) divided by the appropriate existing demand (kW).  These 
metered data based annual hours of operation ranged from a minimum of 1,058 hours to a 
maximum of 3,394 hours across the sample.  
While the standard default of 2000 hours appears to be a reasonable general proxy for irrigation 
system operations in Idaho Power’s territory, there is a wide range of meter based hours of 
operation in the sample projects that range across the territory.  This potentially indicates that 
additional research may be applied to develop more specific default values for the hours of 
operation considering the various factors that may influence operation time such as geographic 
location, crop type and irrigation system type.  
4. Calculations of energy savings for Variable Frequency Drives (VFDs) for pump motors are 
specific to the projects. 
In the Custom irrigation option, Idaho Power engineering staff perform specific calculations for 
each pump motor and VFD using an Excel‐based calculation to determine savings for the 
application of a VFD.  All VFDs are processed as Custom applications and are reported and 
tracked separately from the other project savings.  In the Custom sample for this evaluation, the 
5 sites with VFDs were found to have complete and specialized calculations for the energy and 
demand savings of the VFDs.  The engineering staff considered the part load performance of the 
irrigation systems considering the pumping system configurations and controls, and the 
watering schedules with variations for different crops.  This is a reasonable, yet specialized, 
approach to estimating the savings for VFDs that considers specific project attributes.   

Leidos Engineering, LLC   22 | P a g e  
5. Site complexities make verification difficult in many instances. 
Several observations and challenges in conducting the on‐site inspections may be considered to 
streamline future on‐site activities.   
a. First, the farm personnel were mostly very receptive to assisting in providing site access.  
However, the individual representing the farm may not have been involved with the 
irrigation system improvement and in some cases knew very little about the project; this 
is more likely the case for corporate farm operations.   
b. Overall, the farmers liked the program and the results.  They were aware that electric 
cost savings were a key benefit and they generally were aware of Non‐Electric Benefits 
such as reduced water use, reduced maintenance and less “wear and tear” on the 
equipment. 
c. In several instances, it was difficult to locate the exact pump station, and sometimes the 
farm representative was not sure of project location for the reasons noted in item a 
above.  The longitude and latitude coordinates for project locations, which Idaho Power 
has in the data set, should be used to locate particular pump stations. 
Further qualitative observations made by the evaluation field staff while conducting the site visits are 
noted in following.  
 The field staff interacted with a wide variety of participating farms and their representatives.  
Contacts could be the owner of a family farm, someone from the head‐office of a large 
corporate farm, or a designer from an irrigation firm, but rarely was it someone that was 
familiar with every aspect of the project.  In all cases, the contact was met at the project site 
“somewhere in the middle of the country”  
 In almost all cases, contacts expressed satisfaction with the program and especially the Idaho 
Power Ag Reps. There was also a high level of satisfaction with the irrigation companies, and a 
lot of brand loyalty was expressed that impacted the selection of an irrigation company to work 
with on a project. The irrigation companies were very service oriented and answered questions 
as needed about projects, sometimes being called while at the site with the project contact 
 There was one contact who expressed dissatisfaction, which was driven by a disagreement on 
the proper baseline usage for determining project savings.  The contact felt the baseline should 
have been based on the usage for only the previous year and not a multi‐year average of 
previous years’ usage. The contact did not indicate that there had been any changes in the 
irrigation practices in previous years that would invalidate an average of multiple years. A 
review of the difference in savings from the two baselines indicated that the difference in 
results was not material 
 There is room for improvement in the documentation for the Custom projects. Aerial views of 
the project site which are helpful, but often there is no clear indicators of location that would 
allow the site in the pictures to be definitively located such as Universal Transverse Mercator 
(UTM) or longitude/latitude of the affected irrigation pumps  
 Another observation by the evaluation field team was the difficulty of extracting load data from 
some of the VFDs. While it was easy to get the load data from some, it was not as 
straightforward for others, and the project contacts did not know how to do it. This required 
reading equipment manuals and in some cases, calls to the irrigation company.  One suggestion 

Leidos Engineering, LLC   23 | P a g e  
from a participant was that operator training, including extraction of the usage data, might be 
considered as a program requirement or recommendation for the VFD contractor  
 It was not clear that the project contacts were aware of the availability of the green motors 
rewind program 
5.4 Materials Review 
The Irrigation Efficiency Rewards program has a comprehensive set of program materials to support 
program administration, serve as resources to customers, support program marketing efforts, and 
customer training. 
All of the requested program materials were provided, with the caveat that there was not a formal 
program logic model.  However, much of the information that is expected to be included in a program 
logic model can be found in the program handbook.  While development and maintenance of a program 
logic model is considered a best practice, since it conveys a lot of information about the program design 
in a fairly concise format, it is not uncommon for one not to be maintained by program staff since it 
takes some time and commitment to develop. If staff is going to be expected to produce formal program 
logic models, they would benefit from training in logic model development. However, they tend to be 
available from program staff more as an exception than the rule. 
The one document that appeared to be ready for a refresh was the Irrigation Efficiency Program 
Handbook.  The document was not readily available in an electronic format, however, a hard‐copy from 
a three‐ring binder was scanned and provided to support the materials review.  While the document 
contains the basic materials necessary to serve the purpose of a program handbook, an electronic 
version may be a more easily updated and distributed. 
Additional project level materials were requested to support the impact evaluation efforts for sampled 
projects.  These materials are discussed briefly above in the section on process findings from desk 
reviews and site visits. 
Table 15 presents a summary of the program materials that were reviewed as part of the process 
evaluation.   

Leidos Engineering, LLC   24 | P a g e  
Table 15. Program Materials 
Materials Description 
Administrative  
Irrigation Efficiency 
Program Handbook 
An 18‐page document covering basic topics relevant to program staff, including a 
program summary description, contact information, budget and goals, worksheets and 
forms, process flow diagrams, field staff information, contracts and quality assurance. 
Irrigation Agreement* A one‐page agreement between Idaho Power and a customer, executed once the 
customer’s program application has been reviewed and accepted by Idaho Power. 
Irrigation Efficiency 
Custom Application* 
A one‐page application to participate in the Irrigation Efficiency Rewards Custom 
Incentive program capturing basic information about the customer, the existing 
system, proposed modifications and expected savings, along with some agreement 
language covering topics outside of the irrigation agreement. 
Irrigation Efficiency 
Menu Application* 
A one‐page application to participate in the Irrigation Efficiency Rewards Menu Option 
program capturing basic information about the customer, the number of each measure 
installed and total incentive claimed for each measure, along with some agreement 
language covering topics outside of the irrigation agreement. 
Customer Resource  
Irrigation Efficiency 
Incentive Options* 
A seven‐page brochure with brief outline of the program, copies of the menu and 
custom applications with terms and conditions, program FAQs and contact 
information. 
List of Regional 
Representatives* 
A list of the six agricultural representatives supporting the program and the area they 
serve.  It includes name, address, phone, fax and e‐mail address. 
Irrigation Energy Saving 
Ideas* 
A ten‐page brochure covering the concepts of how to increase the efficiency of new 
and existing irrigation systems.  
Irrigation Efficiency Tips* One pager that provides examples of the kind of system improvements that qualify for 
incentives for the Menu Option component of the program and the custom incentive 
component of the program. 
Marketing Materials  
Success Stories* Write‐ups on seven different irrigation efficiency projects that cover some basic 
information about the farm and the crops, the equipment that existed, the 
improvements that were made and the outcomes from the project in energy and 
dollar savings. 
Irrigation Newsletter* A short newsletter that appears to be produced once or twice per year.  The latest 
version came out in August 2016 and covered information on the customer’s read 
date, the availability of summary bills and information on the types of system 
improvements that would qualify for the irrigation efficiency rewards program. 
Irrigation Thank You 
Postcard 
A postcard sent at the end of the program year to all program participants thanking 
them for their participation. 
Radio Scripts Scripts for radio ads aired during the Agri Action and FFA Ag Week events promoting 
the Irrigation Efficiency Rewards program. 
Ag Expo Ads Four one‐page print ads for the 2014 Ag Expo, each page featuring a different crop; 
spud, sugar beet, corn & hay. 
Training/Workshop  
Irrigation Efficiency 
Rewards Workshop 
Presentation 
A 57‐page PowerPoint presentation that provides a basic overview of the program, 
where to get more information about the program, reviews the Menu Option 
measures and goes through a number of detailed examples of custom incentive 
projects.  These workshops are offered at different locations around the state. 
*Available on the website 

Leidos Engineering, LLC   25 | P a g e  
5.5 Benchmarking  
The benchmarking of the Idaho Power Program as compared to similar programs was also performed.  
The first step in this effort was to identify states that had sufficient irrigation usage to support an 
irrigation efficiency program. The second step was to identify the utilities operating in those states.  The 
third step was to identify the irrigation efficiency program components offered by those utilities based 
on information publicly available on their website.  The results of this research are presented in Table 16 
below. 
Irrigation water usage by state was based on data from the U.S. Geological Survey’s Water Science 
School.7  As of 2005, California was the only state in the U.S. withdrawing more water for irrigation than 
Idaho, each withdrawing between 15,000 – 25,000 million gallons per day. There are six states 
withdrawing from 5,000 – 15,000 million gallons per day, these are Arkansas, Colorado, Montana, 
Nebraska, Oregon and Texas.  These eight states accounted for approximately 73% of the irrigation 
water withdrawals in U.S. in 2005.  
Table 16 shows the existence of irrigation efficiency program components for sixteen utilities in eight 
states (utilities operating in multiple states were counted as a separate entity for each state). There are 
eight utilities operating in Texas.  They are not included in the table because the state has been de‐
regulated and each of the utilities provides energy efficiency services through energy efficiency service 
providers with standardized incentives based on the level of savings.  While irrigation efficiency could be 
eligible though their custom commercial offerings, none of the websites had any information specific to 
agriculture or irrigation. Nebraska is not included in the table because there are no Investor‐Owned 
Utilities (IOUs) operating in Nebraska, as all electricity is delivered through public power districts and co‐
ops. There are two programs that have been included in the table even though they are not operating in 
one of the high irrigation use states; Rocky Mountain Power operating in Utah and the Columbia River 
Rural Electric Power Association operating in Washington. 
Ten of the fourteen utilities in the table in high irrigation use states have an irrigation efficiency offering.  
Five have a motors & drive offerings that are specifically targeted to agriculture or irrigation customers, 
and another three have motors & drive offerings but do not call out agriculture or irrigation specifically. 

7 http://water.usgs.gov/edu/wuir.html 

Leidos Engineering, LLC   26 | P a g e  
Table 16. Irrigation Efficiency Program Offerings by Utilities in States with High Irrigation Water Use 
State 
Irrigation 
Water Use8 Utilities 
Irrigation Efficiency Program 
Components 
Menu 
Option Custom 
Motors 
& Drives 
California Very High 
PG&E      
SCE    
SDGE   
Idaho Very High 
Avista     
Idaho Power Company      
Rocky Mountain Power   
Arkansas High 
AEP‐SWEPCo      
Entergy Arkansas      
Colorado High 
Black Hills Energy     
Xcel Energy    
Montana High Northwestern Energy    
Oregon High 
Idaho Power Company      
Pacific Power & Light*     
Portland General Electric*     
Utah Moderate Rocky Mountain Power     
Washington Moderate Columbia Rural Electric Association      
 Utility offers program component 
 Utility has a limited offering for this component 
 Utility offers this component, but it is not specific to ag irrigation 
*Offered through the Energy Trust of Oregon 

Six of the utilities in high irrigation use states have a custom offering, although, none of the other 
utilities appear to have a team of Ag Reps knowledgeable in irrigation efficiency that serve as a resource 
to their agricultural customers.  
Northwestern Energy offers a document that walks customers through the calculation of the efficiency 
of an irrigation system, with many steps and calculations.  Though there is not an accompanying 
spreadsheet to help with the calculations. 

8 Very High = 15,000‐25,000 million gallons per day; High = 5,000‐15,000 million gallons per day; Moderate = 1,000‐
5,000 million gallons per day 

Leidos Engineering, LLC   27 | P a g e  
5.5.1 Menu Option Benchmark Comparisons 
Five of the utilities have a menu option‐type offering, though two are offered through Idaho Power and 
two are offered through the Energy Trust of Oregon. PG&E’s menu option component only covers drip 
irrigation and low‐pressure systems.  
Rocky Mountain Power does not offer a menu option type irrigation efficiency program in Idaho, or in its 
Wyoming territory, but it does run program very similar to Idaho Power Company in Utah.   
Pacific Power & Light and Portland General Electric in Oregon both offer menu option type irrigation 
efficiency programs, through the Energy Trust of Oregon.  
Table 17 below provides a comparison of the rebate levels for Menu Option offerings for Idaho Power, 
Rocky Mountain Power in Utah, the Energy Trust of Oregon and the Columbia Rural Electric Association. 
Setting appropriate rebate levels for a program requires consideration of many factors and are affected 
by utility policy and objectives, regulatory policy, market conditions, utility rates, and other factors so 
rebates across programs are not expected to be the same.  However, a comparison can be informative. 
Table 17. Comparison of Rebate Amounts for Irrigation Measures* 

* The colors on the table indicate: 1) the highest values in yellow, and 2) the lowest values in orange‐brown when there are at 
least 2 values. 
Idaho Power offers eleven measures through the Menu Option component of their program.  All of 
these measures were offered by at least two of the other three programs with similar menu option 
offerings.  Idaho Power had the lowest rebate amount on seven of the eleven measures, and had the 
highest rebate amount on only one of the measures.  Idaho Power rebates tended to be much lower 
(20‐80% lower) than the rebates offered through the Energy Trust of Oregon and Columbia REA 
programs.  Energy Trust of Oregon and Columbia REA’s rebates were identical for all of the measures 
they offered in common.  Rocky Mountain Power’s Program offers fourteen measures, nine of which are 

Leidos Engineering, LLC   28 | P a g e  
common with Idaho Power.  The rebate offered by Rocky Mountain Power is lower than the Idaho 
Power rebate for three of those measures and higher for five measures. Rocky Mountain Power’s 
rebates were the highest offered on only one measure. 
The positive implications for lower rebates, is that the Idaho Power program either costs less to 
administer or allows the program to serve more customers for a given budget level.  The negative 
implications are that lower rebates can be less of an incentive for customers, resulting in lower levels of 
program participation than could be achieved with higher rebates. 
There are seven measures that are offered through at least one of the other programs that are not 
offered through the Idaho Power Irrigation Efficiency Rewards program.  While it is likely these 
measures have been reviewed and not included in the program for good reason, it is worth taking a look 
and re‐considering whether these measures could add value to the program. 
All of the measures offered by Idaho Power are included in the Regional Technical RTF (RTF) library of 
unit energy savings measures. They are offering all of the RTF measures under Irrigation Hardware. 
Idaho Power, The Energy Trust of Oregon and Columbia REA in Washington all contribute to the regional 
power plan for the states of Idaho, Oregon, Washington and Montana, developed under the purview of 
the Northwest Power and Conservation Council.  The RTF is a resource maintained by the Northwest 
Power and Conservation Council. The Rocky Mountain Power program offered in Utah appears to also 
be somewhat consistent with the measures in the RTF, while the program offered by Northwestern in 
Montana, does not have a menu option offering for the measures in the RTF. 

Leidos Engineering, LLC   29 | P a g e  
6.0 Conclusions and Recommendations 
Idaho Power delivers a comprehensive irrigation efficiency program, specifically targeted to the 
important agricultural customer segment in their territory.  The program offers the services of a team of 
regional account representatives that are highly knowledgeable about irrigation and efficiency.  While 
the use of Ag Reps is not a unique way to serve the needs of customers in programs, none of the similar 
programs by other utilities reviewed offered the level of account representative support that is provided 
by Idaho Power.  This is likely a contributing factor to their ability to meet participation expectations in 
the Menu Option component of the program even though Idaho Power offers significantly lower rebates 
than any of the other menu option program offerings for other utilities. 
Overall, the Irrigation Efficiency Rewards program achieved a realization rate for energy savings of 0.98, 
delivering 13,595,555 kWh, and a demand savings realization rate of 0.90, delivering 3050 kW. 
All indications are that the program is well designed, well managed and well implemented. However, 
there are a few recommendations presented for consideration, which could support incremental 
improvements in program operations.  
6.1 Impact Evaluation Recommendations 
 Continue to make improvements in the quality of the project level documentation such as 
through annotations on invoicing and specification sheets, and summary tables for measure 
counts. 

 Assess the viability of developing more specific default values for the hours of operation 
considering the various factors that may influence operation time such as geographic location, 
crop type and irrigation system type, possibly using data from projects that have already been 
gathered. 

Leidos Engineering, LLC   30 | P a g e  
6.2 Process Evaluation Recommendations 
Recommendations from the process evaluation are noted in Table 18 below. 
Table 18. Process Evaluation Recommendations and Observations 
Program Materials  Update the program handbook to a more user‐friendly electronic format 
Program Design 
 Review whether adding measures to the Menu Option component of the 
program would add value to the program and program participants 
 Assess the impact of increased rebates on program cost‐effectiveness and 
participation 
 Take a deeper look at the program participation trends over time to better 
understand drivers for the 20% reduction in participation from 2014 to 2015.9 
 Consider conducting a market assessment that would review cost‐
effectiveness, incentives, market size, in a holistic way 
 Assess whether there are more program opportunities for savings from 
motors, and pumps 
 Increase the methods in which awareness of the green rewind program is 
promoted through the program 
Non‐Electric Benefits 
((NEBs) 
 Be prepared to integrate water and CO2 values into NEBs estimates if the RTF 
approves values from the pending research on those topics 
 Conduct some additional research on NEBs related to irrigation efficiency to 
better understand and support the self‐reported NEBs values provided by 
participants 
 Consider establishing caps on self‐reported estimates to avoid overstating the 
value of NEBs 

9 Idaho Power’s program managers report that participation has increased in 2016. 
FINAL REPORT 
Impact and Process Evaluation Rebate 
Advantage 
PY2015 Program 

December 28, 2016 

Prepared for: 
Idaho Power Company 

Prepared by: 

Leidos Engineering, LLC 
301 Plainfield Road, Suite 310 
Syracuse, NY 13212 
315.434.7200 

Leidos Engineering, LLC ii | P a g e  
1 Contents 
2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................... 4 
3 IMPACT EVALUATION INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... 6 
3.1 PROGRAM DESCRIPTION ..................................................................................................................................... 6 
3.2 EX‐ANTE SAVINGS ............................................................................................................................................. 6 
3.3 EVALUATION APPROACH ..................................................................................................................................... 6 
4 IMPACT EVALUATION METHODOLOGY ....................................................................................................... 7 
5 ANALYSIS AND VERIFIED SAVINGS .............................................................................................................. 7 
5.1 TRACKING SYSTEM REVIEW ................................................................................................................................. 7 
5.2 DESK REVIEW OF PROJECTS ................................................................................................................................. 7 
5.3 MANUFACTURER VISITS ...................................................................................................................................... 9 
6 IMPACT EVALUATION CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .............................................................. 10 
7 PROCESS EVALUATION INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW ........................................................................... 11 
7.1 PROGRAM DESCRIPTION ................................................................................................................................... 11 
7.2 GOALS OF THE EVALUATION .............................................................................................................................. 11 
8 PROCESS EVALUATION METHODOLOGIES ................................................................................................. 12 
9 PROCESS EVALUATION FINDINGS .............................................................................................................. 12 
9.1 PROGRAM STAFF INTERVIEWS ........................................................................................................................... 12 
9.2 PROCESS FINDINGS FROM ENGINEERING DESK REVIEWS AND SITE VISITS ................................................................... 12 
9.3 PROCESS FINDINGS FROM ON‐SITE INSPECTIONS OF DEALERSHIP MODEL HOMES ........................................................ 13 
9.4 PROGRAM LOGIC MODEL ................................................................................................................................. 13 
9.5 RECOMMENDATIONS FROM PREVIOUS (2010) EVALUATION ................................................................................... 13 
9.6 MATERIALS REVIEW ......................................................................................................................................... 13 
9.7 NORTHWEST ENERGY EFFICIENT MANUFACTURED HOUSING PROGRAM (NEEM) MANAGER INTERVIEW FINDINGS ........... 14 
9.8 PROGRAM PARTICIPATING MANUFACTURED HOME DEALERS .................................................................................. 16 
10 PROCESS RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................................................. 23 
APPENDIX A. IPC REBATE ADVANTAGE MANUFACTURED HOME DEALER QUESTIONNAIRE ................................ 24 
APPENDIX B. IPC REBATE ADVANTAGE NEEM QUESTIONNAIRE ......................................................................... 24 

Table 3‐1 Rebate Advantage Program Ex‐Ante kWh Savings ....................................................................... 6 
Table 5‐1. Ex‐Ante and Ex‐Post Unit kWh Savings by Project and Rating ..................................................... 8 
Table 5‐2. Sample Project Savings Verification and Realization ................................................................... 9 
Table 5‐3. Rebate Advantage Program Verified Results for 2015 Program Year ......................................... 9 
Table 9‐1. NEEM Reported Importance Level of Various Factors for Homebuyers ................................... 15 

Leidos Engineering, LLC iii | P a g e  
Table 9‐2. Job Title of Manufactured Home Dealers .................................................................................. 17 
Table 9‐3. Job Role of Manufactured Home Dealers .................................................................................. 17 
Table 9‐4. How Manufactured Home Dealer First Heard About Program ................................................. 17 
Table 9‐5. Why Manufactured Home Dealers Participate .......................................................................... 18 
Table 9‐6. Homebuyer Prior Knowledge of ENERGY STAR ......................................................................... 18 
Table 9‐7. Selling Points Used to Promote ENERGY STAR to Homebuyers................................................. 19 
Table 9‐8. Manufactured Home Dealer Market Characteristics ................................................................. 20 
Table 9‐9. Level of Satisfaction with Program among Dealers ................................................................... 20 
Table 9‐10. What Makes ENERGY STAR Manufactured Homes Different from Standard Efficiency Homes
 .................................................................................................................................................................... 21 
Table 9‐11. What Would Increase Customer Choice of ENERGY STAR ....................................................... 21 
Table 9‐12. Factors that Drive Customers to Purchase ENERGY STAR Homes ........................................... 21 
Table 9‐13. Importance Level of Various Factors for Homebuyers ............................................................ 22 
Table 9‐14. Other Factors of Importance for Homebuyers ........................................................................ 22 
Table 9‐15. What Dealers Like Most about the Rebate Advantage Program ............................................. 23 

Leidos Engineering, LLC 4 | P a g e 
2 Executive Summary 
This report presents the results of an independent impact and process evaluation of the Idaho Power Company (Idaho 
Power) Rebate Advantage incentive program for energy efficient manufactured homes. The Rebate Advantage program 
encourages sales and purchase of U.S. EPA ENERGY STAR® (ENERGY STAR) qualified homes in conjunction with the 
Northwest Energy Efficiency Manufactured Home Project (NEEM). This evaluation study was designed with the following 
objectives: 
 Verify the energy impacts attributable to the 2015 Rebate Advantage program  
 Provide credible and reliable impact estimates and ex‐post realization rates attributed to the Rebate Advantage 
program 
 Evaluate program design including program mission, logic, and use of industry best practices  
 Evaluate program implementation including quality control, operational practice, organizational structure, and 
outreach  
 Evaluate program administration including program oversight, staffing, management, training, documentation, 
and reporting  
 Evaluate customer participation, barriers, marketing, and satisfaction 
 Report observations on program delivery, project documentation, and program processes; and provide 
recommendations to enhance the effectiveness of future ex‐ante savings analysis, accurate and transparent 
reporting of program savings, and overall program delivery. 
The approach to program evaluation began with a review of the tracking database and interview with the Program 
Specialist to determine how savings are claimed and what issues the program team might want to explore. Program 
educational and marketing materials were collected and reviewed. Seventeen applications were randomly sampled for 
detailed desk review of project documentation and comparison to the Regional Technical Forum (RTF) manufactured 
home weatherization workbook, and two dealer sites were selected for site visit and live interviews.  In addition, 
program staff and the NEEM Manager were interviewed as part of a process evaluation for this program, documented in 
the process evaluation report. 
NEEM reported a new push for modular construction of manufactured homes, driven by trends in home loan markets.  
There are 9 manufactured home plants in the Pacific Northwest that produce approximately 4,000 homes per year.  The 
number of newly manufactured homes in the Northwest has increased substantially in the last five years – from 1,800 in 
2011, to 2,800 in 2015 and to an expected 4,000 in 2016.  Some new home sales are happening via the Internet, 
bypassing the dealers, and NEEM is looking to help utilities identify such new home sales in their service territory.   
All participating dealers actively promote ENERGY STAR over standard efficiency to home‐buying customers by touting 
utility bill savings, higher quality construction and a better living environment.  Twenty‐five percent of dealers said that 
“all” of their customers had prior knowledge of ENERGY STAR, 25 percent “half”, 38 percent “few” and 13 percent said 
“none.”    
Dealers report that 79 percent of homes sold are manufactured (not stick‐built) ‐ with 84 percent of manufactured 
homes being ENERGY STAR and 87% sold in Idaho receiving an Idaho Power incentive.  ENERGY STAR is the only type of 
home sold for 75 percent of dealers.  Manufactured home dealers offer an average of 3.6 model home types ranging 
from 400 to 4,000 square feet in size. 

Leidos Engineering, LLC 5 | P a g e 
The level of satisfaction with the program among participating manufactured home dealers is exceptionally high.  
Volume and complexity of paperwork scored 9.5, and the process of obtaining ENERGY STAR compliance forms and the 
courteousness and professionalism of Idaho Power staff both scored 9.8 on a 10‐point scale. 
The impact evaluation found that submitted applications were accurately assigned ex‐ante unit energy savings values 
according to assigned equipment type, cooling zone, and heating zone codes in the tracking database, but the methods 
for translating actual manufactured home installed equipment and location to these codes were not transparent.  
Equipment type was determined to vary between ENERGY STAR with electric resistance heating, Eco‐Rated with electric 
resistance heating, and ENERGY STAR with electric heat pump heating.  This equipment therefore appeared to be 
accurately coded in the tracking database (with the exception of two Eco‐Rated projects which were assigned ‘regular’ 
ENERGY STAR savings values). Accuracy of cooling zone and heating zone coding for each project could not be verified 
due to lack of information on how these codes were assigned. Overall, this impact evaluation found an ex‐post savings 
realization rate that exceeds 100%. 
The Rebate Advantage program had 58 participants in 2015, exceeding the program goals of 25 ENERGY STAR 
manufactured homes per year.  Program marketing materials and administration were reviewed and found to be clear, 
simple and straight forward.  No significant issues or problems were found or reported in this evaluation. 
This study found that the program processes in place are effective, efficient, and result in a high degree of accuracy in 
program tracking.  Two recommendations for consideration in future program implementation are provided: 
1) The program should create and maintain a brief memo summarizing the approach to assigning ex‐ante savings 
to manufactured homes using the RTF manufactured homes weatherization workbook. This memo should 
include workbook version utilized and clarify how submitted Rebate Advantage applications are assigned to 
location‐ and equipment‐specific codes that dictate ex‐ante unit savings claims.  
2)  The program could expand interviews to additional manufactured homes dealers in a future evaluation to 
further investigate the manufactured home ‘industry standard’ equipment or feature packages available as an 
alternative to ENERGY STAR certified features.  Two dealers of an estimated ten dealers selling to the market 
(who also contributed the majority of sales to the program) attested that they sold only ENERGY STAR certified 
homes in site visits and interviews, but it is the experience of the program staff that market transformation has 
not been achieved in the Idaho Power territory.  Further findings of manufactured homes’ energy performance 
characteristics and sales via the Idaho Power program are addressed in the process evaluation report.  

Leidos Engineering, LLC 6 | P a g e 
3 Impact Evaluation Introduction 
3.1 Program Description 
The Rebate Advantage residential incentive program for energy efficient manufactured homes was launched in 2003, 
and serves a market of roughly 10 manufactured home dealers in the Idaho Power service territory. Homes meet U.S. 
EPA ENERGY STAR® or Eco‐Rated/ENERGY STAR® co‐branded efficiency requirements as set and verified by the 
Northwest Energy Efficiency Manufactured Home Project (NEEM). Customers purchasing qualifying homes are eligible 
for $1,000 per home, while dealers receive $200 per qualified home sold. 
3.2 Ex‐Ante Savings 
The 2015 program had a sales goal of 25 homes; 58 home sales were submitted to the program. Deemed annual kWh 
savings reported in the RTF Manufactured Home Weatherization workbook, v.3.11, are applied to each project according 
to energy efficient rating category, electric heating equipment type installed, and climate represented by heating and 
cooling zones. A summary of the total ex‐ante savings claimed by the Rebate Advantage program in 2015 is provided in 
Table 3‐1. 
Table 3‐1 Rebate Advantage Program Ex‐Ante kWh Savings 
Rating 
Equipment 
Type Climate 
Annual 
kWh 
Project 
Count 
ENERGY STAR 
Heat Pump 
HZ 2 CZ 1 4,346 1 
HZ 2 CZ2 4,390 1 
HZ 3 CZ 3 5,516 1 
Electric Forced‐
Air Furnace 
HZ 1 140,920 26 
HZ 2 143,787 21 
HZ 3 48,342 6 
Eco‐Rated Electric Forced‐
Air Furnace HZ 1 11,382 2 
Grand Total 358,683 58 

3.3 Evaluation Approach 
The impact evaluation was intended to verify correct use of the RTF deemed savings values to claim energy savings for 
the Rebate Advantage program, verify overall program energy savings and savings realization, and to explore 
opportunities to enhance the effectiveness of ex‐ante savings analysis and reporting of program savings. Leidos’ 
approach to the evaluation included: 
 Interview the Idaho Power Program Specialist on application processes and program objectives 
 Review of the Rebate Advantage project database and project documentation 

1 Regional Technical Forum Manufactured Home Weatherization Measure. Available at 
https://rtf.nwcouncil.org/measure/manufactured‐home‐electric‐resistance‐heat?id=151 

Leidos Engineering, LLC 7 | P a g e 
 Review of prior program achievements and assumptions in the Idaho Power Demand Side Management 
Annual Report 
 Verify correct application of RTF unit savings values given reported site and home characteristics for a 
sample of 17 homes 
 Visit two manufactured home dealers to verify certified ENERGY STAR and/or Eco‐Rated home 
characteristics in building stock 
4 Impact Evaluation Methodology 
The interview with the Rebate Advantage Program Specialist affirmed that the process of applying deemed electric 
heating savings values to each project by rating type, heating equipment, and heating/cooling zones is straightforward.  
The sample of 17 homes for analysis was derived by multiplying each project’s claimed kWh value by a random value, 
sorting the resulting values, and selecting the top 17 projects out of the list, with 2 projects selected for backup.  The 
sample represents over 47% of the claimed program energy savings. This oversampling approach was expected to meet 
90% confidence/10% precision criteria. 
Finally, the top two manufactured home dealers contributing to eligible sales in the program were selected for on‐site 
interviews and inspection of stock characteristics.  These two dealers contributed roughly 64% of sales by volume and 
62% of energy savings for the program.  The interview was designed to affirm heating, cooling, and energy efficient 
measures and features in the home, which were then verified with a walk through inspection of examples of on‐site 
housing stock. 
5 Analysis and Verified Savings 
5.1 Tracking System Review 
The project data entered into the tracking database included numerically coded heating equipment/rating type, heating 
and cooling zones along with buyer name and contact information, dealer name and contact information, and 
manufacturer details. The deemed savings value and incremental costs from the RTF workbook are also recorded along 
with the incentive payment details.  
The transfer of data from the application forms to the tracking database was found to be accurate and complete. Energy 
efficient measure data collected in the database are limited to heating equipment type only, which is converted to a 
numeric code of 1, 2, or 3.  1 and 2 types refer to electric forced air furnace and type 3 refers to electric heat pump.  
Accuracy of these code assignments to project characteristics was not evaluated due to lack of information to explain 
how these were “mapped”.  
5.2 Desk Review of Projects 
Review of the Rebate Advantage database and project documentation determined that each project is documented with 
an application form, ENERGY STAR certificate of compliance, and a purchase agreement. The application form captures 
dealer and buyer information and signatures.  The certificate of compliance summarizes qualifying efficiency measures 
including heat type. Every approved project receives the same incentive regardless of savings claimed or rating 
certification. 

Leidos Engineering, LLC 8 | P a g e 
For the sampled projects, Leidos determined that selection and application of unit savings values from the version 3.1 
RTF weatherization workbook for manufactured homes was accurate. In two of four homes in the sample with “Eco‐
Rated” certification, the slightly lower unit savings for ENERGY STAR certification with same equipment and heating zone 
were claimed, as shown in Table 5‐1.   
Table 5‐1. Ex‐Ante and Ex‐Post Unit kWh Savings by Project and Rating 
Rating/Certification Ex‐Ante 
Unit kWh 
Ex‐Post 
Unit kWh 
Eco‐Rated Project ID 
842 5420 5691 
873 5420 5691 
882 5691 5691 
894 6847 6847 
ENERGY STAR Project ID 
841 8057 8057 
852 5420 5420 
859 5420 5420 
862 5420 5420 
863 8057 8057 
868 6847 6847 
874 5420 5420 
877 5516 5516 
881 8057 8057 
890 5420 5420 
891 5420 5420 
893 6847 6847 
895 6847 6847 

Details provided in the application and purchase agreement for each project were used to verify the project ID, buyer 
name, and heating equipment type were accurately recorded in the database along with the correct unit savings for the 
site and home characteristics.  Heating and cooling zones assigned to each project may be determined by zip code or 
address lookups, but the assignment methodology could not be verified in the RTF workbook or in the supplements to 
the Idaho Power Demand Side Management Annual Reports on the program website.  While three coded descriptors for 
assigning project savings are recorded—equipment type, heating zone, and cooling zone—there appear to be four 
distinguishing project characteristics determining unit savings assignment from the RTF workbook: Eco‐Rated/ENERGY 
STAR co‐branded or ENERGY STAR certified, equipment type, heating zone, and cooling zone.   
Table 5‐2 below provides detail on the overall sample realization rate, which as previously stated reflected lower savings 
assignments in the database for projects 842 and 873 than the RTF workbook values for similar Eco‐Rated home 
characteristics.  The overall realization rate exceeded 100% for the sample.   

Leidos Engineering, LLC 9 | P a g e 
Table 5‐2. Sample Project Savings Verification and Realization 
Strata Project ID Ex‐Ante 
Savings 
Ex‐Post 
Savings 
Realization 
Rate 
RA Homes 841 8,057 8,057 1.000 
RA Homes 842 5,420 5,691 1.050 
RA Homes 852 5,420 5,420 1.000 
RA Homes 859 5,420 5,420 1.000 
RA Homes 862 5,420 5,420 1.000 
RA Homes 863 8,057 8,057 1.000 
RA Homes 868 6,847 6,847 1.000 
RA Homes 873 5,420 5,691 1.050 
RA Homes 874 5,420 5,420 1.000 
RA Homes 877 5,516 5,516 1.000 
RA Homes 881 8,057 8,057 1.000 
RA Homes 882 5,691 5,691 1.000 
RA Homes 890 5,420 5,420 1.000 
RA Homes 891 5,420 5,420 1.000 
RA Homes 893 6,847 6,847 1.000 
RA Homes 894 6,847 6,847 1.000 
RA Homes 895 6,847 6,847 1.000 
Total 17 106,126 106,668 1.0051 

Applying the sample results to the broader program population resulted in excellent energy savings realization within 
the 90% confidence/10% precision statistical bounds of the evaluation, shown in Table 5‐3. 

Table 5‐3. Rebate Advantage Program Verified Results for 2015 Program Year 
Program Ex‐Ante 
Gross kWh 
Ex‐Post 
Gross kWh RR 
Rebate Advantage Program 226,013 227,167 1.01 
Track total 226,013 227,167 1.01 
Relative Precision at 90% 
Confidence 0.4% 

5.3 Manufacturer Visits 
Both manufacturers visited sold only ENERGY STAR minimum or better homes, certified by the Northwest Energy 
Efficiency Manufactured Housing Program (NEEM). The ENERGY STAR certified homes feature the following energy 
efficient measures: 
 Floors – R‐33 insulation levels 
 Walls – R‐21 2” x 6” framing to accommodate thicker wall batt insulation 
 Ceiling – R‐40 blown‐in insulation 
 Windows – U‐0.35 or better insulating performance 
 Heating – Electric resistance heating (electric heat pump is also an option) 

Leidos Engineering, LLC 10 | P a g e  
Other features include an ENERGY STAR dishwasher option, high efficiency water heater, and programmable 
thermostat.  An “Eco‐rated” option is available which features additional energy and water‐saving as well as 
environmentally friendly measures. 
6  Impact Evaluation Conclusions and Recommendations 
The Rebate Advantage impact evaluation found that the program employs appropriate energy savings estimates for 
certified manufactured homes and accurately records project information necessary to claim those savings.  Our 
evaluation determined a realization rate exceeding 100% with excellent precision with 90% confidence. 
The program relies on the RTF v3.1 Manufactured Home Weatherization workbook, published in 2012, for claiming 
energy savings.  An updated version of the workbook (v4.1), released in February 2016, is now available and should be 
reviewed for possible savings value changes.   
A brief memo summarizing the RTF workbook version used, components within the workbook used, and how projects 
are assigned to cooling and heating zones would improve transparency in ex ante savings reporting. 
The sample data suggest that Eco‐Rated/ENERGY STAR co‐branded homes can assume higher savings than the 
equivalent ENERGY STAR certified home.  The program could consider applying a higher incentive rate to encourage 
more Eco‐Rated manufactured homes in the market. 

Leidos Engineering, LLC 11 | P a g e  

7 Process Evaluation Introduction and Overview 
The program description and goals and methods of this evaluation are outlined in this section of the report. 
7.1  Program Description 
The Rebate Advantage residential incentive program promotes the purchase of ENERGY STAR manufactured homes in 
the Idaho Power Company service territory and educates buyers and retailers of manufactured homes about the 
benefits of owning energy‐efficient models.    First launched in 2003, the program serves Idaho Power customers in the 
market for a manufactured home by partnering with manufactured home dealers to increase the efficiency of 
manufactured homes available.  There are currently ten dealers participating in the program.  
Program qualifying homes meet U.S. EPA ENERGY STAR or Eco‐Rated/ENERGY STAR co‐branded efficiency requirements 
as set and verified by the Northwest Energy Efficiency Manufactured Home Project. The Northwest Energy Efficient 
Manufactured housing program establishes Quality Control/Quality Assurance (QA/QC) and energy efficiency 
specifications for qualified homes.  NEEM is a consortium of manufacturers and state energy offices in the Northwest. In 
addition to specifications and quality, NEEM tracks the production and on‐site performance of ENERGY STAR qualified 
manufactured homes. 
Manufactured home dealers in Idaho Power’s Idaho and Oregon service area are made aware of the program through 
direct mailings and dealer interaction.  The program supports dealerships by providing them with program specific 
brochures, banners, and applications. Customer Representatives (CRs) visited dealerships to distribute materials, 
promote the program, and answer salespersons’ questions.  The program offers two incentives; one to dealers ($200) 
and another to home‐buying customers ($1000) who purchase ENERGY STAR certified manufactured homes in Idaho 
Powers’ service territory.  During 2015, Idaho Power paid 58 incentives on new manufactured homes, which accounted 
for 358,683 annual kWh savings. 
7.2  Goals of the Evaluation 
The key objectives of the process evaluation include:  
 Evaluate program design including program mission, logic, and use of industry best practices  
 Evaluate program implementation including quality control, operational practice, organizational structure, and 
outreach  
 Evaluate program administration including program oversight, staffing, management, training, documentation, 
and reporting  
 Evaluate customer participation, barriers, marketing, and satisfaction 
 Report findings and observations and provide recommendations to enhance program effectiveness   

Leidos Engineering, LLC 12 | P a g e  
8 Process Evaluation Methodologies 
The process evaluation findings are based on:  
 Review of previous evaluations 
 Program staff interviews 
 NEEM Manager interview 
 Program participating manufactured home dealer interviews 
 Process findings coming out of the data reviews, desk reviews and site visits 
 A review of the program logic model 
 A review of program educational and marketing materials 
9 Process Evaluation Findings 
This section details the results of the process evaluation from: 
 Program staff interviews of Program Specialist and Marketing Specialists 
 Program process findings from engineering desk reviews and on‐site visits of dealership model homes 
 Review of program materials, administration and logic 
 Recommendations from previous evaluation(s) 
 Interview of NEEM manager 

9.1 Program Staff Interviews 
Interviews were conducted with the Program Specialist and Marketing Specialist to get an overview of program 
operations and an orientation to program activities.  The Rebate Advantage program had 58 participants in 2015, 
exceeding the program goals of 25 ENERGY STAR manufactured homes per year. Marketing efforts consist of: 
1) Program brochures, banners, and applications, (provided by customer representatives visiting dealerships to 
distribute these materials, promote the program, and answer salespersons’ questions).; 
2) Bill inserts, that co‐marketed Rebate Advantage with Home Energy House‐Call. 
3) Letter to dealers to update and remind of the program.  
4) Facebook ads. 
9.2 Process Findings from Engineering Desk Reviews and Site Visits 
Applicants to the Rebate Advantage program submit an application form capturing dealer and buyer information and 
signatures, an ENERGY STAR certificate of compliance, and a purchase agreement for the manufactured home.  The 
applications are processed and savings are claimed by assigning each project an equipment type, cooling zone, heating 
zone, and applying a deemed energy savings value per home as provided in the Regional Technical Forum’s  
Manufactured Home Weatherization workbook (version 3.1). Only electric heating savings are claimed for the program. 
Each project receives the same incentive regardless of savings claimed (which vary according to whether the home is 
ENERGY STAR certified or co‐branded with an Eco‐Rating, as well as by heating equipment type and cooling/heating 
zones).  The application process and incentive process appear straightforward and effective. 
No visits to manufactured homes purchased with assistance from the program were conducted. 

Leidos Engineering, LLC 13 | P a g e  
9.3 Process Findings from On‐site Inspections of Dealership Model Homes 
On‐site inspections were performed of model homes at the two manufactured home dealerships that were most active 
in the Rebate Advantage program.  Three model home types were audited and found to be ENERGY STAR compliant, up 
to Eco‐Rated standards and otherwise consistent with process evaluation findings. The two dealers visited in fact sell 
only ENERGY STAR‐certified manufactured homes.  This finding raises a point for further inquiry in future evaluations: to 
what extent has ENERGY STAR certification and associated features penetrated the manufactured housing market in the 
Idaho Power territory? 
9.4 Program Logic Model 
The Program Logic Model for the program is shown below. 

9.5 Recommendations from Previous (2010) Evaluation 
In 2009 (during housing and banking crises) one‐third of manufactured home dealerships closed‐down, and the 2009 
program goal of 70 ENERGY STAR homes was not reached.  Idaho Power responded with creative marketing strategies. 
Customers were reached via company newsletters and dealerships were visited every quarter.  Prior to 2009, the Rebate 
Advantage program was limited to “point of purchase” marketing.2 
9.6 Materials Review 
Program marketing materials and administration (including bill inserts and program application forms) were reviewed 
and found to be clear, simple and straight forward in marketing and administering the program process.  No significant 
issues or problems were found or reported in this evaluation. 

2 2010 Idaho Power DSM Report. 

Leidos Engineering, LLC 14 | P a g e  

9.7 Northwest Energy Efficient Manufactured Housing Program (NEEM) Manager Interview Findings 
Background on NEEM 
The NEEM program and managers support the Idaho Power Rebate Advantage program indirectly in several ways.  The 
NEEM’s manager performs; database maintenance, in‐plant inspections, customer dispute resolution, specification 
development and maintenance, energy savings modeling, and utility outreach and marketing.  NEEMs mission is to be 
the regional manufactured housing collaborative to create a level playing field that brings energy efficient manufactured 
housing to the marketplace.  NEEM provides third party specification development and enforcement and works with 
regional utilities (such as Idaho Power) to develop support for manufactured housing.  Currently, NEEM does not have 
an active research agenda with the US DOE, but has in the past when new technology specifications are under 
development.  NEEM supports BA‐PIRC3 to fund its work with builders to develop a new generation of manufactured 
homes. 
Codes and Standards for Manufactured Homes 
The HUD building code, as it pertained to ENERGY STAR manufactured homes hasn’t changed since 1994.  But there is 
word that the HUD code is going to update soon.  NEEM has reportedly been corresponding with the EPA, to ensure that 
new ENERGY STAR specifications are meaningful and realistic given technology changes since 1994.  NEEM collects 
industry data from regional manufacturers and aggregates it to protect their trade secrets.  NEEA (Northwest Energy 
Efficiency Alliance) uses this industry data to inform energy codes and standards.  NEEM also monitors state and local 
building codes in the northwest. 
For QA/QC, NEEM performs quarterly plant inspections by sending QC inspectors to look at each house on assembly 
lines for potential individual defects.  NEEM also performs QC of the construction process itself to ensure manufacturers 
and other mechanisms reliably produce high‐quality manufactured homes, by ensuring they have clear job specifications 
and effective training programs.   
In addition to new HUD building codes, possibly forthcoming, other change is afoot.  There is reportedly a new push for 
modular4 construction, driven by finance companies5 because site built homes enjoy favorable treatment among 
bankers and lenders.  This is causing the manufactured home industry to build modular versions of manufactured home 
that lenders will treat as site‐built.  

3 Building America Partnership for Improved Residential Construction (BA‐PIRC) was formally known as Building America Industrial 
Housing Partnership (BAIHP).  UCF (Univ. of Central FL) functioned as research team leader and developed promising technologies 
(e.g. ductless heat pumps, advanced building assembly).    
4 “Modular” is a factory built home constructed to meet the local 1 and 2 home local construction code standards.  Within modular 
there are two levels of designation.  The “full mod” and “hudgular.”  The hudgular is manufactured to meet 1‐2 local building code 
and stays on the steel chasse (trailer carriage).  A true “mod” removes chasse home and places it atop a full stem‐wall foundation.  
Modular manufactured homes may also be stacked side‐by‐side and atop one another into multi‐family structures.   
5 Appraisers generally ding manufactured homes, by assigning a lower rating of quality construction than they do for stick built 
homes, simply based on perception.   

Leidos Engineering, LLC 15 | P a g e  
ENERGY STAR Manufactured Home Market Size and Potential 
The NEEM manager said that there are 9 manufactured home plants in the Pacific Northwest that produce 
approximately 4,000 homes per year.  Idaho is the location for three of these plants producing an estimated 1,000 
manufactured homes per year (an estimated 10% of all new Idaho homes per year).  Fifty‐five percent of regional 
manufactured homes are ENERGY STAR (ES), with possibly an even higher percent in Idaho, with its relatively colder 
weather.  According to the NEEM manager, the number of newly manufactured homes in the Northwest has increased 
substantially in the last five years – from 1,800 in 2011, to 2,800 in 2015 and to an expected 4,000 in 2016.  
Marketing of ENERGY STAR Manufactured Homes 
To market ENERGY STAR manufactured homes, NEEM does drop‐ins on manufactured home dealers and joins utility 
representatives and energy program implementation contractors when they visit dealers.  NEEM also participates in 
state industry housing associations, such as the NW Housing Association and Oregon Manufactured Housing Association 
and writes articles for their newsletters.  NEEM has relationships with utilities to assist in energy program design, 
marketing strategies and trade ally collaborations.  NEEM hosts brown‐bags and webinars that utilities participate in.  
Some new home sales are happening via the Internet, bypassing the dealers, and NEEM is looking to help utilities 
identify such new home sales in their service territory. 
The NEEM manager stated that the best way to market ENERGY STAR manufactured homes to homebuyers is as an “up‐
sell” that improves comfort, quality of home construction and energy efficiency.  The NEEM manager rated the relative 
importance of various motivational drivers for manufactured homebuyers, with results shown in Table 9‐1 below.   
Internal aesthetics was rated highest (9) on a 10‐point scale – followed by price (8), home size (8), floorplan (7), and 
external aesthetic (7).  Energy efficiency, the ENERGY STAR brand and HVAC and appliances choices were all rated a 6. 
Table 9‐1. NEEM Reported Importance Level of Various Factors for Homebuyers 

Some homebuyers choose non‐ENERGY STAR homes because of lower first cost or if a dealer employs a selling strategy 
to convince the customer that their cheaper homes are just‐as good as ENERGY STAR.  Some manufactured homebuyers 
purchase homes for tenants, farmworkers or short‐term occupants, where “cheap” first‐cost is top of mind.  However, 
Importance Level of Various Factors for Home‐buyers
Satisfaction 
Score
(1‐10 scale)
Internal Aesthetic 9.0
Price 8.8
Size Sqaure Footage 8.4
Layout Floorplan 9.1
External Aesthetic 8.6
Energy Efficiency 8.9
ES Branding Label 7.8
HVAC & Appliances 7.7
Home Warranty 7.8
Property Location 7.6

Leidos Engineering, LLC 16 | P a g e  
well‐educated consumers (via well‐known programs such as “Super Good Cents”)6 and reputable utility endorsements 
have reportedly increased ENERGY STAR market share.  
Characteristics of ENERGY STAR Manufactured Homes 
The NEEM manager was asked what distinguishes ENERGY STAR manufactured homes from those not rated ENERGY 
STAR.  ENERGY STAR homes have higher levels of insulation and other accompanying features such as; better counter 
tops, carpets, doors and windows.  ENERGY STAR homes are quieter due to added insulation and  HVAC exhaust fans.  
ENERGY STAR homes always include an ENERGY STAR dishwasher and most include an ENERGY STAR refrigerator and 
CFL/LED lighting packages.  Some manufactures have reportedly begun to look at making ENERGY STAR manufactured 
homes “solar‐ready” with roof‐mounts that are PV racking system ready.   
Utility Sponsored ENERGY STAR Manufactured Home Programs of the Northwest Region 
Approximately 70 utilities (about half of which are irrigation districts) currently offer incentives for ENERGY STAR 
manufactured homes in the Pacific Northwest (NW) region.  No single utility reportedly sees many manufactured homes 
sited in their service territory.  This may lead some to think program participation is low, but in fact the market is simply 
small.  Despite a relatively small market for manufactured homes, NEEM estimated a 80% slippage rate (between 
ENERGY STAR manufactured homes sold in the NW region vs. utility incentive claimed) mainly because not all utilities in 
the region have a program to incentivize ENERGY STAR homes.  NEEM also attributed some of this slippage to the home 
buying process, where homebuyers are overwhelmed with much paperwork to sign when buying a home, and buyers 
forget about or mistakenly think rebate application is already taken care of.  For the NW region, NEEM estimated that of 
4,000 manufactured homes were sold in 2016, 2000 were ENERGY STAR and only 400 received a utility rebate.  The 
slippage rate is reportedly much less than 80% in Idaho Power’s service territory because of the long running Rebate 
Advantage program. 
9.8 Program Participating Manufactured Home Dealers 
Eight out of the ten manufactured home dealers who are listed as program participants were interviewed.  Thirty‐eight 
percent of Rebate Advantage participating manufactured home dealers interviewed were sales consultants or 
associates.  Twenty‐five percent were sales managers.  The remaining three respondents were general manager, 
corporate manager and owner. 

6 “Super Good Cents” Program:  Pacific Northwest area program first created in 1988 provided incentives for the purchase of highly 
efficient manufactured homes with upstream incentives added in 1992.  Please see:  http://www.workingre.com/wp‐
content/uploads/2013/08/Mobilizing‐Energy‐Efficiency‐in‐Manufactured‐Housing.pdf 

Leidos Engineering, LLC 17 | P a g e  
Table 9‐2. Job Title of Manufactured Home Dealers 

Thirty‐eight percent of dealers described their job role as primarily sales, while 25 percent characterize their role as 
management (Table 9‐2).  The remaining respondents self‐described as jack‐of‐all trade generalist who assume multiple 
roles at work. 
Table 9‐3. Job Role of Manufactured Home Dealers 

Participants were asked how they first heard about the Rebate Advantage Program.  Thirty‐eight percent indicate being 
contacted by Idaho Power directly, 25 percent via coworkers, 25 percent via company participation predating their 
employment and 12 percent did not know (See Table 9‐4 below). 
Table 9‐4. How Manufactured Home Dealer First Heard About Program 

Manufactured home dealers participating in the Idaho Power Rebate Advantage program cited six reasons for 
participating in the program.  Seventy‐six percent of dealers report participating so that their customers obtain the 
$1000 rebate for purchasing ENERGY STAR homes.  Half (50%) were motivated to participate because ENERGY STAR 
homes are reportedly better built and of higher quality than standard efficiency ones.  Thirty‐eight percent said they 
were motivated by the increase in sales and marketing attributable to the program, and another 38% only offer ENERGY 
STAR homes.  One dealer (13%) indicated participation to obtain the $200 dealer sales incentive and another was 
motivated by the ease of participation (See Table 9‐5 below). 

Job Title
Percent of 
Dealers (n=8)
Sales Consultant or Associate 38%
Sales Manager 25%
General Manager 13%
Corporate Manager 13%
Owner 13%
Job Role
Percent of 
Dealers (n=8)
Sales 38%
Everything 25%
Manage dealership 25%
Contracting, sales, consulting, software modeling of 
home design/layout, site work and remoding 13%
How Dealers First Heard of Program
Percent of 
Dealers (n=8)
IPC Contacted Dealer 38%
Coworker 25%
Company already participating before respondent took 
job 25%
Don't Know 13%

Leidos Engineering, LLC 18 | P a g e  
Table 9‐5. Why Manufactured Home Dealers Participate 

Dealers were asked if their manufactured home‐buying customers know about ENERGY STAR homes prior to discussing 
this topic.  Twenty‐five percent of dealers said that “all” of their customers had prior knowledge of ENERGY STAR,  38 
percent “few” and 13 percent said “none” (Table 9‐6). 
Table 9‐6. Homebuyer Prior Knowledge of ENERGY STAR 

All (100%) program participating manufactured homes dealers interviewed said that they promote ENERGY STAR homes 
to prospective home‐buying customers.  Dealers stated 16 different selling points in Table 9‐7, are employed to persuade 
home‐buying customers to choose ENERGY STAR over standard efficiency homes.  Most selling points fall under three 
general categories; utility bill savings, higher quality home, or better living environment. 

Reason for Dealer Participation
Percent of 
Dealers (n=8)
$1000 Customer Rebate 75%
Better home for customer 50%
Increases sales and marketing 38%
Only offer ES homes 38%
$200 Sales Incentive 13%
Easy program 13%
Home‐buyer Prior Knowledge of Energy Star
Percent of 
Dealers (n=8)
All 25%
Half 25%
Few 38%
None 13%

Leidos Engineering, LLC 19 | P a g e  
Table 9‐7. Selling Points Used to Promote ENERGY STAR to Homebuyers 

Seventy‐five percent of dealers said they use the Rebate Advantage brochure provided to them by Idaho Power to 
promote the program to their customers.  The other twenty‐five percent do not, reportedly because they are out of 
brochures.  Among dealers who distribute the brochure, all but two said it was effective.  One dealer was simply not 
sure about its effectiveness and the other felt that people just throw away brochures without reading them. 
Only one dealer expressed a way to improve the brochure, by simplifying the technical nature in how it explains 
insulation’s role in saving energy.  One dealer expressed interest in obtaining a new program promoting banner (2”x6” 
vinyl) from Idaho Power to display on the exterior of dealership.  Though not prompted by a question about it, two 
(25%) dealers mentioned that the program table tents provided by Idaho Power were useful in promoting ENERGY STAR 
homes. 
All dealers reported very infrequent interactions with Idaho Power regarding the program, and only for simple requests 
such as to obtain program application forms when they run out or to process completed forms. 
Seven‐of‐eight dealers provided an estimate for the number of homes per year that they sell in the state of Idaho (Table 
9‐8). The responses ranged from as few as 12 to as many as 60 homes per year, with an average of 29.9 homes sold 
across the seven dealers responding.  On average, 79% of the homes sold by the participating dealers are manufactured 
(as opposed to modular or “stick‐built”), with responses ranging from 20‐100%.  Among manufactured homes sold, an 
average of 84% are ENERGY STAR certified (18‐100% range among dealers).  For these ENERGY STAR homes sold in 
Idaho, 87% received the Idaho Power rebate.  This is much higher than what the NEEM manager estimated for the 
Northwest region.  This is likely attributable to the long running Rebate Advantage program in Idaho Power’s service 
territory.  New Idaho ENERGY STAR manufactured homes not receiving rebates were not eligible for the program 
because they were either not located in Idaho Power service territory or did not have an all‐electric home.  

How Dealers Promote Energy Star
Manufactured Homes to Customers
Percent of 
Dealers (n=8)
ES (Energy Star) homes have better windows 25%
Don't stock non ES homes 25%
ES homes have good payback via lower utility bills 25%
ES homes have quick payback because of program rebate 25%
ES homes are cooler in the summer 25%
ES homes have higher insulation levels 13%
Tell customer ES is a better built home 13%
Benefits of higher R‐value 13%
ES Homes include better appliances than standard efficiency 
homes 13%
ES Homes are quiter with added insulation 13%
Teach customer about construction charateristics of ES 
homes 13%
Lower utility bills 13%
ES homes are warm/cozy in winter 13%
Energy Efficiency of ES homes is a selling factor 13%
ES homes made are manufactured nearby in Oregon 13%
ES homes have a tighter air seal of thermal envelope 13%

Leidos Engineering, LLC 20 | P a g e  
Table 9‐8. Manufactured Home Dealer Market Characteristics 

Dealers were asked how many model home types they offer customers.  On average, dealers report 19.7 model home 
type offerings.  The range of model home types varied widely, from 2 to 100.  This question was interpreted differently 
with some dealers.  On the low end of the range, a dealer offers two model types, a single and double wide 
manufactured home.  On the high end, a dealer reportedly offers customers 100 model types because of a wide array of 
floor plan options and variants.  Anecdotally, some dealers mentioned a triple wide and one even mentioned a 
quadruple wide model option.  If the high‐end response of 100 is treated as an outlier and as such is removed from 
consideration (because it is a count of floor plans not model types), then the average number of model home types is 
3.6 with a range of 2 to 6. 
The smallest manufactured home model type offered by any dealer was reportedly 400 square feet and the largest 
4,000 square feet.  On average, for all dealer offerings, the smallest model home type is 813 square feet and largest 
2,925 square feet. 
The level of satisfaction with the program among participating manufactured home dealers is exceptionally high.  Three 
of four program aspects scored at 9.5 and above on a 10‐point scale (Table 9‐9).   Volume and complexity of paperwork 
scored 9.5 and the process of obtain ENERGY STAR compliance forms and the courteousness and professionalism of 
Idaho Power staff both scored 9.8 on a 10‐point scale.  Phrases such as, “they are awesome,” “they are great,” and 
“great excellent people” were used to describe Idaho Power staff. 
Timeliness of rebate payments also received a high score of 8.6.  This score would have been near a perfect 10, had it 
not been for individual situations.  In one case, the dealer had trouble finding the customer to obtain a signature on the 
rebate application and in another isolated case it took 6 weeks to process rebate payment.  If the rating score associated 
with these two dealers is excluded from the average of 8.6, average score rises to 9.5.  It is unusual in program 
evaluation research to see satisfaction scores quite this high.  
Table 9‐9. Level of Satisfaction with Program among Dealers 

Manufactured home dealers were asked what makes ENERGY STAR homes different than standard efficiency homes.  
Seventy‐five percent said that ENERGY STAR is the only type of home that they sell and 25 percent noted that ENERGY 
STAR homes have higher levels of insulation and weather‐sealing.  One dealer (13%) mentioned ENERGY STAR benefits 
as lowering utility bills, factory certified, an up‐sell in some instances, and only an extra $100 to insulate and weather‐
seal to higher standard. 
Dealer Market Characteristic Average Range n
Homes per Year Sold in Idaho 29.9 22-60 7
Percent Manufactured (not Stick‐built) 79%20%-100%7
Percent Manufactured homes that are ES 84%18%-100%8
Percent of Manufactured ES homes in Idaho that received 
Rebate Advantage program rebate 87%28%-100%7
Level of Satisfaction with Pogram Aspects for Dealers
Satisfaction 
Score (1‐10 
scale, n=8)
Process of Obtaining Energy Star Compliance Form 9.8
Courteousness and Professionalism of IPC Staff 9.8
Volume and Complexity of Paperwork 9.5
Timeliness of Rebate Payment 8.6

Leidos Engineering, LLC 21 | P a g e  
Table 9‐10. What Makes ENERGY STAR Manufactured Homes Different from Standard Efficiency Homes 

Dealers were asked what could be done to increase the number of their customers who choose ENERGY STAR 
Manufactured homes over those of standard efficiency.  Half could not think of anything and 25 percent said that 
ENERGY STAR is already the standard option for homebuyers (Table 9‐11).  One dealer suggested reducing the cost of 
ENERGY STAR certification and another suggested not giving customers any choice but ENERGY STAR. 
Table 9‐11. What Would Increase Customer Choice of ENERGY STAR 

Dealers said that 65 percent of their customers are persuaded to buy ENERGY STAR manufactured homes by the $1,000 
rebate.  Six dealers estimated this to be 20‐100% of their customers. 
Dealers were asked to list the factors that drive their customers to choose ENERGY STAR over standard efficiency homes.  
Half of dealers sited energy efficiency and better construction features and quality.  A quarter (25%) of dealers 
mentioned; greater insulation, value‐added and utility bill savings.  One dealer (13%) suggested that the ENERGY STAR 
rebate and greater levels of comfort associated with an energy efficient home as motivational drivers for their home 
buying customers. 
Table 9‐12. Factors that Drive Customers to Purchase ENERGY STAR Homes 

Difference between Energy Star and Standard Efficiency 
Percent of 
Dealers (n=8)
All our manufactured homes are ES.  ES is only type of home 
we sell.75%
ES homes have higher insulation and weathersealing 25%
ES certification of each home from factory 13%
One brand makes ES standard and another brand makes ES 
an optional upsell 13%
Lower power bills with ES homes 13%
It only costs an extra $100 to bring insulation and 
weathersealing levels up from standard efficiency levels to ES 
levels
13%
What would Increase Customer Choice for ES Homes
Percent of 
Dealers (n=8)
Don't Know 50%
ES is standard option already 25%
Bring down cost of ES certification 13%
Don't give customers any choice but to buy higher quality ES 
homes 13%

Leidos Engineering, LLC 22 | P a g e  
Eighty‐eight percent of dealers said that the $200 dealer incentive, for selling as ENERGY STAR home, is adequate to 
cover the added cost of doing program paperwork.  One dealer suggested the incentive be raised to $500.   
Dealers were asked to rate the level of importance of 10 factors that play into decision‐making for their home‐buying 
customers.  Floorplan and layout was most important at 9.1 on a 10‐point scale, followed by internal aesthetic (9.0), 
energy efficiency (8.9), price (8.8), external aesthetic (8.6), and square‐footage (8.4).  Of still significant but lesser 
importance were; home warranty (7.8), ENERGY STAR branding (7.8), HVAC & appliances (7.7) and (7.6) property 
location (Table 9‐13). 
Table 9‐13. Importance Level of Various Factors for Homebuyers 

Two dealers volunteered “lending and appraisal costs” as an important factor on the mind of homebuyers.  One dealer 
mentioned several other factors in Table 9‐14 below. 
Table 9‐14. Other Factors of Importance for Homebuyers 

Dealers were asked what they like most about the Rebate Advantage Program.  Half (50%) mentioned the rebate for 
their home‐buying customers and one‐quarter (25%) that ENERGY STAR homes give the homebuyer “value‐added.”  The 
remaining most‐liked program aspects included Idaho Power endorsement, better‐built homes, sales incentive, and 
simplicity of program and rewarding of homebuyers for choosing energy efficiency (Table 9‐15). 

Importance Level of Various Factors for Home‐buyers
Satisfaction 
Score
(1‐10 scale)n
Internal Aesthetic 9.0 7
Price 8.8 8
Size Sqaure Footage 8.4 7
Layout Floorplan 9.1 7
External Aesthetic 8.6 7
Energy Efficiency 8.9 8
ES Branding Label 7.8 8
HVAC & Appliances 7.7 7
Home Warranty 7.8 8
Property Location 7.6 5
Other Factors Important to Manufactured Home‐buyers
Percent of 
Dealers (n=8)
Don't Know 50%
Lending costs and appraisals 25%
Doors, trims, custom cabinetry, the drywall and custom 
painting 13%
Quality of construction 13%
Marketing skill and salesmanship 13%
Manufactured homes and modular IRC homes are both very 
air tight, it seems like ES threshold should be just as easy for 
both home types to meet.
13%

Leidos Engineering, LLC 23 | P a g e  
Table 9‐15. What Dealers Like Most about the Rebate Advantage Program 

Dealers were asked what they like least about the Rebate Advantage Program and 75 percent said “nothing.”  Two other 
said the only issue they have is the sometimes‐difficult nature of tracking down hard‐to‐reach customers to obtain their 
signature on the rebate form after the purchase of an ENERGY STAR manufactured home. 
Last, dealers were asked for any final comments for Idaho Power.  Two dealers (25%) want Idaho Power to offer a rebate 
program for stick‐built homes and one other (13%) reiterated a desire to obtain more Rebate Advantage program 
brochures. 
10 Process Recommendations 
Given the Rebate Advantage program’s current success, simplicity and very high levels of satisfaction, only three minor 
changes are recommended. 
 Idaho Power Marketing Specialists should continue existing Facebook advertisements and research innovative 
ways to micro‐target program marketing ads towards manufactured homebuyers who bypass dealers and 
purchase directly via the Internet 
 Given the recent growth in manufactured home sales and the fact the Rebate Advantage program already 
exceeds its goal for 25 ENERGY STAR manufactured homes per year, this goal should be raised above 25 
 Refresh supply of program brochures at participating dealerships 

What Dealers Like Most about Program
Percent of 
Dealers (n=8)
$1000 rebate for my home‐buying customers 50%
Program gives customer value‐added ES homes 25%
IPC endoresment, which gives ES manuf. homes better 
reputation.  This helps overcome old stereotype of 
manufactured homes being poorly made and inefficient.
13%
Sales team can make a little more money by selling ES 
homes 13%
ES homes are better homes for customers 13%
Program is simple to explain to customers 13%
Rewards customer for choicing ES 13%
Don't Know 13%

Leidos Engineering, LLC 24 | P a g e  
Appendix A. IPC Rebate Advantage Manufactured Home Dealer Questionnaire 
Appendix B. IPC Rebate Advantage NEEM Questionnaire 
Appendix A 
Participating Manufactured Home Dealer Questionnaire 
Introduction:  Hello my name is Jeff Riggert calling on behalf of Idaho Power’s Rebate Advantage Program.  This is the 
program providing $1,000 rebates to your customers who purchase Energy Star manufactured home and also a $200 
incentive to dealers such as yourself.   
1) Are you familiar with this program?  If not, ask who would be best to speak with.  
2) We’d like to get your feedback on the program to find out how it is working for you and how it might be 
improved in the future.  Is now a good time to talk?  If not, schedule a time that is convenient for dealer. 
Introduction 
3) What is your job title? 
4) What is your roll and responsibility at work? 
Program Marketing 
1) How did you first hear about the Rebate Advantage Program? 
2) What factors drove your company’s decision to participate in the program? 
3) Do customers know about Energy Star homes or ask about them before you bring up the topic? 
4) Is Energy Star something that you promote to customers looking to purchase a home? 
a. If yes to Q4, how do you market Energy Star Manufactured homes to your customers?   
5) Do you distribute Idaho Power’s brochure that describe the Rebate Advantage program directly to your home 
buying customers?   
a. How effective is the brochure?   
b. Is there anything that could be changed to improve the brochure? 
6) How often do you interact with Idaho Power staff regarding the Rebate Advantage Program?   
a. What topics are discussed in these interactions? 
Market Size and Potential 
7) About how many single family homes per year do you sell in the state of Idaho? 
8) What percentage of these homes are manufactured homes? 
9) What percentage of these manufactured homes are certified as Energy Star? 
10) What percentage of these Energy Star homes receive rebates via the Idaho Power Rebate Advantage Program? 
11) How many model homes types (such as ranch‐style vs. two‐story) do you sell?  
12) What is(are) the square footage of your model home type(s)? 
13) What would you guess is the percentage of new homes being built in Idaho today that are manufactured homes 
vs. those constructed conventionally?   
14) When it comes to new home construction, is the portion of manufactured homes increasing, decreasing or 
staying about the same when compared to 5 years ago? 
Program Administration and Paperwork 
15) On a scale of 1‐10, with 1 being unreasonable and 10 being very reasonable, how would you rate the volume 
and complexity of the paperwork associated with the Rebate Advantage Program?   
a. What factors affected your rating? 
16) On that same scale, how would you rate the process of obtaining the Energy Star compliance form for customer 
homes? 
a. What factors affected your rating? 
17) On the 1‐10 scale, how would you rate the timeliness of rebate payment? 
a. What factors affected your rating? 
18)  On a scale of 1‐10, with 1 being poor and 10 being excellent, how would you rate the courtesy and 
professionalism of Idaho Power staff? 
a. What factors affected your rating? 
Energy Star Homes and Rebates 
19) What is different about your Energy Star manufactured homes from the manufactured homes you sell that are 
not Energy Star compliant? (probe for any building shell, HVAC, mechanical and appliance differences) 
20) What do you think would need to happen to increase the number of your customers that choose Energy Star 
over standard efficiency homes? 
21) In your experience, what percentage of customers are persuaded to purchase an Energy Star manufactured 
home by the $1,000 rebate?  
22) What other factors drive customers to purchase an Energy Star manufactured home? 
23) Is the $200 sales bonus adequate to cover any additional costs associated with selling Energy Star homes and 
participating in the Idaho Power program?   
a. If not, what would be a more appropriate dollar amount for the sales bonus? 
Customer Motivational Drivers 
24) Now I would like to get your perspective on what motivates customers to purchase manufactured homes.  Using 
a 1‐10 scale, where 1 is Not at all important and 10 is Very important, how would you rate the importance of the 
following factors in customer decisions to purchase a manufactured home.  Starting with… 
 Price             Importance, 1‐10 scale ____ 
 Property location           Importance, 1‐10 scale ____ 
 Home Warranty           Importance, 1‐10 scale ____ 
 Layout/floorplan          Importance, 1‐10 scale ____ 
 Size/square footage          Importance, 1‐10 scale ____ 
 Energy Efficiency           Importance, 1‐10 scale ____ 
 The Energy Star Branding Label       Importance, 1‐10 scale ____ 
 External aesthetic / curb appeal       Importance, 1‐10 scale ____ 
 Internal aesthetic (fixtures, furnishings, treatments)   Importance, 1‐10 scale ____ 
 HVAC and Appliances         Importance, 1‐10 scale ____ 
 Other factors?  Please specify__________________   Importance, 1‐10 scale ____ 
Conclusion 
25) What do you like most about the Rebate Advantage Program? 
26) What do like least about this program? 
27) Is there anything else that you would like to share or suggest regarding this program or Idaho Power? 
Scheduling On‐sites 
For two most active dealers only, 1) United Family Homes ‐ Kit Homebuilders West and 2) Jensen Homes of Nampa – 
Marlette model.   
28) Soon you will be getting a call from <SEED Idaho> who is under contract to conduct on‐site inspections of Energy 
Star manufactured homes to gather data on their actual structure.  Are you the right person to work with to 
schedule the inspection?  If not, who?  (Obtain other Contact Info.).   
29) What are the best times or days of the week to reach you/other dealer contact? 
Thank you very much for your time and valuable feedback! 

Idaho Power Company Rebate Advantage Program,
Northwest Energy Efficient Manufactured Housing Program (NEEM) Questionnaire
Introduction: Hello [NEEM Managers: Tom Hewes and/or Brady Peeks] my name is Jeff Riggert calling on behalf of
Idaho Power’s Rebate Advantage Program. This is the program providing $1,000 rebates to your customers who purchase
Energy Star manufactured home and also a $200 incentive to dealers such as yourself.
1) Are you familiar with this program? If not, explain further
2) We’d like to get your feedback on the market and best practices as it related to manufactured homes in the
northwest and beyond. Your feedback is key, invaluable and will be used to inform this year’s evaluation of Idaho
Power’s program. Is now a good time to talk? If not, schedule a time that is convenient for NEEM.
If IPC contact requested, mention Gary Grayson ([e-mail]) and Becky Arte Howell.

NEEM Name [NEEM Managers: Tom Hewes and/or Brady Peeks]
NEEM Address   
NEEM Phone [phone] 
NEEM E‐mail [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail]

Manufacturer 
Names 
Kit Homebuilders West, Marlette, Champion, Fleetwood, Nashua,

Attempt # Date Time Result

Introduction
3) What is your job title?
4) What is your roll and responsibility at work?
5) What is NEEMs role and mission?
6) Northwest Energy Works is a U.S. DOE Building America Partner. Can you describe what this means and what
NEEMs role or interactions are with Northwest Energy Works?
7) Building America Partnership for Improved Residential Construction (BA-PIRC) was formally known as
Building America Industrial Housing Partnership (BAIHP). What does NEEM do with this organization?

Codes and Standards
8) What is NEEMs role in setting Energy Star standards for manufactured homes? (probe for role in setting QA/QC
standards and specifications)
9) Can you describe NEEMs role in conducting Quality Control and Quality Assurance (QA/QC) at the plant sight
of manufactured home manufacturers?
10) How has this QA/QC impacted the energy performance of manufactured homes?
11) Aside from Energy Star, how do other building codes effect the performance of manufactured homes?
12) What do you think the future holds for manufactured homes in terms of codes and standards?

Market Size and Potential
13) About how many single family homes per year (both modular or “stick-built” and manufactured) are sold in the
state of Idaho?
14) What percentage of these homes are manufactured homes?
15) What percentage manufactured homes are certified Energy Star?
16) When it comes to new home construction, is the portion of manufactured homes increasing, decreasing or staying
about the same when compared to 5 years ago?

Program Marketing
17) What sort of interactions do you have with manufactured home manufacturers?
18) What kind of interactions do you have with manufactured home dealers?
19) What sort of interactions do you have with energy utilities like Idaho Power?
20) What are the best ways to market and promote Energy Star manufactured homes?
21) What factors drive manufactured home buyers to choose Energy Star?
22) What factors drive some manufactured home buyers to NOT choose Energy Star?

Customer Motivational Drivers
23) Now I would like to get your perspective on what motivates customers to purchase manufactured homes. Using a
1-10 scale, where 1 is Not at all important and 10 is Very important, how would you rate the importance of the
following factors in customer decisions to purchase a manufactured home. Starting with…
 Price Importance, 1-10 scale ____
 Property location Importance, 1-10 scale ____
 Home Warranty Importance, 1-10 scale ____
 Layout/floorplan Importance, 1-10 scale ____
 Size/square footage Importance, 1-10 scale ____
 Energy Efficiency Importance, 1-10 scale ____
 The Energy Star Branding Label Importance, 1-10 scale ____
 External aesthetic / curb appeal Importance, 1-10 scale ____
 Internal aesthetic (fixtures, furnishings, treatments) Importance, 1-10 scale ____
 HVAC and Appliances Importance, 1-10 scale ____
 Other factors? Please specify__________________ Importance, 1-10 scale ____

Energy Star Homes
24) What is different about Energy Star manufactured homes from manufactured homes that are not Energy Star
compliant? (probe on; building shell, HVAC, mechanical, lighting, water heating, appliance, quality of
construction materials differences, etc.)
25) Do any manufactured homes include; photovoltaic arrays, fuel cells or other types of distributed energy
generation?
26) What are the best ways to leverage trade ally relationships so as to advance Energy Star in the manufactured home
marketplace?
27) Please describe the process, step-by-step, of obtaining Energy Star compliance forms and what is on the form?

Programs External to Idaho Power
28) What significant programs or activities are occurring in the Pacific Northwest?
29) What about outside of the Northwest, when it comes to Energy Star manufactured home programs?

Conclusion
30) What do you like most about Idaho Power’s Rebate Advantage Program?
31) What do like least about this program?
32) Is there anything else that you would like to share or suggest regarding the Energy Star manufactured homes
marketplace?

Thank you very much for your time and valuable feedback!

FINAL REPORT 
Impact Evaluation of New Construction 
(Building 
Efficiency)  program 

December 22, 2016 

Prepared for: 
Idaho Power Company 

Prepared by: 

Leidos Engineering, LLC 
301 Plainfield Road, Suite 310 
Syracuse, NY 13212 
315.434.7200 

Leidos Engineering, LLC ii | P a g e  
Contents 
Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 1 
1. Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 3 
1.1 Program Description ..................................................................................................................... 3 
1.2 Ex‐Ante Savings ............................................................................................................................. 3 
1.3 Evaluation Approach ..................................................................................................................... 4 
2. Methodology ......................................................................................................................................... 4 
2.1  Sampling Method .......................................................................................................................... 4 
2.2  Overview of Impact Evaluation Approach .................................................................................... 6 
3. Analysis and Verified Savings ................................................................................................................ 8 
3.1 Tracking System Review ................................................................................................................ 8 
3.2 Desk Review of Projects ................................................................................................................ 8 
4. Conclusions and Recommendations ................................................................................................... 14 

Table 1. Results of the Building Efficiency Program Impact Evaluation by Measure Type ........................... 1 
Table 2. Building Efficiency Project Ex‐Ante Savings by Measure Type ........................................................ 3 
Table 3. Contribution of Sample Measure Types to Total Measure Category Savings ................................. 5 
Table 4. Final Sampled Building Efficiency Projects ...................................................................................... 6 
Table 5. Air Conditioning Measure Results ................................................................................................... 9 
Table 6. Appliance Measure Results ........................................................................................................... 10 
Table 7. Building Shell Measure Results ..................................................................................................... 10 
Table 8. HVAC Controls Measure Results ................................................................................................... 11 
Table 9. Lighting Measure Results .............................................................................................................. 12 
Table 10. Ex‐Post Realization by Lighting Equipment Type ........................................................................ 13 
Table 11. Refrigeration Measure Results .................................................................................................... 13 
Table 12. Building Efficiency Program Evaluation Results .......................................................................... 14 

Leidos Engineering, LLC 1 | P a g e 
Executive Summary 
The Idaho Power Company’s New Construction (Building Efficiency) program underwent evaluation of 
the energy impacts of supporting energy‐efficient, non‐residential new construction and major 
renovation projects finalized in 2015 in Idaho and Oregon. The impact evaluation study was designed 
with the following objectives: 
 Verify the ex‐ante energy savings attributable to the Building Efficiency projects 
 Provide credible and reliable impact estimates and ex‐post realization rates attributed to the 
Building Efficiency program 
 Review program and application processes and provide recommendations to enhance the 
effectiveness of future ex‐ante energy savings analysis and accurate and transparent reporting 
of program savings 
The study approach began with an interview with the Program Engineer to determine how the program 
is marketed, savings are claimed, goals are set and achieved, and explore research questions of interest.  
Review of program collateral and tracking database contents followed. A random sample of 14 projects, 
tiered by magnitude of project kW and kWh savings and then screened for representation of each 
eligible measure in the sample, was selected for detailed desk review and independent calculation of 
project demand and energy savings using project data, a Technical Reference Manual published in 2014, 
and two documents titled “Overview Document per Measure” summarizing energy savings algorithms 
and assumptions for eligible measures used by the program.  From the desk sample, five projects were 
selected for site visit and verification of installed measures and site‐specific savings assumptions.     
The study determined a high level of ex‐post realization for program demand and energy savings, as well 
as high realization at the measure level.  In general, project documentation was adequate for verifying 
most measure impacts, and project data are recorded and tracked with high accuracy.  With energy 
savings more than doubling set program goals in 2015, program collateral and marketing methods seem 
to be successful. 
Table 1. Results of the Building Efficiency Program Impact Evaluation by Measure Type 
Measure Type 
kWh kW 
Ex‐Ante 
Gross 
Ex‐Post 
Gross RR Ex‐Ante 
Gross 
Ex‐Post 
Gross RR 
Air‐Conditioning 561,449 508,111 0.90 462.6 417.6 0.90
Appliances w/ Electric Water 
Heating 
19,273 19,398 1.01 2.1 2.1 0.96
Building Shell 221,858 223,301 1.01 9.6 10.9 1.14
Controls 19,482,694 19,506,635 1.00 48.3 48.8 1.01
Lighting 2,788,153 2,402,896 0.86 488.0 519.1 1.06
Refrigeration 158,571 158,571 1.00 11.2 11.2 1.00
Total 23,231,998 22,818,912 0.98 1,021.8 1,009.6 0.99
Relative Precision at 90% 
Confidence 
0.2%4.8% 

Leidos Engineering, LLC 2 | P a g e 
Key recommendations resulting from this study include the following: 
1. Review fundamental units of measure used to calculate incentives and energy savings, and 
consider opportunities to align those units where possible for improved clarity on the 
application and in verifying savings 
2. Investigate whether the program should limit eligibility of variable speed drives on HVAC pumps 
and fans, lighting occupancy sensors, and/or energy management controls, where some of 
those measures or the operating conditions enabled by those measures are required by building 
energy code. 
3. Review eligible energy management control strategies and energy savings assumptions relative 
to other control‐based measures to ensure that the measure ‘stacking’ methodology employed 
to adjust for multiple measures’ interactive effects fully avoids “double counting” savings 
enabled by the combination of the equipment and the controls. Further recommendations and 
findings from this impact evaluation are discussed in the following report. 

Leidos Engineering, LLC 3 | P a g e 
1. Introduction 
This report documents the results of an impact evaluation performed on Idaho Power Company’s non‐
residential new construction incentive program, formerly known as Building Efficiency. This evaluation 
covers projects preliminary submitted in 2011 to 2015 and finalized in 2015. Eight‐one (81) projects 
were finalized in 2015, contributing ex‐ante savings of 23,232,017 kWh, or about 10% of Idaho Power 
Company’s total portfolio savings. 
1.1 Program Description 
The Building Efficiency program enables customers to apply energy efficient design features and 
technologies in new construction or major renovation of commercial and industrial projects. The 
program offers a menu of measures and incentives covering lighting, HVAC, building shell, controls, 
appliances, and refrigeration end use options. Savings are fully deemed or semi‐deemed (variable by 
building type) in a Technical Reference Manual (TRM) (v.1.7) prepared by ADM Associates, with baseline 
equipment defined by the applicable building energy code and 2009 International Energy Conservation 
Code, for projects submitted in 2014. Prior to 2014, ex ante savings for the program were derived 
following engineering calculations subject to a 2006 International Energy Conservation Code baseline. 
Measures for rebate under the program include: 
 Appliances (laundry machines, ENERGY STAR® commercial and under counter dishwashers) 
 Building Envelope (reflective roof) 
 Cooling (air conditioners, heat pumps, chillers, economizers, direct evaporative coolers and 
variable refrigeration flow systems) 
 HVAC Controls (energy management control systems, Guest Room energy management systems 
with electric heat,  and variable speed drives for electric heating, ventilation and air conditioning 
systems) 
 Lighting (interior and exterior load reduction, daylight and occupancy sensor controls, exit signs) 
 Refrigeration (floating head pressure control, floating suction pressure control, efficient 
condensers) 
1.2 Ex‐Ante Savings 
The ex‐ante energy and demand savings are presented for each measure type in the following table.  
Table 2. Building Efficiency Project Ex‐Ante Savings by Measure Type 
Measure Type/End Use 
Count of 
Measures 
Gross kW 
Savings 
Gross kWh 
Savings 
Air‐Conditioning 41 462.63 561,449 
Appliances w/ Electric Water Heating 9 2.13 19,273 
Building Shell 15 9.62 221,858 
Controls 33 48.26 19,482,694 
Lighting 130 488.01 2,788,153 
Refrigeration 5 11.19 158,571 
Grand Total 233 1021.84 23,231,998 

Leidos Engineering, LLC 4 | P a g e 

1.3 Evaluation Approach 
The impact evaluation was intended to verify correct use of the Idaho Technical Reference Manual to 
claim energy savings for the Building Efficiency program, verify overall program energy savings and 
savings realization, and to explore opportunities to enhance the effectiveness of ex‐ante savings analysis 
and reporting of program savings. Leidos’ approach to the evaluation included: 
 Interview the Idaho Power Program Engineer on application processes and program objectives 
 Review of the Building Efficiency project database and project documentation 
 Review of prior program achievements and assumptions in the Idaho Power Annual Report 
 Verify correct application of TRM assumptions and savings calculations given reported site and 
building characteristics for the sampled projects 
 Provide credible and reliable program energy impact estimates and ex post realization rates 
attributed to the Building Efficiency program for projects finalized in 2015. 
 Visit five project sites to verify measure installation as per applications as well as various site 
characteristics 
2. Methodology 
2.1  Sampling Method 
The sampling methodology applied to this program resulted in a total of 14 projects for the primary 
sample with 2 projects in the backup sample, designed so the evaluation results are representative of 
the population with+/‐ 10% precision at the 90% confidence level. 
The project‐level kWh and kW savings values in the program database were divided into three strata: 
 Strata 1: Over 1,000,000 kWh savings OR 50 kW savings 
 Strata 2: Over 100,000 kWh savings OR 10 kW savings, AND Less than 1,000,000 kWh Savings 
AND 50 kW savings 
 Strata 3: Under 100,000 kWh savings AND 10 kW savings 
A random value was assigned to each project and the projects were ranked by the product of the 
random value and their kWh savings. The top 4 to 5 projects in each strata were considered for the 
initial primary sample and then the individual measure types and their recorded savings were analyzed. 
For measure types that were underrepresented in the initial sample, lower ranked projects in the initial 
primary sample were dropped in favor of selecting projects with the underrepresented measure types. 
Where possible, alternate projects were selected within the same strata. This process was repeated until 
the magnitude of savings for each measure type was adequately represented in the sample. The goal 
was to obtain a sample with at least 40% of the kWh savings and 25% of the kW savings for each non‐
lighting measure type represented in the sample. The lighting portion of kWh savings is 38.1%, which is 
deemed adequate for sampling purposes. Table 3 below shows the results of the measure types within 
the sample. 

Leidos Engineering, LLC 5 | P a g e 
Table 3. Contribution of Sample Measure Types to Total Measure Category Savings 
Measure Types 
# of 
Projects 
% category 
kWh Savings 
% category
kW Savings 
Air‐Conditioning 6 46.5% 48.3%
Appliances w/ Electric Water 
Heating 2 47.5% 34.3% 
Building Shell 6 79.7% 26.0%
Controls 8 88.4% 34.4%
Lighting 9 38.1% 27.8%
Refrigeration 1 52.8% 52.0%
Total 14 81.7% 40.4%

The table below shows the project that were selected for further desk review and sample analysis. 
Backup projects were identified in the sample to replace primary projects if necessary during the 
evaluation process.    

Leidos Engineering, LLC 6 | P a g e 
Table 4. Final Sampled Building Efficiency Projects 
Project 
ID Strata 
kWh 
Savings 
kW 
Savings Sample 
11325 1 12,878,549 0.0 Primary** 
11174 1 2,795,271 0.5 Primary 
11006 1 1,176,392 177.0 Primary** 
14143 1 237,898 64.9 Primary 
14220 1 77,283 51.5 Primary 
11196 2 492,861 0.0 Primary 
11348 2 470,327 0.0 Primary** 
14125 2 285,889 33.7 Primary 
14086 2 125,049 26.5 Primary** 
14103 2 50,878 12.3 Primary** 
14031 3 86,216 6.4 Primary 
11104 3 61,230 8.4 Primary* 
14147 3 53,761 0.0 Primary 
14024 3 30,991 3.7 Primary 
14112 2 86,889 19.4 Backup 
14019 3 65,025 8.5 Backup* 
** Projects selected for EM&V site visit 
* Backup project 14019 was reviewed in lieu of primary project 11104 
Sampled projects energy and demand savings were re‐calculated during desk review, based on TRM 
v.1.7 and Building Efficiency savings calculation guidance documents provided by the Program Engineer.  
Observations from the EM&V site visits were also taken into consideration for the five relevant sites 
during the measure verification process. 
2.2  Overview of Impact Evaluation Approach 
The impact evaluation for the New Construction (Building Efficiency) program consisted of conducting 
project file reviews, desk review and on‐site inspections to verify key energy savings characteristics.   
Information from the program savings guideline reviews, file and desk reviews and on‐site inspections 
was used to develop estimates of energy impacts at the program and measure levels.  The analysis 
provides an estimation of program realization rates to assist in determining ex‐post gross energy 
savings.  Each step of the analysis is discussed briefly below.  
Step 1: Review Program Documentation 
A review of the current data tracking system, associated documentation, and the calculation of energy 
savings, including an assessment of the adherence to the energy savings protocol values on a measure 
basis was first conducted.  Corrections to the ex‐ante savings identified in this step were implemented 
as needed. 

Leidos Engineering, LLC 7 | P a g e 
Step 2: Determine Desk Review Sample 
The desk review/site review samples for the New Construction (Building Efficiency) program were drawn 
from the population of projects finalized in the 2015 program year.  A total of 14 projects were sampled, 
along with 2 backup projects. 
Step 3: File Review 
The project files for sampled projects were requested from Idaho Power and were reviewed for 
evaluability. 
For a project to be evaluable, proper information must be available in the project documentation to 
determine the proper deemed measure savings algorithm and to determine evidence of the project 
completion.  Evaluable projects typically contain: 
 A project application, which identifies the entity requesting the rebate and the equipment being 
rebated. 
 Invoices for purchased equipment identifying make and model of purchased equipment and 
categorizing labor activities.  Invoices also provide documentation for purchase dates confirming 
adherence with program rules. 
 Documentation of the calculations, assumptions and QA/QC procedures, as appropriate. 
If projects were determined to not be evaluable, additional documentation was requested or alternate 
backup projects were selected.   
Step 4: Desk Reviews 
Desk reviews were conducted for the sample of projects from Step 2 that were validated in Step 3.  The 
desk reviews consisted of reviewing the inputs for energy savings and determining the adherence to the 
protocols for individual measures, as evidenced by the project documentation.  The desk reviews 
verified that the project tracking data were consistent with the project documentation.  Project 
documentation was used where any discrepancies were found.  Project documentation reviewed 
included project application and incentive worksheet, equipment specifications, invoices, QA/QC 
reports, and the database tracking and reporting information, as available. 
The key output from the desk reviews was the evaluated savings of the sampled projects. This 
evaluation also helped to guide what was to be inspected during the site visits.  
Step 5:  Site Visits 
Site inspections were conducted on a subset of the desk review sample.  During the site visits, 
installation of measures as recorded in the tracking database, project documentation, and as observed 
through the desk review were verified to the extent reasonable, focusing  on the energy‐consuming 
equipment and characteristics associated with the projects.  
Step 6: Calculate Ex‐Post Savings Estimates 
For this program, the adjustments for savings estimates were made through identifying differences from 
the ex‐ante savings, and differences caused from the measure characteristics such as specific measure 
equipment, quantities, sizing, etc. and savings determination protocol specified in the Overview 

Leidos Engineering, LLC 8 | P a g e 
Documents or TRM.  Further, on‐site inspection information was used to further inform the savings 
estimates. 
3. Analysis and Verified Savings 
Review of the Building Efficiency program database, project documentation, and EM&V site visit results 
revealed some uncertainties in how measure characteristics were verified and ex‐ante savings were 
calculated, but the overall impact to demand and energy savings realization was minimal.  Ex‐ante 
claimed measure quantities or assumptions that could not be clearly identified in this review were found 
to be reasonable for ex‐post calculations.  Discussion of these instances is presented in section 3.2 
below. 
3.1 Tracking System Review 
The recorded demand and energy savings and incentive value in the Building Efficiency database were 
compared to those found in the project application and worksheet for each project in the sample. This 
comparison found that the database accurately reflects the project documentation at the project and 
measure level.  
3.2 Desk Review of Projects 
Sampled projects were subject to independent demand and energy savings calculations given measure 
quantities, sizes, and other characteristics found in the application, worksheet, and supplemental 
documentation such as a Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) verification report conducted on 
behalf of the program, manufacturer data sheets, and invoices. Calculation methodologies followed the 
TRM v.1.7, or one of two guidance documents provided by the Building Efficiency Program Engineer to 
elaborate calculation approaches.  These documents titled “Overview Document per Measure” provided 
deemed or calculated demand and energy savings rules and methods followed for projects preliminarily 
submitted during the 2011 and 2015 Building Efficiency program years. In many cases, these documents’ 
protocols align with the TRM, with the following exceptions: 
 EMS controls savings are deemed by HVAC system type and climate zone in the TRM, but 
deemed by number of strategies in the Overview Document.   
 Daylighting controls are deemed per square foot in the TRM, but calculated as 30% of controlled 
lighting energy usage in the Overview Document. 
 Interior and exterior lighting are deemed per lighting power density improvement (percent 
above code) and square feet of lighted area in the TRM, but ex‐ante savings appear to be 
calculated using COMcheck reported total wattage and Overview Document deemed hours and 
peak coincidence factors for the project. 
 It should be noted that the first version of the TRM was released in early 2014. It is assumed 
that only the 2011 Overview Document provided by the Program Engineer governed ex‐ante 
savings calculations for preliminary applications sent in 2011 to 2013. 
Ex‐ante and ex‐post savings results of the desk review and independent verification process are 
discussed below to illustrate project‐level factors that led to overall program realization.  However, it is 
emphasized that project‐specific, measure‐level findings are not statistically valid or individually 

Leidos Engineering, LLC 9 | P a g e 
representative of the program impact evaluation findings; program results are presented later in this 
report. 
Air Conditioning 
One 2011 preliminary project and six 2014 preliminary projects in the sample included air conditioning 
measures.  Ex‐post air conditioning full‐load energy savings were calculated following the TRM 
engineering algorithm for improved efficiency cooling equipment. As shown in Table 5, measure‐level 
ex‐post savings realization was high and ranged from 75% to 131% of ex‐ante kWh and 75% to 100% of 
ex‐ante kW savings with the following findings: 
 In project 14019, the application processor reversed the rated efficiencies of a two ton and 
three ton unit in calculating ex‐ante savings. 
 A 2009 IECC baseline and 700 cooling hours were applied to university project 14086 for ex‐post 
savings calculations; ex‐ante assumptions are not clear. 
 A 2009 IECC baseline and 700 cooling hours were applied to university project 14143 for ex‐post 
kWh savings calculations, and divided by 700 cooling hours for ex‐post kW savings calculation.  
Ex‐ante kW assumptions are not clear. 
 Data center project 14220 was submitted assuming 181 ton capacity chiller; cut sheet provided 
documented 160 ton capacity, which was used to calculate ex‐post savings.  
Table 5. Air Conditioning Measure Results 
Project 
ID 
Ex‐Ante 
kWh 
Savings 
Ex‐Post 
kWh 
Savings 
kWh 
Realization 
Rate 
Ex‐Ante 
kW 
Savings 
Ex‐Post 
kW 
Savings 
kW 
Realization 
Rate 
11006 131,706 128,739 0.977 132 129 0.978 
14019 1,855 1,415 0.763 2 1 0.761 
14024 4,122 4,108 0.997 3 3 0.999 
14086 13,384 10,031 0.749 19 14 0.749 
14103 9,158 9,158 1.000 5 5 1.000 
14143 25,150 22,943 0.912 14 11 0.771 
14220 77,283 61,311 0.793 52 41 0.793 
7 262,658 237,705 0.905 225 203 0.903 

Appliances 
Appliance measures were fully deemed in the TRM v.1.7 and were found in two sampled projects, 
shown in Table 6. In project 14103, one under counter ENERGY STAR® dishwasher and one commercial 
dishwasher were submitted in the application, two under counter dishwashers plus one commercial 
dishwasher were found on the invoices. Three total ENERGY STAR®  dishwashers were verified during 
the site inspection, but according to the site representative, one of these was “purchased outside the 
program”. One under counter dishwasher and one commercial dishwasher were assumed installed and 
eligible for the program for ex‐post verification. 

Leidos Engineering, LLC 10 | P a g e  
Table 6. Appliance Measure Results 
Project 
ID 
Ex‐Ante 
kWh 
Savings 
Ex‐Post 
kWh 
Savings 
kWh
Realization 
Rate 
Ex‐Ante 
kW 
Savings 
Ex‐Post 
kW 
Savings 
kW 
Realization 
Rate 
14024 2,210 2,210 1.000 0.19 0.19 1.000 
14103 6,937 5,877 0.847 0.54 0.51 0.950 
2 9,147 8,087 0.884 0.73 0.70 0.963 

Envelope 
Ex‐ante kW savings associated with reflective roof measures were not recorded for 2011 preliminary 
projects in the tracking database.  Reflective roof was fully deemed per square foot of roof area in the 
2014 Building Efficiency guidance document provided by the Program Engineer, and these deemed 
values were used to calculate ex‐post savings based on application and/or QA/QC verification report 
roof area, as shown in Table 7. 
Table 7. Building Shell Measure Results 
Project 
ID 
Ex‐Ante 
kWh 
Savings 
Ex‐Post 
kWh 
Savings 
kWh
Realization 
Rate 
Ex‐Ante 
kW 
Savings 
Ex‐Post 
kW 
Savings 
kW 
Realization 
Rate 
11006 53,662 53,662 1.000 0.00 0.00 
11174 111,134 111,134 1.000 0.00 0.00 
14019 5,106 6,006 1.176 4.18 4.92 1.177 
14024 267 267 0.999 0.22 0.22 0.993 
14103 1,273 1,497 1.176 1.04 1.23 1.179 
14143 1,508 1,508 1.000 1.24 1.24 0.996 
6 172,950 174,075 1.007 7 8 1.138 
HVAC Controls 
Ex‐post savings calculations of variable speed drives and EMS controls resulted in close to 100% 
realization at the measure level (Table 8).  Project documentation for 11006 included square footage of 
building controlled for incentive calculation, but no verified tonnage controlled by the EMS.  Ex‐ante 
savings in this case were calculated assuming that the total cooling tonnage in the application was 
controlled by the EMS. 

Leidos Engineering, LLC 11 | P a g e  
Table 8. HVAC Controls Measure Results 
Project 
ID 
Ex‐Ante 
kWh 
Savings 
Ex‐Post 
kWh 
Savings 
kWh
Realization 
Rate 
Ex‐Ante 
kW 
Savings 
Ex‐Post 
kW 
Savings 
kW 
Realization 
Rate 
11006 94,418 114,077 1.208 0 0  ‐ 
11174 2,679,486 2,679,487 1.000 0 0  ‐ 
11325 12,878,549 12,878,550 1.000 0 0  ‐ 
11348 470,327 476,004 1.012 0 0  ‐ 
14019 57,560 57,935 1.007 3 3 1.064 
14086 111,665 110,079 0.986 7 7 1.000 
14103 14,940 15,100 1.011 0 0  ‐ 
14143 76,272 72,118 0.946 9 9 1.003 
8 16,383,217 16,403,349 1.001 19 20 1.010 
Lighting 
Lighting measures consisted of interior and exterior lighting improved design as reported in COMCheck; 
occupancy and daylighting sensors submitted by sensor quantity and square feet controlled 
respectively; and exit signs. Per the Program Engineer, ex‐ante lighting savings are calculated based on 
the US Department of Energy’s COMcheck software required by the State of Idaho to be completed and 
provided for new construction permit submittal.  
In addition, lighting cut sheets and invoices saved with project documentation typically define lighting 
equipment differently than the lighting designer would via the COMCheck report. Equipment 
specifications and quantities could not always be reconciled in the available documentation. In general, 
ex‐post lighting demand and energy savings were verified using the following basic algorithms: 
Interior & Exterior Lighting Design 
kWh savings = (Code‐allowed kW) ‐ (Post‐Project Space kW) * Space Lighting Hours 
kW savings = kWh savings / Space Lighting Hours for interior, 0 for exterior (2014 projects) 
Where Code kW was determined from the baseline allowable wattage in COMCheck and Post‐Project 
Space kW was determined from the design wattage noted in the COMCheck report. Three sampled 
projects were subject to QA/QC site inspections prior to incentive approval by an independent 
contractor, in which energy savings from lighting design were verified via fixture counts in a written 
report. Site visits conducted as part of this evaluation effort did not include lighting fixture counts. 
Daylight Photo Controls 
kWh savings = 30% * controlled kW * operating hours 
kW savings = 0 
Occupancy sensors and exit signs were fully deemed in the TRM v.1.7 and 2014 program guidance 
document; For the 2011 projects, occupancy sensors were assumed to control 300 W and save 25% of 
energy use over a building type’s deemed lighting hours, while efficient exit sign wattage was deemed at 
3 W and 8,760 hours. 

Leidos Engineering, LLC 12 | P a g e  
Ex‐post realization for lighting at the project level varied from roughly 75% to over 100% realization, as 
shown in Table 8 below. Each project contained one or more lighting equipment types; some eligible 
equipment is defined with one unitary basis for purposes of incentive calculation, and another unitary 
basis for purposes of claiming savings. For example, daylighting controls are processed based on square 
feet of lighted area on the application, but kWh savings are calculated using lighting watts controlled.  
The Building Efficiency application form and documentation requirements do not explicitly require 
lighting watts controlled as a verifiable input. As shown in Table 4.6 below, two sample projects included 
daylighting controls.  The 2011 11006 project was subject to QA/QC site inspection prior to incentive 
approval, which confirmed controlled watts in the inspection report. The 2014 project 14143 site 
inspection report did not explicitly verify controlled watts. According to the Program Engineer, all 
daylight projects are verified by a third party inspection and confirmation of day lit area and connected 
wattage, before incentives are paid. 
Project 14147 notes on available invoices indicated that the project’s proposed exterior lighting design 
included re‐use of existing fixtures for 25% of the lighted area, and therefore savings and incentive 
should be reduced to 75% of the initial proposal, accordingly. However, the ex‐ante kWh savings 
estimate suggests that this reduction was not taken into account when recording savings in the program 
database. The ex‐post kWh estimate did take this reduction into account, hence the lower realization in 
Table 9. 
Interior lighting was a significant contributor to Building Efficiency energy savings, and the top 
contributor to sampled lighting equipment savings, demonstrated in Table 10. Project 11006, a 
warehouse and office facility, assumed 8,760 lighting hours on the application. This site was selected for 
an evaluation site visit, during which it was found to consist of two buildings: an office building and a 
nearby distribution center.  The site visit verified the distribution center hours at 6200 for 7‐day 
operations, and this was used to calculate ex‐post energy savings, resulting in lower realization of 
lighting savings for this project. 
Table 9. Lighting Measure Results 
Project 
ID 
Ex‐Ante 
kWh 
Savings 
Ex‐Post 
kWh 
Savings 
kWh
Realization 
Rate
Ex‐Ante 
kW 
Savings
Ex‐Post 
kW 
Savings
kW
Realizatio
n Rate
11006 485,070 369,724 0.762 45.30 55.46 1.224 
11174 4,651 4,652 1.000 0.50 0.53 1.062 
14019 504 504 1.000 0.06 0.06 1.080 
14024 24,392 20,633 0.846 0.55 0.55 1.000 
14031 2,562 2,562 1.000 0.61 0.61 0.998 
14103 18,570 18,570 1.000 6.12 6.12 0.999 
14125 285,889 285,887 1.000 33.72 33.72 1.000 
14143 134,968 128,514 0.952 40.70 38.63 0.949 
14147 53,761 39,712 0.739 0.00 0.00 ‐ 
9 1,010,367 870,758 0.862 128.00 136.00 1.064 

Leidos Engineering, LLC 13 | P a g e  
Table 10. Ex‐Post Realization by Lighting Equipment Type 
Equipment Type and 
Project ID 
Ex‐Ante 
kWh Total 
Ex‐Post 
Annual 
Energy 
Savings 
kWh 
Realization 
Ex‐Ante 
kW Savings 
Ex‐Post 
Annual 
Demand 
Savings 
kW 
Realization 
Daylight Photo 
Controls 
84,049 78,643 0.94 1.38 N/A N/A 
11006 78,642 78,643 1.00 0 N/A N/A 
14143 5,407 not verified 0.00 1.38 not verified 0.00 
Exterior Light Load 
Reduction 
76,021 58,213 0.77 0 0.00 N/A 
14024 22,260 18,501 0.83 0 0.00 N/A 
14147 53,761 39,712 0.74 0 0.00 N/A 
High Efficiency Exit 
Signs 
7003 7,004 1.00 0.79 0.83 1.05 
11174 4,651 4,652 1.00 0.5 0.53 1.06 
14019 504 504 1.00 0.06 0.06 1.08 
14024 84 84 1.00 0.01 0.01 1.08 
14103 336 336 1.00 0.04 0.04 0.96 
14143 1,428 1,428 1.00 0.18 0.18 1.02 
Interior Light Load 
Reduction 
784,761 664,705 0.85 113.82 112.31 0.99 
11006 396,573 281,226 0.71 45.3 45.36 1.00 
14024 2,048 2,048 1.00 0.54 0.54 1.00 
14103 18,234 18,234 1.00 6.08 6.08 1.00 
14125 277,105 277,103 1.00 31.63 31.63 1.00 
14143 90,801 86,094 0.95 30.27 28.70 0.95 
Occupancy Sensors 58,533 62,193 1.06 11.57 13.57 1.17 
11006 9,855 9,855 1.00 0 N/A N/A 
14031 2,562 2,562 1.00 0.61 0.61 1.00 
14125 8,784 8,784 1.00 2.09 2.09 1.00 
14143 37,332 40,992 1.10 8.87 9.74 1.10 
Grand Total 1,010,367 870,758 0.86 127.56 135.68 1.06 

Refrigeration 
Refrigeration measures (floating head and suction pressure controls) were fully deemed in the TRM 
v.1.7 for 2014 projects, and were verified using the TRM at 100% realization as shown in Table 11 
(negligible ex‐post kW difference is due to rounding of kW savings in the database). 
Table 11. Refrigeration Measure Results 
Project 
ID 
Ex‐Ante 
kWh 
Savings 
Ex‐Post 
kWh 
Savings 
kWh
Realization 
Rate 
Ex‐Ante 
kW 
Savings 
Ex‐Post 
kW 
Savings 
kW 
Realizatio
n Rate 
14031 83,654 83,654 1.000 5.82 5.82 0.999 
1 83,654 83,654 1.0000 6 6 0.9995 

Leidos Engineering, LLC 14 | P a g e  
4. Conclusions and Recommendations 
The results of the Building Efficiency program impact evaluation were high annual kWh and kW 
realization and 90% confidence that the results represent the Idaho Power Company program 
population results with +/‐10% precision, as shown in Table 12. 
Table 12. Building Efficiency Program Evaluation Results 
Measure Type 
kWh kW 
Ex‐Ante 
Gross 
Ex‐Post 
Gross RR 
Ex‐Ante 
Gross 
Ex‐Post 
Gross RR 
Air‐Conditioning 561,449 508,111 0.90 462.6 417.6 0.90 
Appliances w/ Electric Water 
Heating 19,273 19,398 1.01 2.1 2.1 0.96 
Building Shell 221,858 223,301 1.01 9.6 10.9 1.14 
Controls 19,482,694 19,506,635 1.00 48.3 48.8 1.01 
Lighting 2,788,153 2,402,896 0.86 488.0 519.1 1.06 
Refrigeration 158,571 158,571 1.00 11.2 11.2 1.00 
Total 23,231,998 22,818,912 0.98 1,021.8 1,009.6 0.99 
Relative Error at 90% Confidence 0.2% 4.8% 

In general, application data and measure characteristics are accurately transcribed as collected by 
program staff into the Building Efficiency database. It appears that supporting documentation are 
provided in hard copy and scanned for electronic copy during processing, but occasionally may be only 
partially available in the electronic file due to double‐sided hard copies. According to the Program 
Engineer, hard copy and electronic copy documents are stored for each project.  
For some eligible measures, data collected on the application form and/or worksheet are relevant only 
for calculating incentives and do not support calculating or verifying demand or energy saved.  For 
example, daylight photo controls and energy management controls are quantified in the program 
application by controlled square feet and control strategies, respectively. Switching daylight controls 
savings and incentive calculation inputs to watts controlled may be more convenient for both applicants 
and program management, and exploring alternative incentive and semi‐deemed savings units for 
analysis of energy management systems could also benefit the program. Additional observations and 
recommendations that arose during desk review of individual projects are summarized below: 
 Building Efficiency savings estimation guidelines provided by the Program Engineer for 2014 
preliminary application projects address ‘stacking’ interactive impacts of demand and energy 
savings for a series of measures within a given end use to account for lower usage enabled by 
the first measure, according to cost effectiveness and following an example in the TRM v.1.17. 
The TRM clarifies that the stacking effect should apply to measures simultaneously impacting a 
single system; for example, VFDs applied to one chiller system do not have an interactive impact 
on a separate chiller system. The Building Efficiency Overview Document and/or the TRM could 
both be improved by addressing the application of this rule more clearly. 
 The Building Efficiency program approved combinations of economizer, VFD, and EMS measures 
and claimed savings in two sampled projects that may double‐count impacts of these measures 
even after the stacking effect adjustments are applied. For example, TRM savings were claimed 

Leidos Engineering, LLC 15 | P a g e  
for VFDs on HVAC pumps or fans, and TRM savings for EMS control of the same VFDs were also 
claimed in the same project. Building Efficiency program management could assess whether the 
energy savings claimed for both the presence of enabling equipment and the control of that 
equipment are distinct and sufficiently adjusted with the stacking effect, or wholly 
interdependent. 
 2011 Building Efficiency preliminary projects were subject to the 2006 International Energy 
Conservation Code (IECC); 2014 preliminary projects were subject to the 2009 IECC (the 2012 
IECC became effective January 1, 2015). While prescriptive lighting and cooling minimum 
performance standards were generally applied per IECC requirements, it is not clear if other 
energy code requirements such as mandatory occupancy sensors, variable or part load fan 
motor control, hydronic pump control, or mandatory economizers included in either or both of 
these codes were considered in project approvals. It is recommend that the program 
management review eligibility requirements and program goals to determine whether these 
mandatory controls and equipment should be included or excluded from the program. 

FINAL REPORT 
Residential Energy Efficiency 
Education Initiative Best Practices 
Review 

December 28, 2016 

Prepared for: 
Idaho Power Company 

Prepared by: 

Leidos Engineering, LLC 
301 Plainfield Road, Suite 310 
Syracuse, NY 13212 
315.434.7200 

Leidos Engineering, LLC ii | P a g e  
Contents 
Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 1 
1.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 3 
1.1 Initiative Description ................................................................................................................ 3 
1.2 Energy Savings ......................................................................................................................... 3 
1.3 Overview of Evaluation Approach ........................................................................................... 3 
1.4 Goals of the Evaluation ............................................................................................................ 3 
1.5 Evaluation Methodologies ....................................................................................................... 4 
1.5.1 Initiative Documents and Materials Review ............................................................................ 5 
1.5.2 Community Educational Representative and Customer Representative Interviews .............. 7 
1.5.3 iSTEM Professional Educator Interview ................................................................................... 7 
1.5.4 External Program Manager and SME Interviews and Best Practice Review ........................... 7 
2.0 Best Practices Review Findings ................................................................................................ 8 
2.1 Recommendations from Previous Evaluations ........................................................................ 8 
2.2 Initiative Program Specialist and Key Market Actors Interviews ............................................. 8 
2.2.1 Summary of Initiative Program Specialist Interview ............................................................... 9 
2.2.2 Summary of Marketing Specialist Interview ............................................................................ 9 
2.3 Assessment of Marketing Channels ....................................................................................... 11 
2.3.1 Traditional Marketing Channels ............................................................................................ 11 
2.3.2 Non‐Traditional Internet‐Based Marketing Channels ........................................................... 12 
2.4 Non‐Energy Benefit Review ................................................................................................... 14 
2.5 Review of Existing Elements of Initiative ............................................................................... 14 
2.5.1 Customer Representatives ..................................................................................................... 15 
2.5.2 Community Education Representatives ................................................................................ 15 
2.5.3 Energy Efficiency Guides ........................................................................................................ 15 
2.5.4 ‘News Scans’ .......................................................................................................................... 16 
2.5.5 Customer Newsletter “Connections” .................................................................................... 16 
2.5.6 Monthly Bill Inserts ................................................................................................................ 16 
2.5.7 Weekly ‘Newsbriefs’ to Pitch Story Ideas to Local Media ..................................................... 16 
2.5.8 ‘Native Advertisement’ .......................................................................................................... 17 
2.5.9 ‘30 Simple Things You Can Do’ ............................................................................................... 17 

Leidos Engineering, LLC iii | P a g e  
2.5.10 ‘myAccount’ or ‘On‐Line Tool’ ............................................................................................... 18 
2.5.11 TV Live In‐Studio Energy Efficiency Segments ....................................................................... 20 
2.5.12 YouTube Postings “Voices of Customers” ............................................................................. 20 
2.5.13 Smart Saver Pledge with Prizes .............................................................................................. 20 
2.5.14 In‐Person Event Presentations............................................................................................... 21 
2.5.15 Liaison with Corp Communications on Energy Efficiency Campaigns & Other Media Needs22 
2.5.16 Giveaways with Strong Energy Efficiency Messaging ............................................................ 22 
2.5.17 Kill‐A‐Watt Meter Lending Program ...................................................................................... 22 
2.5.18 Educational Distributions ....................................................................................................... 22 
2.5.19 Sponsorship of Sustainable Energy and Sustainable Homes ................................................. 23 
2.5.20 Student Energy Efficiency Kit (SEEK) Program in Partnership w/Community Education Reps.
 23 
2.5.21 ‘The Power to Make a Difference’ Presentation ................................................................... 24 
2.5.22 Energy‐Related Workshops at State Sponsored STEM Institutes .......................................... 24 
2.5.23 Monitoring New Technologies or Programs to Educate Customers ..................................... 25 
2.6 Other Customer Engagement Strategies ............................................................................... 25 
2.7 Best Practice Review .............................................................................................................. 27 
2.7.1 External Program Manager Best Practices Interviews ........................................................... 28 
3.0 Recommendations and Conclusion ....................................................................................... 32 
Recommendations .................................................................................................................................. 32 
Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................... 33 
APPENDIX A ‐ Annotated Bibliography ......................................................................................................... 1 
STEMazing Professional Educator Interview Guide .................................................................................... 13 
iSTEM & Idaho Power ‐ Energy for the Future Citizens Strand Workshop Schedule .................................. 18 
iSTEM Idaho Power Energy for the Future Citizens Strand Kit ................................................................... 22 
Idaho Power Residential REEEI Manager and Marketing Specialist Interview Guide ................................ 25 
Idaho Power Customer Rep and Community Education Rep Interview Guide .......................................... 27 
External Program Manager and Subject Matter Expert (SME) Interview Guide ........................................ 32 

Leidos Engineering, LLC iv | P a g e  
Table 1. Idaho Power Residential Energy Efficiency Education Initiative (REEEI) Documents and Activities
 ...................................................................................................................................................................... 6 
Table 2. Disposition of contacts with subject matter experts and external program managers ................. 8 
Table 3. Idaho Power "Tip Tuesday" posting on Facebook in Twitter (from January 2015 through July 
2016) ........................................................................................................................................................... 10 
Table 4. Idaho Power Social Media Posting (via Ads or Boosts) for behavioral change and promotion of 
energy efficiency programs......................................................................................................................... 10 
Table 5. Usefulness of Traditional Marketing Channel ‐ to Reach and Educate Residential Customers .... 11 
Table 6. Usefulness and Effectiveness of Internet Age Marketing Channel ‐ to Reach and Educate 
Residential Customers ................................................................................................................................ 13 
Table 7. Importance level of non‐energy benefits as motivational drivers among residential customers 14 
Table 8. Idaho Power Outreach activities recorded in the Outreach Tracker (2912‐2016) ....................... 21 
Table 9. Metering and Home Report ‐ Customer Engagement Strategy .................................................... 25 
Table 10. Other Customer Engagement Strategies .................................................................................... 26 
Table 11. HEA Reported Energy Savings from Alameda County, CA and Several Other Similar Programs 29 

Figure 1. Idaho Power daily website customer traffic volume to ‘myAccount’ over time ......................... 19 
Figure 2. Idaho Power customer new account registrations per month 2010‐early 2016 ......................... 19 

Leidos Engineering, LLC 1 | P a g e  
Executive Summary 
The goals of Idaho Power Company’s (IPC’s) Residential Energy Efficiency Educational Initiative (REEEI) 
are to 1) promote and inform customers about all IPC programs and 2) deliver energy efficiency 
information to customers.  The REEEI is comprised of 23 different activities, efforts and elements that 
educate, inform and persuade residential electric customers to install energy efficient measures and 
take other actions that conserve energy.  The initiative both investigates and engages in various 
behavioral change strategies.   
IPC has a comprehensive presence on both traditional and social media channels.  The 23 Initiative 
elements reach over 415,000 IPC electricity customers in a variety of ways:  ranging from; 1) in‐person 
contacts and presentations, courtesy of five community educational and approximately twenty 
customer representatives in the field daily; to 2) newsletters, guides, mailers, conventional 
broadcasting, social media; and 3) gamification reward systems, sponsorships, educational materials and 
training.  Specifically; 
1) Customer Representatives 
2) Community Educational Representatives   
3) Energy Efficiency Guides 
4) ‘News Scans’ 
5) Customer newsletter ‘Connections’ 
6) Monthly bill inserts 
7) Weekly ‘Newsbriefs’ to pitch story ideas to local media 
8) ‘Native Advertisement’ 
9) ‘30 Simple Things You Can Do’ 
10) ‘myAccount’ or ‘On‐Line Tool’ 
11) TV live in‐studio EE segments and Integrated campaign 
12) YouTube Postings ‘Voices of Customers’ 
13) Smart Saver Pledge with prizes 
14) In‐person Event presentations 
15) Liaison with Corp Communications on energy efficiency campaigns and other media needs 
16) Giveaways with strong EE messaging, 
17) Kill‐A‐Watt meter lending program 
18) Educational distributions 
19) Sponsorship of Sustainable Energy and Sustainable Homes 
20) Student Energy Efficiency Kit (SEEK) Program in partnership with Community Education Reps. 
21) ‘The Power to Make a Difference’ presentation 
22) Energy‐related workshops at state‐sponsored STEM Institutes 
23) Monitoring new technologies or programs to educate customers  
IPC staff and initiative efforts indicate a strong focus on driving customers to use the ‘myAccount’ on‐
line portal located on the IPC website, where customers check on energy use via near real‐time smart‐
meters, billing and account information with links to tools, rebates and other resources that aid in 
understanding their homes energy use and reduction strategies.  Daily customer logins to ‘myAccount’ 

Leidos Engineering, LLC 2 | P a g e  
have steadily increased over the last 4.5 years, from 2,000 in mid‐2012, to about 5,000 in late‐2016.  
Moreover, the number of ‘myAccount’ registrations per month is also increasing, from 2,000‐4,000 
accounts per month in 2010‐2011 up to 3,000‐5,000 per month more recently. 
IPC is marketing energy conservation by linking it to home improvement, money savings, comfort and 
other non‐energy benefits to capture interest in energy efficiency and move it to top‐of‐mind.  External 
program managers, subject‐matter experts and Idaho Power staff rated their customers’ non‐energy 
motivational drivers on a 10‐point scale.  “Saving money” was rated highest (9.4), followed by improved 
comfort (9.1), health & safety (7.6) and being/feeling “green” and reducing environmental impacts (7.3). 
External program managers, subject‐matter experts and Idaho Power staff rated marketing channels 
that involve person‐to‐person interaction and active learning environments higher than more passive, 
informal channels, to reach and educate customers.  On a 10‐point scale, situations where strong in‐
group social identity exists were rated most effective/useful (8.0), followed by online customer utility 
accounts (7.7) universities and college settings (7.6), public or community events, online energy 
dashboards and smart or real‐time meters (all‐7.3). 
Estimating conservatively, Idaho Power staff conducted over 590 in‐person (or webinar) outreach 
activities, training sessions and events recorded in the Outreach Tracker database (from early 2012 to 
mid‐2016) with an average attendance of 8091 people per event. 
The Student Energy Efficiency Kit (SEEK) and ‘The Power to Make a Difference’ (presented by IPC staff 
124 times to 3,359 students in 2015) are also features of the Initiative.  Both received numerous positive 
comments from customers and build strong customer‐utility relations.  Field staff reported, “The 
children always express that they tried everything included [in the kits] with their parents or family 
members.  The adults express that they are happy to have the free materials especially the light bulbs 
and showerheads…teachers cannot thank us enough for this program!”  Eighteen high school teachers 
participated in a 3‐day professional development seminar (facilitated by iSTEM) 2, that empowered 
teachers with information and classroom tools to teach students to think critically about energy, 
including; the science of energy, energy generation and sources, wise energy use and social impacts.   
A literature review of best‐practice energy education programs indicated that there are four basic types 
of behavioral change programs and strategies: informational programs, socially interactive approaches, 
education and training (E&T) and a stacked approach.3  The four types of behavioral change strategies 
are well represented in the breadth of IPC REEEI initiative elements described in this report.   

1 Attendance at some fairs, expos, shows and other events exceeded 10,000 per event. 
2 The iSTEM facilitators (from the STEMazing Program) held the professional development seminar for teachers on 
energy‐efficiency education. The teachers, in turn, implemented curriculum on energy conservation for their K‐12 
students.  More info is available at:  http://www.stemazing.org/  and  http://istemtucson.weebly.com/ 
3 The ‘stacked approach’ combines multiple programs or strategies from the other three types into a single 
campaign.   

Leidos Engineering, LLC 3 | P a g e  
1.0 Introduction 
This introduction provides a brief description of the program and provides an overview of the evaluation 
approach.  This report presents findings from an evaluation of the Residential Energy Efficiency 
Educational Initiative (REEEI) offered by Idaho Power Company (Idaho Power) targeting the residential 
sector.  The evaluation is organized accordingly with the following sections:  
 Executive Summary 
 Introduction 
 Evaluation Methods 
 Evaluation Findings 
 Conclusions and Recommendations 
 Appendix A ‐ annotated bibliography of secondary literature reviewed 
 Appendix B – Educational/Instructional Materials 
 Appendix C – Data Collection Instruments 
1.1 Initiative Description 
The Residential Energy Efficiency Education Initiative promotes energy and water efficiency in the 
residential sector by creating and delivering educational materials and initiatives that inform customers 
on efficient choices regarding consumption and increase customer awareness of Idaho Power’s energy 
efficiency programs, helping to increase participation.  For example, Idaho Power distributes and 
promotes energy saving guides via inserts in local newspapers (e.g., 16 newspapers and 237,144 homes 
the week of July 19, 2015), social media sites, TV, community events and radio across Idaho Power’s 
service territory.  In addition, school, workplace, and community organizations and events are targeted 
by the initiative.  The initiative is investigating and engaged in behavioral change strategies. 
1.2 Energy Savings 
Though some energy‐saving measures (e.g. clothes drying racks) were distributed to customers via the 
initiative, no energy savings are reported or claimed under the initiative itself.  Instead, savings from 
these measures is claimed under other Idaho Power programs. 
1.3 Overview of Evaluation Approach 
A kick‐off meeting was held to review the proposed evaluation approach, to provide the evaluation 
team more background on the program and ensure that the program evaluation team and the program 
staff agreed on the evaluation objectives and approach.  Following the kick‐off meeting, a final work 
plan was developed and submitted to Idaho Power for approval before subsequent evaluation work 
began. 
1.4 Goals of the Evaluation 
Energy conservation is bottom‐of‐mind for most customers.  Idaho Power is marketing energy 
conservation by linking it to home improvement, saving money, comfort and other non‐energy benefits 
to capture interest in energy efficiency and move it to top‐of‐mind.  The best practices review will assess 

Leidos Engineering, LLC 4 | P a g e  
current initiative activities and provide actionable recommendations based on an assessment of the 
information gathered. 
The key objectives of the best practices review include:  
 Internal REEEI research questions 
› Evaluate initiative design including mission, logic, and use of industry best practices  
› Evaluate REEEI implementation including quality control, operational practice, 
organizational structure, and outreach  
› Evaluate REEEI administration including program oversight, staffing, management, training, 
documentation, and reporting  
› Evaluate customer participation, barriers, marketing and satisfaction 
› Evaluate future planned initiative activities and relate to external best practices 
› Evaluate which Idaho Power area events and media channels are best suited for residential 
energy educational outreach 
› Evaluate what the overall research suggests for Idaho Power’s Energy Efficiency Integrated 
Campaign 
› Report findings and observations and make recommendations to enhance program 
effectiveness   
 External best practice research questions 
› Evaluate what other utilities are doing with energy behavioral programs and novelties  
› Evaluate measures and behavioral change strategies that other utilities emphasize  
› Evaluate what kind and quantity of resources are other utilities putting toward residential 
energy efficiency education 
› Evaluate how other utilities are driving customers to use their on‐line accounts and portals 
› Evaluate marketing channels (both traditional & social) and customer targeting strategies  
› Evaluate customer satisfaction with energy education at other utilities 
1.5 Evaluation Methodologies 
The evaluation methodologies utilized for the best practices review are listed below.  Discussion 
regarding each of these methodologies is presented in the appropriate sections below. 
Best Practices Review 
 REEEI documents and materials review (educational, marketing and website portal) 
 Review previous evaluations 
 Program Specialist and Educational Marketing Specialist interviews 
 Customer Educational Representative and Customer Representative interviews 
 iSTEM professional educator interview 
 External program manager and Subject Matter Expert (SME) interviews and best practice review 
 Literature and best practices review  

Leidos Engineering, LLC 5 | P a g e  
1.5.1  Initiative Documents and Materials Review 
A thorough review of Idaho Power’s literature was conducted (i.e. website, event tracker, and hard copy 
materials related to energy efficiency awareness and the educational collaborative).  This included a 
review of all marketing and outreach materials that aren’t program‐specific and include the 21 items 
described in Table 1 below. 
The Leidos Team reviewed initiative documents, including all marketing and educational materials, and 
tracking databases (e.g. Outreach Tracker and Portal). Documents and databases were examined for 
content, structure, completeness, quality, compatibility, and accuracy. 
A review of past Idaho Power residential energy efficiency education evaluation studies and other Idaho 
Power program evaluations, along with relevant external evaluation literature, preceded the execution 
of other best practices review tasks.  The purpose of document reviews was to understand the REEEI 
theory, impetus, objectives, design, logic, process flow, delivery, planning, marketing, and collateral.  
Understanding gleaned from the document review informed other evaluation activities. 
The Leidos Team discussed the use and impacts of initiative documents and materials with Customer 
Representatives and Community Education Representatives, the results of which were used to inform 
other tasks of this evaluation and summarized and incorporated into this report.  In addition, the Idaho 
Power Outreach Tracker (containing information about 93 outreach activities) was reviewed. 
Suggestions for how to best leverage and strengthen this tool are included in the recommendations 
section of this report.  Table 1 lists and describes the function of 21 reviewed documents and activities.  

Leidos Engineering, LLC 6 | P a g e  
Table 1. Idaho Power Residential Energy Efficiency Education Initiative (REEEI) Documents and Activities  

leidos
Table 1.Idaho Power Residential Energy Efficiency Education Initiative (REEEI)Documents and Activities
IPC Document orActivity Description
semi -annual guides intended for broad-based distribution (i.e.newspapers,
handouts)Energy Efficiency Guides
internal weekly newsletter distributed to Idaho Powerstaff that promotes
programs,customer engagementstrategies,new events and campaigns
monthly and topical energy-efficiency focused newsletterwith articles that
accompanies customer bills
"bill stuffer~as are added to customer monthly utility bills
stories written about energy efficiency and Idaho Power programs that
mimic the look of a media press release
stories posted on the media outlets'website as paid advertisement
96-page booklet describes 30 no-cost and low-cost energy efficient
measures,alongwith some more involved energy saving actions
customers log on to Idaho Power website to check energy use,billing and
account information,and see links to information,tools,rebates and other
resources
filmed monthly at local TV stations -included forairing in local newscasts
and purchases of 30-second TV ads to push energy efficient actions
customer participants are videoed sharing how they save energy for posting
on Idaho Powerwebsite
customers pledge to habituate an energy-saving behavior in exchange for
prizes
in-person (orwebinar)outreach activities,training sessions and events
managers and marketing specialists collaborate with Customer Reps and
Community Education Reps on content for energy efficiency awareness
deepen customer engagement by combining energy efficientequipment
giveaways with messaging
public libraries make watt-meters available for check out
elements of initiative distribute ed.materials
Community Education Rep puts on a series about sustainable energy and
homes in conjunction with US Green Bui Iding Council
News Scans
Customer newsletter
Monthly bill inserts
Weekly 'Newsbriefs'
Native Advertisement
'30 Simpl e Thi ngs You Can Do1
myAccountorOn-Ltne Tool
TV live in-studio energy efficiency
segments
YouTube postings "Voices of Customers"
Smart Saver Pledge
In-person event presentations
Corporate Communications Uaison
Giveaways with energy efficiency
messaging,
Kil l-A-Watt meter lending program
Educational distributions
Sponsorship of Sustainable Energy and
Sustainable Homes
Student Energy Efficiency Kit (SEEK)
Program in partnership with Community
Education Reps.
kit includes hands-on in-ciassroom learning and take-home energy
efficiency measures for installation
The Power to Make A Difference
presentati on
Energy-related workshops at state-
sponsored STEM Institutes
Monitoring new technologies or programs
to educate customers
extensive presentation forstudents and teachers that includes;examples,
demonstrations,comparisons and take home/classroom materials
high school teachers participated in a 3-day professional development
seminar
corporate office monitors new technologiesand programsfor possible
inclusion
6 |PageLeidosEngineering,LLC

Leidos Engineering, LLC 7 | P a g e  
Interview respondents (both internal IPC staff and external market actors) were asked questions on 
energy efficiency efforts, programs, awareness, attitudes, behaviors, use of media and communications 
channels, satisfaction with Idaho Power, and firmographics.  Data collected from interviews and surveys 
was cleaned, coded, and categorized in preparation for statistical analysis. 
1.5.2  Community Educational Representative and Customer Representative Interviews 
The Leidos Team performed in‐depth interviews with 4 field staff (Community Educational 
Representatives and Customer Representatives) to glean wisdom from their experiences in the field.  
The respondents were asked about the initiative’s plethora of activities, including; how activities are 
administrated, citizen presentations “The Power to Make a Difference”, student education 
presentations, the annual student art contest, and Student Energy Efficiency Kit (SEEK) Program. 
1.5.3  iSTEM Professional Educator Interview 
In 2015, 18 secondary level teachers completed a professional development seminar via an energy 
education partnership.  The Leidos Team contacted the professional educators who put on this seminar 
for teachers.  An interview was conducted and curriculum and classroom materials were obtained and 
reviewed.  The STEMazing4 manager shared experiences and insights from the seminar and how it 
impacted teachers, the curriculum, classroom tools and their students.   
1.5.4  External Program Manager and SME Interviews and Best Practice Review 
From the literature review, residential energy education programs with a strong behavioral component 
were targeted for in‐depth interviews (IDIs) of program staff to further investigate best practices and to 
discover up‐to‐date experiences from programs external to Idaho Power.  The in‐depth interviews were 
conducted with subject matter experts (SMEs) from energy program evaluation, design and 
implementation consulting and directly with utility program managers, who possess key insights and 
cutting‐edge knowledge on the most successful and innovative residential energy efficiency educational 
initiatives and programs.   The results of the IDIs are individually detailed and summarized below. 
In total, 44 contact attempts were made via phone and e‐mail with 15 utilities and other organizations 
involved in managing and evaluating residential energy behavioral programs.  Five interviews with 
subject matter experts and utility program managers outside of Idaho were successfully completed. 

4 The iSTEM facilitators (from the STEMazing Program) held the professional development seminar for teachers on 
energy‐efficiency education. The teachers, in turn, implemented curriculum on energy conservation for their K‐12 
students.  More info is available at:  http://www.stemazing.org/  and  http://istemtucson.weebly.com/ 

Leidos Engineering, LLC 8 | P a g e  
Table 2. Disposition of contacts with subject matter experts and external program managers 

2.0 Best Practices Review Findings 
This section presents the findings from the evaluation in the following order: 
 Recommendations from Previous Evaluations 
 Initiative Manager and Key Market Actors Interviews 
 Assessment of Marketing Channels 
 Non‐Energy Benefit Review 
 Review of Existing Elements of Initiative 
 Other Customer Engagement Strategies 
 Best practice review 
2.1 Recommendations from Previous Evaluations 
According to the Program Specialist of the Residential Energy Efficiency Education Initiative, a previous 
evaluation recommended that Idaho Power begin tracking contact information for every customer 
touched via outreach and education efforts, but this is not feasible or possible. 
2.2 Initiative Program Specialist and Key Market Actors Interviews 
Researchable questions were addressed via in‐depth interviews with Idaho Power’s Initiative Specialist 
and Residential Marketing Specialist, the most active Customer Representatives, and regional Customer 
Educational Representatives, the professional educator with the STEMazing/SEED project (who 
implemented a three‐day professional development seminar for 18 high school teachers) and 5 external 
residential education program managers and subject matter experts.  Findings from the Customer 
Representatives, Community Educational Representatives, and STEMazing educator are included in a 
later section on existing initiative activities.   
Interviews with the Initiative Program Specialist included an initial interview to get an overview of 
program operations and an orientation to program activities, followed by ongoing communications and 
coordination of evaluation activities.  The interview conducted with the staff specialist responsible for 
providing educational marketing services for residential programs included discussions on all initiative 
elements, marketing channels and their extent and effectiveness.   
Contact Disposition
Number of 
organizations
Interviewed successfully 5
Request not yet answered 5
Confidentiality issues 1
No program to discuss 1
Provided database of programs 1
Referred to other organization 1
Waiting for data 1

Leidos Engineering, LLC 9 | P a g e  
2.2.1  Summary of Initiative Program Specialist Interview 
The contents of various Idaho Power program marketing materials often include energy educational 
information.  The student energy education and kit activity claimed some energy savings under a 
different program, but not under the REEEI.  The Kill‐a‐Watt meter lending program available through 
library system is in maintenance mode and does not claim any savings.  The Residential Education 
Initiative manager advises libraries before major educational efforts, so libraries are not surprised when 
there is a surge in demand for watt meters. 
Outreach activities are tracked in the Idaho Power Outreach Tracker and all Idaho Power energy 
program staff record outreach activities in the tracker along with many staff from other departments.  
The Outreach Tracker includes categorizing fields to distinguish residential from commercial training, 
activities and presentations.  Some other outreach activities are tracked via an Outreach Portal.  The 
REEEI Program Specialist reports the number of outreach activities in both the Outreach Tracker and 
Outreach Portal monthly for the Demand Side Management report.  Customer Representatives record 
the name of the event, location, date, how event was promoted and the number of people in 
attendance. 
The goals of the educational initiative are to 1) promote and inform customers about all Idaho Power 
programs and 2) deliver energy efficiency information to customers.  Idaho Power programs and 
educational efforts also encourage water savings as it relates to energy savings, such as when a 
customer has an electric water heater.   
The High‐Energy Use Targeting Program reportedly utilized billing data and ended up finding mostly all‐
electric homes in rural areas.  When a time‐of‐use pilot was launched, it targeted customers with 2,000‐
plus kWh of monthly electric usage at certain times of the year.  Idaho Power does not offer on‐bill 
financing for energy efficiency upgrades. 
2.2.2  Summary of Marketing Specialist Interview 
Idaho Power has a comprehensive presence on both traditional and social media channels.  The 
Marketing Specialist indicated that Idaho Power is heavily involved with social media marketing, with 
increased use of video and infographics as marketing strategies.  Instagram is a channel that Idaho 
Power is attempting to utilize, but has experienced some challenges with photos and imagery working 
well on that medium. 
Idaho Power webpage links to Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and LinkedIn (where customers come to 
Idaho Power via likes and my network invites).  On social media, such as Facebook and Twitter, Idaho 
Power releases "Tip Tuesday" for energy savings every Tuesday.  Facebook ads are purchased and micro‐
targeted to people who already like Idaho Power website and/or who are located within the service 
territory, indicate relevant interests and certain economic characteristics.  Idaho Power made 84 posts 
on Facebook and Twitter for “Tips Tuesday” between January 2015 and July 2016, reaching 81,560 
people and achieving a 2.7 percent engagement rate5 (See Table 3 below). 

5 Engagement Rate ‐ Engagement rate is a popular social media metric used to describe the amount of interaction ‐
‐ likes, shares, comments ‐‐ a piece of content receives 

Leidos Engineering, LLC 10 | P a g e  
Table 3. Idaho Power "Tip Tuesday" posting on Facebook in Twitter (from January 2015 through July 2016)  

buys.  
Table 4 below displays some recent Idaho Power’s social media ad post and boosts.  The effort so far has 
resulted in 17,301 engagements or web clicks, with a reach of 390,715 and 3,676,032 impressions.6  
Idaho Power marketing and program staff monitors the cost and relevance of these marketing ads to 
inform future ad buys.  
Table 4. Idaho Power Social Media Posting (via Ads or Boosts) for behavioral change and promotion of energy 
efficiency programs 

Idaho Power utilized ‘Next Door’ neighborhood websites to market clothes‐drying rack give‐away events 
via free postings.  The event received high levels of attention and filled up quickly with customers.  Idaho 
Power puts out Pandora radio ads and regular radio ads. 
Tie‐ins to customer online accounts, called ‘myAccount,’ are included in most marketing.  Usage of 
‘myAccount’ is growing and Idaho Power actively (via a variety and program and marketing efforts) 
desires to boost future usage significantly.  

Idaho Power is looking to team with other groups, such as municipalities, for behavioral change that 
could take the form of neighborhood blitzes and focus on specific geographic regions or a utility‐
sponsored university competition, with other universities or within a single university.  The approach 
could leverage existing and strong in‐group vs. out‐group social identities for friendly competitions to 
save energy. 

6 Impressions ‐ An impression refers to a way in which marketers and advertisers keep track of every time ad is 
"fetched" and counted. 
Number of 
Posts Social Medium
People 
Reached
Likes/Comments / 
Shares/Engagements Post Clicks Engagement Rate
84 Posts Facebook and Twitter 81,560 933 1,366 2.7%
Beginning Date Program Ad / Boost
 Post Engagements (Boost) or
Website Clicks (ad)   Reach   Impressions 
Cost Per 
Engagement
 Relevance (1‐10)
Higher is Better Total Spent
10/30/2015 See Ya Later, Refrigerator Boost 599 26,300 41,246 $0.50 DK $300.00
11/9/2015 Home Energy Audit Boost 619 12,872 40,971 $0.81 DK $499.91
1/14/2016 Drying Rack ‐ Boise Ad 514 6,083 6,158 $0.09 9 $47.83
2/16/2016 Energy House Calls Ad 707 43,044 241,031 $1.41 2 $999.28
3/7/2016 Residential EE Campaign Ad 11,399 244,330 3,238,288 $0.88 2 and 3 $9,999.93
3/21/2016 Drying Racks ‐ Salmon Boost 383 1,528 9,433 $0.80 5 $305.97
4/15/2016 Drying Racks ‐ Pocatello Boost 1,337 10,520 20,102 $0.15 9 $197.06
5/5/2016 Home Energy Audit ‐ Idaho Boost 1,743 46,038 78,803 $0.57 4 $1,000.00
Totals or Mean 17,301 390,715 3,676,032 $0.77 $13,349.98

Leidos Engineering, LLC 11 | P a g e  
2.3 Assessment of Marketing Channels 
2.3.1  Traditional Marketing Channels 
External program managers, SMEs and Idaho Power’s  Customer Representatives and Community 
Educational Representatives were asked to rate the usefulness of traditional marketing channels – to 
reach and educate residential customers about energy conservation. Generally, channels that involve 
person‐to‐person human interaction and active learning environments were considered best.  Both 
internal Idaho Power staff and external program managers and SME’s (located outside of Idaho) were 
asked to rate the “usefulness of reaching and effectiveness of educating” customers through various 
marketing channels and customer segments on a 1‐10 scale (where 1 is poor and 10 is excellent).  
General situations where strong in‐group social identity exists (e.g. clubs) were rated highest, averaging 
8.0.  Next highest were universities and colleges (7.6), public or community events (7.3), neighborhood 
associations (6.9), K‐12 schools (6.8) and government (6.8). 
Marketing channels that lacked direct person‐to‐person interactions and that are received in more 
passive informal settings and where people are not expecting to learn, were rated lowest for their 
usefulness/effectiveness.  Also at the bottom of the list, utility newsletters (5.0), news briefs/press 
releases (5.0), live entertainment (5.5) and celebrity endorsements (5.8).  Interestingly though, some 
passive channels rated better.  Native advertisement and reporter written stories, TV, radio and print 
media all received an average rating of 6.6, significantly higher, yet quite similar in nature to utility 
newsletters and news briefs/press releases.  Perhaps there is a greater perception of newsworthiness, 
originality, authenticity, or simply the actual sensor potency of one channel over another. 
Table 5. Usefulness of Traditional Marketing Channel ‐ to Reach and Educate Residential Customers 

Traditional Marketing Channel
External 
Program 
Managers and 
SMEs
Idaho Power Customer 
Reps & Community 
Educational Reps All Respondents n
Situations where Strong In‐group Social 
Identity exists 7.7 9.8.
Universities & Colleges 7.3 8.7.6 5
Public or Community Events 7.7.7.3 7
Neighborhood Assoc 6.8 7.6.9 7
K‐12 Schools 6.5 7.5 6.8 6
Local or Municipal Government 6.5 7.5 6.8 6
Native Adertisement & Reporter 
Written Stories 6.8.6.6 7
TV, Radio & Print Media 6.2 7.5 6.6 7
Topically focused Energy Guide mailers 6.6.6.3 7
Competitions with Prizes 5.6 7.6.7
Gamification Reward Systems 5.9.6.6
Institutional or Business Sponsors 5.7.5 6.7
Celebrity Endoresments 6.5.5.8 6
Sports Music Live Entertainment 5.8 4.5.5 6
News Briefs & Press Releases 4.2 7.5.7
Utility Customer Newsletter 5.2 4.5 5.7

Leidos Engineering, LLC 12 | P a g e  
One respondent commented that TV, Radio and print media efforts are more potent because of the 
known and trusted utility brand.  Another commented that broadcast markets don’t always align well 
with a utilities service territory.   
One respondent noted that bill inserts would be more effective if there was a way to target stuffer 
content to specific programs and energy end‐uses that customers are looking for a (e.g. appliance 
replacement, new furnace).  This respondent stated that utility newsletters are more likely to be read by 
rural and coop customers than city dwellers.  Also, that news‐briefs and press releases often get lost in 
the broader media noise.  However, the same respondent said that native advertisement and reporter 
written stories appear credible and are often viewed as more reliable sources than utility press releases.   
This individual also said that live entertainment events and third party sponsorships work well if done in 
conjunction with marketing a contest to push program participation.  Another respondent suggested 
that co‐branding between the utility and businesses or institutions is effective. 
One respondent compared K‐12 student energy kits to the successful approach taken several decades 
ago to habituate refuse recycling at home and said that neighborhood associations are a good place to 
socially normalize conservation behaviors.  Another respondent said to expend marketing resources 
only toward associations that are active.  Public events specifically mentioned for marketing were the 
Idaho State Fair and the 4‐day long Canyon County Home and Garden Show.  Two respondents 
suggested environmental groups as being a very effective and self‐motivated marketing channel, and 
even for voluntary delivery and installation of energy efficient measures. 
2.3.2  Non‐Traditional Internet‐Based Marketing Channels 
External program managers, SMEs and Idaho Power’s Customer Representatives and Community 
Educational Representatives were asked to rate the usefulness of reaching and effectiveness in 
educating customers about energy efficiency via non‐traditional internet‐based marketing channels and 
program types.   Aside from one respondent who rated the usefulness/effectiveness of technology‐
enabled human‐interfaced energy‐use feedback mechanisms a perfect “10”, online customer utility 
accounts were rated highest, averaging 7.7 on a 10‐point scale.  Next as most useful/effective was 
online energy dashboards7 (often included on utility websites) and smart or real‐time meters (both 7.3).  
E‐mails (7.0), blogs (6.8) and Facebook (6.6) were next in importance.   
Aside from one respondent who rated free private social networks a 2.0, meet‐ups or crowd‐sources 
was rated lowest (4.5), followed by neighborhood networks like Next Door (4.7), Twitter and LinkedIn 
(4.8) and Instagram (5.0). Opt‐in online groups such as Yahoo and Google (5.5) and texting (5.7) fared 
slightly better. 

7 “Online Energy Dashboards” are a subset of “Technology‐enabled human‐interfaced energy‐use Feedback 
Mechanisms” 

Leidos Engineering, LLC 13 | P a g e  
Table 6. Usefulness and Effectiveness of Internet Age Marketing Channel ‐ to Reach and Educate Residential 
Customers 

One respondent suggested the Reddit8 Blog as a marketing channel.  This individual also said utility On‐
line accounts (e.g. ‘myAccount’) and energy dashboards only work well if all utility portals are together 
in one place for the customer using the site.  This means having the billing system, information system, 
dashboard and energy use system all interfaced on a single personalized webpage for the customer.  In 
other words, a modern customer‐oriented website, not the legacy utility approach to web design. 
Two respondents mentioned weather phone apps such as Apogee,9 where customer sets usage level 
that triggers an alert from utility, as a marketing channel.  The alerts can be set up to give alert when 
electric usage trajectory is high early in the month.  A third respondent said Apogee is poor because “it's 
designed by insiders who don't understand energy use or the purpose of utility programs.”  Instead, this 
individual suggested NEST10 thermostats as a most effective way to elicit energy conservation behavior, 
rating NEST a 10. 

8 Reddit ‐ is a social news site that contains specific, topic‐oriented communities of users who share and comment 
on stories 
9 Apogee is an online energy dashboard accessible via mobile phone application, and allows for the setting of 
alerts.   
10 NEST is a brand of smart thermostat, which can be used as a tool to build behavioral programs around.   
Non‐Traditional Internet‐Based 
Marketing Channel
External 
Program 
Managers and 
SMEs
Idaho Power Customer 
Reps & Community 
Education Reps All Respondents n
Technology‐enabled Human‐interfaced 
Energy Use Feedback Mechanisms 10.0 10.0 1
Online Customer Utility Accounts 7.6 8.0 7.7 7
Online Energy Dashboards 7.3 7.5 7.3 6
Smart or Real‐time Meters 6.8 8.5 7.3 6
E‐mails 7.2 6.5 7.0 7
Blogs 7.0 6.5 6.8 6
Facebook 5.8 8.5 6.6 7
Enegy Pledges for Beahvior Change with 
Follow‐up Accountability 5.5 7.5 6.2 6
Text Messages 4.3 8.5 5.7 6
Opt‐in online groups such as Yahoo or 
Google 4.8 7.0 5.5 6
Instagram, Photos and Imagry 3.5 8.0 5.0 6
LinkedIn 4.3 6.0 4.8 6
Twitte 4.0 6.5 4.8 6
Next Door, Neighborhood Network 4.0 6.0 4.7 3
Meet‐Ups or Crowd Sourcing 1.5 7.5 4.5
Other Free Private Social Netowrks 2.0 2.0 1

Leidos Engineering, LLC 14 | P a g e  
2.4 Non‐Energy Benefit Review 
Idaho Power program marketing materials often include mention of non‐energy benefits (such as 
improved comfort and financial savings) that occur in associated with energy efficiency.  As part of the 
best practices review; Idaho Power’s Customer Representatives, Community Educational 
Representatives, external program managers and SMEs were asked to rate the value (1‐10 scale) of 
various non‐energy benefits as motivational drivers to save energy from the customer perspective.  
Saving money (9.4) tops the list of non‐energy motivators and is followed by improved comfort (9.1), 
health and safety (7.6), being/feeling “green” and reduced environmental impacts (both 7.3).  
Convenience and time saving along with home improvement were rated 7.1 in terms of importance to 
motivate energy conservation actions and behaviors.  Both economic prosperity (6.0) and national 
security (5.5) were viewed least important or perhaps simply least relevant and somewhat contextually 
abstract. 
Table 7. Importance level of non‐energy benefits as motivational drivers among residential customers 

2.5 Review of Existing Elements of Initiative 
The REEEI produces the following materials and provides marketing services for the following initiative 
elements.  The first two elements described are the Customer Representative and Community 
Educational Representatives.  These two groups of Idaho Power staff were also interviewed about the 
other 21 elements of the REEEI and related programs.  The information gleaned from those interviews is 
included in the discussion of each element which include: 
 Customer Representatives 
 Community Educational Representatives.   
 Energy Efficiency Guides 
 “News Scans” 
 Customer newsletter “Connections” 
 Monthly bill inserts 
 Weekly “Newsbriefs” to pitch story ideas to local media 
 “Native Advertisement” 
 “30 Simple Things You Can Do” 
 ‘‘myAccount’’ or “On‐Line Tool” 
Non‐energy Benefits as Motivational 
Drivers to Conserve Energy
External 
Program 
Managers and 
SMEs
Idaho Power Customer 
Reps & Community 
Education Reps All Respondents n
Saving Money 9.6 9.9.7
Improved Comfort 9.2 9.9.1 7
Health & Safety 7.9.7.6 7
Being/Feeling "Green" 7.7.7.3 7
Reduced Environmental Impacts 7.7.7.3 7
Convenience & Time Savings 7.7.5 7.1 7
Home Improvement 7.7.5 7.1 7
Economic Prosperity 5.5 7.6.6
National Security 4.8 7.5.5 6

Leidos Engineering, LLC 15 | P a g e  
 TV live in‐studio EE segments and Integrated campaign 
 YouTube Postings “Voices of Customers” 
 Smart Saver Pledge with prizes 
 In‐person Event presentations 
 Liaison with Corp Communications on energy efficiency campaigns and other media needs 
 Giveaways with strong EE messaging, 
 Kill‐A‐Watt meter lending program 
 Educational distributions 
 Sponsorship of Sustainable Energy and Sustainable Homes 
 Student Energy Efficiency Kit (SEEK) Program in partnership with Community Education Reps. 
 “The Power to Make a Difference” presentation 
 Energy‐related workshops at state‐sponsored STEM Institutes 
 Monitoring new technologies or programs to educate customers  
2.5.1  Customer Representatives  
Customer Representatives are assigned to regions within the Idaho Power service territory.  There are 6‐
7 Customer Representatives in the Boise area, and 15‐20 total in 5 different Idaho Power regions.   
Customer Representatives handle all customer relations issues—a portion of which is dealing with high 
bills and the marketing of DSM programs. They interact with community groups and frequently get 
called upon to give on‐site presentations.  Customer Representatives attend and represent Idaho Power 
while canvassing at community events.  As a main point of personal contact with Idaho Power’s 
customer, Customer Representatives are often referred to as ‘eyes and ears’ in the community.  One 
Customer Representative characterized their role as, “…To reach customer with various resources, tools 
and programs.” 
2.5.2  Community Education Representatives  
Community Education Representatives primarily interact with the schools and senior citizen centers. 
There is one Community Educational Representative for each of the 5 Idaho Power regions.  Community 
Educational Representatives give presentations about safety, and environmental stewardship.  One of 
their presentations “The Power to Make a Difference” focuses specifically on energy efficiency and 
messaging was developed in conjunction with the REEEI. The Community Educational Representatives 
also market and implement the Student Energy Efficiency Kit (SEEK) program to the teachers in their 
geographic regions and coordinate enrollment with the REEEI. The program is administered by the REEEI 
as part of its “Educational Distribution” effort. The vendor for kit fulfillment, curriculum delivery, etc. is 
Resource Action Programs. 
2.5.3  Energy Efficiency Guides  
The Energy Efficiency Guides are semi‐annual guides intended for broad‐based distribution (i.e. 
newspapers, handouts).  Idaho Power creates and distributes “Energy Guides” twice a year ‐ summer 
and winter issue.  There is a new focus with each issue.  Examples: a) senior‐citizen‐focused with lighting 
strategies, b) family‐with‐kids‐focused including mini‐home assessment.  These Guides are inserted in 
printed newspapers.  Community Action Programs (CAP) agencies distribute guides to senior population.  

Leidos Engineering, LLC 16 | P a g e  
Idaho Power distributes widely via events attended and presented at by Customer Representatives and 
Community Educational Representatives. 
One Customer Representative characterized the guides as, “…Good look, current and fresh (less than 18 
months old), eye‐catching to customers.”  Another Community Educational Representative uses the 
energy efficiency guides during school presentations, along with other handouts, workbooks, and 
bookmarks to reinforce, provide detailed examples of energy saving solutions.  Uptake of guides at 
schools is good and reportedly incorporated by teachers in lesson plans, very popular in the schools and 
taken home by students and shared with parents.  Thus, the Community Educational Representative 
suggested new guides be developed and/or current ones updated. 
2.5.4  ‘News Scans’ 
‘News Scans’ is an internal weekly newsletter distributed to Idaho Power staff that promotes programs, 
customer engagement strategies, new events and campaigns.  ‘News Scans’ is not distributed externally 
to utility customers. 
2.5.5  Customer Newsletter “Connections” 
“Connections” is a monthly and topical energy efficiency‐focused newsletter that accompanies customer 
bills and is sent to over 415,000 customers.  ‘Connections’ often includes energy efficiency updates, and 
markets a specific Idaho Power energy efficiency program on the flip‐side.  Two months (April and 
October) are dedicated to energy efficiency.  The December 2015 issue story was about ‘‘myAccount’’ 
and included instructions on using the online tool to help customers understand their homes’ energy 
use and how to reduce it.  The art contestant winning image was featured in the newsletter and tied to a 
program specific article.   The newsletter is timed to coincide with overall residential program marketing 
push and Newspaper, radio, TV, and online elements of the Initiative. 
A Community Educational Representative said, “I’ve heard multiple comments that customers enjoyed 
or were excited to try the recipes included” [in newsletter]. Another Community Educational 
Representative indicated that ‘Connections’ is a bill stuffer, “but a lot of customers throw everything 
away in bill stuffer.  But for those that read it, it's worthwhile.” 
2.5.6  Monthly Bill Inserts 
Idaho Power customers frequently receive bill inserts or “bill stuffers” as accompaniments to monthly 
utility bills.  According to one Community Educational Representative, customers at public events 
reference bill inserts in asking about the refrigerator removal program and home energy audits.  The 
Community Educational Representative described bill inserts, “as an eye‐catching tool, and if a topic 
interests a customer it leads them to seek more information from the Idaho Power website or staff.”  A  
Customer Representative noted that many younger customers never see bill inserts because they have 
gone paperless and pay bills electronically. 
2.5.7  Weekly ‘Newsbriefs’ to Pitch Story Ideas to Local Media 
‘Newsbriefs’ are stories written about energy efficiency and Idaho Power programs by Idaho Power 
marketing and program staff and mimic the look of a media press release.  A Customer Representative 

Leidos Engineering, LLC 17 | P a g e  
observed that ‘Newsbriefs’ are a successful marketing strategy when media “bites on it,” and creates a 
story.  ‘Newsbriefs,’ that pitch story ideas, are a low‐cost way to capture earned media time.  The public 
perceives media‐produced stories as more authentic than purchased advertisement. The Customer 
Representative also noted that ‘Newsbriefs’ are more likely to trigger media coverage when “…short, 
condensed and to the point.”  In 2015, reporters did follow up with Idaho Power staff for print and 
broadcast stories and interviews on the following ‘Newsbrief’ issues: 
 Make a New Year's Resolution to Save Energy — Jan. 5, 2015 
 Interactive ‘Home’ Shows Energy‐saving Tips — March 23, 2015 
 Turning Up Awareness On Energy Efficiency — May 4, 2015 
 New Energy Efficiency Guide Available Now — July 20, 2015 
 Ways to Save Energy and Money When It's Hot — July 13, 2015 
 October is National Energy Awareness Month — October 5, 2015 
 ‘myAccount’ Helps Monitor Holiday Electric Use — November 9, 2015 
 Prepare Your Home for Winter — November 23, 2015 
2.5.8  ‘Native Advertisement’ 
Idaho Power also uses native advertisement to reach and educate customers with energy conservation 
messaging.  Just like stories written by reporters (sometimes triggered by press releases such as 
‘Newsbrief’), ‘native advertisement’ are reporter‐written‐like stories, (e.g. as if by The Idaho Statesman 
Newspaper), and posted on the media outlets’ website as paid advertisement.  Native advertisement, 
though not as cheap as ‘Newsbriefs’, may also appear authentic and capture viewer attention better 
than straight advertisement. 
2.5.9  ‘30 Simple Things You Can Do’ 
‘30 Simple Things You Can Do’ is a booklet Idaho Power distributes in both hard‐copy and online 
formats.  The booklet was first developed 7 years ago to educate customers on how to save energy.   
The booklet is widely distributed to customers from in‐person contacts between customers and 
Customer Representatives and Community Educational Representatives.  There is also an online version 
of the booklet viewable on the Idaho Power website.  The 96‐page booklet describes 30 no‐cost and 
low‐cost energy efficient measures, along with some more involved energy saving actions. The booklet 
also includes a chapter on the three “R’s” (Reduce, Reuse and Recycle) and a chapter geared for kids. It 
includes referencing to Idaho Power programs, incentives and supporting tools to assist customers in 
taking energy saving actions.   
Three Community Educational Representatives report good uptake and popularity of the booklet.  Two 
Community Educational Representatives said customers request more copies to distribute through 
existing establishments and social networks (e.g. home care and housing agencies, Nampa health and 
welfare department and senior centers). 
One Community Educational Representative described the booklet as, “…very useful and popular with 
customers who are asking many questions and are interested in hearing every suggestion we have to 
save energy. Also, if a customer has limited knowledge about efficiency it’s a wonderful place to start 

Leidos Engineering, LLC 18 | P a g e  
building a foundation of understanding. It’s really nice to have a large amount of information in one 
place and being able to pass it on to someone who is eager to learn!”  
Community Educational Representatives suggested several improvements to the booklet: 
 Make the inside pages more visual with added imagery  
 Give it fresh new look  
 Focus more on the online version rather than paper booklet   
 Make online version interactive and customized to the individual energy‐related characteristics 
of customer homes 
2.5.10  ‘myAccount’ or ‘On‐Line Tool’  
Idaho Power staff and initiative efforts indicate a strong focus on driving customers to use the 
‘myAccount’ on‐line portal located on the Idaho Power website.  Here, customers can check on energy 
use, billing and account information and see links to information, tools, rebates and other resources that 
aid in understanding their homes energy use and identify strategies to reduce it.  Specifically, the 
‘myAccount’ On‐Line Portal includes access to smart‐metering, where customers can monitor their 
hourly usage.  Idaho Power would like to use this as a behavioral modification tool.  To these ends, Idaho 
Power recently launched a Smart Thermostat incentive program that allows customers to track usage 
and control thermostats remotely.   
One Community Educational Representative characterized ‘myAccount’ as, “A wonderful tool for 
customers, positive feedback, very helpful for customers.”  Another Customer Representative noted 
that despite their always promoting it, some customers have yet to utilize ‘myAccount’. “It's a 
generational thing, where younger people use it to make sure info [billing, energy use] is up‐to‐date.  
Overall, daily login to Idaho Power’s customer accounts (‘myAccount’) have steadily increased over the 
last 4 and half years, from the low 2,000 per day in the summer of 2012 up to about 5,000 at the start of 
2016 (Figure 1 below). 

Leidos Engineering, LLC 19 | P a g e  

Figure 1. Idaho Power daily website customer traffic volume to ‘myAccount’ over time 
This increasing login traffic to ‘myAccount’ is driven in large part by the creation of new online customer 
accounts accumulating over time.  Moreover, the number of presumable mostly new ‘myAccount’ 
registrations per month is also increasing, from 2,000‐4,000 new accounts per month in 2010‐2011 up to 
3,000‐5,000 per month from 2013 to early 2016 (please see Figure 2 below). 

Figure 2. Idaho Power customer new account registrations per month 2010‐early 2016 
leidos
Idaho Power "MyAccount"Customer Logins Per day
7,000
6,000
5,000
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
0
2 H H 12fM2IT)LrtrN2ro
ts =i c34"5 4 4 =4 33a.Q.^ro «roC.c c
Figure 1.Idaho Power daily website customer traffic volume to 'myAccount'over time
This increasing login traffic to 'myAccount'is driven in large part by the creation of new online customer
accounts accumulating over time.Moreover,the number of presumable mostly new 'myAccount'
registrations per month is also increasing,from 2,000-4,000 new accounts per month in 2010-2011 up to
3,000-5,000 per month from 2013 to early 2016 (please see Figure 2 below).
Registrations per Month
6000
5000
£
o 4000
5
a 3000
o
%
5 2000'5.
K
1000
0
n *m *m *m *m *m *s i
Figure 2.Idaho Power customer new account registrations per month 2010-early 2016
19 |PageLeidosEngineering,LLC
425412518
7386924^73^30389^167^5688740^0

Leidos Engineering, LLC 20 | P a g e  
2.5.11  TV Live In‐Studio Energy Efficiency Segments 
Idaho Power produces monthly live, in‐studio television segments at 2 local TV stations (KTVB & KPVI) 
included for airing in local newscasts.  Segments are prepared to appeal to a broad audience, and often 
focus on program‐related information.  Aired segments end with a call‐to‐action to enroll in energy 
efficient programs and ask viewers to log on to the Idaho Power website.  Additionally, Idaho Power 
purchases TV ads that cover numerous energy efficient actions and end uses in 30 second segments.  
One Customer Representative noted that, for several customers, the Idaho Power ads remind them of 
Wal‐Mart because both use a smiley face logo. 
2.5.12  YouTube Postings “Voices of Customers” 
YouTube postings are linked to the Idaho Power website, and reportedly, “...good, easy to pull up on cell 
phone/computer and show to customers in the field,” for one Customer Representative.  During a 
presentation by Idaho Power staff at the Canyon County Fair, willing participants were asked to share in 
a video recording how they were saving energy.  Excerpts from these recordings were later posted on 
the Idaho Power website.  This is a low‐cost and effective way to leverage the power of imagery and 
human interaction to provide authentic peer‐group examples to customers.  Enabling customers to see 
and hear live testimonials on how other customers are savings energy is a powerful engagement 
strategy.   
It is recommended that the YouTube postings on Idaho Power websites called “Voices of Customers” be 
continued with a goal of adding 5 new posting per year.  As Customer Representatives and Community 
Educational Representatives encounter Energy Champions in the field, there may be opportunity to not 
only produce a YouTube posting with the energy champions discussing how they save energy, but also 
demonstrate energy savings actions and measure installations. 
2.5.13  Smart Saver Pledge with Prizes 
With behavioral change in mind, Idaho Power launched a program in the fall of 2016 aimed at getting 
customers to make energy savings pledges by changing behaviors in their life.  For three weeks 
beginning in early October 2016, Idaho Power asked customers to choose from a list actions of such as: 
 “Go into My Account and check your energy usage once per week.” 
 "Use your BBQ or microwave instead of your stove" 
 "Skip TV, have family game night or go out with your family" 
 "Wash laundry in cold water and air‐dry linens 
The logic is to habituate/engrain recurring energy conserving behavioral actions by entering pledging‐
customers into a contest to win an Energy Star Appliance of their choice.  Follow‐up surveys are planned 
to reinforce and to see if customers plan to continue the changed behavior, and if not, why? 
One Customer Representative described Smart Saver Pledges as a lifestyle feature for some customers, 
“…that not many people will do, but those that do are the type of customer that would choose to pay 
for solar panels.”  On the other hand, a Community Educational Representative reported that customers 
at the Boise, ID Home Show said that they would happily pledge and planned on doing “those things” 
but needed a little extra impetus to act. 

Leidos Engineering, LLC 21 | P a g e  
2.5.14  In‐Person Event Presentations 
Idaho Power staff conducted and recorded over 590 in‐person (or webinar) outreach activities, training 
sessions and events in the Outreach Tracker (from early 2012 to mid‐2016).  With an estimated average 
attendance of 809 people per event, an estimated 477,310 in‐person contacts were made during these 
events with customers and other members of the public in Idaho over a 4‐and‐half‐year period (Table 8).  
This is probably an underestimate, because despite Idaho Power staff being instructed to record all 
outreach activities, invariably some events and outreach activities are not recorded.  The types of events 
and organizations that Idaho Power presented included webinars, professional training sessions, trade 
associations, conventions, faith‐based organizations, apartment, condo and homeowner associations, 
classes, exhibitions, shows, fairs and other major Idaho events.  Topics presented by Idaho Power staff 
covered the full gamut of energy‐related issues, users and end‐uses. 
Table 8. Idaho Power Outreach activities recorded in the Outreach Tracker (2912‐2016) 
Outreach 
Activities 
Recorded in 
Outreach 
Tracker Date Range 
Type of 
Activities 
Sponsoring 
Organization 
Venue 
Location 
Average 
Estimated 
Attendance 
Average 
Recorded 
Attendance 
Estimated 
Total 
Attendance 
590 
Early 2012 
thru Mid‐
2016 
Various Various 
Physical 
Location or 
Webinar 
806 809 477,310 

One Customer Representative reportedly puts on 12 presentations per year.  Idaho Power should 
continue to be judicious and selective in what on‐site presentation to do, as this is a particularly time‐
intensive activity.  For example, presentations at small homeowner association meetings may not be 
worthwhile.  However, a heavily attended event where people come expecting to learn about energy 
might be worthwhile.  Both a Customer Representative and Community Educational Representative said 
the most effective part of in‐person presentation is the question and answer (Q/A) period that follows at 
the end, because this is where customers become most engaged in energy efficiency. 
One Community Educational Representative said that customers are always very appreciative of in‐
person presentations. “Teachers and civic groups express gratitude and appreciation for the opportunity 
as it’s a fun way to get through a lot of information in a short amount of time!” Some benefits to live 
presentations include audience responsiveness to analogies/comparisons, ability to adjust/tailor 
presentations topical depth and breadth to fit audience. However, one Community Educational 
Representative expressed the need to update the content and visual displays in presentations. 
On‐site and in‐person presentations are labor intensive and sometimes not cost‐effective.  Data 
indicates Idaho Power staff already does a yeoman’s job in responding to requests and presenting to 
numerous groups.  It is recommended that Idaho Power note the historical estimated attendance levels 
already recorded in the outreach activities tracker database and discontinue low‐attendance events in 
the future.  Perhaps a rule of thumb would be no more than 1 dozen events per year per outreach field 
staff person, and only for events attended by 50 or more customers and where participants attend 
expecting to learn something.  However, exceptions might be granted for Community Educational 
Representatives and Customer Representatives engaged in duties core to their job description. 

Leidos Engineering, LLC 22 | P a g e  
2.5.15  Liaison with Corp Communications on Energy Efficiency Campaigns & Other Media Needs 
The Initiative Manager and Marketing Specialists collaborate with Customer Representatives and 
Community Educational Representatives on content for energy efficiency awareness campaigns, ideas 
and script, input for television/radio spots, web re‐design and improvements, development/review of 
social media posts, newsletter articles for Home Owners Association (HOA) and employers.  One 
Customer Representative indicated only little involvement as a liaison with ‘corporate communications’. 
2.5.16  Giveaways with Strong Energy Efficiency Messaging  
Idaho Power conducted giveaways that included items such as; paper fans, clothes drying racks,11 LED 
light bulbs and color changing mood pencils, collapsible Frisbees and notepads to capture the attention 
of kids and adults and engage them in energy efficiency.  To deepen engagement and persuade 
customers, Idaho Power combines energy efficient equipment giveaways with strong energy 
conservation messaging. 
One Community Educational Representative stated, “At any of the events (including senior centers 
visits) where we give away LED bulbs, people have really showed and shared their appreciation. Many 
can’t believe we are giving them away.  It has made a very positive impact on our customers. Many 
people would never even try LED lighting because of the price.  But we are giving them that chance to, 
and changing their minds about switching over.” 
2.5.17  Kill‐A‐Watt Meter Lending Program  
Several years ago, Idaho Power purchased and distributed watt meters (e.g. Kill‐A‐Watt) to public 
libraries around Idaho.  The libraries, in turn, made the watt meters available for check‐out to patrons 
wishing to understand how much electricity the electrical (plug‐load) devices in their homes use.  One 
Community Educational Representative senses that the Kill‐A‐Watt meter lending program builds 
positive relations and shows customers that Idaho Power cares about customer service.  However, a 
Customer Representative noted that many customers are not aware of the lending program and that 
Kill‐A‐Watt meters are down in purchase price to only $20.  Given, the low cost of purchasing watt 
meters, Idaho Power may want to purchase a bulk quantity (at a favorable discount) and use the meters 
for incentive and prizes that boost participation and customer utilization of the various elements of the 
REEEI. 
2.5.18  Educational Distributions  
Idaho Power, through the various elements of the REEEI initiative, provides its customers with 
educational distributions that are accompanied with energy savings products that have a strong 
behavioral component. The delivery of these products (e.g. LED bulbs, clothes drying racks, energy 
savings kits for elementary school pupils,) with educational components increases installation rates to 
maximize energy savings. 

11 Energy Kits and dryer racks have associated deemed energy savings that is claimed.  The REEEI manages these 
measures, but the savings is claimed under different programs.   

Leidos Engineering, LLC 23 | P a g e  
Education distributions that include energy saving devices were characterized by one Community 
Educational Representative as an excellent way to encourage and remind customers [with take‐home 
items] to apply what they learned in their home and build relationships with customers. “I’ve received 
numerous comments from customers about the Home Energy Saving Kits and classroom Energy Wise 
kits. The children always express that they tried everything included with their parents or family 
members.  The adults express that they are happy to have the free materials especially the light bulbs 
and showerheads.” Another Customer Representative observed that the clothes dry‐rack program was 
extremely well received and an effective and, “…cheap way to engage customers in educating and 
changing how they dry clothing, which complements the Shade Tree Program.” 
2.5.19  Sponsorship of Sustainable Energy and Sustainable Homes  
Idaho Power Community Educational Representatives put on a series regarding sustainable energy in 
homes in conjunction with the United States Green Building Council (USGBC).12  The USBGC mission is to 
transform the building design and construction process consistent with LEED13 — a top third‐party 
verification system for sustainable structures.  USGBC advances buildings that are greener for the 
environment and healthier for occupants. Idaho Power is a part of USGBC’s community network, which 
collaborates with industry experts, market researchers and LEED professionals.   
2.5.20  Student Energy Efficiency Kit (SEEK) Program in Partnership w/Community Education Reps. 
For the SEEK program, Idaho Power Community Educational Representative staff coordinate with 
elementary school teachers and their curriculum and come to classrooms and instruct students on 
energy resources, it’s wise uses, generation and efficiency technologies and how to conserve it.  The 
program includes a kit containing items for hands‐on learning and take‐home energy efficiency 
measures for installation that save energy at home.14 
One Community Educational Representative characterized their partnership with SEEK as, “to build 
rapport with the schools and students on behalf of Idaho Power so that they see Idaho Power as an 
energy efficiency and environmental advocate and expert. They work to educate the students and 
teachers on how they can use energy responsibly and provide specific examples that encourage them to 
share ideas and try them at home. They encourage the audience to implement what they learned and 
share the information with their families and friends.”  A  Customer Representative indicated receiving 
frequent positive feedback about SEEK from parents with school‐age children. 
Two Community Educational Representatives mentioned numerous positive comments they had 
received from customers about the Home Energy Saving Kits and classroom Energy Wise kits and noted 
that this activity builds strong customer‐utility relations.  One Customer Representative said, “The 
children always express that they tried everything included [in the kits] with their parents or family 
members.  The adults express that they are happy to have the free materials especially the light bulbs 
and showerheads.”  Another Community Educational Representative articulated SEEKs impact, “The 
teachers cannot thank us enough for this program!  From the feed‐back I have received, they absolutely 

12 USGBC (United States Green Building Council); http://www.usgbc.org/ 
13 LEED (Leadership in Energy & Environmental Design) 
14 Website: IdahoPower.com/Save2Day is website for kits program.   

Leidos Engineering, LLC 24 | P a g e  
love being able to provide this program and lessons to their students. The students as well, have been 
very excited about this program and have had a lot of fun learning and being able to bring it into their 
homes and share with their parents. What a fabulous connection Idaho Power can make with our 
customers through all these thankful and impressionable students and teachers!!!” 
One Community Educational Representative said that Idaho Powers goal was to deliver 6,500 student 
energy efficiency kits (SEEK) per year and this goal has reportedly been achieved each year. Community 
Educational Representatives often schedule The Power to Make a Difference presentation to be given at 
the time that SEEK kits are delivered in the classroom to reinforce the message with hands‐on actionable 
energy efficiency measures.  This pairing of Initiative activities aids in and emphasizes the need for 
efficiency and conservation. 
2.5.21  ‘The Power to Make a Difference’ Presentation 
Three Community Educational Representatives described “The Power to Make a Difference” as an 
extensive presentation for an audience of students and teachers that includes; examples, 
demonstrations, comparisons and take home/classroom materials.   During ‘The Power to Make a 
Difference’ presentation students learn about; energy conservation, resources, demands and 
constraints, electric utility functions and phases‐of‐operation (generation, transmission, distribution and 
load), technology changes, the history of electric utilities such as Idaho Power, how energy is converted 
from one form into another, how electricity flows, peak‐loads and the cost and price of energy.   
Specifically, Idaho Power’s ‘The Power to Make a Difference’ was presented 124 times to 3,359 students 
in 2015.  Also, Idaho Power field staff and customer representatives delivered 204 presentations to a 
wide array of local and community‐based organizations.  Two Community Educational Representatives 
observed that the presentation dovetails nicely into existing classroom curriculum. 
2.5.22  Energy‐Related Workshops at State Sponsored STEM Institutes  
Eighteen high school teachers participated in a 3‐day professional development seminar facilitated by 
the i‐STEM Institute15 and sponsored by Idaho Power.  The 18 teachers that participated were from 
schools throughout southeast Idaho. The workshop was targeted toward grades 9‐12, often with 
teachers from other grades participating as well.  The goal was to provide teachers with information and 
classroom tools to teach students to think critically about energy, including; the science of energy, 
energy generation and sources, wise energy use and social impacts.   
The professional science educators from the i‐STEM Institute reported extensive experience in Idaho’s 
public school system. These educators designed the curriculum and facilitated the professional 
development workshop for high school teachers on behalf of three sponsors; Idaho Power, the US DOE 
Idaho National Lab (INL), and Intermountain Gas.  After this workshop, these 3 sponsors continue to 
provide ongoing collaboration and energy education support for schools and teachers in Idaho. 
In the i‐STEM program, teachers enrolled on their own and selected a STEM (Science, Technology, 
Engineering, Math) track in which they wanted to participate.  Next, teachers were trained on and 

15 i‐STEM is a coordinated effort by the State Department of Education, Idaho Professional‐Technical Education, 
educators, businesses, and industry to support science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) education in 
Kindergarten through 12th grade. .http://sde.idaho.gov/academic/istem/ 

Leidos Engineering, LLC 25 | P a g e  
provided extensive curriculum tailored to their individual STEM track during a 3‐day professional 
development workshop.  The workshop included an extensive agenda and curriculum detailed in 
Appendix A.   
The program provided teachers with a special energy education toolkit that included; watt meters, LEDs, 
solar lights, demonstration sized electric generators, various electrical circuit components and sensors, 
in total, 54 items for classroom hands‐on and demonstration items were provided (Please see Appendix 
A).   
This experience was said to be particularly valuable for teachers because of “the hands‐on, mind‐on 
nature of the 3‐day experience as well as the supplies and equipment they get.”  The supplies contained 
in the energy education toolkit allowed teachers to immediately put subject matter curriculum into 
practice, which has been demonstrated critically important to the comprehension, absorption and 
retention of knowledge.  One Community Educational Representative added that they participate in 
“Science Day” at elementary schools and at the Idaho After‐School Network by presenting a 
demonstration and lesson on electrical generation and circuits and assist with judging science projects.  
2.5.23  Monitoring New Technologies or Programs to Educate Customers 
One Customer Representative reported no direct involvement with monitoring of new technologies.  
Instead, the corporate office of Idaho Power monitors new technologies and programs for possible 
inclusion in energy efficiency program and educational efforts.   
2.6 Other Customer Engagement Strategies 
External program managers, SMEs and Idaho Power’s Customer Representatives & Community 
Educational Representatives were asked about other home metering and home energy reporting 
customer engagement strategies (Table 9).   Conventional home energy reports (lacking disaggregated 
energy use) are generally viewed as only delivering shallow and short‐lived energy savings.  Fully‐ 
enabled smart meters allow for an improvement (and more potential savings) over simple whole house 
energy reports, but take a more dedicated customer and meter installation. 

Table 9. Metering and Home Report ‐ Customer Engagement Strategy 

Leidos Engineering, LLC 26 | P a g e  

External program managers, SMEs and Idaho Power’s Customer Representatives & Community Educational 
Representatives were asked about several other customer engagement strategies ( 

Table 10).  Several respondents suggest more focus on making utility website more user friendly and 
enticing.  The link between energy savings and water savings can be used to reinforce educational 
messaging.  Several respondents said that the most effectively used imagery (to engage customers) 
shows people performing the actions of installing energy efficient measures and the behaviors of 
conserving it.   

Metering and Home 
Report Customer 
Engagement Strategies External ‐ Program Manager and Subject Matter Experts (SMEs)
Internal ‐ Idaho Power Customer Reps & 
Community Educational Reps
Home Energy Real‐time 
Feedback
● Very effec ve way for homeowners to monitor usage.  
● Thermostat or other human interfacing device need simple sensory 
ques (e.g. glowing color coding on thermostat tied to pricing / energy 
usage.  
● Make it simple and independent of computer.  
● Smart phones can be no fied about weather and pricing events.  
● Programmable thermostats (e.g. NEST) is easy way to educate readily 
approachable technology. 
● NEST not right for customers who want to “set it and forget it.”  Use the 
more advanced NEST thermostats.  NA
Fully Enabled Smart 
Electric Meters (AMI)
● Good for home show demonstra ons!  
● Takes more dedicated  customer, but when used can be ed to "My 
Account."  
● Works best if home has smart appliances, so approach is limited to 
customers with newer technologies.
● If customers check meter regularly, it 
reminds them to adjust energy use and 
allows time to change behavior before 
billing period ends. 
Customer Feedback via 
Comparative Home 
Energy Reports (e.g. 
Opower)
● Opower, Tendril and Simple don't bring net benefit to our exis ng 
portfolio of energy efficiency programs.  
● Paints a broad picture of home energy use.  
● Tie home energy reports directly to customer bills.  
● Home energy reports are great star ng point, but savings drops off.  
● OPower leverages history of bad u lity billing data and systems that 
aren't set‐up well.  
● Make monthly u lity bill look more like home energy report.  
● U lity bills contain li le info, and what's there is not discernable to 
customer.  
● A Southern u li es, Opower programs eliminated ‐ viewed as impolite.  
● Decay rate of energy savings is 20‐80 once the messaging stops, so if the 
customer’s behavior does not persist after the messaging stops, is it really 
behavior change?  
● Opower achieves only shallow savings for short period of me from a lot 
of people, and some are offended by comparison to neighbors.
● Customers are always very interested in 
how their usage compares.  
Privacy issue with comparing home energy 
use to neighbors.

Leidos Engineering, LLC 27 | P a g e  

Table 10. Other Customer Engagement Strategies 

2.7 Best Practice Review 
There are four basic types of behavioral change programs and strategies; informational programs, 
socially interactive approaches, education and training (E&T) and a stacked approach.  The latter simply 
combines multiple programs or strategies from the first three types into a single campaign.  The four 
types of behavioral change strategies are already present in the myriad of Idaho Power REEEI initiative 
elements described in this report.  Information‐based programs fall into one of four categories; home 
energy reports, real‐time feedback, audit programs and persuasive messaging.  Socially interactive 
tactics can be categorized as in‐person, community‐based or as gamification.  E&T programs involve 
either strategic management (mostly non‐residential), K‐12 and colleges or other ‘train‐the‐trainer 
and/or customer’ E&T programs.   
Other Customer 
Engagement Strategies External ‐ Program Manager and Subject Matter Experts (SMEs)
Internal ‐ Idaho Power Customer Reps & 
Community Educational Reps
Increase customer use of 
utility website
● U li es should hire outside web firm to make websites user friendly 
(like Amazon.com).  
● Link u lity website to specific contractors/manufacturers.  
● Try energy usage spike alerts to customer.
● Market websites ease‐of‐use and provide 
video instructions to lure unfamiliar customers 
to logon. 
Water & Energy Savings 
Nexus
● We have no water ini a ves at this me.  
● Connec on between water and energy via tradi onal direct install 
energy savings measures.  
● Energy to water e ins; water‐restricted climate/geography, low water‐
using clothes washers, cold water laundry, low‐water lawn and 
landscaping.  
● Time water savings message when water u li es raise rates and when 
droughts occur.
● Water saving is added benefit of certain energy 
savings actions.  
● School children learn value of conserving 
resources, so tying water to energy (e.g. energy 
to pump and heat water) is great way to 
reinforce what's learned while introducing 
actions that impact both.  
● Water not wasted can be u lized to generate 
electricity via hydroelectric. 
Imagery to engage and 
educate energy users 
and change behavior
● Low‐cost program simply shows pictures and videos of people installing 
measures to trigger Do‐It‐Yourself‐ers.  
● Use case studies of actual program par cipants.  
● Use imagery to grab ini al a en on, then switch to content.  
● Customer tes monials & case‐studies are most compelling for major 
measures.  
● Connects people to their future self (e.g. image of face with accelerated 
aging) 
● Show energy efficiency saving money.  
Use images of things most relatable to people.
Other Feedback 
Programs
● Focus behavior‐change through tradi onal programs that educate 
customer, which is vital to achieve sustained long‐term savings.   
● Apogee weather app. tells customers, on their telephones, the cost of 
their electricity for that day. If high, customer can ask for tips ‐ effective 
because it links weather (which keeps coming anew every day) to 
behavior change and may lead to lasting savings. NA

Leidos Engineering, LLC 28 | P a g e  
For the secondary research on best practices, this research evaluation looked at programs and efforts 
that other utilities and organizations are implementing and that have educational and behavioral 
components.   In 2015, Idaho electric utilities spent more (1.75%) on energy efficiency measures than 
the national median average (1.28%) ‐ as a percentage of statewide electric utility gross revenues.16  The 
percentage of this energy efficiency spending devoted to energy education was not broken‐out 
separately. 
On October 18th of 2016, ACEEE released a comprehensive synthesis on the status and impacts of 
behavior change energy efficiency programs throughout North America.  It is recommended that the 
Idaho Power Residential REEEI manager read the 13‐page executive summary of this report.17  (Link:  
http://aceee.org/research‐report/b1601) 
2.7.1  External Program Manager Best Practices Interviews 
At the same time of this evaluation report, a new publication became available that comprehensively 
addresses the fundamental research question of best practice regarding residential energy efficiency 
behavioral programs.  It is recommended that Idaho Power staff review the executive summary and 
tabular displays in this ACEEE study.18  This study is also included as the first item in the annotated 
bibliography located in the appendix of this evaluation report (Page 1). 
Below are descriptions of four residential behavioral programs located outside of Idaho that were 
further investigated via in‐depth interviews of program managers/SMEs and additional follow‐on 
research.  These include a residential disaggregated‐energy‐report behavioral pilot, a ‘30‐tips for high 
impact savings’ approach, a K‐12 SEEK program with professional sports franchise endorsement and a 
home energy audit program.  
Home Energy Analyzer, (Residential Behavioral Pilot –with Disaggregated‐Energy‐Use Home Energy 
Reports) ‐Alameda County, CA 
The Alameda County CA program with PG&E was one of the 100 behavioral programs analyzed in the 
ACEEE study.  The program specifically targeting behaviors based on the homes actual energy end uses 
as a more effective way of changing behavior. In Alameda County, when free programmable smart 
thermostats were offered to opt‐in participants, in conjunction with direct personal appeals to 
customers by phone and a home energy reports, significant energy savings followed.  The Alameda 
County Home Energy Analyzer (HEA) Program reported 1 year energy savings of 7.4% (electric) and 13% 
(gas).  The home energy report included disaggregated energy use into five categories; base load (plug 
load/idle current), recurring load (exterior lighting and devices on a timer), variable load (appliances and 
electronics when in use), cooling and heating loads.  This gave utility customers deeper insight into 
energy savings potentials for their homes.  Also, key here was the program’s inclusion of extensive 
contact with customers, including personal phone calls.  This trio of behaviorally reinforcing program 
elements, may have overridden the impoliteness of comparing one’s energy use to the neighbors as well 

16 Source: ACEEE 2016 State Energy Efficiency Scorecard, 
http://database.aceee.org/sites/default/files/docs/spending‐savings‐tables.pdf 
17 http://aceee.org/research‐report/b1601 
18 Reuven Sussman & Maxine Chikumbo, “Behavior Change Programs: Status and Impact.”  American Center for 
an Energy Efficient Economy (ACEEE) Report# B1601, October 2016, 108 pages.     http://aceee.org/research‐
report/b1601 

Leidos Engineering, LLC 29 | P a g e  
as deepen the energy savings (once a customer has “bought in” and starts interfacing with the 
thermostat’s energy savings information and “behavioral suggestion”). 

Three other programs, similar to Alameda County’s, show promise at deepening the energy savings 
beyond the traditional/generic home energy report (Table 11).  Many programs now use smart‐meter 
data or data from other sources, to provide tailored home energy reports with energy tips specific to 
each household’s actual energy using characteristics.   For example, PG&Es Mountain View Energy 
Upgrade program also included the use of smart‐thermostats and 5‐category disaggregated energy use 
reporting. 

Table 11. HEA Reported Energy Savings from Alameda County, CA and Several Other Similar Programs 

Source: http://corp.hea.com/results/ 

“30‐Ways to Save” Program – Wisconsin Investor Owned Utility (IOU) 
The Wisconsin‐based evaluator of the “30‐Ways to Save” Program said its purpose was to reduce 
customer bills of utility customers who perceived them as high and implement a low cost simple 
program.  In 2011, a Wisconsin utility condensed a booklet of 101 Energy Savings Tips, into 30 tips within 
three categories, for high‐impact savings.  The three categories of no cost, low cost and more involved 
measures were as follows; 1) space heating and cooling no cost behavioral actions related to thermostat 
settings, fireplaces, blinds, drapes and shade, 2) minor measures such as use of fans over AC, weather‐
sealing, installation of programmable thermostats and HVAC tune‐ups, 3) major higher‐cost measures; 
energy audit and insulation, HVAC replacements, fuel switching and windows. 
The program impetus was increased customer satisfaction and goal to reduce residential customer bills 
that were perceived high.  The program was not marketed at all, but enrollment occurs when a 
customer contacts the utility and complains about perceived high energy bills.  It was estimated that 
several thousand customers have been enrolled since 2011.  Some of the behavioral change strategies 
centered on managing building envelope heat gain and loss, thermostat settings, and fan and fireplace 
usage.  
The SME recently learned in a focus group needs assessment of high energy users and low‐income and 
hard‐to‐reach customers (whose bills are high in relation to income) that these customer groups want 
Program Participants Duration
Average kWH 
reduction
Average therms 
reduction
Energy Upgrade Mountain View 1239 3 years 5.5%16.4%
Energy Upgrade Mountain View, top 
quartile customers 310 3 years 14.5%32.6%
Alameda County Home Energy 
Analyzer 299 1 year 7.4%13.0%
Silicon Valley Energy Watch
85 (low income 
seniors)1 year 10.2%12.2%

Leidos Engineering, LLC 30 | P a g e  
energy efficient education and recommended actions highly customized to their distinctive households.  
Moreover, these customer groups want the recommendations to come from the utility on an ongoing 
basis.  Customers perceived that utilities already know their end uses and that utilities should simply 
give them this tailored feedback on how to save. 
K‐12 Energy Kits Program (with sports franchise sponsorship) ‐ Oregon Energy Trust 
A residential program manager identified Oregon Energy Trust’s (ETO’s) Living Wise Kit Initiative as a 
best practice program.  The Living Wise Kit Initiative, was implemented by subcontractor CLEAResult as a 
part of ‘Resource Actions Programs’ engaged 6th grade school teachers and provided an offering that 
meets state standards for science and math, energy education curriculum, and classroom tools.  The 
curriculum engaged students by providing them with a take‐home energy and water conservation and 
education kit. The kit includes a suite of; energy savings tools, activities and self‐installed energy and 
water saving devices and is accompanied by materials that reinforce lessons and learning.  The contents 
of the kit reportedly have a retail value of approximately $50. Two years ago, ETO added a Portland 
Trailblazers co‐sponsorship tie‐in that engaged students.  The Initiative also includes an offering to 
parents (via kids) of an on‐line home energy review (audit).   
Forty‐percent of parents engaged in the online audit portion after the Trailblazers tie‐in was established.  
Previously, the online audit only achieved a 5% uptake.  Sponsorship reportedly made the difference.  
From an on‐line audit, parents viewed pictorial examples and links to other utility rebate programs.  The 
subcontractor did follow‐up surveys to measure installation rates of kits.  Specifically, the self‐installed 
participants reportedly achieved an installation rate of 40% for high efficiency showerheads, 66% for 
LED light bulbs, and 37% for bathroom faucet aerators.  Student tests scores, regarding energy subject‐
matter knowledge, improved from 59% pre‐program to 78% post program.19 
The impetus for the program, first launched in 2008, was to drive energy efficiency awareness and 
savings through elementary the school channel.  In the fall semester of 2015, the Living Wise ETO 
program was implemented by 14,619 teachers, students and families; and another 2,404 in the spring of 
2016.20 Energy savings from self‐installed energy savings measures was estimated at 432 kWh and 14 
therms per year, with projected lifetime savings of 6,401 kWh and 208 therms.21  
Each student & teacher received a student guide, student workbook, parent/guardian program 
introduction letter, student survey form, certificate of achievement and Living‐Wise Kit.  The kit 
contained; LED light bulbs, high‐efficiency showerhead, kitchen faucet aerator, bathroom faucet aerator, 
digital thermometer, flow rate test bag, and installation DVD, and website access.  Each 
teacher/classroom received a step‐by‐step program checklist, lesson plans, State of Oregon and National 
Academic Standards Chart Extra Activities Teacher Program Evaluation Pre/Post Student Survey and 
answer keys.22  

19 Living Wise with Energy Trust of Oregon: Summary Report, Resource Action Programs, July 2016 page 6.   
20 Living Wise with Energy Trust of Oregon: Summary Report, Resource Action Programs, July 2016 page 5.   
21 Living Wise with Energy Trust of Oregon: Summary Report, Resource Action Programs, July 2016 page 7.   
22 Living Wise with Energy Trust of Oregon: Summary Report, Resource Action Programs, April 2016 page 11.   

Leidos Engineering, LLC 31 | P a g e  
Home Energy Audit ‐ Ameren Illinois 
The manager of the Ameren Illinois Energy Efficiency Program for Income Qualified Home Energy 
Program identified the program as a success in the residential sector.  The program was launched in 
2014‐2015 and completed 1,300 projects in 2015‐2016.  The program was marketed to 1) trade allies via 
webinars, in person training, email blasts, flyers/mailers and 2) utility customers, digital marketing plan, 
targeted email marketing, targeted posted mail, community events, partnerships with local community 
organizations, and bill inserts.  In addition, non‐traditional marketing channels included outreach to low 
income community and not‐for‐profit groups already embedded in the low‐income segment and 
outreach to seniors via community groups and exercise programs.  The program also sent out email, ads 
and digital marketing.  Customers enrolled through a program ally by participating in a home audit to 
understand and lower their utility bills.  The behavioral change strategy was to entice customers with 
programmable thermostats and free home energy audits.  The program targeted building envelope and 
behavioral measures. 
The offerings within the external best practice programs reviewed above have similarities with Idaho 
Power’s REEEI portfolio, suggesting that REEEI is well‐positioned to engage customers in beneficial 
energy conservation practices with a broad selection of activities and materials. The energy savings 
reported by these external programs demonstrate the benefits of educational initiatives. 
The Alameda County Residential Behavioral Pilot’s disaggregated energy use reporting may offer a 
potential enhancement to Idaho Power’s ‘myAccount’ on‐line tool, which already provides nearly real‐
time whole house energy use feedback to customers.  This pilot, along with 3 other similar programs, 
reported electricity savings among participants from 5.5% to 14.5%. Programmable thermostats are 
another offering that can facilitate education initiatives and overall program participation, with 
verifiable ex‐ante savings, as the Alameda County Program and Ameren Illinois Income Qualified Home 
Energy Program demonstrated.   
Updating REEEI’s “30 Simple Things You Can Do” booklet, as a Wisconsin utility reported doing, may also 
enhance savings opportunities for Idaho Power customers.  REEEI’s SEEK program, with “The Power to 
Make a Difference” presentation, is very similar to ETO’s Livings Wise Kit Initiative.  Both programs are 
popular and successful in the schools and with parents.  Idaho Power could consider enhancing their 
REEEI program results by claiming deemed demand and energy savings from kit measures or suggested 
behavior changes initiated by the student kits already offered.  Student kits are often easily and readily 
associated with deemed ex‐ante savings values for efficient replacement lighting, low‐flow fixture 
adaptations, and other simple to install items.   

Leidos Engineering, LLC 32 | P a g e  
3.0 Recommendations and Conclusion 
Recommendations 
On‐site and in‐person presentations are labor intensive and sometimes not cost‐effective.  Data 
indicates Idaho Power staff already does a yeoman’s job in responding to requests and presenting to 
numerous groups.  It is recommended that Idaho Power review historical estimated attendance levels 
already recorded in the outreach activities tracker database and discontinue low‐attendance events in 
the future.  Limit outreach field staff presentations to one dozen per year to convey educational and 
training messaging for 50 or more customers.  However, exceptions to the event limit might be granted 
for Community Educational Representatives and Customer Representatives engaged in duties core to 
their job description. 
Idaho Power should continue the production and distribution of the “30 Simple Things You Can Do” 
booklet by refreshing it with more colorful visuals and added imagery, pointing customers to the online 
version rather than paper form, and exploring ways to make the online version interactive and 
customized to the individual energy‐related characteristics of customer homes.  Idaho Power may also 
consider creating an abbreviated version of the booklet (4‐6 pages) for wider distribution, perhaps as a 
bill stuffer. 
Idaho Power should investigate the cost and logistics of offering home energy reports with 
disaggregated energy end use derived from existing billing data for their residential customers who opt‐
in for home energy report information.  If deemed cost‐effective to make such as offering, a service 
offering description and link to the ‘myAccount’ webpage could be added to enroll residential 
customers. 
Idaho Power should engage in discussions with Idaho State Universities and its athletic department (or 
other popular sports franchises located in the State of Idaho) to explore co‐branding or co‐sponsoring 
strategies.  The purpose of which would be to enhance the appeal of Idaho Power’s existing elementary 
school K‐12 SEEK program and to motivate elementary students to take energy‐saving action and 
encourage parents and guardians to do so also.  
Customers that see and hear live testimonials on how other customers are saving energy is a powerful 
engagement strategy.  It is recommended that the YouTube postings on Idaho Power websites called 
“Voices of Customers” be continued with a goal of adding 5 new postings per year.  As Customer 
Representative and Community Educational Representative staff encounter customer energy champions 
in the field, there is opportunity to, not only produce a YouTube posting with the energy champions 
discussing how they save energy, but also physically demonstrating energy‐saving actions and measure 
installations.  
Given the low cost ($20 retail) of purchasing watt meters, Idaho Power may want to purchase a bulk 
quantity (at a favorable discount) and use the meters as incentive and prizes to boost participation and 
customer utilization of the various elements of the REEEI. 

Leidos Engineering, LLC 33 | P a g e  
On October 16th 2016, ACEEE published a study that comprehensively addresses a fundamental research 
question of this evaluation, ‘what are the best‐practice residential energy efficiency behavioral 
programs?’  It is recommended that Idaho Power staff review the executive summary and tabular 
displays in this ACEEE study.23  This study is also included as the first item in the annotated bibliography 
located in the appendix of this evaluation report (Page 34). 
Conclusion  
The 23 elements of the REEEI can be grouped into three aspects of behavioral change (informational, 
interactive, and educational) and mapped to what other utilities are achieving in terms of energy 
savings. 
Informational Aspects of REEEI:  IPC’s ‘On‐Line’ Tool is accessible to customers via ‘myAccount’ and 
allows customers to view energy use in nearly real‐time.  Idaho Power also recently added a Smart 
Thermostat Incentive Program that allows customers to track usage and control thermostats remotely.  
At other utilities, these types of informational tools are reported to save from 1‐15% of electricity and 
gas usage.  The range is narrowed to 5‐8% in net electric savings for opt‐in situations such as IPC’s ‘On‐
Line’ tool.  Home energy audits done on‐line and over the phone reportedly save from 1.3%‐6.5% in 
electricity nationally.  Home energy reports –save 1.2%‐2.2% in electricity for opt‐out programs, 
upwards of 16% for opt‐in programs, and 4.2% for opt‐out programs with disaggregated energy‐end use 
reporting.  IPC’s REEEI includes a large suite of persuasive messaging elements, such as; energy guides, 
customer and employee newsletters, bill inserts, ‘Newsbriefs,’ native advertisements, TV programming 
and ads, YouTube postings, sponsorships and other educational distributions and outreach.  These types 
of persuasive messaging increase electricity savings from existing programs (around the U.S.) by 1.2‐
8.0% and increase the frequency of energy saving behaviors by 10‐30%.24 
Socially Interactive Aspects of REEEI:  IPC Customer Representatives, Community Educational 
Representatives, and other staff engaged in over 590 in‐person events reaching an estimated 477,000 
people over 4.5 years.  The literature indicates that in‐person strategies reduce electricity consumption 
from 4.4% (goal setting) to 27.0% (with public commitment) and increase utility energy efficiency 
program enrollment upwards of 300%.  The REEEI also utilize socially interactive competitions and 
games via Smart Saver Pledges with prizes and other giveaways with strong energy efficiency messaging.  
Residential‐sector competitions and games, such as the REEEIs, save from 0.7% to 14.0% electricity 
around the U.S.  The REEEI is also engaged in social marketing strategies that include target marketing.  
The literature puts this in the category of Community‐Based Social Marketing (CBSM) and estimates 
attributable electricity savings in the 0‐16% range. 25 
Educational Aspects of REEEI:  The REEEI, through the SEEK program, ‘Power to Make a Difference’ and 
energy‐related workshop at STEM institutions, implements education and training to increase energy 

23 Reuven Sussman & Maxine Chikumbo, “Behavior Change Programs: Status and Impact.”  American Center for an Energy Efficient Economy (ACEEE) Report# B1601, October 
2016, 108 pages.    http://aceee.org/research‐report/b1601 
24 http://aceee.org/research‐report/b1601, page, 10‐11. 
25 http://aceee.org/research‐report/b1601, page, 12 

Leidos Engineering, LLC 34 | P a g e  
conservation behaviors.  Electricity savings attributable to school programs around the Country is 
reportedly in the 13‐37% range.26 
IPCs REEEI is comprehensively addressing and implementing a full range of behavioral change strategies 
for its residential customers.  REEEI’s depth and breadth of behavioral change efforts appear to be at 
least on‐par with what is seen at other utilities. 

26 http://aceee.org/research‐report/b1601, page, 13. 

Leidos Engineering, LLC 1 | P a g e  
APPENDIX A ‐ Annotated Bibliography 
The Leidos Evaluation Team performed a literature review of best practice residential energy education 
programs in North America and beyond.  Though ‘OPower‐like’ home energy reporting programs remain 
prevalent and are becoming more sophisticated, numerous other nuanced programs have been 
implemented in recent years and are investigated in the literature annotated below.  
Reuven Sussman & Maxine Chikumbo, “Behavior Change Programs: Status and Impact.”  American Center for an 
Energy Efficient Economy (ACEEE) Report# B1601, October 2016, 108 pages. 
Utilities and regulators increasingly rely on behavior change programs as essential parts of their demand‐side management portfolios. In 2013, 
the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy (ACEEE) published the Field Guide to Utility‐Run Behavior Programs, which surveyed and 
categorized the various programs available at that time.1 In this current report, we update those findings and evaluate the effectiveness of 
currently available programs, focusing in particular on programs that have been assessed for energy savings. We incorporate research from 
other recent reviews, as well as our own survey of formal program evaluations, academic peer‐reviewed literature, and conference 
proceedings. We focus on behavior change programs that primarily rely on social‐science‐based strategies instead of traditional approaches 
such as incentives, rebates, pricing, or legal and policy strategies. Our objective is to help program administrators choose effective behavior 
change programs for their specific purposes. We classify programs using a taxonomy derived from previous reviews. 
Kira Ashby (Senior Program Manager), “2016 Behavior Program Study.” Consortium for Energy Efficiency (CEE),  
(617) 337‐9281, [e-mail].  2016, Excel Database. 
This Excel database covering 140 programs with some element of behavior and contains 197 fields (variables) of data. The purpose of this 
program summary is to serve as a resource for members and to help facilitate information exchange among the membership. We anticipate 
that this program summary will aid in the design and implementation of programs with behavior change elements by shedding light on what 
members consider to be behavior change programs and how members are currently measuring and evaluating these efforts.  
Dr. Shahana Samiullah, Southern California Edison, Rosemead, California et al, “Are We There Yet: Building 
Behavior Programs to Serve a Purposeful Role in DSM Portfolios.”  International Energy Policy & Programme 
Evaluation Conference (IEPPEC), Berlin 2014, 9 pages. 
A new breed of efficiency initiatives, termed behavior programs, is very much on the minds of program planners and policy makers. Many such 
programs are in operation in North America. The programs and the policy mandates for inclusion of these programs in DSM portfolios need to 
first address a myriad of questions, including their purpose, role, cost‐effectiveness, and potential savings in DSM resource portfolios.  In this 
paper we articulate some of the hard questions California is asking of such programs. Can behavioral programs be relied on for system planning 
or addressing grid constraints? Do they have a role as resource acquisition programs or should they be leveraged and serve as a complement to 
traditional programs? The experience from California includes sharing information about programs designed to fulfill regulatory mandates. In 
particular, the paper presents experience from one Southern California utility on program design considerations for feedback programs during 
planning and implementation phases, and on how evaluation was built into those designs to address the hard questions.  While there is a 
variety of feedback programs that fall under an expanded category of behavior programs1, this paper discusses role of these programs with a 
focus on the recent widespread adoption of home energy reports programs and similar usage feedback programs. 
Kathleen Zoonnekindt GDF Suez, Paris, France and CSI, Ecole des Mines de Paris , “Reducing domestic energy 
thanks to ICT and smart technologies : key factors of social acceptance from the European project SHOWE‐IT”, 
International Energy Policy & Programme Evaluation Conference (IEPPEC), Berlin 2014, 8 pages. 
This paper presents some key sociological results from the European research project SHOWEIT launched in 2011 for 4 years. This project 
cofounded by the European Commission in the CIP ICT PSP Program "Projects on ICT for Energy Efficiency" experiments the use of smart 
metering systems and energy interfaces in real‐conditions, by 92 households selected in France, England and Sweden. A series of qualitative 
interviews made in the three countries on 40 households allowed to understand some key elements expected by tenants for future “smart” 
energy services. The current “information regime” in energy consumption (mainly the bills) remains too complex and fragmented for tenants, 
but paradoxically they have a strong knowledge on their daily habits of energy consumption, and a lot of the tenants interviewed have already 
adopted different kind of energy saving behaviors. This paper will detail some of these savings behaviors as well as tenants’ expectations for 
“User Centered” energy ICTs including simple metering display, budget service and energy management tool.   
Carly McClure and Bill Provencher, University of WI‐Madison and Navigant Consulting, “Energy Savings 
Over a 3‐year Opt‐in Rewards‐based Residential Behavioral Program.”, International Energy Policy & 
Programme Evaluation Conference (IEPPEC), Berlin 2014, 9 pages. 
This study evaluates savings for a residential behavioral program at Commonwealth Edison (ComEd), a large Midwestern US utility, 
implemented by C3 Energy and the Illinois Citizens United Board (CUB).1 The program is a web‐based, opt‐in program designed to generate 

Leidos Engineering, LLC 2 | P a g e  
energy savings by providing customers with information about their energy usage, tips to reduce energy consumption, and reward points for 
energy savings. We compare three quasi‐experimental methods to estimate savings, with the understanding that finding similar savings from 
the three methods confers “convergent validity” on the estimates. The first method is the variation‐in‐adoption (VIA) approach used by Harding 
and Hsiaw (2013), in which program savings are estimated using only data from program enrollees, with late enrollees serving as controls for 
early enrollees. The second and third methods are matching methods that draw on the same set of program enrollees and their 1:1 
nonprogram matches, but the two are distinguished by the method used to estimate savings. The first is regression with pre‐program matching 
(RPPM) described in Ho et al. (2007) and the second is matching with bias correction (MBC) introduced by Abadie and Imbens (2011). For both 
of these, matching is based on Euclidean distance in monthly energy use over a 12‐month pre‐program period. A 2‐month pre‐program “test 
window” comparing the average use of program customers and their matches provides a proxy test for selection bias, which is always a 
concern with opt‐in programs. The three methods generate similar estimates for program savings: 3.81%, 3.86%, and 3.57% for the VIA, RPPM, 
and MCB approaches respectively.  
Theodora Seal, Université de Genève, Geneva, Switzerland et al, “Towards a Behavioral Indicator for the  
Evaluation of Energy Conservation at Work”  International Energy Policy & Programme Evaluation 
Conference (IEPPEC), Berlin 2014, 11 pages. 
The purpose of this paper is to present a new behavioral indicator, which is still at an experimental stage, and the results of two experiments 
making use of it. This indicator could be used to complement traditional impact evaluations of energy efficiency programs.  In the framework of 
its Environmental Management System, the State of Geneva planned to save 2 GWh in 2013 due to five projects of energy efficiency 
optimization, a part of which focused on the promotion of energy‐efficient behavior at work. This was done in collaboration with a demand‐side 
management program, éco21, implemented by the local utility. To evaluate its efficiency, a behavioral indicator, the Environmental Awareness 
Indicator, based on psychological studies, was designed and tested to complement quantitative results in kWh obtained by the instrumentation 
of several buildings.  First, changes in the energy consumption before and after two energy conservation promotional weeks (called « Energy 
Weeks ») were measured. Consumption was also measured six months after one of the promotional weeks. Our investigations show that a 
well‐organized Energy Week for a fairly large organization (around 400 employees) has a potential of 20% energy savings immediately after the 
event, decreasing to a value between 3% and 12% after six months.  Second, we made use of the above mentioned indicator to analyse the 
qualitative behavioral evolution of the two populations studied. The indicator shows that after the Energy Week there is a general shift towards 
behavioral change, at all stages of the change model, with an increase (13% and 19%) of employees moving towards action. The usefulness of 
such an indicator is therefore twofold: it permits behavioral monitoring and enables to adapt the implementation of change actions to the 
behavioral stage of the target.   
Anne Dougherty, Illume Advising, LLC, USA et al, “Behavioral Energy Feedback Program Evaluations: A 
Survey of Current Knowledge and a Call to Action”  International Energy Policy & Programme Evaluation 
Conference (IEPPEC), Berlin 2014, 14 pages. 
Behavioral‐based energy efficiency programs are those that utilize strategies intended to influence consumer energy use behaviors to achieve 
energy and/or peak demand savings. These programs typically include outreach, education, competition, rewards, benchmarking and/or 
feedback elements (Todd et al, 2012). In North America, over 110 investor‐owned utilities included behavior programs in 2012 as part of their 
energy‐efficiency portfolios, allocating 0.3 percent to 10 percent of their efficiency portfolio spending to these programs. Emerging plans in 
Massachusetts allocated as much as 50 percent of first year kWh goals to behavior programs in 2014. Despite the overwhelming growth in 
spending on these programs, there are many unanswered and important policy questions that must be addressed. This paper argues that the 
energy industry needs to go further than just assessing energy impacts to address existing gaps in knowledge and find ways to most effectively 
incorporate these programs into efficiency portfolios. First, the paper presents an overview of behavioral feedback program lessons learned 
from third‐party evaluations across North America. Next, a brief analysis of gaps in industry knowledge of how behavioral programs generate 
savings is provided. In the last section, policy‐ and planning‐focused research questions that need to be answered as behavioral feedback 
programs mature are discussed. To date, there has been an overwhelming focus on impact evaluations, and there are many key questions that 
need to be addressed.   Future evaluations must focus on both impact and policy questions by addressing existing gaps in knowledge about how 
behavioral programs generate energy savings and exploring the most effective ways to integrate these programs into program portfolios. 
Mary D Zalesny, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory and Shahana Samiullah, Southern California Edison USA, 
“Scalability of Successful Behavior Change Programs”  International Energy Policy & Programme Evaluation 
Conference (IEPPEC), Berlin 2014, 12 pages. 
Efforts to change energy use behaviors are generally based on behavioral theories, but appear to incorporate elements of the theories 
selectively. They also focus primarily on the drivers that initiate behavior change rather than also including those associated with the 
maintenance or persistence of new or changed behaviors.   Behavioral change in the short term, while not a sure bet, is relatively easy.  
Behavioral change for the long term is hard. Studies suggest it takes from three weeks (for a simple habit) to 8 months (for a complex one) to 
form a new habit (Lally et al. 2010). This paper will explore some widely accepted theories of behavior change (its initiation and persistence) 
that have been used as the basis for current demand‐side management (DSM) programs to affect consumer energy use.  In this paper, 
behavior‐based energy efficiency (BBE) programs are defined to influence customer energy use behavior through feedback, comparison, 
outreach, education, competition and rewards. These programs generally target ongoing, habitual behaviors (e.g., turning off lights in 

Leidos Engineering, LLC 3 | P a g e  
unoccupied rooms) and one‐time behaviors (e.g., installing CFLs, installing energy‐efficient windows, and major purchases).   The paper 
considers the scalability of programs that have had some success in the short term (e.g., community based marketing, nudge theory, social 
norms, etc.).  It also addresses individual differences and local conditions necessary for successful scalability to much larger populations and 
over extended periods of time.  The evaluation of programs and approaches that appear to be successful at a local or small scale must consider 
the likelihood of success on a larger scale. 
Ingo Bensch, Evergreen Economics and Ashleigh Keene, Seventhwave, Madison, WI, “Energy Impact from 
Gamification‐Induced Behavior Change”  International Energy Program Evaluation Conference (IEPEC), Long 
Beach, CA 2015, 11 pages. 
Behavior programs to influence energy consumption encompass a wide range of interventions.  While social norms feedback programs have 
been studied and evaluated extensively, we know relatively little about the energy impacts of most other behavioral interventions targeting 
individual and household energy practices.  This paper provides results from a behavior change intervention that use gamification.  It suggests 
methodologies for studying the impact of behavioral interventions based on social dynamics and interventions among communities of people 
where randomized controlled trials are infeasible or impractical. This paper is based on two assessments of Cool Choices sustainability games—
one played by employees of a construction firm and one played by families of school‐age children.  In both cases, billing analyses showed 
plausible electricity savings in participating households, albeit with wide uncertainty ranges.  While noisy consumption data and small sample 
sizes hinder precise estimates, we argue that a case can be built over time with a series of billing analyses to demonstrate the savings achieved 
from the game. Furthermore, we found that the triangulation of multiple approaches to estimating energy savings increased our confidence in 
the results and yielded additional actionable insights that helped the program build on its achievements.  Post‐intervention participant 
interviews proved particularly insightful and yielded similar results as the billing analysis when used to estimate energy impacts. 
Erin Rose, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee et al, “Assessing the Potential of Social Networks 
as a Means for Information Diffusion: Weatherization Experiences” International Energy Program Evaluation 
Conference (IEPEC), Long Beach, CA 2015, 12 pages. 
Oak Ridge National Laboratory recently led two national evaluations of the Weatherization Assistance Program (WAP), as tasked by the U.S. 
Department of Energy. A component of the evaluation, a social network study, the Weatherization Experiences (WE) Project, explored linkages 
between individual households, weatherization staff and agencies as nodes within a multi‐relational social system. The project goals were to: 
(1) explore impacts of communication from a trusted source on program participation, household energy consuming behavior and investment 
in energy efficiency measures; and (2) explore the feasibility of participatory research techniques through structured interviews administered 
by program recipients and weatherization staff. The interviews sought to answer five overarching questions: (1) who did you tell? (2) what did 
you say? (3) what did they hear? (4) what did they do? and (5) and why? This approach helps us understand if and what type of weatherization 
information is being shared (e.g., energy cost savings and health benefits), what core values are in place that might support or hinder adoption 
of new energy usage behaviors, and the motivating factors contributing to actions taken after information is received from a known, or trusted 
source. The WE Project sought to identify topics most communicated and to measure the impacts of these shared weatherization experiences 
on the actions of others. The primary goal of this study was to capture any energy and non‐energy impacts resulting from shared 
communication through social networks as additional benefits attributable to the WAP. The study was fairly extensive with 85 interviewers 
completing 777 interviews. 
Kira Ashby, Consortium for Energy Efficiency et al, “Getting Energy Use Down to a (Social) Science:  Combining 
Behavior Insights and Connected Technologies” International Energy Program Evaluation Conference (IEPEC), 
Long Beach, CA 2015, 12 pages. 
As energy efficiency programs increasingly apply behavioral approaches to maximize savings, the use of two‐way communication technologies 
has emerged as a valuable tool. Connected technologies, e.g., smart thermostats, web portals, and smart phone apps, can open up new 
opportunities to achieve behavior‐based energy savings and can even assist in the evaluation of behavioral efforts. This paper explores the 
ways in which energy efficiency programs are leveraging new technologies and behavioral approaches to change electricity use behavior in the 
residential and small commercial sectors.  Three pilots serve as examples of what this work looks like in practice and how it is evaluated: Focus 
on Energy’s iCanConserve pilot, Pacific Gas and Electric’s Home and Business Area Network Pilot, and the Sacramento Municipal Utility District’s 
In‐Home Display Pilot. These pilots have facilitated two‐way interaction via different technologies including smart phone apps, web portals that 
provide detailed electricity use information, and near real‐time feedback provided through displays in customers’ homes or businesses. These 
pilots provide actionable information to energy users in a way informed by social science research in order to encourage customer engagement 
and reduce electricity consumption. This paper focuses on the information provided via these technologies, the behavioral insights leveraged to 
maximize the impact of this information, and the early lessons learned about appropriate evaluation approaches and related results. 
Shannon Kahl, Illume Advising, LLC, Madison, WI et al, “Timing, Longevity, Depth: Investigating Customer 
Engagement in Residential Behavior Programs” International Energy Program Evaluation Conference (IEPEC), 
Long Beach, CA 2015, 12 pages. 
Utility‐sponsored residential behavior‐change programs comprise a growing portion of DSM budgets. From 2010 to 2013, the number of 
utilities including behavior change programs in their energy efficiency portfolios more than tripled. No longer just a paper report, newer types 

Leidos Engineering, LLC 4 | P a g e  
of behavior‐change programs include a variety of engaging features. These additional program features offer evaluators more opportunities to 
study the program mechanisms and consumer characteristics that promote and dissuade energy savings. While the impact of behavior change 
programs on energy usage has been consistently documented at one to two percent of usage, not as much is known about the mechanism of 
those impacts. Indeed little is known about how customer engagement in program features varies by customer or impacts energy savings. 
Drawing on longitudinal data from over four years of energy use and participation in an opt‐in behavioral program, our paper explores savings 
by varying levels of engagement and energy usage. Specifically, we report findings from an in‐depth examination of customer engagement in 
the program in three key areas: timing, longevity, and depth. We found clear patterns that customers who are active in the program for longer 
time periods save more than those active for shorter time periods. Likewise, customers who engage more deeply (based on the number of 
logins) experience more savings. We also found that customers who engaged in additional program features experienced lower energy savings 
than those who did not use those features. 
Beth Karlin, University of California, Irvine, Irvine, CA, USA et al, “Exploring Deep Savings: A Toolkit for Assessing 
Behavior‐Based Energy Interventions” International Energy Program Evaluation Conference (IEPEC), Long 
Beach, CA 2015, 12 pages. 
While research assessing behavior‐based energy interventions shows great promise, results vary widely and much is still unknown about the 
specific variables that impact program effectiveness. As utilities and regulatory agencies focus more attention on behavior‐based energy 
interventions, it becomes critical to ensure that evaluations of such programs are rigorous and accurate. While the metric used to measure 
whether these various programs work (kWh) is fairly standard and easy to compare between studies, the metrics used to measure how and for 
whom they work have been left to individual researchers and evaluators. Standardization of assessment methods is common in related fields 
such as education and psychology, but has yet to take hold in energy program evaluation. This paper argues for a more systematic and 
comprehensive approach to the evaluation of behavior‐based energy interventions, and describes a preliminary toolkit that is currently being 
developed and validated in conjunction with the International Energy Agency Demand Side Management Programme (IEA‐DSM) Task 24 on 
Behavior Change as well as two large investor‐owned utilities. Our approach is informed by theories and empirical research on behavior change 
as well as a content analysis of 85 behavior‐based energy interventions. It includes questions on: context (demographics), user experience (ease 
of use, engagement), material culture (what people have), energy practices (what people do), and beliefs around energy use (what people 
think). Sample items for each construct and suggestions for implementation are presented. Broad use of such an instrument can improve and 
aggregate our overall knowledge across the countless additional studies expected to be conducted in the coming years. 
Linda Dethman, Cadmus, Portland, OR et al, “Integrating Process and Impact Findings to Understand and Measure 
Behavioral Savings at Work” International Energy Program Evaluation Conference (IEPEC), Chicago, IL 2013, 
12 pages. 
Energy related behavior‐change programs in the workplace, those that focus on changing mostly habitual employee behaviors, are relatively 
new despite their potential to save substantial amounts of energy—5% or more. One barrier to implementation is that uniform methods for 
measuring energy savings and evaluating effectiveness do not yet exist. This paper explores the successes and challenges of assessing these 
types of programs and the lessons learned. At the heart of the discussion, the authors examine their recent experience with evaluating two 
workplace behavior‐change pilot programs in the Northwest. Of particular interest to the authors was how to effectively integrate impact and 
process evaluation components to provide a better picture of potential program improvements and resulting performance.   
Yaw O. Agyeman, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, CA et al, “EVALUATION OF THE “LOSE YOUR 
EXCUSE” PUBLIC SERVICE ADVERTISING CAMPAIGN FOR TWEENS TO SAVE ENERGY” International Energy 
Program Evaluation Conference (IEPEC), Chicago, IL 2013, 12 pages. 
This study evaluates the 2008‐09 “Lose your Excuse” public service advertising (PSA) campaign on energy efficiency targeting 8‐12 year olds, 
intended to increase knowledge, foster proactive attitudes and change energy usage behaviors. Baseline and two follow‐up surveys were 
conducted with online census‐representative samples of “tweens.” Almost half (46%) recognized at least one ad from the campaign. Ad 
recognition was positively associated with knowledge, proactive attitudes and energy saving behavior. Propensity score analysis confirmed a 
small but measureable and statistically significant effect on energy saving behavior. The discussion section compares these results to public 
health campaigns in terms of ghost awareness, reach, and effect size. 
Anna Kim, Research Into Action et al, Portland, OR, “Draw Back the Curtains: What a Residential Economizer Pilot 
Study Revealed about Home Cooling Behaviors” International Energy Program Evaluation Conference 
(IEPEC), Chicago, IL 2013, 11 pages. 
In the summer of 2011, Idaho Power conducted a pilot study of economizers – a cooling technology – among a small sample of its residential 
customers. The utility installed residential economizer equipment from two different manufacturers in pilot participants' homes to estimate 
potential energy savings. A market study of this pilot, which accompanied a monitoring and impact study, contributed to Idaho Power’s 
assessment of whether the pilot results supported the development of a residential economizer incentive program and identified what the 
utility should consider in designing and deploying such a program. Evaluation staff interviewed installers and participants about their 
experiences with the equipment installation, use, and performance. Idaho Power used the evaluation results to inform an additional study 
about the technology’s suitability and likely energy savings and to determine the feasibility of offering a residential economizer incentive 

Leidos Engineering, LLC 5 | P a g e  
program.  We discovered that participants had diverse reasons for choosing to participate in the pilot project, and had varying expectations for, 
and experiences with, the technology. The study reached three unanticipated conclusions: 1) Even though estimating economizer savings was 
the pilot’s principle objective, and not the assessment of possible program designs, the ability to estimate savings were affected by program 
design considerations, specifically communication among the utility, contractors, and customers. 2) The utility’s customers used at least three 
different strategies to cool their homes, which may affect energy savings. 3) Pilot study evaluations can produce valuable information beyond 
the study’s main objectives that contribute to a deeper understanding of the technology and market. 
Erika Kociolek, Energy Trust of Oregon, Portland OR et al, “What Motivates Action on Energy Efficiency?”   
International Energy Program Evaluation Conference (IEPEC), Chicago, IL 2013, 11 pages. 
What strategies are most effective at motivating households to take energy‐saving actions? This question is at the heart of an ongoing 
experiment called Customer Engagement, a collaboration between Energy Trust of Oregon, Hunt Allcott from New York University, and Michael 
Greenstone from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. The Customer Engagement experiment is designed to answer two key questions 
that will inform Energy Trust’s approach to program initiatives: 1) Does enhanced customer engagement or increased incentives lead to higher 
levels of additional program participation, or followthrough? If so, which strategy is more effective? 2) What strategy, if any, leads to more 
timely followthrough? To answer these questions, from March through December 2012 roughly 2,000 customers who received in‐home or 
phone‐based Home Energy Reviews (HERs) were randomly selected into one of three groups which differed in terms of the level and type of 
follow‐up after the HER and the incentive amounts provided for certain measures after the HER. In this paper, we assess the validity of random 
assignment to treatment and present results from a survey of customers in the experiment, which occurred between six and nine months after 
their HER. The three groups appear to be well matched, confirming the random assignment of treatment. Customer surveys do not indicate 
that customers took different actions after their HER based on the treatment received. Additional research is needed to determine if program 
participation after the HER did in fact vary based on treatment. 
Anne Dougherty, Opinion Dynamics, Oakland CA et al, “Impacts of Feedback Programs: Generating 
Comparable Impacts across Varying Program Design Models” International Energy Program Evaluation 
Conference (IEPEC), Chicago, IL 2013, 13 pages. 
A number of feedback models have become prominent in our industry—from online portals to reward systems to “expert” advising—and most 
models have advanced far beyond providing paper reports. However, few third‐party impact and process evaluations have been conducted on 
this newer breed of behavioral programs, and there is a dearth of literature and methodological guidance on how to evaluate behavioral 
program efforts that do not use pure experimental design.  In this paper, the authors discuss how we used quasi‐experimental evaluation 
approaches to evaluate feedback programs, with a particular emphasis on developing a rigorous counterfactual to reduce self‐selection bias.  
We begin the discussion by theorizing the forms of self‐selection bias present in opt‐in feedback programs. We then discuss and augment 
counterfactual approaches promoted in current protocols, and how each approach does or does not address different forms of self‐selection 
bias present in opt‐in energy programs. To conclude, we provide three real‐world program examples that have used different counterfactual 
approaches to estimate savings for the opt‐in feedback programs cited above.   
Amy Buege, Molly Du and Jean Shelton, Itron Inc., Oakland, CA et al, “Residential Home Energy Surveys:  
What’s the Impact…. Survey Says!” International Energy Program Evaluation Conference (IEPEC), 
Chicago, IL 2013, 11 pages. 
The Home Energy Efficiency Survey (HEES) programs offered by the four California IOUs provide residential customers with customized 
recommendations regarding cost‐effective energy efficiency changes for their homes.  These recommendations span multiple end‐uses, 
including measure and energy management practice changes, and provide information on available utility incentives to help offset the cost of 
implementation.  Currently there is debate over the quantification of energy savings resulting from residential audit programs.  During the 
2010‐12 program cycle, 40 million dollars were allocated statewide to the HEES programs, however only one IOU claimed savings from the 
program due to the difficulty developing accurate, defensible measurements of program savings.  A recent evaluation of the California 
programs found statistically significant electricity savings for all IOUs resulting from implementation of HEES program measure and practice 
recommendations (outside of those implemented through other utility EE programs) which were not  counted as part of any utility EE program 
claims. The successful implementation of the approach presented in this paper allows utilities to confidently claim independent savings 
resulting from residential audit programs. This paper describes the research methods (including both quantitative analysis of participant survey 
self‐reports and a billing regression analysis) and extensive data collection and manipulation used to estimate the net program effects from 
these residential audit programs.  The billing analysis was unique from past efforts in that it isolated the HEES program savings through careful 
development of a non‐participant sample (using PSM1 to control for self‐selection bias) while accounting for savings attributable to other EE 
program participation.   
Stuart Schare, Navigant, Boulder, CO, “Impact, Process, and Technology Assessment for Smart Meter‐
Enabled Demand Response” 2012 International Energy Program Evaluation Conference (IEPEC), Rome, 
Italy 2012, 10 pages. 
NSTAR Electric Company, serving the Boston, Massachusetts region, has deployed the first phase of a smart grid pilot program to demonstrate 
the viability of using home‐area networks and customers’ broadband internet connections to enable dynamic pricing, two‐way direct load 

Leidos Engineering, LLC 6 | P a g e  
control, and the provision of near real‐time customer information. Through the unique experimental design, the pilot will allow for a better 
understanding of how a variety of rates and technologies interact to generate changes in customer electricity consumption and to influence 
customer acceptance. The evaluation approach is designed to accurately estimate the reductions in peak load and overall energy consumption, 
assess customer acceptance, and establish minimum functional requirements for the Smart Grid technologies. The initial feedback from 
customers participating in the pilot has been positive and an ongoing technical review is assessing whether the pilot system architecture can 
provide a viable solution to achieve the pilot’s interval metering and customer information objectives without a full investment in smart meter 
infrastructure and capability. 
Christine Hammer, Sustainable Design + Behavior et al, “West Village Case Study: Designers and 
Occupants” American Center for an Energy Efficient Economy (ACEEE) Summer Study on Energy 
Efficiency in Buildings, 2014, 11 pages. 
West Village is one of the largest zero net energy (ZNE) developments in the US. This paper is about the performance of West Village, in 
particular the role of resident behavior. It explores the assumptions designers and the energy modeler made during design about resident 
behavior. Comparisons of the energy modeler’s assumptions (e.g. default settings) to actual performance by end use reveal a slight mismatch, 
mostly regarding HVAC. While West Village is close to achieving ZNE, it is not quite there as revealed from the energy modeler assumptions. As 
a result, an engagement program is necessary to achieve and maintain ZNE at West Village. Various resident engagement strategies have been 
designed and implemented at West Village. Preliminary results reveal thermostat reprogramming is generating a 16% reduction, a plug load 
pledge is generating a 7% reduction, and letters to excessive users are also working. The results also suggest interventions are persisting. The 
wide angle view of this paper, that is design, operations, and resident behavior, provides feedback to the design and ZNE communities on the 
role of behavior, in particular HVAC behavior, on achieving the state’s zero net energy goals for multi‐family low‐rise developments. 
Michael Goldman, Northeast Utilities et al, “Integrating Behavior Programs into Portfolio Plans to 
Encourage  Cross‐program Effects” American Center for an Energy Efficient Economy (ACEEE) Summer 
Study on Energy Efficiency in Buildings, 2014, 12 pages. 
Behavioral energy efficiency programs have a clear portfolio benefit: they help to increase participation and savings in other energy programs 
while raising awareness about energy efficiency. Many argue that it is this effect that can be the most beneficial impact of these programs: 
increases in installed measures will ensure more persistent savings. However, our current methods to avoid double‐counting savings discourage 
cross‐program promotion. The savings associated with driving participation in other programs are removed from the behavior program and, as 
a result, impact the program’s goals and cost‐effectiveness. In turn, this may discourage behavioral implementers and program managers from 
promoting other programs that lift the entire energy efficiency portfolio. In this paper, the authors discuss these challenges from the 
perspective of a Massachusetts utility implementing behavioral programs. To do so, the authors address the following question: are there 
alternative evaluation and planning approaches that can be used to diminish or remove this disincentive while also avoiding double‐counted 
savings? The authors will present several scenarios based on a concrete program example to examine these questions and to discuss how 
alternative‐planning approaches may better encourage a portfolio‐focus and enhance the overall effectiveness of behavior programs. 
Yingjuan (Molly) Du, Dave Hanna, Jean Shelton  and Amy Buege, Itron, Inc., “What Behaviors Do 
Behavior Programs Change” American Center for an Energy Efficient Economy (ACEEE) Summer Study on 
Energy Efficiency in Buildings, 2014, 12 pages. 
Utilities’ behavioral programs, such as audits and web‐based tools, are designed to change customers’ energy consumption behaviors, and 
when evaluating the impact of such programs, the focus has been on the net energy savings achieved. In two recent evaluations of residential 
behavioral programs in California, we found that as these programs successfully change residential customers’ energy consumption behaviors, 
and they also increase the rate at which the customers participate in other energy efficiency programs.  An analysis of residential participants of 
the Home Energy Efficiency Survey (HEES) audit program and a matched non‐participant control group found that audit participants were 
significantly more likely to participate in other energy efficiency programs  post‐audit than the matched non‐ participants. Similar results were 
found from an analysis of Southern California Edison’s SmartConnect® My Account and Budget Assistant (MA/BA) web presentment tool 
programs. Our research showed that, within half year after program enrollment, a customer is more likely to participate in energy efficient 
programs than the matched non‐participant control group.  In both evaluations, the propensity score matching method was used to select the 
non‐participant samples to match to the participants, so as to mitigate the potential self‐selection bias. In both evaluations, the behavioral 
programs were found to increase future energy efficiency program participation, and the influence was statistically significant. We also found 
that the magnitude of the impact was much higher in the HEES program than in the MA/BA programs. The reason might be that the audit 
program actively provided more specific program information, whereas the MA/BA programs were not as focused. 

Richard Bull et al, Institute of Energy and Sustainable Development (IESD), “Digitally Engaging and 
Empowering Employees for Energy Demand Reduction: A New Approach for the Next Generation?” 
American Center for an Energy Efficient Economy (ACEEE) Summer Study on Energy Efficiency in 
Buildings, 2014, 13 pages. 

Leidos Engineering, LLC 7 | P a g e  
Opinion is divided over whether technical solutions or behavioural change strategies offer the best energy savings potential in buildings. 
Behaviour change initiatives could have impact given current estimates that 30% of energy in buildings is wasted. However, technical solutions 
epitomised by ‘smart’ cities and buildings, exhort the role of information and communications technology (IT) and the digital economy as 
offering significant potential for carbon reduction. Yet both technical and behavioural approaches share the same contested assumption: users 
are a hurdle to overcome rather than a resource to be utilized. This paper presents an alternative approach, informed by social media and 
public participation experts, reframing the relationships between energy management personnel and those using the energy. This paper 
presents new findings from a UK research project funded by the Engineering and Physical Research Council. Working with a local authority 
energy team and a user‐group of building users (from energy managers to ‘ordinary’ users), Gooddeeds developed and tested digital 
technologies social media/smartphone tools to engage with, and empower, employees in the reduction of their building’s environmental 
impact. Findings from the first set of focus groups with the user group offer insight into the potential for a more collaborative approach to 
benefit building users through raising awareness of best practice with regards building energy management. In particular, collaborative 
approaches have the potential to empower building users with the tools and contacts to resolve issues more quickly. Yet there can be no ‘one‐
size’ fits all approach to non‐domestic buildings with this research highlighting clear variations of engagement and interest in this approach 
dependent on building type. 

Emily Bailey and Steven Blumenfeld, Opower, “The Multiplier Effect:  How the Priming Effect Increases 
the Effectiveness of Behavioral Efficiency Programs” American Center for an Energy Efficient Economy 
(ACEEE) Summer Study on Energy Efficiency in Buildings, 2014, 8 pages. 
Conventional wisdom suggests that spending on energy efficiency follows the law of diminishing returns, where the lowest‐hanging fruit would 
deliver the greatest and cheapest savings while the marginal effectiveness of each subsequent dollar spent would decrease. Following this 
principle, one would expect behavioral programs to be less effective in states that spend more on energy efficiency programs. However, there 
is an opposing view that layering behavior programs on top of existing measures could result in more effective savings. The hypothesis is that 
priming the market through spending on institutionalized energy efficiency can improve results from behavioral energy efficiency programs. 
This paper explores the relationship between historic energy efficiency spending and results from behavioral energy efficiency programs. By 
comparing the results of 152 behavioral energy efficiency programs with varied levels of energy efficiency spending and ACEEE state scorecard 
rankings, this paper applies a regression analysis to demonstrate that the priming effect has on the efficacy of behavioral energy efficiency 
programs. Our results indicate that if energy efficiency spend increased one standard deviation from today’s average, the efficacy of behavioral 
efficiency programs would rise by approximately 10%. In addition to presenting this finding, we discuss several theories as to what mechanisms 
may be pushing this relationship. The results explained herein could have a significant impact on both the size and composition of energy 
efficiency portfolios going forward. Since priming demonstrates a multiplier effect on the impact of behavioral programs, portfolios managers 
should consider this increased potential when designing plans to reach their efficiency goals. 

Zachery Ambrose, Allegheny County et al, “Energy Saving Behavior Change For The 21st Century” 
American Center for an Energy Efficient Economy (ACEEE) Summer Study on Energy Efficiency in 
Buildings, 2014, 13 pages. 
Allegheny County’s Sustainability Office partnered with GreenNurture and NORESCO to utilize GreenNurture’s Purpose Driven™ online social 
media application and NORESCO’s “hands on” Energy Conservation Through Behavior Change® (ECTBC) Program, to change specific employee 
attitudes and behavior directly related to energy conservation. Just seven months after the program was implemented, Allegheny County saw 
an improvement of over 20% in energy conserving behaviors. The behavior change program was designed with the ability to work across a 
multidepartmental structure and the various generations of staff. This utilized the “hands on” aspect with face‐to‐face interactions involving 
green teams, energy workshop displays, and printed materials, along with the online application, which provided action tracking, savings 
tracking, collaborative forums, and other social media tools including a points and badge system. The virtual platform combined with structured 
education and peer‐to‐peer development allowed for the implementation of multi‐level engagement program, keeping the initiative effective 
and created quantifiable energy saving results.  To keep staff engaged and excited about sustainability, it was vital to design a program that 
educated employees on the importance of their individual actions, and the collective role these play in day‐to‐day operations. Positively 
reinforcing employees to make environmentally conscious decisions cultivates a sense of pride in their workplace, and engaged them in 
reducing the organization’s impact. To maintain effective results, the program was sustainably designed with the ability to adapt and shift 
within a changing environment. 

Beth Hartman and William LeBlanc, E Source, “Smart Meters, Big Data, and Customer Engagement: In 
Pursuit of the Perfect Portal.” American Center for an Energy Efficient Economy (ACEEE) Summer Study 
on Energy Efficiency in Buildings, 2014, 11 pages. 
Nearly 1 in 3 homes now have smart meters collecting data every 5 to 15 minutes instead of the once per month collection we’ve seen for the 
past 100 years, yet most people don’t even know if they have a smart meter or not, much less how the data can help them save energy and 
money (Tweed 2012). Presenting this information to customers in a way that allows them to easily take advantage of these savings 
opportunities is critical for justifying the billions of dollars that utilities have invested in these meters. Without customer engagement in smart 
meter data, this investment represents little beyond a slightly more accurate and efficient billing system. With customer engagement, however, 
this data is the key to fulfilling the true promise of the smart grid, enabling behavioral demand response, dynamic pricing, and more. The key to 
customer engagement in smart meter data is presenting this information effectively, using website portals that are compelling, actionable, and 
available to people on the communications channels they prefer to use. With the increasing prevalence of industry‐wide standardized formats 

Leidos Engineering, LLC 8 | P a g e  
for data such as the Green Button initiative, creating portals that can easily integrate with smart meter data should be a more streamlined 
process than ever before (Green Button Initiative, 2014). While it is still too early in the existence of these portals to definitively determine 
which elements are most important to drive energy savings, we have created a framework for comparison of the many different components 
that are currently being used in several “best practice” interfaces designed by third parties, utilities, and NGOs.   These elements can include 
energy use patterns, disaggregated use by appliance, comparisons over a variety of time periods, energy savings goal settings, alerts when 
energy use is high, comparisons with peers, entry into contests and sweepstakes, and even gaming. 

Christine Donovan, Sean Bleything, and Shawn Enterline1, Vermont Energy Investment Corporation, 
“Increasing Energy Efficiency in Buildings through Smart‐Grid Enabled Residential Programs.” American 
Center for an Energy Efficient Economy (ACEEE) Summer Study on Energy Efficiency in Buildings, 2014, 
11 pages. 
Utilities are investing billions of dollars in developing the smart grid, and millions of customers now have automated meters that enable two‐
way communication between the customer and the utility that could greatly enhance future residential energy efficiency program design.  With 
this opportunity in mind, two pilot programs in Vermont are exploring the role of automated metering infrastructure (AMI), in home displays 
(IHD), web presentment of energy savings information, energy efficiency coaching provided through Proactive Customer Service (PCS), and 
variable peak pricing on reducing energy use in residential buildings. One pilot is a Consumer Behavior Study (CBS) funded by the U.S. 
Department of Energy (DOE) through the federal Smart Grid Investment Grant (SGIG) program, which began in 2011 and is ongoing through 
2014. A companion pilot also started in 2012 and completed in 2013 focused on residential low income customers with funding from a U.S. DOE 
Weatherization Innovation Pilot Program (WIPP) Grant.  This paper reports results thus far from the Consumer Behavior Studies, with a focus 
on explaining the use of hourly energy information, web presentment, “proactive” (rather than “reactive”) marketing and customer service 
messages, and variable peak pricing to increase energy efficiency and conservation‐based behavior in residential buildings. Key findings from 
the pilots are provided as well as lessons learned and implications for future residential energy efficiency programs are discussed. 

Z. Todd Taylor and Vrushali Mendon, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, “The Marriage of 
Residential Energy Codes and Rating Systems: Conflict Resolution or Just Conflict?” American Center for 
an Energy Efficient Economy (ACEEE) Summer Study on Energy Efficiency in Buildings, 2014, 13 pages. 
After three decades of coexistence at a distance, model residential energy codes and residential energy rating systems have come together in 
the 2015 International Energy Conservation Code. At the October, 2013, International Code Council’s Public Comment Hearing, a new 
compliance path based on an Energy Rating Index was added to the IECC. Although not specifically named in the code, RESNET’s HERS rating 
system is the likely candidate Index for most jurisdictions. While HERS has been a mainstay in various beyond‐code programs for many years, its 
direct incorporation into the most popular model energy code raises questions about the equivalence of a HERS‐based compliance path and the 
traditional IECC performance compliance path, especially because the two approaches use different efficiency metrics, are governed by 
different simulation rules, and have different scopes with regard to energy impacting house features. A detailed simulation analysis of almost 
15,000 house configurations reveals a very large range of HERS Index values that achieve compliance equivalence with the IECC’s performance 
path. In this paper we summarize the results of that analysis and, by evaluating those results against the specific Energy Rating Index values 
required by the 2015 IECC, find those ERIs to be very similar to the conservative (lower) end of the range of HERS values identified as 
corresponding to compliance with the traditional performance path, suggesting that many if not most homes built to the new ERI path’s 
requirements would have better energy performance than if built to the traditional performance compliance path. Finally, based on the home 
characteristics most likely to result in disparities between HERS‐based compliance and performance path compliance, potential impacts on the 
compliance process, state and local adoption of the new code, energy efficiency in the next generation of homes subject to this new code, and 
future evolution of model code formats are discussed. 

Jeff Erickson, Summit Blue Consulting, Verona, WI et al, “Residential Time‐of‐Use with Critical Peak 
Pricing Pilot Program:   Comparing Customer Response between Educate‐Only and Technology‐Assisted 
Pilot Segments” International Energy Program Evaluation Conference (IEPEC), Chicago, IL 2007, 10 
pages. 
In 2006 and 2007 PSE&G offered residential customers in two selected municipalities an opportunity to participate in a residential time‐of‐use 
(TOU) pilot program. The TOU rate incorporated fixed low, medium and high‐cost time periods with an “extra high” cost period, called the “ 
Critical Peak Price” (CPP) that was utilized on an as‐needed basis. There were two TOU segments included in the pilot program. The first, 
myPower Sense, was designed to test how well customers would respond to TOU pricing and reduce demand during CPP events when given 
advance warning and educational information only. PSE&G used e‐mail and telephone calls to notify participants the night before a CPP event. 
The second segment, myPower Connection, offered customers the same TOU/CPP rate and advanced warning of CPP events, but also provided 
customers with a free programmable thermostat that received price signals from PSE&G and could be programmed to adjust air conditioning 
set points in response changes in the TOU/CPP price signals.  The educate‐only segment, myPower Sense, required participants to take explicit 
self‐imposed actions on peak price days (or else pay a significant price). The technology‐enabled segment, myPower Connection, should, in 
theory, have produced greater demand reduction from customers, since they had the ability to pre‐program their thermostat to automatically 
respond to higher priced time periods. This paper compares the two segments on program recruitment issues, participant satisfaction, and 
demand impacts, as well as other factors. 

Leidos Engineering, LLC 9 | P a g e  

Anne Dougherty, Opinion Dynamics Corporation et al, “Moving Beyond Econometrics to Examine the 
Behavioral Changes behind Impacts” International Energy Program Evaluation Conference (IEPEC), 
Chicago, IL 2011, 10 pages. 
Evaluations of information‐driven social norm messaging programs have demonstrated that behavioral programs can generate quantifiable 
energy savings. However, few evaluations have successfully documented the behavioral drivers that lead to increases in energy savings. Past 
evaluations of behavior‐based conservation programs rarely move beyond the “black box” of estimating reductions in kWh to provide insight 
into exactly how program participants are saving energy. Without this knowledge, implementers are deprived of the insight necessary to  create 
increasingly innovative program interventions.  The Opinion Dynamics Team, with subcontractor Navigant Consulting, conducted an evaluation 
on behalf of multiple utilities in Massachusetts to assess the impact, value, and scalability of behavioral programs (including OPOWER, Tendril, 
and Efficiency 2.0) in current and future statewide behavioral program efforts. This paper will detail how our team paired market research 
techniques with econometrics analysis to examine the behavior changes that drive energy savings for one of these programs, OPOWER. 
Specifically, we will describe the methods and findings from a statewide evaluation of prominent behavioral programs that draws on multiple 
market research techniques. The goal of this evaluation was to address the following researchable questions: (1) how are the behavioral 
program interventions generating changes in energy saving installations and practices among those who are touched by the program?; (2) what 
are the unique behaviors that contribute to energy savings, including but not limited to measure installation and conservation behaviors?; and 
(3) how, if at all, are these behaviors persisting over time?     

Dr. Michael Coleman, De Montfort University, Leicester, UK eta, “Evaluating Personalised Energy 
Feedback Information  for Behaviour Change in Commercial Buildings” International Energy Program 
Evaluation Conference (IEPEC), Rome, Italy, 2012, 12 pages. 
A growing body of research indicates that the improved feedback of energy information to building users can encourage more efficient use of 
energy.  However, the majority of previous research studies into energy feedback have focused on electricity use in homes, with little research 
undertaken in commercial buildings.  This paper discusses the use of energy feedback in the commercial setting, in the context of a UK study 
that is currently investigating the development and application of wireless behaviour information (Wi‐be) systems that utilise low power 
wireless sensors and networks for monitoring personal energy use, patterns of occupancy, and delivering personalised energy feedback 
information.  Central to the “Wi‐be” approach is the provision of accurate disaggregated feedback, so that individual energy users can assess 
the impact of their behaviour.  The paper describes the study‟s methodology suggesting how behaviour change and energy savings can be 
evaluated.  Both the positive and negative aspects of the technology are considered from technical and user perspectives.  Results from initial 
interviews provide some support for the use of personalised feedback in commercial buildings.  They also highlight the need to address the 
control of communal energy end‐uses and the potentially counterproductive ethical issues associated with energy monitoring and tracking; 
including privacy, surveillance and the misuse of data.     

Sharyn Barata, Itron, Liberty Lake, WA et al, “Can Smart Meters Make Smarter Customers?  Evaluating 
the Impact of Smart Meters on Consumer Energy Efficiency Behaviors.” International Energy Program 
Evaluation Conference (IEPEC), Rome, Italy, 2012, 9 pages. 
Combining a smart meter with an educated consumer can lead to smarter energy use, but the key to understanding, or quantifying, how much 
energy was saved depends on blending the appropriate amount of new network functionality with tested evaluation techniques.  This paper 
will explore various ways that smart meter technologies and feedback mechanisms are being deployed in North America, and how this is likely 
to impact the types of “new” energy efficiency programs and efforts to produce credible estimates of energy savings. In addition, the paper will 
also describe how the pursuit of these new savings opportunities help support the business case for smart grid and is likely to transform the 
way that utilities design, implement and evaluate energy efficiency programs.    This paper will explore customer perceptions and experience 
with smart feedback technologies.   Various examples of how utilities can use the smart grid platform to   change the way customers use 
electricity will be presented.  Recent examples of how these programs are being evaluated across North America, including incorporation of 
newly established experimental design techniques, will also be discussed. 

Kevin Monte de Ramos, KMDR Research, Toronto, ON, “Exploring Behavioral Change Theory.” 
International Energy Program Evaluation Conference (IEPEC), Rome, Italy, 2012, 11 pages. 
This paper explores human behavior change from two constructs.  The first is a staged transformational approach called the Trans theoretical 
Model of Behavioral Change (TTM).  Under the TTM, individuals wishing to initiate and maintain a new set of behaviors move through five 
stages of change. The second approach employs a CSB (Cognitive‐Structural‐Behavior) Construct which suggests cognitive and structural 
outcomes result in behavioral change.  The TTM has been applied within the health and social sciences industry. Applying the TTM model to 
energy programs can identify both limitations in current program designs and opportunities for potential future improvements.  The CSB 

Leidos Engineering, LLC 10 | P a g e  
Construct evolved from the application of the TTM to energy efficiency programming.  The CSB Construct has also been used to simplify logic 
models relating to planned market transformation. Given the applicability of the CSB Construct to support program theory development across 
a wide range of energy efficiency offerings, the resulting logic models have been embedded in the EM&V Protocols and Requirements of 
Ontario. By better understanding the process of self change, program managers and regulators can draft policies that allow participation from 
individuals not yet ready to adopt energy efficiency behaviors.  Furthermore, evaluators employing the CSB constructs can establish metrics 
that track cognitive, structural, and behavioral outcomes towards the realization and attribution of desired programmatic impacts. 

Jane Hummer, Navigant Consulting, Boulder, CO et al, “The Time for (Behavior) Change is Now: Applying 
Social Marketing Principles to Residential Energy Efficiency Programs.” International Energy Program 
Evaluation Conference (IEPEC), Chicago, Il, 2011, 14 pages. 
Utilities and governments across the U.S. are starting to realize that their technology‐centric energy efficiency programs can benefit from a 
more thorough understanding of the social and behavioral aspects of energy use. This paper presents the results of a meta‐analysis of 
successful behavior change programs in the energy industry as well as in other fields. Navigant Consulting conducted a study for the Northwest 
Energy Efficiency Taskforce Regional Marketing Coordinating Council with the goal of developing a comprehensive understanding of strategies 
that can be used to make residential energy‐efficient behaviors as commonplace as recycling. National potential studies indicate that U.S. 
households can reduce their energy consumption by roughly 30% (approximately 11% of total U.S. energy consumption) with no sacrifice of 
quality of life and little to no economic hardship through changes in their purchases and use of household and vehicle technologies. Yet the 
cost‐effectiveness appeal traditionally employed by utilities and governments promoting energy efficiency does not seem to be effective in 
convincing American consumers to adopt energy‐efficient practices and purchasing behaviors. There is a growing body of evidence—
summarized in this paper—that social incentives can be more effective than financial ones in promoting energy‐efficient behaviors and 
purchase decisions.   

David Juri Freeman, Skumatz Economic Research Associates Inc., Superior, CO, “Widgets versus Actions: 
Measuring the Role of Behavior Change in DSM Programs.” International Energy Program Evaluation 
Conference (IEPEC), Rome, Italy, 2012, 12 pages. 
The protocols for the evaluation of widget‐based approaches to energy efficiency are well designed, documented, and for the most part, agreed 
upon in the industry. On the other hand, though many US and international organizations have touted the potential energy savings from 
behavior modification programs, the evaluation of these is still in its early stages. This research paper shares both a review of the current best 
practices in the measurement of behavior change found in the literature as well a hands‐on case study measuring behavior modification 
impacts. The authors discuss the state of current practices in determining how an evaluator can identify what needs to be measured as well as 
the myriad of options to complete the measurement. The paper also addresses a host of other issues such as behavior retention, persistence, 
impacts compared to other approaches, and what is currently undervalued in behavior evaluation. Finally, the paper reviews recent projects 
completed by the authors, showing how the techniques discussed can be applied in the ‘real world.’ 

Carmen Barker Lemay, Ph.D., Integrative Growth, Inc., Jean Bardeaux, Xcel Energy, Inc. and Cheryl 
Winch, The Cadmus Group. “MEASURING THE IMPACT OF SOCIAL MARKETING AND OUTREACH.” 
International Energy Program Evaluation Conference (IEPEC), Chicago, Il, 2011, 5 pages. 
By design and practice energy conservation, efficiency and renewable programs aim to change behavior. There are often rigorous protocols 
used to evaluate the process the programs follow as well as their impact in energy savings.  
 Activities like outreach and education on the other hand, are often dismissed as indirect and deemed too hard to measure. In this work, we’ll 
share a case study including design, implementation and results of a feedback program that directly measures the impact of a social marketing 
and outreach program that moves participants along a hierarchy or continuum, ultimately ending in behavioral change.  
 Unlike mainstream marketing, which is designed to promote the purchase of a specific product or service, social marketing often has invisible 
or intangible benefits. The techniques of social marketing (the use of marketing tools to achieve specific behavioral goals for a social good) offer 
the means to motivate customers to make long‐term commitment to change.  Social marketing has been used to educate consumers that they 
can make a difference.    
 Our efforts will investigate the role and effectiveness of social marketing within the energy conservation, efficiency and renewable fuels 
dialogue. We will compare different messages, venues and follow‐up communication processes to determine what has resulted in behavioral 
change.   

Marjorie McRae, Research Into Action, Inc., Portland, OR et al, “Information at a Click: Assessing 
Efficiency Educational Websites.” International Energy Program Evaluation Conference (IEPEC), Portland, 
OR, 2009, 12 pages. 
As program administrators seek to promote more comprehensive energy efficiency behaviors, they increasingly are developing websites to 
stimulate customers’ interest and inform and expand their views of the possible and desirable, deliver programmatic and related information, 
and facilitate communication among site users. The authors developed criteria for assessing efficiency program websites based on a 
comprehensive review, analysis, synthesis, and simplification of website evaluation criteria used by: the Association for Library Service to 
Children, a division of the American Library Association, to select its Great Web Sites for Kids; the Arizona Technology in Education Alliance for 

Leidos Engineering, LLC 11 | P a g e  
its Exemplary Web Site Awards; the National Endowment for the Humanities for its EDSITEment website selection; and Oracle Education 
Foundation for its 2009 ThinkQuest Website Competition. The ten website evaluation categories include: program presentation; efficiency 
program information and content; organization; presentation; media use; technical aspects; written language mechanics; responsiveness to the 
needs of the audience; sensitivity to human diversity; and originality.   As with any set of evaluation criteria, not all will apply in every situation.  
Specialized websites might be quite effective, even though satisfying only some of these criteria.  The evaluators selected this set of criteria to 
cover a broad swath of possible attributes and provide a lens by which they could compare websites across programs.   This paper discusses 
these criteria and gives examples of their use in evaluating two educational websites. 

Jennifer Fagan, Itron, Inc. et al, “Energy Efficiency Best Practices: What’s New? The Latest from the 
Current Phase of Work for the National Programmatic Energy Efficiency Best Practices Study.” 
International Energy Program Evaluation Conference (IEPEC), Chicago, Il, 2007, 11 pages. 
This paper will present selected results and insights from the third phase of the national programmatic Energy Efficiency Best Practices study.  
The overall goal of the Best Practices Study is to identify and communicate excellent programmatic practices in order to enhance the design of 
energy efficiency programs in California and throughout the country.  The first two phases of the study evaluated energy efficiency programs by 
program type, and type of program activity (e.g., marketing, tracking, implementation, management, etc.). They assessed applicable best 
practices for each program element, and delivered the analysis and data online via the project website (www.eebestpractices.com).  This study 
has enjoyed widespread use by many energy efficiency providers and practitioners around the U.S.      A key objective of the third phase of the 
study, currently underway, is to extend the assessment of Best Practices to include two new areas: (1) Energy Efficiency (EE) Portfolios and (2) 
Nonresidential Education and Training Programs;   This paper will report on our research methods and high‐level findings to‐date for each of 
these areas.  A second project objective is to selectively update findings from the previous study via a “What’s New” white paper This updated 
information refreshes the data contained in our project website for changes experienced since the study was first done in 2004.  Also included 
are findings from our research on new program delivery strategies and technology trends, based on in‐depth interviews with national energy 
efficiency experts from around the country.  The paper will describe our research approach and present selected findings and 
recommendations based on the results. A third key project objective is to disseminate information from the previous study phases to managers 
of Local and Third Party programs in California.  This is being done via a combination of a training workshop and a tool to help program 
managers self‐benchmark their own programs against the relevant best practices.  The self‐benchmarking tool is briefly described. 

Monica Pianosi, De Montfort University, Leicester, UK et al, “Enhancing Environmental Citizenship and 
Reducing Energy Consumption through  Creative Engagement with Building Users.”  International Energy 
Program Evaluation Conference (IEPEC), Rome, Italy, 2012, 14 pages. 
This paper reports on research which focuses on the impact that users` behaviour has on the energy consumption of buildings and how to 
effectively engage users in energy reduction strategies. The research seeks to understand how work‐based communities engage with energy 
and evaluates the impact that building‐users can have on workplace energy reduction. The work is being conducted in De Montfort University, 
UK, and it addresses the need to lower UK Higher Education sector emissions. The awareness that our life‐styles are damaging the environment 
has raised questions about who should take responsibility for preventative action. Many attempts at `pro‐environmental change` rely upon 
individualistic and rationalist assumptions. Alternatively, public participation is increasingly considered to be an important aspect in the success 
of behaviour‐change processes. It is widely accepted that if people have the opportunity to participate in decision‐making processes, they will 
be more likely to adopt the outcome of the decisions. This principle has been successfully applied in the context of waste management and 
landscape planning, but has less of a track record of application in the context of energy use. Using an action research methodology, the aim is 
to evaluate the use of social media as a tool to engage users in the workplace environment and then to monitor subsequent behaviours. The 
research, currently in its initial stages, will provide insights into how social media can be used in large organisations for facilitating 
communication, the exchange of pro‐environmental information and the impact on behavioural change. 

Susan E. Stein, Midwest Renewable Energy Association, Amherst, WI et al, “EVALUATION OF THE 
WISCONSIN ENERGY CYCLE EDUCATION PROGRAM.”  International Energy Program Evaluation 
Conference (IEPEC), Chicago, Il, 1997, 8 pages. 
The overall goal of the project described in this paper was to evaluate the effectiveness of the Energy Cycle Education Program lesson plan in 
promoting participants’ awareness, positive attitudes and behavioral intentions regarding energy resources and conservation practices. 

Tami Buhr, Opinion Dynamics Corporation, Waltham, MA et al, “Education and Training Programs: An 
Evaluation of the Energy Benefits.” International Energy Program Evaluation Conference (IEPEC), 
Portland, OR, 2009, 12 pages. 
The purpose of this evaluation is to assess the indirect impacts of the California Statewide Energy Efficiency Education and Training Program 
and its primary program effort, nine Energy Centers. Historically, the performance metrics of the California IOU Education and Training 
Programs focused on the number of participants and similar frequency of use measures. A program was considered successful if it was well‐
attended regardless of whether it led to changes in behaviors and attitudes.  This evaluation takes a different approach by assessing the impact 
of the Centers on program participants’ attitudes, awareness and knowledge of energy saving behaviors. In addition, the evaluation estimates 
net energy savings resulting from actions taken due to participation in the courses.  We conducted surveys with a sample of 2,864 people who 

Leidos Engineering, LLC 12 | P a g e  
took courses at the Centers between January 2006 and June 2007. The results provide a profile of course participants and the impact the 
courses had on their attitudes and behavior. The study indicates that there is a substantial positive impact of these centers in energy savings 
that is not being captured by impact evaluations of the incentive programs. Course participants gained knowledge and changed their way of 
thinking about energy efficiency opportunities they could take advantage of at their home or work. Many took energy saving action or changed 
their work practices as a result of taking the course. In addition, a large majority shared what they learned with others, potentially extending 
the influence of the courses beyond the individual participants. 

US DOE EERE, “U.S. Department of Education Green Ribbon Schools Media Coverage and Highlights 
from 2016 honorees.” May 2016, 4 pages and 15 pages. 
Describes the programs and efforts at approx. 100 schools and colleges receiving Green Ribbon award. 

Ray Yun et al, Carnegie Mellon University, “Towards the Design of a Dashboard to Promote 
Environmentally Sustainable Behavior among Office Workers,” Persuasive Technology, 7822, pages 246‐
252, 2013. 
In the United States, over three billion dollars are spent due to office equipment being left on when not in use during the weekend and at night.  
There is very little incentive for office workers to save energy because utility bills are not directly their responsibility.  Our goal is to find ways to 
reduce the negative impacts of this pervasive phenomenon by applying persuasive technologies to create awareness and encourage office 
workers towards more environmentally sustainable behavior.  To this end, we conducted a literature review to investigate the persuasive 
methods appropriate to the field of building controls.  We then proceeded to develop “dashboard‐controllers” that enable office workers to 
control energy‐using components with expert feedback to save energy. 

Leidos Engineering, LLC 13 | P a g e  
STEMazing Professional Educator Interview Guide 
Idaho Power Company (IPC) Energy Efficiency Education Initiative –
STEMazing/iSTEM Project Facilitators – Interview Guide
Target audience: The iSTEM facilitators that held a 3‐day professional development seminar for 18 K‐12 
teachers on energy‐efficiency education. The teachers, in turn, implemented curriculum on energy 
conservation for their K‐12 students.  
Key objective: Obtain, analysis and summarize the curriculum used during seminar.  Discover innovative 
and best practices and how they are working.  Learn about programs and initiative that change 
participant energy using behaviors, increase utility customer usage of ‘‘myAccount’’ and existing utility 
programs and service offerings.  Ask which marketing channels are best and how to effectively use them. 
Introduction: Hello my name is Jeff Riggert calling on behalf of Denise Humphreys of Idaho Power’s
Energy Efficiency Residential Education Initiative. The initiative is being evaluated in terms of how it is
advancing energy efficiency and conservation behaviors. It’s my understanding that you played a role in
a 3-day professional development seminar for 18 K-12 teachers? Would you be willing to talk about
what you are doing to advance energy conservation with the STEMAZing Project and iSTEM? Is now a
good time to talk?

Ms. DaNel L. Hogan 
Director of The STEMAZing Project 
200 N. Stone Avenue 
Tucson, AZ 85701 
(520) 724‐8395 

Attempt # Date Time Result

Leidos Engineering, LLC 14 | P a g e  
Introduction
1) What is your job title?

2) What is your roll and responsibility at work?

External Program/Initiative Description
3) What is/are the name(s) of your residential energy education program(s) or initiative?

4) What was the impetus for the program/initiative?

5) When was the program first launched?

6) What are the goals of the program/project?

7) What kind of marketing and outreach does the program use?

8) What sort of traditional and non-traditional media channels are employed to reach
people/participants?

9) How are participants (teachers/students) enrolled in the program?

10) Why do customers decide to participate?

11) How many participants have enrolled in program?

12) What sort of behavioral change strategies do you employ to save energy?

13) Which energy efficiency measures or end uses are you targeting?

14) Are there any estimates of energy savings associated with the program?

15) What other kinds of data are being collected or tracked with this program?

16) Has there been any evaluations of the program?

Leidos Engineering, LLC 15 | P a g e  
17) If so, can I obtain a copy of the evaluation report or summary of findings?

Traditional Marketing Channels
Please rate the following marketing channels for effectiveness at reaching people to educate them about energy conservation. Please use a 1-10 scale, where 1 is poor and 10 is excellent. Let’s start with some
traditional marketing channels….
18) …TV, Radio and print media Rating (1-10) ____
19) Topically focused energy guide mailers Rating (1-10) ____
20) Utility customer newsletters Rating (1-10) ____
21) News briefs / press releases Rating (1-10) ____
22) Native advertisement / reporter written stories Rating (1-10) ____
23) Celebrity endorsements Rating (1-10) ____
24) Sports, music, other forms of live entertainment. If so, please specify __ Rating (1-10) ____
25) Institutional and business sponsorships Rating (1-10) ____
26) Local or municipal government Rating (1-10) ____
27) K-12 students and schools Rating (1-10) ____
28) University or college student, faculty and staff Rating (1-10) ____
29) Neighborhood associations Rating (1-10) ____
30) Public or community events via canvassing and booths (Probe for well attended events, where
people expect to learn things like energy conservation)
(For scores above 5) Please specify and rate _______________ Rating (1-10) ____
31) Competitions with prizes (e.g. raffles or other rewards).
(For scores above 5) If so, what kind of prizes _____________ Rating (1-10) ____
32) Other gamification based reward systems. If so, please specify ______ Rating (1-10) ____
33) Other situations where strong in-group social identity exists (e.g. club members).
If so, please specify___________________________________ Rating (1-10) ____

Internet Age / Social Marketing Channels
Now let’s rate some newer marketing channels, starting with…
34) Facebook Rating (1-10) ____
35) Twitter Rating (1-10) ____
36) Instagram (photos and imagery) Rating (1-10) ____
37) LinkedIn Rating (1-10) ____
38) Next Door (neighborhood network) Rating (1-10) ____
39) Other free private social networks. Please specify ________________ Rating (1-10) ____
40) E-mails Rating (1-10) ____
41) Text messages Rating (1-10) ____
42) Opt-in on-line groups such as yahoo or google Rating (1-10) ____
43) Blogs Rating (1-10) ____
44) Online customer utility accounts (used to pay bills and monitor energy use) Rating (1-10) ____
45) Online energy dashboards Rating (1-10) ____
46) Smart meters and real-time feedback on energy usage Rating (1-10) ____

Leidos Engineering, LLC 16 | P a g e  
47) Other technology-enabled human-interfaced energy-use feedback mechanisms Rating (1-10)
Please specify: _____________________________________________
48) Meet-ups or Crowd sourcing strategies Rating (1-10) ____
49) Energy pledges for behavioral change with follow-up social accountability. Rating (1-10) ____
(Probe for How to best implement and apply follow-up accountability?)____________________
50) Other types of behavior change strategies. Please specify ___________ Rating (1-10) ____

Other Customer Engagement Strategies
51) How can we best use photos and imagery to engage educate energy users and change behavior?

52) How do we get more tie-ins to (and usage of) utility accounts to educate and change behavior of
utility customers?

53) Real time feedback on automobile driving behavior (and its impacts on gas mileage and fuel
range) are dashboard displays on some new automobiles. How could this be used at home to
lower electricity usage?

54) Fully enabled smart electric (AMI) meters enable utility customers to monitor their home’s
hourly energy usage from an online portal. How could this technology best be used to reduce
energy use?

55) Customer feedback mechanisms, such as OPower, provide homeowner with feedback on their
energy use by comparing it to similar homes. Evaluations have shown OPower typically reduces
energy use by several percentage point and the savings persists for several years. What do you
think about this strategy?

56) What are the best ways to achieve energy behavioral change via feedback programs?

57) What about the water-energy nexus? Are you targeting or emphasizing energy efficiency
measures or energy conservation behaviors that also save water? If so, please specify ________

Customer Motivational Drivers
Energy efficiency and conservation are typically NOT top-of-mind for people. What sort of non-energy
benefits, associated with saving energy, make it to top-of-mind?
58) Now I would like to get your perspective on what motivates customers to change energy using
behaviors. Using a 1-10 scale, where 1 is Not at all important and 10 is Very important, how
would you rate the importance of the following factors in participant’s decisions to ACT to save
energy. Starting with…
 Improved comfort Importance, 1-10 scale ____

Leidos Engineering, LLC 17 | P a g e  
 Saving money Importance, 1-10 scale ____
 Home improvement Importance, 1-10 scale ____
 Convenience and time saving Importance, 1-10 scale ____
 Improved health and safety Importance, 1-10 scale ____
 Reduced impact on the environment Importance, 1-10 scale ____
 Economic prosperity Importance, 1-10 scale ____
 National Security Importance, 1-10 scale ____
 Other factors? Please specify______________________ Importance, 1-10 scale ____

Conclusion
59) Do you know of any other programs or people that are implementing residential-sector energy
conservation behavioral change efforts at utilities or other organizations?

60) More broadly, can you think of anyone else we should talk to that is doing something new or
innovative with residential-sector energy conservation programs in general?

61) Is there anything else that you would like to share or suggest regarding residential-sector energy
efficiency efforts?

Thank you for your time and valuable insight!

Leidos Engineering, LLC 18 | P a g e  
iSTEM & Idaho Power ‐ Energy for the Future Citizens Strand Workshop 
Schedule 
Energy For Future Citizens
i-STEM Institute 2016
Sponsored by Idaho Power, Intermountain Gas, and Idaho National Laboratory SCHEDULE 
 Monday – June 27 7:30 a.m. Check In & Registration 8:00 Breakfast / Welcome & Introductions 8:15 Welcome from Bert Glandon, CWI President 
8:30 General Session: Cassidy Hall (technology) 
10:00 Energy for Future Citizens Strand Time (2 hours) 
Welcome, Intro,  
Pre‐Test (15 min) 
Triangles System Activity (15 min) dh 
Global Trading Game (1 hour 15 min) dh 
Digestion Time (5 min silent, 10 min share out) 

12:00 p.m.  Lunch: STEM Action Center 1:00  Energy for Future Citizens Strand Time (3.5 hours) 
Science of Energy & Energy 101 (15 min) mw 
Hands‐on Science of Energy (30 min ) mw 
IDC (Independent, Dependent, and Control) (15 min) 
dh 
Energy Enigma (45 min) dh 
Break (10 min) 
Primary Sources and Sectors Jigsaw (30 min) dh 
High level for teachers, but show lower level 
High Voltage Table (Russ Weadon)  (45 min) 
Digestion Time (5 min silent, 10 min share out) 
Energy for Future Presidents Homework (What is 
energy?) (5 min) 
4:30  General Session: credit Requirements 

Leidos Engineering, LLC 19 | P a g e  
5:00  Close of Day   Tuesday – June 28 7:30 a.m.  Breakfast 
8:00  General Session: Carla Hester-Croff 
9:30  Energy for Future Citizens Strand Time (2.5 hours) 
Homework Review (15 min) mw 
Conservation and Efficiency 101 (15 min) dh 
TED “How Behavioral Science Can Lower Your Power 
Bill” (15 min) mw 
Hands‐on Energy Audit (30 min) dh 
Energy Bike (15 min) mw 
Energy Calculations (30 min) dh 
TED: Paper Beats Plastic: How to rethink 
environmental folklore mw 
Digestion Time (5 min silent, 10 min share out) 
12:00 p.m.  Lunch 
1:00  Energy for Future Citizens Strand Time (2 hours) 
Power Generation and E&M 101 (15 min) mw 
Electromagnetism Labs (1 hr) dh 
Electromagnetism with Compass 
Nuts and Bolts of Music 
Hand Generator Flashlights 
Homopolar motor 
Eddy Current Tube 
Simple (violin) Generators 
Ammeter Movement 
PhET Simulations (20 min) mw 
Faraday’s Electromagnetic Lab 
AC/DC Circuits  
Digestion Time (5 min silent, 10 min share out) 
Energy for Future Presidents Homework (Fukushima 
and Gulf Oil Spill) (10 min) 
3:00  General Session: Meet The Pros – This can be used as family
STEM night 
5:00  Close of Day 
 Wednesday – June 29 FIELD TRIP DAY 7:30 a.m.  Breakfast 8:00  General Session: Matt Bertasso 

Leidos Engineering, LLC 20 | P a g e  
9:30  Energy for Future Citizens Strand Time (2.5 hours) 
Field Trip to Langley Gulch  
12:00 p.m.  Lunch on the bus 
1:00  Energy for Future Citizens Strand Time (4 hours) 
Energy for Future Presidents Homework Review (15 
min) 
Intermountain Gas (30 min) 
Theory Cubes and Nature of Science (45 min) mw 
Break (15 minutes) 
Intermountain Gas (45 min) 
Solar Light Deconstruction (45 min) dh 
Intermountain Gas (30 min) 
Digestion Time (5 min silent, 10 min share out) 
Energy for Future Presidents Homework (your choice) 
dh 
5:00  Close of Day  

Thursday – June 30 
7:30 a.m.  Breakfast 
8:00  Energy for Future Citizens Strand Time (4 hours) Homework Review (15 min) Nuclear 101 (15 min) dh 
Nuclear Activities (45 min) dh 
 Irradiated Salt Demo 
 M&M half-life/ Licorice half life (jigsaw) 
Critical Mass mw 
Break (10 min) 
Wind 101 (15 min) dh 
Tower Construction (5 min) dh 
Hands-on Wind Turbine Activities (1 hour 15 min) dh 
 Blade Angle 
 Blade Number 
 Blade Mass 
State of Energy with Infographics (1 hour) dh 
Digestion Time (5 min silent, 10 min share out) 
12:00  Lunch: Discussion of where to find funding and grants for
projects  
1:00 p.m.  General Session: Peter DeWitt 2:30  Energy for Future Citizens Strand Time (1.5 hours) Solar 101 (15 min) dh 
Hands-on Photovoltaic Activities (45 min) mw 

Leidos Engineering, LLC 21 | P a g e  
 Angle 
 Series and Parallel 
Digestion Time (5 min silent, 10 min share out) 
Post Test (Kahoot) and Evaluation (15 min) 
4:00  General Session: Finishing comments 
5:00  Institute Close 

Leidos Engineering, LLC 22 | P a g e  
iSTEM Idaho Power Energy for the Future Citizens Strand Kit 
Idaho Power Energy for Future Citizens Strand Kit ‐ 2016 i‐STEM Institute 
Item Description Kit 
Numbe
r 
Curriculum Supplier 
Energy for Future Presidents 1 Everything Amazon 
Nitinol Memory Wire (10 ft pack) 1 Science of Energy Educational 
Innovations 
Bulk UV Beads ‐ 3000 Beads Assorted Colors 150 Solar Educational 
Innovations 
Magnets(pk 25) 5 Violin Generators Educational 
Innovations 
Cen‐Tech 18" Low Voltage Multi‐Colored Test 
Leads pkg of 10 
2 Wind/Solar Harbor Freight 
7 Function Multimeter 5 Science of Energy Harbor Freight 
Pack of 2 Dynamo LED Flashlights 1 Science of Energy Harbor Freight 
Irradiated Marbles 1 Nuclear Health Physics 
Society/PSU 
Irradiated Salt from PSU    Nuclear Health Physics 
Society/PSU 
Solar Garden Lights 10 Solar Dollar Tree 
Ear Buds 1 E&M Dollar Tree 
Salt/Pepper Shakers 1 Nuclear Dollar Tree 
Copper Tube (10' length cut to 2' sections) 1 Electromagnetism Home Depot 
Drywall S Crews for homopolar motors 15 Homopolar Motors Home Depot 
Rayovac D Cell Batteries (12 pack) 3 Homopolar Motors Home Depot 
10 ft 3/4" Sch 40 PVC (cut down for generators) 1 Violin Generators Home Depot 
3/4" Cap 1 Violin Generators Home Depot 
3/8" Hardwood Dowel (cut down for generators) 1 Violin Generators Home Depot 
15 ft. 15‐Gauge Primary Wire ‐ Green (cut into 
sections) 
2 Electromagnetism Home Depot 
Peg Board with the holes    Violin Generators Home Depot 
Calcium Chloride (damp rid) 1 Science of Energy Home Depot 
Large Nut 1 Nuts and Bolts of 
Music 
Home Depot 
65 ft 20/2 Bell Wire (cut into 5" sections) + 30 feet 
(cut 3" sections for Nut Music) 
15 Homopolar Motors Home Depot 
A serious but not ponderous book about Nuclear 
Energy 
1 Nuclear Idaho National 
Lab 
Education Resources Booklet 1 Science of Energy Idaho Power 
Idaho Energy Primer 1 Science of Energy Idaho Power 
Single Phantom Switches 1 Efficiency/Conservati Idaho Power 

Leidos Engineering, LLC 23 | P a g e  
on 
30 Ways to Save Booklet 1 Efficiency/Conservati
on 
Idaho Power 
Metal Coffee Mugs with Idaho Power Logo 1 Efficiency/Conservati
on 
Idaho Power 
Neodymium Rare Earth Magnets ‐ 1/4"x1/4" axially 
magnetized 
20 Homopolar Motors Amazing 
Magnets 
PVC pipe 1" x 10' schedule 40 various Wind Lowe's 
PVC straight connectors    Wind Lowe's 
PVC LASCO 1" Tee 3 Wind Lowe's 
Student Compasses (10pk) 10 Electromagnetism MiniScience 
10 lamp‐5Base set (1.5V 0.3 amp) 10/5 Electromagnetism MiniScience 
Radiometer 1 Science of Energy NADA Scientific, 
Ltd. 
Compound Bar 1 Science of Energy NADA Scientific, 
Ltd. 
Happy/Sad Balls 1 Science of Energy NADA Scientific, 
Ltd. 
 Kill‐A‐Watt meter  1   
Efficiency/Conservati
on  
 P3 
International  
30 AWG Magnet Wire 1 Violin Generators RadioShack 
LED 1 Violin Generators AllElectronic.co
m 
2 Tongs 2 Science of Energy The NEED 
Project 
DC micro ammeter 1 Science of Energy The NEED 
Project 
Set of 10 Student Thermometers 2 Science of Energy The NEED 
Project 
Physics Trick 1 Physics DaNel Hogan 
Kidwind DIY Basic Kit 10 Wind Vernier 
Big Tub 20 Tub for Everything Walmart or 
similar 
Ziploc Large Rectangular Containers (2 pack) #REF! Global Trading Game Walmart or 
similar 
Powering the Future with a New Era of Science 
Posters 
1    Department of 
Energy 
M&Ms    Nuclear    
Licorice    Nuclear    
Marbles 30 Global Trading Game    

Leidos Engineering, LLC 25 | P a g e  
Idaho Power Residential REEEI Manager and Marketing Specialist 
Interview Guide 
Program: Residential Energy Education Efficiency Initiative (REEEI) 
Date:   July 7th, 2016, 11am MST 
Name:   Denise Humphreys (Program Lead) and Gary Grayson 
Date:   July 8th 2016, 11am MST 
Name:   Tracey Burtsch (Marketing Specialist) 
Title:     
Phone:     
Email:     
Interviewers: Jeff, KLS 
Objective: Obtain key information and data about the Program to complete EM&V Work Plan. 
A. Staff Role/Responsibilities 
a. What is your role and responsibilities for the Program?  Who else is involved in the 
administering or delivering the Program and what are their responsibilities? (Obtain 
Organization Chart, if available) 
B. Program Description for the EM&V Work Plan (these questions may be answered by Program 
documentation or other references) 
a. When was the Program first launched? 
b. What is the key target market(s) for the program in terms of types of homes, facilities, 
businesses and end‐use equipment?  What is the size of that market? 
c. What are the major measures being offered through the Program?  What other 
products and services (technical support, financing, etc.) are available from the 
Program? 
d. What is the rebate or incentive levels or rebate structures for the Program? 
e. Does the Program have any program partners or market actors involved in promoting 
and delivering the Program? 
f. What is the budget for the Program? 
C. Program Goals and Progress Towards Meeting Goals 
a. What are the major goals for the program? 
i. Any long‐term goals? 
b. What were the Program goals for 2015? 
i. Estimated contribution level to overall portfolio? 
c. How well did the Program do in meeting participation and savings goals for 2015?  
(Obtain final data on benchmarks and participants) 
D. Program Delivery and Implementation Process 
a. Is there a Program logic model available? 
b. Who is implementing the Program? 
c. Please walk me through how a typical project progresses from start to finish. (How a 
measure becomes a claim) 

Leidos Engineering, LLC 26 | P a g e  
E. Data Tracking & Reporting 
a. What data are currently collected for the Program and for individual projects?  How is 
this data stored and organized? 
b. Are there are sources of data for individual projects?  What type of data is stored in 
these documents and where do they reside? 
F. Calculation of Energy Savings and Other Benchmark or Impacts 
a. How are the energy and demand savings calculated for projects and individual 
measures?  What specific sources of information and tools are used? 
b. (If applicable) Are there custom measure protocols in place for savings estimates? 
c. What program benchmarks are used in determining the success of the program? 
d. (if applicable) Is there M&V conducted for individual projects to confirm savings 
estimates?  Who does the M&V? 
e. Is data collected and analyzed for the market effect of the program?  If so, please 
describe that process. 
G. Conclusion of Interview 
a. Is there anything else that we need to know about the Program or any other documents 
or data that we should be aware of? 
b. What key questions about the Program, if any, are you looking to explore in developing 
the EM&V Work Plan for the Program? 
c. Is it okay if I get back to you with any clarifying questions?  I would also like to provide a 
copy of my notes for your review to make sure we have characterized the information 
correctly that you provided and have not omitted any key information. 
Thank you so much for your assistance! 

Leidos Engineering, LLC 27 | P a g e  
Idaho Power Customer Rep and Community Education Rep Interview 
Guide 
Idaho Power Company Energy Efficiency Education Initiative –
Internal Customer and Educational Representatives – Interview Guide
Program Description: The Residential Energy Efficiency Education Initiative promotes energy efficiency to the residential sector 
in order to create behavioral change and customer demand for, and satisfaction with, its programs. The company achieves this 
by creating and delivering educational materials and programs that result in wise and informed choices regarding energy use 
and encourage participation in Idaho Power’s energy efficiency programs.  Goals:   
• Empower families to make wise choices about when and how they use electricity 
• Increase awareness of energy efficiency behaviors and programs 
• Reinforce the company’s image as a trusted energy advisor through a variety of channels by providing accurate, up‐to‐
date information about energy use and ways to save 
Target audience: 5 Community Education Representatives and 4 Customer Representatives in regards to their role in residential 
energy education programs IPC. 
Key objective: Understand what they do, how it is working and where they are going.  Learn about how the Initiative is changing 
customer energy using behaviors, increasing utility customer usage of ‘‘myAccount’’ and cross‐market existing utility programs 
and service offerings.  Ask which marketing channels are best and how to effectively use them. 
Introduction: Hello my name is Jeff Riggert calling on behalf of Idaho Power’s Energy Efficiency
Residential Education Initiative and its’ manager Denise Humphrey. As an evaluator of this initiative, I’d
like to get your feedback and insights. Would you be willing to talk about what you are doing to advance
energy conservation in the residential sector what you’ve learned? Is now a good time to talk?
Person Name
Organization Name
Phone
E-mail
Program Name(s)
Notes
Notes
Notes
Attempt
#
Date Time Result

Leidos Engineering, LLC 28 | P a g e  

Introduction
1) What is your job title?

2) What is your role and responsibility at work?

Program Goals, strategies and tactics
3) How would you characterize the goals of the Residential Energy Education Initiative?

4) Now let’s talk specifics on what is being done to raise awareness of energy efficiency (EE)
behaviors and practices. (For each item, probe for: strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, insights,
effectiveness)
 Semi-annual Energy Efficiency Guides for broad-based distribution (newspapers, handouts,
etc.).
 Energy-efficiency focused topics/articles for customer newsletter “Connections”
 Monthly bill inserts
 Weekly “Newsbriefs” to pitch story ideas to local media
 “30 Simple Things You Can Do”
 ‘‘myAccount’’ & “Online Tool” (to understand energy usage and ID savings strategies)
 TV monthly live in-studio EE segments at 2 stations
 YouTube Postings (aka. “Voices of Customers”) linked to IPC website
 Smart Saver Pledge with prizes
 In-person Event presentations
 Role as liaison with Corp Communications on EE campaigns and other media EE needs
(Probe for: Collaborate on content for EE awareness campaign, Ideas and s Cript input for
television/radio EE spots, Web re-design and improvements to EE pages,
development/review of social media posts, newsletter articles for HOA groups, employers,
etc.)
 Giveaways with strong EE messaging, i.e. custom packaging for LED bulbs, etc.
 Kill-A-Watt meter lending program with the public libraries
 Educational distributions (products with some energy savings and strong behavioral
component and/or need to be delivered with education to maximize savings potential, (i.e.
LED bulbs, drying racks, kits,)

Leidos Engineering, LLC 29 | P a g e  
 Sponsorship of Sustainable Energy, Sustainable Homes series in conjunction with
Community Ed and USGBC
 Are there any other opportunity you use to engage with IPC About EE.? (Probe for: non-
program specific EE questions that come in via web, EE staff and EE-related messages and
activities.)
5) How are you cross-promoting existing IPC programs through the activities just discussed? (Probe
for message-relevant program information included with Energy Efficiency guides, handouts,
other materials, events presentations)

6) Now let’s talk about K-12 education. What’s going on with….
 Student Energy Efficiency Kit Program in partnership with Community Education Reps.
 “The Power to Make A Difference” presentation
 Energy-related workshops at state-sponsored STEM Institutes.
 Work with boards of the Idaho Environmental Education Association and Idaho Science and
Math Teachers to provide guidance and input related to their energy efficiency and
sustainability initiatives
7) Are you involved with monitoring new technologies or programs to educate customers of relevant
trends in industry? (Probe for: Program Planning Group, “Conduit,” E-Source).

Traditional Marketing Channels
Please rate the following marketing channels for effectiveness at reaching people to educate them about
energy conservation. Please use a 1-10 scale, where 1 is poor and 10 is excellent. Let’s start with some
traditional marketing channels….
8) …TV, Radio and print media Rating (1-10) ____
9) Topically focused energy guide mailers Rating (1-10) ____
10) Utility customer newsletters Rating (1-10) ____
11) News briefs / press releases Rating (1-10) ____
12) Native advertisement / reporter written stories Rating (1-10) ____
13) Celebrity endorsements Rating (1-10) ____
14) Sports, music, other forms of live entertainment. If so, please specify __ Rating (1-10) ____
15) Institutional and business sponsorships Rating (1-10) ____
16) Local or municipal government Rating (1-10) ____
17) K-12 students and schools Rating (1-10) ____
18) University or college student, faculty and staff Rating (1-10) ____
19) Neighborhood associations Rating (1-10) ____
20) Public or community events via canvassing and booths (Probe for well attended events, where
people expect to learn things like energy conservation)
(For scores above 5) Please specify and rate _______________ Rating (1-10) ____
21) Competitions with prizes (e.g. raffles or other rewards).
(For scores above 5) If so, what kind of prizes _____________ Rating (1-10) ____

Leidos Engineering, LLC 30 | P a g e  
22) Other gamification based reward systems. If so, please specify ______ Rating (1-10) ____
23) Other situations where strong in-group social identity exists (e.g. club members).
If so, please specify___________________________________ Rating (1-10) ____
Internet Age / Social Marketing Channels
Now let’s rate some newer marketing channels, starting with…
24) Facebook Rating (1-10) ____
25) Twitter Rating (1-10) ____
26) Instagram (photos and imagery) Rating (1-10) ____
27) LinkedIn Rating (1-10) ____
28) Next Door (neighborhood network) Rating (1-10) ____
29) Other free private social networks. Please specify ________________ Rating (1-10) ____
30) E-mails Rating (1-10) ____
31) Text messages Rating (1-10) ____
32) Opt-in on-line groups such as yahoo or google Rating (1-10) ____
33) Blogs Rating (1-10) ____
34) Online customer utility accounts (used to pay bills and monitor energy use) Rating (1-10) ____
35) Online energy dashboards Rating (1-10) ____
36) Smart meters and real-time feedback on energy usage Rating (1-10) ____
37) Other technology-enabled human-interfaced energy-use feedback mechanisms Rating (1-10)
Please specify: _____________________________________________
38) Meet-ups or crowd sourcing strategies Rating (1-10) ____
39) Energy pledges for behavioral change with follow-up social accountability. Rating (1-10) ____
(Probe for How to best implement and apply follow-up accountability?)____________________
40) Other types of behavior change strategies. Please specify ___________ Rating (1-10) ____

Other Customer Engagement Strategies
41) How can we best use photos and imagery to engage educate energy users and change behavior?

42) How do we get more tie-ins to (and usage of) utility accounts to educate and change behavior of
utility customers?

43) Real time feedback on automobile driving behavior (and it’s impacts on gas mileage and fuel
range) are dashboard displays on some new automobiles. How could this be used at home to
lower electricity usage?

44) Fully enabled smart electric (AMI) meters enable utility customers to monitor their home’s
hourly energy usage from an online portal. How could this technology best be used to reduce
energy use?

45) Customer feedback mechanisms, such as OPower, provide homeowner with feedback on their
energy use by comparing it to similar homes. Evaluations have shown OPower typically reduces

Leidos Engineering, LLC 31 | P a g e  
energy use by several percentage point and the savings persists for several years. What do you
think about this strategy?

46) What are the best ways to achieve energy behavioral change via feedback programs?

47) What about the water-energy nexus? Are you targeting or emphasizing energy efficiency
measures or energy conservation behaviors that also save water? If so, please specify ________

Customer Motivational Drivers
Energy efficiency and conservation are typically NOT top-of-mind for people. What sort of non-energy
benefits, associated with saving energy, make it to top-of-mind?
48) Now I would like to get your perspective on what motivates customers to change energy using
behaviors. Using a 1-10 scale, where 1 is Not at all important and 10 is Very important, how
would you rate the importance of the following factors in customer decisions to take action to
save energy. Starting with…
 Improved comfort Importance, 1-10 scale ____
 Saving money Importance, 1-10 scale ____
 Home improvement Importance, 1-10 scale ____
 Convenience and time saving Importance, 1-10 scale ____
 Improved health and safety Importance, 1-10 scale ____
 Reduced impact on the environment Importance, 1-10 scale ____
 Economic prosperity Importance, 1-10 scale ____
 National Security Importance, 1-10 scale ____
 Being/Feeling “Green” Importance, 1-10 scale ____
 Other factors? Please specify______________________ Importance, 1-10 scale ____

Conclusion
49) Do you know of any other programs or people that are implementing residential energy
conservation behavioral change efforts at utilities or other organizations?

50) More broadly, can you think of anyone else we should talk to that is doing something new or
innovative with residential energy conservation programs in general?

51) Is there anything else that you would like to share or suggest regarding residential energy
efficiency efforts?

Thank you for your time and valuable insight!

Leidos Engineering, LLC 32 | P a g e  
External Program Manager and Subject Matter Expert (SME) Interview 
Guide 
Idaho Power Company (IPC) Energy Efficiency Education Initiative –
External Program Managers & Subject Matter Experts – Interview Guide
Target audience: 4‐8 program managers of residential energy education programs at other utilities, 
along with Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) from government, NGOs and consulting firms who implement 
design or evaluate residential energy education programs.  
Key objective: Discover innovative and best practices and how they are working.  Learn about programs 
and initiative that change customer energy using behaviors, increase utility customer usage of 
‘‘myAccount’’ and cross‐market existing utility programs and service offerings.  Ask which marketing 
channels are best and how to most effectively use them. 
Introduction: Hello my name is Jeff Riggert calling on behalf of Idaho Power’s Energy Efficiency
Residential Education Initiative. The initiative is looking towards what other utilities and organizations
are doing to advance residential energy efficiency and in particular, behavioral change endeavors. Would
you be willing to talk to me about what you are doing to advance energy conservation in the residential
sector and what you know or have learned from what others are doing? Is now a good time to talk?
Person Name
Organization Name
Phone
E-mail
Program Name(s)
Notes
Notes
Notes
Find out who else to interview or other organizations
Attempt
#
Date Time Result

Leidos Engineering, LLC 33 | P a g e  
Introduction
1) What is your job title?

2) What is your roll and responsibility at work?

If more than one relevant program/initiative, repeat questions 3-19.
External Program/Initiative Description
3) What is/are the name(s) of your residential energy education program(s) or initiative?

4) What was the impetus for the program/initiative?

5) When was the program first launched?

6) What are the goals of the program?

7) What kind of marketing and outreach does the program use?

8) What sort of traditional and non-traditional media channels are employed to reach
people/customers?

9) How are customers enrolled in the program?

10) Why do customers decide to participate?

11) How many participants have enrolled in program?

12) What sort of behavioral change strategies do you employ to save energy?

13) Which energy efficiency measures or end uses are you targeting?

14) Are there any estimates of energy savings associated with the program?

15) What other kinds of data are being collected or tracked with this program?

16) Has there been any evaluations of the program?

Leidos Engineering, LLC 34 | P a g e  
17) If so, can I obtain a copy of the evaluation report or summary of findings?

Traditional Marketing Channels
Please rate the following marketing channels for effectiveness at reaching people to educate them about energy conservation. Please use a 1-10 scale, where 1 is poor and 10 is excellent. Let’s start with some
traditional marketing channels….
18) …TV, Radio and print media Rating (1-10) ____
19) Topically focused energy guide mailers Rating (1-10) ____
20) Utility customer newsletters Rating (1-10) ____
21) News briefs / press releases Rating (1-10) ____
22) Native advertisement / reporter written stories Rating (1-10) ____
23) Celebrity endorsements Rating (1-10) ____
24) Sports, music, other forms of live entertainment. If so, please specify __ Rating (1-10) ____
25) Institutional and business sponsorships Rating (1-10) ____
26) Local or municipal government Rating (1-10) ____
27) K-12 students and schools Rating (1-10) ____
28) University or college student, faculty and staff Rating (1-10) ____
29) Neighborhood associations Rating (1-10) ____
30) Public or community events via canvassing and booths (Probe for well attended events, where
people expect to learn things like energy conservation)
(For scores above 5) Please specify and rate _______________ Rating (1-10) ____
31) Competitions with prizes (e.g. raffles or other rewards).
(For scores above 5) If so, what kind of prizes _____________ Rating (1-10) ____
32) Other gamification based reward systems. If so, please specify ______ Rating (1-10) ____
33) Other situations where strong in-group social identity exists (e.g. club members).
If so, please specify___________________________________ Rating (1-10) ____

Internet Age / Social Marketing Channels
Now let’s rate some newer marketing channels, starting with…
34) Facebook Rating (1-10) ____
35) Twitter Rating (1-10) ____
36) Instagram (photos and imagery) Rating (1-10) ____
37) LinkedIn Rating (1-10) ____
38) Next Door (neighborhood network) Rating (1-10) ____
39) Other free private social networks. Please specify ___________ Rating (1-10) __
40) E-mails Rating (1-10) ____
41) Text messages Rating (1-10) ____
42) Opt-in on-line groups such as yahoo or google Rating (1-10) ____
43) Blogs Rating (1-10) ____
44) Online customer utility accounts (used to pay bills and monitor energy use) Rating (1-10)
45) Online energy dashboards Rating (1-10) ____
46) Smart meters and real-time feedback on energy usage Rating (1-10) ____

Leidos Engineering, LLC 35 | P a g e  
47) Other technology-enabled human-interfaced energy-use feedback mechanisms Rating (1-10)
Please specify: _____________________________________________
48) Meet-ups or crowd sourcing strategies Rating (1-10) ____
49) Energy pledges for behavioral change with follow-up social accountability. Rating (1-10) ____
(Probe for How to best implement and apply follow-up accountability?)____________________
50) Other types of behavior change strategies. Please specify ___________ Rating (1-10) ____

Other Customer Engagement Strategies
51) How can we best use photos and imagery to engage educate energy users and change behavior?

52) How do we get more tie-ins to (and usage of) utility accounts to educate and change behavior of
utility customers?

53) Real time feedback on automobile driving behavior (and its impacts on gas mileage and fuel
range) are dashboard displays on some new automobiles. How could this be used at home to
lower electricity usage?

54) Fully enabled smart electric (AMI) meters enable utility customers to monitor their home’s
hourly energy usage from an online portal. How could this technology best be used to reduce
energy use?

55) Customer feedback mechanisms, such as OPower, provide homeowner with feedback on their
energy use by comparing it to similar homes. Evaluations have shown OPower typically reduces
energy use by several percentage point and the savings persists for several years. What do you
think about this strategy?

56) What are the best ways to achieve energy behavioral change via feedback programs?

57) What about the water-energy nexus? Are you targeting or emphasizing energy efficiency
measures or energy conservation behaviors that also save water? If so, please specify ________

Customer Motivational Drivers
Energy efficiency and conservation are typically NOT top-of-mind for people. What sort of non-energy
benefits, associated with saving energy, make it to top-of-mind?
58) Now I would like to get your perspective on what motivates customers to change energy using
behaviors. Using a 1-10 scale, where 1 is Not at all important and 10 is Very important, how
would you rate the importance of the following factors in customer decisions to take action to
save energy. Starting with…
 Improved comfort Importance, 1-10 scale ____

Leidos Engineering, LLC 36 | P a g e  
 Saving money Importance, 1-10 scale ____
 Home improvement Importance, 1-10 scale ____
 Convenience and time saving Importance, 1-10 scale ____
 Improved health and safety Importance, 1-10 scale ____
 Reduced impact on the environment Importance, 1-10 scale ____
 Economic prosperity Importance, 1-10 scale ____
 National Security Importance, 1-10 scale ____
 Other factors? Please specify______________________ Importance, 1-10 scale ____

Conclusion
59) Do you know of any other programs or people that are implementing residential energy
conservation behavioral change efforts at utilities or other organizations?

60) More broadly, can you think of anyone else we should talk to that is doing something new or
innovative with residential energy conservation programs in general?

61) Is there anything else that you would like to share or suggest regarding residential energy
efficiency efforts?

Thank you for your time and valuable insight!

Supplement 2: Evaluation Idaho Power Company
Page 958 Demand-Side Management 2016 Annual Report
This page left blank intentionally.

Idaho Power Company Supplement 2: Evaluation
Demand-Side Management 2016 Annual Report Page 959
WEATHERIZATION ASSISTANCE FOR QUALIFIED CUSTOMERS
2015 ANNUAL REPORT

Supplement 2: Evaluation Idaho Power Company
Page 960 Demand-Side Management 2016 Annual Report

This page left blank intentionally.
2015
Weatherization Assistance
for Qualified Customers
April 1, 2016
2015 Annual Report
IDAHO
POUVB?
An IDACORP Company
Weatherization Assistance
for Qualified Customers
9
,V,
Av
'¦*I
14 7
'1i j
&\\
7
I
^,/L j?j—.V _J
i '
\lfl
i 1 j j i N
>Sfr"VL"•i -1r-*M
irj /
\
kfciIII
I ^
r k .
ft.2015 Annual Report
April 1,2016 ci "
j
Printed on recycled paper
Idaho Power Company Weatherization Assistance for Qualified Customers
2015 WAQC 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 ...........................................3
Review of Measures Installed ..........................................................................................................7
Overall Cost-Effectiveness ..............................................................................................................9
Customer Education and Satisfaction ............................................................................................12
Plans for 2016 ................................................................................................................................14

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 2015 WAQC activities and Idaho Power expenditures by agency and county ............................4
Table 2 2015 WAQC base funding and unspent funds made available .....................................................6
Table 3
2015 WAQC review of measures installed ...................................................................................8
Weatherization Assistance for Qualified Customers Idaho Power Company
Page ii 2015 WAQC Annual Report
This page left blank intentionally.

Idaho Power Company Weatherization Assistance for Qualified Customers
2015 WAQC Annual Report Page 1
DESCRIPTION
The Weatherization Assistance for Qualified Customers (WAQC) program provides financial
assistance to regional Community Action Partnership (CAP) agencies in Idaho Power’s 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 ideas on using energy wisely in
their homes. Local CAP agencies determine participant eligibility according to federal and
state guidelines.
BACKGROUND
In 1989, Idaho Power began offering weatherization assistance in conjunction with the State of
Idaho Weatherization Assistance Program (WAP). In Oregon, Idaho Power offers weatherization
assistance in conjunction with the State of Oregon 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. This allows CAP agencies to leverage
their federal Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) weatherization funds
and serve more customers with special needs.
Weatherization Assistance for Qualified Customers Idaho Power Company
Page 2 2015 WAQC Annual Report
Idaho Power has an agreement with each CAP agency for the WAQC program. The agreement
specifies the funding allotment, billing requirements, and program guidelines. Currently,
Idaho Power oversees the program in Idaho through five regional CAP agencies. The five
regional CAP agencies include CCOA—Aging, Weatherization and Human Services (CCOA),
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 Oregon, Community Connection of Northeast
Oregon, Inc. (CCNO), and Community in Action (CINA) provide weatherization services for
qualified customers in Idaho Power’s service area.
Idaho Power provides this Weatherization Assistance for Qualified Customers 2015 Annual
Report in compliance with the Idaho Public Utilities Commission’s (IPUC) Order No. 29505.
This report includes 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 2016
Idaho Power Company Weatherization Assistance for Qualified Customers
2015 WAQC Annual Report Page 3
REVIEW OF WEATHERIZED HOMES AND NON-PROFIT
BUILDINGS BY COUNTY
In 2015, Idaho Power made available a total of $1,325,070 to Idaho CAP agencies. Of the funds
provided, $1,286,911 were paid to Idaho CAP agencies in 2015, while $38,159 were accrued for
future funding. Of the funds paid in 2015, $1,084,710 directly funded audits, energy efficiency
measures, and health and safety measures for qualified customers’ homes (production costs)
in Idaho, and $108,471 funded administration costs to Idaho CAP agencies for those homes
weatherized. Idaho Power funding provided for the weatherization of 225 Idaho homes and
8 Idaho non-profit buildings in 2015. The production cost of the non-profit building
weatherization measures was $85,208, while $8,521 in administrative costs were paid for the
Idaho non-profit building weatherization jobs. In Oregon, Idaho Power paid $30,884 in
production costs for 10 qualified homes and $3,088 in CAP agency administrative costs for
homes in Malheur County. Table 1 shows each CAP agency, the number of homes weatherized,
production costs, the average cost per home, administration payments, and total payments per
county made by Idaho Power.

Weatherization Assistance for Qualified Customers Idaho Power Company
Page 4 2015 WAQC Annual Report
Table 1 2015 WAQC activities and Idaho Power expenditures by agency and county
Agency County
Number
of Homes
Production
Cost
Average
Cost1
Administration Payment to
Agency
Total
Payment
CCOA Adams 1 $ 7,394 $ 7,394 $ 739 $ 8,133
Canyon 32 182,874 5,715 18,287 201,162
Gem 2 12,112 6,056 1,211 13,323
Payette 5 24,966 4,993 2,497 27,463
Valley 4 29,952 7,488 2,995 32,947
Washington 3 18,517 6,172 1,852 20,369
Agency Total 47 $ 275,815 $ 5,868 $ 27,581 $ 303,396
EICAP Lemhi 3 11,625 3,875 1,163 12,788
Agency Total 3 $ 11,625 $ 3,875 $ 1,163 $ 12,788
EL ADA Ada 93 435,011 4,678 43,501 478,512
Elmore 10 60,839 6,084 6,084 66,922
Owyhee 4 20,950 5,237 2,095 23,045
Agency Total 107 $ 516,799 $ 4,830 $ 51,680 $ 568,479
SCCAP Blaine 2 9,253 4,626 925 10,178
Gooding 4 21,196 5,299 2,120 23,315
Jerome 8 27,347 3,418 2,735 30,082
Twin Falls 22 104,370 4,744 10,437 114,807
Agency Total 36 $ 162,165 $ 4,505 $ 16,216 $ 178,381
SEICAA Bannock 20 68,204 3,410 6,820 75,025
Bingham 8 33,396 4,174 3,340 36,736
Power 4 16,706 4,176 1,671 18,376
Agency Total 32 $ 118,306 $ 3,697 $ 11,831 $ 130,137
Total Idaho Homes 225 $ 1,084,710 $ 4,821 $ 108,471 $ 1,193,181
Idaho Non-Profit Buildings Ada 2 16,314 – 1,631 17,945
Bannock 1 1,465 – 147 1,612
Bingham 1 9,761 – 976 10,737
Canyon 1 17,607 – 1,761 19,368
Owyhee 2 26,416 – 2,642 29,058
Twin Falls 1 13,645 – 1,364 15,009
Total Idaho Non-Profit Buildings 8 $ 85,208 $ 10,651 $ 8,521 $ 93,729
Total Idaho 233 $ 1,169,918 $ 116,992 $ 1,286,910

Idaho Power Company Weatherization Assistance for Qualified Customers
2015 WAQC Annual Report Page 5
Table 1 (continued)
Agency County
Number
of Homes
Production
Cost
Average
Cost1
Administration Payment to
Agency
Total
Payment

CCNO Baker 0 – – – –
Agency Total 0 – – – –
CINA Malheur 10 $ 30,884 $ 3,088 $ 3,088 $ 33,973
Agency Total 10 $ 30,884 $ 3,088 $ 3,088 $ 33,973
Total Oregon homes 10 $ 30,884 $ 3,088 $ 3,088 $ 33,973
Total Program 243 $ 1,200,803 $ 120,080 $ 1,320,883
1 Average cost is equal to the production cost divided by the number of homes.
Note: Dollars are rounded.
The base funding for Idaho CAP agencies is $1,212,534 annually, which does not include any
carryover from the previous year. Idaho Power’s agreements with CAP agencies include a
provision that identifies 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 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 weatherized 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 agencies were allowed under the
2015 agreement was $6,000. In 2015, Idaho CAP agencies had a combined average cost per
home weatherized of $4,821. In Oregon, the average was $3,088 per home weatherized.
There is no maximum annual average cost for the weatherization of buildings occupied by
non-profit agencies.
Weatherization Assistance for Qualified Customers Idaho Power Company
Page 6 2015 WAQC Annual Report
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 2015 was
$482, and the average administration cost paid to Oregon agencies per Oregon home weatherized
during the same period was $309. Not included in this report’s tables are additional Idaho Power
staff labor, marketing, home verification, and support costs for the WAQC program totaling
approximately $58,000 for 2015. 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 2015, $112,536 in unspent funds from 2014 were made available for expenditures in Idaho.
Table 2 details the funding base and available funds from 2014 and the total amount of
2015 spending.
Table 2 2015 WAQC base funding and unspent funds made available
Agency
2015 Base
Funding
Available Funds
from 2014
Total 2015
Allotment
Total 2015
Spending
Idaho
CCOA ................................$ 302,259 $ 1,138 $ 303,397 $ 303,397
EICAP ................................12,788 – 12,788 12,788
EL ADA ................................568,479 – 568,479 568,479
SCCAP ................................167,405 56,406 223,811 178,381
SEICAA ................................111,603 $ 21,792 133,395 130,137
Non-profit buildings 50,000 33,200 83,200 93,729
Idaho Total ................................ $ 1,212,534 $ 112,536 $ 1,325,070 $ 1,286,911
Oregon
CCNO ................................$ 6,750 $ 5,572 $ 12,322 $ 0
CINA ................................38,250 – 38,250 33,973
Oregon Total ................................ $ 45,000 $ 5,572 $ 50,572 $ 33,973
Note: Dollars are rounded.
Idaho Power Company Weatherization Assistance for Qualified Customers
2015 WAQC Annual Report Page 7
REVIEW OF MEASURES INSTALLED
Table 3 details home counts for which Idaho Power paid all or a portion of the measure costs
during 2015. The Home Counts column represents the number of times any percentage of that
measure was billed to Idaho Power during the year. If totaled, measure counts would be higher
than total homes weatherized because the number of measures installed in each home varies.
For example, Table 3 shows 59 homes in Idaho received a compact fluorescent lamps (CFL)
measure. Each home received more than one bulb. Consistent with the Idaho WAP, the WAQC
program offers several measures that have costs but do not necessarily save energy or for which
the savings cannot be measured. Included in this category are health and safety measures, vents,
furnace repairs, other, 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 their interaction with the energy-saving measures. Examples of
items included in the “other” measure category include vapor barriers, dryer vent hoods, and
necessary electrical upgrades. The EA5 energy audit program (EA5) is a software program
approved for use by the United States (US) Department of Energy (DOE). The Idaho Department
of Health and Welfare (IDHW) uses the EA5 for the Idaho WAP and therefore, the Idaho CAP
agency weatherization managers use the EA5. The EA5 includes material costs, labor costs for
installation, agency and contractor support costs, and estimated savings for individual measures.

Weatherization Assistance for Qualified Customers Idaho Power Company
Page 8 2015 WAQC Annual Report
Table 3 2015 WAQC review of measures installed
Home Counts Production Costs
Idaho Home and Non-Profit Measures
Windows ................................................................................................142 $ 182,997
Doors ................................................................................................94 62,568
Wall insulation ................................................................17 4,762
Ceiling insulation ................................................................103 75,123
Vents ................................................................................................17 1,136
Floor insulation ................................................................85 85,086
Infiltration ................................................................................................127 30,138
Ducts ................................................................................................52 24,687
Health and safety ................................................................44 16,650
Other ................................................................................................44 13,118
Water heater ................................................................................................7 6,431
Pipes ................................................................................................58 3,271
Refrigerator................................................................................................10 7,948
Furnace tune ................................................................2 791
Furnace repair ................................................................21 17,203
Furnace replace ................................................................160 622,001
CFL ................................................................................................59 3,269
Audit ................................................................................................126 12,740
Total Idaho Homes and Non-Profit Measures $ 1,169,918
Oregon Home Measures
Windows ................................................................................................4 $ 5,914
Doors ................................................................................................3 1,216
Ceiling insulation ................................................................5 6,904
Vents ................................................................................................5 2,048
Floor insulation ................................................................4 7,152
Infiltration ................................................................................................10 2,188
Ducts ................................................................................................4 2,664
Health and safety ................................................................7 2,323
Pipes ................................................................................................1 57
CFL ................................................................................................4 419
Total Oregon Homes Measures $ 30,884
Note: Dollars are rounded.
Idaho Power Company Weatherization Assistance for Qualified Customers
2015 WAQC Annual Report Page 9
Annually, Idaho Power physically verifies 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 Idaho’s and Oregon’s state monitoring 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 representatives from the IDHW or Oregon Housing and Community Services
(OHCS) reviewing homes weatherized by each of the CAP agencies.
The second method involves Idaho Power contracting with two companies—The Energy
Auditor, Inc. (The Energy Auditor), and Momentum, LLC (Momentum)—that employ certified
building performance specialists to verify installed measures in customer homes. The Energy
Auditor verifies homes weatherized for the WAQC program in Idaho Power’s eastern and
southern Idaho regions. 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 the WAQC program in the Capital and Canyon regions
of Idaho and in the company’s Oregon service area. The owner of Momentum is a Residential
Energy Services Network (RESNET®) certified home energy rater. After these companies verify
installed measures, any required follow-up is done by the CAP agency personnel.
OVERALL COST-EFFECTIVENESS
In customer homes, the Idaho CAP agency weatherization auditor uses the EA5 to conduct the
initial audit of potential energy savings for a home. The EA5 compares the efficiency of the
home prior to weatherization to the efficiency after the proposed improvements and calculates
the value of the efficiency change into a savings-to-investment ratio (SIR). The output of the
Weatherization Assistance for Qualified Customers Idaho Power Company
Page 10 2015 WAQC Annual Report
EA5 SIR is similar to the participant cost test (PCT) ratio. If the EA5 computes an SIR of 1.0 or
higher, the CAP agency is authorized to complete the proposed measures. The weatherization
manager then is able to split production costs between Idaho Power and WAP with a maximum
charge of 85 percent of production costs to Idaho Power.
The program was not cost-effective in 2015, with a total utility cost (UC) benefit-cost (BC) ratio
of 0.54 and a BC ratio from the total resource cost (TRC) perspective of 0.43. In 2015,
Idaho Power claimed an average of 2,263 kilowatt-hour (kWh) per-home or project,
which provides real and substantial savings on a per-unit basis and provides measurable benefits
for the residents. However, due to the costs of comprehensive whole-house weatherization, it is
difficult for the value of the savings to outweigh the costs. WAQC offers several measures that
have costs but do not save energy or for which savings cannot be measured.
In 2014, Idaho Power conducted a billing analysis on 2012 participants’ actual usage data and
applied these results to report savings for 2015 program year projects. The company conducted
the data analysis to increase Idaho Power’s understanding of savings resulting from the program
and to update billing savings provided by a third-party impact evaluation completed in 2012
using 2011 projects. The total claimed estimated savings for 2015 projects were 550,021 kWh,
with 139,590 kWh from single-family homes and 372,360 kWh from manufactured homes.
An additional 38,071 kWh savings resulted from weatherization projects at non-profit sites.
Idaho Power used savings of 1.03 kWh per-square-foot of weatherized heated space for the
eight WAQC non-profit projects in 2015, based on the average decrease in annual energy
intensity from the 2012 single-family homes billing analysis. Conducting a billing analysis on
Idaho Power Company Weatherization Assistance for Qualified Customers
2015 WAQC Annual Report Page 11
non-profit projects is not applicable due to the small number of projects and their lack
of homogeny.
The company plans to continue monitoring realized energy savings from WAQC through
periodic billing analyses. Idaho Power began a new billing analysis in 2015 for completion in
2016. The new analysis will assess current program savings impacts related to increased use of
furnace replacements with heat pumps during the 2013 to 2014 program years. Idaho Power will
use the results for possible program improvement and to understand how different measure
combinations may impact overall household savings.
The Regional Technical Forum (RTF) conducted a billing analysis in 2015 on Idaho Power’s
manufactured-home weatherization projects from 2011 to 2012, and their analysis validated
Idaho Power’s internal analysis completed in 2012. The RTF analysis led to increased
collaboration of statistical software programming and data cleaning recommendations between
RTF contract analyst staff and Idaho Power.
The following recommendations from the IPUC staff’s report and IPUC Order No. 32788 were
used for the 2015 cost-effectiveness analysis:
• Applying a 100-percent net-to-gross (NTG) value to reflect the likelihood that WAQC
weatherization projects would not be initiated without the presence of a program
• Claiming 100 percent of project savings
• Including an allocated portion of the indirect overhead costs
• Applying the 10-percent conservation preference adder
Weatherization Assistance for Qualified Customers Idaho Power Company
Page 12 2015 WAQC Annual Report
• Claiming $1 of benefits for each dollar invested in health, safety, and repair measures
• Amortizing evaluation expenses over a three-year period
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 booklet 30 Simple Things You Can Do to Save Energy and Energy Saving
Tips, which describes energy conservation tips for the heating and cooling seasons, and a
pamphlet that describes the energy-saving benefits of using CFL, light-emitting diodes (LED)
lamps, and other tips for choosing the right bulb. Idaho Power actively informs customers about
WAQC through energy and resource fairs and other customer contacts. Idaho Power’s Customer
Service Center regularly informs customers about the program.
To stay current with new programs and services, Idaho Power attends state and federal energy
assistance/weatherization meetings and other weatherization-specific conferences. Idaho Power
is also active in the Policy Advisory Council, helping advise and direct Idaho’s state
weatherization application for funding to the US DOE.
Idaho Power uses independent, third-party verification companies. Home verifiers ensure the
stated measures were installed in the homes of participating customers and discuss the program
with these customers. Home verifiers visited 28 homes, requesting feedback about the program
in 2015. When asked how much customers learned about saving electricity, 22 customers
answered they learned “a lot” or “some.” When asked how many ways they tried to save
electricity, 25 customers responded “a lot” or “some.”
Idaho Power Company Weatherization Assistance for Qualified Customers
2015 WAQC Annual Report Page 13
As recommended by Johnson Consulting in the 2013 process evaluation, a customer survey was
again used to assess major indicators of customers’ satisfaction throughout the service area.
The 2015 Weatherization Programs Customer Survey was provided to all program participants in
all regions upon completion of weatherization in their homes. Survey questions gathered
information about how customers learned of the program, reasons for participating, how much
customers learned about saving energy in their homes, and the likelihood of household members
changing behaviors to use energy wisely.
Idaho Power received survey results from 211 of the 235 households weatherized by the program
in 2015. Of the 211 surveys received back from customers, 201 were from Idaho customers and
10 were from Oregon customers. Some highlights include the following:
• Almost 46 percent of respondents learned of the program from a friend or relative,
and another almost 22 percent learned of the program from an agency flyer.
Nearly five percent learned about the weatherization program by receiving a letter in
the mail.
• Over 86 percent of the respondents reported that their primary reason for participating in
the weatherization program was to reduce utility bills, and over 44 percent wanted to
improve the comfort of their home.
• Almost 82 percent reported they learned how air leaks affect energy usage, and just over
68 percent indicated they learned how insulation affects energy usage during the
weatherization process. Over 54 percent of respondents said they learned how to use
energy wisely.
Weatherization Assistance for Qualified Customers Idaho Power Company
Page 14 2015 WAQC Annual Report
• Over 83 percent reported they were very likely to change habits to save energy, and just
over 82 percent reported they have shared all of the information about energy use with
members of their household.
• Over 93 percent of the respondents reported they think the weatherization they received
will significantly affect the comfort of their home and over 98 percent said they were
very satisfied with the program.
• Over 85 percent of the respondents reported the habit they were most likely to change
was turning off lights when not in use and nearly 65 percent said that washing full loads
of clothes was a habit they were likely to change to save energy. Turning the thermostat
up in the summer was reported by over 51 percent and turning the thermostat down in the
winter was reported by over 66 percent as a habit they and members of the household
were most likely to change to save energy.
A summary of the report is included in the Demand-Side Management 2015 Annual Report
Supplement 2: Evaluation available online at idahopower.com/EnergyEfficiency/reports.cfm.
PLANS FOR 2016
As in previous years, unless directed otherwise, Idaho Power will continue to provide financial
assistance to CAP agencies while exploring changes to improve program delivery and continue
to provide the most benefit possible to special-needs customers while working with Idaho and
Oregon WAP personnel.
Idaho Power Company Weatherization Assistance for Qualified Customers
2015 WAQC Annual Report Page 15
Idaho Power will continue to participate in the Idaho and Oregon state monitoring process of
weatherized homes and will continue to verify approximately 10 percent of the homes
weatherized under the WAQC program via certified home-verification companies.
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 as well as review state
grant applications for federal funding.
Idaho Power plans to selectively market the WAQC program throughout 2016. The program is to
be promoted at resource fairs, community special-needs populations’ service-provider meetings,
and CAP agency functions to reach customers who may benefit from the program.
Additional marketing for this program will be conducted in cooperation with
weatherization managers.
Idaho Power will continue working in partnership with the IDHW, OHCS, CAPAI,
and individual CAP agency personnel to maintain the targets and guidelines and improve the
overall WAQC program.
In 2016, Idaho Power will support the whole-house philosophy of the WAQC program and the
Idaho and Oregon WAP by continuing to contract a $6,000 annual maximum average per-home
cost. Based on the required funding, Idaho Power estimates 192 homes in Idaho and Oregon and
approximately 4 non-profit buildings in Idaho will be weatherized in 2016. In Idaho during 2016,
Idaho Power expects to fund the base amount plus available funds from 2015 to total
approximately $1,251,000 in weatherization measures and agency administration fees. Of this
amount, approximately $39,500 will be provided to the non-profit pooled fund to weatherize
buildings housing non-profit agencies that primarily serve qualified customers in Idaho.
Weatherization Assistance for Qualified Customers Idaho Power Company
Page 16 2015 WAQC Annual Report
Service-area wide, Idaho Power will provide the WAQC program approximately $1,313,000 in
funding in 2016 for the weatherization of homes and buildings of non-profit agencies serving
qualified customers.