20051201Report 2005 Irrigation Peak Rewards.pdf

_._~~-~~~,._.~--~ -
IDAHO POWER COMPANY
O, BOX 70
BOISE, IDAHO 83707
I';'
_. '
l- !;
An IDACORP Company
-- \
P;'1 3:
r\\_.:\.~t ~i\\~I~s\o'r\ FAX
~~~:~~::::
mbril~idahopower.com
MAGGIE BRILZ
Director, Pricing
December 1 , 2005
Ms. Jean D. Jewell, Secretary
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
P. O. Box 83720
Boise, 10 83720-0074
RE:Report Regarding the
2005 Irrigation Peak Rewards Program
Order No. 29665
Case No. IPC-04-
Dear Ms. Jewell:
The Commission s Order No. 29665 approving the Company s Irrigation
Peak Rewards Program directed Idaho Power to file a report on or before December 1
2005 detailing the results of the program during 2005. Enclosed are seven copies of
the Company s report. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at the
number listed above or Tim Tatum at 388-5515.
Sincerely,
')rJ ..6
Maggie Brilz
MB:mb
Enclosures
Ric Gale
Darlene Nemnich
P&RS Files
Legal Files
. ECE!\iED
~ D
YA ' '2
-- '"
I ,"
i) FUBLIC
- '
; iF.:; CDiii-jjSSIOH
,.
Irrigation--r Peak Rewards
. - --
December 1, 2005
DAHO POWERCID
An IDACORP Company
Table of Contents
OVERVIEW.......................................................................................
SUMMARY OF RESULTS ................................................................ 4
CONCLUSIONS................................................................................
REVIEW OF PARTICIPATION, OPERATIONS, AND LOAD
REDUCTION
.....................................................................................
CUSTOMER SATISFACTION SURVEY.........................................
COST EFFECTIVENESS....................... ............... .............,............ 17
Attachment 1. Customer Satisfaction Survey................................ 19
Table 1.
Table 2.
Table 3.
Table 4.
Table 5.
Table 6.
Table 7.
Table 8.
Graph 1.
Graph 2.
Graph 3.
Graph 4.
List of Tables
Participation by area .................................................................................................. 7
Service point interruption option distribution......................................................... 8
Equipment problem resolution ................................................................................. 9
Enrolled load by area ............................................................................................... 10
2004 Realization rates by period............................................................................. 11
Average MW reduction utilizing realization rates by period ................................ 12
Comparison of Budget Program cost to Actual Program costs ......................... 18
Model inputs where Actual value differs from Budget value............................... 19
List of Graphs
Averaged kW metered demand ................................................."........................... 13
Averaged kW metered demand............................................................................... 14
Demand impact on Company system load ............................................................ 15
Demand impact on one Company feeder load ...................................................... 16
November 2005 Page 1
OVERVIEW
In both its 2002 and 2004 Integrated Resource Plans ("I RP") Idaho Power
Company ("the Company projected peak resource deficiencies on the
Company s electrical system in the upcoming years, As a result, the Company
determined it would target demand-side resources that reduce peak demand on
the system, Considering summer irrigation loads are a major component of the
summer peak demand, the irrigation sector was a primary focus for demand-side
management program development.
On February 5, 2004, the Company filed for authorization to implement Schedule
, the Irrigation Peak Clipping Pilot Program ("Pilot Program ). On April 2 2004the Idaho Public Utilities Commission ("the Commission ) approved the
Company s request to conduct the Irrigation Peak Clipping Pilot Program in
Order No. 29462. Upon the successful completion of the Pilot Program the
Company filed an application with the Commission on November 1 , 2004
requesting authority to implement the Irrigation Peak Clipping Program (now
referred to as the Irrigation Peak Rewards Program) effective the following year.
The Commission approved the request on December 22, 2004 (Order No.
29665). The Order directed the Company to file a report with the Commission no
later than December 1 , 2005, detailing results of the Irrigation Peak Rewards
Program ("the Program ) during 2005. This report is filed in compliance with
Order No, 29665,
The Program enrollment goal for 2005 was 1 000 service points across four
specific geographic areas of the Company. Within these four areas, there were
820 eligible metered service points with at least 100 cumulative horsepower
the minimum amount required for Program participation. Approximately 1 112
customers who were eligible for the Program operated the 3,820 service points.
The load reduction goal was 30.4 MW at the generation level , which is adjusted
for losses, and 26.9 MW at the customer level, which is the amount registered by
the Company s meters. The peak reduction numbers reported throughout the
remainder of this report are presented at the customer level.
Under the Program, customers could choose to participate one , two, or three
weekdays per week during the months of June, July, and August. Electronic
timers were used to interrupt electrical service to the specified irrigation
equipment for the hours of 4 p.m. to 8 p.m, Mountain Daylight Time on regularly
scheduled weekdays, The following are the interruption options available to the
customers along with the corresponding incentive amounts:
. One weekday per week, 4 p.m. to 8 p.
. Two weekdays per week, 4 p.m. to 8 p.
Three weekdays per week, 4 p.m. to 8 p.
$2.01 per kW Demand
$2.51 per kW Demand
$2.76 per kW Demand
The monthly incentive amount credited to customers was calculated for each
metered service point by multiplying the monthly billing demand for the months of
November 2005 Page 2
June , July, and August by the corresponding incentive amount based on the
interruption option selected by the customer.
Throughout 2005, the Company continued to share Program information and
progress with the Energy Efficiency Advisory Group ("EEAG") members through
program updates, Members of EEAG represent a cross-section of customer
interests including residential , industrial , commercial and agricultural. In 2005,
EEAG membership also included Company representation, Commission Staff
members and a representative from the Idaho Irrigation Pumpers Association.
Research relating to the Program includes an impact evaluation on the Pilot
Program prepared by Summit Blue Consulting completed in 2004 and a
customer satisfaction survey conducted by Northwest Research Group
completed in October 2005. The Summit Blue Consulting impact evaluation was
used to determine the potential load reduction and energy impacts of the
Program. Both the impact evaluation and customer satisfaction survey results
serve as the basis for many of the conclusions and analyses contained in this
report.
November 2005 Page 3
SUMMARY OF RESUL 1S
The following items summarize the key results of the Program:
The 2004 IRP identified this Program as a cost-effective resource with
26.9 MW of load reduction in the month of July. In 2005 the Program
achieved a 37 MW reduction in July.
0 Two hundred fifty-four (254) customers, or 23% of the 1 112 eligible
customers , chose to participate in the Program.
Eight hundred ninety-three (893), or 23%, of the 3 820 eligible metered
service points were enrolled in the Program. The Company s enrollment
goal for 2005 was 1 000 metered service points,
0 The Program achieved a total billing demand enrollment of 174 134 kW
compared with an original target of 175,000 kW. The total billing demand
is the sum of the maximum billing demand from the previous irrigation
season for each service point.
0 The Program does produce substantial and measurable impacts on peak
demand. The total load reduction associated with the Peak Rewards
Program averaged 23.8 MW from 4-8 p.m. over the course of the 2005
summer. The maximum load reduction occurred during the last half of
June, when an estimated 40.3 MW in load reduction was achieved. The
minimum load reduction of 12.1 MW occurred in late August.
The budget for the Program was $1,424 000. The actual Program costs as
of October 31 , 2005 were $1,413,207. The two primary areas where the
actual expenditures were higher than the budgeted amount were in the
timer installation cost and the incentive payments to customers. However
these additional costs were completely offset as marketing and program
administration costs were lower than expected.
The estimated first year benefit cost (B/C) ratio for the Program was 1 .
based on the Pilot Program findings. The actual Program results showed a
(B/C) ratio of 1.35.
Over 89% of the participants were either somewhat satisfied or very
satisfied with the Program. Approximately 76% of the participants
indicated that the incentive amount was what initially attracted them to
participate in the Program. In addition , over 96% of the participants said
they would be very likely, or somewhat likely, to participate in the Program
again.
November 2005 Page 4
CONCLUSIONS
0 The Company plans to continue the Program because it is a very effective
way to reduce customer demand at the optimal time of day.
Although the Program achieved a 40 MW peak reduction in June, the IRP
average peak reduction goal in July was 26.9 MW , slightly greater than
that achieved by the Program during the same month. The Company
would like to increase participation levels to achieve the IRP average peak
reduction goal of 26.9 MW for the month of July. An aggressive marketing
strategy has been developed utilizing direct mailings, brochure
development, workshops, customer contacts, and exhibits at local trade
shows. These efforts will help to ensure that customers are given the
information they need to make an informed decision, as well as provide
the answers to their questions.
0 The Customer Satisfaction Survey indicated that 76% of the respondents
were persuaded to participate in the Program by the incentive amount.
When asked what changes participants would recommend for a future
Program , approximately 33% of respondents suggested increasing the
incentive amounts. Although the Company does not plan to change the
incentive amounts at this time, it will continue to evaluate the potential for
increases in the incentives in the future.
Based upon the 2005 customer satisfaction results and the desire to
increase participation levels, the Company, with input from the EEAG, will
continue to explore potential modifications to the Program. In addition to
increases in the incentives, Program modifications may include lowering
the horsepower requirement and increasing the flexibility of interruption
periods.
November 2005 Page 5
REVIEW OF PARTICIPATION , OPERATIONS, AND LOAD REDUCTION
1. Participation
Customer letters were mailed on February 7, 2005 to 1 112 eligible customers.
The letters were the primary method of marketing the Program. The customer
letters included an application in addition to a Program explanation , the incentive
structure, and the eligible service points for each customer. A follow up post card
was mailed on February 28, 2005 reminding customers to return their
applications. Most customers were enrolled by the middle of March 2005. Every
effort was made to get as many participating customers enrolled as possible
including follow-up telephone calls and customer visits.
Table1 lists the number of eligible service points and the participation levels by
area.
Table 1.Participation by area.
ENROLLED
ELIGIBLE SERVICE SERVICE POINTS PECENTAGE
AREA POINTS ENROLLED BY AREA
N am paiMe I baiKu naiP a yette 334
Mtn. Home/Bruneau/Grandview 428
Paul/Rupert/Twin Falls/Gooding 1804 308 34%
American
Falls/Blackfoot/Pocatello 1254 493 55%
TOTAL SERVICE POINTS 820 893 100%
November 2005 Page 6
Table 2 compares how the participating service points were distributed across
the Company s service territory, along with the interruption options for each area.
Table 2.Service point interruption option distribution.
AREA
Nampa/Melba/Kuna/Payette
Mtn. Home/Bruneau/Grandview
Paul/Rupert/Twin Falls/Gooding
rgp
~~~~T I ~~~~T I ~~~~T
~eek Day.Jweek vJweek
23
52
223 36 49
TOTAL
31
61
308
American Falis/BlackfootJPocatelio 331 110 493
TOTAL SERVICE POINTS 630 154 110 893
2. Timer Installations
The original Program goal was to have all of the timers installed prior to June 1
2005. The electronic timers and necessary documentation were delivered to the
contracted electricians by April 7, 2005 to begin installation. All of the contracted
electricians worked diligently and successfully completed the "100% Installation
Goal" by the June 1 2005 deadline.
3. Interruption Failures
Electronic timers manufactured by Grasslin Controls Corp. (Model GMX-891-
24) were used to interrupt power to the customers' pumps during the interruption
period. The timers were installed in the pump motor control circuit to prevent the
pump from running during the interruption period. In order to meet the load
reduction goals of the Program, the Company tried to minimize interruption
failures. However, there were a small number of interruption failures discovered
in 2005. In some cases the failures were corrected quickly with little or no impact
to Program performance while other failures went undetected for the entire
irrigation season.
Most of the electronic timers operated without incident with less than three
percent of participants requesting a follow-up visit. The timer issues requiring a
follow-up visit are detailed in Table 3.
November 2005 Page 7
Table 3 lists the types of problems resolved by either Company personnel or the
contracted electricians.
Table 3.Equipment problem resolutions.
ISSUE QUANTITY
Reset time on clock
Faulty time clock
Customer s equipment problem
Improper installation by electrician
TOTAL
The Company was able to resolve all known timer related problems in a timely
manner. However, in one installation case , it could not be determined whether
the problem was caused by a faulty time clock or the customer s equipment. This
customer elected to be removed from the program for the 2005 irrigation season
with the intention of upgrading his pump panel , and enrolling in the Program for
the 2006 season.
Another interruption issue emerged during the 2005 Program year that required
the Company to make a minor equipment modification for less than 3% of
participating service points. A few pivots enrolled in the Program continued
walking dry" once the power was interrupted to the pump or would not re-start
when power was restored. This was due to the way the customer s equipment
was wired when the irrigation system was installed. This became a customer
satisfaction issue voiced by the affected participants, for which the Company
offered a resolution. In each case, the Company hired an electrician to install a
pivot relay to interrupt power to the pivot each time the pump shut off.
Considering this problem is relatively uncommon and the cost of this relay is
minimal , the Company does not expect this issue to impact the cost effectiveness
of the Program.
Forty-six load research meters were distributed to a sample of the 893
participating service points in order to study the usage patterns of the customers
and the load impact of the Program. The data showed that 93% of the load
research meters recorded successful interruptions throughout the 2005 Program
year with 7% failing to record a single interruption during the Program year. The
interruption failures are evident in the load reduction graphs provided in this
report. Upon further investigation, it was found that these failures were due to
various mechanical problems, The Company will address this issue in future
November 2005 Page 8
program years through careful and timely monitoring of load research data along
with an increased number of site visits for electronic timer inspections.
4. Load Reduction Achieved
The Program load reduction impacts were determined utilizing information and
conclusions from the impact evaluation on the 2004 Pilot Program prepared by
Summit Blue Consulting, LLC, This evaluation utilized load research meter data
for both Program participants and non-participants. This information was used in
regression analysis to develop a statistical kW load model. The model
considered weather conditions, time of day, day of week, and month
determining realization rates for six 2-week periods during the course of the
irrigation season. The Company utilized these realization rates for the 2005
season.
The realization rate is defined as the likelihood an irrigation service point is
operating during the interrupt period. The realization rate can be characterized as
simply the percentage of monthly billing demand that is expected to result in an
actual load reduction on the system during a given interruption period. The
realization rate is highest at the end of June and the beginning of July when most
irrigation pumps are operating nearly 24 hours-a-day, 7days-a-week. The
realization rate is reduced later in the irrigation season when irrigation pumps are
turned off due to crop maturity.
The peak billing demand data for the months of June, July, and August 2004
were used to estimate the amount of load enrolled in the Program. The maximum
daily billing_damand_en(QJle_d..JrLtbe_~mgram~as-1 74.134 kW.Iable4 shows
how the enrolled load was distributed by area.
Table 4.Enrolled load by area.
Area Enrolled Billing Demand kW*
Nam pa/Me I ba/Ku n a/Pa yette 747
Mountain Home/Bruneau/Grandview 632
Paul/Rupert/Twin Falls/Gooding 160
American Falls/Blackfoot/Pocatello 595
I TOTAL 174 134
/t is important to note that this billing demand level would be achieved only if 100% of the
pumps enrolled in the Program were all running at the scheduled interruption time.
November 2005 Page 9
Table 5 shows the 2004 Pilot Program impact evaluation results for each of the
six 2-week time periods. The highest realization rate occurred during the second
half of June , with a realization rate of 64%. The lowest realization rate occurred
during the second half of August, with a realization rate of 32%. The average
total realization rate is 50%. These realization rates were used to calculate the
program load reduction for this year.
Table 5.2004 Realization rates by period.
PERIOD REALIZATION RATE
1 st half of June 41%
2nd half of June 64%
11st half of July 60%
I 2nd half of July 53%
1 st half of August 49%
2nd half of August 32%
AVERAGE 50%
For the irrigation season of 2005 , the Company chose to maximize the benefit of
the Program on peak load by distributing the enrolled kW more heavily on
Tuesdays, Wednesdays, and Thursdays and lighter on Mondays and Fridays.
The Company s Power-Planning Group requested this distribution based on the
historical peak day probability. This distribution created a greater potential for a
larger peak reduction on the days most likely to experience higher loads.
November 2005 Page 10
Table 6 shows the average kW reduction by day for each two week period
achieved utilizing the realization rates multiplied by enrolled peak kW,
Table 6. Average kW reduction utilizing realization rates by period (system losses not included).
Realization
Rate MON TUE WED THUR FRI
(kW)(kW)(kW)(kW)Average
1 st half of June 10,875 25,832 25,589 25,055 10,502 19,571
2nd half of June 16,975 40,323 39,944 39,111 394 549
1 st half of July 914 803 37,447 667 28,641
?nd half of July 14057 33,393 33,078 32,389 13,577 25 298
1 st half of August 12,885 29,691 30,008 28,763 058 681
2nd half of August 8,415 390 19,597 18,784 875
As reported earlier, the Company installed a sample of 46 load research meterson participating service points. These meters were distributed similar to
participation rates for each area. This data was collected and analyzed and is
shown in the following graphs.
November 2005 Page 11
Graph 1 displays the average hourly kW for all days in June, July, and August.
One line of data represents all interrupt days and the other line represents all
non-interrupt days.
Graph 1.
g' 80
Averaged kW metered demand.
TOTAL LOAD REASEARCH DATA FOR 2005
160
-+- Average
Interrupt Day
-+-Average
Non-
Interrupt Day
November 2005 Page 12
140
120
100
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Time of Day (hr)
Graph 2 displays the average hourly kW for all days in the second half of June.
One line of data represents all interrupt days. The other line represents all non-
interrupt days for this same period.
Graph 2.Averaged kW metered demand.
2nd HALF JUNE LOAD REASERCH DATA
160
140
120
100
g' 80
...
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Time of Day (hr)
6/1-6/17
Interrupt Day
- 6/1-6/17
Non-
Interrupt Day
November 2005 Page 13
Another way to view program impact was to look at total system firm load data.
The system firm load during the summer months has the greatest electrical
demand of the year. The highest peak load historically occurs in late June or July
between 4-8 PM,
Graph 3 represents the demand response impact to the entire company system
firm load on various randomly picked days in July 2005. The reduction in system
firm load occurs at 4 PM for the corresponding days and is approximately 30-
MW for each day.
Graph 3.Demand response impact on Company system firm load.
000
800
600
'\:I
400...I
200
000
Thursday, July 7 , 2005
Tuesday, July 12 2005
Wednesday, July 13 2005
Thursday, July 14 2005
800
~ .~ ~ ~ ~ .
..1\ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .';)
-r- ~-r- ';)
q ~q ~q ~
r~ ~
q ~q ~q ~q .q .q *q *~ ,,~ ,,,- ,,-
Ib- 11"- ~- '0-
'\- qj- ~- ~-
0-..,:- "rj'",v -",v
November 2005 Page 14
Analysis of substation data showed additional evidence of Program impact on
specific substation feeders. A metered substation feeder serving a substantial
number of Program participants was selected to provide an illustration of the
localized impact. The load reduction at 4 pm is very evident as can be seen in
Graph 4,
Graph 4 illustrates a 4 MW reduction in system load for just this particular feeder
located in Minidoka County.
Graph 4.Demand impact on one Company substation in Minidoka County
June 22, 2005
8:38 10:33 12:28 2:24
AM AM PM
..A
rv'"'
4:19 6:14 8:09 10:04 12:00 1:55PM PM AM
November 2005 Page 15
CUSTOMER SATISFACTION SURVEY
In order to examine customer satisfaction , Idaho Power commissioned Northwest
Research Group to conduct a telephone survey of the Program participants. The
telephone survey was administered the last two weeks in October sampling 203
participants with 149 respondents. Seventeen questions specifically related to
the Program , along with six demographic questions were asked in the 5-minute
phone survey.
Eighty-nine percent of the respondents were either somewhat satisfied or very
satisfied-with the Program. Ninety-six percent of respondents said they probably
would or definitely would participate in the Program again. Seventy-six percent of
the respondents indicated that the incentive amount was what initially persuaded
them to participate in the Program. The single most common suggestion to make
the Program more attractive in the future was to increase the incentive amount.
A full copy of the customer satisfaction survey can be found as Attachment 1.
November 2005 Page 16
COST EFFECTIVENESS
1. Budget
Table 7 compares the budgeted Program cost to the actual Program costs. The
actual Program costs are as of October 31 , 2005. Notable differences between
budgeted and actual costs include:
The total incentive payments were higher than budgeted , due
primarily to the large number of pumps that operated for a longer
period of time late into the irrigation season.
Actual costs of electrician labor for timer installations were less than
projected. However, the cost of electronic timers came in over
budget.
Marketing costs were less than projected.
Table 7.Comparison of Budget Program cost to Actual Program costs.
ITEM BUDGET ACTUAL PROGRAM COSTS
Electronic timers $114 750 $130 570
Timer installations $330 750 $235,617
Incentive payments $861 840 $988,186
Customer
satisfaction survey $10,000 000
Marketing and
Administration $99,000 $53,834
TOTAL $1,422 340 $1,413 207
November 2005 Page 17
2. Benefit Cost Analysis
The actual Peak Rewards Program results were input into the cost-effectiveness
model that was used when the Program was developed. Table 8 summarizes the
inputs that were used in the cost effectiveness model. The actual Program
results yielded a B/C ratio of 1.35.
Table 8.Model inputs
DESCRIPTION ACTUAL
I Number of metered service points 893
I Overall program realization rate 50%
Average service point, billing kW (peak month)195
~lIed peak, kW 174 134
rage July peak reduction (MW)23.
Participant distribution by area
Eastern 48%
Southern 39%
Central 10%
Western
Service point interruption option
1 day per week 71%
2 days per week 17%
3 days per week 12%
I Actual Program Cost II $1,413,207
BENEFIT COST RATIO OF PROGRAM
November 2005 Page 18
Attachment Customer Satisfaction Survey
November 2005 Page 19
IDAHO
POWER (8)
An IDACORP Company
Irrigation Peak Rewards Program
Research Results and Analysis
November 30 2005
Table of Contents
Introduction................................. ...........
II.ExecutiveSummary......................................
III.Methodology.............................................
IV.SummaryofKeyFindings..................................CustomerSatisfaction......,....................,.........
Problems encountered as a result of the program. . . . . . . . . . . , , . . . 7
Suggestions for program improvement. . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . 7
Conclusions............................................
Appendix A - Survey Instrument. . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Appendix B -Other Specify and Verbatim Comments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Introduction
In order to examine customer satisfaction related to Idaho Power s Irrigation Peak
Rewards Program, Idaho Power commissioned Northwest Research Group, Inc. to
conduct a telephone survey. Interviews were completed with 149 participants in the
program. This survey was conducted between October 13, 2005 and October 31 2005.
The "Executive Summary" portion of this report contains a quick overview of study
highlights, while additional information for each of the areas of study listed below can be
found in the "Summary of Key Findings . The major areas of investigation for this study
included:
Customer Satisfaction
Problems encountered as a result of the program
Suggestions for program improvement
II.Executive Summary
The following is a brief summary of the survey results conducted with participants in
Idaho Power s Peak Rewards Program.
. Overall , participants in this survey expressed satisfaction with the program.
According to these survey respondents, participants in the 2005 Peak Rewards
program were satisfied (89%) with the program.
Most survey respondents said they learned about the Peak Rewards Program by
receiving a mailing from Idaho Power.
. The incentive amount persuaded the majority of these customers to participate in the
Peak Rewards Program.
Almost all of the respondents (96%) indicated they would likely participate in the
Peak Rewards Program again in the future.
Over half of the respondents (51%) said they "very likely" would recommend this
program to another farmer and another 37 percent indicated they would be
somewhat likely" to recommend the program.
According to survey respondents, the crop with the highest participation in this
program was grain , second was hay and third was sugar beets.
Most of the customers surveyed (74%) did not have problems with their equipment
as a result of participating in this program.
Very few (2%) of the survey participants experienced problems with the billing
demand credit.
Just over one-fifth of the customers involved in the survey (22%) said that they did
experience problems with the electrician s installation of the timer. The problem that
was cited most often with the timers (38%) was that the timer didn t work.
. The most common suggestion to make the program more attractive in the future was
to increase the incentive amount (33%). Second most mentioned improvement was
to provide more money for more interruptions (27%).
Overall conclusions of this research:
The program was well received by customers.
Most of the problems with the 2005 Peak Rewards Program related to issues
with the electrician s installation of the timer
III.Methodology
A total of 149 telephone interviews were conducted between October 13, 2005 and
October 31 2005. Idaho Power provided customer contact information data to
Northwest Research Group. Idaho Power had hoped to contact as many program
participants as possible. The data file that was provided to Northwest Research
contained approximately 203 program participant names and phone numbers. Program
participants in the Mini-Cassia service area were removed from the data sample due to
another research project recently conducted in that area. Many customers were
contacted on their cell phones, which did not seem to be an issue for them. The survey
tool used was approximately 5 minutes long (see Appendix A.) Confidence interval for
the overall study sample was 95% with a +/- 4.15% margin of error.
IV.Summary of Key Findings
Section 1 - Customer Satisfaction
According to these survey respondents, participants in the 2005 Peak Rewards program
were satisfied with the program. Forty-eight percent were "Very satisfied" and 41
percent were" Somewhat satisfied". Only 1 0 percent indicated that they had any
dissatisfaction with the program.
Overall Satisfaction
2005
n=149
Very satisfied 48%
Somewhat satisfied 41%
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
Somewhat dissatisfied
Very dissatisfied
Most survey respondents said they learned about the Peak Rewards Program by
receiving a mailing from Idaho Power,
How did customers first learn about Peak Rewards Program
News paper
62%Received mailing from Idaho
Power
Attended a workshop or
meeting
IP employee reperesentative
Another farmer who knew
more about the program
Participated in pilot program
last year
Other
10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
The incentive amount persuaded the majority of the customers to participate in this
program.
Incentive Amount
Good idea See How It
Would Work
Minimal Impact
Help Idaho Power
Conducive Crops
Opportunity to save money
What persuaded customer to participate in 2005 Peak Rewards Program
76%
30%60%40%70%80%90%100%10%20%50%
Almost all of the respondents indicated they would likely participate in the program
again in the future.
100%
III
60%
r::
50%
II:
'0 40%
90%
80%
70%63%
30%
20%
10%
Very likely
Likelihood to Participate in Peak Rewards Program Again
Somewhat likely Neither likely nor Somewhat unlikely
unlikely
Very unlikely
Over half of the respondents said they "Very likely" would recommend this program to
another farmer and another 37 percent indicated they would be "Somewhat likely" to
recommend the program.
Likelihood to Recommend
Peak Rewards Program
100%
90%
80%
70%
~ 60%
'tI
~ 50%
'0 40%
....
51%
30%
20%
10%
Very likely Somewhat likely Neither likely nor unllkey Somewhat unlikely Very unlikely
. .
The crop with the highest participation in this program was grain, second was hay and
. third was sugar beets. The only other crops with notable mention were potatoes and
corn.
Participating Crops in 2005 Peak Rewards Program
Grain Wheat Barley
Hay (alfalfa or grass)
Sugar Beets
Potatoes
Corn
Mint
Other
Pasture
Beans
Sod Turf
Seed Crop
Peas
Orchards
10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
% of Participants
~~_.~-"_.~---_.-._----
Section 2 - Problems encountered as a result of the prOQram
Most of the customers (74%) indicated that they did not have any problems with their
equipment as a result of participating in this program. Of the 26 percent who did have a
problem , the majority had notified Idaho Power about the problem.
Very few customers experienced problems with the billing demand credit. Of the two
percent who did have a problem, the problems had to do with the prorated credit being
wrong and a billing error.
Just over one-fifth (22%) of the customers said that they did experience problems with
the electrician s installation of the timer. The majority of these customers who
experienced a problem with the timer did contact someone about the timer. The
customers tended to contact Idaho Power about the problem most often (28 percent
Idaho Power ag rep, 24 percent Idaho Power program specialist and 8 percent Idaho
Power general number) but 40 percent of them did contact the electrician. The problem
that was cited most often with the timers (38%) was that the timer didn t work. Other
common problems mentioned were pump did not run (22%), timer was set wrong (19%)
and pivot continued to walk (16%).
2005 Peak Rewards Program
Timer installation problems
Pump did not run
38%Timer didn t work
Timer was set wrong
Pivot continued to walk
Pump didn t shut off
Electrician didn t follow-up
Other
10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
Section 3 - Su~U:lestions for proaram improvement
The most common suggestion to make the program more attractive in the future was to
increase the incentive amount. Second most mentioned improvement was to provide
more money for more interruptions. Other responses varied from providing more
flexibility on participation days to a bypass switch to dropping the horsepower limit.
Several customers indicated that no change was needed.
Recommended changes for the Future
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
...
'tI
50%
II:
40%
'#.
33%
30%
20%
10%
~ ::\
'f' eo '!o ~'f'
# # # ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
o(.~q o
~ ~
rr; ~ '!or,; ~ q 'f"ri ,~ 0 !C\ 0'f' ~ g;.r,; _rr; ~ ~0(. ,
.~ ~
o; ~o ~
q .~~ ~~
o; ~0 0
~~ #-
'ti Q -t.
~ ~~
~ e.'f'
~ ~
o 0'vi ~o
~~
~o ((,,0 ~0 ~r,; ~
,,00(. ~~ 0 ' q 0 ;j-'ti~o ~o'f. ~'f' ~
~q;
~c.
'ti
;:.5
,;:j
,;)v'ti .1+-
~ ~
ciJ'f'
,;)
'f'
~'ti
0(.
V. Conclusions
In general , this program was well received by customers. Customers would like to see
larger incentives for their contribution but, even without that, most of them said they
would participate in the program again in the future, Most of the problems with the
program related to issues with the electrician s installation of the timer.
Appendix A - Survey Instrument
--~
IDAHO
POWER
An IDACORP Company
2005 IRRIGATION PEAK REWARDS SURVEY
INTRODUCTION AND SCREENING
SCR1
INT
GENDER
Q11NT
May I please speak with (INSERT NAME OF CUSTOMER FROM FILE)?
RESPONDENT AVAILABLE
IF CALLING CELL PHONE NUMBER - ASK IF CUSTOMER WOULD PREFER
TO ARRANGE A CALLBACK ON A LAND-LINE. (CTRL-END, SCHEDULE
CALLBACK)
RESPONDENT NOT AVAILABLE (CTRL-END, SCHEDULE CALLBACK)
NO, NOT INTERESTED (SKIP TO THANK9, DISPOS = 5))
LANGUAGE BARRIER (SKIP TO THANK2, DISPOS =10)
DON'T KNOW / REFUSED (SKIP TO THANK8 , DISPOS = 8)
Hello, this is with Northwest Research Group, Inc.
We are an independent research firm conducting a brief survey on behalf of
Idaho Power. regarding their Irrigation Peak Rewards Program and would like to
include your opinions. This study is being conducted for research purposes only
and this call may be monitored and/or recorded for quality purposes.
(AS NEEDED: Let me assure you that this is not a sales call, and the information
you give will be kept strictly confidential. If you want more information about
NWRG, you may visit our web site at www.nwra.com
(AS NEEDED: The interview will only take about 10 minutes of your time.
(ENTER GENDER OF RESPONDENT)
MALE
FEMALE
CUSTOMER SATISFACTION
To start I'd like to ask you a few questions about your satisfaction with Idaho
Power s Peak Rewards program.
Overall are you satisfied or dissatisfied with the Peak Rewards Program? Would
that be very or somewhat satisfied / dissatisfied?
VERY DISSATISFIED
SOMEWHAT DISSATISFIED
NEITHER SATISFIED NOR DISSATISFIED
SOMEWHAT SATISFIED
VERY SATISFIED
DON'T KNOW / REFUSED
How did you first learn about the Peak Rewards Program?
DO NOT READ LIST
PARTICIPATED IN PILOT PROGRAM LAST YEAR
ATTENDED A WORKSHOP OR MEETING
ANOTHER FARMER WHO KNEW MORE ABOUT THE PROGRAM
RECEIVED MAILING FROM IDAHO POWER
OTHER (SPECIFY)
DON'T KNOW / REFUSED
What was it about the Peak Rewards Program that persuaded you to
participate?
DO NOT READ LIST
INCENTIVE AMOUNT
THOUGHT IT SOUNDED LIKE A GOOD IDEA / CONCEPT WANTED TO SEE
HOW IT WOULD WORK
WANTED TO HELP OUT WITH IDAHO POWER'S LOAD PROBLEM
CROPS WERE CONDUCIVE TO THE PROGRAM DESIGN
MINIMAL IMPACT ON OPERATIONS
FAMILY OR NEIGHBOR SUGGESTED IT
OTHER (SPECIFY)
DON'T KNOW / REFUSED
How likely would you be to participate in this program again in the future? Would that be
very or somewhat likely / unlikely?
VERY UNLlKLEY
SOMEWHAT UNLlKLEY
NEITHER LlKLEY NOR UNLIKELY
SOMEWHAT LIKELY
VERY LIKELY
DON'T KNOW / REFUSED
What about the program would prevent you from participating in the future?
DO NOT READ LIST
SELECT ALL THAT APPLY
INCENTIVE TOO SMALL
TOO MUCH RISK FOR CROPS
TOO MUCH TROUBLE TO COORDINATE
TOO MUCH EFFECT ON OPERATIONS (SYSTEM AND LABOR)
INCONVENIENCE
WASN'T BENEFICIAL THIS YEAR
OTHER (SPECIFY)
OTHER (SPECIFY)
OTHER (SPECIFY)
DON'T KNOW / REFUSED
How likely would you be to recommend this program to another farmer? Would that be
very or somewhat likely / unlikely?
VERY UNLlKLEY
SOMEWHAT UNLlKLEY
NEITHER LlKLEY NOR UNLIKELY
SOMEWHAT LIKELY
VERY LIKELY
DON'T KNOW / REFUSED
What crops were irrigated by pumps you had in this program? Please list all that apply.
DO NOT READ LIST
SELECT ALL THAT APPLY
POTATOES / SPUDS
GRAIN / WHEAT / BARLEY
HAY (ALFALFA OR GRASS)
SUGAR BEETS
CORN
BEANS
PEAS
SEED CROP - ALFALFA, CARROTS, ONION, CORN, ETC.
MINT
10 ONIONS
11 PASTURE
12 ORCHARDS
13 OTHER (SPECIFY)
14 OTHER (SPECIFY)
15 OTHER (SPECIFY)99 DON'T KNOW / REFUSED
Did you experience any problems with your equipment as a result of this program?
YES
NO (SKIP TO 010)
DON'T KNOW / REFUSED (SKIP TO 010)
Did you contact Idaho Power about this equipment problem?
YES
DON'T KNOW / REFUSED
010 Did you experience any problems with the billing demand credit for your participation in
this program?
YES
2 NO (SKIP TO 013)
DON'T KNOW / REFUSED (SKIP TO 013)
011 What was the nature of the problem?
DO NOT READ LIST
SELECT ALL THAT APPLY
PRORATED CREDIT WAS WRONG
DID NOT UNDERSTAND HOW THE CREDIT WAS CALCULATED
BILLING ERROR
OTHER (SPECIFY)
OTHER (SPECIFY)
OTHER (SPECIFY)
DON'T KNOW / REFUSED
012 Did you contact Idaho Power about this billing credit problem?
YES
2 NO
DON'T KNOW / REFUSED
013 Did you experience any problems with the electrician s installation of the timer?
YES
2 NO (SKIP TO 017)
DON'T KNOW / REFUSED (SKIP TO 017)
014 Did you contact anyone about this timer problem?
1 YES
2 NO (SKIP TO 016)
DON'T KNOW / REFUSED (SKIP TO 016)
015 Who did you contact about the timer problem?
1 Electrician
Idaho Power General number,
Idaho Power Ag Rep, or
Idaho Power Program Specialist?
DON'T KNOW / REFUSED
016 What was the nature of the problem?
DO NOT READ LIST
SELECT ALL THAT APPLY
TIMER DIDN'T WORK
PUMP DID NOT RUN
ELECTRICIAN DIDN'T FOLLOW-UP (CUSTOMER DIDN'T KNOW WHEN TIMER
WAS INSTALLED)
DIDN'T UNDERSTAND DETAILS OF PROGRAM
PIVOT CONTINUED TO WALK
OTHER (SPECIFY)
OTHER (SPECIFY)
OTHER (SPECIFY)
DON'T KNOW / REFUSED017 What changes would you recommend to the program to make it more likely for you to
participate with more pumps in the future?
DO NOT READ LIST
SELECT ALL THAT APPLY
LARGER INCENTIVES
MORE MONEY FOR MORE INTERRUPTIONS
A BYPASS SWITCH
MORE FLEXIBILITY ON PARTICIPATION DAYS
MORE FLEXIBILITY ON PARTICIPATION TIMES
DROP THE HORSEPOWER LIMIT
MAKE IT AVAILABLE TO ALL IRRIGATORS
OTHER (SPECIFY)
OTHER (SPECIFY)
OTHER (SPECIFY)
DON'T KNOW / REFUSED
DEMOGRAPHICS
DEMOINT
DEMO1
DEMO2
EDUC
THANK1
The following questions are for classification purposes only. Your answers will
remain strictly confidential and will only be used to help us group your answers.
Which of the following categories does your age fall into?
Under 25,
25 to 44,
45 to 64, or
65 or above?
DON'T KNOW / REFUSED
How long have you been an Idaho Power customer?
Less than 1 year,
1 to 10 years,
11 to 25 years,
26 years or more?
DON'T KNOW / REFUSED
What is the highest level of education you have completed?
Did not finish high school,
High school graduate / GED,
Some college / technical school
Associate / other degree,
College degree,
Some graduate school, or
Graduate degree
DON'T KNOW / REFUSED
Thank you very much for taking the time to participate in this survey. Your
feedback is very important to Idaho Power in determining the success of this
program. On behalf of Northwest Research Group_and Idaho Power, I'd like to
THANK2
THANK8
THANK9
thank you for participating in our survey tonight / today. Have a good day /
evening. (DISPOS = 40)
m sorry, but we are only conducting English interviews today / tonight. Have a
good day / evening. (DISPOS 10)
Those are all of the questions I have. I cannot continue with that information.
Thank you for your time. (DISPOS = 8)
Those are all of the questions we have. Have a good day / evening
Appendix B
Other Specify and Verbatim Comments
Idaho Power Irrigation Peak Rewards Study
Verbatim
Q2: How did you first learn about the Peak Rewards Program?
Respondent Post Original
number Question Code Code Verbatim
Read about it someplace.
135 Idaho Irrigation Pumpers Association.
Someone from Idaho Power contacted us and told us about it.
Idaho Power rep.
From an Idaho Power Employee, a friend.
Mike Litkey from Idaho Power contacted me.
From an employee of Idaho Power.
Spoke with Quentin Nesbit with Idaho Power.
Idaho Power employee.
Nephew that works for Idaho Power.
128 Idaho Power employee.
149 Idaho Power employee.
The Twin Falls Times News.
Read about it in the newspaper.
123 Newspaper.
Q3: What was it about the Peak Rewards Program that persuaded you to
participate?
Respondent Post Original
number Question Code Code Verbatim
The thouaht of it iust seemed like it would work out.
Lower power bill.
Opportunity to save money.
Cutbacks on your rates to save power.
Lower demand charaes.
Reduction in power expenses.
Reduced rate on our demand charae.
Reduction in the demand charge.
Q5: What about the program would prevent you from participating in the future?
Respondent Post Originalnumber Question Code Code Verbatim
146
141
Respondent Post Original
number Question Code Code Verbatim
Damage to the irrigation equipment when the water wasn t in it. We
have wheel lines and the water keeps them from blowing and the
peak time was four until eight or seven and that is when the wind
Dicks up.
I need Idaho Power to give me a report of what I did save by using
114 this program.
Q7: What crops were irrigated by pumps you had in this program?
Respondent Post Original
number Question Code Code Verbatim
Oats for hay.
Sweet corn.
Tricale.
Grass sod.
Sod.
Sod, turf.
101 Only lawns.
106 Rye grass.
Qll: What was the nature of the problem (billing demand credit)?
Q16: What was the nature of the problem (timer problem)?
Respondent Post Original
number Question Code Code Verbatim
016 Kept blowing five-amp fuses.
Timer was wired wrong and all the electric fuses on my pumps
140 016 shorted out.
Pivot shuts off and the pump is supposed to turn back on and did
153 016 not.
016 Pump didn t shut off when it was supposed to. They repaired it.
016 Pump did not shut off when it was supposed to.
The timer messed up my high and low switches for the levels on my
016 pond.
107 016 Pump was turninQ on and shuttinQ off at the wrona times.
111 016 It was not timed for the proaram and the DumDS wouldn t start.
119 016 The timer had the wronQ dav for one of the pumps to be shut off.
123 016 Put the timer on the wrong dav for one of the DumDS.
We shut our own wells off by hand since the timer didn t shut the
144 016 wells off.
Q17: What changes would you recommend to the program to make it more likely
for you to participate with more pumps in the future?
Respondent Post Original
number Question Code Code Verbatim
The level of pay is not high enough to justify using on high value
017 crops, such as potatoes.
The pump turned off and the pivot didn t. I wish they could turn the
power off for everything, so when the pump turns back on the pivot
152 017 doesn t. It blows the main line uP.
017 Add a little more control of which dav we can turn off.
Idaho Power to be able to correct the low voltage start-up in the
evenings between 8 and 9 PM MST. If they can t promise that then I
017 won t participate in the proqram aqain.
Communication in August just before the program ends so people
101 017 know when the proaram ends.
Peak rewards needs to coincide with the demand for electricity and
with the cost of it. I ran my pumps in September for two days and was
charged for the full demand for $400.00. They need to drop the peak
demand charges in September or have the peak rewards program
123 017 cover September as well.
Get the equipment to match our equipment so we don t have the same
133 017 problem.
139 017 Chanae where the shut-off valves are on the pumps.
Manage the voltage better on start up. When we tried to start one of
144 017 the small pumps, the low voltaqe burned up one of the pumps.
151 017 Have the pivot stop when the pump stops.
017 Pressurized pumps in the river that turn off and on automatically.
Make sure the timers don t turn off our pumps altogether; we had
017 problems with that happenina.
017 Need a pivot auto-restart for the pumps to work.
017 Make sure we can turn them on and off at the same time.
017 Needs to work with our automatic controls.
Make it so the pumps don t automatically turn back on at the end of
155 017 the cycle.
017 Wouldn t make anv chanaes; all is aood.
017 No chanqes needed. I only have one pump to start with.
017 Don t know of anv chanqes needed.
017 Can t think of anvthinq.
017 No chanaes needed in proqram for me.
101 017 I don t have anymore pumps.
108 017 I was happv with evervthinq; no chanaes needed.
109 017 I can t think of anvthinq; the proqram worked qreat for me.
112 017 We participated with all our pumps, can t do anv more.
113 017 No chanqes needed.
114 017 None. Can t think of any.
118 017 I can t think of anvthinq to chanae.
122 017 It was fine; no chanqes needed.
126 017 No chanaes needed.
130 017 No chanqes at the moment.
140 017 No chanqes; evervthinq is qood for me.
Respondent Post Original number Question Code Code Verbatim
145 017 I have all m um s in the ro ram.
150 017 None that I can think of ri ht now.
114 017 I need a re ort of what m electric savin s were b month or b ear.
Send me a check; don t just take the amount of money I saved off my
electric bill. I want to see, have visual records of what I saved. If I have
124 017 a check for the amount I saved I will feel better about it.
Get a report from Idaho Power about how much you are saving by
143 017 usin this pro ram.