20080317PB DSM 2007 Update.pdf

1SIDA~PO.
An IDACORP company
3/14/2008
Ms. Jean D. Jewell, Secreta
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
P.O. Box 83720
Boise, ID 83720-0074
IPC-E-06-32
RE: Pedormance-Based Demand-Side Management Incentive Pilot 2007 Pedormance
Update
Dear Ms. Jewell:
Pursuat to Order No. 30268, please find the attched Pedormance-Based Demand-Side Management
Incentive Pilot 2007 Pedormance Update. According to the final ENERGY STARlI Homes Northwest
progr results for 2007, the company has estimated the market share achievement for the progr in 2007
to be within the market share dead-band under the pilot. Therefore, the ENERGY STARlI Homes Nortwest
program is not currently expected to have a financial impact to the company for 2007.
The Company and the Commission Staff have made significant progress toward addressing the
"technical diffculties" identified by Sta in its comments in Case No. IPC-E-06-32 and later detaled in
Order No. 30268. The attched report details the results of the pilot progr for 2007 and describes the
progress made toward improving the pilot progr's metrcs.
If you have any questions regarding this report, please feel free to contact me at 388-5515.
l:'kTim Tatum
Pricing Analyst
cc: Ric Gale
Greg Said
Pete Pengily
P&RS/Legal Files
Pricing & Regulatory Services
Voice: 208-388-5515
Fax: [phone]
ttatum(£idahopower.com
P.O. Box 70 (83707)
1221 W. Idaho St.
Boise, 10 B3702
IPC-E-06-32
Idaho Power Company
Performance-Based DSM Incentive Pik...
2007 Year-End Performance Upa~riplR 14 Pri 4: 5 l
Market Share Estimate
ENERGY STAR$ Homes Completed1 303
Estimated Total New Single-Family
Homes2 6,102
2007 Market Share Estimate 5.0%
Notes:
(1) The number of ENERGY STAR4! Homes completed is based on the number of incentive payments
Idaho Power has issued during 2007.
(2) The estimate of total new homes is based on a combination of data from the Wells Fargo Idaho
Construction Report dated December 2007 and Idaho Power's records of new residential service
points added during 2007.
ENERGY ST ARII Homes Northwest
2007 Program Expenses
Expense Category
Incentives
Evaluation
Labor
Marketing
Other Expense
Training
Travel
Total
2007 Expenses
$226,050
21,825
95,875
70,284
26,505
3,338
7,898
$451,775
1
2007 Penormance.Based DSM Incentive Pilot Review
On December 18, 2006, Idaho Power Company (Company) filed an Application
with the Idaho Public Utilities Commission (Commission) requesting authority to
implement a DSM incentive mechanism which would allow the Company to retain a
portion of the cost reducing benefits accruing from a DSM program operated by the
Company. The incentive would only be earned if the Company has done an exceptional
job in implementing the DSM program. The incentive mechanism would also allow for a
"penalty" payment by the Company if Idaho Power's performance of the selected DSM
program falls below previously agreed-upon goals. The Commission docketed the
Company's request as Case No. IPC-E-06-32.
The Commission issued Order No. 30268 on March 12, 2007 approving the
Performance-Based DSM Incentive Pilot to be operated as proposed by the Company in
its Application. Under the pilot, the Company wil receive an incentive payment if the
market share of homes constructed under the ENERGY STARlI Homes Northwest
program exceeds: (1) 7% of the total number of homes constructed in Idaho Power's
service area in 2007, (2) exceeds 9.8% of total service area homes in 2008 and (3)
exceeds 11. 7% of total service area homes in 2009. These percentage levels are the
target goals and if Idaho Power exceeds these targets, it would receive an incentive
payment equal to the percentage benefit that exceeds the target. For example, if Idaho
Power is able to achieve 105% of the 7% target percentage in 2007, Idaho Power wil
receive a payment equal to 5% of the total program net benefits. The incentive payment
is capped at 10% of program net benefits. Furthermore, under the pilot program, the
Company is subject to a penalty if the ENERGY STARlI Homes Northwest program fails
to reach a market share equal to the Company's market share achievement for the
program in 2006. In its Application, the Company estimated the 2006 market share
achievement for ENERGY STARlI Homes Northwest to be 4.9% which was later
determined to be 5.0% when the final year-end 2006 results became available. If the
market share of homes constructed under the ENERGY STARlI Homes Northwest
program is at least at the level achieved in 2006 and is not greater than 7%, Idaho
Power is not eligible for an incentive or penalty (i.e., a market share dead-band).
In Order No. 30268, the Commission detailed several "technical difficulties" or
"challenges" with the pilot program identified by the Commission Staff (Staff in its
Comments. The technical difficulties identified by the Staff included: "(1) arbitrariness in
2
setting reasonable, "average" achievement goals; (2) uncertainty in measuring the actual
ENERGY STAR homes percentage achieved; (3) ambiguity in determining what
constitutes "exceptional" and "poot' levels of achievement; (4) potential for rewarding or
penalizing Idaho Power due to factors unrelated to its program efforts; (5) necessary but
problematic exclusion of regional marketing costs and benefits; (6) calculating the
incentive or penalty using allocation of joint costs based only on heating and cooling
degree days, not on actual energy savings or peak reductions; and (7) uncertainties of
average savings per home and base percent of ENERGY STAR homes achieved in
2006."
Since the issuance of Order No. 30268, the Company and Staff have made
significant progress in addressing each of these technical diffculties. The Company and
the Staff have agreed that the following challenges warrant continued monitoring,
however, do not require any immediate investigation or adjustment: "(1) arbitrariness in
setting reasonable, "average" achievement goals; (3) ambiguity in determining what
constitutes "exceptional" .and "poot' levels of achievement; (4) potential for rewarding or
penalizing Idaho Power due to factors unrelated to its program efforts; (5) necessary but
problematic exclusion of regional marketing costs and benefits."
The Company and Staff spent a great deal of time discussing Staffs concerns
related to "(2) uncertainty in measuring the actual ENERGY STAR homes percentage
achieved." The Company understood the Staffs concern to be related to the
quantification of total new single-family homes used in the market share calculation. In
its original Application, the Company proposed to use the Wells Fargo Idaho
Construction Report listing of new single-family home permits issued in Idaho Power's
service area as the source for the new home data. Under this approach, the Company's
market share achievement was to be determined by dividing the number of ENERGY
STARlI homes that received an incentive from Idaho Power by the number of single-
family homes reported by Wells Fargo during the same period.
In its Quarterly Progress Report dated October 12, 2007, the Company
recommended a revised method for calculating market share under the pilot. Under the
revised method, the Wells Fargo data is used to calculate a ratio of single-family homes
to total residential homes in Idaho Power's service area. The ratio is then applied to
Idaho Power's records of total new residential services added during the same period.
The Company and Staff agreed that the market share value derived under the revised
3
method results in a number of new single-family homes that is a more complete
representation of new home construction in Idaho Power's service area.
The revised method has been used to calculate market share on page one of this
report, however, market share is also calculated under the original method as is detailed
on Attachment 1. The Wells Fargo Idaho Construction Report dated December 2007
used in the derivation of the 2007 market share is included as Attachment 2. Attachment
1 details how this new approach compares to the original derivation of market share. As
can be seen in Attachment 1, the market share achieved in 2006 under the original
derivation method was 5.0% (estimated to be 4.9% in Case No. IPC-E-06-32). Under the
pilot program design proposed by the Company in its original Application, 5.0% is the
market share threshold whereby the Company would be subject to a penalty if it
achieves a market share below that threshold. Under the revised market share
calculation, the actual market share achieved in 2006 would be calculated at 4.1%,
which becomes the new penalty threshold. While this new market share derivation
method has the effect of lowering the penalty threshold from 5.0% to 4.1%, it does not
improve the Company's ability to avoid a penalty. That is, since the Company's future
market share achievement is computed using the same calculation method, the
relationship between the market share achievement and the penalty threshold remains
unchanged.
As can be seen in Attachment 1, the market share of new ENERGY STARlI
homes to total new homes constructed in 2007 derived under the original method and
revised method both result in a percentage within the market share dead-band under the
pilot resulting in no financial impact to the Company.
The Company and the Staff also spent a considerable amount of time exploring
ways to address the following difficulty of "(6) calculating the incentive or penalty using
an allocation of joint costs based on heating and cooling degree days, not on actual
energy savings or peak reductions." In its original Application, Idaho Power proposed
allocating the costs associated with efficiency measures that save both gas and
electricity based on heating degree days vs. cooling degree days, resulting in about 12%
of these joint costs being allocated to electricity cost-effectiveness calculations. Staff
countered in Comments that the proposed allocation ignored the value of benefits of
peak load reductions for electricity versus natural gas. Over the past several months,
the Staff and the Company have explored various other methods of allocating these joint
costs between gas and electricity.
4
After considerable discussion, the Company and Staff have agreed, for the
purposes of this pilot, to allocate joint costs based on an annualized electricity value
equal to Idaho Power's estimated present value of its 25-year, hourly-weighted, avoided
cost versus a gas value equal to Intermountain Gas Company's current weighted
average cost of gas as stated in its tariff. Both values would be subject to change
annually as conditions change, but currently this method results in about 55% of the joint
costs of ENERGY STARlI Homes being allocated to electricity cost-effectiveness
calculations. The use of either allocation method causes no immediate effect on the
pilot due to the fact that the percentage of ENERGY STARlI Homes compared to total
market is within the market share dead-band.
In an effort to adress difficulty number "(7) uncertainties of average savings per
home and base percent of homes achieved in 2006," the Company commssioned a
study to validate the average savings per home under the ENERGY STAR Homes
Northwest program. Included as Attachment 3 is the report titled, "Energy Savings and
Peak Load Impacts of the Northwest ENERGY STARlI Program in Idaho Climate Zones"
dated October 2007 and prepared for Idaho Power by ECOS Consulting Research
Design. The report provides detailed estimates of the potential energy savings of
ENERGY STARlI Homes cited within Idaho-specific climate zones.
The Company appreciates Staff's willingness to work collaboratively toward
resolving the technical diffculties expressed in its Comments. Furthermore, the
Company views the recommended modifications to the DSM Performance-Based DSM
Pilot program as improvements to the pilot program's metrics. The Company wil
continue to monitor and report the progress made under the pilot program and remain
open to other possible enhancements that will serve to maximize its informational
benefis.
5
Attachment 1
Id
a
h
o

P
o
w
e
r

C
o
m
p
a
n
y
Pe
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e
-
B
a
s
e
d

O
S
M

I
n
c
e
n
t
i
v
e

P
i
l
o
t

-

E
N
E
R
G
Y

S
T
A
R
G
P

H
o
m
e
s

N
o
r
t
h
w
e
s
t
Re
v
i
s
e
d

M
a
r
k
e
t

S
h
a
r
e

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

F
a
r
g
o
Or
i
g
i
n
a
l
We
l
l
s

F
a
r
g
o
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Si
n
g
l
e
-
F
a
m
.
Ho
m
e
s
Ca
l
c
u
l
a
t
e
d
IP
C
o

T
o
t
a
l

N
e
w
Si
n
g
l
e
-
F
a
m
.
IP
C
o

S
i
n
g
l
e
-
Ho
m
e
s
Ca
l
c
u
l
a
t
e
d
Ye
a
r
IP
C
o
A
r
e
a
Co
m
p
l
e
t
e
d

(
1
)
Ma
r
k
e
t

S
h
a
r
e
Re
s
i
d
.

(
2
)
Ra
t
i
o

(
3
)
Fa
m
.
Co
m
p
l
e
t
e
d

(
1
)
Ma
r
k
e
t

S
h
a
r
e
(B
/
A
)
(D
x
E
)
(G
/
F
)
20
0
7
4,
4
2
0
30
3
6.
9
%
8,
3
3
6
73
.
2
%
6,
1
0
2
30
3
5.
0
%
20
0
6
8,
8
6
0
43
9
5.
0
%
12
,
4
6
2
86
.
0
%
10
,
7
1
7
43
9
4.
1
%
No
t
e
s
:
(1
)

"
H
o
m
e
s

C
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
d
"

i
s

t
h
e

n
u
m
b
e
r

r
e
p
o
r
t
e
d

i
n

t
h
e

2
0
0
6

a
n
d

2
0
0
7

D
S
M

A
n
n
u
a
l

R
e
p
o
r
t
s
.
(2
)

N
e
w

a
c
t
i
v
e

r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l

m
e
t
e
r
e
d

s
e
r
v
i
c
e

p
o
i
n
t
s

w
i
t
h

u
s
a
g
e

g
r
e
a
t
e
r

t
h
a
n

z
e
r
o

i
n

2
0
0
7
.
(3
)

R
a
t
i
o
s

o
f

s
i
n
g
l
e
-
f
a
m
i
l
y

d
w
e
l
l
n
g

u
n
i
t
s

t
o

t
o
t
a
l

r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l

d
w
e
l
l
n
g

u
n
i
t
s

f
o
r

2
0
0
6

a
n
d

2
0
0
7

a
r
e

b
a
s
e
d

o
n

n
e
w

h
o
m
e

p
e
r
m
i
t

d
a
t
a
re
p
o
r
t
e
d

b
y

W
e
l
l
s

F
a
r
g
o

B
a
n
k
,

t
w
e
l
v
e

m
o
n
t
h
s

e
n
d
i
n
g

D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r

3
1
,

2
0
0
6

a
n
d

D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r

3
1
,
2
0
0
7

r
e
s
p
e
c
t
i
v
e
l
y
.

R
a
t
i
o
s

i
n
c
l
u
d
e

o
n
l
y

d
a
t
a

c
o
l
l
e
c
t
e
d
fr
o
m

s
a
m
p
l
e

a
r
e
a
s

w
i
t
h
i
n

I
d
a
h
o

P
o
w
e
r
'
s

s
e
r
v
i
c
e

a
r
e
a
.
Attachment 2
ø , _ . _~-~-----------~- -~-~---~- -~~~--~~- -- ----------~-~--------- -~ ---~- -~-----~---~~----~--~---~~--
J-
.. - - -.
Idaho Construction Re ort
Volume 54, Number 12 Dr. Kelly K. Matthews -: Economist
As reported in December 2006, Idaho's Although non-residential constrction has
constrction industr began to slow durg the been inconsistent durg the year, valuation at
latter par of 2006 and contiued to weaken year-end was up 6.1 percent over 2006 - $941.2thoughout 2007. The trend in Idaho miors the milion in 2007 versus $886.7 milion in 2006.
decrease in constrction across- the nation. The
overall declie in constrction valuation is due
largely to the decline in new single-famiy stas.
The table below ilustrates Idaho's anual
constrction valuation totas and growth rates for
the past decade:
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
,2002
'2003
.2004
2005
2006
2007
$1,734,624,821
1,880,698,428
2,020,462,323
2,113,294,271
2,101,630,710
2,083,156,523
2,362,960,764
3,077,618,475
4,049,768,241
3,884,685,606
3,312,295,656
-3.4
8.4
7.4
4.6
-0.6
-0.9
13.4
30.2
31.6
" -4.1
-14.7
,.
..
Â
Å
""
""
Å
Å
Â
""
""
il 2007 single-famly dwelling stars were
down 40.7 percent, with total valuation in the same
category falling 38.3 percent when compared to
2006 figues.
Alterations and Repai, which includes
improvements to both residential and non-
residential categories, maintaied heathy gains
almost èvery month in 2007 and fished solid at
32.9 percent over 2006 figues - $789.6 millon in
2007 versus $594.4 millon in 2006.
The table below provides a regional"
comparson for al thee categories as well as
percent change from 2006 year-end figues.
YEAR-END 2007
New Residential New Non-Altertions &
Area Residential Repairs
Northern $330,524.8 $259,141.0 $62,881.
"% Change -12.3%84.5%-10.4%
Southwestern $981,063.1 $511,851.$611,158.7
% Change -43.6%-148%36.0%
Easter $183,543.1 $106,032.7 $87,532.6
% Change -2.5%23.0%53.7%
Southeastern $86,311.8 $64,213.2 $28,042.1
% Change -126% .8.3%57.3%
BilLDING PERMT CONSTRUCTION SUMY
% Change
December 2007 December 2006 12-Month 2007 12-Month 200
Total New Dwellg Units
Sìngle-Famly
Mûlti-Famly
Mobì1e Homes
Total Residential Value
Sìngle-Family
Multì-Famly
Mobì1e Homes
- .,¡ewNon-Residential Value
Alterations & Re airs Value
541 -9.4 9,624
315 -29.5 6,814
217 66.9 2,483
9 44.0 327
0.4 1,581,442,746
-26.3 1,319,387,726
105.8 257,960,734
-75.3 4,094,286
941,237,949
789,614;961
-31.6
-40.7
10.7
1.6
-34.2
" -38.3
-1.8
-0.5
~
IDAHOCONSTRUCTION REPORT DECEMBER 2007 '-4
NEW NEW
DWELLING TOTAL NEW NON-ADD,ALT TOT-AT"
CITY OR ARA UNITS PERMTS RESIDENTl'RESIDENTIAL & REPAIRS CONSTRUC!"-
Bonners Feny 1 1 $108,000 $0 $0 $108,000
Coeur d'Alene 6 20 2,078,977 14,334,900 2,997,094 19,410,971
, Kootenai County Un 22 '52 7,499,883 1,086,247 199,760 8,785,890
Craigmont 0 3 0 0 85,410 85,410
Grangevile 0 0 0 0 28,099 28,099
Lewiston 16 19 1,546,217 112,040 347,980 2,006,237
Nez Perce County Un 2 4 192,542 160,254 23,142 375,938
Moscow 7 13 513,488 35,000 248,156 796,644
Lata County Un 2 7 173,592 15,600 1,300 190,492
Orofino 0 2 0 0 10,918 10,918
Shoshone County*0 1 0 737,460 0 737,460
Sandpoint 0 6 0 9,024,688 265,440 9,290,128
St. Mares 1 3 5,000 0 1,500 ,6,500
Post Falls 5 14 829,303 543,477 0 1,372,780
TOTAL NORTHERN 62 145 $12,947,002 $26;049,666 $,4,208,799 $43,205,467
Boise City 150 977 $38,311;063 $4,310,779 .$21,188,958 $63,810,800
Mendian 44 172 8,98~,299 .2,823,076 2,126,101 13,935,476
Ada Couhty Un 34 59 " 8;ì46,574 4,820,000 1,490,191 14;46,765
Caldwell 26 134 2,822,862 650,000 43,888 3,516,750
Canyon County Un 16 39 2,927,439 389,794 190,644 3,507,877
Nampa 8 36 580,775 3,775,600 667,878 5,024,253
Val1eyCounty*0 1 0 0 24,000 24,000
Emmett 2 12 202,802 0 190,495 393,297
Gooding County*2 9 419,148 0 307,258 726,406
Hailey 0 7 0 0 112,500 112,500
Ketchum 7 8 4,960,000 0 215,000 5,175,000
Sun Valley 0 6 0 . 35,000 556,000 591,000
Blaine County Un 0 1 0 0 30,000 30,,J)OO
Jerome 4 10 336,610 131,472 337,520 801.
Mountain Home 12 17 893,760 0 106,208 999~"6
payette 2 4 242,967 0 34,444 277,411
Shoshone 0 O.0 0 0 0
Twin Falls City 20 46 3,580,979 1,365,253 623,-209 5,569,441
Twin Falls Co Un 2 16 135,600 103,334 589,767 828,701
Weiser 0 4 0 12,120 336,500 348,620
TOTAL SOUTHWSTERN ,329 1,558 $72,546,878 $18,416,428 $29,170,561 $120,133,867
Blackfoot 2 4 $327,120 $27,000 $400,000 $754,120
Bingham County Un 5 8 559,258 40,600 76,320 676,178
Idaho Falls 18 36 1,593,868 668,661 459,088 2,721,617
Ammon 60 16 4,504,089 . 743,736 75,654 5,323,479
Bonnevile Co Un 19 54 1,466,009 745,100 190,248 2,401,357
Rexburg 7 10 1,173,114 2,913,236 235,200 4,321,550
Rigby 2 7 222,378 1,641,581 22,575 1,886,534
Salmon 0 3 0 2,650 38,800 41,450
Lemhi CourityUn 1 9 '. .64,400 0 239,249 303,649
St. Anthony 0 0 0 0 0 ,0
Fremont County Un 12 34 2,025,207 502,325 399,489 2,927,021
TOTAL EASTERN 126 181 $11,935,443'$7,284,889 $2,136,623 $21,356,955
American Falls 1 6 $190,000 $0 $21,483 $211,483
Power County Un 0 3 0 0 35,282 35,282
Cassia County 5 7 644,600 0 29,200 673,800
Chubbuck 0 9 0 1,595,QOO 267,275 1,862,275
Montpelier 0--1 0 0 500 500
Pocatello 9 26 981,130 97,200 1,718,597 2,796,927
Banock County Un 5 6 1,063,117 0 48,280 1,111,397
Preston 0 1 0 30,000 0 30,000
Frain County Un 2 3 456,000 0 14,400 470
Rupert 2 4 284,074 0 59;198 34.
Minidoka County Un 0 2 0 0 7,740 ~~
Soda Spnngs 0 0 0 0 0 0
TOTAL SOUTHEASTERN 24 68 $3,618,921 $1,722,200 $2,201,955 $7,543,076
TOTAL 57 LOCATIONS 541 1,952 $101,048,244 $53,473,183 $37,717,938 ,$192,239,365
*Includes entire county.Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
2
IDAHO CONSTRUCTION REPORT DECEMBER 2006f.'
NEW
DWELLING TOTAL NEW NEW ADD,ALT TOTAL"~ITYORAREA RESIDENTIAl,UNTS PERMITS NONRSIDENTIAL & REPAIRS CONSTRUCTION
Bonners Ferr 0 1 $0 $0 $190,000 $190,000Coeur d'Alene 4 29 589,020 65,490 490,796 1,145,306
Kootenai County Un 20 61 5,306,594 764,268 357,607 6,428,469
Craigmont 0 1 0 0 300 300Gragevile0500214,780 214,780Lewiston940935,345 135,409 204,952 1,275,706
Nèz Perce County Un 1 1 28,539 0 0 28,539
Moscow 7 16 1,306,000 0 184,684 1,490,684
Latah County Un 4 16 432,685 470,674 23,937 927,296Orofio040018,800 18,800
Shoshone County*0 7 0 31,100 1,607,807 1,638,907
Sandpoint 42 6 13,600,000 0 139,000 13,739,000St. Mares 0 4 0 0 27,900 27,900
Post Falls 30 21 4,278,985 363,957 49,800 4,692,742
TOTAL NORTHERN 117 212 $26,477,168 $1,830,898 $3,510,363 $31,818,429
Boise City 86 1,073 $10,857,297 $10,172,929 $21,481,312 $42,511,538
Meridian 60 92 15,260,750 2,822,832 642,059 18,725,641
-ACOllty Un 31."43 7,5.08,695 642,450 1,144,642 9,295,787
Caldwell 48 422 6,979,100 1,092,572 330,052 8,401,724
Canyon Courity Un 20 58 4,478,916 756,733 484,810 5,720,459
Nampa 46 75 7,007,488 2,295,000 1,193,837 10,496,325
Valley County*5 6 1,272,913 0 22,000 1,294,913
Emmett 3 21 433,177 121,209 114,562 668,948
Gooding County*5 12 317,307 2,172,813 4,100 2,494,220
Hailey 0 5 0 0 60,900 60,900
Ketchum 0 7 0 0 669,723 669,723
Sun Vallèy 0 37 0 0 1,235,928 1,235,928
. . . Blaine County Un 0 4 0 0 238,200 238,200
(,
lerome 1 10 1,500 66,267 711,618 779,385
..' Mountain Home 8 19 614,645 0 74,255 688,900
Payette 2 4 242,967 10,900 23,544 277,411
Shoshone 2 1 220,000 0 0 220,000
Twin Falls City 14 43 1,5al,977 8,533,043 391,956 10,506,976
Twin Falls Co Un 7 16 1,165,717 117,369 142,043 1,425,129
Weiser 0 3 0 22,539 0 22,539
TOTAL SOUTHWESTERN 338 1,951 $57,942,449'$28,826,656 $28,965,541 $115,734,646
Blackfoot 2 3 $315,000 $0 $20,000 $335,000
Bingham County Un 10 16 854,037 250,980 25,656 1,130,673
Idaho Falls 25 39 2,276,231 367,965 395,688 3,039,884Amron814849,517 417,000 30,532 1,297,049
Bonnevile Co Un 27 64 1,902,000 199,827 432,400 2,534,227
Rexburg 10 16 2,273,796 0 493,833 2,767,629
Rigby NO PERMITS ISSUED 0
Salmon 0 1 0 0 26,040 26,040
Lemhi County Un 3 .5 "218,995 0 15,400 234;395
St. Anthony 0 1 0 0 7,408 7,408
Fremont County Un 3 9 1,392,559 147,357 7,408 1,547,324
TOTAL EASTERN 88 168 $10,082,135 $1,383,129 $1,454,365 $12,919,629
American Falls 0 3 $0 $0 $3,500 $3,500
Power County Un 0 1 0 35 0 35
Cassia County 8 15 503,879 1,166,036 0 1,669,915
Chubbuck 3 5 319,068 303,500 0 622,568
Montpelier NO PERMITS ISSUED 0
Pocatello 32 46 3,196,938 630,000 694,050 4,520,988
Bannock County Un 7 9 1,540,159 2,800 39,945 1,582,904Preton0103,200,000 0 3,200,000
.' . Franin County Un . 2 3 220,000 0 26,400 246,400
(.~..tupert 0 2 0 2,000 4,370 6,370
Minidoka County Un 2 11 389,544 12,000 181,680 583,224
Soda Springs NO PERMITS ISSUED 0
tOTAL SOUTHEASTERN 54 96 $6,169,588 $5,316,371 $949,945 $12,435,904
TOTAL 57 LOCATIONS 597 2,427 $100,671,340 $37,357;054 $34,880,214 $172,908,608
*Includes entire county.Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
3
NEW RESIDENTIAL UNITS December 2007 :;.
# MOBILE
# SINGLE SINGLE-# MULTI- MULTI-HOME MOBILE
FAMILY FAMILY FAMILY FAMILY DWELLING HOME
CITY OR AREA UNITS VALUATION UNITS .. VALUATION UNITS VALUATI
Bonners Ferr 1 $108,000 0 $0 0 $U
Coeur d'Alene 6 $2,078,977 0 $0 0 $0
Kootenai County Un 22 $1,499,883 0 . $0 0 $0
Cragmont 0 $0 0 $0'0 $0
Grangeville 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Lewiston 5 $1,034,926 10 $488,000 1 $23,291
Nez Perce County Un 2 $192,542 0 $0 0 $0
Moscow 1 $196,000 6 $317,488 0 $0
Latah County Un 1 $162,342 0 $0 1 $11,250
Orofino 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Shoshone County*0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Sandpoint 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
St. Mares 0 $0 0 $0 1 $5,000
Post Falls 4 $829,303 0 $0 1 $0
TOTAL NORTHERN 42 $12,101,973 .16 $805,488 4 $39,541
Boise City 26 $5,449,439 124 $32,861,624 0 $0
Meridian 35 $8,254,147 8 $732,152 1 $0
. Ada County Un 34 $8,146,574 O.$0 0 $0
Caldwell 26 $2,822,862 0 $0 0 $0
Canyon County Un 16 $2,927,439 0 $0 0 $0
Nampa 3 $310,642 3 $230,000 2 $40,133
Valley County*0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Emmett 2 $202,802 0 $0 0 $0
Gooding County*2 $419,148 0 $0 0 $0
Hailey 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Ketchum 1 $1,800,000 6 $3,160,000 0 $0
Sun Valley D.0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Blaine County Un 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Jerome 2 $311,610 2 $25,000 0 (. Mountain Home 8 $604,620 4 $289,140 0 ..
Payette 2 .$242,967 0 $0 0 $0
Shòshone .0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Twin Falls City 18 $3,361,612 2 '$219,367 0 $0 ~
Twin Fal.1s Co Un 2 $135,600 0 $0 0 $0
Weiser 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
TOTAL SOUTHWESTERN 177 $34,989,462 149 $37,517,283 3 $40,133
Blackfoot 2 $327,120 0 $0 0 $0
Bingham County Un 5 $559,258 0 $0 0 $0
Idaho Falls 18 $1,593,868 0 $0 0 $0
Ammon 8 $724,063 52 $3,780,026 0 $0
Bonnevile Co Un 17 $1,453,009 0 $0 2 $13,000
Rexburg 7 $1,173,114 0 $0 0 $0
Rigby 2 $222,378 0 $0 0 $0
Salmon 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Lemhi County Un .1 $64,400 -:LO.$0 0 ';"-'$0
St. Anthony 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Fremont CoUIty Un 12 $2,025,207.0 $0 0 $0
TOTAL EASTERN 72 $8,142,417 52 $3,780,026 2 $13,000
America Falls 1 $190,000 .0 $0 0 $0
Power County 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Cassia County 5 . $644,600 0 $0 0 $0
Chubbuck 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Montpelier 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Pocatello 9 $981,130 0 $0 0 $0
Banock County Un 5 $1,063,117 0 $0 0 $0
Preston 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Franin County Un 2 $456,000 ./ -,
Rupert 2 $284;074 0 $0 0 (
Minidoka Cõunty Un 0 $0 0 $0 0 '","v
Soda Springs 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
TOTAL SOUTHEASTERN 24 $3,618,921 0 $0 0 $0
TOTAL 57 LOCATIONS 315 $58,852,773 217 $42,102,797 9 $92,674
*Includes entire county.Wells Fargo Bank, NA.
--_..._....6
~,
r...
~~TYQRAREA
NEW RESIDENTIAL UNITS
# SINGLE-
FAMLY
DWLUNITS
SINGLE-
FAMY
VALUATION
# MULTI-
FAMY
DWLUNITS
MULTI-
FAMY
VALUATION
# MOBILE
HOME
DWLUNIS
DECEMBER 2006
MOBILE
HOME
VALUATION,\ ...onners Fer
Coeur d'Alene
Kootenai County Un
Craigmont
Grngevile
Lewiston
NezPerce Co Un
Moscow
Latah County Un
Orofio
Shoshone County*
Sandpoint
S1. Mares
Post Falls
TOTAL NORTHERN
Boise City
Meridian
Ada County Un
Caldwell
Canyon County Un
Nampa
Valley County*
Emmett
Gooding County*
Hailey
Ketchum
Sun Valley
Blaine County Un
r 'fome
Î\ .ountain Home
. Payette
Shoshone
Twin Falls City
Twi Falls Co Un
Weiser
TOTAL SOUTHWESTERN
Blackfoot
Bingham County Un
Idaho Falls
Ammon
Bonnevile Co Un
Rexburg
Rigby
Salmon
. Lemhi County Un
S1. Anthony
Fremont County Un
TOTAL EASTERN
Amerca Falls'
Power County Un
Cíisia County
Chubbuck.
Montpelier
Pocatello
Banock County Un
Preston
Franlin County Un
\ ¡pert'-..ýfinidoka County Un
Soda Sprigs
TOTAL SOUTHEASTERN
¡TOTAL 57 LOCATIONS
*Incliides entire coiinty.
7
44.
32
60
28
.,,- 45
17
41
4
3
4
264
2
8
25
8
- 26
10
3
85
32
7
54
447
4
18
589,020
5,306,594
5
1
5
4
557,490
28,539
1,058,000
432,685
o o
1,173,283
$9,145,611
$8,330,495 .
15,260,750
7,301,695
6,977;100
4,459,516
6,594,531
1,272,913
433,177
287,307
o
8
2
o
14
6
o
614,645
242,967
o
1,581,977
\ 1,125,397
$54,482,470
$315,000
829,537
2,276,231
849,517
1,885,500
2,273,796
3 218¡995
1,392,559
$10,041,135
8
3
503,879
319,068
3,196,938
1,540,159
2 220,000
2 389,544
$6,169,588
$79,838,804
NO NEW RESIDENTIAo 0o 0
NO NEW RESIDENTIA
NO NEW RESIDENTIA
2 343,295o 0
2 248,000o 0
NO NEW RESIDENTIA
NO NEW RESIDENTIA
42 13,600,000
NO NEW RESIDENTIA
23 3,105,702
69 $17,296,997
54 $2,526,802o 0o 0"'d"" Öo 0
5 412,957o 0o 0o 0
NO NEW RESIDENTIA
NO NEW RESIDENTIAL
NO NEW RESIDENTIA
NO NEW RESIDENTIALo 0o 0Ö 0
2 220,000o 0o 0
NO NEW RESIDENTIAL
61 $3,159,759o $0o 0o 0o 0o 0o 0
NO NEW RESIDENTIAL
NO NEW RESIDENTIAc:O' . . 0
NO NEW RESIDENTIAo 0o $0
NO NEW RESIDENTIA
NO NEW RESIDENIAo 0o 0
NO NEW RESIDENTIAo 0o 0
NO NEW RESIDENTIo 0
NO NEW RESIDENTIAo 0
NO NEW RESIDENTIAo $0
130 $20,456,756
7
1
o
o
o
- 0
1
o
2
o
o
2
o
o
o
34,560
o
o
o
o o
o
4
o
o
3
3
3
o
1
o
1
o
$34,560
$0
o
207,000
-'" -, '2;000""
19,400
o
o
o
30,000
1,500
o
o
o
o
40,320
13
o
2
o
o
1
o
$300,220
$0
24,500
o
o
16,500
o
o .,'.......'C.,. ,0."...
o
3
o
$41,000
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o o
o o
o $0
$375,780 I
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
20
"
NEW RESIDENTIAL UNITS TWELVE MONTHS '.
CUMULATIVE 2007
# SINGLE SINGLE-# MULTI- MULTI-# MOBILE MOBILE
FAMILY FAMILY FAMILY FAMILY HOME HOY'''
CITY OR AREA UNITS VALUATION UNITS,VALUATION UNITS VALUATí -
Boiiers Ferr 8 $803,854 0 $0 1 $0
Coeur d'Alene 275 $54,074,580 266 $30,219,597 4 $167;712
Kootenai County Un 320 $100,903,734 28 $14,084,684 49 $0
Cragmont .1 $220,000 0 $0 0 $0
Grangevile 7 $956,465 0 $0 3 $90,000
Lewiston 57 $9,840,030 66 $6,020,482 23 $344,839
Nez Perce County Un 61 $7,220,569 0 $0 2 $66,065
Moscow 49 $11,654,000 34 $4,577,358 3 $0
Latah County Un 60 $8,533,526 0 $0 15 $114,967
Orofino 5 $552,000 0 $0 1 $18,000
Shoshone County*32 , $3,229,592 36 $2,591,289 8 $43,185
Sandpoint 35 $11,548,883 18 $2,234,624 1 . $0
St. Mares 3 $374,536 0 $0 1 $5,000
Post Falls 176 $34,697,469 297 $25,337,711 10 $0
TOTAL NORTHERN 1089 $244,609,238 745 $85,065,745 12i $849,768
Boise City 426 $88,954,750 658 $77,063,638 0 $0
Meridian 805 $193,984,855 40 $4,495,726 7 $0
Ada County Un 527 $144,0934,457-'.40 $2,843;991 2 '$77,000
Caldwell 586 $84,770,969 306 $17,863,562 18 $62,397
Canyon County Un 243 $55,767,095 0 $0 30 $727,496
Nampa 287 $42,941,991 87 $5,315,927 3 $48,233
Valley County*116 $32,290,832 18 $2,697,451 14 $200,357
Emmett 48 $7,950,317 0 $0 1 $15,600
Gooding County*51 $8,843,119 0 $0 13 $356,890
Hailey 15 $3,965,561 6 $834,498 0 $0
Ketchum 13 $14,332,230 22 $12,292,528 0 $0
Sun Valley 10 $16~912,000 21 $17,400,000 0 $0
Blaine County Un 39 $50,739,165 0 $0 0 . .~n
Jerome 98 $10,514,650 82 $2,978,312 3 $38,'(
Mounta Home 135 $12,262,270 104 $6,670,005 1 $65,OLiv
Payette 25 $2,652,661 0 $Ò 7 $12~150
Shoshone 0 $0 0 . $0 0 $0
Twin Falls City 258 $35,021,417 22 $2,205,640 .8 .$80,157
. Twin Falls Co Un 102 $18,130,018 0 $0 0 $0
Weiser 16 $1,749,396 0 $0 1 $0 .
TOTAL SOUTHWESTERN 3,800 $826,717,753 1,406,$152,661,278 108 $1,684,030
Blackfoot 36 $4,849,720 46 $2,965,559 0 $0
Bingham County Un 157 $18,699,901 2 $147,026 22 $153,090
ldaho Falls 300 $27,944,995 197 $10,043,272 0 $0
Ammon 222 $21,957,324 54 $3,948,026 0 $0
Boiieville Co Un 347 $32,819,013 8 $219,200 30 $556,150
Rexburg 139 $26,687,993 6 $946,108 0 $0
Rigby 22 $2,830,134 0 $0 0 $0
Salon 7 $4:21,400 ".;,U 9-:. :$0 3 -.' .:~Ji5,OO
Lein County Un 38 $4,198,492 '0 $0 4 $8,580
St. Anthony 8 $813,763 4 $661,216 1 $10,134
Fremont County Un 134 $22,525,491 0 $0 8 $129,027
TOTAL EASTERN 1,410 $163,748,226 317 $18,930,407 68 $864,481
American Falls 7 $727,000 0 $0 2 $30,000
. Power County Un 10 $2,956,618 0 $0 4 $32,195
Cassia County 78 $19,383,397 2 $108;000 13 $282,370
Chubbuck 67 $7,119,396 0 $0 0 $0
Montpelier 16 $2,554,000 0 $0 . 0 $0
Pocatello 162 $18,234,103 7 $646,894 o .$0
Banock County Un 74 $16,294,831 0 $0 1 $14,440
Preston 29 $5,225,200 4 $350,000 o .$0
Franin County Un 31 $5,670,500 0 $0 0
(- ~Rupert 8 $1,062,109 2 $198,410 0
Minidoka County Un 31 $4,822,535 II $0 10 $337,002
Soda Springs 2 $262,820 0 $0 0 $0
TOTAL SOUTHEASTERN 515 $84,312,509 15 $1,303,304 30 $696,007
TOTAL 57 LOCATIONS 6,814 $1,319,387,726 2,483 $257,960,734 327 $4,094,286
-*Inc!udes entire'county.Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
g ---_._...-'..
.,
NEW RESIDENTIAL UNITS TWELVE MONTHS 2006 .- ,
# SINGLE- SINGLE-# MULTI- MUTI-# MOBILE MOBILE
FAMILY FAMY FAMLY FAMILY HOME HOME.' "'lTY OR ARA DWLUNTS VALUATION DWLUNITS VALUATION DWLUNITS VALUATIONi
L Jnners Fer 3 $350,400 0 $0 0 $0
Coeur d'Alene 232 47,046,856 105 49,730,848 5 69,510
Kootenai County Un 334 91,941,092 2 266,332 74 0
Craigmont 1 1,000 0 0 2 8,800Grangevile5529,223 0 0 0 0
Lewiston 60 10,255,350 48 6,879,706 10 149,710
Nez'Perce Co Un 46 5,229,700 0 0 0 0Moscow7816,171,776 208 17,949,526 . 0 0
Lata County Un 61 6,053,034 0 0 15 . 67,422Orofio2186,000 0 0 0 0
Shoshone County*43 3,349,963 120 8,356,918 14 0
Sandpoint 31 4,959,44 138 37,660,810 0 0St. Mares 2 274,000 0 0 3 65,000
Post Falls 292 54,310,534 145 14,813,437 6 0
TOTAL NORTHRN 1,190 $240,658,372 766 $135,657,577 129 $360,442
Boise City 588 $142,716,074 584 $40,780,915 0 $0Meridian1,559 335,616,201 106 8,607,660 .19 0
Ada County Un 1,103 267,730,727 40 3,462,955 8 496,676
Càldwèll 1:181. .. . ,156,301;001 . ".....0'.;.....-.' 0 17 ... " '2'6;900'
Canyon County Un 482 110,140,193 0 0 37 783,623
Nampa 1,142 179,020,357 183 9,632,198 0 0
Valley County*439 141,426,191 37 9,194,150 16 143,993Emmett16624,938,467 7 699,211 3 77,920
Gooding County*49 6,587,075 7 240,018 7 88,400Hailey8717,682,196 11 1,355,854 0 0
Ketchum 21 24,922,225 21 6,450,000 0 0
Sun Valley 8 14,638,003 24 16,565,837 0 0
Blaine County Un 70 72,090,290 12 1,454,000 0 0..T~rome 148 16,658,402 2 164,445 5 73,400
Juntain Home 125 . 11,664,667 65 4,298,235 3 0
l'ayette 47 6,077,743 0 0 3 20,000
Shoshonè 10 1,215,977 4 385,000 0 0..TwinFalls City 561 74,706,841 60 4,347,600 1 0
.. Twin Falls Co Un 109 22,287,577 0 0 17 804,530
Weiser 24 2,855,633 2 116,000 2 0
TOTAL SOUTHWSTERN 7,919 $1,629,281,840 1,165 $107,754,078 138 $2,785,442
Blackfoot 54 $6,233,326 12 $1,532,112 0 $0Bingham County Un 164 19,287,267 0 0 16 261,142
Idaho Falls 314 28,029,859 135 6,018,183 0 0Ammon32425,669,409 4 133,244 0 0
Bonnevile Co Un 393 36,939,815 14 643,400 21 523,167
Rexburg 138 26,840,877 :30 3,861,602 0 ,0
Rigby 29 3,881,874 8 348,000 0 0Salmon11843,445 0 0 0 0
Lemhi County Un 39 5,196,988 0 0 6 0
St.Anthony 2 204,425 0 0 0 0
Fremont County Un . 143 21,767,082 0 0 4 91,860
TOTAL EASTERN 1,611 $174,894,367 203 $12,536,541 47 $876,169
American Falls 18 $2,153,000 0 $0 0 $0
Power County Un 10 1,877,181 0 0 2 38,500
Cassia County 71 6,848,399 40 2,290,971 0 0
Chubbuck 243 23,253,206 24 1,440,000 0 0
Montpelier 4 340,000 0 " 0 0 0
Pocatello 260 28,131,996 46 3,069,077 0 0
Banock County Un 86 15,462,159 0 0 1 0
Preston 17 2,774,000 0 0 0 0
franin County Un 39 7,062,500 0 0 0 0
('pert 0 0 0 0 0 0
\.. .midoka County Un 25 3,712,382 0 0 5 55,400
Soda Springs 3 282,000 0 0 0 0
TOTAL SOUTASTERN 776 $91,896,823 110 $6,800,048 8 $93,900
TOTAL 57 LOCATIONS 11,496 $2,136,731,402 2,244 $262,748,244 322 $4,115,953
*Includes entire county.Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
C)
IDAHO CONSTRUCTION REpORT
Published by Wells Fargo.Ban, N.A.,
Economics Deparment, Salt Lake City, Utah
Contact Information:
Dr. KellyK. Matthews
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
299 South Main Street, ioth Floor
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
801/246-5582 (phone)
801/246-5198 (fax)
kmatthe~wellsfargo.com
For questions regarding this publication
contact Ronda Burrell at
Ronda.Burrell~wellsfargo.com
.).;
/
(
,'/'--
\
(
Attachment 3
Energy Savings and Peak Load Impacts of the
Northwest EnergyStar( Program in Idaho Climate Zones
IECC 2006 Base Standards
for
Idaho Power Company
~ECCTCPE 4056 9TH AVENUE NE SEATTLE, WA 98105(206) :322-:375:3 FAX: (206) :325-7270
David Baylon
October, 2007
1. Introduction
Beginning in 2003 the Pacific Northwest embarked on a new home program based in part
on the national EnergyStar~ New Homes program. The Northwest platform was
designed to replace previously-run utiity conservation programs in new single-family
constrction (SGC, etc). The measures were focused on a set of insulation, glazing and
(most importantly) equipment measures that would provide significant savings especially
to the region's more stringent code in Oregon and Washington. It was also designed to
provide the region's utilties and contractors with a single prescriptive standard that could
provide energy savings and could improve construction standards throughout the region.
Of course the savings from this standard vary substantially throughout the region,
partially because of the relatively colder climates in places like Boise, Idaho and partly
because building standards in Idaho and Montana were somewhat less stringent than
those in Oregon and Washington.
The program has been in operation for the past three years and has been particularly
effective in Idaho as it provided a market differentiation that was accepted by several
builders in the Boise market. Furthermore, the inspections required by the Northwest
EnergyStar Builder Option Packages (NWBOP) represented an increased level of quality
assurance over what had been previously practiced.
In the previous analysis, all these factors were taken into account to develop the energy
savings estimates and economic benefits of this program to both the Idaho consumers and
Idaho Power. Many of these savings were the result of significant improvements over
then-enforced standards of insulation, heating and cooling equipment and window
performance.
The situation in Idaho has changed significantly since the original analysis was
completed. Most importantly, the IECC has become a universally accepted standard
throughout the building departments and code jurisdictions in Idaho. At least in the
major markets of the Boise area it has been accepted as the guide for constrction
practice for almost all new homes. Previous energy savings analysis was based on the
IECC 2003 standard. Beginning in January 2008, revised IECC 2006 standards wil be
implemented and enforced in Idaho. This standard includes a significant increase in the
insulation and window performance requirements as well as a full implementation ofthe
federal equipment performance (heat pumps and air conditioning) standards that were
introduced in early 2006.
Significant features of the new code are largely the thermal standards for windows, walls
and floors that have come to mirror the NWBOP EnergyStar(! standard. A very
significant change in the new code is the development of a revised federal standard that
applies to heat pumps and air conditioning units requiring that the units have a cooling
standard of SEERlI 13, which is essentially the same as the NWBOP standard for cooling
equipment. The result of these changes in standards is that many of the energy savings
opportnities available in the old Idaho standards and practices are no longer available.
The areas that EnergySta~ now exceeds the IEee 2006 standards are significant but
they focus on quality control and quality installation, rather than on incremental
improvements in insulation and windows specifications. There are several areas where
the NWBOP specifications offer additional savings over the IECC standard:
. The most significant one of these is the use of 90+ AFUE furnaces, which result in
significant gas savings but no appreciable change in electric savings.
. For this analysis we have developed heat pump paths to be applied as upgrades in
homes that might otherwise include a heat pump operating at federal minimum
standard. The NWBOP requirement for these heat pumps is HSPF 8.5 and was
used in this analysis. However, it must be noted that the Federal minimum SEER
requirement remains the same as the requirement of the NWBOP.
. The NWBOP anticipates a substantial commissioning function in terms of training
and installation of heat pumps and air conditioning units. This has come about
under agreements in the region and with various providers to allow about a five
percent additional savings as a result of proper charge, proper airflow, and proper
installation. The heat pump commissioning standards also include a credit for
implementation of a control standard that insures the effective operation of
modern systems.
. The IECC has broad guidelines for duct sealing and calculations of duct efficiency.
These are largely unenforced and unenforceable and represent a similar level of
sealing to what has been used as base case for regional standards over the last
year. We use the averages associated with the regional residential baselines study
(RL W, 2006). The NWBOP standards has specific leakage targets that are
verified by the contractor and the EnergyStar rater through a quality control
process, adopted by the RTF and known by the acronym PTCS.
. Basement insulation requirements in the IECC 2006 are appreciably less stringent
than the NWBOP standards.
. The lighting and appliance standards requirements of the NWBOP are not
represented in the current IECC 2006.
2. Savings Analysis Methodology
2.1. Energy Savings
To evaluate the impacts ofthe various features ofthe NW EnergyStar
specifications as ap~lied through the NWBOP, we used the SEEMil simulation
modeL. The SEEM model is an hourly simulation that allows for a direct
modeling of annual heating and cooling energy requirements and load shapes for
purposes of evaluating energy performance. This model was developed by
Ecotope with support from the Northwest Power and Conservation Council
(NPCC) and the Northwest Energy Efficiency Allance (NEEA) to provide the
region with an accurate model for simulating the heating and cooling impacts of
improved duct sealing and improved equipment specifications. The SEEM model
2
is capable of developing hourly load shapes for peak load conditions. Thus, the
entire analysis was conducted using the SEEMlI hourly simulation model,
providing savings estimates for a series of analytical prototypes used to
characterize the savings in the range of new residences in the Idaho Power service
territory.
The analysis was conducted using three separate prototypes designed to represent
a range of construction practices and building designs:
i . The "standard" prototype, 2200 square feet, used for savings estimates of
NWBOP throughout the region.
2. A basement prototype, 2688 square feet;
3. A small home prototype, 1344 square feet.
Given the nature of Boise construction, it is likely that the use of the standard
prototype should remain the basis for savings calculations. However, in this
report, results for all three models are presented.
A base case for comparison was generated for each prototype using the standards
from the IECC, which exactly mimic the required U-values or R-values for each
component of the home. The EnergyStari: model is also produced and mimics
the NWBOP specification applied to each prototype. These specifications include
duct leakage and heat pump control and equipment commissioning. In addition to
this set of analysis runs and savings estimates, an additional run was conducted
assessing the impact of an increase in insulation levels and thermal standards that
would reflect the prescriptive standard developed by the state ofIdaho to qualify
for the Federal Tax Credit (FTC). These standards also include an upgrade in the
Air conditioning SEER and the heat pump HSPF and a 35% improvement in
building shell tightness leading to an reduced infiltration rate in the home. Finally
this standard mandates that all ducts would be moved inside the heated shell of
the home substantially reducing the duct leakages and thermal losses.
2.2. Peak Load Impacts
We reviewed the Typical Meteorological Year (TMY) tapes to see to what extent
the conditions that lead to peak utilty demand is represented in the standard
weather fie for Boise. Careful examination showed that the July i 0 day in the
TMY2 tape reaches 102°. This is not a peak temperature for the Boise area in the
most extreme years but it is consistent with the records presented by the Utiity
for the typical conditions over the last decade.
The overall energy estimation was done using the entire TMY tape, but the
program was asked to output detailed data from the "peak" day. The sizing of the
air conditioning unit was not done using these temperatures. The ASHRAE
design temperature for Boise is 96°. Using this temperature, a load was
calculated and equipment was sized roughly 25% and 100% above this value
(depending on the run). In both cases, the sizing included an arbitrary addition of
3
6000 BTU/hr to account for duct losses. The EnergyStar home uses a simplified
sizing algorithm developed for this program. This results in a smaller equipment
size than was assumed for the current practice. The IECC 2006 does not provide
direct guidance so the sizing is based on the observed practice in the Boise
market.
The SEEM model was used to explore the impact of cooling "set-up" temperature
as part of thermostat behavior. This is a timer or clock mechanism that sets the
cooling temperature at 4° above the comfort temperature during daytime periods
when there is no occupancy. The impact ofthis behavior would typically save
about 10% ofthe energy required but since the thermostat is reset as people return
from work (about 5 PM) it has a very large effect on the peak draw of the home at
that time.
3. Prototype Analysis
Three prototypes were used in this analysis. The first one mimicked the standard
prototype and was used in previous analyses as well as for all the regional savings and
specification developments. This prototype is a one and a half story home with 2200 ft?
of heated floor area, 16.6% glazing area, and a crawlspace.
The second prototype is a somewhat larger home with a fully conditioned basement that
is one story above grade and one story below grade and is 2688 ft.2 with a glazed area of
14% of total floor area with roughly half of the heated floor area is a below grade
concrete slab.
The third prototype is a small home of 1344 ft? This prototype is a ranch style home
with 13% glazed area and is modeled as a single-story building with a crawlspace.
Table 1 summarizes the characteristics of each prototype for both the IECC 2006 base
case and for the NWBOP improvement case. In addition, a proposed EnergyStariI Plus
case (designed to meet the requirements ofthe Federal Tax Credit) is shown and
represents additional savings packages available to the utilty. For the most part, savings
calculations are made comparing the IECC base case to the EnergyStariI NWBOP and
EnergyStariI Plus packages to generate savings based on envelope performance,
equipment and duct standards, and control and commissioning standards met under the
EnergyStar(. program.
The modeling was repeated for all prototypes with all measures and equipment, using the
Pocatello, Idaho weather data. Pocatello has a noticeably lower cooling load than Boise.
As a result, much ofthe savings available from cooling equipment, for both peak and
average, were not available in the Pocatello climate. A summary of both climate zones is
included in the simulation results.
4
Table 1: Prototype Packa2e Assumptions
Component Packages
Base EStar FTC
Ceilng R38 R38 R49t
Wall R19 R21 R21*
Basement Wall R13 R21 R21*
Floor (Over Crawl)R30 R30 R30
Window U 0.35 0.35 0.32
WindowSHGC 0.4 0.35 0.3
Ducts Normal Sealed Interior
AFUE (Gas)80 90 92
HSPF (Heat pump)7.7 8.5 9.0
SEER 13 13 14
DHW (elect EF).90 .93 .93
DHW(gas EF).58 .61 .61
Liahtina LPD (W/sf)1.75 1.1 1.1
* Advanced frame wallt Advanced frame ceilng trsses
4. Simulation Results
Table 2 summarizes the simulation results for heating and cooling energy use for the two
climate zones and the three prototypes with each package including the IECC base case
and the two EnergyStar(j packages. These runs were made using a gas furnace and
central air conditioner.
Table 2 Simulation Results Gas Furnace,
Boise Pocatello
Usage Usage
Package Heating Fan Cooling Heating Fan Cooling
th kWh kWh kW th kWh kWh kW
Standard (2200 sf)
Base (IECC 2006)844 482 1844 6.1 1070 604 1273 5.4
Estar (NWBOP1)667 458 1416 3.7 829 568 959 3.5
Estar+ (FTC)471 331 835 3.1 581 410 543 2.7
Basement (2688 sf)
Base (IECC 2006)686 408 1253 4.5 870 518 783 3.9
Estar (NWBOP1)591 405 974 3.7 740 509 586 3.2
Estar+ (FTC)481 337 647 2.7 603 424 370 2.3
Small (1344 sf)
Base (IECC 2006)411 246 1160 3.7 526 315 796 3.4
Estar (NWBOP1)341 233 915 2.5 429 294 616 2.3
Estar+ (FTC)245 171 626 2.1 309 216 422 1.8
The SEEM model allows the simulation to calculate both the heating and the fan energy
when describing the impact of a furnace. In the case of the gas furnace analysis, this
means that there wil be some electrical savings that are generated as the result of the
assumed operation of the gas furnace. For this purpose we have used the standard fan
5
(PSC) as part ofthe analysis. As can be seen in the summary in Table 2, the fan
represents a small but perceptible impact on the overall electric energy use ofthe heating
and cooling system.
In Table 2, the results of all the SEEM runs associated with all the prototypes and the
individual types of EnergyStarq¡ measures are summarized. These represent total
estimated space heating in the two climates for which the runs were performed. In all
cases, the runs assumed a nighttime thermostat set back during the heating season from
seventy degrees to sixty four degrees. The thermostat is set up from seventy four degrees
to seventy eight degrees in the daytime during the cooling season. These two
assumptions have the effect of reducing the overall energy use predicted by SEEMlI and
are especially relevant to the capacity factors associated with the peak cooling loads
during a given period.
The kilowatt capacity estimates from SEEMq¡ are based on a maximum of energy used by
the air conditioning system on the peak day ofthe cooling season. This invariably occurs
when the set up of the thermostat is implemented, in this case, at five o'clock in the
evening.
The EnergyStarlI cases have been simulated using a heating and cooling system sized in
accordance with the EnergyStarq¡ calculator presented to the RTF and used by the
regional EnergyStarq¡ program. It has the effect of reducing the equipment cooling
capacity by approximately one ton. As a result, most of the reduced capacity demanded
for the EnergyStarQY cases is the result of smaller equipment.
There are numerous ways to look at capacity and capacity impacts. For this discussion,
we have presented what seems to be the most likely scenario for thermostat operation
during the cooling season in the Boise climate. The set-up assumed here was 4°F for 8
hours from 9 AM to 5 PM. This mirrors the winter heating setback of 6°F for 8 hours
from 10 PM to 6 AM. A larger set-up of the thermostat would result in an increase of
capacity requirements for the base case, but would not result in any significant increase in
the EnergyStarQ cases, since the capacity of the equipment is already maximized in this
scenario. It should also be noted that while the set-up behavior has a substantial impact
on overall capacity requirements, it also results in approximately i 1 % savings in energy
requirements from the overall cooling energy requirement.
Table 3 summarizes the savings implied by the SEEM simulation results and also
includes the impact of the lighting, domestic hot water (DHW) and appliance savings
mandated by the EnergyStarq¡ interior lighting specification and DHW specifications.
This represents an increase over the previous analysis, based on regional data for overall
lighting power density in single family residences and on the available savings
determined in the preliminary evaluation of the EnergyStarlI program from 2005-06.
Both these results suggest about a i 0% increase in electric energy savings from the
improved li§hting package and from the improvements involved in specifying an
EnergyStar dishwasher as part of the package. The DHW improvement mandated by
6
the EnergyStar program enhances the gas savings slightly. This effect is taken to be
about 13 therms of annual savings.
T bl 3 E S .S G H dHaener2V aVlDl!S ummarv,as eate omes
Boise Pocatello
Savings Savings
Package kWh th kW kWh .th kW
Standard (2200 sf)
Base (IECC 2006)
Estar (NWBOP1)1402 189 2.4 1299 255 1.9
Estar+ (FTC)2109 386 3.0 1874 502 2.7
Basement (2688 sf)
Base (IECC 2006)
Estar (NWBOP1)1422 108 0.8 1346 143 0.6
Estar+1817 218 1.8 1647 280 1.6
Small (1344 sf)
Base (IECC 2006)
Estar (NWBOP1)879 83 1.2 820 110 1.1
Estar+ (FTC)1229 179 1.6 1093 231 1.6
Tables 4 and 5 repeat the same analysis using the heat pump. In this case there are no
heating system splits between the therms and the kilowatt hours. So all fan energy and
all fan energy savings are subsumed in the savings estimates for the heat pump.
T bl 4 S' I f R It H t Paeimu a ion esu s,ea ump
Boise Pocatello
Usage Usage
Package Heating/Cooling Heating/Cooling
kWh kW kWh kW
Standard (2200 sf)
Base (IECC 2006)14001 6.1 18262 5.4
Estar (NWBOP1)9498 4.3 12027 4.1
Estar+5684 3.1 7043 2.7
Basement (2688 sf)
Base (IECC 2006)10885 4.5 14254 3.9
Estar (NWBOP1)7784 3.8 9881 3.2
Estar+5519 2.7 6975 2.3
Small (1344 sf)
Base (IECC 2006)7726 3.9 10287 3.5
Estar (NWBOP1)5028 3.1 6304 2.7
Estar+3186 2.1 3858 1.9
As with the gas analysis, the lighting savings are added into the analysis in the final
summary shown in table 5. In all the analyses, the heating and cooling interaction
between reduced lighting loads (and thus offsets to internal heat gains) increased heating
loads and decreased cooling loads are taken into account by the simulation. In all cases a
7
reduction in internal gains commensurate with the reduction in lighting watts is estimated
and included in the simulation results.
T bl 5E s .s H P HaenerlnaVIDesummarv,eat ump omes
Boise Pocatello
Package Savings Savings
kWh kW kWh kW
Standard (2200 sf)
Base (IECC 2006)
Estar (NWBOP1)5535 1.8 7266 1.3
Estar+(FTC)9350 3.0 12251 2.7
Basement (2688 sf)
Base (IEee 2006)
Estar (NWBOP1)4322 0.7 5604 0.6
Estar+6587 1.7 8502 1.6
Small (1344 sf)
Base (IECC 2006)
Estar (NWBOP1)3400 0.8 4687 0.7
Estar+(FTC)5242 1.8 7131 1.6
In these calculations the impact ofthe small improvement in the electric DHW tank is
included in the total savings numbers. For this analysis slightly more than 80 kWh are
included as the added savings from the DHW measure.
Because ofthe relatively larger heating loads in Pocatello, the savings associated with the
heat pump are quite a bit larger. This is also due to the assumptions used as part ofthe
RTF base case heat pump analysis, which include the use of auxiliary heat beyond that
recommended by and used in the ARI and other recommended practices.
Savings associated with this change and control strategy, as well as with the
commissioning savings used in the air conditioning estimates are included as net savings
in Table 5.
5. Measure Costs
The measure costs used for this analysis were based on RTF tables associated with
individual insulation, windows and heating system measures. The costs are based on
regional averages across the entire Pacific Northwest so their precise effect on the Boise
markets may vary somewhat. The most problematic features ofthese costs are the
effcient equipment, heat pumps and gas furnaces. These markets are somewhat
immature and the available cost information used here is a medium estimate from the
RTF table for heat pumps and a somewhat higher estimate than prices observed in the
Portland, OR market for the high effciency furnace which is more established. There is
good evidence in several other regional markets that as these components become
accepted in the market place, the costs come down and HV AC contractors and suppliers
become more competitive in high effciency equipment.
8
In the case of the "EStar+ (FTC)," work in the Portland and Southwest Washington
markets suggest that the incremental costs of interior ducts are comparable to the
incremental cost of duct sealing and testing protocols used in the standard EnergySta~
design. Nevertheless, we added an additional $250 beyond those costs to cover the
potential incremental costs involved in this sort of technique.
Table 6 summarizes the individual costs ofthis analysis. At the bottom of Table 6, the
cost for the two package used in this analysis are summed up so that direct calculations
can be made using package costs only.
T bl 6M C Aaeeasureostssumptions
Measure Life Measure Cost
Prototype
1344 2200 2688
EStar
Basement Insulation 70 100
AFUE 90/92 18 500 700 700
Duct Sealing 25 350 450 150
EF 61 Gas DHW 12 150 150 150
EF 93 Electric DHW 12 50 50 50
HP HSPF 8.5 18 600 600 600
EStar+(FTC)
Advanced Frame 70 275 450 525
Window U=.32 45 110 225 240
Interior Ducts 250 250 0
Air Sealing 300 350 350
HP HSPF 9.0, SEER 14 18 1000 1200 1000
Lighting (LPD= 1.1)12 90 140 170
Appliance (DWl 12 10 10 10
Packaoe Costs
EStar Gas Heat 1100 1450 1280
EStar Heat Pump 1100 1250 1080
EStar+ Gas Heat 3035 3925 3395
EStar+ Heat Pump 3035 3725 3195
As can be seen, the impact ofthe relatively small amount of ducts in the basement home
and the relatively small amount of glazing in both the basement and the small prototype
homes result in somewhat lower incremental costs than the 2200 ft.2 standard prototype.
Included in this analysis, but not included in the savings packages, was the review of
electric resistance heating. This heating system type is allowed under the NWBOP 2 but
under the IECC requirements, the energy requirement would have to be equivalent to the
base case heat pump. This results in essentially the same savings as the heat pump case.
The base package would need to be adjusted until it got to be equivalent to the base heat
pump. However, in this case, additional measures would need to be applied beyond those
9
described for the electric heat pump system. In both cases, cooling would not be
included in the final run.
6. On-Peak Impact of Thermostat Behavior
As mentioned above, there are substantial impacts from thermostat behavior in setting the
overall capacity requirements on the peak cooling day. We believe that the set-up
assumptions that are used here are not only typical but may be conservative for
thermostat behavior in the Boise market (about 4°). Even at that, the impact of
thermostat set-up on overall capacity requirements for new home construction is both
substantial and extremely undesirable from the perspective ofthe utilty. In this analysis,
the peak capacity requirement appears at around 5 PM as the customers return from work
and set point returns to 74°. In the case where the thermostat is maintained at a constant
temperature the peak is much reduced and the peak hour is reset to 4 PM reflecting peak
temperature and solar conditions.
Figure 1 is a graphic representation of four scenarios; two EnergyStar~ scenarios, one
with and one without a thermostat set-up and, two base case scenarios, one with and one
without a set-up.
Hourly Cooling Demand
7
3
6
5
4
~
-Base,set-up
~-Base, no set-up
~EStar, set-up
EStar, no set-up
2
o
3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23
Hours
Figure i: Peak Demaud, Cooling Equipment
In the Boise climate, when outdoor temperatures are stil at or near the daily peak,
virtally all the cooling capacity would be required within the entire hour. Ifthe air
conditioning is oversized as in the base case, then the overall requirement is slightly
smaller than what would be available. In the EnergyStarlI cases where specific
equipment sizing algorithms are used, peak requirements are somewhat reduced as the
io
available capacity for this condition is not adequate to meet the set point in the first hour.
In both cases, however, it is the nature of the set-up of the thermostat behavior that results
in large peak. In both cases, peak reductions of thirt to fift percent would be expected
when maintaining the uniform thermostat set point throughout the entire peak day.
As can be seen, the savings associated with the EnergySta~ case where the thermostat
set-up is not used is a third greater than the estimated savings quoted in Table 3. It
should be noted that the change in thermostat setting to a constant temperature results in a
5% increase in energy use on this peak day and an 11 % increase in cooling energy use
over the entire cooling season.
7. Conclusions
This analysis closely parallels the analysis done in 2004. For the most part, the results
are quite comparable and the changes in savings are the specific result ofthe changes in
the base case requirements for the Boise market. For purposes of these savings estimates,
the most important change in the base case is the increased effciency of the cooling
equipment required under the IEee 2006 and the federal standard. Insulation and
window standards have a smaller impact on the overall savings estimate; however, the
overall result of changes in the base case is about a thirt two percent reduction in
savings estimates.
The use ofthe Federal Tax Credit standard adds substantially to the available savings
from the NWBOP specifications. This package increases electric savings by about 70
percent. Unfortunately, the added cost ofthe equipment packages and the improvements
to the envelope more than double the package costs. It should be noted however that the
tax credit offered is about $2000 to the home buyer. This offset substantially
compensates for the increased package costs. This tax credit is up for renewal and at this
writing the credit remains problematic after 2008.
As with the previous analysis the peak impacts depend in large part on the occupant
thermostat behavior. The daytime set-up increases peak load by about 50% and the
impact of this behavior would be reflected throughout the Boise area. The use of careful
sizing requirements for the Air Conditioning system (as is recommended by the EStar
program reduces this peak somewhat by reducing the amount of equipment available to
meet the lower set point. This saves peak energy but also requires more than one hour to
recover from the daytime cooling set point. This may be desirable from the Utility
perspective but it does reduce the occupant comfort on these peak days where
temperature is substantially above the cooling design temperature. In Pocatello the
impact is much lower as the temperature on the peak is not only lower but the hours at or
near the peak temperature is also much less than the Boise climate.
Overall it appears that the EnergyStar program offers an adequate TRC cost/enefit ratio
when the savings from gas and peak reduction are taken into account. In the case of heat
pump the EnergyStar specification offer a substantial benefit both to the home to the
utilty.
i i