20041207Brilz Exhibits.pdf

Idaho Public Utilities Commission
Office of the SecretaryRECEIVED
DEC - 6 2004
BEFORE THE Boise, Idaho
IDAHO PUBLIC UTiliTIES COMMISSION
- -
IDAHO POWER COMPANY
CASE NO.IPC-O4-
EXHIBIT NO.
M. BRllZ
An IDACORP company
Annual
Demand Side Management
Report
January 30 , 2003
Exhibit No.
Case No. IPC-O4-
M. Brilz, IPCo-Dir
Page 1 of 53
2002 DSM Tariff Rider Report
In Order No. 29026, the Idaho Public Utilities Commission (IPUC) directed Idaho
Power to "file an annual written report to the Commission detailing: the Advisory
Group s recommendations, the Company s response to those recommendations, the
associated program costs, the DSM accounting numbers customer response data and
information on new DSM opportunities This report reviews those issues in three
sections. Section I addresses program description, costs and customer response as well as
the Advisory Group s recommendations for that program and Idaho Power s response.
Section II reviews the rider funding and expenses and Section ill provides infonnation on
Idaho Power s efforts to look at new DSM opportunities.
I. Program details, Advisory Group recommendations and the Company s response
to those recommendations
Since the formation of the Energy Efficiency Advisory Group (BEAG) in spring,
2002, the group has met five times. The results of the first meeting, which was held on
April 30, 2002, were reported to the Idaho Public Utilities Commission (IPUC) in a
report filed May 2, 2002. Subsequent meetings were held July 11 September 5
November 14th and January 9th, 2003.
The EEAG consists of 13 customer state agency and special interest
representatives and two representatives from Idaho Power. Meeting minutes and other
meeting materials are provided to all EEAG members, including IPUC staff, and are
available upon request.
As of January 2003 the EEAG has recommended implementing three specific
customer DSM programs that have a combined total estimated budget of $1,710 000.
These programs and the timeframe for their implementation are:
Program
Lighting Coupon Program
School Operator Training
Budget
$850 000
$50 000
Timeframe
Page
September 2002 - April 2003
November 2002 December 2002
Exhibit No.
Case No. IPC-O4-
M. Brilz, IPCo-Dir
Page 2 of 53
Air Conditioner Cycling
Pilot Program $810 000 March 2003 - December 2004
The major activity for the Lighting Coupon Program was conducted during the
fall, 2002; however, several aspects of the Program will continue until April, 2003.The
classroom component of the School Operator Training Program was implemented in
November, 2002. Idaho Power filed an application with the Commission on December
, 2002, requesting approval to implement the Air Conditioner Cycling Program (Case
No. IPC-02-13).
Lighting Coupon Program
Program description
Starting October 17th, Idaho Power sent a brochure and two $3 coupons
359,465 residential and small commercial customers. These coupons could be used
toward the purchase of Energy Star labeled compact fluorescent light (CFL) bulbs from
participating retail stores. Ecos Consulting was hired to coordinate coupon redemption
and to work with the participating retail stores.
Idaho Power staged a fairly aggressive public relations campaign designed to
educate our customers about the characteristics of CFL bulbs and to let our customers
know of the coupon availability. Prior to the coupon mail-out
, "
ticklers" were inserted in
customer bills , articles were printed in the Consumer Connection and messages were
printed on the bill envelopes. Through these various means of communication, the
Company attempted to alert customers to the presence of the coupons in their bills so
they would not throw them away or destroy them.
The program campaign kicked off with an announcement during the Alexander
House Energy Star Open House with Governor Kempthorne on August 20, 2002. During
October and early November Idaho Power sponsored three launch events at community
shelters to help upgrade the lighting in the facilities and provide a forum for local news
coverage. Launches were held at the Ike Kissler Safe House in Twin Falls, the Bannock
House in Pocatello and at City Light Home For Women and Children in Boise. Radio
ads were placed starting mid-October through mid-December and print ads were placed
Page 2
Exhibit No.
Case No. IPC-O4-
M. Britz, IPCo-Dir
Page 3 of 53
in 18 newspapers across the service territory. Idaho Power was able to place two large
educational information articles in the Idaho Statesman discussing bulb selection,
placement, characteristics and disposal, and all print ads had an educational message.
Idaho Power worked with retail stores across the service territory to sell Energy
Star CFLs and accept the coupons. Customers could look up information about the
program on the Idaho Power web site and locate participating retail stores near them. In
addition, there was a toll free phone number available for customers to use for assistance
in locating participating retail stores. During the campaign, program field personnel
manned information booths at stores to answer questions and promote the program.
These booths were a successful way to understand customer concerns and promote sales.
Idaho Power offered co-op advertising to retail stores to promote the program and several
stores ran their own ads.
Idaho Power distributed extra coupons to customers who called our Customer
Service Center and requested extra coupons. Meter readers and linemen handed out
coupons to customers they encountered during their workday. Coupons were included in
high bill packets, and extra coupons were delivered to senior centers and community
centers. The coupons expired December 31 , 2002.
Savings estimates are based on regional evaluations and indicate an annual
reduction of 67.5 kWh per bulb when compared to an equivalent incandescent bulb.
~gram costs and customer response
Preliminary results as of January 15 , 2003, show over 32 000 coupons redeemed.
The budget for this program is $850 000. Actual expenditures to date are approximately
$321 471. Final participation numbers for the coupon program will be available in
February 2003 , but appear to be well below the desired target penetration of 150/0 (or
108 000 coupons). Therefore, a second phase of promotions is currently being
considered.
Program numbers thus far show that of the coupons redeemed, 9% were redeemed
by small commercial customers and 91 % were redeemed by residential customers. This
breakdown is roughly the same ratio of those mailed out and indicates that both
residential and small commercial customers redeemed the bulbs at roughly the same rate.
Page 3
Exhibit No.
Case No. IPC-O4-
M. Brilz, IPCo-Dir
Page 4 of 53
Over 128 retail stores that sold lighting products signed up to be participating
retailers. The vast majority of coupons were redeemed at larger corporate stores that
don t break down redemption rates by region. However, for the smaller retail stores there
is data that show excellent participation across the service territory. For example
customers in the western part of the service territory submitted 200/0 of the coupons
redeemed at smaller retail stores; customers in the southern area, 26%; customers in the
eastern area, 220/0; and customers in the central Boise area redeemed 32% of the coupons
redeemed a small retail stores.
~Efficiency Advisory Group recommendations
Idaho Power presented the proposal for a Coupon Lighting Program to the EEAG
during the July 11
th meeting. Idaho Power received the following recommendations.
The general consensus of the EEAG was that Idaho Power should
implement the CFL program
Idaho Power initiated implementation of the program
The EEA G suggested that the program be offered to both residential and
small commercial customers
Idaho Power included small commercial customers in program
The EEAG wanted Idaho Power to track the small commercial
participation. Tracking of the small commercial participation would assist
in the allocation of program costs to each sector.
Coupons were coded so that the redemption by each customer
group could be tallied
The EEAG suggested a marketing and education component be included
as part of the program.
Idaho Power included an extensive marketing and education plan
in the program implementation
The EEAG was evenly split between offering customers 1 coupon with a
face value of $4, or 2 coupons with a face value of
$~-
Exhibit No.
Case No. IPC-O4-
M. Brilz, IPCo-Dir
Page 5 of 53
Page 4
Idaho Power choose to offer 2 $3 coupons because of the potential
for this design to provide more energy savings and increased cost-
effectiveness
The suggestion was also made to provide a means of delivering CFLs to
lower income customers.
Idaho Power added a component to the program that distributed
CFL bulbs free of charge to low-income customers through the
Community Action Agencies ' Low Income Weather Assistance
(LIW A) program.
Additionally, there was some concern expressed by the EEAG that there
might be a large number of people who have already purchased CFL
bulbs.
In response to this concern, Idaho Power commissioned a short
telephone survey, fielded in August, that indicated 61% of Idaho
Power customers had purchased CFLs in the past 12 months. This
finding was shared with the EEA during the September 5th
meeting and after discussing the issue, the EEA still felt Idaho
Power should proceed with the program.
Next steps
Idaho Power is pursuing a second phase of the CFL program with other kinds of
program promotions. The objective is to leverage the high awareness of the program
established in the first phase with lower-cost promotions to increase penetration and
reduce overall program cost per bulb.
School Building Operator Training
program description
In order to help school districts manage their energy costs
, .
and in recognition that
a key to energy. savings is a well trained operations and maintenance staff, Idaho Power
joined with Idaho Department of Water Resources, Energy Division and the Northwest
Building Operators Association (NWBOA), to offer technical operator training.
Exhibit No.
Case No. IPC-O4-
M. Brilz, IPCo-Dir
Page 6 of 53Page 5
NWBOA has a five-day level one training that has been supported and evaluated by the
Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance. A letter of invitation was sent to all K-12 school
districts in the Idaho Power service territory. Training was scheduled for November 13-
15 and November 20-, 2002. The training was included as part of the annual Idaho
Energy Conference so that participants could attend the sessions and activities with other
people who are focusing on energy efficiency. The cost of the program included operator
training ($400 per participant), conference registration and meals and lodging for out-of-
town attendees. In addition, attendees received a year membership in NWBOA and, if
they passed the course tests, were awarded a certification.
Because this program was exclusively education and training, there are no
specific installed measures for saving electricity. However, the Northwest Energy
Efficiency Alliance conducted an evaluation of the NWBOA training several years ago
and found that on average attendees save 55 000 kWh per year by applying the lessons
learned in this training.
Pro m costs and customer res onse
Thirty school building operators from throughout Idaho Power s service territory
attended the training and most were awarded Level I certific~tion at the Idaho Energy
Conference. There was excellent representation from small and large schools and there
was broad geographic representation. The budget for this program was $50,000;
$33 538.52 has been expended to date, with $10 000 set aside for further development.
Energy fficiency Advisory Group recommendations
On September 5th, Idaho Power presented to the EEAG the proposal for the K-
building operator training program and received the following recommendations.
Strong support was expressed from the EEAG for sponsoring the training.
Idaho Power initiated this program
The EEAG suggested that a survey be conducted with the participants
after the training to determine if changes to building operations are made
as a result of the training.
Page 6
Exhibit No.
Case No. IPC-O4-
M. Brilz, IPCo-Dir
Page 7 of 53
Idaho Power plans to conduct a survey of participants in the first
quarter of 2003.
The EEAG supported paytng hotel and meal costs for out-of-area
attendees in order to encourage participation by building operators that
would need to travel.
Funding was provided for lodging and meal expenses for this
training
Next steps
A survey of attendees is planned for the first quarter of 2003. This survey will
ask participants what activities and measures they implemented because of the
information provided in the workshops.
Idaho Power would like to make this training information available to school
districts that were not able to attend the training. Therefore, Idaho Power has set aside
$10 000 to work with NWBOA to provide the training and certification process in a
distant learning setting. NWBOA is currently developing a CD that contains the material
provided in the Level I training. It is anticipated that Idaho Power will sponsor a number
of operators to test this training method.
Residential Air Conditioner Cycling Pilot Program
Program description
On November 14th, Idaho Power presented a proposal for a Residential Air
Conditioner Cycling Pilot Program. In the program, Idaho Power will install, free of
charge, an intelligent programmable thermostat in participants homes. The Company
will then be able to send a signal to the thermostat to cycle the air conditioner off when
resources are needed for peak load reduction. The pilot will target 200 participants the
first year and 300 participants in the second year. All participation is voluntary. This
program will be offered to residential homeowners in Boise and Meridian who have
central air conditioning.
P~ge 7
Exhibit No.
Case No. IPC-O4-
M. Brilz, IPCo-Dir
Page 8 of 53
Energy Efficiency Advisory Group recommendations
Group discussion centered around three areas of the proposed program design: 1)
the ability to "opt out" of a cycling event; 2) the need for an incentive to participate in the
program in addition to the free programmable thennostat, and 3) the number of days in a
month and hours in a day that cycling may occur.
The EEAG suggested that some provision allowing customers to "opt out"
of the program, especially in emergency situations, was necessary.
Idaho Power is allowing participants to "opt-out with
notification by pm of the day prior to the day they wish to opt
out. This notification time is needed in order to pre-schedule this
resource into our overall resource mix.
The group also suggested that some incentive in addition to the
programmable thermostat would be necessary in order to entice customers
to participate. The potential to start with a small incentive and then
increase it if necessary was discussed.
Along with the incentive of a new programmable thermostat, a
$5/month incentive was added for program participants for the
three months per year of program operation
It was also suggested by the EEAG that any incentive paid to participants
be paid only after the customer had completed participation in the program
for the duration of the program.
Idaho Power examined whether this was possible and decided not
to structure the incentive in this way. Because of the
characteristics of the Idaho Power billing system it is necessary to
credit the incentive on a monthly basis.
Several members expressed the sentiment that in order to help customers
feel comfortable about joining in the pilot program, some description of
when the cycling might occur was necessary.
Idaho Power will provide this information during the participation
solicitation process.
Page 8
Exhibit No.
Case No. IPC-O4-
M. Brilz, IPCo-Dir
Page 9 of 53
The EEAG in general felt that the number of days and hours per day that
cycling could occur could be expanded from the proposed ten days and
four hours per day without decreasing interest in the program.
The hours of the day that the program can operate was expanded
to include the eight hours between pm and 9pm.
The EEAG was asked if they supported Idaho Power pursuing this
program and there was unanimous endorsement.
Based upon the support of the EEA G, Idaho Power pursued the
implementation of this program.
DSM Small Projects and Education Fund Proposal
Description
During the January 9, 2003 EEAG meeting, Idaho Power proposed that starting
January 1 , 2003, two set-aside funds be established. One fund will provide a small
amount of money for very small project requests and a second fund will provide a similar
amount for education efforts. The amount of money set aside each year for each fund is
20/0 of the total annual DSM tariff rider funding.
Energy Efficiency Aqvisory Group recommendations
The EEAG endorsed the proposal to create the two set-aside funds.
small amount of discretionary funds will allow Idaho Power to respond to
small requests in a timely manner.
In accordance with the EEA discussions, Idaho Power has
established these funds
The EEAG did not want these ~mall project and education funds to be
viewed as "secret" funds and suggested that Idaho Power let customers
know of their availability in some way.
Idaho Power is exploring ways to put a notification of the
availability of these funds on the Idaho Power web site
In addition, the EEAG desired that all customer segments have access to
the funds.
Page 9
Exhibit No.
Case No. IPC-O4-
M. Britz, IPCo-Dir
Page 10 of 53
Idaho Power will monitor the allocation of these funds to ensure
all customer sectors have access
The activities funded by these set-aside funds will be reported to the EEAG at the
regular meetings.
DSM Comprehensive Study
Description
As directed by Order No. 29026, Idaho Power consulted with the EEAG
regarding the need to initiate a comprehensive DSM assessment study. Because Idaho
Power s primary resource need in the near future is for summer peak reduction and
because most of the regional data available does not address summer demand reduction
DSM options, Idaho Power suggested that if a study were undertaken, it should focus on
residential and commercial summer demand reduction potential on Idaho Power
system. Various study design options were discussed. It was suggested that the cost for a
comprehensive study could range from $100 000 to $150 000.
Energy Efficiency Advisory Group recommendations
. A suggestion was made by the EEAG to have Idaho Power come forward
with a specific recommendation for a study that would provide the most
value, present the recommendation to the EEAG, and then gather input
specific to the recommendation.
Idaho Power evaluated options and presented a study design to
group
The group generally supported an abbreviated study, although there was
some support for a larger study.
Idaho Power proposed a study limited to identifying summer peak
demand reduction programs
The suggestion was made to expand the list of potential RFP recipients.
Idaho Power added some suggested consultants to the list of
consultants to receive the RFP
Page 10
Exhibit No.
Case No. IPC-O4-
M. Brilz, IPCo-Dir
Page 11 of 53
Idaho Power has a final draft of the RFP incorporating suggestions by the EEAG.
Residential Time-of-Use Pricing
Prior to submitting its Residential Time-of-Use Pricing Viability Study (Study) to
the Commission on September' 12 , 2002, Idaho Power solicited input on time-of-use
pricing for residential customers from the EEAG. A copy of the Company s Study is
attached as Attachment 1.
DSM Screening Criteria
Description
During the January 9, 2003 EEAG meeting, Idaho Power proposed the following
set of screening criteria for use in selecting DSM programs funded by the tariff rider.
First, programs will be cost-effective. From a total resource perspective,
estimated program benefits must be greater than estimated program costs. As shown by
the last Integrated Resource Plan, programs that decrease summer peak demand will be
valuable because they reduce the need for peak resources. Programs that capture cost-
effective, lost-opportunity DSM resources will be encouraged.
Second, programs will be customer-focused. From the participants' perspective
programs will offer real benefits and value to customers.
Third programs will be as close to earnings-neutral as possible. From the
utility's perspective, programs will be selected to minimize the negative impact on
shareowners.
Energy Efficiency Advisory Group recommendations
The EEAG generally endorsed the overall screening criteria proposed by
Idaho Power.
The EEA G suggested adding another criteria to ensure that there is equity
between customer sectors when it comes to spending rider funds and that
attention paid to equity within a sector.
Page 11
Exhibit No.
Case No. IPC-O4-
M. Brilz, IPCo-Dir
Page 12 of 53
Idaho Power added a fourth criterion: Programs will be equitably
distributed. From the customer s perspective, programs will be
selected to benefit all groups of customers. Over time, programs
will be offered to customers in all sectors and in all regions of the
Company s service territory.
The EEAG felt there should be flexibility when project eligibility is
determined. For example, there is support for funding of instruments for
measuring electricity use in the industrial and commercial sectors.
Idaho Power will try to build flexibility into the screening process
The EEAG suggested looking for ways to leverage the funds, like initially
offering rebates at only 100/0 of project costs instead of starting at 500/0.
Idaho Power is pleased with the overall process and finds value in the
recommendations and feedback received by the group.
II. Rider funding and expenses
2002 DSM tariff funding 592 049
Expenditures
EEAG meeting costs
Lighting Coupon Program
School Building Operator Training
* Includes January 2003 expenditures
$ 1,825
$ 321 471 *
$ 33,539 *
III. New DSM opportunities
The primary work in 2002 was forming the Energy Efficiency Advisory
Group and implementing the first set of programs. Now Idaho Power, along with input
from the EEAG, is establishing a long-term look at the DSM activities. The rust step in
this process has been completed with the development of the high-level program
screening criteria. These criteria will be used in selecting new programs funded through
the DSM tariff rider. The Company is now establishing the process to apply the
screening criteria to specific program options.
Page 12
Exhibit No.
Case No. IPC-O4-
M. Brilz, IPCo-Dir
Page 13 of 53
In addition, Idaho Power has two efforts that are in the process of examining new
DSM opportunities. It is anticipated that the DSM study reviewed earlier will provide
suggestions for programs appropriate to Idaho Power s system that will reduce demand
during the summer peak load. Since this is a specialized study and since there is no solid
regional data to draw from, Idaho Power plans to hire a contractor to complete this study.
The study has not been awarded at this time.
On a parallel path, where there is information and data available, Idaho Power is
compiling a list of program options in the service territory. This list includes developing
local delivery options of market transformation programs offered by the Northwest
Energy Efficiency Alliance. It also includes irrigation and industrial program options
developed with internal staff.
Page 13
Exhibit No.
Case No. IPC-O4-
M. Brilz, IPCo-Dir
Page 14 of 53
~ I DAHO POWER
An IDACORP Company
Demand-Side Management
Annual Report
March 2004
Exhibit No.
Case No. IPC-O4-
M. Brilz, IPCo-Dir
Page 15 of 53
To request additional copies,
please write or can
Darlene Nemnich
Idaho Power Company
O. Box 70
Boise , 10 83707
[phone]
Printed on recycled paper
Exhibit No.
Case No. IPC-O4-
M. Britz, I PCo-Dir
Page 16 of 53
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DEMAND-SIDE MANAGEMENT OVERVIEW...................................
DEMAND-SIDE MANAGEMENT TERMS ......................................... 3
CUSTOMER PROGRAMS. ............ ........ ....
.......... ..............
................ 4
DEMAND RESPONSE PROGRAMS.
.............. ... ... ........ .......... ............ ... ................ ....
Programs for Residential Customers .................................................................. 4
E:tlE~G" E:IFIFICIENC:" PROGRAMS...... ....
............ .................. ... ..........
..................... I;
Programs for Residential Customers .................................................................. 6
Programs for Commercial Customers............................................................... 15
Programs for Industrial Customers ................................................................... 17
Programs for Irrigation Customers ................................................................... 19
MA~KET TRAtiSIFORMA TION
...... .... ..... .... ... ... ...... ............. ....
............................... 21
A. Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance ............................................................. 21
E:DUCATION, SMALL PROJECTS, AtiD TRAltilNG PROGRAMS .................................
A. Small ProjectlEducation Funds........... ......
...... .......... ..........
.............................. 23
B. Northwest Building Operator Training............................................................. 24
ENERGY EFFICIENCY ADVISORY GROUP ACTIVITIES ............. 27
Energy Efficiency Advisory Group Recommendations ................................... 27
LOOKI NG AHEAD ...
.......... .......... ...... .......... .... ........
.......... ........ ...... 31
DATA TABLES ................................................................................ 32
2003 DSM P~OGRAM ACTIVITY .........................................................................
HISTO~ICAL DSM PROGRAM ACTIVITY ...............................................................
()SM F=INANCIAL t= AC:TORS...
........... ............... ....... ........ ....... .......... ... .................
31;
Exhibit No.
Case No. IPC-O4-
M. Brilz, IPCo-Dir
Page 17 of 53
\ DEMAND-SIDE MANAGEMENT OVERVIEW
2003 was a year of increasing activity and policy development in demand-side
management (DSM) at Idaho Power. Four major DSM programs were initiated:
Manufactured Home Energy Check-ups, Energy Efficient Manufactured Home
Incentives, Industrial Efficiency and Irrigation Efficiency. Idaho Power conducted four
pilot programs: Air Conditioner Cycling Demand Response, the window air conditioner
rebate program (Trade In, Trade Up to ENERGY ST AR ), AirCare Plus and the quick-
start phase of the ENERGY STAR Homes Northwest Program. The Energy Efficiency
Advisory Group (EEAG) met four times and provided valuable input to the process.
Idaho Power completed a 2003-2005 Demand-side Management Plan that outlines for the
first time in many years the management philosophy and direction for DSM. A major
effort to develop DSM options for the Idaho Power 2004 Integrated Resource Plan began
at the end of2003. Finally, Idaho Power added two new full-time staff and has
established accounting and reporting procedures to facilitate the ongoing growth in
DSM
activity .
Idaho Power worked closely with the Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance (Alliance)
and will use the research and infrastructure developed by the Alliance in local programs.
The ENERGY STAR Homes Northwest Program, the Manufactured Home Energy
Check-ups and the Industrial Efficiency Program will rely heavily on the Alliance
work. The Alliance s efforts in the Pacific Northwest impact Idaho Power s customers
by providing behind-the-scenes market changes as well as providing leverage to Idaho
Power local programs.
2003 is the third year of a five-year agreement between Idaho Power and the Bonneville
Power Administration s Conservation and Renewable Discount Program (BPA C&RD).
Idaho Power directs the C&RD funds to programs that serve lower-income residential
customers.
In 2003, Idaho Power realized savings of 5,912 MWh and 189 kW of summer peak
reduction from its energy efficiency and demand response programs. Savings from
market transformation efforts are reported by the Alliance and are summarized later in
this document.
During the course of the year, Idaho Power spent $2 865,112 promoting energy
efficiency, including payments of $1 ,274 936 to the Alliance, $707 379 for programs
funded through the Idaho Tariff Rider (Rider), and $310,652 on BP A C&RD programs.
The Rider funding in 2003 totaled $2,629,798, while funding from the BPA for C&RD
programs totaled $515 180. Table 1 details DSM expenditures by program.
Exhibit No.
Case No. IPC-O4-
M. Brilz, IPCo-Dir
Page 18 of 53
Table 1. - Expenditures for Energy Efficiency in 2003
Program Categ
Idaho Tariff Rider
ENERGY STAR Homes Northwest
AC Cycling Pilot
Trade In Trade Up to ENERGY STAR
CFL Lighting Coupon Program
NWBOA School Building Operator Training
Air Care Plus Pilot
Industrial Efficiency Program
Irrigation Efficiency Program
DSM Peak Reduction Study
Energy Efficiency Advisory Group Meetings
Small projectl Education Funds
DSM Analysis & Accounting
Misc. Expenditures
Total
BPA Conservation & Renewable Discount (C&RD)
Manufactured Home Energy Check-Ups
Energy Efficient Manufactured Home Incentives
Supplemental UWA
Other C&RD Administration
Total
Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance (NEEA)
NEEA Idaho
NEEA Orea
Total
Low Income Weatherization Assistance (LIWA)
UWA - Idaho
LlWA - Oreg
Total
Oregon Programs
Oregon Residential Weatherization (Schedule 78)
Oreeon Commercial Audits (Schedule 82)
Total
Other DSM Costs
Total DSM costs included in general operatin~enses
Total DSM Expenditures
Utility Cost
13,597
234,252
687
305,683
48,853
364
303
975
39,321
099
100
105
041
707 380
1.83 653
319
49,895
785
310,652
217 590
57,346
274,936
228,834
255
251 089
000
000
317 055
865 113
.,.
Work completed in 2003 will be paid in 2004.
Exhibit No.
Case No. IPC-04-
M. Brilz, IPCo-Dir
Page 19 of 53
\ DEMAND-SIDE MANAGEMENT TERMS
AC-Air Conditioning
Alliance-Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance
BPA-Bonneville Power Administration
C&RD-Conservation and Renewable Discount Program
CFL-Col11pact FI uorescent Lamp
DSM-Demand-Side Management
EEAG-Energy Efficiency Advisory Group
HV AC-Heating Ventilation and Air Conditioning
lED-Idaho Energy Division
IPUC-Idaho Public Utilities Commission
LIW A - Low-I ncome Weatherization Assistance
NWBOA-Northwest Building Operators Association
PTCS-Performance Tested Comfort Systems
Rider-Idaho Tariff Rider
EXhibit No.
Case No. IPC-04-
M. Brilz, IPCo-Dir
Page 20 of 53
CUSTOMER PROGRAMS
DEMAND RESPONSE PROGRAMS
A. Programs for Residential Customers
Air Conditioning Cycling Pilot
Active Dates:
Target Customers:
Participants:
Utility Costs:
Savings in kWh:
Savings in k W
March 2003-0ngoing
Homes in Boise and Meridian with air conditioning
204
Total Actual Pilot Program Costs = $275,645
See discussion below
159 kW
DESCRIPTION
In March 2003 the Idaho Public Utilities Commission (lPUC) issued Order No. 29207
and approved a request by Idaho Power to conduct a two-year Air Conditioning Cycling
Pilot Program. The Program is a voluntary plan for residential customers that enables
Idaho Power to directly address summer peaking requirements by reducing some of the
air conditioning load which is one of the primary loads contributing to the summer peak.
Idaho Power s primary goal of the AC Pilot Program is to assess the effectiveness of air
conditioning control on reducing peak load. Specific objectives include:
Assess effect of control on customer satisfaction and comfort and retention
Develop analysis model for measuring peak load reduction
Gain operating experience in managing program
. T est equipment
Approximately 200 households were selected from about 750 applications for the first
year of the Program. Cycling commenced on June 18, 2003 and continued on a random
schedule for 26 events until August 25, 2003. The approximate total cost for the first
year of the Program was $275,645 ($234 252 of Rider dollars and $41 393 of Idaho
Power labor costs) and the budgeted amount was $389,600.
The single greatest factor that impacted the Program was a thermostat firmware
malfunction that was not discovered and diagnosed by the manufacturer until two-thirds
of all thermostats had been installed in participants' homes. This equipment malfunction
necessitated a thermostat recall and caused a series of issues that delayed installation,
inconvenienced participants, and resulted in implementing fewer cycling days thanoriginaHy planned. Exhibit No.
Case No. IPC-04-
M. Brilz, IPCo-Dir
Page 21 of 53
RESULTS
Based on the results of the first year s data, the Program does produce a
substantive and measurable effect of approximately 0.78 kW reduction per
participant in AC load during cycling periods, with a larger increase of 1.07 kW
reduction per participant during cycling when the outside temperature is 1000 or
greater. This reduction in AC load during cycling results in participants shifting
A C usage to non-cycling periods. In year one of the Program this resulted in a
small net increase in kWh usage of 0.4 kWh per participant during a cycling day.
These values may change when combined with year two results.
The participants in year one tended to be older, conservation-conscious, and lived
Inainly in 4 zip codes in Boise and Meridian. As a group they average less energy
consumption in the summer than the average Idaho Power customer with air
conditioning.
About 740/0 of participants experienced little or no discomfort from cycling, and
overall average home temperature increase was 1-2 degrees over the four-hour
cycling period.
Customer surveys taken before and after the cycling season indicate high levels of
customer satisfaction on measures including information provided, installation
process. customer service and overall program management.
NEXT STEPS
Work is proceeding on participant recruitment, product manufacturing, customer service
training~ and installation for year two of the Program, which will add an additional 300
participants in 2004. The Program schedule provides for installation to be complete by
early May to allow additional time prior to cycling for troubleshooting and final testing.
Exhibit No.
Case No. IPC-04-
M. Brilz, I PCo-Dir
Page 22 of 53
ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROGRAMS
A. Programs for Residential Customers
CFL Lighting Coupon Program
Active Dates:
Target Customer:
Participants:
Utility Costs:
Savings in kWh:
Savings in k W
Through June 2003
Residential and small commercial customers
663
$314 641
596 150 kWh
411 kW
DESCRIPTION
In early 2003, Idaho Power initiated a second phase of the Compact Fluorescent Lamp
(CFL) Lighting Coupon Program that followed a successful retail-based coupon program
conducted in 2002. This second phase leveraged an opportunity to work with a large
retailer, Costco, who had not participated in the first phase of the Program. Both the
Boise and Twin Falls Costco stores were part of this Program. The contractor for this
Program, Ecos Consulting, worked with Costco to make sure a wide range of ENERGY
ST AR CFL product was available. They arranged an automatic price reduction
promotion - in effect, a fonn of~~paper1ess" coupon. Rebates per bulb ranged from $1 to
$2 per bulb depending upon the kind of bulb sold.
The Program kick-off was held during Earth Day weekend. The Program contractors
developed a consumer educational brochure that was available to Costco customers
during the promotion. Costco marketed the promotion through its own venues, and Idaho
Power issued a press release announcing the Program.
RESULTS
In 2003, as part of the second phase of the CFL Lighting Coupon Program, over 48,000
CFLs were sold with incentives through the Costco promotion. This phase of the
Program proved to be very cost-effective because a high volume of bulbs was sold with a
low coupon value and very little promotion. Idaho Power also completed a component of
the Program that provided CFLs free of charge to Community Action Agencies for
distribution to low-income customers. 2,000 bulbs were distributed in this manner.
NEXT STEPS
Idaho Power completed the CFL Lighting Coupon Program by late spring 2003. Ecos
Consulting presented its final report August 1, 2003. Idaho Power will continue to
provide information to our customers periodical1y in bill stuffers and on the web
encouraging the purchase and appropriate placement of ENERGY STAR CFL bulbs.
I=Xhlblt NO.
Case No. IPC-04-
M. Brilz, IPCo-Dir
Page 23 of 53
ENERGY STAR Homes Northwest "Quick Start"
Active Dates:
Target Customers:
Participants:
Utility Costs:
Savings in kWh:
Savings in kW:
September 2003-0ngoing
New homebuyers and residential builders
N/A
$13 597
N/A
N/A
DESCRIPTION
The ENERGY STAR Homes Northwest Program is a new, regionally coordinated
initiative supported by the Alliance, electric and gas utilities, state energy organizations
builders, trade allies and other related organizations to build and sell energy efficient
homes in Oregon, Washington, Idaho and Montana. Leading with the nationally
recognized brand of ENERGY STAR, the Program provides significant assistance to
builders with increased marketing, ally training, awards, and cash incentives to support
the construction of homes that are 300/0 more energy efficient than current Idaho building
codes and standards. Idaho Power is partnering with the Idaho Energy Division (lED)
and Alliance to provide consumer marketing, builder incentives, and subcontractor
training to expand the existing ENERGY STAR Program.
Idaho Power s primary objective with this Program is to reduce future peak summer
demand caused by inefficient residential building envelope construction practices andAC
usage, especially in capacity~constrained high-growth service territory in the Treasure
Valley.
As this is a new program, a number of issues must be resolved and processes and
procedures developed to begin enrolling builders, educating consumers, training
subcontractors, and ultimately building new homes. These issues include:
Final determination of the exact specification in Idaho for r-values, HV AC
equipment and installation procedures for ENERGY STAR certification.
Transition from existing ENERGY STAR specification. The lED currently
operates a statewide energy efficient homebuilding program whose specification
is different from the Northwest specification included in this regional program.
When and how this specification changes for the builders is still under
negotiation.
Verification and quality assurance. The lED contracts with local individuals
(Home Performance Specialists) who currently provide technical assistance and
independent verification of energy efficient materials and installation methods to
builders. How their role will change and how verification will be performed is
under discussion among all the partners.
Amount of dollar incentive to be paid to builders. Idaho Power has contracted
with Ecotope to detennine the demand savings that can be cost -effectively
reimbursed to builders. Exhibit No.
Case No. IPC-04-
M. Brilz, IPCo-Dir
P;:Ioe 24 of 53
Idaho Power has been actively working with lED, the Alliance, local builders and Home
Performance Specialists to discuss these issues, propose alternatives and solutions, and
move the process forward.
NEXT STEPS
The "Fast Track" timetable anticipates these issues will be resolved over the winter 2004
and a consumer marketing campaign will begin in the spring to coincide with the Ada
County Parade of Homes consumer event in April and May.
Energy Efficient Manufactured Home Incentives
Active Dates:
Target Customers:
Participants:
Utility Costs:
Savings in kWh:
Savings in k W:
January 2003-0ngoing
New manufactured homebuyers
$37,319
227 434 kWh
Not measured in C&RD Programs
DESCRIPTION
In 2003, Idaho Power launched a program to encourage manufactured home buyers to
purchase energy-efficient Super Good Cents homes. The BPA's C&RD Program funds
this effort. The goal of the Program is to help buyers purchase Super Good Cents homes
and to encourage salespeople to discuss energy efficiency. Customers who purchase a
Super Good Cents home and site it in Idaho Power s service territory are eligible for a
$300 rebate. In addition, the salesperson receives a $75 incentive.
Given that the BPA funds this Program, the EEAG has received updates but has not
offered recommendations. To date, there have been no customer or industry concerns
about the Program. Idaho Power has partnered with the Northwest Energy Efficiency
Manufactured Homes Program and the lED to generate interest in the Program and
confirm Super Good Cents certification of each home.NEXT STEPS
Interest in the Program bas been steady. In 2004 , Idaho Power will develop a marketing
plan for the Program to increase participation. In addition, an extra incentive for an
ENERGY ST AR-qualified home (using either a heat pump or a heat recovery system)
will be introduced. The amount of the incentive to be paid is currently being evaluated.
Exhibit No.
Case No. IPC-04-
M. Britz, IPCo-Dir
Page 25 of 53
Trade In, Trade Up to ENERGY STAR Pilot
Active Dates:
Target Customers:
Participants:
Utility Costs:
Savings in kWh:
Savings in kW:
July 2003
Residential customers with room air conditioners
113/99
$6,687 (additional costs paid by the Alliance)
454 kWh
11.67 kW
DE8CRIPT10N
The Trade In, Trade Up to ENERGY STAR promotion was offered to Idaho Power by
ENERGY STAR Home Products Program as a pilot funded by the Alliance. The pilot
program was held on July 12, 2003 at two retailers in the Treasure Valley. Customers
were encouraged to bring in their old, inefficient room air conditioner and replace it with
an efficient ENERGY STAR unit. As an incentive, customers who both traded-in an old
unit and traded-up to an ENERGY STAR unit were eligible for a $30 mail-in rebate from
Idaho Power and an in-store $30 discount, $10 of which was underwritten by Idaho
Power.
Idaho Power set the following goals for the project:
. T est methods for attracting retailers and reaching customers
. E va I uate cost -effectiveness of promotion
Reduce summer peak
During the pilot, a11 of these goals were met. Findings from each area are discussed
below. After developing projections for an event held throughout the service territory, a
full program ",as rejected because it cannot be designed in a cost-effective manner.
RE8UL 1'8
The ENERGY STAR Home Products Program recruited Nampa Appliance & TV and RC
Willey for this project. Other retailers showed considerable interest but were unable to
commit due to limited stock on hand, local promotional restrictions or limited advance
notice of the promotion. It was clear that retailers are interested in programs of this type.
Newspaper and radio advertisements along with a direct mail piece were used to generate
customer interest. Publicity included radio interviews and announcements, television and
newspaper coverage and information on Idaho Power s web site. Retailers were supplied
with a variety of promotional material to display prior to the event as well.
In total, Idaho
Power estimated that more than 13,000 000 customer impressions were generated during
the course of the promotion. In a survey completed by participating customers, about
half of the customers sited a paid advertisement as the way they learned about the
promotion.
The prOtllotion generated 113 trade-in units and 99 ENERGY STAR unit purchases.
Less than 700/0 of eligible rebates were requested. Idaho Power issued 67 customer
Exhibit No.
Case No. IPC-O4-
M. Brilz, IPCo-Dir
P~np ?R of 53
rebates and 62 retailer rebates. These rates are surprisingly low given that customers and
retailers received a reminder call prior to the deadline for submitting rebates.
Idaho Power s expenses were limited because of the Alliance s fmancial commitment to
the promotion. Idaho Power s budget for the project was $15 000. Actual costs were
$6,687, including $2,630 for incentives and $3 706 for program management staff. Cost-
effectiveness must be based on projected costs of a full program rather than actual costs
affiliated with a pilot. A budget for a full program projected a $108 - $135 per unit cost,
depending on the number of participating retailers and customers. This per unit cost was
then measured against the savings numbers and showed that a future promotion would
not be cost-effective.
Savings numbers are based on conservative estimates that assumed a measure life of 15
years, 990 annual operating hours, a coincident factor of 0.8 arid lifetime measure
impacts rather than only first-year impacts. The following savings were calculated for
the pilot:
Energy savings
Annual savings per unit -146 kWh
Total Program savings (over 15 years) - 216 633 kWh
Summer peak savings
Annual savings per unit
- .
12 k W
Program peak reduction - 11.67
Given that new ENERGY STAR units are only 100/0 more efficient than their non-
qualifying counterparts, it is difficult to expect significant savings from this promotion.
These limited savings compared to the high per unit cost discussed above render this
project not cost-effective.
NEXT STEPS
The pilot promotion results were presented to Idaho Power management and the EEAG.
It was agreed that, while a promotion of this nature is appealing for many reasons, it
should not be undertaken. Cost-effectiveness is one of the top evaluation criteria and
renders this project undesirable at this time. Other learnings from the project, including
marketing techniques, partnership opportunities and program evaluation methods can
used in other energy efficiency programs.
Exhibit No.
Case No. IPC-O4-
M. Brilz, IPCo-Dir
Page 27 of 53
Manufactured Home Energy Checkups
Active Dates:
Target Customers:
Participants:
Utility Costs:
Savings in kWh:
Savings in kW:
October 2002-December 2003
Manufactured and mobile home residents
420 homes
$183,653
602 723 kWh
Not measured in C&RD Programs
DESCRIPTION
Idaho Power launched a pilot program in October 2002 to provide duct sealing and
additional efficiency services to customers living in manufactured homes. The services
were free to customers and included the fol1owing:
Duct testing and sealing according to Performance Tested Comfort System
(PTCS) specifications endorsed by the BP A
2 CFL bulbs
2 furnace filters along with replacement instructions
Hot water temperature test
Energy efficiency materials.
The Program was managed under contract by Climate Crafters, an Alliance supported
non-profit in northern Idaho. Climate Crafters relied on local HV AC dealers in Payette
and Pocatello to market and perform the services. Upon completion of the pilot in May
2003 , Idaho Power authorized Climate Crafters to continue work in Payette and Pocatello
through the end of2003.
The goal of the pilot was to test the viability of providing duct sealing and energy
efficiency services to our customers using an outside contractor. Key elements to
evaluate included:
Customer interest in and satisfaction with the Program
Contractor acceptance PTCS standards and affiliated technology
Need for duct sealing in manufactured homes
Ability to reach customers in a cost-effective manner
The pilot was successful in meeting these goals, laying the foundation for a full rollout of
the Program. The goal for the remainder of 2003 was to serve customers in the pilot
areas in a professional and efficient manner while developing a program for the entire
service area.
RESULTS
Customer interest in the Program was high once the services offered were understood.
Customers found it hard to believe it was free with no future obligation.
Customer satisfaction with the Program was extremely high. Voluntary survey
responses indicated an overwhelming agreement that the services were well
performed and appreciated.
Contractor acceptance of the PTCS standard proved challenging. Only one of the
three contractors wanted to continue working in the Program after the pilot. Duct
0 '-
I '('t')~~8LO- a.-0 .- Z 0 -00Zl::!N.c .- Q)
;;:.
..c en co . coW()~a..
sealing of this nature proved difficult to make profitable for traditional HV
businesses that rely heavily on the sales and installation of equipment rather than just
the servicing of that equipment. An alternate approach, using insulation and
weatherization contractors, will be used in the future.
The need for duct sealing is apparent. In the homes tested and sealed to PTCS
standards, an average of 650/0 reduction of air leakage was achieved. Of all homes
tested, less than 100/0 met PTCS standards without sealing.
Reaching customers in manufactured home parks was not difficult. The challenge
was effectively reaching other eligible customers and scheduling the work in a cost-
effective manner.
2003
Homes Served
Test + Seal Homes
CFLs
420
331
822
766
$183,653
$229,183
602,753
Furnace Filters
Costs
C&RD Credits
Annual kWh Savings
NEXT STEPS
Approval to expand the Program to the entire service area was received in 2003 and a
request for proposal was sent out to prospective program managers. Ecos Consulting, in
partnership with Delta- T and Energy Solutions, was selected to run the project. Program
expansion is underway and Idaho Power expects to serve an additional 1 500 homes in
2004 and early 2005.
Exhibit No.
Case No. IPC-04-
M. Brilz, IPCo-Dir
Page 29 of 53
Low-Income Weatherization Assistance (LIWA)
Table 2. Low-Income Weatherization Assistance in 2003
ency
Canyon County Organization on Aging, Inc.
Eastern Idaho Special Services Agency, Inc.
EI-Ada Community Action Agency, Inc.
South Central Community Action Agency, Inc.
Southeastern Idaho Community Action Agency
Idaho Subtotal
Malheur Council on Aging (Oregon)
Total
Weatherization Jobs
265
294
Utility Cost
68,501
187
129,449
45,530
31,362
$278,029
22.255
$300.284
DESCRII)TION
Since 1989. Low-Income Weatherization Assistance has been a public-purpose program
to make energy services more affordable to low-income customers. Idaho Power provides
grants to local non-profit agencies participating in state-run weatherization programs in
Idaho and Oregon to supplement federal funding of weatherization projects. The agencies
recruit candidates and qualify households for the Program using the state s eligibility
requirements. The state programs are administered in Idaho by the Department of Health
and Welfare, Bureau of Benefit Program Operations, and in Oregon by the Department of
Human Resources, State Housing & Community Services Department.
For all weatherization jobs in Oregon and those in Idaho funded by the C&RD, the
dwellings must be electrically heated and all measures must provide cost-effective
electricity savings. For the remaining jobs in Idaho, the Program is fuel-blind and allows
SOBle health and safety measures. Idaho Power typically pays 500/0 of the cost of
qualifying measures plus a $75 administration fee per dwelling.
RESULTS
LIW A activity by agency and state is shown in Table 2. Included in the 265 jobs
completed in Idaho, 57 electrically heated homes were weatherized using $49,895
provided through the C&RD from the BPA. The 57 jobs funded through the C&RD save
an estimated 230 850 kWh per year. The remaining 208 jobs resulted in an estimated
842 400 kWh savings per year. 29 weatherization jobs were completed in Oregon in 2003
and saved an estimated 117,450 kWh per year.
The Program also funds weatherization of buildings occupied by tax-exempt groups. In
2003 , LIW A provided $15,225 to help three nonprofit organizations in Idaho: the Idaho
City Senior Center, the Christian Retirement Center in Boise, and the Pregnancy Crisis
Center in Twin Falls.
Exhibit No.
Case No. IPC-04-
M. Brilz, IPCo-Dir
Page 30 of 53
Oregon Residential Weatherization (Schedule 78)
DESCRIPTION
This statutory program requires the annual notification of all residential customers in
Oregon to inform them how to obtain energy audits and financing for energy
conservation measures. To qualify for an Idaho Power audit or financing, customers must
have electric space heat. The Program offers loans at 6.50/0 interest or cash payments of
250/0 of the cost-effective portion of recommended measures. Loans for measures that are
not cost-effective are also available at a higher interest rate, but the maximum total loan
amount is $5 000 per dwelling, and loans are subject to credit approval. The maximum
cash payment is the installed cost of the measures excluding labor by the owner, up to
000 per dwelling.
RESULTS
In 2003, there were 28 inquiries regarding residential audits, and 16 audits were
perfonned. In addition, 4 cash rebates totaling $1 057 were paid in 2004 for work
completed in 2003. The total cost of energy conservation measures completed in 2003
was $4 765 and associated annual savings amounted to 31 875 kWh. The Idaho Power
also received cash payments totaling $943 on uncollectible accounts. Idaho Power does
not record kWh savings from a project until payment is made.
All audits were for single-family homes, and none of the participants were identified as
being low-income customers. Idaho Power does not estimate the energy savings resulting
from the audits. This year, the company will again notify all residential customers of this
Program and honor all requests for audits and financing from qualified customers.
Exhibit No.
Case No. IPC-04-
M. Brilz, I PCo-Dir
Page 31 of 53
B. Programs for Commercial Customers
AirCare Plus Pilot
Active Dates:
Target Customers:
Participants:
Utility Costs:
Savings in kWh:
Savings in k W:
May 2003-0ctober 2003
Smal1 commercial customers with rooftop units
31 units
364
33,976 kWh
DESCRIPTION
Idaho Power joined with the Al1iance and its contractor, Portland Energy Conservation,
Inc, to operate a pilot designed to save energy and peak through a premium operation and
maintenance service of HV AC rooftop units for commercial customers. The AirCare
Plus Pilot Program provided operation and maintenance servicing of rooftop heating and
cooling units targeting units with economizers. Idaho Power participated in this pilot in
order to determine whether this kind of program would help reduce summer peak and
provide a desirable service to smal1 and medium commercial customers.
A goal of the Program was to determine if the economizers in the rooftop units were
functioning properly and were being serviced routinely. There has been a lack of
diagnostic tools and testing equipment in the service industry for the testing and
performance of the economizer. Normally, if economizers are setup at all it is by the
factory or the original installer and the settings are never checked. The AirCare Plus tool
also offers a comprehensive comparison for the customer to decide on further unit
servicing, retrofitting economizers and unit replacement along with a detailed inventory
of their rooftop units.
RESULTS
Three HV AC vendors were trained, two in Boise and one in Twin Falls. A total of
HV AC rooftop units were serviced; 25 in Boise and 6 in Twin Falls. The total cost of the
Program for 2003 amounted to $5 764 , $3,364 was paid with Rider dollars and $2,400
were Idaho Power labor costs. Energy consumption for past billing periods on select
units that were monitored for several weeks before and after the servicing were provided
by Idaho Power with the customers' consent.
A typical service would cost approximately three hundred dollars and took about three
hours to perform. Idaho Power provided a $100 incentive per unit.
"""
I '('t)~~8L!)(1.-.- 0Z 0 -('\I~ Z !:! ('t).c .- Q) '- Q)
.r::. fI) co . rowo:;E(1.
Customer acceptance was varied. Existing service contracts, low energy costs, high
replacenlent and repair costs and extreme temperatures during program months were just
some of the issues incurred. In order to insure that summer peak reduction potential was
measured, Idaho Power offered to pay for additional units to be monitored as part of the
Alliance s evaluation plan. Stellar Processes was hired by the Alliance to do the on-site
monitoring of participating units before and after units were serviced. Some units that
were not serviced were also monitored. In Idaho Power s service territory, 11 units were
monitored. Stellar Processes reported actual savings of an average of 1096 kWh/unit,
which was consistent with estimated savings of 998 kWh/unit. Peak savings data was
inconclusive. However, there was a wide variation of savings that rendered predictable
savings unreliable at this time.
NEXT STEPS
There may be regional efforts to look at what can be further concluded from this research.
Because of the high number of rooftop HV AC units in the Idaho Power service territory
and the large impact they have on the summer peak, Idaho Power will monitor
developments and may participate with further research in this area.
Oregon Commercial Audit (Schedule 82)
DESCRIPTION
This statutory program requires that all commercial customers in Oregon be notified
every year that information about energy saving operations and maintenance measures
for commercial buildings is available and that commercial energy audit services can be
provided, normal1y at no charge. Customers using more than 4 000 kWh per month may
receive a more detailed audit but may be required to pay a portion of the costs.
RESULTS
In 2003, there were 30 inquiries about commercial audits, and 21 audits were performed.
Employees conducted 10 audits, and EnerTech Services carried out 11 audits on behalf of
the company at a cost of $4 000. The Idaho Power does not monitor which audit
recommendations are implemented and does not estimate energy savings for this
Program.
This year, the company will again notify all commercial customers of this Program and
provide audit services to qualified customers who request them.
Exhibit No.
Case No. tPC-04-
M. Britz, tPCo-Dir
Page 33 of 53
C. Programs for Industrial Customers
Industrial Efficiency Program
Active Dates:
Target Customers:
Participants:
Utility Costs:
Savings in kWh:
Savings in k W:
October 2003-0ngoing
Customers with a Basic Load Capacity over 500 kW
None
303
DESCRIPTION
The primary purpose of this Program is to acquire peak k Wand kWh savings from
projects at industrial customer sites and assist industrial customers to reduce energy costs.
The Program was marketed to 280 qualifying customers. Customers are required to
identify a project applicable to their own fa~ilities, provide sufficient information to
Idaho Power to establish a basis for a viable conservation project and complete an
application. The customer also must allow for on-site power monitoring where practical
and enter into an incentive agreement. Idaho Power will then review submittals to
determine kWh and k W savings and whether the proposal meets other program
requirements. It may take up to two years for an industrial customer to select a project,
budget for it, assemble the project information, allow Idaho Power to analyze it, execute
an agreement and implement the project.
Idaho Power provides engineering analysis of their project, financial assistance, energy
audit assistance, demonstration programs, workshops, newsletters and expert advice.
RESULTS
There were six projects submitted in 2003 that are in various stages of processing. Two
projects were determined to be viable by the end of the year and formal agreement
signing is in progress. One project is estimated to save 184 000 kWh annually and 40
peak k W with a financial incentive of $17,519. The other project is expected to save
832,187 kWh annually and 90 peak kW with a financial incentive of $74 703.
Once the Program is at full capacity, the goals are to obtain approximately 5,625,000
kWh and 640 peak kW savings per year at a cost of $565,000 per year through the
participation with a broad cross-section of industrial and large commercial customers.
Customers have indicated wide acceptance of the program design and are working toward
providing the necessary information to have a viable project.
Exhibit No.
Case No. IPC-O4-
M. Brilz, IPCo-Dir
Page 34 of 53
Distribution Efficiency Initiative Pilot
DESCRIPTION
The Distribution Efficiency Initiative encourages the operation of the distribution system
at a lower average voltage, when possible, to reduce consumption of various end-use
loads. This research project, developed by the Alliance, involves multiple utilities and
technologies to evaluate the cost effectiveness of different approaches. This project will
also assess the potential effects of this effort by quantifying the achievable energy
savings and demand reduction. This approach also has a direct demand response
component.
Beginning in 2004, Idaho Power will assist Alliance in the research and development
phase of this pilot. The research and development phase will consist of an extensive load
research and benefit study. Idaho Power s contribution to this phase will include:
Assisting in developing customer selections and making customer contacts.
Installation of Home Voltage Regulator units.
nstallation of meters.
The Alliance plans to collect meter data for 12 months. At the end of the data collection
period the Alliance will evaluate the data as well as conduct a participant survey.
The second phase of this pilot involves the implementation of demonstration projects.
Idaho Power s role in this second phase will include:
Installation of meters.
Setting voltage regulation line drop compensation settings.
Procuring and installing capacitors and voltage regulators.
Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) installations and
improvements (optional)
Through this pilot
.,
the Alliance and Idaho Power expect to d~termine the energy savings
and demand reduction potential through improved voltage regulation providing lower
average voltages while maintaining or improving service quality.
Exhibit No.
Case No. IPC-04-
M. Britz, IPCo-Dir
Page 35 of 53
D. Programs for Irrigation Customers
Irrigation Efficiency Program
Active Dates:
Target Customers:
Participants:
Utility Costs:
Savings in kWh:
Savings in k W:
September 2003-0ngoing
New systems and existing systems being modified
$11,190
792 kWh
18kW
DESCRIPTION
The Irrigation Efficiency Program is an incentive program for agricultural irrigation
customers to instaH more efficient irrigation systems. The Program is available to both
existing and new customers. Modified systems are reviewed by Idaho Power Agriculture
Representatives to determine savings. The amount of the incentive to the customer is
calculated by multiplying the kWh savings by $.10 or the kW reduced by $200
whichever is greater. The total incentive is limited to a cap of $5 000 or no more than
250/0 of the total costs for existing systems and $3,000 or no more than 100/0 of the total
costs for a new system.
The Program will provide customers with information and education through annual
workshops across our service territory. Idaho Power works with University of Idaho
Extension System, the Natural Resource Conservation Service and the lED to provide
these workshops to customers. Idaho Power Agriculture Representatives provide
analysis. cncrgy audits and expert advice to our irrigation customers. To be a direct
participant in this Program the customer must identify a project on their system, provide
sufficient information to Idaho Power to establish a basis for a viable conservation
project and complete an application. The customer also needs to enter into an incentive
agreement with Idaho Power.
This Program was promoted to customers through a direct mailer to irrigation customers.
Also, Idaho Power Agriculture Representatives met with all agricultural irrigation
. equipment dealers and described the Program to them and left them with program
brochures. The cost of the brochure and mailing was $3,883. The Program has
generated a lot of customer interest. Each of Idaho Powers Agriculture Representatives
has spent a great deal of time talking to customers about projects they are thinking of
doing.
RESULTS
Two payments were made prior to the end of2003. An additional nine contracts were
signed but not paid by the end of 2003. Total expenditures for the Program in 2003 is
$11,190 including $8,975 from Rider funding and $2,215 from Idaho Power labor.
Exhibit No.
Case No. IPC-04-
M. Brilz, IPCo-Dir
Page 36 of 53
This is an energy efficiency program for irrigation customers, therefore the savings from
this Program will occur during the summer. Most projects that will make an irrigation
system more efficient will also reduce the demand of the irrigation system. Idaho Power
calculates energy savings for this Program by looking at each project specifically. The
systems can range from very big to very small. Savings are calculated at each metered
service point.
Exhibit No.
Case No. IPC-04-
M. Brilz, IPCo-Dir
Page 37 of 53
MARKET TRANSFORMATION
A. Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance
Idaho Power accomplishes market transformation programs in its service territory by
being a member of the Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance (Alliance) and working to
coordinate Alliance activities in Idaho. The Alliance is a regional group whose mission
is to catalyze the Northwest marketplace to embrace energy-efficient products and
servIces.
In 2003, after six years of existence, the Alliance initiated a retrospective evaluation to
determine whether it had transfonned enough markets to justify the costs of the Alliance.
An ad hoc committee, that included members both internal and external to the
organization, led the retrospective. Two primary finding of the study were that the
Alliance has been successful at transfonning, or contributing to the transformation of
markets and that the benefits of the Alliance have exceeded costs. The study concluded
that the regional approach of the Alliance is an asset and even greater leverage in
program implementation can be gained in the future.
In 2003, Idaho Power paid $1 274 936 to the Alliance on a system basis. Idaho s share of
the payments was $1 217,590 (95.50/0) and Oregon s was $57 346 (4.50/0). These amounts
do not include other costs to participate in the Alliance, such as employees' time and
travel that were absorbed by the company in its general operating expenses.
In Idaho, funding for the Idaho Power s participation in the Alliance was authorized
through 2004 by Order No. .28333 in Case No. IPC-99-13. The Oregon Public Utility
Commission has also approved the company s expenditures for the Alliance for 2003.
Preliminary estimates reported by the Alliance indicate that Idaho Power s share of
regional market transfonnation kWh savings for 2003 is between 1.9 and 2.5 MWa.
Idaho Power relies on the Alliance to report the energy savings and other benefits of the
Alliance s regional portfolio of initiatives. Highlights of the Alliance s activities in Idaho
in 2003 include:
The Alliance partnered with Idaho Power for the Trade In, Trade Up to ENERGY
ST AR Pilot Program where more than 100 Idaho Power customers turned in their
old room air conditioners.
The Alliance conducted the AirCare Plus pilot with assistance from Idaho Power
where 31 commercial HV A C rooftop units were provided a premium operating
and maintenance service in order to determine savings and marketability of the
servIce.
The Alliance s ENERGY STAR Residential Lighting Program provided the
backbone for Idaho Power s CFL Lighting Coupon Program.
The BetterBricks day lighting advisors worked with the design team of
Albertson s and succeeded convincing .their to include energy savings features in
all future stores.
Exhibit No.
Case No. IPC-04-
M. Brilz, IPCo-Dir
Page 38 of 53
The Alliance co-funded a study with University of Idaho, Idaho Potato Growers
Association and Cascade Engineering to study the effect of using variable speed
drives on potato storage facilities. Preliminary results show energy savings and
reduced potato mass loss.
The breadth of the Alliance portfolio can be found at www .nwalliance.org.
Exhibit No.
Case No. IPC-04-
M. Brilz, IPCo-Dir
Page 39 of 53
EDUCATION, SMALL PROJECTS, AND TRAINING PROGRAMS
A. Small ProjectlEducation Funds
In order to be able to respond to research requests, educational opportunities and worthy
small projects that are not eligible under other programs, Idaho Power, with support of
the EEAG, set aside two funds: the Small Project Fund and the Education Fund. Each
was initially funded with 20/0 of the Rider funding which results in approximately
$54 000 available for each fund. In 2003, $2 400 was spent from the Small Project fund
and $2 700 from the Education Fund. There are several projects that were obligated but
not funded.
Small Project Fund-Projects paid in 2003
Envinta, One-2-five Energy Diagnostic joint assessment with the Alliance
As part of industrial market research, Alliance offered to partially fund 20 Envinta
audits in the Pacific Northwest. Idaho Power agreed to co-fund audits on two of their
customers. Findings of all 20 audits will be used by Alliance to structure their final
Industrial Sector Strategy. The two companies who agreed to participate were Swift
& Company in Nampa and Tyson Foods in Boise. Both companies have been audited
and final reports have been returned.
Total Cost: $2 400 ($1,200 per audit)
Sector: Industrial
Small Project Fund-Projects obligated but not paid in 2003
Solar for Schools, Castleford School District
Idaho Power agreed to contribute money from this fund to upgrade the energy
efficiency of the Castleford School so that it could qualify to participate in the Solar
for Schools project. The two measures identified were upgrading lighting in the
cafeteria and installing vending misers in campus vending machines. Idaho Power
agreed to pay $1 06 for these measures.
Total Cost: $1 106Sector: Commercial
Foothills Environmental Education Center
Idaho Power has agreed to contribute money to the Foothills Environmental
Education Facility for the installation of day lighting building features and other
energy efficiency measures. Idaho Power agreed to contribute $5,000 toward this
project. In addition, Idaho Power has provided approximately $10,000 worth of
photovoltaic panels to be used at the site.
Total Cost: $5 000Sector: Commercial
Exhibit No.
Case No. IPC-04-
M. Brilz, IPCo-Dir
Page 40 of 53
New Head Start Building
Idaho Power agreed to pay $2 698 for the installation of a high-efficient, SEER 13 air
conditioner at the new Heat Start building in Garden City.
Total Cost: $2,698
Sector: Commercial
Education Fund-Projects paid in 2003
integrated Design Workshop
Idaho Power sponsored with the Alliance an Integrated Design Workshop held in
Boise on September 22, 2003. This workshop focused on strategies for high
performance buildings and featured Tom Paladino and Mark Frankel. Idaho Power
provided a $50 scholarship to any Idaho Power customer who wished to attend.
There were 54 attendees.
Total Cost: $2 700Sector: Commercial
Education Fund-Projects obligated but not paid in 2003
Pump System Assessment Workshop
Idaho Power sponsored with Alliance a Pump System Assessment Workshop held in
Twin Falls on September 30, 2003. This workshop focused on improving the
efficiency of pumping systems both on the farm and in industrial settings. Idaho
Power provided a $70 scholarship to any Idaho Power customer who wished to
attend. There were 30 attendees.
Total Cost: $2 240Sector: Agricultural and Industrial
Scholarship for Energy Management Certification at Northwest Energy Education
institute
Idaho Power offered to provide two $500 scholarships to any Idaho Power customer
seeking an Energy Management Certification from the Northwest Energy Education
Institute, University of Oregon. The Energy Management Certification is an
advanced certification program that requires the student to implement an energy
saving project and measure the results. This offer was for the class session held in the
summer of2003. There was no one interested in this training.
B. Northwest Building Operator Training
DESCRIPTION
For the second year in a row, Idaho Power has teamed up with lED and the Northwest
Building Operators Association (NWBOA) to provide energy efficiency training for
building operators from public and private schools, universities, and colleges within
Idaho Power s service territory. In 2002, Idaho Power sponsored Level I training for 26
Idaho school building operators. Exhibit No.
Case No. IPC-04-
M. Brilz, IPCo-Dir
Page 41 of 53
The 2002 NWBOA Training was determined to be very successful based on the School
Building Operator Training Survey Results prepared by McFain & Associates Research,
Inc. in May 2003. The survey revealed several very positive responses.
1000/0 of the participants reported that they were satisfied with the course.
830/0 of respondents indicated that they would likely attend additional training.
830/0 reported that their schools are now more energy efficient than they were one
year ago.
660/0 reported their schools are more comfortable in terms of heating and cooling
than they were one year ago.
Annual energy savings resulting from the 2002 training were conservatively estimated to
be 750 MWh based on billing data and regional savings data reported by the Alliance.
Estimated savings associated with the training show the effort to be cost effective.
Members of the EEAG recommended that Idaho Power attempt to more accurately
quantify the energy savings that results from the 2003 NWBOA Training.
RESULTS
In 2003 Idaho Power again sponsored the Levell training and based on the response from
2002 attendees. added a Level II training option. Building operators must hold a Levell
certification, or take a challenge test, in order to enroll in the Level II certification course.
The Levell Training covers energy conservation techniques, HV AC and Air Systems
introduces automatic controls fundamentals, and covers energy efficient lighting
fundamentals. Level II training covers energy efficient operation ofHV AC systems at an
advanced level as well as energy management strategies and conservation methods.
Idaho Power paid training registration fees ($400 for Level I and $550 for Level II) as
weB as lodging and meals for Level I and Level II training using Rider funds. The total
cost of the 2003 training is expected to be $50 250, with $11 768.66 paid in 2003 and the
remaining balance of the 2003 training costs will be paid in 2004. The participating
school districts were required to cover any other costs associated with attending the
training.
Both levels of training were held at the Red Lion Hotel Downtowner in Boise. Levell
training was conducted November 12 14 and 18, 19. Thirty students registered for the
Level I training and twenty-eight actually attended the course. Level II training was held
December 10, 11 , 12 and 16, 17, 18. Due to the overwhelming interest for the Level II
training, the course had to be split into two separate sessions. Twenty-seven building
operators registered for Level II training, fifteen operators attended Level II training in
December of 2003 and 12 attendees are scheduled to attend training in January of 2004.
In response to the EEAG recommendation that Idaho Power more accurately quantify the
energy savings, each attendee at the 2003 Level I and II training was asked to fill out a
questionnaire. Each attendee was provided a list of all their Idaho Power metered service
points and asked to provide square footage estimates, energy fuels used, and months of
operation for each associated building that they operate. As a result of this information, it
is estimated the average attendee will save approximately 25 MWh annually for a total of
075 MWh annual savings for the 2003 attendees. Very few schools districts that were
"""
L...
~~8LO-a..-0 .- z 0 -(\Iz~~.c .- Q)::n
.c: (f) m .W t) ::2: Q.
represented at the training hold school year round. As a result, the summer peak reduction
resulting from this training is expected to be low relative to the non-summer demand
reduction that the training will provide.
In addition to the energy savings resulting in bill reductions, the school districts are
expected to receive additional benefits from the training in the form of increased comfort
in the heating and cooling months. Idaho Power expects that this training will continue to
provide a high level of customer satisfaction among this customer segment while
providing cost-effective energy savings.
Exhibit No.
Case No. IPC-04-
M. Brilz, I PCo-Dir
Page 43 of 53
ENERGY EFFICIENCY ADVISORY GROUP ACTIVITIES
In 2003 the Energy Efficiency Advisory Group (EEAG) met January 9, April 2, July 9,
and October 22. In the meetings, Idaho Power provided a review of the Rider funding
and expenses, provided updates on on-going programs and projects, requested
recommendations on new program proposals and provided contextual information to the
group on DSM issues.
Three new members were added to the group in 2003, these include: an IPUC staff
member, an Idaho Power employee from Power Supply department and a regional
technical efficiency expert. These new members were added in anticipation of the
EEAG providing guidance in integrating DSM in the 2004 Idaho Power Integrated
Resource Plan. Meeting minutes and other meeting materials are provided to all EEAG
members, including IPUC staff, and are available upon request.
A. Energy Efficiency Advisory Group Recommendations
Following is a review of the direction provided to Idaho Power by EEAG for major
program or research expenditures and general policy or operational issues. General
recommendations or those not involving Rider expenditures are covered in the meeting
minutes. (Note: January 9, 2003 meeting activities were reported in the January 30,
2003 Annual Demand-Side Management Report and will not be repeated here.
IRRIGATION EFFICIENCY PROGRAM
Idaho Power presented a proposal for an Irrigation Efficiency Program to the EEAG
during the April 2, 2003 meeting. Idaho Power received the following recommendations:
The general consensus of the EEAG was that Idaho Power should implement the
Irrigation Efficiency Program.
idaho Power kicked off this Program September 1, 2003
. EEAG members generally supported a higher budget in the first year of the
Program.
in the event that program funding is a limiting factor, Idaho Power will revisit the
issue again with the EEA
The EEAG recommended that Idaho Power proactively market this Program.
idaho Power has sent a tailored brochure to all irrigation customers and through
s Agriculture Field Representatives are proactively working with customers on
this Program.
The EEA G suggested an independent evaluation be completed on this Program.
after a couple of years of operation.
Idaho Power, when developing it's overall evaluation plan, will determine an
evaluation scheme for this Program.
The EEAG was concerned that the Program was available to only agricultural
irrigation systems not all irrigation systems.
Exhibit No.
Case No. I PC-04-
M. Brilz, IPCo-Dir
Page 44 of 53
Idaho Power is keeping this agricultural requirement because other types of
systems (golf courses, cemetery, etc) are substantially different and may need to
be dealt with in a different program.
There was a comment not to limit customer size to those who have at least 5 Hp.
Idaho Power modified the minimum size requirement in the Program. In order
participate a customer must save at least 200 kWhs.
AJRCARE PLUS P~OT PROGRAM
Idaho Power presented a proposal for the AirCare Plus Pilot Program to the EEAG during
the April 2 2003 meeting. This pilot was proposed and managed by the Alliance, with
Idaho Power being a local utility sponsor. Idaho Power received the following
recommendati ons:
The general consensus of the EEAG was that Idaho Power should go forward
with the Program.
Idaho Power participated in the Program summer and fall of2003.
TRADE I N, TRADE UP TO ENERGY STAR
In a May 10, 2003 email to each EEAG member, Idaho Power distributed information
about an opportunity to participate with the Alliance in a room air conditioner rebate
pilot. The email requested comments on whether the Company should participate in the
pilot.
A few EEA G members sent responses and they all encouraged Idaho Power to
participate in the Program.
Idaho Power proceeded with the Program.
INDUSTRIAL EFFICIENCY PROGRAM
On July 9 2003, Idaho Power presented to the EEAG a proposal for the Industrial
Efficiency Program and received the following recommendations:
Allow both new and existing customers in the Program
Idaho Po-uler will allow both new and existing customers into the Program.
Examine whether to spend more of the budget on education, and to make money
available for audits and education.
Idaho Po.wer will explore education, audit and incentives available from other
agencies, particularly lED's industries of the Future and the Alliance
Provide a sign-up bonus to customers that could accelerate their projects or
provide a bonus to customers whose projects are designed to reduce summer peak
Idaho Power does not feel there is an advantage to providing a "quick sign-up
bonus to customers. Given that the Program at this time is on a fast track to be
implemented it would be difficult to provide the resources to administer this
option. Additionally, it is not felt the customers would respond to the amount of
money that would be available for a bonus. Alternatively, idaho Power will
explore ways to incent projects that demonstrate peak reduction
. A couple of suggestions were made to ensure that Idaho Power spread the money
across both large and small customers.
Idaho Power, through its marketing of the Program, will be sure that all eligible
customers get information about their opportunity to participate in this Program.
Exhibit No.
Case No. IPC-04-
M. Brilz, IPCo-Dir
Page 45 of 53
EEAG members provided mixed a recommendation on whether to not pay an
incentive for savings under one year payback.
Idaho Power feels that customers should be willing to fund projects under a one-
year payback on their own. Lowering that criterion may increase free ridership.
Idaho Power will keep the one-year payback criteria.
Don t provide incentives required by Idaho code
Idaho Power will explore the current requirements of the new commercial code
and how our incentives will work around the code
Recommend to go ahead with the Program
Idaho Power implemented this Program in the fall of 2003.
NWBOA TRAINING SURVEY
On July 9 , 2003, Idaho Power presented the results of a survey given to participants of
last year s NWBOA training. During the discussion the EEAG provided the following
recommendation:
The EEAG recommended that Idaho Power consider repeating the NWBOA
training in 2003.
idaho Power sponsored a second round of NWBOA training in 2003 that included
both Levell and Level II training.
The EEAG suggested Idaho Power expand the offering of training to include all
schools: K-, colleges and universities.
idaho Power offered this training to building operators of colleges and
universities.
DISTRIBUTION EFFICIENCY INITIATIVE PROGRAM
On October 22, 2003, Idaho Power presented a proposal for both Phase I and Phase II of
the Distribution Efficiency Initiative Program. The EEAG made the following
recommendations:
The EEA G expressed a general consensus for moving forward with Phase l.
Idaho Power is working with the Alliance to complete Phase I.
The EEA G requested an update of the project status after Phase I was complete
before proceeding with Phase II.
A/though both phases are intertwined, Idaho Power will provide information as it
becomes available as to the results of Phase
AC CYCLING PROGRAM
Presentations were made to this group in January, April, July and October 2003 regarding
the Program. During the October meeting, Idaho Power made a proposal to include
switches as well as thermostats in the program design of the second year of the Program.
The EEA G had the following guidance:
. A preference to review 2003 findings before deciding on 2004 configuration was
made.
Because of the fast time line needed for 2004 decisions, 2003 findings will not be
complete before the need to make a decision.
. EEA G expressed a general consensus to move ahead with this Program.
Idaho Power is proceeding with implementation of this Program.Exhibit No.
Case No. IPC-04-
M. Brilz, I PCo-Dir
P::ln~ A.~ nf ~~
ENERGY STAR HOMES NORTHWEST
The EEA G has received presentations regarding this Program in July and October 2003
and has provided the following recommendations to proceed with the "Fast Track"
timetable of activities.
It was suggested that the Community Action Partnership Association could help
with this Program in the various jurisdictions.
Idaho Power will explore this option.
It was also suggested that Idaho Power look at the desirability of providing
incentives for both a Seasonal Energy Efficiency Rating (SEER) of 12 and 13.
As Idaho Power works with the regional partners on this Program this option will
be evaluated.
. EEA G expressed a general consensus to move ahead with this Program.
Idaho Power is proceeding with implementation of this option.
GENERAL POLICY ISSUES
The EEA G indicated that they generally support a "soft goal" of sector equity,
meaning that money coming in from a particular sector should mostly be spent on
programs in that sector.
Idaho Power has generally followed this recommendation in setting goals and
budgets for new programs. Idaho Power provides information to the EEAG with
this information.
Exhibit No.
Case No. IPC-04-
M. Brilz, IPCo-Dir
Page 47 of 53
LOOKING AHEAD
2004 will be another year of increasing DSM activity at Idaho Power. With existing
programs and pilots planned, the company estimates MWh savings of 6 155 and summer
peak reduction of at least 1.3 MW in 2004. Summer peak reduction continues to be a
primary target. The company also anticipates that through DSM design and delivery that
customer satisfaction will increase.
It is anticipated that this summer will be the second year of the AC Cycling Pilot and the
first year of an Irrigation Peak Clipping Pilot Program. Both of these demand response
pilots will produce a final report and recommendations at the end of the year. In addition,
a major body of work in 2004 will be the evaluation of DSM options in the 2004
Integrated Resource Plan.
Idaho Power has established specific action items to accomplish in 2004. These, as
outlined in the 2003-2005 DSM Plan, include:
Complete Peak Demand Reduction study
Estimate summer peak value for all programs
Develop evaluation approach
Explore the renewal of the Alliance
Develop and document policies and procedures
Continue to fill staffing needs
Explore the calculation of environmental benefits of DSM on Idaho Power
system
Effectively conduct quarterly EEAG meetings.
Idaho Power is committed to implementing cost-effective DSM programs as part of its
resource portfolio to improve customer efficiency and satisfaction, to pursue stewardship
of our natural resources, and to provide balanced value to all stakeholders. Through
focused implementation practices, DSM will allow Idaho Power to capture indirect
benefits such as improved system utilization and better relationships with our customers
and regulators.
Exhibit No.
Case No. IPC-04-
M. Brilz, IPCo-Dir
Page 48 of 53
DA
T
A

T
A
B
L
E
S
20
0
3

D
S
M

PR
O
G
R
A
M

A
C
T
I
V
I
T
Y
No
m
i
n
a
l

L
e
v
e
l
l
z
e
d
Co
s
t
s
Sa
v
l
n
a
s
Co
s
t
s
Nu
m
b
e
r
To
t
a
l
Ut
i
l
i
t
y
Re
s
o
u
r
c
e
An
n
u
a
l
Av
e
r
a
g
e
Pe
a
k
Me
a
s
u
r
e
Pr
o
ra
m
s
SP
A
Pa
r
t
i
c
l
-
Co
s
t
s
Co
s
t
En
e
r
De
m
a
n
d
.
De
m
a
n
d
"
Li
f
e
;~
~
~
;
III
H
I
I
W
h
\

No
t
e
s
St
a
t
e

R
i
d
e
r

C&
R
D
pa
n
t
s
--
u
n
'
..
.
UI
_
Ik
W
\
(y
e
a
r
s
)
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l

D
e
m
a
n
d

'
Re
s
p
o
n
s
e
Ai
r

C
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
i
n
g

C
y
c
l
i
n
g

P
i
l
o
t
20
4
27
5
,
64
5
26
9
,
68
0
15
9
.
(a
)
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l

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

L
i
g
h
t
i
n
g

C
o
u
p
o
n

P
r
o
g
r
a
m
12
,
66
3
31
4
,
64
1
46
4
05
9
59
6
,
15
0
41
0
.
01
4
02
1
(b
)
En
e
r
g
y

E
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t

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

H
o
m
e

I
n
c
e
n
t
i
v
e
s
10
1
0
R
37
,
31
9
79
,
39
9
27
,
43
4
26
.
01
1
02
3
EN
E
R
G
Y

S
T
A
R

H
o
m
e
s

N
o
r
t
h
w
e
s
t
13
.
59
7
13
,
59
7
(c
)
Tr
a
d
e

I
n
,
T
r
a
d
e

U
p

t
o

E
N
E
R
G
Y

S
T
A
R
68
7
10
,
4
9
2
45
4
11
.
05
1
08
0
(d
)
Ma
n
u
f
a
c
t
u
r
e
d

H
o
m
e

E
n
e
r
g
y

C
h
e
c
k
u
p
s
10
l
O
R
42
0
18
3
,
65
3
18
3
,
65
3
60
2
,
72
3
68
.
02
5
02
5
Or
e
g
o
n

R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l

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

(
S
c
h
e
d
u
l
e

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

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

A
s
s
i
s
t
a
n
c
e

(
L
l
W

20
8
22
8
,
13
4
48
3
,
36
9
(1
)
Lo
w
-
In
c
o
m
e

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

A
s
s
i
s
t
a
n
c
e

(
L
l
W
A
)
22
,
25
5
42
,
33
5
10
2
,
64
3
11
.
01
6
03
1
BP
A

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

L
l
W
A
10
1
0
R
49
,
89
5
10
6
,
91
5
22
3
,
59
1
25
.
01
7
03
6
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
Ai
r

C
a
r
e

P
l
u
s

P
i
l
o
t
76
4
06
1
33
,
97
6
02
1
03
3
(g
)
In
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l
In
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l

E
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
c
y

P
r
o
g
r
a
m
30
3
30
3
(c
)
Ir
r
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
Ir
r
i
g
a
t
i
o
n

E
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
c
y

P
r
o
g
r
a
m
11
,
19
0
71
0
36
.
79
2
18
.
4
02
9
06
5
Ed
u
c
a
t
i
o
n

a
n
d

A
u
d
i
t
s
Or
e
g
o
n

C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l

A
u
d
i
t
s

(
S
c
h
e
d
u
l
e

8
2
)
00
0
00
0
(h
)
Sc
h
o
o
l

B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g

O
p
e
r
a
t
o
r

T
r
a
i
n
i
n
g
48
,
85
3
48
,
85
3
07
5
,
00
0
12
2
.
01
0
01
0
(I
)
Sm
a
l
l

P
r
o
j
e
c
t
!

E
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n

F
u
n
d
s
10
0
10
0
To
t
a
l
13
,
87
9
20
8
,
03
6
74
6
,
52
7
91
2
,
76
3
67
5
.
18
9
.
No
t
e
s
:
(a
)

A
c
c
o
r
d
i
n
g

1
0

I
h
a

2
0
0
3

Su
m
m
"

B
l
u
a
l
d
a
h
e

P
o
w
e
'

NC

Cy
c
l
i
n
g

s
t
u
d
y
,

t
h
o

a
v
e
r
a
g
e

s
u
m
m
a
'

p
e
a
k

r
e
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

w
a
s

,
78

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

a
n
d

a
n

i
n
c
r
o
a
s
a

i
n

e
n
a
r
g
y

c
o
n
s
u
m
p
t
i
o
n

o
f

.
4
k
W
h

p
a
'

c
y
c
l
i
n
g

a
v
a
n
l
.
(b
)

E
c
o
s

C
o
n
s
u
l
U
n
g

F
i
n
a
l

A
e
p
o
r
t

o
n

I
d
a
h
o

p
o
w
e
r

E
n
e
l
Q
Y

S
l
a
r

A
e
s
k
l
e
n
U
a
l

U
g
h
t
t
n
g

p
r
o
g
r
a
m

r
a
p
o
r
t
e
d

4

b
u
l
b
s

p
e
r

p
a
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
n
t

f
o
r

a

l
o
l
a
l

o
f

5
0
,
65
0

b
u
l
b
s
.

(
7
1

k
W
h
l
y
r

s
a
v
i
n
g
s

p
e
r

b
u
l
b
)
(c
)

2
0
0
3

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

w
e
r
e

f
o
r

p
r
o
g
r
a
m

s
t
a
r
t
-
u
p

o
n
l
y
.

N
o

i
n
c
e
n
t
i
v
e
s

w
e
r
e

p
a
i
d

i
n

2
0
0
3
.
(d
)

P
o
r
t
l
a
n
d

E
n
e
r
g
y

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

I
n
c
.

F
i
n
a
l

R
e
p
o
r
t

o
n

t
h
e

p
i
l
o
t

a
s
s
u
m
e
s

9
9
0

c
o
o
l
i
n
g

h
o
u
r
s
.
(0
)

T
h
i
s

O
r
e
g
o
n

s
l
a
t
u
t
o
l
y

p
r
o
g
r
a
m

r
e
s
u
"
e
d

i
n

4

j
o
b
s

t
o
t
a
l
i
n
g

$
1
0
5
6
.
92

t
h
a
t

w
e
r
e

c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
d

I
n

2
0
0
3

a
n
d

w
i
"

b
e

p
a
i
d

i
n

2
0
0
4
.
(n

E
n
e
r
g
y

s
a
v
i
n
g
s

I
s

n
o
t

a
s
f
l
m
a
t
e
d

t
o
r

t
h
e

I
d
a
h
o

l
I
W
A

p
r
o
g
r
a
m
.

T
h
i
s

p
r
o
g
r
a
m

I
s

f
u
a
l
.
bl
l
n
d

a
n
d

a
n
o
w
S

s
o
m
e

h
e
a
l
t
h

a
n
d

s
a
f
e
t
y

m
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
.
(9
)

I
d
a
h
o

P
o
w
e
r

r
e
b
a
l
e
s

c
o
v
e
r
e
d

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

1
/
2

I
b
e

t
o
t
a
l

c
o
s
t

10

s
a
l
V
i
c
a

3
1

u
n
i
l
s
.

P
a
r
t
i
c
l
p
a
n
l

s
a
Y
i
n
g
s

i
s

ca
l
c
u
t
a
l
O
O

a
s

1
0
9
6

kW
h
/
y
e
a
r

p
e
r

u
n
R
.

(
$
2
5
0
0

w
i
l
l

b
e

p
a
i
d

i
n

2
0
0
4

l
o
r

w
o
r
k

d
o
n
e

I
n

2
0
0
3
)
(h
)

O
r
e
g
o
n

s
t
a
t
u
l
o
r
y

p
r
o
g
r
a
m
.

T
h
e

c
o
m
p
a
n
y

d
o
e
s

n
o
l

m
o
n
l
l
o
r

w
h
i
c
h

a
u
d
i
t

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

a
r
e

I
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
l
e
d

e
n
d

do
e
s

n
o
l

e
s
l
l
m
a
t
e

s
a
v
i
n
g
s

f
o
r

I
h
l
s

p
r
o
g
r
a
m
.
(I
)

N
o
r
t
h
w
e
s
l

E
n
e
r
g
y

E
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
c
y

A
l
l
i
a
n
c
e

e
s
l
i
m
a
l
e
s

e
n
e
r
g
y

s
a
v
i
n
g
s

a
l

.
5
k
W
h
/
S
Q
.
FI
.

o
f

b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g

o
p
e
r
e
l
i
o
n

p
e
r

p
a
r
t
i
c
l
p
a
n
l

wU
h

a

c
a
p

a
l

5
0
.
00
0

S
Q
.
FI
.
0)

I
n
c
l
u
d
e
s

t
r
a
i
n
i
n
g

f
o
r

5
4

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

a
n
d

2

a
u
d
i
t
s
.
Ex
h
i
b
i
t

N
o
.
Ca
s
e

N
o
.

I
P
C
-
O4
-
M.

B
r
i
l
z
,

I
P
C
o
-
Di
r
Pa
g
e

4
9

o
f

5
3
il
S
T
O
R
I
C
A
L

DS
M

P
R
O
G
R
A
M

AC
T
I
V
I
T
Y
No
m
i
n
a
l

L
e
v
e
l
i
z
e
d
20
0
1

-

2
0
0
3
Sa
v
i
n

s
Co
s
t
s
Nu
m
b
e
r
'r
o
ra
m
s
Me
a
s
u
r
e
Pa
r
t
i
c
i
-
Li
f
e
Ye
a
r
pa
n
t
s
(y
e
a
r
s
)
~e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
'

D
e
m
a
n
d

R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
Ai
r

C
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
i
n
g

C
y
c
l
i
n
g

P
i
l
o
t
20
0
3
20
4
27
5
,
64
5
26
9
,
68
0
15
9
.
(a
)
To
t
a
l
20
4
27
5
,
64
5
26
9
,
68
0
15
9
.
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l

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

L
i
g
h
t
i
n
g

C
o
u
p
o
n

P
r
o
g
r
a
m
20
0
2
61
9
24
3
,
05
4
31
0
,
64
3
29
9
,
65
4
37
6
.
01
2
01
5
20
0
3
12
,
66
3
31
4
,
64
1
46
4
05
9
59
6
,
15
0
41
0
.
01
4
02
1
To
t
a
l
24
,
28
1
55
7
,
69
5
77
4
,
70
2
89
5
,
80
4
78
7
.
01
3
01
8
(b
)
En
e
r
g
y

E
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
c
y

P
a
c
k
e
t
s
20
0
1
60
8
87
,
17
5
17
5
40
5
,
12
5
46
.
03
5
03
5
20
0
2
92
5
91
0
91
0
15
5
,
75
7
17
.
00
5
00
5
To
t
a
l
10
,
53
3
92
,
08
5
92
,
08
5
56
0
,
88
2
64
.
02
7
02
7
En
e
r
g
y

E
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t

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

H
o
m
e

I
n
c
e
n
t
i
v
e
s
20
0
3
37
,
31
9
79
,
39
9
22
7
,
43
4
26
.
01
1
02
3
To
t
a
l
37
,
31
9
79
,
39
9
22
7
,
43
4
26
.
01
1
02
3
EN
E
R
G
Y

S
T
A
R

H
o
m
e
s

N
o
r
t
h
w
e
s
t
20
0
3
13
,
59
7
13
,
59
7
To
t
a
l
13
,
59
7
13
,
59
7
(c
)
Tr
a
d
e

I
n
,

T
r
a
d
e

U
p

t
o

E
N
E
R
G
Y

S
T
A
R
20
0
3
68
7
10
,
4
9
2
14
,
4
5
4
11
.
05
1
08
0
To
t
a
l
68
7
10
,
49
2
14
,
45
4
11
.
05
1
08
0
(d
)
Ma
n
u
f
a
c
t
u
r
e
d

H
o
m
e

E
n
e
r
g
y

C
h
e
c
k
u
p
s
20
0
2
26
,
13
5
26
,
13
5
25
,
98
9
08
4
08
4
20
0
3
42
0
18
3
,
65
3
18
3
,
65
3
60
2
,
72
3
68
.
02
5
02
5
To
t
a
l
42
0
20
9
,
78
8
20
9
,
78
8
62
8
,
71
2
71
.
02
8
02
8
Or
e
g
o
n

R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l

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

(
S
c
h
e
d
u
l
e

7
8
)
20
0
1
51
7
70
9
07
3
08
1
07
2
20
0
2
11
6
23
,
97
1
58
0
03
5
39
8
20
0
3
(e
)
To
t
a
l
63
3
30
,
68
0
11

,
65
3
06
3
20
0
Ex
h
i
b
i
t

N
o
.
.
A
v
e
r
a
g
e

D
e
m
a
n
d

=

A
n
n
u
a
l

E
n
e
r
g
y

87
6
0

A
n
n
u
a
l

H
o
u
r
s
Ca
s
e

N
o
.

I
P
C
-
04
-
Su
m
m
e
r

P
e
a
k

D
e
m
a
n
d

i
s

r
e
p
o
r
t
e
d

f
o
r

p
r
o
g
r
a
m
s

t
h
a
t

t
a
r
g
e
t

s
u
m
m
e
r

p
e
a
k

r
e
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
.
M.

B
r
i
t
z
,
I
P
C
o
-
Di
r
Pa
g
e

5
0

o
f

5
3
Pr
o
Q
r
a
m
s
Nu
m
b
e
r
Pa
r
t
i
c
i
-
Ye
a
r

pa
n
t
s
To
t
a
l
Re
s
o
u
r
c
e
Ut
i
l
i
t
y

C
o
s
t
s
Co
s
t
(d
o
l
l
a
r
s
\
(d
o
l
l
a
r
s
\
Co
s
t
s
Sa
v
i
n

s
No
m
i
n
a
l

L
e
v
e
l
i
z
e
d
Co
s
t
s
An
n
u
a
l
En
e
r
(k
W
h

\
Su
m
m
e
r
Av
e
r
a
g
e

Pe
a
k
De
m
a
n
d
.

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

(k
W
\
Me
a
s
u
r
e
Li
f
e
(y
e
a
r
s
)
To
t
a
l
Ut
i
l
i
t
y
Re
s
o
u
r
c
e
(S
/
k
W
h
\
(S
/
k
W
h
\
En
d
-
no
t
e
s
H'
S
T
O
R
I
C
A
L

DS
M

P
R
O
G
R
A
M

AC
T
I
V
I
T
Y
20
0
1

-

2
0
0
3
Lo
w
-
In
c
o
m
e
Lo
w
-
In
c
o
m
e

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

A
s
s
i
s
t
a
n
c
e

-

I
d
a
h
o
20
0
1
26
6
33
1

,
12
6
69
2
,
04
8
20
0
2
19
7
23
1

,
35
2
49
2
,
13
9
20
0
3
20
8
22
8
,
13
4
48
3
,
36
9
To
t
a
l
67
1
79
0
,
61
2
66
7
,
55
7
(f
)
Lo
w
-
In
c
o
m
e

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

A
s
s
i
s
t
a
n
c
e

-

O
r
e
g
o
n
20
0
1
23
,
67
8
44
,
17
9
60
,
41
2
03
0
05
6
20
0
2
24
,
77
3
47
,
22
1
68
,
32
3
02
8
05
3
20
0
3
22
,
25
5
42
,
33
5
10
2
,
64
3
11
.
01
6
03
1
To
t
a
l
70
,
70
6
13
3
,
73
5
23
1

,
37
8
26
.
02
3
04
4
BP
A

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

L
l
W
A
20
0
2
55
,
96
6
11
8
,
25
5
31
1
,
34
7
35
.
01
4
02
9
20
0
3
49
,
89
5
10
6
,
91
5
22
3
,
59
1
25
.
01
7
03
6
To
t
a
l
13
2
10
5
,
86
1
22
5
,
17
0
53
4
,
93
8
61
.
01
5
03
2
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
Ai
r

C
a
r
e

P
l
u
s

P
i
l
o
t
20
0
3
76
4
06
1
33
,
97
6
02
1
03
3
To
t
a
l
76
4
06
1
33
,
97
6
02
1
03
3
(g
)
In
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l
In
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l

E
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
c
y

P
r
o
g
r
a
m
20
0
3
30
3
30
3
To
t
a
l
1 ,
30
3
1
,
30
3
(c
)
Ir
r
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
Ir
r
i
g
a
t
i
o
n

E
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
c
y

P
r
o
g
r
a
m
20
0
3
11
,
19
0
24
,
71
0
36
,
79
2
18
.
02
9
06
5
To
t
a
l
11
,
19
0
24
,
71
0
36
,
79
2
18
.
02
9
06
5
Ed
u
c
a
t
i
o
n

a
n
d

A
u
d
i
t
s
Or
e
g
o
n

C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l

A
u
d
i
t
s

(
S
c
h
e
d
u
l
e

8
2
)
20
0
1
(h
)
20
0
2
20
0
20
0
20
0
3
00
0
00
0
To
t
a
l
20
0
20
0
(i
)
Ex
h
i
b
i
t

N
o
.
.
A
v
e
r
a
g
e

D
e
m
a
n
d

=

A
n
n
u
a
l

E
n
e
r
g
y

87
6
0

A
n
n
u
a
l

H
o
u
r
s
Ca
s
e

N
o
.

I
P
C
-
04
-
Su
m
m
e
r

P
e
a
k

D
e
m
a
n
d

i
s

re
p
o
r
t
e
d

f
o
r

pr
o
g
r
a
m
s

t
h
a
t

t
a
r
g
e
t

su
m
m
e
r

p
e
a
k
.
M.

B
r
i
l
z
,

I
P
C
o
-
Di
r
Pa
g
e

5
1

o
f

5
3
II
S
T
O
R
I
C
A
L

DS
M

P
R
O
G
R
A
M

AC
T
I
V
I
T
Y
20
0
1

-

2
0
0
3
Nu
m
b
e
r
Pa
r
t
i
c
i
-
Ye
a
r

pa
n
t
s
ro
a
r
a
m
s
Sc
h
o
o
l

B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g

O
p
e
r
a
t
o
r

T
r
a
i
n
i
n
g
20
0
2
20
0
3
To
t
a
l
20
0
3
To
t
a
l
20
0
1
07
2
20
0
2
14
,
94
0
20
0
3
13
,
87
9
36
,
72
3
Sm
a
l
l

P
r
o
j
e
c
t

/

E
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n

F
u
n
d
s
To
t
a
l
To
t
a
l
To
t
a
l
Gr
a
n
d

T
o
t
a
l
36
.
08
4
36
.
08
4
48
,
85
3
48
,
85
3
84
,
93
7
84
,
93
7
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
56
1
,
42
8
06
6
,
62
1
09
5
,
30
4
12
4
.
62
9
,
59
0
1
,
06
4
,
55
8
61
5
,
65
0
52
6
.
20
8
,
03
6
74
6
,
52
7
91
2
,
76
3
67
5
.
18
9
.
28
7
,
12
2
64
1
,
19
6
11
,
00
1
,
02
3
1
,
25
4
.
18
9
.
Co
s
t
s
To
t
a
l
Re
s
o
u
r
c
e
Ut
i
l
i
t
y

C
o
s
t
s
Co
s
t
(d
o
l
l
a
r
s
)
(d
o
l
l
a
r
s
)
No
m
m
a
l

L
e
v
e
l
l
z
e
a
Co
s
t
s
Sa
v
i
n

s
Su
m
m
e
r
Me
a
s
u
r
e
An
n
u
a
l
Av
e
r
a
g
e
Pe
a
k
Li
f
e
En
e
r
De
m
a
n
d
"
De
m
a
n
d
*
*
(y
e
a
r
s
)
(k
W
h
)
Ik
W
a
)
Ik
W
)
75
0
,
00
0
85
.
07
5
.
00
0
12
2
.
82
5
,
00
0
20
8
.
To
t
a
l
Ut
i
l
i
t
y
Re
s
o
u
r
c
e
IS
/
k
W
h
)
IS
/
k
W
h
)
En
d
-
no
t
e
s
01
0
01
0
01
0
01
0
01
0
01
0
(j
)
(k
)
En
d
n
o
t
e
s
:
(a
)

A
c
c
o
r
d
i
n
g

t
o

t
h
e

2
0
0
3

S
u
m
m
i
t

B
l
u
e

I
d
a
h
o

p
o
w
e
r

A
l
C

C
y
c
l
i
n
g

s
t
u
d
y
.

t
h
e

a
v
e
r
a
g
e

s
u
m
m
e
r

p
e
a
k

r
e
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

wa
s

.
78

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

a
n
d

a
n

I
n
c
r
e
a
s
e

I
n

e
n
e
r
g
y

c
o
n
s
u
m
p
t
i
o
n

o
f

.
4
k
W
h

p
e
r

c
y
c
l
i
n
g

e
v
e
n
t
.
(b
)

E
c
a
s

C
o
n
s
u
l
t
i
n
g

F
i
n
a
l

R
e
p
o
r
t

o
n

I
d
a
h
o

p
o
w
e
r

E
n
e
r
g
y

S
t
a
r

R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l

L
i
g
h
t
i
n
g

P
r
o
g
r
a
m

r
e
p
o
r
t
e
d

4
b
u
l
b
s

p
e
r

p
a
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
n
t

(
7
1

k
W
h
l
y
r

s
a
v
i
n
g
s

p
e
r

b
u
l
b
)
.
(c
)

2
0
0
3

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

w
e
r
e

f
o
r

p
r
o
g
r
a
m

s
t
a
r
t
-
u
p

o
n
l
y
.

N
o

i
n
c
e
n
t
i
v
e
s

w
e
r
e

p
a
i
d

i
n

2
0
0
3
.
(d
)

P
o
r
t
l
a
n
d

E
n
e
r
g
y

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

I
n
c
.

F
i
n
a
l

R
e
p
o
r
t

o
n

t
h
e

p
i
l
o
t

a
s
s
u
m
e
s

9
9
0

c
o
o
l
i
n
g

h
o
u
r
s
.
(e
)

I
n

2
0
0
3

t
h
i
s

O
r
e
g
o
n

s
t
a
t
u
t
o
r
y

p
r
o
g
r
a
m

r
a
s
u
t
t
e
d

I
n

4

j
o
b
s

t
o
t
a
l
i
n
g

$
1
0
5
6
.
92

c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
d

i
n

2
0
0
3

t
h
a
i

w
i
l
l

b
e

p
a
i
d

I
n

2
0
0
4
.
(f
)

E
n
e
r
g
y

s
a
v
i
n
g
s

I
s

n
o
t

e
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

t
h
e

I
d
a
h
o

p
r
o
g
r
a
m
.

T
h
i
s

p
r
o
g
r
a
m

i
s

f
u
e
l
-
bl
i
n
d

a
n
d

al
l
O
W
S

s
o
m
e

h
e
a
l
t
h

an
d

s
a
f
e
t
y

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

I
d
a
h
o

P
o
w
e
r

r
e
b
a
t
e
s

c
o
v
e
r
e
d

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

1
/
2

t
h
e

t
o
t
a
l

c
o
s
t

t
o

s
e
r
v
i
c
e

3
1

u
n
i
t
s
.

P
a
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
n
t

s
a
v
i
n
g
s

i
s

ca
l
c
u
l
a
t
e
d

a
s

1
0
9
6

k
W
h
/
y
e
a
r

p
e
r

u
n
l
l

(
$
2
5
0
0

w
i
l
l

b
e

p
a
i
d

i
n

2
0
0
4

f
o
r

w
o
r
k

d
o
n
e

I
n

2
0
0
3
)
.
(h
)

E
i
g
h
t

a
u
d
i
t
s

t
o
t
a
l
i
n
g

$
3
2
0
0

w
e
r
e

p
e
r
f
o
r
m
e
d

i
n

2
0
0
1

a
n
d

p
a
i
d

i
n

2
0
0
2
.
(i)

O
r
e
g
o
n

s
t
a
t
u
t
o
r
y

p
r
o
g
r
a
m
.

T
h
e

c
o
m
p
a
n
y

d
o
e
s

n
o
t

m
o
n
i
t
o
r

w
h
i
c
h

a
u
d
i
t

r
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
a
f
l
o
n
s

a
r
e

i
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
e
d

an
d

d
o
e
s

n
o
t

e
s
t
i
m
a
t
e

s
a
v
i
n
g
s

f
o
r

t
h
i
s

p
r
o
g
r
a
m
.
0)

N
o
r
t
h
w
e
s
t

E
n
e
r
g
y

E
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
c
y

A
l
l
i
a
n
C
e

e
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
s

e
n
e
r
g
y

s
e
v
l
n
g
s

a
t
.
5
k
W
h
l
S
q
.
Ft
.

o
f

b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g

o
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

p
e
r

p
a
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
n
t

w
i
t
h

a

c
a
p

a
t

5
0
,
00
0

S
q
.
Ft
.
(k
)

2
0
0
3

i
n
c
l
u
d
e
s

t
r
a
i
n
i
n
g

f
o
r

5
4

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

a
n
d

2

a
u
d
i
t
s
.
.
A
v
e
r
a
g
e

D
e
m
a
n
d

=

A
n
n
u
a
l

E
n
e
r
g
y

/

8
7
6
0

A
n
n
u
a
l

H
o
u
r
s
Su
m
m
e
r

P
e
a
k

D
e
m
a
n
d

i
s

r
e
p
o
r
t
e
d

f
o
r

p
r
o
g
r
a
m
s

t
h
a
t

t
a
r
g
e
t

s
u
m
m
e
r

p
e
a
k

r
e
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
.
'J

I
:
:
Ex
h
i
b
i
t

N
o
.
Ca
s
e

N
o
.

I
P
C
-
04
-
M.

B
r
i
l
z
,

I
P
C
o
-
Di
r
Pa
g
e

5
2

o
f

5
3
Financial Factors for Demand-Side Management
Present Value Factor (PVF) for n years = Adjustment Factor x (1 - ((1 + Rate) 1\ -n)) + Rate
Real Discount Rate = ((1 + Nominal Rate) + (1 + Escalation Rate)) -
Nominal Adjustment Factor = (1 + Nominal Rate)
1\ Nominal Timing Factor
Escalation Adjustment Factor = (1 + Escalation Rate)
1\ Escalation Timing Factor
Real Adjustment Factor = Nominal Adjustment Factor + Escalation Adjustment Factor
For timing factors, use 0 for end of period (ordinary annuity), 1 for beginning of period (annuity due), and 0.
5 for midpoint.
Exhibit No.
Case No. IPC-04-
M. Brilz, IPCo-Dir
Pace 53 of 53
,.I
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
Office of the SecretaryRECEIVED
DEC - 6 2004
BEFORE THE Boise, Idaho
IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
IDAHO POWER COMPANY
CASE NO.IPC-E-O4-4
EXHIBIT NO.
M. BRILZ
I \ li
:~\
" t I~' l '
:t ~d'~"
' ;
'iJ
, !J,\f))f\4f~\
; ""!
~'ih f j
H;ih~i' "tj~r ;Li
: _
1,,"1" '
' "
Id
a
h
o

P
o
w
e
r

C
o
m
p
a
n
y
Pr
o
p
o
s
a
l

t
o

I
n
c
r
e
a
s
e

R
i
d
e
r

F
u
n
d
i
n
g
/0

be
g
i
n
n
i
n
g

J
u
n
e

20
0
5
;

/0

be
g
i
n
n
i
n
g

J
u
n
e

1,
20
0
7
Ye
a
r
-
En
d
To
t
a
l

D
S
M
Ri
d
e
r
Fu
n
d
Ye
a
r
Ba
l
a
n
c
e
Pr
o
ra
m

C
o
s
t
s
Fu
n
d
i
n
Q

R
e
c
e
i
v
e
d
Ba
l
a
n
c
e
20
0
4
50
0
,
00
0
20
0
5
$6
,
4
6
6
,
04
0
$5
,
54
7
36
3
$3
,
58
1
,
32
3
20
0
6
$9
,
37
3
,
36
2
$7
,
68
0
,
96
5
88
8
,
92
6
20
0
7
$1
1
80
2
13
2
$1
0
,
36
9
,
30
3
$4
5
6
,
09
7
20
0
8
$1
2
53
6
,
96
4
$1
2
,
28
9
,
54
4
$2
0
8
,
67
7
20
0
9
$1
2
,
76
9
,
74
7
$1
2
28
9
,
54
4
$2
7
1
,
52
6
To
t
a
l

R
e
v
e
n
u
e

(
O
r
d
e
r

N
o
.

2
9
5
4
7
)
$5
1
2
,
06
4
32
3
Ri
d
e
r

L
e
v
e
l

An
n
u
a
l

R
i
d
e
r

F
u
n
d
s
50
0
/0

$
2
56
0
,
32
2
50
%

$
7
68
0
,
96
5
2.
4
0
0
/0

$
1
2
,
28
9
,
54
4
Ex
h
i
b
i
t

N
o
.
Ca
s
e

N
o
.

I
P
C
-
04
-
M.

B
r
i
l
z
,
I
P
C
o
-
Di
r
Pa
g
e

1
o
f

2
Ye
a
r
20
0
4
20
0
5
20
0
6
20
0
7
20
0
8
20
0
9
Id
a
h
o

P
o
w
e
r

C
o
m
p
a
n
y
Pr
o
p
o
s
a
l

t
o

I
n
c
r
e
a
s
e

R
i
d
e
r

F
u
n
d
i
n
g
20
/
0

fu
n
d
i
n
g

l
e
v
e
l

b
e
g
i
n
n
i
n
g

J
u
n
e

20
0
5
Ba
l
a
n
c
e
50
0
,
00
0
To
t
a
l

R
e
v
e
n
u
e

(
O
r
d
e
r

N
o
.

2
9
5
4
7
)
Ri
d
e
r

L
e
v
e
l
50
%
To
t
a
l

D
S
M
Pr
o
a
r
a
m

C
o
s
t
s
$6
,
4
6
6
,
04
0
$9
,
37
3
,
36
2
$1
1
80
2
,
13
2
$1
2
53
6
,
96
4
.
$1
2
,
76
9
,
74
7
$5
1
2
,
06
4
32
3
An
n
u
a
l

R
i
d
e
r

F
u
n
d
s
56
0
,
32
2
$1
0
,
24
1
,
28
6
Ri
d
e
r
Fu
n
d
i
n
a

R
e
c
e
i
v
e
d
$7
,
04
0
,
88
4
$1
0
,
24
1
,
28
6
$1
0
,
24
1
,
28
6
$1
0
,
24
1
,
28
6
$1
0
,
24
1
28
6
Ye
a
r
-
En
d
Fu
n
d
Ba
l
a
n
c
e
$5
,
07
4
84
4
$5
,
94
2
76
9
38
1
,
92
4
08
6
,
24
6
$4
4
2
21
4
Ex
h
i
b
i
t

N
o
.
Ca
s
e

N
o
.

I
P
C
-
04
-
M.

B
r
i
l
z
,
I
C
P
o
-
Di
r
Pa
g
e

2

o
f

2
BEFORE THE
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
Office of the Secretary
RECEIVED
DEC - 6 2004
Boise, Idaho
IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
IDAHO POWER COMPANY
CASE NO. IPC-E-O4-
EXHIBIT NO.
M. BRILZ
Id
a
h
o

P
o
w
e
r

C
o
m
p
a
n
y
En
e
r
g
y

E
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
c
y

C
h
a
r
g
e

F
u
n
d
i
n
g
St
a
t
e

o
f

I
d
a
h
o
No
r
m
a
l
i
z
e
d

1
2
-
Mo
n
t
h

T
e
s
t

Y
e
a
r

E
n
d
i
n
g

De
c
e
m
b
e
r

3
1
,

20
0
3
(1
)
(2
)
(3
)
(4
)
(5
)
(6
)
(7
)
Ra
t
e
20
0
3

A
v
g
.
20
0
3

S
a
l
e
s
07
/
2
8
/
0
4
Li
n
e
Sc
h
.
Nu
m
b
e
r

o
f
No
r
m
a
l
i
z
e
d
Ba
s
e
of

B
a
s
e
of

B
a
s
e
of

B
a
s
e
Ta
r
i
f
f

D
e
s
c
r
i
Qt
i
o
n
No
.
Cu
s
t
o
m
e
r
s
Re
v
e
n
u
e
Re
v
e
n
u
e
Re
v
e
n
u
e
Re
v
e
n
u
e
Un
i
f
o
r
m

T
a
r
i
f
f

R
a
t
e
s
:
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l

S
e
N
i
c
e
33
5
,
60
5
4,

1
4
1

,
39
3
,
4
2
6
22
8
,
28
8
,
64
4
1,

1
4
1
,
4
4
3
3,
4
2
4
,
33
0
5,
4
7
8
,
92
7
Sm
a
l
l

G
e
n
e
r
a
l

S
e
N
i
c
e
32
,
31
6
26
5
,
33
5
,
66
7
17
,
89
2
,
03
3
89
,
4
6
0
26
8
,
38
0
42
9
,
4
0
9
La
r
g
e

G
e
n
e
r
a
l

S
e
N
i
c
e
17
,
4
1
5
Se
c
o
n
d
a
r
y
17
,
29
9
66
7
,
37
6
,
23
7
99
,
83
6
,
29
8
49
9
,
18
1
49
7
,
54
4
39
6
,
07
1
Pr
i
m
a
r
y

&

T
r
a
n
s
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
11
6
34
7
,
05
0
,
74
9
11
,
4
5
3
,
52
5
57
,
26
8
17
1
,
8
0
3
27
4
,
88
5
Du
s
k

t
o

D
a
w
n

Li
g
h
t
i
n
g
87
2
,
58
6
89
2
,
76
7
46
4
13
,
39
2
21
,
4
2
6
La
r
g
e

P
o
w
e
r

S
e
N
i
c
e
10
5
1,
9
7
8
,
82
4
,
23
7
56
,
67
4
,
32
6
28
3
,
37
2
85
0
,

1
1
5
36
0
,
18
4
Ag
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
a
l

I
r
r
i
g
a
t
i
o
n

S
e
N
i
c
e
13
,
51
7
62
0
,
93
0
,
93
1
69
,
17
8
,
27
4
34
5
,
89
1
1,
0
3
7
,
67
4
66
0
,
27
9
Un
m
e
t
e
r
e
d

G
e
n
e
r
a
l

Se
N
.
22
4
16
,
05
4
,
94
2
82
6
,
01
7
13
0
12
,
39
0
19
,
82
4
St
r
e
e
t

L
i
g
h
t
i
n
g
,4
2
0
17
,
87
8
,
7
4
2
67
8
,
72
2
39
4
25
,

1
8
1
40
,
28
9
Tr
a
f
f
i
c

C
o
n
t
r
o
l

L
i
g
h
t
i
n
g
38
4
21
8
29
3
81
1
,4
6
9
4,
4
0
7
05
1
To
t
a
l

U
n
i
f
o
r
m

T

ar
i
f
t
s
41
9
,
07
5
11
,
07
0
,
10
1
,
73
5
48
7
,
01
4
,
41
7
2,
4
3
5
,
07
2
30
5
,
21
6
11
,
68
8
,
34
5
So
e
c
i
a
l

C
o
n
t
r
a
c
t
s
:
Mi
c
r
o
n
63
6
,
96
7
,
67
0
15
,
88
5
,
37
0
79
,
4
2
7
23
8
,
28
1
38
1
,
2
4
9
J
R

S
i
m
p
l
o
t
18
6
,
68
4
,
66
5
34
0
,
19
4
21
,

7
0
1
65
,

1

0
3
10
4
,
16
5
DO
E
20
3
,
08
4
,

1
4
6
82
4
,
34
2
12
2
72
,
36
5
11
5
,
78
4
To
t
a
l

S
p
e
c
i
a
l

C
o
n
t
r
a
c
t
s
02
6
,
73
6
,
48
1
25
,
04
9
,
90
6
12
5
,
25
0
37
5
,
7

4
9
60
1
,

1
9
8
16

To
t
a
l

I
d
a
h
o

Re
t
a
i
l

S
a
l
e
s
41
9
,
07
8
12
,
09
6
,
83
8
,
21
6
51
2
,
06
4
,
32
3
56
0
,
32
2
68
0
,
96
5
12
,
28
9
,
54
3
Ex
h
i
b
i
t

N
o
.
Ca
s
e

N
o
.

I
P
C
-
O4
-
M.

B
r
i
l
z
,
I
P
C
o
-
Di
r
Pa
g
e

1
o
f

1
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
Office of the SecretaryRECEIVED
BEFORE THE DEC - 6 2004
Boise, Idaho
IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
IDAHO POWER COMPANY
CASE NO. IPC-O4-;;(Q
EXHIBIT NO.
M. BRILZ
...
-
.
KW
H

B
l
o
c
k
s
no
n
e
00

1
,
00
0
.
00
0
.
00

5
,
00
0
.
00
0
.
00

1
0
,
00
0
.
10
,
00
0
.
00

2
5
,
00
0
.
25
,
00
0
.
00

5
0
,
00
0
.
50
,
00
0
.
00

1
0
0
,
00
0
.
10
0
,
00
0
.
00

3
5
0
,
00
0
.
35
0
,
00
0
.
00

9
9
,
99
9
,
99
9
,
99
9
.
Su
b
t
o
t
a
l
Ir
r
i
g
a
t
i
o
n

S
e
r
v
i
c
e

-

S
c
h
e
d
u
l
e

2
4
Bi
l
l

F
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y

D
a
t
a
Ja
n
u
a
r
y
/
2
0
0
2

-

D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r
/
2
0
0
2
In
-
Se
a
s
o
n
Cu
m
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
KW
H

B
i
l
l
e
d

i
n
Bi
l
l
i
n
g

K
W

i
n

Pe
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e

o
f
Bi
l
l
s

i
n

B
l
o
c
k
KW

H

i
n

B
l
o
c
k
Bl
o
c
k
Bl
o
c
k
Bi
l
l
s
71
5
69
,
59
7
05
1
17
7
05
1
48
,
4
1
0
56
.
20
,
52
1
20
5
,
83
5
,
4
3
6
76
0
,
4
3
6
18
8
,
27
0
49
.
90
3
18
2
00
1
19
5
86
,
53
6
,
19
5
24
0
,
88
6
63
.
60
/
0
91
7
33
1
,
60
0
,
4
2
4
23
9
,
58
5
,
4
2
4
58
3
,
79
1
81
.
10
/
0
88
7
28
4
82
5
,
18
6
27
7
20
0
,
18
6
61
2
10
1
90
.
92
4
26
0
,
4
7
9
,
55
4
34
3
,
27
9
,
55
4
70
5
,
00
7
96
.
06
3
23
7
,
53
0
,
96
0
49
2
58
0
,
96
0
83
9
,
06
5
99
.
20
5
10
8
,
77
2
,
4
4
4
18
0
,
52
2
,
4
4
4
27
1
79
5
10
0
.
85
,
13
5
01
6
,
38
2
95
8
Ex
h
i
b
i
t

N
o
.
Ca
s
e

N
o
.

I
P
C
-
04
-
M.

B
r
i
l
z
,
I
P
C
o
-
Di
r
Pa
g
e

1
o
f

8
Ir
r
i
g
a
t
i
o
n

S
e
r
v
i
c
e

-

S
c
h
e
d
u
l
e

2
4
Bi
l
l

F
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y

D
a
t
a
Ap
r
i
l
/
2
0
0
2
KW
H

B
l
o
c
k
s
Cu
m
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
KW
H

B
i
l
l
e
d

i
n
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e

o
f
Bi
l
l
s

i
n

B
l
o
c
k
KW
H

i
n

B
l
o
c
k
Bl
o
c
k
Bi
l
l
s
19
7
30
7
61
1
30
9
,
61
1
68
.
80
/
0
50
1
75
3
,
4
0
4
26
6
,
4
0
4
84
.
4

%
18
5
00
2
37
5
36
7
37
5
90
.
15
2
34
0
,
24
2
2,
4
6
0
,
24
2
95
.
71
5
,
80
0
06
5
,
80
0
97
.
34
2
84
0
3,
4
9
2
,
84
0
99
.
20
/
0
86
4
91
8
31
4
91
8
99
.
61
6
,
00
0
66
6
,
00
0
10
0
.
19
5
16
,
94
3
,
19
0
no
n
e
00

1
00
0
.
00
0
.
00

5
,
00
0
.
00
0
.
00

1
0
,
00
0
.
10
,
00
0
.
00

2
5
,
00
0
.
25
,
00
0
.
00

5
0
,
OO
O
50
,
00
0
.
00

1
0
0
,
00
0
.
10
0
,
00
0
.
00

3
5
0
,
00
0
.
35
0
,
00
0
.
00
9
9
,
99
9
,
99
9
,
99
9
.
Su
b
t
o
t
a
l
Ex
h
i
b
i
t

N
o
.
Ca
s
e

N
o
.

I
P
C
-
04
-
M.

B
r
i
l
z
,
I
P
C
o
-
Di
r
Pa
g
e

2

o
f

8
Ir
r
i
g
a
t
i
o
n

S
e
r
v
i
c
e

-

S
c
h
e
d
u
l
e

2
4
Bi
l
l

F
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y

D
a
t
a
Ma
y
/
2
0
0
2
KW
H

B
l
o
c
k
s
no
n
e
00

1
,
00
0
.
00
0
.
00

5
,
00
0
.
00
0
.
00

1
0
,
00
0
.
10
,
00
0
.
00

2
5
,
00
0
.
25
,
00
0
.
00

5
0
,
00
0
.
50
,
00
0
.
00

1
0
0
,
00
0
.
10
0
,
00
0
.
00

3
5
0
,
00
0
.
35
0
,
00
0
.
00

9
9
,
99
9
,
99
9
,
99
9
.
Su
b
t
o
t
a
l
Cu
m
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
KW
H

B
i
l
l
e
d

i
n
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e

o
f
Bi
l
l
s

i
n

B
l
o
c
k
KW
H

i
n

B
l
o
c
k
Bl
o
c
k
Bi
l
l
s
15
8
75
6
,
19
2
96
4
19
2
31
.
97
0
20
,
13
0
,
38
6
81
2
,
38
6
61
.
1
,
4
5
3
15
,
00
9
,
4
6
5
10
,
4
2
9
,
4
6
5
76
.
34
1
22
,
73
1
,
4
9
1
20
,
72
1
,
4
9
1
89
.
60
6
16
,
4
6
0
,
65
1
06
0
,
65
1
95
.
28
1
15
5
,
94
2
19
,
15
5
,
94
2
98
.
12
0
11
,
67
7
34
7
18
,
4
2
7
,
34
7
99
.
80
/
0
01
6
,
06
3
16
,
36
6
,
06
3
10
0
.
95
0
11
4
93
7
53
7
Ex
h
i
b
i
t

N
o
.
Ca
s
e

N
o
.

I
P
C
-
04
-
M.

B
r
i
l
z
,
I
P
C
o
-
Di
r
Pa
g
e

3

o
f

8
Ir
r
i
g
a
t
i
o
n

S
e
r
v
i
c
e

-

S
c
h
e
d
u
l
e

2
4
Bi
l
l

F
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y

D
a
t
a
Ju
n
e
/
2
0
0
2
KW
H

B
l
o
c
k
s
Cu
m
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
KW
H

B
i
l
l
e
d

i
n
Bi
l
l
i
n
g

K
W

i
n
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e

o
f
Bi
l
l
s

i
n

B
l
o
c
k
KW
H

i
n

B
l
o
c
k
Bl
o
c
k
Bl
o
c
k
Bi
l
l
s
85
9
68
8
,
09
9
80
7
,
09
9
14
,
4
9
4
14
.
35
5
35
,
89
3
,
16
5
14
4
16
5
59
,
25
0
40
.
11
2
31
,
97
0
,
12
0
15
,
4
6
0
,
12
0
73
,
12
5
57
.
76
4
56
,
71
3
,
88
3
60
3
,
88
3
16
9
,
94
2
79
.
39
4
45
,
33
4
62
9
48
,
78
4
62
9
16
2
38
2
90
.
1 %
82
3
38
,
24
1
08
1
57
,
74
1
08
1
16
2
,
74
4
96
.
40
3
29
,
67
9
,
22
1
62
,
4
7
9
,
22
1
13
5
,
53
9
99
.
20
,
94
5
,
4
0
4
44
5
,
40
4
62
,
36
6
10
0
.
74
0
27
0
,
4
6
5
,
60
2
no
n
e
00

1
00
0
.
00
0
.
00

5
,
00
0
.
00
0
.
00

1
0
,
00
0
.
10
,
00
0
.
00

2
5
,
00
0
.
25
,
00
0
.
00

5
0
,
00
0
.
50
,
00
0
.
00

1
0
0
,
00
0
.
10
0
,
00
0
.
00

3
5
0
,
00
0
.
35
0
,
00
0
.
00

9
9
,
99
9
,
99
9
,
99
9
.
Su
b
t
o
t
a
l
Ex
h
i
b
i
t

N
o
.
Ca
s
e

N
o
.

I
P
C
-
04
-
M.

B
r
i
l
z
,

I
P
C
o
-
Di
r
Pa
g
e

4

o
f

8
Ir
r
i
g
a
t
i
o
n

S
e
r
v
i
c
e

-

S
c
h
e
d
u
l
e

2
4
Bi
l
l

F
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y

D
a
t
a
Ju
l
y
/
2
0
0
2
KW
H

B
l
o
c
k
s
Cu
m
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
KW
H

B
i
l
l
e
d

i
n
Bi
l
l
i
n
g

K
W

i
n
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e

o
f
Bi
l
l
s

i
n

B
l
o
c
k
KW
H

i
n

B
l
o
c
k
Bl
o
c
k
Bl
o
c
k
Bi
l
l
s
1
,
4
4
4
12
,
87
7
,
61
5
67
8
,
61
5
79
4
10
.
60
/
0
93
6
03
3
,
89
8
91
7
89
8
35
,
33
4
32
.
1
%
03
6
40
,
82
6
,
25
1
87
1
25
1
49
,
90
8
47
.
06
8
55
1
64
9
49
,
84
6
,
64
9
13
4
73
2
69
.
88
1
76
,
22
1
02
3
66
,
29
6
,
02
3
16
2
,
24
9
83
.
30
/
0
26
1
75
,
61
3
,
59
5
81
3
,
59
5
19
7
,
4
8
0
92
.
96
9
73
,
05
9
,
58
1
15
7
,
95
9
,
58
1
28
5
,
15
9
99
.
60
8
,
4
3
7
44
,
4
0
8
,
4
3
7
78
,
86
0
10
0
.
13
,
64
3
42
9
,
79
2
,
04
9
no
n
e
00

1
,
00
0
.
1
,
00
0
.
00

5
,
00
0
.
00
0
.
00

1
0
,
00
0
.
10
,
00
0
.
00

2
5
,
00
0
.
25
,
00
0
.
00

5
0
,
00
0
.
50
,
00
0
.
10
0
,
00
0
.
10
0
,
00
0
.
00

3
5
0
,
00
0
.
35
0
,
00
0
.
00
9
9
,
99
9
,
99
9
,
99
9
.
Su
b
t
o
t
a
l
Ex
h
i
b
i
t

N
o
.
Ca
s
e

N
o
.

I
P
C
-
04
-
M.

B
r
i
l
z
,
I
P
C
o
-
Di
r
Pa
g
e

5

o
f

8
KW
H

B
l
o
c
k
s
Ir
r
i
g
a
t
i
o
n

S
e
r
v
i
c
e

-

S
c
h
e
d
u
l
e

2
4
Bi
l
l

F
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y

D
a
t
a
Au
g
u
s
t
/
2
0
0
2
Cu
m
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
KW
H

B
i
l
l
e
d

i
n
Bi
l
l
i
n
g

K
W

i
n
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e

o
f
Bi
l
l
s

i
n

B
l
o
c
k
KW
H

i
n

B
l
o
c
k
Bl
o
c
k
Bl
o
c
k
Bi
l
l
s
60
1
12
,
27
0
,
21
9
67
7
,
21
9
10
,
83
5
12
.
1 %
96
7
39
,
61
7
03
5
08
0
,
03
5
42
,
92
6
34
.
99
5
74
8
,
37
2
14
,
56
8
,
37
2
52
,
4
3
6
49
.
70
/
0
97
1
73
,
73
9
,
91
5
48
,
54
9
,
91
5
13
5
,
13
1
72
.
62
7
67
,
59
5
,
19
8
57
,
4
4
5
,
19
8
14
1
67
3
84
.
16
6
66
,
71
1
98
8
66
1
,
98
8
18
5
,
34
8
93
.
4
0
81
8
02
2
,
4
0
5
13
3
,
57
2
,
4
0
5
23
8
,
82
2
99
.
26
,
25
4
38
2
43
,
4
0
4
38
2
73
,
63
0
10
0
.
13
,
19
4
38
7
,
95
9
,
51
4
38
7
,
95
9
,
51
4
88
0
,
80
1
no
n
e
00

1
00
0
.
00
0
.
00

5
,
00
0
.
00
0
.
00

1
0
,
00
0
.
10
,
00
0
.
00

2
5
,
00
0
.
25
,
00
0
.
00

5
0
,
00
0
.
50
,
00
0
.
00

1
0
0
,
00
0
.
10
0
,
00
0
.
00

3
5
0
,
00
0
.
35
0
,
00
0
.
00

9
9
,
99
9
,
99
9
,
99
9
.
Su
b
t
o
t
a
l
Ex
h
i
b
i
t

N
o
.
Ca
s
e

N
o
.

I
P
C
-
04
-
M.

B
r
i
l
l
,

I
P
C
o
-
Di
r
Pa
g
e

6

o
f

8
KW
H

B
l
o
c
k
s
no
n
e
00

1
,
00
0
.
00
0
.
00

5
,
00
0
.
00
0
.
00

1
0
,
00
0
.
10
,
00
0
.
00

2
5
,
00
0
.
25
,
00
0
.
00

5
0
,
00
0
.
50
,
00
0
.
00

1
0
0
,
00
0
.
10
0
,
00
0
.
00

3
5
0
,
00
0
.
35
0
,
00
0
.
00

9
9
,
99
9
,
99
9
,
99
9
.
Su
b
t
o
t
a
l
Ir
r
i
g
a
t
i
o
n

S
e
r
v
i
c
e

-

S
c
h
e
d
u
l
e

2
4
Bi
l
l

F
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y

D
a
t
a
Se
p
t
e
m
b
e
r
/
2
0
0
2
Cu
m
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
KW

H

B
i
l
l
e
d

i
n
Bi
l
l
i
n
g

K
W

i
n
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e
Bi
l
l
s

i
n

B
l
o
c
k
KW
H

i
n

B
l
o
c
k
Bl
o
c
k
Bl
o
c
k
of

B
i
l
l
s
95
7
11
,
50
8
,
71
2
78
9
,
71
2
15
,
28
7
15
.
4

%
12
4
35
,
75
1
52
9
8,
4
9
5
,
52
9
50
,
76
0
40
.
04
5
32
,
4
1
9
,
54
1
89
4
54
1
65
,
4
1
7
56
.
20
/
0
61
3
59
,
85
4
64
9
92
9
,
64
9
14
3
,
98
6
76
.
80
/
0
1,
4
1
6
78
0
,
38
3
50
,
15
5
,
38
3
14
5
,
79
7
88
.
91
7
48
,
4
3
4
38
6
08
4
38
6
15
9
,
4
3
5
95
.
57
0
43
,
74
9
,
22
0
24
9
,
22
0
17
9
,
54
5
99
.
87
5
,
34
2
29
,
77
5
,
34
2
56
,
93
9
10
0
.
67
6
30
2
37
3
,
76
2
Ex
h
i
b
i
t

N
o
.
Ca
s
e

N
o
.

I
P
C
-
04
-
M.

B
r
i
l
z
,
I
P
C
o
-
Di
r
Pa
g
e

7

o
f

8
Ir
r
i
g
a
t
i
o
n

S
e
r
v
i
c
e

-

S
c
h
e
d
u
l
e

2
4
Bi
l
l

F
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y

D
a
t
a
Oc
t
o
b
e
r
/
2
0
0
2
KW

H

B
l
o
c
k
s
no
n
e
00

1
,
00
0
.
00
0
.
00

5
,
00
0
.
00
0
.
00

1
0
,
00
0
.
10
,
00
0
.
00

2
5
,
00
0
.
25
,
00
0
.
00

5
0
,
00
0
.
50
,
00
0
.
00

1
0
0
,
00
0
.
10
0
,
00
0
.
00

3
5
0
,
00
0
.
35
0
,
00
0
.
00
9
9
,
99
9
,
99
9
,
99
9
.
Su
b
t
o
t
a
l
Cu
m
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
KW
H

B
i
l
l
e
d

i
n
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e

o
f
Bi
l
l
s

i
n

B
l
o
c
k
KW
H

i
n

B
l
o
c
k
Bl
o
c
k
Bi
l
l
s
15
0
59
6
,
4
8
4
00
4
,
4
8
4
29
.
20
2
22
,
78
8
,
34
2
8,
4
3
0
,
34
2
59
.
1 %
57
8
17
,
4
8
5
,
24
2
11
,
31
5
,
24
2
73
.
59
5
27
,
26
3
,
60
9
95
8
,
60
9
88
.
70
5
19
,
62
2
00
4
24
,
4
4
7
,
00
4
95
.
34
8
87
2
11
1
07
2
11
1
98
.
14
8
74
2
,
16
0
22
,
54
2
16
0
99
.
30
2
,
53
7
10
,
90
2
53
7
10
0
.
00
/
0
10
,
74
2
12
7
,
67
2
,
4
8
9
12
7
67
2
,
4
8
9
Ex
h
i
b
i
t

N
o
.
Ca
s
e

N
o
.

I
P
C
-
04
-
M.

B
r
i
l
z
,
I
P
C
o
-
Di
r
Pa
g
e

8

o
f

8