20080317Tatum Direct.pdf

zunB MAR 14 Pl.¡ 4: 51
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF THE
APPLICATION OF IDAHO POWER
COMPANY FOR AUTHORITY TO
REVISE THE ENERGY EFFICIENCY
RIDER i TARIFF SCHEDULE 9 i
)
) CASE NO. IPC-E-08-3
)
)
)
)
)
IDAHO POWER COMPAN
DIRECT TESTIMONY
TIMOTHY E. TATUM
OF
1 A.My name is Timothy E. Tatum and my business
2 address is 1221 West Idaho Street i Boise i idaho.
3 Q.By whom are you employed and in what
4 capacity?
5 A.I am employed by Idaho Power Company
6 (Company) as a Senior Pricing Analyst in the Pricing and
7 Regulatory Services Department.
8 Q.Please describe your educational background.
9 A.I received a Bachelor of Business
10 Administration degree in Economics from Boise State
11 Uni versi ty in 2001. In 2005 i I earned a Master of Business
12 Administration degree from Boise State University. I have
13 also attended electric utility ratemaking courses including
14 "Practical Skills For The Changing Electrical Industry" a
15 course offered through New Mexico State University i s Center
16 For Public Utilitiesi "Introduction to Rate Design and Cost
17 of Service Concepts and Techniques" presented by Electric
18 Utili ties Consultants i Inc. and Edison Electric Institute IS
19 "Electric Rates Advanced Course."
20 Q.Please describe your work experience wi th
21 Idaho Power Company.
22 A.I became employed by Idaho Power Company in
23 1996 as a Customer Service Representative in the Company i s
24 Customer Service Center. Over the first two years I handled
25 customer phone calls and other customer-related
TATUM i DI 1
Idaho Power Company
1 transactions.In 19991 I began working in the Customer
2 Account Management Center where I was responsible for
3 customer account maintenance in the area of billing and
4 metering.
5 In June of 20031 after seven years in
6 customer service 1 I began working as an Economic Analyst on
7 the Energy Efficiency Team. As an Economic Analyst 1 I
8 maintained proper accounting for Demand-Side Management
9 (DSM) expenditures 1 prepared and reported DSM program
10 accounting and activity to management and various external
11 stakeholders 1 conducted cost-benefit analyses of DSM
12 programs 1 and provided DSM analysis support for the
13 Company 1 s 2004 Integrated Resource Plan (IRP).
14 In August of 20041 I accepted a position as a
15 Pricing Analyst in Pricing and Regulatory Services. As a
16 Pricing Analyst 1 I provided support for the Company
1 s
17 various regulatory activities including tariff
18 administrationi regulatory ratemaking and compliance
19 filingsi and the development of various pricing strategies
20 and policies.
21 In August of 20061 I was promoted to Senior
22 Pricing Analyst. As a Senior Pricing Analyst my
23 responsibilities have expanded to include the development of
24 complex financial studies to determine revenue recovery and
25 pricing strategies including the preparation of the
TATUM i DI 2
Idaho Power Company
1 Company i s cost-of-service studies.
2 Q.What is the scope of your testimony in this
3 proceeding?
4 A.My testimony will address the Company's
5 proposal for increasing the Energy Efficiency Rider amount
6 from the current level of 1.5 percent to 2.5 percent of base
7 revenue and the removal of the funding caps for residential
8 and irrigation customers. Furthermore i my testimony will
9 recommend a DSM funding strategy that willi over timei
10 provide a level of funding necessary to sufficiently fund
11 the Company i s increased investment in demand-side management
12 (DSM) programs and other energy efficiency initiatives.
13 Q.Please explain how the current Energy
14 Efficiency Rider came into being.
15 A.In Order No. 28722 issued in Case Nos. IPC-E-
16 01-07 and IPC-E-01-11 i the Company i s 2001-2002 Power Cost
17 Adjustment (PCA) casei the Commission directed Idaho Power
18 to develop and file a comprehensive DSM program to provide
19 customers with opportunities to reduce electric consumption.
20 The Company complied with the Commission i s directive through
21 a filing made on July 311 20011 which the Commission
22 docketed as Case No. IPC-E-01-13. In the compliance filing
23 the Company identified a number of potential DSM programs
24 that could be implemented to assist customers in reducing
25 their bills and proposed that the expenditures for the
TATUM i DI 3
idaho Power Company
1 analysis and implementation of energy conservation programs
2 be funded through a charge known as the Energy Efficiency
3 Rider (Rider). On November 211 2001 the Commission issued
4 Order No. 28894 directing the Company to implement limited
5 DSM programs for the 2001-2002 winter heating season and to
6 organize the Energy Efficiency Advisory Group (EEAG) to
7 advise the Company on the implementation of long-term DSM
8 programs. Through Order No. 28894 the Commission postponed
9 the consideration of funding of DSM programs until the
10 Company i s 2002-2003 PCA filing was made in the spring of
11 2002. In April 2002 the Energy Efficiency Advisory Group i
12 comprised of members from the Company i s customer groups i
13 technical experts i special interest groups i Commission
14 Staffi and Company personnel i was formed. On May 131 20021
15 the Commission issued Order No. 29026 authorizing the
16 implementation of the Energy Efficiency Rider as a means to
17 fund DSM programs. The Rider amount for each customer class
18 targeted a level approximately equal to .5 percent of
19 overall class revenue.
20 On December 7 i 20041 the Company requested
21 authority to increase the Rider to 1.5% of base revenue
22 applied uniformly to all customer classes i which the
23 Commission docketed as Case No. IPC-E-04-29. The Commission
24 issued Order No. 29784 on May 13 i 2005 i authorizing the
25 current Rider amount of 1.5 percent of base revenue with a
TATUM i DI 4
Idaho Power Company
1 monthly funding cap of $1.75 for residential customers and a
2 cap of $50 per meter per month for irrigation customers.
3 Q.You mentioned that you will recommend a
4 strategy that will provide a level of funding necessary to
5 sufficiently fund the Company i s increased investment in DSM
6 programs and other energy efficiency initiatives. Please
7 define the Company i s "increased investment" DSM programs and
8 other energy efficiency initiatives.
9 A.The Company i s "increased investment" in DSM
10 programs and other energy efficiency ini tiati ves represents:
11 1) the costs associated with achieving the planned DSM
12 activities detailed in Case No. IPC-E-04-291 2) the
13 investment necessary to implement the DSM resources
14 identified in the 2006 IRP and 3) the costs associated with
15 the continued operation of two DSM programs formerly funded
16 by the Bonneville Power Administration iS (BPA) Conservation
17 Rate Credit (CRC) Program.
18 In Case No. IPC-E-04-29 i the Company estimated that
19 a Rider funding level of 1.5 percent of base revenues would
20 adequately fund the Company i s planned DSM activities through
21 June of 2007 at which time additional funding would be
22 required. The Company i s planned DSM activities at that time
23 included the implementation of the 2004 IRP identified DSM
24 programs i other customer-focused energy efficiency programs i
25 the Company i s continued participation in the Northwest
TATUM i DI 5
Idaho Power Company
1 Energy Efficiency Alliance (NEEA) i DSM research and studiesi
2 and incremental DSM administrative costs.
3 Since the issuance of Order No. 29784 in Case No.
4 IPC-E-04-29 i Idaho Power has successfully implemented the
5 DSM programs identified in the 2004 IRP and carried out the
6 other planned DSM activities identified in that case. In
7 additioni Idaho Power has also implemented four new DSM
8 programs to acquire the DSM resources identified in the 2006
9 IRP. Furthermore i following the suspension of the BPA/s CRC
10 Program i two programs developed by the BPA and implemented
11 by the Company began receiving Rider funding in mid-2007.
12 Q.Please describe the DSM programs and energy
13 efficiency initiatives that were funded with the Rider
14 during 2007.
15 A.Idaho Power i s Rider-funded DSM efforts are
16 most effectively described when organized into four distinct
17 categories: programs identified through the 2004 IRP process
18 (2004 IRP Programs) i programs identified through the 2006
19 IRP process (2006 IRP Programs) i programs developed by the
20 BPA (BPA Programs) and other energy efficiency initiatives.
21 A complete description of the programs funded by the Rider
22 during 2007 can be found in the Demand-Side Management
23 Annual Report for 2007 included in Exhibit No. 1 to my
24 testimony.
25 The 2004 IRP programs include the ENERGY STAR~ Homes
TATUM i DI 6
Idaho Power Company
1 Northwest and the A/C Cool Credit programs for residential
2 customers i the Building Efficiency program for commercial
3 customers i the Industrial Efficiency Program (renamed Custom
4 Efficiency in 2007) for industrial customers and the
5 Irrigation Efficiency Rewards Program and Irrigation Peak
6 Rewards Program for irrigation customers. These programs
7 were designed to achieve approximately 20 average megawatts
8 (aMW) of energy efficiency and 76 megawatts (MW) of demand
9 response over a ten-year period.
10 The 2006 IRP identified an additional 88 aMW of
11 cost-effective energy efficiency opportunities in the
12 residential i commercial and industrial customer classes to
13 be acquired by 2025. The 2006 IRP Programs include ENERGY
14 STAR~ Lighting and Heating and Cooling Efficiency for
15 residential customers and the Easy Upgrades and Custom
16 Efficiency programs for commercial and industrial customers.
17 In 2007 i the Rider also funded the development of another
18 2006 IRP Program designed to encourage residential customers
19 to purchase energy-efficient appliances. This program is
20 expected to become available to customers in 2008.
21 The BPA Programs include the Rebate Advantage and
22 Energy House Calls programs. These programs encourage
23 energy-efficiencies in manufactured housing.
24 Other energy efficiency initiatives include NEEAI
25 numerous small proj ects i energy efficiency training
TATUM i DI 7
idaho Power Company
1 seminars i educational workshops and scholarships.
2 Q. How did the Company determine the cost-
3 effectiveness of the 2006 IRP Programs?
4 A.The Company determined the cost-effectiveness
5 of the 2006 IRP Programs using a method similar to that used
6 in the 2004 IRP analysis. This method is described in detail
7 on pages 62 through 73 of Appendix D-Technical Appendix For
8 the 2006 Integrated Resource Plan included in my Exhibit No.
9 2. As can be seen on the table at the bottom of page 73 of
10 Exhibit No. 2 i each of the DSM program options has a
11 benefit-cost ratio greater than one from both the utility
12 cost and total resource cost perspectives. A benefit-cost
13 ratio greater than one indicates that the present value of
14 the avoided resource costi or the benefit of the DSM
15 programi exceeds the present value of the costs to implement
16 the program.
17 Q.Did the EEAG provide input and guidance into
18 the development of the 2006 IRP Programs?
19 A.Yes. The EEAG continues to be an integral
20 part of the development and monitoring of the Company i s DSM
21 programs. In recent years i the EEAG has been particularly
22 effective in helping to shape the marketing strategies for
23 both new and existing DSM programs. EEAG input and guidance
24 was incorporated into each of the 2006 IRP Programs prior to
25 their initial launch.
TATUM i DI 8
Idaho Power Company
1 Q.What is the amount of annual funding required
2 to support the Company i s DSM Programs and other energy
3 efficiency initiatives during 2008 through 2010?
4 A.Exhibi t No. 3 i Table I details the expected
5 expenditures for DSM programs by customer class through
6 2010. As can be seen from this exhibit i the expected
7 program expenditures for 2008 through 2010 are $19/293/2841
8 $16/787/116 and $17/028/738 respectively. The total DSM
9 program cost for the three-year period is approximately $53
10 million.
11 Q.Please describe why you believe the current
12 Rider amount is not adequate to fund the Company i s planned
13 DSM expenditures.
14 A.The current Rider collects approximately $8.8
15 million a year to fund Idaho Power iS DSM programs and other
16 energy efficiency initiatives. At the current 1.5 percent
17 funding level i the Rider balancing account is expected to
18 accumulate a deficit of nearly $3.2 million by June 1 i 2008.
19 Based on the Company i s expected DSM program expenditures for
20 20081 the deficit balance is expected to grow to an
21 estimated $8.8 million by year-end 2008 at the current 1.5
22 percent funding level.
23 Q.What is your proposal for increasing the
24 Rider in order to support the expected program expenditures?
25 A.I propose the Rider be increased from the
TATUM i DI 9
Idaho Power Company
1 current 1.5 percent level to 2.5 percent beginning June 11
2 2008. Exhibit No. 31 Table IIi details the expected annual
3 program costs i the anticipated Rider funding at the
4 recommended level i and the Rider fund balance remaining at
5 the end of each year i 2008 through 2010.
6 Q.Table II of Exhibit No. 3 identifies a
7 deficit in the Rider fund balance at the end of each of the
8 three years with a deficit balance of approximately $4.2
9 million at the end of 2010. Please explain why you are
10 recommending a Rider percentage that does not provide
11 funding to support the total cost for the identified DSM
12 programs and other energy efficiency initiatives over the
13 three-year period.
14 A.Since its inceptioni the Rider has funded the
15 incremental labor and administrative expenses associated
16 with implementing the Company i s DSM programs and other
17 energy efficiency initiatives. Over timei DSM has become
18 increasingly more integrated into the Company i s business
19 both operationally and strategically. With that in mindi
20 its seems reasonable to consider including the ongoing labor
21 and administrative expenses associated with the Company i s
22 DSM activities into the general operations and maintenance
23 (O&M) expenses recovered through base rates. Following that
24 rationalei Idaho Power plans to include in its next general
25 rate case filing a known and measureable adjustment to the
TATUM i DI 10
Idaho Power Company
1 test year O&M expenses to reflect the ongoing labor and
2 administrative expenses required to support its planned DSM
3 efforts currently funded by the Rider. Including these
4 ongoing labor and administrative expenses in O&M and
5 recovering them through base rates will allow the 2.5
6 percent Rider to adequately fund the Company i s planned DSM
7 efforts beyond 2010.
8 Q.How does the Company plan to recover the
9 ongoing labor and administrative expenses until these costs
10 are included in base rates approved by the Commission?
11 A.The Company plans to continue to recover
12 these expenses through the Rider funding until the
13 Commission approved base rates that include the known and
14 measureable adjustment referred to above become effective.
15 Q.What are the Company i s plans should the
16 ongoing labor and administrative expenses not be included in
17 base rates beginning January 11 2009?
18 A.The Company plans to continue funding these
19 costs through the Rider until they are included in base
20 rates. Should these costs not be included in base rates
21 beginning January 11 20091 the Company will continue to
22 monitor the Rider account to ensure that the funding
23 percentage adequately supports the ongoing labor and
24 administrative expenses.
25 Q.What cost categories does the Company
TATUM i DIll
idaho Power Company
1 classify as ongoing labor and administrative expenses?
2 A.The cost categories that are classified as
3 ongoing labor and administrative expenses include the labor
4 costs associated with operating and supporting DSM programs
5 and energy efficiency initiatives i NEEA contributions and
6 other DSM departmental costs not directly related to a
7 specific DSM program.
8 Q.What is the estimated annual dollar impact of
9 including the ongoing labor and administrative expenses into
10 the Company i s O&M expenses?
11 A.The Company expects to spend approximately
12 $3.5 million annually on labor and administrative expenses
13 to support its ongoing DSM efforts.
14 Q.Have you prepared an exhibit that details the
15 estimated Rider fund balance remaining at the end of each
16 year 2008 through 2010 with the ongoing labor and
17 administrative expenses removed in the years 2009 and 2010?
18 A.Yes. Exhibit 3 i Table III i details the
19 estimated Rider fund balance remaining at the end of each
20 year for 2008 through 2010 with the ongoing labor and
21 administrative expenses removed in the years 2009 and 2010.
22 The estimates detailed in Table III were derived under the
23 assumption that the ongoing labor and administrative
24 expenses would no longer be funded by the Rider beginning
25 January 11 2009. This assumption isi of coursei contingent
TATUM i DI 12
Idaho Power Company
1 upon the Company filing and the Commission subsequently
2 approving a General Rate Case by that date. As can be seen
3 from this exhibit i the expected Rider fund balance at the
4 end of 2010 is a surplus of $2/519 1560.
5 Q.Exhibi t 3 i Table III i shows that the Rider
6 account is expected to have deficits of $4/583/626 at year-
7 end 2008 and $1 i 209 i 934 at year-end 2009. Why did the
8 Company not choose a funding strategy that would more
9 closely match funding with expenditures during 2008 and
10 2009?
11 A.One of the primary obj ecti ves guiding the
12 development of the proposed funding strategy was to provide
13 a level of funding adequate to support the Company i s planned
14 DSM programs and other energy efficiency initiatives while
15 maintaining rate stability for customers. Due to the timing
16 of this filing and the variability in the Rider funded
17 activitiesi significant annual adjustments to the Rider
18 percentage would be required to maintain a near zero balance
19 in the Rider account over the next few years. The
20 recommended proposal minimizes annual adjustments to the
21 Rider percentage andi over timei adequately funds the
22 Company i s planned DSM programs and other energy efficiency
23 initiatives.
24 Q.Does Idaho Power intend to deviate from its
25 previously established DSM program targets as a result of
TATUM i DI 13
idaho Power Company
1 this funding proposal?
2 A.No. Under the proposed DSM funding strategy i
3 the Company plans to continue to pursue all cost-effective
4 DSM in 2008 and beyond. DSM is an important part of Idaho
5 Power
i s future resource acquisition strategy and the Company
6 is prepared to operate with a deficit in the Rider account
7 in the short-term in order to achieve the previously stated
8 obj ecti ves.
9 Q.You have proposed to eliminate the current
10 funding caps for residential and irrigation customers. Will
11 the elimination of the current funding caps result in
12 equitable cost recovery between the customer classes?
13 A.Yes. Idaho Power has a broad offering of
14 cost-effective DSM programs available to all of the major
15 customer classes including residential and irrigation
16 customers. Each of the Company i s DSM programs is detailed in
17 Exhibit No. 11 the 2007 DSM Annual Report. DSM programs are
18 considered to be cost-effective when energy savings and/or
19 demand reduction can be achieved at a lower cost than the
20 next best resource alternative. As Idaho Power acquires
21 cost-effective DSM and the benefit of avoiding higher
22 resource costs is reflected in ratesi all customers benefit
23 from the savings in proportion to their energy usage. With
24 that in mindi it is both fair and reasonable to require
25 residential and irrigation customers to fund the Company i s
TATUM i DI 14
idaho Power Company
1 DSM programs in the same manner as all other customer
2 classes i without any artificial funding caps.
3 Q.Are you recommending that the proposed Rider
4 funding expire at the end of the three-year periodi or on
5 December 311 2010?
6 A.No. I am recommending that the 2.5 percent
7 Rider which I have proposed become effective on June 11 2008
8 remain in place until it is determined that a different
9 funding level is appropriate as a result of a proceeding
10 before the Commission.
11 Q.Have you prepared an exhibit that details the
12 funding to be collected from each customer class under your
13 proposal?
14 A.Yes. Exhibit No. 4 details the annual
15 funding to be provided by each customer class. As can be
16 seen from Exhibit No.4 i should the 2.5 percent Rider become
1 7 effective on June 1 i 2008 i the annual funding is estimated
18 to be $13 i 2261 583 in 20081 $16/928/949 in 2009 and
19 $171 2751 217 in 2010.
20 Q.Please explain why you are taking into
21 account only the first three years of projected program
22 expendi tures?
23 A.There are several issues that may affect the
24 adequacy of the proposed Rider funding by the end of the
25 three-year period. Firsti the Company will file its next
TATUM i DI 15
Idaho Power Company
1 IRP in 2009. To the extent that additional DSM programs are
2 selected as part of the preferred resource portfolio i an
3 additional adjustment to the Rider may be needed. Secondi
4 due to the nature of DSM programs and the inherent risk that
5 customers either will not choose to participate at the
6 target level or will choose to participate at a level
7 greater than the targeti the estimated program costs used to
8 determine the required funding level may be overstated or
9 understated. And thirdi Idaho Power is continually
10 exploring potential resource opportunities that may arise
11 through changes in economic considerations i advances in
12 technology or other new innovations. Given the uncertainty
13 surrounding these issues i the Company plans to monitor the
14 adequacy of Rider funds on a periodic basis. if an
15 adjustment to the funding level needs to be made at the end
16 of the three-year periodi or sooner i the Company will file a
17 request with the Commission to balance the account.
18 Q.Are you proposing any other changes to the
19 structure or the scope of the Rider?
20 A.Yes. Included as Exhibit No. 5 is a revised
21 Schedule 91 in legislative format. As can be seen from
22 Exhibit No. 5 i the revised Schedule 91 includes new language
23 expanding the scope of the Rider-funded activities to
24 include the analysis and implementation of programs and
25 initiatives that promote renewable energy options. The
TATUM i DI 16
Idaho Power Company
1 Company would like to expand i ts involvement in encouraging
2 customers to install small-scale renewable energy options
3 and views the Rider as a logical mechanism to fund that
4 objective. However i this would require that idaho Power
5 depart from its traditional cost-effectiveness criteria for
6 Rider-funded programs.
7 Q.Please describe the Company i s tradi tional
8 cost-effectiveness criteria for Rider-funded programs.
9 A.The Company has traditionally evaluated
10 Rider-funded programs for cost-effectiveness from both the
11 utility cost test and total resource cost test perspectives.
12 The utility cost test is a measure of the total costs
13 incurred by Idaho Power to implement a program. The total
14 resource cost test is a measure of the total resource
15 expenditures of a program from the point of view of Idaho
16 Power and its customers as a whole. That is i the total
17 resource cost test includes the costs incurred by Idaho
18 Power to operate a program and any additional costs that
19 customers incur as a result of their participation in a
20 program. Further detail on the Company i s cost-effectiveness
21 criteria is included in Exhibit No. 2 i pages 63 through 65.
22 Q.Has the Company explored potential renewable
23 energy program design options?
24 A.Yes. The Company is exploring the economics
25 of providing financial incentives to customers who install
TATUM i DI 17
Idaho Power Company
1 small-scale photovoltaic systems to supplement their own
2 usage. Early analyses have shown that there is potential for
3 an incentive-based photovoltaic program that would be cost-
4 effective from the utility cost perspective. However i due to
5 the relatively high installation costi photovoltaic system
6 installation is not likely to be cost-effective from a total
7 resource cost perspective.
8 Q.Is the Company in favor of using Rider funds
9 to support customer-installed renewable energy options that
10 are not cost-effective from a total resource cost
11 perspective?
12 A.Yes. The Company is in favor of using Rider
13 funds to provide financial incentives to customers who
14 install photovoltaic systems to supplement their own energy
15 usage provided the program is shown to be cost-effective
16 from the utility cost perspective. That is i Idaho Power
17 favors the use of Rider funds to support such an endeavor as
18 long as the financial impact to the Rider is at or below the
19 cost of the next best resource alternative.
20 Q.Are you proposing that the Commission
21 authorize the use of Rider funds to support renewable energy
22 programs that are determined to be cost-effective solely
23 from the utility cost perspective?
24 A.Yes.
25 Q.Do you propose to change the manner in which
TATUM i DI 18
idaho Power Company
1 the Rider funds are collected from the various customer
2 classes?
3 A.No. Other than the removal of the funding
4 caps for residential and irrigation customers i I propose
5 that each customer pay an amount that is equal to 2.5
6 percent of base revenue beginning June 1 i 2008. This charge
7 would be applied to all bills for retail sales delivered to
8 Idaho customers via the Company i s distribution system.
9 Q.Do you propose any changes to the terms used
10 to describe the Rider charge as it appears on customers i
11 monthly bills?
12 A.Yes. On August 10 i 20041 the Commission in
13 Order No. 29558 established Case No. IPC- E-04-15 for an
14 investigation of financial disincentives to investment in
15 energy efficiency by the Company. On January 27 i 20061 Idaho
16 Power filed an Application in Case No. IPC-E-04-15
17 requesting authority to implement a rate adjustment
18 mechanism that would adjust the Company rates upward or
19 downward to recover the Company i s fixed costs independent
20 from the volume of energy sales. The true-up mechanismi
21 entitled II Fixed-Cost Adjustment II (FCA) would be applicable
22 only to Residential Service (Schedule 1 i Schedule 4 and
23 Schedule 5) and Small General Service (Schedule 7)
24 customers.
25 On March 121 20071 the Commission issued Order No.
TATUM i DI 19
Idaho Power Company
1 30267 approving a settlement stipulation agreed to by the
2 parties to Case No. IPC-E-04-15. In the stipulationi the
3 parties agreed that it would be in the public interest for
4 the Company to implement i as a three-year pilot program i the
5 FCA mechanism proposed by the Company. As part of the
6 stipulation the Company agreed to combine the Commission-
7 approved FCA adjustment with the Conservation Program
8 Funding Charge for purposes of customer bill presentation
9 and that there would not be a separate line item for the FCA
10 on customers billing statements. Since the Conservation
11 Program Funding Charge line item on customers i bills will
12 now include both Rider-related charges and the FCAI the
13 Company plans to rename the line item "Energy Efficiency
14 Services" for the purposes of bill presentation. The new
15 name will be more reflective of the overall category of
16 charges and/or credits that are included in that line item
17 amount.
18 Q.Does this conclude your testimony?
19 A.Yes iit does.
TATUM i DI 20
idaho Power Company
BEFORE THE
IDAHO PUBLIC UTiliTIES COMMISSION
CASE NO. IPC-E-08-03
IDAHO POWER COMPANY
EXHIBIT NO.1
TIM TATUM
ø
An IDAeOR? Company
Demand-Side Management
2007 Annual Report
Exhibit No. 1
No. IPC-E-08-3
T. Tatum, IPC
Page 1 of80
Idaho Power Company Demand-Side Management
TABLE OF CONTENTS
List of Tables.. ......... ......... .............. ... ...... ...... ........ ...................... ....... .......... ...... ................ ....................... iii
List of Figures............................................. ............................................................................................... iv
Glossary of Terms................................................ ........................................................................................v
Preface..........................................................................................................................................................1
Executive Summary.............. ........... ...... ............. ........ ................ .......... .......... ......... ....... ... ..........................3
DSM Program Portfolio Structure.. ..... ............ ...... .................................... .................... ........................4
Demand Response Programs. ... ...................................... .... .................. ................. ........................ ..4
Energy Efficiency Programs...... ........... ....................... .... ...... ... ............ ................. ......... ........... ......5
Market Transformation .... .... ...... ................................ ......... ....... ........... .................................... ..... ..5
Other Programs and Activities.........................................................................................................5
Program Performance .... .... .............................................. .......... ................ ...................................... ......5
Regulatory Initiatives......................................................................................................................... ....7
DSM Expenditures and Funding............. ............. ........................................ ........... ........................7
Future Plans..................................................................................................................................... 7
Customer Satisfaction ......................................................................................................................8
DSM Anual Report Strctue.........................................................................................................9
Residential Sector Overview......................................................................................................................10
Programs......................................... ............................................................................... ......................10
Results..................................................................................................................................................10
Residential Sector Programs........................................................................................................ ... .... .12
AlC Cool Credit.............................................................................................................................12
Energy House Calls....................................................................................................................... .14
ENERGY STARCI Homes Northwest............................................................................................16
Oregon Residential Weatherization.............................................................. ................................ .18
Rebate Advantage......................................................................................................................... .19
ENERGY STARCILighting ............................................................................................................21
Weatherization Assistance for Qualified Customers................................................................. ....23
Heating and Cooling Efficiency.....................................................................................................25
Commerciallndustral Sector Overview................................................................................................. ..26
Programs.. ........ ........... .... ........ ... ........ ... .... ......... ... .......... .......... ........... ........ ........................................26
Results..................................................................................................................................................27
Commerciallndustrial Sector Programs........................................................................................ .t;~M~8No. 1
Case No. IPC-E-08-03
T. Tatum, IPC
Page 2 of 80
Annual Report 2007 Page i
Demand-Side Management Idaho Power Company
Building Efficiency........... ........... ................ ..... ...... ........ .............. .......... ...................... ................ .28
Easy Upgrades '" ............... ........ ....... ................. ...... .... ............... ........ ..... ............. .................... .... ..29
2008 Strategies...............................................................................................................................30
Oregon Commercial Audits .......... ............................. ............. ......... ....... ........ ........ ........... ... ...... ...31
Custom Efficiency .........................................................................................................................32
Irrigation Sector Overview........... ............. .... ......................... ......... ....... ................ ......... ................... .......34
Programs. ............... ... .............. .................................... .... ... ........ ........................ ... ...................... ........ .34
Results......................................................................:...........................................................................34
Irrgation Sector Programs ...................................................................................................................35
Irrgation Peak Rewards.................................................................................................................35
Irrgation Efficiency Rewards........................................................................................................37
Market Transformation ........ .... .......... .... .................. .......... ............. ..... ........... ....... ....... ... ......... .................39
Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance (NEEA)..................................................................................39
NEEA Activities ............................................................................................................................39
Industral Efficiency Alliance (lEA) Activities in Idaho ................ ......... ................................39
Commercial Alliance Activities in Idaho ................................................................................39
Distribution Efficiency Initiative ....... .... .... ..................... ... ........... ......... ................ ..................39
Residential NEEA Activities in Idaho.....................................................................................40
Other NEEA Activities in Idaho.. ... ..... ...... ... ..................... ................ ................... ...................40
NEEA Funding.......... ................ ....... ..... ...... ...... ...................... .............. .... ..... ............ ... ................ .40
Energy Efficiency Advisory Group (EEAG).... ........ ........................... ................. ......................... ............42
EEAG Program Recommendations .....................................................................................................42
Residential Programs .....................................................................................................................42
Commercial and Industral Programs..... ................. ...... ............ ............................. ... ....................43
Irrgation Programs................................................................................................................. ...... .44
Local Energy Effciency Funds (LEEF) ........................... ......... ............... .....................................44
Other Programs and Activities...................................................................................................................45
Residential Energy Efficiency Education Initiative.............................................................................5
Activities ....... ................ .... ................ ............. ........... ........ ..... ........... .................. .... .......................45
Commercial Education Initiative ........ ..... ........... ...... ...... ....... .................... ...................... ....................45
Local Energy Efficiency Funds (LEEF) ............ ..... ........ ....... .... .............. ................ ... ..... ... ...............,.45
Regulatory Initiatives.................................................................................................................................47
Fixed-Cost Adjustment Pilot................................................................................................................47
Performance-Based DSM Incentive Pilot.......................................................................................~tijl$flo. 1
Case No. IPC-E-08-03
T. Tatum, IPC
Page 3 of 80
Page ii Annual Report 2007
Idaho Power Company Demand-Side Management
Enhanced Commitment to Energy Effciency and DSM.....................................................................7
Availability of Efficiency and Load Management Programs.... ...... ....... ....... ................... .............48
Building Code Improvement Activity ... ......... ................................. .............. ...... ............ ..............48
Pursuit of Appliance Code Standards ... ................ ................. ........... ............... .............. ................49
Expansion ofDSM Programs Beyond Peak-Shaving/ Load-Shifting Programs...........................49
Third-Part Verification......... .... ... ... .... ............ .... ............................... ............. .............. ........... .....49
IPC's Internal Energy Efficiency Commitment.............................................................................50
Appendices.................................................................................................................................................52
Appendix 1. Idaho Rider, Oregon Rider, BPA, and NEEA Funding Balances..................................53
Appendix 2. 2007 DSM Expenses by Funding Source (Dollars) .......................................................54
Appendix 3. 2007 DSM Program Activity .........................................................................................55
Appendix 4. Historical DSM Expenses and Performance 2001-2007...............................................57
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. 2007 DSM Programs, Sectors, and Operational Type...............................................................6
Table 2. 2007 DSM Energy Impact .................. ......... ............. ............. .............. .................... .............. ....6
Table 3. 2007 Sector Comparison............................................................................................................7
Table 4. 2007 DSM Expenses and Energy Impact .............. ........................... ......................... ................ 7
Table 5. Residential Sector Direct Expenses and Ranked Energy Savings...... ..... ................................11
Table 6. 2007 Residential Sector Demand Reduction (kW) .................................................................11
Table 7. Energy House Calls 2007 Activity and Energy Savings Summary......................................... 15
Table 8. Rebate Advantage 2007 Activity and Energy Savings Summary .... ......... .... .... ........... ...........19
Table 9. ENERGY STARCI Lighting 2007 Program Summary .............................................................21
Table 10. Weatherization Assistance 2007 Year-End IPC Expenses ......................................................23
Table 11. Weatherization Assistance 2007 Year-End Energy Savings ...................................................24
Table 12. Commercial/Industrial Sector Energy Savings (kWh) ............................................................27
Table 13. Commercial/Industral Sector Demand Reduction (kW).........................................................27
Table 14. 2007 Irrgation Program Summar, Energy Savings (kWh) and Demand Reduction
(kW).........................................................................................................................................34
Table 15. 2007 IPC DSM Program Targets and Results. .......... ....................... ... ..... ......... ............ ..........51
Exhibit NO.1
Case No.IPC-E-08-03
T. Tatum, IPC
Page 4 of 80
Annual Report 2007 Page iii
Demand-Side Management Idaho Power Company
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. DSM Annual Expense History 2001-2007 ...............................................................................3
Figure 2. DSM Annual Energy Savings 200 1-2007.................................................................................4
Figure 3. 2007 Direct Program Expense ...................................................................................................8
Figure 4. Customer Perception ofIPC's Conservation Efforts.................................................................9
Figure 5. 2007 Commercial/Industral Sector Direct Program Expense.. ......... .............. ........... ........... ..26
Figure 6. 2007 Custom Efficiency Measures Annual Energy Savings (kWh)........................................33
Exhibit NO.1
Case No. IPC-E-08-03
T. Tatum, IPC
Page 50f80
Page iv Annual Report 2007
Idaho Power Company Demand-Side Management
GLOSSARY OF TERMS
aMW-Average Megawatt
akW-Average Kilowatt
AlC-Air Conditioning
ASHRAE-American Society of Heating, Refrgerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers
BCA-Building Contractors Association
BEEP-Building Owners and Managers Association's Energy Effciency Program
BETC-Business Energy Tax Credit
BLC-Basic Load Capacity
BOC-Boise Operations Center
BOMA-Building Owners and Managers Association
BP A-Bonnevile Power Administration
BSU-Boise State University
CAC-Central Air Conditioning/Conditioners
CAP-Community Action Partership
CAPAI-Community Action Partership Association of Idaho, Inc.
CCOA--anyon County Organization on Aging and Community Services
CCNo-Community Connection of Northeast Oregon, Inc.
CFL-Compact Fluorescent Lighting
CHQ-Corporate Headquarters (Idaho Power Company)
CRC-Conservation Rate Credit
DOE-U.S. Departent of Energy
DSM-Demand-Side Management
DSR-Delivery Service Representatives
EEAG-Energy Efficiency Advisory Group
EI-Ada-E1-Ada Community Action Partership
EEBA-Energy and Environmental Building Association
EICAP-Eastern Idaho Community Action Partership
Energy Plan-Also known as Integrated Resource Plan
ETO-Energy Trust of Oregon
FCA-Fixed-Cost Adjustment
H&CE-Heating and Cooling Efficiency Program
HCSCS-Harey County Senior and Community Services Center
HMCAA-Harey-Malheur Community Action Agency
Exhibit NO.1
Case No. IPC-E-08-03
T. Tatum, IPC
Page 6 of 80
Annual Report 2007 Page v
Demand-Side Management Idaho Power Company
HV AC-Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning
HVR-Home Voltage Regulator
IEA-Industria1 Effciency Allance
IECC-International Energy Conservation Code
IESBP-Idaho ENERGY STARCI Builders Partership
IPC-Idaho Power Company
IPUC-Idaho Public Utilities Commission
IRP-Integrated Resource Plan (or Energy Plan)
kvar-Kilovolt ampere reactive
kW-Kilowatt
kWh-Kilowatt-hour
LED-Light-Emitting Diode
LEED-Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design
LEEF-Local Energy Efficiency Funds
LDL-Lighting Design Lab
MCOA-Malheur Council on Aging
MW-Megawatt
MWh-Megawatt-hour
NEEM-Northwest Energy Effcient Manufactured Housing Program
NEEA-Nortwest Energy Efficiency Alliance
NWCC-Northwest Power and Conservation Council
OER-Offce of Energy Resources (formerly the Idaho Energy Division)
ODOE-Oregon Department of Energy
OPUC-Public Utility Commission of Oregon
PECI-Portland Energy Conservation, Inc.
PLC-Power Line Carrer
PTCS-Performance Tested Comfort System
RFP-Request for Proposal
RTF-Regional Technical Forum
Rider-Idaho Energy Efficiency Rider and Oregon Energy Effciency Rider
SCCAP-South Central Community Action Partnership
SEER-Seasonal Energy Effciency Ratio
SEICAA-Southeastern Idaho Community Action Agency
SWAT-Savings With A Twist Exhibit NO.1
Case No. IPC-E-08-03
T. Tatum, IPC
Page 70f80
Page vi Annual Report 2007
Idaho Power Company Demand-Side Management
USB-Utility Sounding Board
V-Volt
WAQC-Weatherization Assistance for Qualified Customers
Exhibit No. 1
Case No. IPC-E-08-03
T. Tatum, IPC
Page 8 of 80
Annual Report 2007 Page vii
Exhibit No. 1
Case No. IPC-E-08-03
T. Tatum, IPC
Page 9 of 80
Idaho Power Company Demand-Side Management
PREFACE
Idaho Power Company's (IPC) Demand-Side
Management (DSM) 2007 Annual Report
provides a review of the financial and
operational performance ofIPC's DSM
activities and initiatives for the 2007 calendar
year. These programs provide a wide range of
opportnities for all customer classes to balance
their energy needs with best practice energy
usage to minimize consumption.
During 2007, IPC continued to expand the
programs that began with the 2004 Integrated
Resource Plan (IRP), also known as the Energy
Plan. IPC's 2006 Energy Plan included the
addition of three new DSM programs and the
expansion of one program. In addition to the
DSM programs identified in the Energy Plan,
IPC has also continued to pursue other
customer-focused DSM initiatives, including
programs that preceded the 2004 Energy Plan,
educational opportnities, and regional market
transformation efforts. Also in 2007, as part of
new regulatory initiatives, IPC committed to
enhance its efforts towards promoting energy
efficiency.
IPC's DSM activities thoughout 2007 focused
primarily on enhanced program participation
and energy savings in the curent programs, and
design and implementation of new programs.
IPC also continued to fuher integrate IPC field
and support personnel to better facilitate the
building of customer awareness and
participation in the programs.
This DSM Annual Report is prepared to report
on IPC's DSM activities and finances
throughout 2007, to express IPC' s future plans
for DSM activities, and to conform to the Idaho
Public Utilities Commission's (IPUC) Order
No. 29419 and the Public Utility Commission of
Oregon's (OPUC) Order No. 89-507.
Exhibit NO.1
Case No. IPC-E-08-03
T. Tatum, IPC
Page 10 of 80
Annual Report 2007 Page 1
Demand-Side Management Idaho Power Company
Exhibit No. 1
Case No. IPC-E-08-03
T. Tatum, IPC
Page 11 of 80
Page 2 Annual Report 2007
Idaho Power Company Demand-Side Management
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Idaho Power Company (IPC) considers energy
efficiency to be an important and necessary part
of a balanced approach to meeting the growing
demand for electricity. Consistent with this
view, energy efficiency is one of the
cornerstones supporting IPC' s resource
acquisition strategy. Energy efficiency is
recognized by IPC and its customers as
providing economic, operational, and
environmental benefits. Therefore, the pursuit of
all cost-effective demand-side resources is a
primary objective for IPC.
In 2007, the energy savings from IPC's DSM
activities increased by 29% and the expenditures
òn DSM-related activities increased by 36%,
compared to 2006. This increase in spending
included existing programs and the development
of new programs that will result in savings in
the futue. DSM activities throughout 2007 were
focused predominantly on increasing program
participation, customer education, and the
planning and implementation of the new
programs. IPC completed its third full year of
implementation of programs identified in the
2004 Energy Plan. It was also the second year of
program implementation of the DSM resources
identified in the 2006 Energy Plan.
Figures 1 and 2 show the historical growth in
expenditures and resource acquisition from
2001 to the present.
IPC's two main objectives for DSM programs
are to 1) acquire cost-effective resources in
order to more effciently meet the electrcal
system's needs, and 2) provide IPC's customers
with programs and information to help them
manage their energy and demand use and lower
their bils.
IPC achieves these objectives through the
development and implementation of programs
with specific energy, economic, and customer
satisfaction objectives. When possible, IPC
implements identical programs in its Idaho and
Oregon service areas.
IPC relies on input from the Energy Efficiency
Advisory Group (EEAG) to provide customer
and public interest review ofDSM programs. In
addition to the EEAG, IPC solicits fuher
customer input through stakeholder groups in
Figure 1. DSM Annual Expense History 2001-2007
$18.00
$16.00
$14.00"ic
g $12.00
~
æ $10.00i:~ $8.00
w
:E $8.00
¡g
$4.00
$2.00
$0.00
201 2002 2003
15.66
200 200 Exhibit No. 1
Case No. IPC-E-08-03
T. Tatum, IPC
Page 12 of 80
200 2007
Annual Report 2007 Page 3
Demand-Side Management Idaho Power Company
Figure 2. DSM Annual Energy Savings 2001-2007
100.00
90,00
:i 80.00i
'õ 70.00
elC
,g 60.00
!.50.00elmc40.001II;;30.00eiQ)c 20.00w
10.00
0.00
2001
91.17
2002 2003
the residential, irrgation, commercial, and
industrial customer sectors. IPC also has
enhanced relationships with trade alles, trade
organizations, and regional groups committed to
increasing the use of energy efficiency programs
and measures to reduce electricity load.
During 2007, IPC continued its contractual
participation in, and funding of, the Northwest
Energy Efficiency Alliance (NEEA). NEEA's
efforts in the Northwest impact IPC's customers
by providing behind-the-scenes regional market
changes, as well as strctural support, to
transform IPC' s local markets.
In March 2007, the Bonnevile Power
Administration's (BPA) Conservation Rate
Credit (CRC) program was suspended. IPC
continued to operate the programs formerly
fuded with CRC fuds, including Energy
House Calls and Rebate Advantage, utilizing
Energy Efficiency Rider (Rider) funding.
DSM Program Portolio
Structure
The programs within the DSM portfolio are
offered to each of the four major customer
sectors: residential, commercial, industrial, and
c
200 200 20200
irrgation. In 2007, the commercial and
industral energy efficiency programs were
made available to customers in either sector,
expanding the availability of these programs.
Because of this change, the sector is now often
referred to as the commerciai/industral sector.
Programs are categorized by the operational
method through which the savings are realized:
Demand Response, Energy Efficiency, Market
Transformation, and Other Programs and
Activities. A brief description of each of these
operational categories follows.
Demand Response Programs
Demand Response programs are designed to
reduce participant electrcity loads at specific
times of the day and year when electrcity is
normally in short supply and the cost to supply
electricity is high. The goal of Demand .
Response programs within IPC's DSM portfolio
is to reduce the system summer peak demand,
thus minimizing the need for acquiring higher
cost, supply side alternatives, such as gas
turbine generation or open market electricity
purchases. Demand Response is usually
achieved through the use of load control devices
installed on customer equipment. The measure
of program performance is the number of
k'l (kW) f d d d d An' Exhipit NO.1i owatts 0 re uce eman 'li¡li.~"08-03
T. Tatum, IPC
Page 13 of 80
Page 4 Annual Report 2007
Idaho Power Company
periods. IPC currently offers two Demand
Response programs: one offered to residential
customers and one offered to irrgation
customers.
Energy Efficiency Programs
Energy Effciency programs focus on reducing
energy usage through identifying buildings,
equipment, or components where energy
efficient design, replacement, or repair can yield
significant energy savings. These programs are
applicable to all customer sectors. Typical
project measures range from entire building
construction to simple light bulb replacement.
Savings from these programs are measured in
terms of reduced kilowatt-hour (kWh) usage, or
megawatt-hour (MWh) usage for larger projects.
These programs usually supply energy benefits
throughout the year. IPC' s Energy Effciency
offerings include programs in residential and
commercial new constrction, residential and
commercial retrofit applications, and irrgation
and industrial systems improvement or
replacement.
Market Transformation
Market Transformation is a method of achieving
energy savings through engaging and
influencing large national and regional
organizations. These organizations are in a
position to impact the design of energy usage in
products, services, and methods that affect
electrcal power consumption. IPC primarily
achieves Market Transformation savings
through its participation in NEEA.
Market transformation can also be accomplished
by appliance or building code modifications or
enforcement. In 2007, with IPC support, the
State of Idaho adopted the International Energy
Conservation Code (IECC) 2006 building codes
for both residential and commercial building.
Also in 2007, IPC conducted an appliance
standards study to analyze the energy
consumption impact if Idaho were to adopt the
appliance standards currently in effect in
Oregon.
Demand-Side Management
Other Programs and Activities
Other Programs and Activities represents a wide
range of small projects that are typically
research- and development-oriented. This
category includes the Local Energy Effciency
Funds (LEEF), formerly called the Small
Projects and Education Fund, the Residential
Energy Efficiency Education Initiative, and the
Commercial Educational Initiative. These
programs enable IPC to offer support for
projects and educational opportities not
normally covered under existing programs.
Table 1 provides a summary of the DSM
programs and their respective sectors, as well as
operational category and the state in which each
was available in 2007.
Program Penormance
DSM programs at IPC continue to grow in
participation and energy impact in the form of
energy savings and demand reduction. In 2007,
participation in the A/C Cool Credit program
increased by 155%. The Irrigation Peak
Rewards and AlC Cool Credit programs
combined resulted in estimated summer peak
reduction of 48 MW, which represented a 29%
increase over 2006 results. The four Energy
Efficiency programs that were identified in the
2004 Energy Plan were the Industrial Effciency
(Custom Efficien~y), Building Effciency,
ENERGY STAR Homes Northwest, and
Irrgation Efficiency Rewards programs. These
programs resulted in total annual savings of
45,540 MWh in 2007, which was a 20%
increase over the 2006 energy savings of
37,814 MWh for these programs.
The Energy Effciency programs that originated
as a result ofthe 2006 Energy Plan were the
Heating and Cooling Efficiency,
ENERGY STARCI Lighting, and the Easy
Upgrades programs. These programs resulted in
annual savings of12,393 MWh in 2007.
Exhibit NO.1
Case No. IPC-E-08-03
T. Tatum, IPC
Page 14 of 80
Annual Report 2007 Page 5
Demand-Side Management Idaho Power Company
Table 1. 2007 DSM Programs, Sectors, and Operational Type
Program
AlC Cool Credit............ ................ .....................
Building Efficiency Program...............................
Commercial Education Initiative........................
Custom Effciency........................... ...................
Easy Upgrades................... ................... ............
Energy House Calls...........................................
ENERGY STARIl Homes Northwest .................
ENERGY STARIl Lighting .................................
Heating and Cooling Effciency..........................
Irrigation Efficiency Rewards.. ................ ...........
Irrigation Peak Rewards....................................
Local Energy Efficiency Funds ..........................
NEEA................................................................
Oregon Commercial Audits ................... ............
Oregon Residential Weatherization....... ............
Rebate Advantage................................. ............
Residential Energy Efficiency Education
Initiative .. ....... ....... ............................. ...............
Weatherization Assistance for Qualified
Customers.........................................................
Sector Operational Type State
Residential Demand Response ID
Commercial/Industrial Energy Efficiency ID/OR
Commercial Other Programs and Activities ID/OR
CommerciallIndustrial Energy Effciency ID/OR
Commercial/Industrial Energy Efficiency ID/OR
Residential Energy Efficiency ID/OR
Residential Energy Efficiency ID/OR
Residential Energy Efficiency ID/OR
Residential Energy Effciency ID
Irrigation Energy Effciency ID/OR
Irrigation Demand Response ID/OR
All Other Programs and Activities ID
All Market Transformation ID/OR
Commercial Energy Effciency OR
Residential Energy Effciency OR
Residential Energy Effciency ID/OR
Residential Other Programs and Activities ID/OR
Residential Energy Efficiency ID/OR
An expansion of the program formerly known
as the Industral Efficiency program was also
identified in the 2006 Energy Plan and, as a
result, the program was expanded in 2007 and is
now called the Custom Effciency program.
In addition to the Energy Plan programs offered
durng 2007, IPC operated several other energy
effciency programs targeting residential
customers: Weatherization Assistance for
Qualified Customers (W AQC), Energy House
Calls, Rebate Advantage, and Oregon
Residential Weatherization. These energy
efficiency programs added annual savings of
4,602 MWh in 2007.
Additional significant energy savings continue
to be realized through market transformation
partership activities with NEEA. NEEA
estimated that 28,601 MWh were saved in IPC's
service area during 2007.
Table 2 shows the 2007 annual energy savings,
summer peak demand reduction, and average
megawatt (aMW) savings associated with each
of the DSM program categories. Unless
otherwise noted, all energy savings presented in
this report are measured or estimated at the
customer's meter, excluding line losses.
Table 2. 2007 DSM Energy Impact
MWh
Peak
MW
48
9
Demand Response ....................
Energy Effciency.......................
Market Transformation ...............
Other Programs and Activities....
Total 2007
62,535
28,601
9
91,145 57
Table 3 provides a comparson of the 2007
contrbution of each sector in terms of weather
adjusted energy usage and its respective size in
number of customers.
Exhibit No. 1
Case No. IPC-E-D8-03
T. Tatum, IPC
Page 15 of 80
Page 6 Annual Report 2007
Idaho Power Company Demand-Side Management
Table 3.2007 Sector Comparison
%of Average
Normalized Energy Number of
MWh Usage Customers
Residential.... ....5,109,692 36%397,286
Commercial...... .3,897,540 28%61,640
Industrial............3,450,318 24%126
Irrigation...... ......1,693,785 12%16,665
Total 14,151,334 100%475,717
Please note that energy, demand, and expense
data have been rounded to the nearest whole
unit, which may result in minor rounding
differences.
Regulatory Initiatives
IPC has aligned itself with the IPUC and the
members of the environmental community to
work toward creating a financial and regulatory
environment supportive of utility DSM resource
acquisition. Resulting from this collaborative
effort are two financial mechanisms designed to:
1) remove the financial disincentives to utility
DSM resource acquisition; and 2) provide a
financial incentive to shareowners when DSM
programs perform above baseline goals. IPC is
optimistic that this effort wil lead to a sustained
environment supportive of its plans to pursue all
cost-effective DSM opportnities while
balancing its shareowner's financial objectives.
In response to these regulatory mechanisms,
IPC has committed to enhancing its efforts
toward promoting DSM and energy effciency
in several key areas, including a broad
availability of efficiency and load management
programs, building code improvement activity,
pursuit of appliance code standards, expansion
of DSM programs beyond peak shaving/load
shifting programs, and third-part verification.
DSM Expenditures
and Funding
Funding for DSM programs in 2007 came from
several sources. The Idaho Energy Efficiency
Rider and Oregon Energy Efficiency Rider
fuds are collected directly from customers on
their monthly bills at a rate of 1.5% of base rate
revenues, with monthly caps on residential and
irrigation customer contributions. IPC also
received funds from the BP A, which until
March 2007 were provided through BPA's CRC
program. DSM-related expenses not funded
through the Rider or BP A funds, including costs
for administration and overhead, are included as
part ofIPC's ongoing operation and
maintenance costs. Total DSM expenses funded
from these sources were slightly under
$16 million in 2007.
Table 4 provides a summary ofthe 2007
expenses and energy savings by each fuding
category.
Table 4. 2007 DSM Expenses and Energy Impact
Idaho Rider Funded.. .....
Oregon Rider Funded ....
SPA Funded...................
IPC Funded....................
Total 2007
Expenses
$13,487,460
$409,188
$200,686
$1,565,043
$15,662,378
MWhSavings
81,883
4,364
1,560
3,338
91,145
Figure 3 shows the relationships among the
2007 DSM program expenditues by operational
category. Direct program expenses include
customer incentives and other program-specific
costs. Administrative and overhead costs are
non-direct program expenses or costs not
directly attributable to a specific program.
Future Plans
Many ofIPC's DSM programs are selected for
implementation through its biennial Energy
Plan. The Energy Plan is a public document that
details IPC's strategy for economically
maintaining the adequacy of its power system
into the futue. The Energy Plan process
balances risk, environmental, economic, and
other considerations in developing a preferred
portfolio of futue resources that meet the Exhibit NO.1
specific energy needs of IPC and itsctmef&-08-03
T. Tatum, IPC
Page 16 of 80
Annual Report 2007 Page 7
Demand-Side Management Idaho Power Company
The Energy Plan is normally updated every two
years to reflect changes in supply costs, demand
for electrcity, and other factors; however, the
next full Energy Plan is scheduled to be
completed in June of 2009. An update to the
2006 plan wil be complete in June of 2008. IPC
DSM staff wil be part of the collaborative team
compiling both the 2006 Energy Plan Update
and the 2009 Energy Plan.
Figure 3. 2007 Direct Program Expense
6% 1%
£l Demand Response
. Energy Effciency
ii Market Transforation
ii Other Programs and Actiities
Total Olrec:t Proram Expen$es
Administration and Ovrhead
$4,042.035
$9,829,557
$893,340
$131.885
$14,896,817
$765,561
$15,662,378
In 2008, IPC plans to continue to increase
partcipation and energy savings from existing
programs, continue to implement new energy
effciency programs, research possible new
demand response programs, complete a new
DSM potential study, and evaluate several
existing programs. IPC wil participate in the
development of the Northwest Power and
Conservation Council's (NWPCC) Sixth Power
Plan, èontinue and enhance consumer education
on energy efficiency, and complete varous
research and development projects.
Customer Satisfaction
Customer satisfaction is a key consideration in
IPC's program design, operations, and
management. IPC utilizes surveys, focus groups,
stakeholder input, and input from the EEAG and
IPC field personneL. This information and input
is used during the design and modification
phases of program development and throughout
each program's life.
The Easy Upgrade program provides an
ongoing, Web-based customer survey for its
participants. The results of these sureys
indicate a general satisfaction with this program
and helps guide marketing efforts.
In early 2007, the WAQC program began
receiving satisfaction surveys from paricipating
customers. The results of this survey showed
that customers thought this program helped
them save energy, money, and educated them on
energy savings ideas.
An important measure of customer satisfaction
is the retention rate of ongoing programs. The
Irrgation Peak Rewards program has consistent
participation in the number of customers and the
number of service points since the program's
inception three years ago in 2005. During 2007,
the A/C Cool Credit program experienced high
customer retention, indicated through the low
program attrition rate of less than 1 %, due to
factors other than customer relocation.
Results ofIPC's quarterly Customer
Satisfaction Surey have shown steady
improvement over recent years as the percent of
customers who have a positive perception of
IPC's energy conservation efforts has continued
to increase. Customers' positive perception of
IPC's conservation efforts increased from 39%
in early 2003 to 50% in late 2007, which is an
11 percentage point increase. This represents a
28% increase in positive customer perception.
IPC continues to expand its customer
satisfaction measurement activities to identify
actionable areas of improvement.
Figure 4 depicts biannual growt in the number
of customers who indicated IPC met or Exhibit NO.1Case No. IPC-E-08-03
T. Tatum, IPC
Page 17 of 80
Page 8 Annual Report 2007
Idaho Power Company Demand-Side Management
Figure 4. Customer Perception of IPC's Conservation Efforts
60%
43%44%46%47%47%45%
50%45Y50%
40%
40%~39%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Qtr 2 Qtr 4 Qtr 2 Qtr 4 Qtr 2 Qtr 4 Qtr 2 Qtr 4 Qtr 2 Qtr 4
2003 2003 200 200 205 2005 2006 2006 2007 207
exceeded their needs in regard to energy
conservation efforts encouraged by IPC.
including the Fixed-Cost Adjustment and
Performance-Based Incentive pilots.
Several programs, including A/C Cool Credit,
Energy House Calls, Rebate Advantage, and
Building Effciency, were developing customer
surveys late in 2007. These sureys wil be
implemented in 2008. Survey results wil
measure customer satisfaction and provide
guidance when futue modifications to programs
are considered.
DSM Annual Report Structure
The structure of the first section of this report is
based on customer sectors (categorized by
residential, commercial/industral, and
irrigation). The write-up for each sector contains
information about the specific programs unique
to that sector. Following the sector wrte-ups are
descriptions ofIPC's activities in Market
Transformation, Other Programs and Activities,
and IPC's recent Regulatory Initiatives,Exhibit No, 1
Case No. IPC-E-08-03
T. Tatum, IPC
Page 18 of 80
Annual Report 2007 Page 9
Demand-Side Management
RESIDENTIAL SECTOR
OVERVIEW
Residential customers represent IPC' s largest
customer segment with over 400,000 accounts
at the end of 2007, serving approximately
one milion people. Growth within this segment
slowed slightly in 2007 compared to recent
years. The number of residential customers in
2007 grew by approximately 2%, adding more
than 7,000 customers. The residential sector
represents approximately 36% of total system
energy sales.
Programs
Programs available to residential customers
include one demand response program, seven
energy efficiency programs, and an educational
initiative program. The demand response
offering is the A/C Cool Credit program, which
achieves peak demand reduction by cycling
customers' central air conditioners. The
residential energy effciency programs include
CIEnergy House Calls, ENERGY STAR Homes
Northwest, Oregon Residential Weatherization,
Rebate Advantage, ENERGY STARCI Lighting,
WAQC, and Heating and Cooling Effciency.
New in 2007 was the Residential Energy
Efficiency Education Initiative, which provided
educational outreach to IPC residential
customers. Additionally, new programs under
development in 2007 were the Heating and
Cooling Efficiency program and the Appliance
program.
IPC conducted approximately 20 regional
events in partnership with local community
retailers to educate and influence consumer
purchasing decisions relating to ENERGY
STARCI Lighting. IPC increased residential
program outreach efforts in 2007 through
parerships with Home Depot, Lowes,
Wal-Mart, and other retailers. These
parterships were developed to educate
customers across IPC's service area about
Idaho Power Company
energy efficient lighting and increase the
adoption of energy effcient lighting by
residential customers.
Another addition in 2007 was the creation ofthe
ww.getpluggedin.com Web site and related
radio and TV advertising. These marketing
channels were designed to educate customers
about various issues facing IPC, and
specifically, energy effciency and the role it
plays in planning and managing growth.
Results
In 2007, the residential sector was responsible
for a 10% increase in energy savings from 2006
with 11,293,798 kWh savings in 2006 and
12,440,682 kWh in 2007. The peak demand
savings from this sector increased by 74% from
6.5 MW in 2006 to 11.4 MW in 2007. Customer
participation in the demand response programs
increased by 155% for 2007, and compact
fluorescent light (CFL) bulb sales increased
by 23%.
Table 5 summarizes the residential sector's
expenses and energy savings for 2007. Table 6
shows the residential sector demand reduction.
Exhibit NO.1
Case No. IPC-E-08-03
T. Tatum, IPC
Page 19 of 80
Page 10 Annual Report 2007
Idaho Power Company Demand-Side Management
Table 5. Residential Sector Direct Expenses and Ranked Energy Savings
Residential Sector Programs
ENERGY STARCI Lighting.....................................
WAQC-ID...........................................................
Energy House Calls..................... .......... ...... .........
ENERGY STARCI Homes Northwest....................
Rebate Advantage... .................... ............. ............
WAQC-OR.........................................................
Oregon Weatherization..... ............. ............ ...........
Heating and Cooling Efficiency....... ...... ....... .........
Appliance Program................... .................. ..........
Total
2007 Direct
Expenses
$557,646
$1,292,930
$336,372
$475,044
$89,269
$30,694
$3,781
$488,211
$9,275
$3,283,222
Expenses
% of 2007
Expenses
14.5%
39.4%
10.2%
17.0%
2.7%
0.9%
0.1%
14.9%
0.3%
100.0%
Energy Savings
2007 Energy % of 2007
Savings Energy(kWh) Savings
7,207,439 57.8%
3,296,019 26.4%
699,899 5.6%
629,634 5.3%
554,018 4.4%
42,108 oe1.0%
9,971 oe1.0%
1,595 oe1.0%
o oe1.0%
12,440,682 100.0%
Table 6. 2007 Residential Sector Demand
Reduction (kW)
AlC Cool Credit................. ............
Appliance Program.................. ......
Energy House Calls.......................
ENERGY STARCI Homes
Northwest......................................
ENERGY STARCI Lighting .............
Heating and Cooling Efficiency.....
Oregon Residential
Weatherization.......... ......... ...........
Rebate Advantage.......... ........ .......
WAQC-ID....................................
WAQC-OR..................................
Total
Summer
akW Peak kW
10,762
80
76
823
63
376
5
1,425
606
11,368
Exhibit NO.1
Case No. IPC-E-08-03
T. Tatum, IPC
Page 20 of 80
Annual Report 2007 Page 11
Demand-Side Management
Residential Sector
Demand Response Program
AIC Cool Credit
Description
Ale Cool Credit is a voluntary program for
residential customers. Originally developed as a
pilot program in 2003 and 2004, the program
was selected in the 2004 Energy Plan for
implementation in 2005. The program, through
the use of communications hardware and
softare, enables IPC to cycle participants'
central air conditioners on and offvia a direct
load-control device installed on the air
conditioning unit. Participants receive a
monthly, monetary incentive for participating in
the program durng the summer season. This
program enables IPC to directly reduce system
peaking requirements durng times when
summer system demand is high. In 2007, the
program was available in Ada County, Canyon
County, and the Emmett valley.
Cycling of air conditioning units is achieved
through the use of either individual radio-
controlled or power line carrer (PLC) switches
installed on customer air conditioning
equipment. These switches cycle customer air
conditioners using a schedule initiated on the
day before, or the day of, a cycling event. Under
Idaho Power Company
this program, IPC may cycle participants' air
. conditioners for up to 40 hours each month for
the months of June, July, and August.
In 2007, marketing efforts were significantly
increased in both the quantity and frequency of
mailings. A number of improvements in
developing target lists, updating program
materials, and tracking campaigns were made
over the course of the year. Response rates
ranged from less than 1 % to over 6%,
depending on the time of year and the area.
Spring and early summer saw the highest
response rates. There were also higher response
rates in Eagle and North Boise.
An important activity in 2007 was building
relationships with the heating, ventilation, and
air conditioning (HVAC) community. IPC staff
attended the Idaho State HV AC Association
monthly meetings and several meetings with
individual HVAC companies. This has been
beneficial in creating an educated awareness of
the program and minimizing the amount of
unauthorized switch disconnects.
Two mitigation projects occurred prior to the
start of the cycling season. The first incident
that required mitigation involved an installer
whose work did not match what was reported.
A plan to correct the problem was put in place
when it was discovered. Quality checks were
completed on all service calls completed by the
installer. The vendor responsible increased
resources to prevent interference with normal
production plans. In total, 2,786 sites were
visited.
The second incident involved a radio signal
intended for a limited number of switches that
was accidentally received by all the switches,
causing some to become inactive. The basis of
the problem was determined, and a plan w~s put
into place to correct the issue and prevent it
from happening in the future. Each switch
required a physical visit to reset and download
information. This involved servicing over Exhibit NO.1. Case No. IPC-E-08-037,000 switches. T. Tatum,lPC
Page 21 of 80
Page 12 Annual Report 2007
Idaho Power Company Demand-Side Management
Due to the above issues, many switches were
not operable for cycling at the start of June. In
both cases, the vendors mitigated the problems.
The unintended benefit of checking nearly all of
the radio-controlled switches was that
verification of these units was completed in a
comprehensive way in a very short period of
time.
Results
Participation
Program participants increased from 5,369 in
2006 to13,692 by the end of2007. This total
included 236 participating customers in the
Emmett valley using the PLC system.
Installations occured year-round in 2007, a
result of the ongoing, direct-mail campaigns. As
expected, enrollments and installations were
lower durng the non-summer months.
As enrollments declined due to the end of
summer and the start of cooler weather, an
alternative marketing effort was implemented.
A marketing door hanger was placed at
approximately ten (10) homes near each new
A/C Cool Credit installation, resulting in an
increase of 1.6% new sign-ups for the program.
Demand Impact
The estimated demand reduction in July 2007
was 10.8 MW, a substantial increase over
5.6 MW achieved in 2006. Cumulative savings
for customers enrolled by year-end are expected
to provide an estimated 15 MW. Although
cycling appears to shift some usage from
cycling hours to non-cycling hours, the net
effect on kWh usage is negligible. IPC initiated
19 load-control events between June 20 and
August 30, 2007. The majority of control events
were four hours in duration at a 50% cycling
rate. However, when the temperature was
forecasted to be i 00 degrees or more, IPC
cycled at a 33% rate to minimize customer
discomfort and reduce potential participant
atttion.
2008 Strategies
The 2008 A/C Cool Credit target is 16,000 new
participants. Since the target for 2007 was
approximately 12,000 new participants and
there were approximately 8,300 new
paricipants last year, this results in the need to
carr over the shortage of approximately 5,000
participants into the 2008 sign-up target.
IPC will continue to manage and monitor the
performance of the installation contractors to
ensure that customer satisfaction with the
program remains high as the number of
installations increases. As IPC increases its
marketing efforts in 2008, additional trained
installers wil be used to support the increased
participation targets.
Exhibit NO.1
Case No. IPC-E-08-03
T. Tatum, IPC
Page 22 of 80
Annual Report 2007 Page 13
Demand-Side Management Idaho Power Company
Residential Sector
Energy Efficiency Program
Energy House Calls
Description
Originally launched as a pilot in 2002, the
Energy House Calls program provides duct
sealing and additional effciency measures to
IPC customers living in manufactured homes.
Due to the suspension ofBPA funding in 2007,
this program was funded by the BP A the first
half of 2007 and by Rider fuds the remainder
of the year.
Funds cover the participants' costs and include
the following services and products: duct testing
and sealing according to Performance Tested
Comfort System (PTCS) specifications endorsed
by the BP A, installation of five CFL bulbs,
provision of two fuace filters along with
replacement instructions, water heater
temperature test for proper setting, and
distribution of energy effciency educational
materials for manufactued home occupants.
Program management is under contract with
Ecos Consulting, a company with experience in
managing and supplying duct-sealing service
programs. This company coordinates providers
performing local weatherization and energy
effciency services. Quality assurance is
conducted by third-part audits.
Results
Significant energy savings were realized during
2007, the fifth full year of operation for this
program. The number of CFL bulbs installed in
each home increased from three to five,
generating even greater energy savings.
Participation
Participation in this program exceeded
projections for 2007. IPC continued to focus on
recruiting rual customers and those living in
colder climates. This focus represented a shift
from the initial program target sector of
customers concentrated in communities of
manufactured homes. The shift in focus to
decentralized, rural manufactured housing units
required increased marketing effort and travel
time per housing unit.
In the past, new participants were recruited via
IPC bil stuffers, Customer Connection
newsletters, newspaper advertisements, and
field contractors. In 2007, IPC utilized a direct-
mail program targeted to customers on IPC's
customer information system whose house-tye
data indicated a mobile or manufactued home.
An analysis was conducted to fuher segment
this population into potential electrcally-heated
homes based on energy use during winter
months. Response rates to this campaign have
been significant, far exceeding prior marketing
efforts.
Energy Impact
The annual energy savings increased by 13%
over the previous year, from 333,494 kWh in
2006 to 699,899 kWh in 2007. The primary
source of savings from the program came from
increasing the customers' efficiency of their
heating systems through improving air delivery
from furnaces through the duct systems.
Improved delivery through duct systems alf0hibit NO.1
Case No. IPC-E-08-03
T. Tatum, IPC
Page 23 of 80
Page 14 Annual Report 2007
Idaho Power Company Demand-Side Management
provided energy savings associated with cooled
air where applicable.
The program's furnace filter and water
temperature evaluation services educate the
occupants on maintaining energy efficient
practices in the futue. Energy impact of these
measures is not quantified or included in the
total energy impact of the program.
Table 7 summarizes 2007 program service
activity for Idaho and Oregon customers.
Table 7. Energy House Calls 2007 Activity and
Energy Savings Summary
Idaho Oregon Total
Activity
Test Only........................72 10 82
Test and Seal.................643 24 667
Total Duct Measures 715 34 749
CFL Bulbs.......................3,515 175 3,690
Furnace Filters................1,252 63 1,315
Total Other Measures 4,767 238 5,005
Water Temperature
(Average)........................128 127 128
Energy Savings kWh.......... 674,399 25,500 699,899
2008 Strategies
In mid-2007, IPC assessed the market satuation
level of this program to determne whether or
not to continue Energy House Calls into 2008.
IPC identified a significant number of qualified
homes in the service area that can benefit from
this program. IPC plans to continue the program
for the full year in 2008 and focus greater
efforts on urban areas.
Another change for 2008 is an improvement in
how information is left with customers receiving
an Energy House Call. Instead of numerous
loose papers, they wil now receive a packet of
materiaL. The leave-behind information educates
customers on services performed and ways they
can conserve energy.
Exhibit NO.1
Case No. IPC-E-08-03
T. Tatum, IPC
Page 24 of 80
Annual Report 2007 Page 15
Demand-Side Management Idaho Power Company
Residential Sector
Energy Efficiency Program
ENERGY STAR(ß Homes
Northwest
Description
The ENERGY STARCI Homes Northwest
program is a regionally coordinated initiative
supported by a partership of IPC, NEEA, and
the State ofIdaho Office of Energy Resources
(OER) to improve energy efficient constrction
practices for single-family homes.
Selected for implementation in the 2004 Energy
Plan, the program's goal is to encourage the
purchase of homes that are 20% more energy
efficient than homes built to standard Idaho
residential code. This program specifically
targets the reduction of peak summer demand.
This is accomplished by increasing the
efficiency of residential building envelope
construction practices, air conditioning .
equipment, and air delivery.
In 2007, the program offered a $750 incentive
per qualifying home to participating builders
and a $1,000 incentive for Parade of Homes
units. Program activities included program
management services, coordination of local
parterships between IPC, builders, and real
estate service providers, education and training
activities for residential new constrction
industry partners, and consumer marketing
communications conveying the benefits of
t:NERGY STARCI Homes.
Results
In 2007, the number of active ENERGY STARCI
builders increased from 119 to 132. However, as
a result of the housing downturn in the Treasure
Valley, the number of certified ENERGY
STARCI Homes in 2007 was 303, down from
439 homes in 2006.
IPC was instrmental in the formation of the
Idaho ENERGY STARCI Builders Partership
(IESBP), comprised of builders committed to
building exclusively 100% ENERGY STARCI
homes. In 2007, IPC co-sponsored a cooperative
marketing campaign with IESBP and Northwest
ENERGY STARCI. This campaign consisted of
print advertising, radio, and a 100% ENERGY
STARCI tour of homes.
Participation
While builder participation increased, the
number of certified homes fell short of the level
needed to meet the 2004 Energy Plan energy
target of 1,414,166 kWh or 681 homes for 2007.
Nearly 90% of the ENERGY STARCI Homes
completed were built in the Treasure Valley.
The program's estimated market share in 2007
was approximately 5% of the total single-family
housing starts in IPC's service area, which is a
slight increase over 2006.
Energy Impact
Anual energy savings in 2007 were
629,634 kWh as compared to 912,242 kWh
savings in 2006. The demand reduction in 2007
was 606 kW, and in 2006 it was 878 kW. This
decrease in both energy and demand savings can
be contributed to the downtu in the housing
market.
Exhibit NO.1
Case No. IPC-E-08-03
T. Tatum, IPC
Page 25 of 80
Page 16 Annual Report 2007
Idaho Power Company Demand-Side Management
2008 Strategies
In 2008, the incentive for builders will change.
The 2006 International Energy Conservation
Code (IECC), which the State of Idaho has
adopted as its standard building code, took
effect January 1,2008. This new code meets
ENERGY STARCI Homes Northwest program
standards in several key areas, which decreases
the incremental energy savings of each
ENERGY STARCI Home. As a direct result of
the upgrade in Idaho code and the resulting
reduction of energy savings, IPC has reduced
the incentive to $400 in 2008, down from the
$750 incentive previously offered. Incentives
for Parade of Homes units remain unchanged.
Based on current market conditions, IPC's
target for 2008 is to complete 380 certified
ENERGY STARCI Northwest Homes. In order
to achieve this target IPC plans to increase
awareness of the program, especially outside the
Treasure Valley. IPC wil continue to provide
realtor trainings, support Parade of Homes
events, support Building Contractors
Association (BCA) and realtor associations,
improve distrbution of marketing materials, and
continue to support the IESBP group and their
activities.
Exhibit NO.1
Case No. IPC-E-08-03
T. Tatum, IPC
Page 26 of 80
Annual Report 2007 Page 17
Demand-Side Management Idaho Power Company
Residential Sector
Energy Efficiency Program
Oregon Residential
Weatherization
Program Overview
Description
IPC offers free energy audits for electrically
heated homes of customers within the Oregon
service area. Upon request, an IPC
representative visits the home to analyze it for
energy effciency. An estimate of costs and
savings for specific measures is given to the
customer. IPC offers financial assistance for a
portion of the costs for weatherization measures,
either as a cash incentive or with a 6.5% interest
loan.
Results
Participation
In 2007, a total of35 Oregon customers
responded to an informational brochure about
energy audits and home weatherization
financing in 2007. Each of the 35 customers
retued a card from the brochure indicating
they were interested in a home energy audit,
weatherization loan, or cash payment.
Twenty-two audits and responses to customer
inquiries to the program were completed.
Five customer responses were directed to
Cascade Natual Gas, and eight follow-up calls
to customers had no response.
Energy Impact
One of the 2007 audit participants chose to
implement energy-saving measures during the
year. This customer requested a loan for $1,808
to pay for ceiling and floor insulation used in
the home. Annual energy savings from this
program equaled 9,971 kWh.
Exhibit NO.1
Case No. IPC-E-08-03
T. Tatum, IPC
Page 27 of 80
Page 18 Annual Report 2007
Idaho Power Company
Residential Sector
Energy Efficiency Program
Rebate Advantage
Description
The Rebate Advantage program encourages
manufactured home buyers to purchase energy
efficient Super Good CentsiI and later ENERGY
STARCI manufactured homes. Effective
October 1, 2007, IPC began providing
incentives only on ENERGY STARCI-certified
manufactued homes.
Rebate Advantage promotes and educates
buyers and retailers of manufactured homes
about the benefits of owning energy efficient
models, and offers financial incentives.
Customers who purchase an ENERGY STARCI
home and site it in IPC's service area are
eligible for a $500 incentive. In addition
salespersons receive a $100 incentive fo; each
qualified home sold.
Quality control and energy efficiency
specifications for qualified homes are
established by the Northwest Energy Efficient
Manufactued Housing (NEEM) program.
NEEM is a consortium of manufacturers and
state energy offices in the Northwest. In
addition to specifications and quality control,
Demand-Side Management
NEEM tracks the production and on-site
performance of ENERGY STARCI homes.
The license to use the Super Good CentsCI
designation in the Pacific Northwest was
discontinued as of September 30, 2006. Initially,
BP A funding guidelines directed that, effective
October 1, 2006, new homes must be
manufactured under ENERGY STARCI
standards. Subsequent to this decision, BP A and
IPC decided to also accept the following homes
for credit until September 30, 2007:
manufactured homes certified by NEEM as
Super Good CentsCI, and manufactured homes
sold as Super Good CentsCI homes prior to
October 1, 2006 that subsequently receive the
NEEM -certified designation.
Results
Participation
In 2007, there were 123 homes sold under this
program, compared to 102 homes in 2006. The
geographic reach of this program, as seen in
Table 8, shows 19% of the total homes
participating were in IPC's Oregon service area.
Approximately one-third of all manufactued
home dealers with sales in IPC's service area
are participating in the program.
Table 8. Rebate Advantage 2007 Activity and
Energy Savings Summary
Idaho Oregon Total
Activity
Homes........................99 24 123
Towns with 48 9 57
Homes Sited ...............
Counties with 21 3 24
Homes Sited ..... ..........
Salespeople(1).............30 13 N/A
Dealers(1) ....................19 9 N/A
Manufacturers(1) .........12 7 N/A
Energy Savings kWh......465,882 88,196 554,018
(1) Some sales groups sell in both Idaho and Oregon.
Exhibit NO.1
Case No. IPC-E-08-03
T. Tatum, IPC
Page 28 of 80
Annual Report 2007 Page 19
Demand-Side Management Idaho Power Company
Energy Impact
The annual energy savings increased by 66%
over the previous year, from 333,494 kWh in
2006 to 554,018 kWh in 2007. Savings from
this program are largely due to improvements in
the shell of the home, resulting in more efficient
use of heating and cooling resources.
Manufacturers have some flexibility in how they
achieve a more efficient shell; however, a
common attribute of all homes in the program is
a sealed-duct delivery system.
2008 Strategies
The 2008 target for this program is 150 certified
homes. To accomplish this target, IPC will
increase outreach to manufactured home
dealers. A new brochure is being developed to
assist manufactued home dealers in promoting
ENERGY STARCI manufactured homes and
IPC's Rebate Advantage program to their
customers.
Exhibit NO.1
Case No. IPC-E-08-03
T. Tatum, IPC
Page 29 of 80
Page 20 Annual Report 2007
Idaho Power Company Demand-Side Management
Residential Sector
Energy Efficiency Program
ENERGY STAR(RLighting
Description
The ENERGY STARCI Lighting program is
designed to achieve residential energy savings
through the replacement ofless efficient lighting
with more effcient technology. The average
older home has 38 light bulbs. New homes have
an average of 77 light bulbs. Changing these
bulbs represents a low-cost, easy way for all
customers to achieve energy savings.
In 2007, the majority of energy savings were
achieved through IPC's participation in three
regional Change A Light promotions sponsored
by the BP A. Additional energy savings were
achieved from carrover from the 2006 Savings
With A Twist (SWAT) promotion and limited
direct-install opportnities. Table 9 describes
the energy savings and the number of CFL bulbs
contributed to each segment of the program.
Table 9. ENERGY STAR(ß Lighting 2007 Program
Summary
Current Programs
Savings With A Twist(1) ..............
Change A Light Spring ...... ..... ....
Change A Light Fall Spiral.........
Change A Light Fall Specialty....
Light Bulb Direct-Install .. ............
Total
kWh Energy # of CFL
Savings Bulbs
186,468
3,263,141
3,420,154
258,431
79,245
7,207,439
5,685
99,486
104,273
7,879
2,416
219,739
(1) 2006 carryover
Results
Energy Impact
ENERGY STARCI Lighting program activities
in Idaho and Oregon resulted in the installation
of219,739 CFLs for a savings of 7,207 MWh as
compared to 6,302 MWh in 2006. In 2007,
Idaho's portion included the installation of
213,652 CFLs for asavings of 7,007 MWh,
while Oregon's portion consisted of the
installation of 6,087 CFLs and a savings of
200MWh.
BP A has calculated the energy impact of a CFL
at 32.8 kWh/bulb for its CRC program. This is a
regional average based on the wattage
difference between the incandescent and CFL
bulb, adjusted for heating impact, market
saturation rates, and hours of operation.
Although the BP A-CRC program was
suspended mid-year, the Oregon portion of the
spring Change a Light program was financed
with CRC funds.
Customer Satisfaction
In 2007, IPC developed a strategy to address
customer concerns recognizing the role of state
and federal health and environmental
professionals in regard to risks posed by
mercur in CFLs. IPC informs customers of the
presence of mercur in bulbs and directs them to
the primary sources of environmental and health
information for specific questions related tl.xhibit NO.1.. Case No. IPC-E-08-03
disposal, nsk, and management. T. Tatum, IPC
Page 30 of 80
Annual Report 2007 Page 21
Demand-Side Management Idaho Power Company
Cost continues to be a market barrer with
off-promotion CFLs priced at $2 to over $6 in
the marketplace.
2008 Strategies
IPC will continue to promote ENERGY STARCI
Lighting in 2008 through participation in
regional lighting promotions and customer
education, while exploring new projects to
promote energy efficient lighting.
IPC wil provide customer education through
in-store events, targeting education efforts on
new bulb applications and emerging advances in
ENERGY STARCI lighting, including both CFL
and light-emitting diode (LED) technologies.
Additionally, IPC wil explore new programs
for ENERGY STARCI fixtues and ceiling fans,
and a light bulb program for smaller, rural
retailers.
Exhibit No. 1
Case No. IPC-E-08-03
T. Tatum, IPC
Page 31 of 80
Page 22 Annual Report 2007
Idaho Power Company
Residential Sector
Energy Efficiency Program
Weatherization Assistance
for Qualified Customers
Description
The W AQC program has been operating since
1989. The program provides funding for the
installation of cost-effective weatherization
measures in qualified owner-occupied and rental
homes that are electrcally heated.
Enhancements enable low-income families to
maintain a comfortable home environment,
while saving energy and money otherwise spent
on heating, cooling, and lighting.
WAQC is modeled after the U.S. Deparent of
Energy (DOE) Weatherization Program. The
DOE program is managed through Health and
Human Services offces in Idaho and by the
Oregon Housing and Community Services in
Oregon.
IPC serves as the administrator ofWAQC, in
conjunction with Community Action
Partnership (CAP) agencies in the IPC service
area. Federal fuds are allocated to the Idaho
Department of Health and Welfare and the
Oregon Housing and Community Services, then
to CAP agencies based upon U.S. Census data
Demand-Side Management
of qualifying household income within each
CAP agency's geographic area. The CAP
agencies oversee local weatherization crews and
contractors providing implementations that
improve energy efficiency of the homes.
Table 10 provides a summary ofWAQC IPC
2007 expenses.
Table 10. Weatherization Assistance 2007
Year-End IPC Expenses
2007
Projects Expenses
IPC Payments
CAP Agencies(1)
CCOA.............................
EI-Ada............................
EICAP.............................
SCCAP...........................
SEICAA..........................
10 Total
MCOA-OR...................
HCSCs-R.................
CCND-R...................
OR Total
Total CAP Agencies
Non-Profit Projects
Non-Profits-I D ...............
Non-Profis-OR .............
Total Non-Profi
TotaliPC Payments
IPC Administration(2)
TotaliPC Program Expense
(1) See Glossary for Community Action Partnership (CAP)
definitions.
(2) Includes BPA funding of $28,035 for 2007.
Results
120 $355,071
159 $473,288
6 $12,788
65 $171,830
47 $111,604
397 $1,124,581
9 $23,019
0 $0
2 $5,869
11 $28,887
408 $1,153,468
0 $75,760
0 $0
0 $75,760
408 $1,229,228
$94,395
$1,323,624
Participation
During 2007, Idaho CAP agencies weatherized
391 electrcally heated homes and six buildings
housing nonprofit agencies providing assistance
to special-needs customers. Oregon CAP Exhibit NO.1
agencies weatherized 11 homes. In îÐ61Q.gC-E-08-03"t'iatum, IPC
Page 32 of 80
Annual Report 2007 Page 23
Demand-Side Management Idaho Power Company
W AQC program completed a total of
408 weatherization jobs.
Energy Impact
The annual energy savings increased by 13%
over the prior year, to 3,338,126 kWh in 2007 as
compared to 2,958,024 kWh savings in 2006.
Table 11 provides W AQC 2007 energy savings.
Table 11. Weatherization Assistance 2007
Year-End Energy Savings
kWh Savings for 2007
CAP Agencies
CCOA.............................
EI-Ada ...........................
EICAP............................
SCCAP...........................
SEICAA..........................
10 Total
MCOA-OR...................
HCSCS-OR..................
CCNO-OR ...................
OR Total
Total CAP Agencies
Non-Profit Projects
Non-Profits-ID ...............
Non-Profis-OR .............
Total Non-Profit
Total kWh Savings
1,304,375
1,181,873
20,525
286,709
203,916
2,997,399
25,921
o
16,187
42,108
3,039,507
298,619
o
298,619
3,338,126
Customer Satisfaction
In 2007, the WAQC program received
satisfaction sureys from customers whose
homes had been weatherized through the
program. Customers were asked how much they
thought the weatherization had improved the
comfort of their home. Seventy-three percent of
the respondents replied that they thought the
improvements helped. Fifty-one percent of the
respondents also thought that weatherization
would reduce futue bils, and 93% reported
having tred energy-saving ideas in their home.
2008 Strategies
IPC staff wil continue to work with Idaho
Departent of Health and Welfare, Oregon
Housing and Community Services, CAP AI, and
individual CAP agency management and staff to
coordinate services and monitor the program to
best serve special-needs customers.
Exhibit NO.1
Case No. IPC-E-08-03
T. Tatum, IPC
Page 33 of 80
Page 24 Annual Report 2007
Idaho Power Company Demand-Side Management
Residential Sector
Energy Efficiency Program
Heating and Cooling
Efficiency
Description
The Heating and Cooling Effciency (H&CE)
program began in September 2007. The
objectives of this program are to acquire kWh
savings and reduce summer peak demand
through the implementation of energy-saving
HV AC measures in the residential sector. Cash
incentives are provided to residential customers
and HV AC contractors who install eligible
central air conditioners (CAC), heat pumps, and
evaporative coolers. Incentives are awarded for
qualifying heat pump tue-ups and CAC
tue-ups meeting IPC's program specifications.
All work must be performed by a participating
HV AC company.
The H&CE program is available to IPC
customers in Idaho and requires contractors to
become "participating" companies who must
sign an agreement with IPC. The participating
companies must ensure their service technicians
and installers attend required training on the
proper installation of air conditioners and heat
pumps. These companies must purchase and use
TrueFlow™ Meters to measure air flow, and
adhere to program specifications.
During fall 2007, IPC sponsored classes on the
proper sizing of equipment and over
200 technicians attended these classes.
Results
F our customer incentives were processed in
2007, resulting in a total energy savings of
1,595 kWh.
2008 Strategies
In 2008, IPC plans to increase awareness and
participation in the program by implementing a
comprehensive marketing/advertising strategy,
and by increasing the number of contractors
properly sizing and installing heating and
cooling equipment.
Exhibit NO.1
Case No. IPC-E-08-03
T. Tatum, IPC
Page 34 of 80
Annual Report 2007 Page 25
Demand-Side Management Idaho Power Company
COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL
SECTOR OVERVIEW
The commercial/industral sector consists of
approximately 62,000 customers, with
2,586 new customers added during 2007 for an
increase of about 4.4%. Energy usage of
customers within this sector varies from a few
kWh each month to several hundred thousand
kWh per month. This sector represents
approximately 52% ofIPC's total actual system
energy sales. The industrial customers in this
sector are IPC's largest individual energy
consumers. This group consists of
approximately 300 customers and accounts for
about 29% ofIPC's system energy sales.
Programs
Three programs targeting different energy
efficiency activities are available to the
commerciai/industrial customers. The newest
program offered in this sector, Easy Upgrades,
was launched in Idaho in February 2007 and in
Oregon in May 2007. The program is designed
to deliver energy effciency and demand-side
savings to all existing commercial and industral
customers. Easy Upgrades offers a menu of
incentives for lighting, HVAC, motors, building
shell, plug loads, and grocery refrigeration.
With the launch of this program, the former
Oregon School Efficiency program was
discontinued since schools can now participate
in Easy Upgrades.
The Building Efficiency program for new
construction projects achieves energy savings
that are cost-effective at the time of
construction. This program continues to offer
energy-saving improvements for lighting,
cooling, building shell, and energy control
efficiency options.
Both Building Efficiency and Easy Upgrades
participants can receive incentives up to
$100,000 for any projects completed.
The Custom Efficiency program, formerly the
Industrial Efficiency program, was expanded to
include large commercial customers in 2007.
This program is intended for larger custom
projects.
IPC continues to offer its Oregon Commercial
Audits program to medium and small
commercial customers.
Commerciai/industrial sector direct program
expenses are shown by program in Figue 5
below.
Figure 5. 2007 Commercial/lndustrial Sector Direct Program Expense
0%
16%
Commerciainndustrial Sectr Programs
. Custom Effnc
II Easy Upgraes
II Building Effciency
. Oregon Commercial Audits
Total
2007
Expenses
$3,161,866
$711,494
$669,032
$1,981
$4,542,392
Percnt of
Expeses
69.6%
15.7%
14.7%
0.0%
100.0%
Exhibit No. 1
Case No. IPC-E-08-03
T. Tatum, ¡PC
Page 35 of 80
Page 26 Annual Report 2007
Idaho Power Company Demand-Side Management
Results
Total annual energy savings for the
commercial/industrial programs increased by
about 88%, from 20,139,514 kWh in 2006 to
37,790,192 kWh in 2007. See Table 12. See
Table 13 regarding the demand reduction
attributable to 2007 commerciallindustral
program activity.
Table 12. Commercial/Industrial Sector Energy
Savings (kWh)
Building Effciency................... ..............
Easy Upgrades......................................
Oregon Commercial Audits.. ......... .... ....
Custom Efficiency..................................
Total
kWh
2,817,248
5,183,640
N/A
29,789,304
37,790,192
Table 13. Commercial/Industrial Sector Demand
Reduction (kW)
akW Summer
Peak kW
Building Efficiency... .................. ........
Easy Upgrades..................................
Oregon Commercial Audits ..... ..........
Custom Efficiency............... ........ .......
Total
322
592
N/A
3,401
4,314
454
780
N/A
3,622
4,856
Exhibit No. 1
Case No. IPC-E-08-03
T. Tatum, IPC
Page 36 of 80
Annual Report 2007 Page 27
Demand-Side Management
Commercial/lndustrial Sector
Energy Efficiency Program
Building Efficiency
Description
The Building Effciency program is available to
commercial and industrial customers involved
in the construction of new buildings or
construction projects with significant additions,
remodels, or expansions. Under this program,
customers are able to apply energy effcient
design features and technologies to their
projects that would otherwise be lost
opportities for energy savings. Launched in
Idaho in the spring of2005, the program
expanded to Oregon in January 2006.
Menu offerings within the Building Efficiency
program include measures and incentives for
lighting, cooling, building shell, and control
effciency options.
Program marketing enlists architects, engineers,
and other local design professionals. Monthly
e-mail updates are sent to building developers,
design professionals, contractors, building
owners, IPC field personnel, and other
interested parties.
Idaho Power Company
Through this program, IPC is a primary sponsor
of the Boise Integrated Design Lab, which
provides technical assistance and training
seminars to local architects and designers. Much
of this activity is coordinated and supported
through NEEA's BetterBricksCI program.
Results
The success of the program in 2007 can partially
be attributed to the addition of a group of three
control measures added to the menu of Building
Efficiency incentive opportnities.
Approximately 31 % of Building Efficiency
participants took advantage of the energy
management control system, the demand control
ventilation, and/or the variable speed drves.
These measures resulted in savings of over
1,500MWh.
Participation
Durng 2007, a total of 81 applicants submitted
preliminary applications for projects to be
completed from 2007 to 2009. A total of
22 projects were completed and their incentives
awarded.
Energy Impact
The annual energy savings increased by almost
300% over the prior year, from 704,541 kWh in
2006 to 2,817,248 kWh in 2007. The peak
demand reduction increased by 34%, from
338 kW in 2006 to 454 kW in 2007.
2008 Strategies
In 2008, IPC wil make minor modifications to
the program in order to accommodate Idaho's
recent adoption of the IECC, effective Januar
1,2008. Eligibility requirements for thee of the
14 measures changed for 2008.
Another change, effective February i, 2008, is
that all final applications for incentive payments
must be submitted within 60 days of proje~xhibit NO.1
completion. Case No. IPC-E-08-03
T. Tatum, IPC
Page 37 of 80
Page 28 Annual Report 2007
Idaho Power Company Demand-Side Management
Commercialllndustrial Sector
Energy Efficiency Program
Easy Upgrades
Description
In February 2007, Easy Upgrades was launched
in Idaho, followed by a May 2007 launch in
Oregon. The Easy Upgrades program was
designed to encourage commercial and
industrial energy-saving retrofits. The program
has six menus of eligible, energy-saving
measures and incentives, covering various
commercial energy-saving opportities in
lighting, HV AC, motors, building shell, plug
loads, and grocery refrgeration.
Program marketing included advertising in key
business publications and providing
10 workshops in February and September. The
workshops were designed to network with
contractors, vendors, and other trade allies,
inform them of the Easy Upgrades program, and
provide the tools to promote it. Additional
program-related communications went out to
trade allies, commercial customers, and IPC
field personneL.
As part of this new program, a special
promotion for directly installed
VendingMiser™ controls was started in
November. The energy-saving plug-in device
uses an occupancy-sensor based technology to
manage energy used by vending machines. By
the end of the year, over 1,000 controls were
installed.
IPC helps sponsor the Lighting Design Lab
(LDL) in Seattle through the Easy Upgrades
program. LDL provides technical assistance and
periodic local training seminars encouraging
energy-saving lighting. Additionally, IPC is a
sponsor ofNEEA's BetterBricksCI program,
disseminating general energy efficiency
information to commercial customers.
IPC also offered a special promotion for LEDs.
This promotion focused on holiday lighting.
Through a seasonal promotion, IPC provided a
per-bulb incentive to non-residential customers
to replace incandescent holiday lights with more
efficient LED lights. Eight facilities participated
in this promotion, resulting in savings of
11,779 kWh. High-profie community displays
were targets for this promotion in order to
showcase the benefits ofLEDs. The Winter
Garden Aglow display at the Idaho Botanical
Garden is a good example of that. They replaced
14,700 incandescent bulbs for an estimated
savings of7,996 kWh. Two local newspapers
covered this project. Signs posted near the
display educated over 26,500 attendees about
energy efficient LED lights.
Results
Participation
During the year, 219 pre-applications were
submitted and 104 projects were completed.
Those totals included eight pre-applications and
three completed projects in Oregon.
Energy Impact
The annual energy savings from the Easy
Upgrades program was 5,183,640 kWh, which
included the 1,116,288 kWh saved from
installng VendingMisers™. The peak demand
reduction impact for the Easy Upgrades Exhibit NO.1
k Case No. IPC-E-08-03program was 780 W. T Tatum IPC
Page 38 of 80
Annual Report 2007 Page 29
Demand-Side Management Idaho Power Company
Customer Satisfaction
Input is regularly solicited from program
participants to assess their satisfaction.
Approximately one month after they receive
their incentive payment, IPC provides each
participant with a customer survey Web link.
The survey asks a series of customer satisfaction
questions about their participation.
As of January 2008, responses indicate that 48%
of the respondents first learned of the Easy
Upgrades program from their contractor,
supplier, or vendor. The result supports IPC's
focus on marketing and communicating with
those same trade allies.
A key question asked on the surey was
"Overall, how much would you agree that you
received an excellent value from Idaho Power
through this program?" Nearly 73% of the
respondents replied "Strongly Agree," and
nearly 12% replied "Somewhat Agree."
2008 Strategies
IPC wil continue promoting the program to
business and professional associations, wil
coordinate with trade alles, and will continue
the VendingMiser™ promotion until 2,500 units
are installed.
In 2008, several new features wil be added. An
electronic lighting calculator for proposed
lighting retrofits wil be offered to both
customers and lighting contractors. This tool
wil easily analyze a project's energy savings
potential, indicate incentives available, and
show the net return on investment. The lighting
calculator wil be coupled with a Web-based
electronic application. This should make the
application process easier for customers and
reduce processing time for IPC staff. A series of
one-page testimonials from program paricipants
is being created to promote the program. These
success stories wil be available as printed
documents and displayed on the IPC Web site.Exhibit NO.1
Case No. IPC-E-08-03
T. Tatum, IPC
Page 39 of 80
Page 30 Annual Report 2007
Idaho Power Company Demand-Side Management
Commercial/Industrial Sector
Energy Efficiency Program
Oregon Commercial Audits
Description
Available to all Oregon commercial customers
since 1983, the Oregon Commercial Audits
program identifies opportnities for commercial
building owners to achieve energy savings.
Evaluations, through energy audits, and
educational services are offered. Program
benefits and offerings are communicated to the
target market through an anual mailing to each
customer in the commercial sector.
As was done in 2005 and 2006, IPC offered the
Saving Energy Dollars publication to customers
who wanted more information on saving energy
and reducing expenses. New in 2007 was the
Building Energy Effciency Program (BEEP)
workshop, offered for free in lieu of an energy
audit, valued at $150 per participant. The
day-and-a-halfworkshop, held in Boise in
September, focused on proven, no-cost and low-
cost energy-saving techniques.
Results
In late August 2007, IPC mailed its annual letter
to all Oregon commercial customers. Customers
were notified of the availability of no-cost
energy audits and the IPC publication Saving
Energy Dollars. This mailing resulted in
i 6 customer responses for information or an
energy audit. Eight customers requested only
the Saving Energy Dollars publication. Eight
customers returned requests for energy audits.
IPC personnel conducted four of the audits and
a third-par contractor conducted the other four
audits. One customer took advantage of the free
pass to the BEEP workshop in September.
2008 Strategies
In 2008, the third-part energy auditing contract
is up for renewaL. IPC is planing to issue a new
Request for Proposal (RFP) from contractors for
future energy audits. IPC is also evaluating the
potential for enhanced correlation between the
Oregon Commercial Audit program and the
Easy Upgrades incentive program by using the
energy audit as a tool to promote the Easy
Upgrades incentive program.
Exhibit NO.1
Case No. IPC-E-08-03
T. Tatum, IPC
Page 40 of 80
Annual Report 2007 Page 31
Demand-Side Management Idaho Power Company
Commercial/Industrial Sector
Energy Efficiency Program
Custom Efficiency
Program Overview
Description
Initially implemented as a pilot program in
2003, the Industrial Efficiency program was
selected for implementation as a result of the
2004 Energy Plan. An expansion of this
program was identified in the 2006 Energy Plan
and, as a result, the program was expanded in
2007 and renamed the Custom Efficiency
program. It is offered to all large commercial
and industral customers in Idaho and Oregon.
The Custom Efficiency program targets the
acquisition of peak demand reduction and
energy savings through the implementation of
customized energy efficiency projects at
customer sites.
Operationally, the program provides training
and basic education on energy effciency,
energy auditing services for project
identification and evaluation, and financial
incentives for project implementation.
The key components in facilitating customer
implementation of energy efficiency projects are
energy auditing, customer training, and
education services.
Interested customers submit applications to IPC,
identifying potential projects applicable to their
facilities. The applications must provide
sufficient information to support the energy
savings calculations.
Project implementation begins after IPC's
review and approval of an application, followed
by the finalization ofthe terms and conditions of
the applicant's and IPC's obligations. When
possible, IPC conducts on-site power
monitoring and data collection, before and after
project implementation. The measurement and
verification process ensures that projected
energy savings are achieved. Verifying
applicants' information confirms that demand
reduction and energy savings are obtainable and
within program guidelines.
If changes in scope occur in a project, the
energy savings and incentive amounts are
recalculated based on the actual installed
equipment. Large, complex projects may take as
long as two years to complete.
In 2007, the Custom Efficiency program
incorporated several changes. The program was
expanded to include all large commercial and
industral customers. Previously, only customers
with a basic load capacity (BLC) of more than
500 kW were eligible to participate in the
program. Incentive levels were increased to
70% of the project cost, or $0.12/kWh,
whichever is less. The incentives previously
were capped at 50% of the project cost, or
$0. 12/kWh, whichever was less. In 2007, the
incentive cap was removed. Previously, the cap
was $100,000 per customer account.
The link between energy audits and completed
projects is historically strong; thus, IPC
expanded the number of contractors available to
do customer scoping audits from one company
in 2006 to four companies in 2007. Bn~We~Ø:~ò~
firms were chosen for their expertise 1n aih-. Tatum, IPC
Page 41 of 80
Page 32 Annual Report 2007
Idaho Power Company Demand-Side Management
major equipment areas and their ability to
provide resources for customers throughout
IPC's service area.
Results
The Custom Efficiency program has achieved a
high penetration rate, approximately 25%, with
the large commercial and industrial customers.
Participation
IPC reviewed and approved 87 applications for
incentive projects in 2007. A total of 49 projects
were completed in 2007, consisting of
29 companies at 37 separate locations, and one
Oregon project. Three more Oregon project
applicants are scheduled for completion in early
2008.
increased by 45%. Figure 6 shows Custom
Efficiency annual energy savings by measure.
2008 Strategies
In 2008, IPC plans to continue the expansion of
the Custom Effciency program through a
number of avenues. This wil include direct
marketing of the Custom Efficiency program by
IPC field staff. IPC wil continue to provide site
visits and energy audits for project
identification, technical training for customers,
detailed energy audits for larger, complex
projects, and delivery ofIndustria1 Effciency
Alliance (IEA)-sponsored continuous energy
improvement practices to customers.
Energy Impact
The Custom Efficiency program increased
energy savings in 2007 by 55% over the prior
year, from 19,212 MWh to 29,789 MWh.
Additionally, completed projects increased by
23% and approved incentive applications
Figure 6. 2007 Custom Effciency Measures Annual Energy Savings (kWh)
Lighting
Refrgeration
Oter
compressd Air
Pump
Fan
10,327,232
° 2,00,00 4,000,00 6,000,000 8,000,000 10,000,00 12,00,000
kWh Exhibit NO.1
Case No. IPC-E-08-03
T. Tatum, IPC
Page 42 of 80
Annual Report 2007 Page 33
Demand-Side Management Idaho Power Company
IRRIGATION SECTOR
OVERVIEW
The irrigation sector is comprised of agricultual
irrigation customers representing approximately
6,200 individuals with over 16,600 electrical
service locations. Other irrgation users, such as
golf courses and parks, are assigned to other
sectors and are not eligible for DSM irrigation
programs.
In total, the irrigation sector represents
approximately 30% ofIPC's summer peak load
and 12% of total system energy sales per year.
The load for this sector has not grown
significantly in many years; however, there is a
yearly variation in demand due primarly to the
impact of weather on irrigation needs.
Programs
IPC curently offers two programs to the
irrgation sector: Irrgation Peak Rewards, a
demand response program designed to decrease
peak demand, and the Irrgation Efficiency
Rewards, an energy effciency program
designed to encourage replacement or
improvement of inefficient systems and
components.
Results
The Irrgation Peak Rewards program provided
significant peak reduction durng the summer of
2007, with an average peak load reduction of
28.9 MW and a maximum summer peak
reduction of 37.4 MW. The maximum summer
peak reduction was approximately 18% higher
in 2007 than in 2006. This was due primarily to
changes in the program incentive strctue,
which caused more two- and thee-day-per-
week participants.
The Irrgation Efficiency Rewards program had
strong participation in 2007. However, the
maturity of the program and the early adoption
of the menu options by irrgators have caused a
leveling off of projects in 2007. Program
redesign, implemented in 2006, offered
increased incentive levels and provided a menu
option program that is popular with irrigation
customers. The total energy savings for 2007
was 12,304 MWh on 819 projects across IPC's
service area. Table 14 shows the 2007 irrgation
sector's direct expenses, energy savings, and
summer peak demand reduction attbutable to
Irrigation Peak Rewards and Irrgation
Effciency Rewards programs.
Table 14. 2007 Irrigation Program Summary, Energy Savings (kWh) and Demand Reduction (kW)
Irrigation Efficiency Rewards ....... ........ ....... ..........
Irrigation Peak Rewards .................... ...................
Total
Direct
Expenses
kWh Energy
Savings
12,304,073
N/A
12,304,073
3,407
37,441
40,848
kW Summer Peak
Demand Reduction
$2,001,961
$1,615,881
$3,617,843
Exhibit NO.1
Case No. IPC-E-08-03
T. Tatum, IPC
Page 43 of 80
Page 34 Annual Report 2007
Idaho Power Company Demand-Side Management
Irrigation Sector
Demand Response Program
Irrigation Peak Rewards
Description
The Irrgation Peak Rewards program was
initially implemented as a pilot program in 2004
and fully implemented in 2005 as a result of the
2004 Energy Plan planning process. In 2006, the
program became available to IPC's Oregon
customers.
It is a voluntary program targeted toward
agricultual irrigation customers with pumps of
75 horsepower or greater. The program
objective is to reduce peak electrcal load during
summer weekday afternoons. Preprogrammed
electronic time-activated switches tu off the
pumps of participating irrgation customers
during intervals predetermined by IPC in
exchange for a financial incentive.
Participants select one of three different options
for the months of June, July, and August. A
monthly demand credit is associated with each
of the one-, two-, or three-day options and is
paid based on the participating customer's
monthly biling demand. Electric timers are
programmed to turn off irrigation pumps during
preprogrammed time periods associated with the
selected option.
During 2007, the following options and
associated demand credit incentives were
available to customers from 4 to 8 p.m.
weekdays: a one-day-per-week, $2.01 per kW
demand; a two-days-per-week, $3.36 per kW
demand; or a three-days-per-week, $4.36 per
kW demand. Incentive amounts credited to
customers' monthly bils are calculated
separately for each metered service point.
IPC made changes to the program in 2007, as
approved by the IPUC and OPUC.
Modifications increased the incentive amounts
for the two-days and three-days per week
options, and extended the program eligibility to
service locations with at least 75 horsepower, in
contrast to at least 100 horsepower required in
2006. A one-time $250 fee is required from
customers with pumps of75 to 99 horsepower
to help offset the cost of the switches and
maintain the program's cost effectiveness.
Results
Participation
Enlisted service points slightly increased durg
2007, due to the lowered horsepower limit.
Participation rates show the program achieved
19.5% participation with 947 service points out
of 4,852 eligible service points. In 2006, there
were 906 service points in Idaho and 13 service
points in Oregon. In 2007, there were
925 service points in Idaho and 22 service
points in Oregon.
Demand Impact
Each summer the program has produced
substantial and measurable impacts on peak
demand. Durng summer 2007, the program
produced an average load reduction across all
three months of28.9 MW, with an average of
32.8 MW load reduction in the month of July.
Maximum load reduction occured during tlibit NO.1
d h If f J h . CaJ;e N'o. IPC-E-08-03sec on a 0 une w en an estimateo T. Tatum, IPC
Page 44 of 80
Annual Report 2007 Page 35
Demand-Side Management Idaho Power Company
37.4 MW reduction was achieved. The
customers' peak reduction loads are scheduled
evenly each day of the week by IPC, based on
historical information on system peaks.
2008 Strategies
IPC plans to operate the Irrgation Peak
Rewards program without any changes to its
strctue for the 2008 irrgation season.
However, in cooperation with the Idaho
Irrgation Pumpers Association and IPUC staff,
IPC is putting together a working group in the
spring of 2008 to review the current program
and to investigate a dispatchable demand
response option for 2009.
Exhibit NO.1
Case No. IPC-E-08-03
T. Tatum, IPC
Page 45 of 80
Page 36 Annual Report 2007
Idaho Power Company Demand-Side Management
Irrigation Sector
Energy Efficiency Program
Irrigation Efficiency Rewards
Description
Initially implemented as a pilot program in
2003, the Irrgation Effciency Rewards
program was fully developed following its
selection by the 2004 Energy Plan. Designed to
improve the energy efficiency of irrigation
systems in IPC's service area, a wide range of
financial incentives and educational methods are
provided. The program has been offered in
Idaho since 2003 and in Oregon since 2006.
To meet the needs of various irrigation systems,
two separate options are available for major or
minor changes on new or existing systems.
The Custom Incentive Option provides
component upgrades and large-scale
improvements. For new systems, the incentive is
$0.25 per kWh saved above standard installation
methods, not to exceed 10% of total project
cost. For existing system upgrades, the incentive
is $0.25 per kWh saved or $450 per kW,
whichever is greater, not to exceed 75% of total
project cost.
The Menu Incentive Option is designed for
systems in which small maintenance upgrades
provide energy savings. Incentives var based
on specific component replacement.
Payments are calculated on predetermined
average kWh savings per component. IPC
reviews and analyzes each proposal for a system
or component modification to determine and
verify the energy savings.
In addition to incentives, the program offers
customer education, training, and irrigation
system assessments. IPC agricultual
representatives sponsor, coordinate, conduct,
and present educational workshops for irrgation
customers, providing expert .information and
training across IPC's service area. Energy audits
are provided to prospective customers by IPC
agricultual representatives to evaluate potential
savings.
Agricultural representatives from IPC also
engage agrcultual irrgation equipment dealers
in training sessions, increasing awareness of the
program and promoting it through the irrgation
equipment distribution chanels.
Marketing efforts include direct mailings,
advertisements in agrcultural publications, and
agricultual trade show participation.
Results
Participation
In 2007, a total of819 projects were completed
with irrigation customers, of which 120 were
under the Custom Incentive Option and
699 were under the Menu Incentive Option.
Incentive payments to customers in 2007 totaled
$1,744,260, down from $2,477,598 paid in
2006. The decrease was due to a decline in total
number of projects in 2007.
Energy Impact
The energy impact of the program was
12,304 MWh of energy savings and 3.4 M~~t NO.1
peak load reduction in 2007. In 2006¡illeiiee:l:8-03
T. Tatum, IPC
Page 46 of 80
Annual Report 2007 Page 37
Demand-Side Management Idaho Power Company
savings was 16,986 MWh and 5.1 MW of peak
load reduction.
2008 Strategies
IPC plans to continue offering the program
without any changes in 2008. However, ongoing
IPC program reviews may result in adjustments
in the incentive levels, program strcture, and
marketing efforts as operational experience
merits.
Exhibit NO.1
Case No. IPC-E-08-03
T. Tatum, IPC
Page 47 of 80
Page 38 Annual Report 2007
Idaho Power Company Demand-Side Management
MARKET TRANSFORMATION
Northwest Energy Efficiency
Allance (N EEA)
NEEA encourages and supports cost-effective
market transformation efforts in Idaho, Oregon,
Washington, and Montana. Through
partnerships with local utilities, NEEA
motivates marketplace adoption of energy
saving services and technologies, and
encourages regional education and marketing
platforms. NEEA provides training and
marketing resources across residential,
commercial, and industrial sectors.
IPC accomplishes market transformation in its
service area through membership and
coordinated activities with NEEA.
NEEA Activities
Industrial Efficiency Allance (lEA)
Activities in Idaho
The IEA is a multi-year strategic effort designed
to improve energy efficiency in two regional
industries considered heavy energy users: the
food processing and the pulp and paper
industries. The IEA also works with companies
that produce equipment and provide services for
these industries and with the utilities that serve
them.
Participants achieve cost savings through the
adoption of energy efficient business practices.
The IEA provides expert support, resources, and
services to give companies tools and training to
make energy effciency a core business value. In
exchange, participants are asked to commit to a
Continuous Energy Improvement Program,
which has the potential to increase production
capacity, improve equipment reliability, and
reduce operating costs and energy use by 5% to
20%. This effort is supported by providing
technical knowledge for individuals,
organizations, and manufacturing companies to
collaborate on energy effciency
implementation. IEA members include the BPA,
regional utilities, the Energy Trust of Oregon
(ETO), the Oregon Department of Energy
(ODOE), and the Idaho Office of Energy
Resources (OER). Training activity in 2007
included three industral workshops
co-sponsored by the IEA, IPC, and others. This
training activity focused on pumps, motors, and
industrial refrigeration.
Commercial Allance Activities in Idaho
NEEA continued to provide support for
commercial energy effcient activities in Idaho
in 2007. NEEA continued funding the Boise
Integrated Design Lab and local BetterBricksCI
trainings and workshops. NEEA sponsored
Idaho's Fourth Anual BetterBricksCI Awards,
issued in October in conjunction with the Idaho
Energy & Green Building Conference. IPC's
commercial programs, Building Effciency and
Easy Upgrades, are designed to leverage NEEA,
BetterBricksCI, and Boise Integrated Design Lab
activities.
Distribution Effciency Initiative
In 2007, IPC continued to participate with other
northwest utilities in NEEA' s Distribution
Effciency Initiative project study.
Phase 1 Projects Completed
NEEA conducted a Distribution Efficiency
Initiative Project study, which included a Load
Research project and Pilot Demonstration
projects. The Load Research project was
designed to establish the relationship between
applied voltage and energy, in addition to how
applied voltage affects demand for different
end-use load types such as electric heating,
electrc water heating, and air conditioning. The
Pilot Demonstration projects controlled the
voltage at the substation in order to determine
the performance of different effciency methods.
Phase I was concluded in 2007.
The NEEA study's final report shows that Exhibit NO.1
operating a utility distrbution systeff~i'tt~~~~~~~¿
Page 48 of 80
Annual Report 2007 Page 39
Demand-Side Management Idaho Power Company
lower half of the acceptable voltage range of
120 through 114 volts saves energy (kWh),
reduces demand (kW), and reduces reactive
power (i.e., kilovolt ampere reactive (kvar))
requirements without negatively impacting the
customer. The energy savings results are within
the expected values of 1 % to 3% total energy
reduction, 2% to 4% reduction in kW demand,
and a 4% to 10% reduction in kvar demand.
As part ofthe completion of this project, the
66 Home Voltage Regulators (HVRs) operating
in southern Idaho since March 2006 were
removed during the summer of 2007. The
purpose of the HVR was to adjust service
entrance voltage at the residence.
Project for 2007
A new pilot was implemented during the second
quarter of 2007 to demonstrate remote
end-of-feeder control ofthe station transformer
load-tap changer. The project uses wireless
communication between the end-of-feeder and
the substation to adjust the substation voltage
based on the measured end-of-feeder voltage.
Application of technology allows better control
of the end-of-feeder voltage.
Residential NEEA Activities in Idaho
NEEA continues to provide support for two
programs offered by IPC: ENERGY STARCI
Homes Northwest and ENERGY STARCI
Lighting. In the ENERGY STARCI Homes
Northwest program, NEEA offers technical
assistance, funding for certifications, and
builder and marketing support. In the Lighting
program, NEEA offers manufacturer and sales
coordination and marketing assistance through
its contractor, Fluid Market Strategies.
Other NEEA Activities in Idaho
In 2007, IPC participated with NEEA to develop
an RFP for the ENERGY STAR CI Homes
Northwest impact evaluation. This study wil
provide estimates for whole-house energy
savings of ENERGY STARiI-certified homes in
the Northwest region. The evaluation approach
began development in November 2007.
Implementation of the analysis wil begin in
2008, and final results wil be provided in 2009.
During 2007, NEEA continued to support
building code improvements to jurisdictions in
Idaho in the form of funding for code training
and other activities. Funding supported the
efforts of the Idaho Building Code Coalition,
which was instrmental in moving the 2006
IECC through the Idaho legislative process. The
code was adopted durng the 2007 legislative
session and went into effect January 1, 2008. Its
purpose is to increase energy effciency in new
construction by requiring improved building
practices for the residential and commercial
sectors.
Each year, NEEA underwtes the Idaho Energy
Conference through a contract with the
Association of Idaho Cities. NEEA continues to
provide general information support to the
region by funding the EnergyIdeas
ClearinghouseiI and ConWebCI.
NEEA also fuded a variety of research projects
that were reported on in 2007. These reports are
valuable to IPC for providing information for
creating and evaluating IPC's programs. These
research projects included the Existing
Multifamily Tenant Appliance Effciency
Saturation Study; Single-Family Existing
Constrction Residential Stock Assessment;
Multifamily Residential New Construction
Characteristics and Practices; and Residential
New Constrction Characteristics and Practices.
NEEA Funding
In 2005, IPC began the first year of the
2005-2009 contract and funding agreement
with NEEA. Per this agreement, IPC committed
to fud $1,300,000 annually in support of
NEEA's implementation of market
transformation programs in IPC's service area.
Of this amount in 2007, 70% was fuded
through the Idaho and Oregon Rideieás~:i~J~~~8~o~
T. Tatum, IPC
Page 49 of 80
Page 40 Annual Report 2007
Idaho Power Company Demand-Side Management
was funded by a credit accumulated during the
previous contract period.
In 2007, IPC paid $891,472 to NEEA. The
Idaho jurisdictional share of the payments was
$846,898, while $44,574 was paid for the
Oregon jurisdiction. Other expenses associated
with NEEA activities, such as administration
and travel, are paid by IPC.
Preliminary estimates reported by NEEA
indicate that IPC's share of regional market
transformation MWh savings for 2007 is
28,601 MWh, or 3.3 aMW. IPC relies on NEEA
to report the energy savings and other benefits
of NEE A's regional portfolio of initiatives.
For further information about NEEA, visit their
Web site at www.nwallance.org.
Exhibit No. 1
Case No. IPC-E-08-03
T. Tatum, ¡PC
Page 50 of 80
Annual Report 2007 Page 41
Demand-Side Management Idaho Power Company
ENERGY EFFICIENCY
ADVISORY GROUP (EEAG)
Formed in May 2002, the EEAG provides input
on formulating and implementing energy
efficiency and demand reduction programs
funded by the Rider. Curently, the EEAG
consists of 12 members from across IPC's
service area and the Northwest. Members
represent a crosssection of customers, including
delegates from the residential, industral,
commercial, and irrgation sectors, as well as
representatives for the elderly, low income,
environmental organizations, state agencies,
public utility commissions, and IPC.
In 2007, the EEAG met three times: on
March 23, September 12, and November 14.
During the meetings, IPC requested
recommendations on new program proposals,
provided a status of the Rider funding and
expenses, updated ongoing programs and
projects, and supplied information on
DSM issues.
EEAG Program
Recommendations
The following section provides a review of the
input provided to IPC by the EEAG regarding
major program implementation and operational
issues in 2007. Please note that all operational
DSM programs have been reviewed by EEAG;
however, only substantial changes or
modifications associated with EEAG input are
presented below.
Residential Programs
Residential programs reviewed in 2007 included
Heatin& and Cooling Efficiency, ENERGY
STAR Appliances, ENERGY STARCI Homes
Northwest, and AlC Cool Credit. In addition,
the group was provided updates for ENERGY
STAR CI Lighting, Rebate Advantage, and
Energy House Calls.
Heating and Cooling Efficiency
. Look to Delivery Service Representatives to
recommend program contractors in their
area. (Delivery Service Reps have been
assigned specifc DSM tasks and goals in
2007, which wil be tracked against actual
performance.)
. Contact outside sources for advice regarding
the design of the HV AC program.
(Contractors, other utilities, and regional
HVAC program experts were consulted
extensively for the design of the Heating and
Cooling Effciency program.)
. Implement quality assurance in the Heating
and Cooling program. (Quality assurance by
a third party wil occur in approximately 7%
of all installs for this program.)
. To accurately measure AlC savings, strictly
measure using a Seasonal Energy Efficiency
Ratio (SEER) 13 baseline. (Cost
effectiveness for the Heating and Cooling
program used SEER 13 as the savings
baseline.)
. Implement a sales incentive for contractors
in the Heating and Cooling program.
(Contractors receive $50 for services
related to this program.)
. Offer a design workshop and training to
HV AC contractors. (Training workshops for
each region in ¡PC were held in 2007, and
additional workshops are planned in 2008.)
ENERGY STARCI Applianc~
. Take old refrgerators out of service.
(Currently exploring options to offer a
refrigerator recycling program.)
. Join with water utility to market clotheS:xhibit NO.1
washers. (No local water utilitiec;ar ~;;~~~~g
Page 51 of 80
Page 42 Annual Report 2007
Idaho Power Company Demand-Side Management
service area offer energy effciency
incentives at this time, but wil explore
avenues for joint marketing efforts.)
· Do not provide incentives for plasma
television sets. (It's unlikely that plasma TVs
would prove cost effective because of their
high energy use.)
· Collaborate with local appliance retailers.
(Developing relationships and materials for
appliance retailers to use as part of the
ENERGY STARCI appliance program.)
· An automated process would ensure that
applications and incentives are processed
effciently. (Incentive processing was
automated in 2007 to increase accuracy and
improve customer response time.)
ENERGY STARCI Homes Northwest
. Educate mortgage lenders about ENERGY
STARCI Homes Northwest. (Lenders wil be
invited to realtor training sessions.)
. Several members suggested that the A/C
Cool Credit program be mandatory for
ENERGY STARCI Homes. It was also
suggested that customers who do not
participate in AlC Cool Credit have a higher
connection fee for their new homes. (IPC
has no plans to require customers to
participate in programs, the preference
being to pursue voluntary participation
which leads to better customer satisfaction.)
General Suggestions
. When a bil stuffer is sent out, follow up
with a co-marketing piece, like a radio or
newspaper ad. (Marketing plans wil include
opportunities for cross-marketing programs
through various media channels.)
. Perhaps limit the amount of information
included in the bills so that people are more
likely to read the bil stuffer. (Because of the
number of programs and the demand for bil
stuffer area availabilty, most slots wil be
filled throughout the calendar year on the
bil stuffer calendar.)
. Target those markets where customers may
not be expecting energy effciency
messages. (Currently exploring ways to
co-market a bil stuffer with other utilities in
Boise.)
Commercial and
Industrial Programs
At the September EEAG meeting, IPC
presented an Easy Upgrades program report,
and offered proposals for a single-measure
promotion for the VendingMiser™ program and
a Holiday Lighting program for commercial
customers. Members provided the following
suggestions:
. Encourage short-term promotions to take
advantage of the market environment, such
as the Christmas tree lights.
(VendingMiser™ program began in
December 2007 and wil go through
April 2008.)
. Large numbers of vending machines that
came out in the 1990s are about to be
refurbished, and the region is looking at
partering with vending machine
manufacturers to improve energy efficiency
in older models. (IPC wil investigate these
opportunites in the future.)
. The consensus of the group was to move
forward with the VendingMiser™
promotion, pending full, cost-effective
analysis. (The promotion launched in
December 2007.)
Exhibit No. 1
Case No. IPC-E-08-03
T. Tatum, IPC
Page 52 of 80
Annual Report 2007 Page 43
Demand-Side Management Idaho Power Company
Irrigation Programs
The Irrgation Peak Rewards program is a
successful program, with visible megawatt
reductions in load observable at the system load
data level at 4 p.m. on scheduled summer
weekdays. A program update was provided at
the November EEAG meeting. Questions and
comments included:
. A question was posed regarding the
necessity of requiring customers to sign up
each year to participate in the Peak Rewards
program. (There are several reasons that
make it more effective to do it this way: crop
rotation, lease agreements that are not
finalized until the middle of the next year,
equipment issues, and quality assurance
issues.)
. Offer an increased incentive to customers to
entice them to sign up sooner. (An "early
install incentive" might get customers in the
program sooner, but not necessarily more of
them, because there are other constraints on
irrigators that prevent them from signing up.
One member stated that he has some
irrigation systems that wil never be put on
the program due to their complexity.)
Local Energy Efficiency Funds
(LEEF)
The EEAG was consulted regarding the purose
and project cap limit of the Small
Project/ducation Funds, which are now called
the Local Energy Efficiency Funds (LEEF).
When the Small Project/Education Fund was
authorized in 2003, individual projects were
limited to $5,000. A proposal was made to
increase individual expenditues through this
fund, as the number of requests greater than
$5,000 has increased over the years.
Discussion focused on the relative merits of the
fund, and its flexibility in responding to
unsolicited proposals from customers.
The suggestion was made that if it looks like the
project could be turned into a program and made
available to others, that potential should be
pursued.
It was the general consensus of the group that
this fud should have the flexibility to fud
projects above $5,000 but, in most cases, not
exceed $10,000. It was also suggested that the
pool of fund dollars should be allowed to grow
as well so that funds are available for beneficial
projects.
¡PC wil fund projects larger in scope in the
future, and solicit feedback from EEA G for
specifc proposals that exceed $10,000.
Exhibit NO.1
Case No. IPC-E-08-03
T. Tatum, IPC
Page 53 of 80
Page 44 Annual Report 2007
Idaho Power Company Demand-Side Management
OTHER PROGRAMS AND
ACTIVITIES
Residential Energy Efficiency
Education Initiative
IPC recognizes the value of general energy
effciency awareness and education in creating
customer demand for, and satisfaction with, its
programs. Increased awareness of energy
effciency and IPC's residential programs are
being achieved through the Residential Energy
Efficiency Education Initiative.
Activities
Program activities during 2007 included the
design and implementation of a five-class series
promoting energy effciency to an adult
audience, titled Fall Energy Efficiency and
Sustainability Series. Topics covered included
simple no- and low-cost ways to save energy,
weatherization, insulation, ventilation, green
building, sustainable building with Leadership
in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED),
easy ideas of ways to re-think, reduce, reuse,
recycle, net metering, and renewable energy
sources. The classes were well attended all five
nights, with 50 to 100 attendees per night.
Another outcome of this program was to
produce printed materials to improve customer
awareness of energy saving ideas, including the
Summer and Winter Energy Savings Tip cards
and the Home Energy Effciency Audit
brochures.
Through use of the Internet, the Residential
Energy Efficiency Education Initiative program
reached out to IPC' s customers and others
offering energy efficiency ideas and solutions.
The IPC Web site pages related to energy
efficiency information were evaluated and
updated.
In addition to conducting workshops and
seminars for local groups to promote IPC' s
residential programs and energy savings ideas,
IPC conducted open houses and outreach
programs to build and foster employee
awareness for energy effciency. The primary
goal was to focus on general efficiency and
increased participation in existing program
offerings.
Commercial Education
Initiative
IPC has long recognized the value and
importance of providing energy effciency
information to commercial customers. Efforts to
develop a commercial customer energy
education initiative began in the fall of 2007.
The focus was on the development of a short-
term pilot program targeting small commercial
customers and the development of an energy
efficiency education strategy for all commercial
customers.
During the fall of2007, goals were established
and a marketing plan was developed to reach all
commercial customers with energy effciency
education. Field research was conducted with
IPC personnel assisting in gauging the energy
education needs of the customers. Additional
research was conducted assessing the industr's
best practices for small business energy
efficiency education. An implementation plan
was developed and is due to launch in 2008. The
main objectives are to increase participation in
existing commercial DSM programs, enhance
customer satisfaction, and reduce energy use for
this customer segment. The Commercial
Education Initiative wil compliment and
support existing DSM program activities.
Local Energy Efficiency
Funds (LEEF)
Formerly called the Small Projects and
Education Fund, the purpose of LEEF is to Exhibit NO.1. . Case No.IPG-E-08-03
provide modest funding for short-term prOJ~lim, IPC
Page 54 of 80
Annual Report 2007 Page 45
Demand-Side Management Idaho Power Company
and activities that do not fit within other
categories of energy efficiency programs but
still provide a defined benefit to furtering DSM
targets.
In 2007, one project met these criteria. The OER
arranged for the installation and long-term
monitoring of a Hallowell International cold
climate heat pump during the 2007-2008
heating season in McCall, Idaho. The home was
previously heated with an electric forced-air
fuace and was certified in 2006 as an
ENERGY STARiI home. In 2007, LEEF
awarded $7,500 to support the research project
and to test the new heat pump's effectiveness in
a cold climate. In retu, OER wil provide all
data, data analyses, and reports that result from
this study.
Exhibit NO.1
Case No. IPC-E-08-03
T. Tatum, IPC
Page 55 of 80
Page 46 Annual Report 2007
Idaho Power Company
REGULATORY INITIATIVES
This past year was the first of a three-year pilot
period during which IPC is testing the effects of
a Fixed-Cost Adjustment (FCA) and a
Performance-Based DSM Incentive. The two
pilots are being operated on a limited basis to
allow for a thorough evaluation to be conducted
prior to a broader application of the financial
mechanisms.
Fixed-Cost Adjustment Pilot
The FCA is a true-up mechanism that"d i" iecoup es, or separates, energy sa es from
revenue in order to remove the financial
disincentive that exists when IPC invests in
DSM resources. On March 12,2007, the IPUC
issued Order No. 30267 authorizing a three-year
pilot of the FCA within the residential and small
commercial customer classes. Under the FCA,
rates are adjusted anually up or down to
recover or refud the difference between the
fixed-costs authorized by the IPUC in the most
recent rate case and the fixed-costs that IPC
actually received through energy sales dunng
the previous year. Through the application of
this true-up mechanism, IPC is not financially
harmed by decreases in energy sales within the
residential and small commercial customer
classes, thus removing any disincentives for IPC
to pursue DSM opportnities with those
customers.
The FCA pilot is limited to the residential and
small commercial classes in recognition of the
fact that, for these customers, a high percentage
of fixed costs are recovered through energy
charges. Confining the pilot to the residential
and small commercial classes also allows the
tre-up mechanism to be tested on a limited
basis to minimize any unintended consequences.
Demand-Side Management
Performance-Based DSM
Incentive Pilot
To compliment the FCA pilot, IPC is testing the
effects of a Performance-Based DSM Incentive
mechanism over the same three-year period. On
March 12,2007, the IPUC issued Order
No. 30268 authorizing the implementation of a
Performance-Based DSM Incentive pilot that
allows IPC to retain a portion of the financial
benefits resulting from DSM activities when
energy savings targets are exceeded. IPC is also
subject to a penalty under the incentive pilot
should it fail to meet energy savings levels
previously achieved. Durng the pilot period, the
incentive mechanism is being applied only to
the ENERGY STARCI Homes Northwest
Program. By applying this mechanism on a
limited basis, IPC is able to gain a better
understanding of the effects of a performance
incentive while minimizing the potential impact
to customers. IPC ultimately intends to use the
information gained during the pilot period to
develop a performance-based incentive
mechanism that can be applied to the entire
portfolio ofDSM programs.
Enhanced Commitment to
Energy Efficiency and DSM
As par of the FCA implementation process, IPC
is committed to enhancing its efforts towards
promoting energy efficiency in several key areas
including, but not limited to:
. A broad availabilty of effciency and load
management programs.
. Building code improvement activity.
. Pusuit of appliance code standards.
. Expansion of DSM programs beyond peak
shaving/oad shifting programs.
. Third-part verification.
Exhibit NO.1
Case No. IPC-E-08-03
T. Tatum, IPC
Page 56 of 80
Annual Report 2007 Page 47
Demand-Side Management Idaho Power Company
Throughout 2007, and increasingly during the
last three quarters of the year after issuance of
IPCU Order No. 30267, IPC actively pursued
numerous, additional opportnities to promote
energy efficiency.
Availability of Efficiency and Load
Management Programs
IPC offers an array of energy efficiency and
demand response programs spanning all of the
major customer segments. The majority of
IPC's DSM programs were available prior to
implementation of the FCA. However, since
implementation of the FCA, IPC has focused
additional resources toward energy efficiency
education and program marketing.
IPC continued to increase energy efficiency
awareness among its customers through a
variety of media outlets. Incremental education
and outreach activities in 2007 included
participation in Earth Day events, publication of
a Summer Tips card on energy efficiency,
conducting a Fall Energy Effciency and
Sustainability Series at the Boise Public Library,
and a publication of a Holiday Purchases
Energy Efficiency Tips flyer. Additionally, the
publication of the Parters in Conservation
Calendar provided energy efficiency
information to program participants, trade allies,
and IPC employees. IPC also distrbuted energy
effciency information via 22 media updates,
12 Customer Connection newsletters included in
monthly bils, six radio interviews, five bil
inserts, and one press release.
The promotion of energy effcient lighting
received additional focus in 2007. In the fall,
IPC sponsored a lighting workshop conducted
by the staff of the Seattle-based Lighting Design
Lab. IPC staff also conducted 17 in-store
customer education outreach events to inform
customers about the benefits of energy efficient
lighting. Furhermore, IPC developed and
implemented a communication strategy to
address customer concerns about the mercury
content of CFL bulbs and to educate customers
on the proper disposal of CFLs.
DSM staff provided program and general energy
effciency information to five engineering firms
and two state agencies. These direct marketing
efforts in 2007 within the commercial and
industral customer segments were aimed at
architects and engineers to enhance their
awareness ofIPC's DSM programs and how
energy effciency can be incorporated into new
projects.
IPC also incorporated the offerings of the IEA
through NEEA to IPC food processing
customers. In 2007, there were 19 facilities in
the IPC service area engaged in various degrees
with the IEA and the implementation of
Continuous Energy Improvement practices at
their facilities.
Other actions in 2007 included IPC joining the
BPA-sponsored Utility Sounding Board (USB).
Networking and regional coordination are
benefits of participation in this group.
IPC also brought grocery refrgeration experts to
Boise and put on grocery effciency trainings
and co-sponsored a BEEP workshop in
September.
Building Code Improvement
Activity
In 2007, the Idaho legislature adopted the IECC
2006 Energy Code, which IPC staff supported
through the Idaho Building Code Coalition. The
new code went into effect in January 2008.
In 2007, IPC staff met with the Boise Climate
Protection Program Advisory Committee and
the Caldwell Planning Departent to support
efforts by these groups to improve residential
and commercial building codes. Both of these
meetings were an opportity to educate staff
about the ENERGY STARCI Homes Northwxm~it NO.1
program and discuss requiring all regMèllßtt~;~~~ig
Page 57 of 80
Page 48 Annual Report 2007
Idaho Power Company Demand-Side Management
new construction in their respective jurisdictions
to conform to the ENERGY STARCI Homes
Northwest standard.
Pursuit of Appliance Code
Standards
IPC contracted with Quantec, LLC, to conduct a
study of potential savings and costs associated
with enacting appliance efficiency standards in
Idaho similar to those recently enacted in
Oregon. The results of Quantec' s assessment
and recommendatîons wil be incorporated into
the 2009 Energy Plan to determine the
economic viability of adopting such standards in
Idaho.
Expansion of DSM Programs
Beyond Peak-Shaving/
Load-Shifting Programs
IPC looks for opportities to enhance or
expand its DSM program offering. For example,
in 2007 a new incentive-based holiday lighting
program was offered to commercial customers.
This program was implemented on an
accelerated schedule to provîde additional
energy savings within the commercial customer
segment in 2007 and to raise awareness of LED
lighting among all customer classes.
Additionally, a direct-install VendingMiser™
promotion began in 2007 and wil continue in
2008. This promotion wil provide small and
large commercial customers with free controls
to cut energy use on their refrigerated beverage
vending machines. This promotion greatly
increased participation and energy savings. In
the first seven months of this program, IPC
received 136 applications for VendingMiser™
installation, and in the last two months IPC,
through its vendor, installed
83 VendingMisers™.
Late in 2007, IPC issued an RFP seeking
professional services to determine potential
DSM energy savings and peak load reduction
within IPC's service area. Nexant, a San
Francisco-based consulting firm, was selected to
conduct the DSM potential study and provide a
DSM simulation model, along with DSM
program recommendations that can be
implemented to achieve the identified potentiaL.
This project is expected to be completed by July
31,2008. The information provided by the
potential study wil serve as the basis for DSM
resource options analyzed in the 2009 Energy
Plan.
Third-Party Verification
IPC utilizes third-part consultants and agents
whenever possible, practical, and affordable.
Consultants verify the quality of work
conducted, the amount of energy savings
achieved, and also obtain data on energy
efficiency and demand response measures and
programs. The following are examples ofIPC's
ongoing utilization of third partîes to monitor
and verify its DSM program performance:
.IPC is a funder of, and participant in, the
Regional Technical Forum (RTF). The RTF
is an advisory committee established in 1999
to develop standards to verify and evaluate
savings of energy effciency programs and
measures. IPC views the RTF as a reliable
third-part source for information on
programs and measures and used the RTF
databases to provîde deemed savings for
some energy effciency measures.
.In 2007, IPC contracted with a third-part
consulting firm, Ecotope Consulting, to
reevaluate the ENERGY STARCI Homes
Northwest measures and savings after the
new IECC 2006 building codes were
implemented in Idaho. This analysis resulted
in several program changes, including a
revised incentive and revised assumed
energy savings per home for 2008.
.The ENERGY STARCI Homes Northwest
program regularly utilzes certfied Home
fì S. I' fì . d 11.. ~hibit NO.1Per ormance pecia ists or in ~M'~PC-E-08-03
T. Tatum, IPC
Page 58 of 80
Annual Report 2007 Page 49
Demand-Side Management Idaho Power Company
third-part verification, ensuring that each
ENERGY STARCI home is being built to
ENERGY STARCI standards. The Idaho
OER then certifies each of these homes as
an ENERGY STARCI home.
. The Energy House Calls program contracts
with a third part consultant to do quality
assurance on 5% of homes serviced by the
program. This consultant visits the selected
sites within approximately one month of the
energy house call and verifies that the
energy efficiency measures provided by
IPC's third-part installation contractor were
performed to program specifications.
. The Heating and Cooling Efficiency
program, new in 2007, has begun training a
third-part consultant to verify savings on
5-10% of all projects and plans on
implementing this process in 2008.
IPC's Internal Energy Efficiency
Commitment
IPC's commitment towards promoting energy
effciency extends beyond encouraging,
incenting, and educating its customers. In 2007,
IPC committed to pilot an integrated design
approach for a new operations facility to be
constrcted in Lake Fork, Idaho. The Long
Valley Operations Center wil be the first new
facility built by IPC to use this process. This
method of project development brings the
owner, design team, contractors, and
commissioning agent together at the inception
oftheproject to take advantage of their
combined expertise and maximize coordination
throughout the process. Initial meetings defined
IPC's goals for the project, and the goals were
linked to potential LEED credits. Results
support a strong case for LEED Silver
certification and the potential exists for LEED
Gold certification on the project.
The design team's goal is to pursue all
10 energy efficiency credits, which would make
the facility at least 42% more effcient than the
American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and
Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) 2003
standards. Opportnities for renewable
generation and other innovative design solutions
wil be investigated throughout the design
phase. In addition to energy efficiency, other
important IPC goals are to ensure the facility fits
well into the surrounding community while
providing local IPC employees with a functional
operations center. IPC's decision to take a
leadership position in high-performance
buildings and sustainable design for their own
facilities demonstrates not only enhanced
commitment to energy efficiency but can serve
as a model for other companies.
In 2007, IPC began retrofitting its Corporate
Headquarters (CHQ) with energy efficiency
projects. In 2007, IPC increased the energy
effciency of the HV AC system at the CHQ by
installing a new system to centrally control and
better manage the system from an energy
perspective. IPC also implemented nighttme
lighting controls at the CHQ in order to gain
effcient use of lighting electricity. IPC is
systematically replacing older, ineffcient
lighting in its facilities with more efficient
lights.
Table 15 shows IPC energy savings in 2007 as
compared to both IPC operational targets as
well as IRP targeted savings. The operational
targets for the commerciai/industrial programs
were reduced from the original energy plan
targets to account for the timing of new program
development within the commercial sector.
Exhibit NO.1
Case No. IPC-E-08-03
T. Tatum, ¡PC
Page 59 of 80
Page 50 Annual Report 2007
Idaho Power Company Demand-Side Management
Table 15. 2007 IPC DSM Program Targets and Results
Demand Response Programs
Residential and Irrigation ... ............................ ...............
Energy Efficiency Programs
Residential......................................... .......... .................
Commercial/Industrial ...................................................
Irrigation....................................................................... .
Total
20071PC
Operational Targets
MW
47.8
MWh
11,231
21,447
11,940
44,618
2007 Energy
Plan Targets
MW
39.4
MWh
11,230
24,397
5,200
40,827
2007 Savings
MW
48.2
MWh
12,441
37,790
12,304
62,535
Exhibit NO.1
Case No. IPC-E-08-03
T. Tatum, IPC
Page 60 of 80
Annual Report 2007 Page 51
Demand-Side Management Idaho Power Company
ApPENDICES
The following financial and performance tables
provide a summary of program activity,
including program expenses, funding sources,
energy savings, and levelized costs for savings.
Exhibit NO.1
Case No. IPC-E-08-03
T. Tatum, IPC
Page 61 of 80
Page 52 Annual Report 2007
Idaho Power Company Demand-Side Management
Appendix 1. Idaho Rider, Oregon Rider, BPA, and NEE,t Funding Balances
2007 Beginning Balance......................... ............................................... ...... .................. ....... .....................
2007 Funding plus Accrued Interest...... ...........................:............................................... ..........................
Total 2007 Funds
2007 Expense ............... ....... ...................................................................... ...................... ..........................
2007 Year-End Balance
$5,934,463.21
9,036,071.75
14,970,534.96
(13,487,460.38)
$1,483,074.58
2007 Beginning Balance ...................................................... ......................................................................
2007 Funding plus Accrued Interest................. ...................................... ............ ............. .................. ........
Total 2007 Funds
2007 Expense............................................................................................................................................
2007 Year-End Balance
$393,731.19
425,682.64
819,413.83
(409.188.37)
$410,225.46
Total Funding and Accrued Interest October 2001-December 2006 .........................................................
2007 Funding plus Accrued Interest.................................... ................................................... ....................
Total Funds May 2002-December 2007
Total Expense-Inception through December 2006...................................................................................
2007 Expense....................................................................................................................... .....................
Total BPA Funded Expenses ...........................................................................................................
2007 Year-End Balance(a)
$2,909,157.08
247,732.51
3,156,889.59
(2.909.157.08)
(200.685.96)
(3,109,843.04)
$47,046.55
2007 IPC Contractual Obligation.......... ............................ ........ ....... ....................... ............. .......................$1,300,000.00
Credit Applied tp 2007 Contractual Obligation ............... ..... ...... ........ .......... ........ ........... ....... ...... ........
Interest Credit Applied to 2007 Contract Obligation.. ........... .......... ............ ...... .......... ............... ..........
Interest Credit Applied to 2008 Contract Obligation(b).........................................................................
Total 2007 Cash Payments by IPC ............................................................................................................
Credit Balance
Beginning Balance Funds Held by NEEA ...........................................................................................
2007 Credit Applied to Contract Obligation .............. .............. ............... ................. ............ ............ .....
(325,588.00)
(68.159.00)
(14,781.00)
891,472.00
(976.771.00)
325,588.00
2007 Year-End Credit Balance ($651,183.00)
(a) The 2007 balance of SPA funds was committed to two Solar 4 R Schools projects prior to the suspension of SPA funding in 2007. These
projects are scheduled for completion in 2008.
(b) The first quarter invoice for the IPC 2008 contractual obligation to NEEA was processed in December 2007 with the amount scheduled
to be amortized over the first quarter. Interest credit was immediately recognized in 2007.
Exhibit No. 1
Case No. IPC-E-08-03
T. Tatum, IPC
Page 62 of 80
Annual Report 2007 Page 53
Demand-Side Management Idaho Power Company
Appendix 2.2007 DSM Expenses by Funding Source (Dollars)
Idaho Oregon
Sector/Program Rider Rider SPA IPC Total Program
Energy Efficiency/Demand Response
Residential
AlC Cool Credit.................. ............ .............2,421,461 0 0 4,692 $ 2,426,154
Appliance Program ......................................8,746 460 0 69 $9,275
Energy House Calls............... ......................251,743 3,349 80,830 450 $336,372
ENERGY STARiB Homes Northwest...........451,775 12,249 0 11,020 $475,044
Heating and Cooling Efficieney ............. .......482,051 3,289 0 2,871 $488,211
Oregon Residential Weatherization ...... .......0 0 0 3,781 $3,781
Rebate Advantage........ .......... .....................58,854 4,609 25,073 733 $89,269
ENERGY STARr¡ Lighting ........... .................519,818 11,787 15,595 10,445 $557,646
WAQC..........................................................0 0 28,035 1,295,588 $1,323,624
Commercial/Industrial
Commercial Building Effciency....................661,485 5,766 0 1,781 $669,032
Easy Upgrades ......... ..... ............. .................680,376 28,014 0 3,105 $711,494
Oregon Commercial Audit..... ............. ........0 1,800 0 181 $1,981
Custom Effciency........................................3,032,047 110,634 0 19,185 $ 3,161,866
Irrigation
Irrigation Effciency Rewards ....... ........ ........1,881,116 93,924 0 26,922 $ 2,001,961
Irrigation Peak Rewards...............................1,520,106 54,747 0 41,028 $ 1,615,881
Energy Efficiency/Demand Response Total 11,969,578 330,627 149,534 1,421,852 $13,871,592
Market Transformation
NEEA...........................................................846,898 44,574 0 1,868 $893,340
Market Transformation Total 846,898 44,574 0 1,868 $893,340
Other Programs and Activities
Commercial
Commercial Education Initiative...................25,427 1,314 0 82 $26,823
Other
BPA CRC Renewables ................................0 0 31,645 0 $31,645
Distribution Efficiency Initiative(a) .................6,514 343 0 2,130 $8,987
DSM Direct Program Overhead...................54,339 2,465 0 105 $56,909
LEEF(b) ........................................................7,571 (50)0 0 $7,520
Other Programs and Activities Total 93,851 4,072 31,645 2,317 $131,885
Indirect Program Expense
DSM Accounting and Analysis........... ..... .....564,129 29,367 0 139,006 $732,503
Energy Efficiency Advisory Group .... ...........2,488 109 0 0 $2,597
Special Accounting Entries..........................10,516 439 19,507 $30,462
Indirect Program Expense Total 577,133 29,915 19,507 139,006 $765,561
Totals $13,487,460 $409,188 $200,686 $1,565,043 $15,662,378
(a)IPC portion of Distribution Effciency Initiative expenses wil be reversed in 2008.
(b)Oregon corrrection for 2006 entry for bulbs purchased and used in Idaho.
Exhibit NO.1
Case No. IPC-E-08-03
T. Tatum, IPC
Page 63 of 80
Page 54 Annual Report 2007
Idaho Power Company Demand-Side Management
ll :$:$(l ,.to :$('T-o (l N I 0 ~q)("
- e ~
("q)....N ..,.("..N 0..Z Z 0 0 0 Z 0 0 0 0 0 0 Z 0 ..-;l 6 ri g g g ri g g g g g ri
~~Vl Vl Vl
i- lß(J Ilj :$:$(l q)N :$ii 0 (l Cl ~io :$N ~4)~~("io (;0 ('io Õ ..i ~z z 0 0 z 0 0 0 0 z 0i!~0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0..::Vl w (ß w (ß (ß (ß (ß (ß (ß w...
ll W..
¡ J!t;:$~0 to ,.(0 to to to io .~N ~N llNN..N ..('N ....l'-~Z Z zll..&'-
..
L
N ..(£..0 N 1'll (£~~io (0 N 0e.:~,...,.(£..l'Ò ,.N)ri§ it ~~..('
lD fI c!Qi:
~g ;1 ~g';:q)Q)~~~0 ~n001''1 :;
~
o:(£..i.Q)..N (£("0::ei !a),.a)'i 8 ~,.ri a).,i:ll &3 0 ..co ll 0
.i if ~N to N co ..,.(",.i ri N i6 a)NNi-
:8 io N 1'ig æ
I
æ N m ("0 io ã):8 ~-to 1'~(0 (0 to ..0 8..ll (0 ,.en to ....ct "l æ,(£1'S a)a)ri (£ai t i6 ~'i i æ N ;;N .,ll l!æ ~~ig §Vl N IX ..æe..~t;""co ~0 (l::~N Vl Vl Vl ¡..w ..~~:g
i0fß,Vl fßi!
lD ...,lD0(Ji ..(;io ~!~
....æ (l 1'PJ ~
..
~
..io ,...co (l (;~~~
;1
co N n IN
I
1'IN 0i-2i l!i6 a)ri i6 ,.as ri m
~
M m .."r "t ..l ~~fß ~1'to co w m M §ii w to 8'"~io ~w fß ....
~.fì t;Vl w rh ri fì;;Vl::i..
I i
I
i¡:
I
~~ItlQ.'"llfl~
I i !!J!i:S'l3 æ ii II =i II g ~~g!.§E 1 iE E E ..ã E E E .e'.e'ë''2'
~
~ 1
:l 0 0 u.
I
0 0 0 ::;;..s;s;0 s;s;.c .c Q.Q.Q.II Q.Q.:t ~(0 ~Q),.l'l 1'
f2 ~~....(0 ~..~tš Q"(l N ..ã)~l 1'....a)-e ~....N
E '-
~oie 1ñ .~0-¡
:2 s;~~N
15 C .1:U.(f Z .g¡tl l i0(/ai ~:6(/C IIGlËtl ~l"E E ~l 3:
I
II 0 :3 ;:30lEJ(:i
!I
~Cl -is ::0 ~~g ..i:!e Ii
I
Q).iN.:¡~i:i:tl .!c '"..:l ~~:2 i:tl tl E QI ~l!L II i:'0 "t E ~ew Q.;;en en (/".0 IS i00tl~J "l 8 w"l tl :i )-)-II i:J w w)(e ~ã \)~c::i i:~C)C)tl c:.!Q)::c "l E i:¡:s l!¡i:.!l 0:0:c 0 Gl £;8.l .9 0Gl~tl 21 ~0 E 32 ~¡c 2 ~a "t Õ.~w W II !~
II
ê5
(/a
:5 !Q.Z Z Cl Gl E '5 t';;f :5CD-0 w w w :i 0
I
i:3:8 ai w "t 0Q.Q"1 .E Exhibit No.1Q.Case No. IPC-E-08-03c(T. Tatum,IPC
Page 64 of 80
Annual Report 2007 Page 55
"t Ql
l.CD 010)
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x

3
.

2
0
0
7

D
S
M

P
r
o
g
r
a
m

A
c
t
i
v
i
t
y

(
c
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
)
To
t
a
l

Co
s
t
s
Pr
o
g
r
a
m
Ut
m
t
y
b
)
--
(d
o
l
l
a
r
s
)
Pa
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
n
t
s
(N
u
m
b
e
r
)

(
U
n
i
t
s
)
Re
s
u
r
c
e
(
l
;
)
(d
o
l
l
a
r
s
)
An
n
u
a
l
En
e
r
g
y
Sa
v
i
n
g
s
Su
m
m
e
r
Pe
a
k
De
m
a
n
d
(
d
)
(k
l
N
Me
a
s
u
r
e
Li
f
e-
(Y
e
a
r
s
)
Le
v
e
l
i
z
e
d

C
o
s
t
(
l
l
)
To
t
a
l
Ut
i
l
t
y

R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
($
/
W
h
)

(
$
/
W
h
)
)
Re
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l

E
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n

I
n
i
t
í
a
t
v
e
(
4
)
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l

E
d
u
c
a
t
i
n

I
n
l
t
l
a
l
i
v
e
$2
6
,
8
2
3
ot
h
e
r
SP
A

O
t
e
r

C
&
R
D

a
n
d

C
R
C
$3
1
,
6
4
5
$8
,
9
8
1
$5
,
9
0
9
$7
,
5
2
0
.
0
0
$1
4
,
8
9
6
,
8
1
'
$7
6
5
,
5
6
1
$1
5
,
6
6
2
,
3
7
8
Di
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

E
f
f
c
i
e
n
c
y

I
n

ill
a
t
v
e

DS
M

D
i
r
e
c

P
r
o
g
r
a
m

O
v
e
r
h
e
a
d
Lo
c
a
l

E
n
e
r
g
y

E
f
f
c
i
e
n
c
y

F
u
n
d
s
To
t
l

P
r
o
g
r
a
m

D
i
r
e
c
t

Ex
p
e
n
s
e
In
d
i
r
e
c
t

P
r
o
r
a
m

E
x
p
e
n
s
e
To
t
a
l

D
S
M

E
x
p
e
n
s
e
1
p
r
o
e
c
t
s
(k
W
h
)
$2
6
,
8
2
3
$3
1
,
6
4
5
$8
,
9
8
7
$5
6
,
9
0
9
$7
,
5
2
0
.
0
0

9
,
0
0
0
$2
5
,
9
3
8
,
5
$
0

9
1
,
1
4
5
,
3
5
6
57
,
0
7
2
7
$0
.
1
3
5
$0
.
1
3
5
(a
)

L
e
v
e
l
ì
z
e

C
o
s
t
s

a
r
e

b
a
s
e
d

o
n

f
i
n
a
n
c
i
a
l

i
n
p
u
t
s

f
r
o
m

I
P
C
'
s

2
0
0
6

In
t
e
g
r
a
t
e
d

R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e

P
l
a
n

a
n
d

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

I
n
c
u
d
e

l
i
n
e

l
o
s
s
e
s
.
(b
)

T
h
e

T
o
t
a
l

U
t
i
l
i
t
y

C
O
$
t

i
s

a
l
l

c
o
s
t

i
n
c
u
r
r
e
d

b
y

¡
P
C

t
o

i
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t

a
D
S
M

p
r
o
g
r
a
m
.
(e
)

T
h
e

T
o
t
a
l

R
e
s
u
r
c

C
o
s
t

I
s

t
h
e

to
t
a
l

e
x
p
n
d
i
t
u
r
e

f
o
r
a

p
r
o
r
a

f
r
m

th
e

p
o
i
n
t

o
f

Vi
e
w

o
f

I
P
C

a
n
d

i
t

cu
s
t
o
m
e
r
s

a
s
a

w
I
o
l
e
.
((
I
)

S
u
m
m
e
r

P
e
a
k

D
e
m
a
n
d

i
s

r
e
p
o
r
e
d

w
1
e
r
e

p
r
o
g
r
a
m

k
W

r
e
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

i
s

d
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
e
d
.
(1
)

P
a
r
i
c
i
p
a
n
l

c
o
s
t
s

u
s
e
d

t
o

e
s
t
i
m
a
t
e

T
o
t
a
l

R
e
s
u
r
c
e

c
o
t

i
s

e
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d

at
24
%

p
f

U
t
i
l
i
t
y

c
o
t
.
(2
)

M
e
a
S
u
r
e

L
i
f
e

I
s

w
e
i
g
h
t
e
d

b
a
s
e
d

o
n

e
n
e
r
g
y

s
a
v
i
n
g
s

o
f

c
u
s
t
o
m

o
p
t
i
o
n

(
1
5

ye
a
r
s
)

an
d

m
e
n
u

o
p
t
i
o
l
l

(
5

y
e
a
r
)
.
(3
)

T
h

k
W
h

s
a
v
i
n
g
s

a
r
e

p
r
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
r
y

e
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
s

f
r
o
m

N
E
E
A
.

T
o
t
a
l

R
e
s
u
r
c

c
o
s
t
s

i
n
e
l
u
d
e

o
n
l
y

U
l
l
i
y

c
o
t
,

w
1
i
c
h

u
n
d
e
r
s
t
a
e
s

t
h
e

a
c
t
u
a
l

t
o
t
a
l
.
~
(
4
)

R
e
s
i
c
i
t
i
a
l

E
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n

I
n
i
t
i
a
t
i
v
e

e
x
p
e
n
s
e
s

I
n

2
0
0
7

w
e
r
e

a
l
l
o
c
a
t
e
d

a
m
o
r
g
a
l
l

r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l

g
r
o
u
p
$
.
(/CDZ
"0

-
I

~
Il
'

-
m
co

-
i
"
O
x
CD

I
I

(
'

:
:
en
e
"

m
2
:
~_
3

6
z
e;
=
e
6
9
0(
'

c
.

.
.
5'
:ic:~::CD
"8::~o-.
~3 Ql:i e¡(f e:CD s:Ql:iQl
l.CD3 CD ;a ei Ql::o"t ~CD..('o3"C Ql:io.
;i:J:Ji:~::(1"'o;:Noo..
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x

4
.

5
-
Y
e
a
r

D
S
M

E
x
p
e
n
s
e

a
n
d

P
e
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e

2
0
0
3
-
2
0
0
7
No
m
i
n
a
l

L
e
v
e
l
i
z
e
d
Co
s
t
(
a
)
To
t
a
l

C
o
s
t
s
sa
v
i
n
g
s
Av
e
r
a
g
e

P
e
a
k
Oe
m
a
n
e
(
Ø
)

D
e
m
a
n
d
(
f
)
To
t
a
l
To
t
a
l

U
t
l
i
t

R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
($
I

kW
h
)

(
$
/
W
h
)
An
n
u
a
l
En
e
r
g
y
(k
W
h
)
Me
a
s
u
r
e
Li
f
e
(Y
e
a
r
s
)
Ut
i
l
i
t
(
C
)
(d
o
l
l
a
r
s
)
Re
s
o
u
r
c
e
(
ø
ì
Pa
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
n
t
s
(
b
ì
(N
u
m
b
e
r
)
Pr
o
g
r
a
m
l
Y
e
a
r
(d
o
/
k
i
t
s
)
(a
k
I
N

(
k
I
N
Al
C

C
o
o
l

C
r
e
i
t
20
0
3
20
4
$2
7
5
.
6
4
$2
6
9
,
8
0
15
9
10
20
0
42
0
$2
8
7
.
2
5
3
$2
7
4
,
6
8
6
40
2
10
20
0
5
2,
3
6
9
$7
5
4
,
0
6
2
$7
1
7
,
9
0
2
2,
7
4
8
10
20
0
6
5,
3
6
9
$1
,
2
3
5
,
7
6
$1
,
1
3
1
,
4
3
9
5,
6
3
7
10
20
0
7
13
.
6
9
2
$2
,
4
2
6
.
1
5
4
$2
,
1
9
9
,
4
8
6
10
,
7
6
2
10
To
t
a
l
Nl
A
$4
,
9
7
8
,
5
8
9
$4
,
5
9
3
.
1
9
3
Nl
A
10
Ir
r
i
g
a
t
i
o
n

P
e
a
k

R
e
w
a
r
d
s
20
0
4
58
$3
.
7
1
4
$1
8
5
,
0
0
6
5,
5
9
7
10
20
0
5
89
4
$1
,
4
6
,
2
8
2
$4
7
9
,
4
8
4
40
.
3
2
3
10
20
0
6
90
6
$1
,
3
2
4
,
4
1
8
$2
3
9
,
9
7
7
31
,
8
3
6
10
20
0
7
94
7
$1
,
6
1
5
,
6
8
1
$2
3
9
.
8
5
5
37
,
4
4
1
10
To
t
a
l
N/
A
$4
,
7
5
3
,
2
9
5
$1
,
1
4
4
.
3
2
2
N/
A
10
iJ Q)
co(1 C1..
(a
)

N
o
m
i
n
a
l
l
e
v
e
l
i
z
e
d

c
o
s
t
s

a
r
e

b
a
s
e

o
n

f
i
n
a
n
C
í
a
l

i
n
p
u
t
s

f
r
o
m

I
P
C
'
s

2
0
0

i
n
t
e
g
r
a
t
e
d

r
e
o
u
r
c

p
l
a
n

a
n
d

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

i
o
o
l
u
d
e

l
i
n
e

l
o
s
s
.
(0
)

P
a
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
n
t

t
o
t
l
s

f
o
r

e
n
e
r
g
y

e
f
f
i
e
e
n
c
y

p
r
o
g
r
a
m
s

a
r
e

i
o
o
r
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
.

T
o
t
a
l
s

fo
r

D
e
m
a
n
d

R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e

p
r
o
r
a
m
s

r
e
f
l
e
c
t

a
n
n
u
a
l

s
u
b
s
c
r
ì
b
e
l
'
,

w
h
i
c
h

m
a
y

r
e
p
r
e
s
e
n
t

t
h
e

S
a
m
e
pa
r
t
i
C
í
p
a
n
t

a
c
r
o
s
s

m
u
l
t
i
p
l
e

y
e
a
r
s
.
(C
)

T
h
e

T
o
t
a
l

U
t
i
l
i
t
y

c
o
t

i
s

a
l
l

c
o
t

i
n
c
u
r
r
d

b
y

I
P
C

t
o

i
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t

a

D
S
M

p
r
(
g
r
a
m
.
(d
)

T
h
e

T
o
t
a
l

R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e

c
o
s
t

i
s

t
h
e

t
o
t
a
l

e
x
p
e
n
d
i
t
u
r
e

f
o
r

a

p
r
o
g
r
a
m

f
r
o
m

t
h
e

p
o
i
n
t

o
f

v
i
e
w

o
f

I
P
C

a
n
d

i
t
s

c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
s

a
s

a

w
h
o
l
e
.
(E
l
)

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

I

8
,
7
6
0

a
n
n
u
a
l

h
o
u
r
s
,

e
x
c
l
u
d
i
n
g

i
r
r
i
g
a
t
i
o
n

d
e
m
a
n
d

r
e
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
.
(1
)

S
u
m
m
e
r

P
e
a
k

D
e
m
a
n
d

i
s

r
e
p
o
r
t
e
d

w
h
e
r
e

p
r
o
r
a
m

k
W

r
e
d
u
c
t
o
n

i
s

d
o
c
m
e
n
t
e
d
.

R
e
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

o
f

k
W

f
r
o
m

d
e
m
a
n
d

r
e
s
p
o
n
s
e

i
s

n
o
t

ad
d
i
t
i
v
e
.
(1
)

U
t
i
i
t
y

c
o
s
t

r
e
s
t
t
e
d

f
r
o
m

$
3
2
0
,
3
0
0

i
n

pr
i
o
r

h
i
s
t
o
r
i
c
l

r
e
p
o
r
t
n
g

t
o

r
e
e
c
t

a
l
l

f
u
n
d
i
n
g

s
o
u
r
c
e
s
.
(2
)

P
e
a
k

k
W

a
c
h
i
e
v
e
d

b
a
s
e
d

o
n

m
i
d
-
e
k

l
o
a
d

r
e
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

s
c
e
d
u
l
e
.
('

(
3
)

M
a
x
i
m
u
m

s
u
m
m
e
r

p
e

k
W

a
c
h
i
e
v
e
d
.
Q)C/CDZ
i:

-
l

!
J
Q)
'

-

m
CC
-
l
i
:
x
CD

Q
)

(
'
:
:
oi
Ë
r
h
§
:
0'
3

'

-
a-
-
g
~
(X
i
:
b
.
o(
'
V
)
~
a:Q);:o i..()o3"'Q)
:J-.
(1

)
(2
)
(3
)
(3
)
o(13 Q)
:J0.
,C/a:
(1 s:Q)
:JQ)
co(13(1:J-
"0 Ql
(Q CD C100
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x

4
.

5
-

Y
e
a
r

D
S
M

E
x
p
e
n
s
e

a
n
d

P
e
n
o
r
m
a
n
c
e

2
0
0
3
-
2
0
0
7

(
c
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
)
No
m
i
n
a
l

L
e
v
e
l
i
z
e
ò
CO
$
t
s
(
l
l
)
To
t
a
l

C
o
s
t
s
Sa
v
i
n
g
s
An
n
u
a
l
Av
e
r
a
g
e
Pe
a
k
Me
a
s
u
r
e
To
t
a
l
Pa
r
t
l
c
i
p
a
n
t
s
(
b
)
Ut
i
l
i
i
c
)
Re
s
o
u
r
c
e
(
d
)
En
e
r
g
y
De
m
a
n
ò
(
e
)

D
e
m
a
n
ò
(
f
)
ut
To
t
a
l

U
t
i
l
i
t
Re
s
o
u
r
c
e
(d
o
l
l
a
r
s
)
(d
o
l
l
a
r
s
)
(k
W
h
)
(a
k
W
)
(k
W
)
(Y
e
a
r
s
)
($
l
k
W
h
)
Ap
p
l
i
a
n
c
e

P
r
o
g
r
a
m
20
0
7
$9
,
2
7
5
To
t
a
l
$9
,
2
7
5
En
e
r
g
y

H
o
u
s
e

C
a
l
l
s
20
0
3
42
0
$1
6
7
.
0
7
6
$1
6
7
,
0
7
6
60
2
,
7
2
3
69
20
$0
.
0
2
3
$0
.
0
2
3
(4
)
20
0
1.
7
0
8
$7
2
5
,
9
8
1
$7
2
5
,
9
8
1
2,
3
4
9
,
7
8
3
26
8
20
$0
.
0
2
5
$0
.
2
5
(5
)
20
0
5
89
1
$3
7
5
.
6
1
0
$3
7
5
,
6
1
0
1,
7
7
5
,
7
7
0
20
3
20
$0
.
0
1
7
$0
.
0
1
7
20
0
81
9
$3
3
6
.
7
0
1
$3
3
6
,
7
0
1
77
7
,
2
4
4
89
20
$0
.
0
3
5
$0
.
0
3
5
20
0
7
70
0
$3
3
6
,
3
7
2
$3
3
6
,
3
7
2
69
9
,
8
9
9
80
20
$0
.
0
3
9
$0
.
0
3
9
To
t
a
l
4,
5
3
8
$1
,
9
4
1
,
7
4
0
$1
,
9
4
1
,
7
4
0
6,
2
0
5
,
4
1
9
70
8
20
$0
.
2
6
$0
-
2
6
(i
i
)

N
o
m
i
n
a
l
l
e
v
e
l
i
z
e
d

c
o
s
t
s

a
r
e

b
a
s
e
d

o
n

f
i
n
a
n
c
ì
t
l

i
n
p
u
t
s

f
r
o

I
P
C
'
s

2
0
0

i
n
t
e
g
r
a
t
e
d

r
e
s
o
u
r

p
l
a
n

a
n
d

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

i
n
c
l
u
d
e

I
i
n
ø
l
o
s
s
e
s
.
(b
)

P
a
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
n
t

t
o
t
a
l
s

f
o
r

e
n
e
r
g
y

e
f
i
e
n
c

p
r
o
r
a
m
s

a
r
e

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

T
o
t
a
l
s

f
o
r

D
e
m
a
n
d

R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e

p
r
o
g
r
a
m
s

r
e
f
l
e
c

a
M
u
a
l

s
u
b
s
c
r
i
b
e
r
.
.

w
h
i
c
h

m
a
y

r
e
p
r
e
s
e
n
t

t
h
e

s
a
m
e
pa
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
n
t

a
c
o
s
s

m
u
l
t
i
p
l
e

y
e
a
r
s
.
(C
)

T
h
e

T
o
t
a
l

U
t
i
l
t
y

c
o
t

i
s

a
l
l

c
o
s
t

i
n
c
u
r
r
e
d

b
y

I
P
C

t
o

i
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t

a

D
S
M

p
r
o
g
r
a
m
.
(d
)

T
h
e

T
o
t
a
l

R
e
s
o
u
r
c

c
o
t

i
s

t
h
e

t
o
t
a
l

e
x
p
n
d
i
t
u
r
e

f
o
r

a

p
r
o
r
a
m

f
r
o

t
h
e

p
o
n
t

o
f

v
i
e
w

o
f

¡
P
C

a
n
d

i
t

c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
s

a
s

a

w
h
o
l
e
.
(e
)

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

1
8
.
7
6
0

a
n
n
u
a
l

h
o
u
r
s
,

&
x
c
l
u
d
i
n
g

i
r
r
g
a
t
i
o
n

d
e
m
a
n
d

r
e
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
.
(f
)

S
u
m
m
e
r

P
e
a
k

D
e
m
;
:
n
d

i
s

r
e
p
o
r
t
e
d

w
h
e
r

p
r
o
g
r
a
m

k
W

r
e
u
c
t
i
o
n

i
s

d
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
e
d
.

R
e
d
u
c
t
i
ó
n

o
f

k
W

f
r
o
m

d
e
m
a
n
d

r
e
s
p
o
n
s
e

i
s

n
o
t

a
d
d
i
t
i
v
e
.
(4
)

U
t
i
l
t
y

c
o
t

r
e
s
t
a
t
e
d

fr
o
m

$
1
8
3
,
6
5
3

i
n

p
r
i
o
r

h
i
s
t
o
n
c
a
l

r
e
p
o
r
t
i
n
g
.
(5
)

U
t
i
l
t
y

c
o
s
t

r
e
s
t
a
t
e
d

f
r
o
m

$
7
2
5
,
7
3
2

i
n

p
r
i
o
r

h
i
s
t
o
r
i
c
a
l

r
e
p
o
r
t
i
n
g
.
~::::c~$l
"8::Noo..
()II l€z
"0

-
I

9
Il
'

-
m
co
-
i
"
O
x
co

I
I

(
)
:
:
gi
~

r
:

g
;
a-
-
~
~
(X

"
0

o
.
o
(
)

c
.
.
.
o CD3Ql::cii(Jei CD s:Ql::Ql
(Q CD3 CD::.-a:Ql::o "0 ~CD..()o3i:Ql::
'0
;i~~c:~::co"0o;:Noo..
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x

4
.

5
-
Y
e
a
r

D
S
M

E
x
p
e
n
s
e

an
d

P
e
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e

2
0
0
3
-
2
0
0
7

(
c
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
)
No
m
i
n
a
l

L
e
v
e
l
l
z
e
d
Co
s
t
s
(
a
)
To
t
a
l

C
o
s
t
s
Sa
v
i
n
g
s
Av
e
r
a
g
e
De
m
a
n
d
(
e
)
To
t
a
l
To
t
l

U
t
l
i
t

R
e
s
o
u
r
ç
e
($
/
k
W
h
)

(
$
!
W
h
)
Pe
a
k
De
a
n
d
!
f
)
Me
a
s
u
r
e
Li
f
e
(Y
e
a
r
s
)
Re
s
u
r
c
e
!
d
)
An
n
u
a
l
En
e
r
g
y
(k
W
h
)
Pa
r
t
l
c
i
p
a
n
l
$
(
D
)
(N
u
m
b
e
r
)
Ut
l
l
t
y
(
e
)
(d
C
I
J
a
r
s
)
Pr
o
g
r
a
m
l
Y
e
a
r
(d
o
l
l
a
r
s
)
(a
/
(
W
)
(k
l
A
EN
E
R
G
Y

S
T
A
R
e

H
o
m
e
s
No
r
t
h
w
e
s
t
20
0
3
20
0
20
0
5
20
0
20
0
7
To
t
l
0
$1
3
,
5
9
7
$1
3
,
5
9
7
0
44
$1
4
0
,
1
6
5
$3
3
5
,
.
4
3
7
10
1
,
2
0
0
12
88
25
$0
.
1
0
3
$0
.
2
4
6
(6
)
20
0
$2
5
3
,
1
C
1
5
$3
1
5
,
3
1
1
41
5
,
6
0
0
47
40
0
25
$0
.
0
4
5
$0
.
5
6
(7
)
43
9
$4
6
9
,
6
0
$6
0
.
2
,
.
6
5
1
91
2
,
2
4
2
10
4
87
8
25
$0
.
0
3
8
$0
.
0
4
9
(S
)
30
3
$4
7
5
,
0
4
4
$5
6
6
,
2
4
7
62
9
.
6
3
4
72
60
6
25
$0
.
0
5
6
$0
.
0
6
7
98
$1
,
3
5
1
,
5
2
0
$1
,
8
3
3
,
2
4
3
2,
0
5
.
6
7
6
23
5
1,
9
7
2
25
$0
.
0
4
9
$0
.
0
6
6
(a
)

N
o
m
i
n
a
l

l
e
v
e
l
i
z
:
d

c
o
s
t
s

a
r
e

b
a
s
e

o
n

f
i
n
a
n
c
i
a
l

i
n
p
u
t
s

f
r
o
m

I
P
C
'
s

2
0
0
6

i
n
t
e
g
r
a
t
e

re
o
u
r
c

p
l
a
n

a
n
d

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

i
n
c
l
u
d
e

l
i
n
e

l
o
s
s
.
(b
)

P
a
r
t
ì
c
i
p
a
n
t

t
o
t
a
l
s

f
o
r

e
n
e
r
g
y

e
f
f
c
i
e
n
c
y

p
r
o
g
r
a
m
s

a
r
e

i
n
c
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
.

T
o
t
a
l
s

f
o
r

D
e
m
a
n
d

R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e

p
r
o
g
r
a
m
s

r
e
f
l
e
c

a
n
n
u
a
l

s
u
b
s
c
r
i
b
e
r
s
,

w
h
i
c
h

m
a
y

r
e
p
r
e
s
e
n
t

t
h
e

s
a
m
e
pa
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
n
t

a
c
r
o
s
s

m
u
l
t
i
p
l
e

y
e
a
r
s
.
(e
)

T
h
e

T
o
t
a
l

U
t
i
i
t
y

c
o
s
t

i
s

a
l
l

c
o
t

i
n
c
u
r
r
e
d

b
y

I
P
C

t
o

i
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t

a

D
S
M

p
r
o
g
r
a
m
.
(d
)

T
h
e

T
o
t
a
l

Re
s
o
u
r
c

c
o
s
t

i
s

t
h
e

t
o
t
a
l

e
x
p
n
d
i
t
u
r
e

f
o
r

a

p
r
o
g
r
a
m

f
r
o
m

t
h
e

p
o
i
n
t

o
f

v
i
e
w

o
f

I
P
C

a
n
d

i
t
s

c
u
s
t
o
e
r
s

a
s

a

w
h
o
l
e
.
(e
)

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

1
6
,
7
6
0

a
n
n
u
a
l

h
o
u
r
s
.

e
x
c
u
d
i
n
g

i
r
r
g
a
t
i
o
n

d
e
m
a
n
d

r
e
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
.
(f
)

S
u
m
m
e
r

P
e
a
k

D
e
m
a
n
d

i
s

r
e
p
o
r
t
e
d

w
h
e
r
e

p
r
o
g
r
a
m

k
W

r
e
d
u
c
t
i
O

i
s

d
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
e
d
.

R
e
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

O
f

k
W

f
r
m

d
e
m
a
n
d

r
e
s
p
o
n
s
e

is

n
o
t

a
d
d
i
t
i
v
e
.
(6
)

E
n
e
r
g
y

$
l
v
i
n
g
s

b
a
s
e
d

o
n

N
E
E
A

s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
i
z
e
d

p
e

h
o
m
e

k
W
h

s
a
v
i
n
g
s
.
(7
)

R
e
v
i
s
e
d

n
u
m
b
e
r

o
f

h
o
m
e
s

r
e
r
t
e
d

c
e
r
t
e
d

1
0
2
0
0

f
r
o
m

20
3

t
o

a
l
i
g
n

w
i
t
h

i
n
c
e
n
t
i
v
e
s

r
e
a
l
i
z
e
d
,

a
d
j
u
s
t
e
d
.
(S
)

U
t
i
l
t
y

c
o
s

a
n
d

T
o
t
a
l

R
e
s
o
u
r
c

c
o
s
t
s

a
r
e

o
v
e
r
s
t
a
t
e
d

b
y

$
1
,
5
0
0

d
u
e

t
o

p
a
y
m
e
n
t

e
r
r
r
s
;

s
a
v
i
n
g
s

a
n
d

l
e
v
l
i
z
e

c
o
s
t

h
a
v
e

b
e
n

a
d
j
u
s
t
e
d

t
o

r
e
f
l

c
e
r
t
f
i
e
d

h
o
m
e
s

o
n
l
y
.
1J Ql
coco oi
(D
("Ql
¡ßZ
1)

-
j
?
Ql
'

-

m
lO

-
j
1
)
x
~
Q
l

(
"
:
:
C"
Ë
m
2
:
CD

3

i

.
.
0-

°
z
~=
j
6
~
o(
"
w
.
.
ei Ql':o 1J ~..()o3"0Ql~'-o co3 Ql::0.i(fa:
co s:Ql~Ql
co co3 co~-
"'Q)
co CD(Jo
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x

4
.

5
-
Y
e
a
r

D
S
M

E
x
p
e
n
s
e

a
n
d

P
e
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e

2
0
0
3
-
2
0
0
7

(
c
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
)
No
m
i
n
a
l

L
e
v
e
U
z
e
d
CO
$
l
s
(
a
)
To
t
a
l

C
O
$
l
s
Sa
v
i
n
g
s
Av
e
r
a
g
e
De
a
n
d
(
e
)
To
t
a
l
To
t
a
l

U
t
l
i
t
y

R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
($
/
W
h
)

(
$
/
W
h
)
Pe
a
k

M
e
a
s
u
r
e
De
m
a
n
d
(
'
)

L
i
f
e
(k
l
4

(
Y
e
a
r
s
)
Pr
o
g
r
a
m
l
Y
e
a
r
Pa
r
t
c
i
p
a
i
r
(
O
)
(N
u
m
l
J
r
)
An
n
u
a
l
En
e
r
(k
W
h
)
(a
k
l
4
Ut
l
l
t
y
(
e
)
(d
o
l
l
a
r
s
)
Re
s
o
u
r
c
e
(
d
)
(d
o
l
a
r
s
)
Or
e
o
n

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
3
0
$(
9
4
3
)
0
(9
)
20
0
4
$1
,
0
5
7
$1
,
0
5
7
-
°
0
20
0
5
4
$6
1
2
$3
,
6
0
7,
9
2
7
1
25
$0
.
0
0
6
$0
.
0
3
4
20
0
0
$4
,
1
2
6
$4
,
1
2
8
0
(1
0
)
20
0
7
1
$3
,
7
8
1
$5
,
5
8
9
9,
9
7
1
1
25
$0
.
0
2
8
$0
.
0
4
2
To
t
l
9
$8
,
6
3
4
$1
4
,
3
8
0
17
.
8
9
8
2
25
$0
.
0
3
6
$0
.
0
0
0
(1
1
)
Re
b
a
t
e

Ad
v
a
n
t
a
g
e

20
0
3
73
$2
7
,
3
7
2
$7
9
,
3
9
9
22
7
,
4
3
4
26
45
$0
.
0
0
8
$0
.
0
2
2
(1
2
)
20
0
10
5
$5
2
,
1
8
7
$1
7
8
,
7
1
2
33
2
.
.
5
8
7
38
45
$0
.
0
1
0
$0
,
0
3
4
20
0
5
98
$4
,
1
7
3
$1
5
8
,
4
6
2
31
2
,
3
1
1
36
45
$0
.
0
0
9
$0
.
0
3
2
20
0
10
2
$5
2
.
6
7
3
$1
4
0
,
2
8
9
33
3
,
4
9
4
38
45
$0
.
0
1
0
$0
.
0
2
7
20
0
7
12
3
$8
9
,
2
6
9
$1
8
2
,
1
5
2
55
4
,
0
1
8
63
45
$0
.
0
1
0
$0
.
0
2
1
To
t
a
l
50
1
$2
6
7
,
6
7
5
$7
3
9
.
0
1
4
1,
7
5
9
.
8
4
4
20
1
45
$0
.
1
0
$0
,
0
2
7
);::::c:~::CD "8;:
'"oo-.
(a
)

N
o
m
i
n
a
l
l
e
v
e
l
i
z
e
d

c
o
t
s

a
r
e

b
a
s
e
d

o
n

f
i
n
a
n
c
i
a
l

i
n
p
u
t

f
r
o
m

I
P
C
'
s

2
0
0
6

i
n
t
e
g
r
a
t
e
d

r
e
s
o
u
r
c

p
l
a
n

a
n
d

c
a
l
c
u
l
a
t
i
O
n
s

i
n
c
l
u
d
e

l
i
n
e

1
o
$
8
S
,
(0
)

P
a
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
n
t

t
o
t
a
l
s

f
o
r

e
n
e
r
y

e
f
f
i
e
n
c
y

p
r
o
r
a
m
s

ar
e

I
n
c
r
e
m
e
n
t
l
.

T
o
t
l
s

f
o
r

D
e
m
a
n
d

R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e

p
r
o
g
r
a
m
s

r
e
f
l
e
c

a
n
n
u
a
l

s
u
b
s
c
r
i
b
e
r
s
,

w
h
i
c
h

m
a
y

r
e
p
r
e
s
e
n
t

t
h
e

s
a
m
e
pa
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
n
t

a
c
o
s
s

m
u
l
t
i
p
l

y
e
a
r
s
.
(e
)

T
h
e

T
o
t
a
l

U
t
i
l
i
t
y

c
o
s
t

i
s

a
l
l

c
o
s
t

I
n
c
u
r
r
e
d

b
y

I
P
C

t
o

i
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t

a

D
S
M

p
r
o
r
a
m
.
(d
)

T
h
e

T
o
t
a
l

R
e
s
o
u
r
c

c
o
s
t

i
s

t
h
e

t
o
t
a
l

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

f
o
r

t
i

p
r
o
r
a
m

f
r
o

t
h
e

p
o
n
t

o
f

V
i
e
w

o
f

I
P
C

a
n
d

it
s

c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
s

a
s

a

w
h
o
l
e
,
(l
i
)

A
v
e
r
a
g
e

D
e
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
,

e
x
c
l
u
d
i
n
g

i
r
r
i
g
a
t
i

d
e
m
a
n
d

r
e
u
c
t
i
o
n
.
(f
)

S
u
m
m
e
r

P
e
a
k

D
e
m
a
n
d

i
s

r
e
p
o
r
t
e
d

w
h
e
r
e

p
r
o
g
r
a
m

k
W

r
e
u
c
t
i
o
n

i
s

d
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
e
d
.

R
e
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

o
f

k
W

f
r
o
m

æ
m
a
n
d

r
e
s
p
o
n
s
e

i
s

n
o
t

a
d
d
i
t
v
e
.
('

(
9
)

U
t
i
l
t
y

c
o
t

r
e
f
l

c
o
l
l
e
c
e
d

f
u
n
d
s

o
n

p
r
e
v
i
o
u
s

b
a
d

l
o
a
n

w
r
t
e
o
f
f
s
.
3l

(
1
0
)

U
t
i
l
l
y

c
o
s
t

r
e
f
l
e
c
t
s

on
l
y

a
u
d
i
t
a
l
'

a
d
m
i
n
i
s
t
a
t
i
o
n

c
o
s
t
s
;

t
h
e
r
e

w
a

no

f
u
r
t
h
e
r

a
c
i
t
i

i
n

2
0
0
.
Cl ~
(
1
1

L
e
v
e
l
l
z

c
o
s
t

c
a
i
t
i
o
n

i
n
c
l
u
d
e
s

b
a
d

l
o
a
n

w
r
i
t
e
o
f
f

e
x
p
e
n
s
e

an
d

f
u
n
d

c
o
l
l
e
e
d

f
r
o
m

l
o
a
n
s

p
r
e
V
i
o
u
s
l
y

w
r
i
t
t
e
n

o
f
f
.
-0

-
l
'
~
~

'
õ

f
2
)

U
t
i
l
t
y

c
o
t

r
e
s
t
a
t
e
d

f
r

$3
7
,
3
1
9

t
o

r
e
f
l
e
c

t
o
t
a
l

e
x
p
n
s
e
.
Cl

I
I

(
'
:
:
mË
m
2
:
co

3

'

.
.
o.

°
z
;;

i
j

6

9
0(
'
"
'
'
'
o CD3 Q)::0.
i(Jõ:CD s:Q)::Q)
co CD3 CD::õ:Q)::o "'~.,()o3 al::-.
?;
::i:!!ii"'o::Noo..
To
t
a
l

C
o
s
t
s
No
m
i
n
a
l

L
e
v
e
l
l
z
e
d
Co
s
t
s
(
a
)
ã:Q)::o ìJo ~..
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x

4
.

5
-
Y
e
a
r

D
S
M

E
x
p
e
n
s
e

a
n
d

Pe
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e

2
0
0
3
-
2
0
0
7

(
c
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
)
Pr
o
g
r
a
m
l
Y
e
a
r
Sa
v
i
n
g
s
Av
e
r
a
g
e

P
e
a
k
De
a
n
d
(
e
i
)

D
e
m
a
n
d
(
f
)
Me
a
s
u
r
e
Li
f
e
(Y
e
s
r
s
)
To
t
a
l
To
t
a
l

U
t
l
i
t
y

R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
($
/
W
h
)

(
$
/
W
h
)
()o3"'Q)::
'-
Pa
r
l
c
l
p
a
n
t
(
b
)
(N
i
i
m
p
e
r
j
R_
o
u
r
c
e
(
d
)
(d
o
l
a
r
s
)
An
n
u
a
l
En
e
r
g
(k
W
h
)
(a
k
W
)

(
k
W
)
Ut
l
i
t
y
C
)
(d
o
l
l
a
r
s
)
He
a
t
i
n
g

a
n
d

C
o
o
l
i
n
g
Ef
l
c
i
e
n
c
y
EN
E
R
G
Y

S
T
A
R
.

U
g
h
t
i
n
g
Wi
n
d
o
w

A
!
C

T
r
a
d
e
-
u
p
Pi
l
o
t
20
0
20
0
7
To
t
a
l
20
0
3
20
0
5
20
0
20
0
7
To
t
l
20
0
3
To
t
a
l
$1
7
,
4
4
$1
7
.
4
4
0
4
$4
8
8
,
2
1
1
$4
9
4
.
9
8
9
1,
5
9
5
0
18
4
$5
0
5
,
6
5
6
$5
1
2
,
4
3
3
1,
5
9
5
18
12
,
8
6
3
$3
1
4
,
6
4
1
$4
6
4
.
0
5
9
3,
5
9
6
,
1
5
0
41
1
7
$0
.
0
1
4
$0
.
0
2
1
43
,
7
6
0
$7
3
,
1
5
2
$1
0
7
,
8
1
0
1,
7
3
4
,
6
4
6
19
8
0
7
$0
.
0
0
7
$0
.
0
1
0
(1
3
)
17
8
,
5
1
4
$2
9
8
.
7
5
4
$S
3
9
.
~
m
6,
3
0
2
.
7
9
4
71
9
7
$0
.
0
0
8
$0
.
0
1
4
21
9
,
7
3
9
$5
5
7
,
6
4
6
$6
6
8
,
7
5
6
7,
2
0
7
,
4
3
9
82
3
$0
.
0
1
2
$0
,
0
1
5
45
,
6
7
6
$1
,
2
4

1
9
3
$1
.
7
8
0
,
5
0
1
18
,
8
4
1
,
0
2
9
2,
1
5
1
7
$0
.
0
1
1
$0
.
0
1
5
99
$6
,
6
8
7
$1
0
,
4
9
2
14
,
4
5
2
12
12
$0
.
0
5
1
$0
,
0
7
9
99
$6
,
6
8
7
$1
0
,
4
9
2
14
,
4
5
2
12
12
$0
.
0
5
1
$1
)
7
9
(a
)

N
o
m
l
n
a
l
l
e
v
e
l
i
z
e
d

c
o
s
t
s

a
r
e

b
a
s
e
d

o
n

f
i
n
a
n
c
i
a
l

i
n
p
u
t

f
r
o
m

I
P
C
'
s

2
0
0

I
n
t
e
g
r
a
t
e
d

r
e
s
o
u
r
c
e

p
l
a
n

a
n
d
c
e
l
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s

i
n
c
l
u
d

l
i
n
e

lo
s
s
e
s
,
(b
)

P
a
r
í
c
í
p
a
n
t
t
o
t
a
l
s

f
o
r

e
n
e
r
g
y
e
f
i
c
i
e
n
c
y

p
r
o
r
a
m
s

a
r
e

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

T
o
t
a
:
l
s

f
o
r

D
e
m
a
n
d

R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e

p
r
o
g
r
a
m
s

r
e
f
l
e
c
t

a
n
n
u
a
l

s
u
b
s
c
r
i
b
e
r
s
,

w
h
i
c
h

m
a
y

r
e
p
r
e
s
e
n
t

t
h
e

s
a
m
e
pa
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
n
t

a
c
r
o
s
s

m
u
l
t
i
p
l
e

y
e
a
r
s
.
(C
)

T
h
e

T
o
t
a
l

U
t
i
l
i
t
y

c
o
t

i
s

a
l
l

c
o
t
i
n
c
u
r
r

b
y

I
P
C

t
o

i
m
p
l
e
m
a
n
t
a

D
S
M

p
r
o
g
r
a
m
.
(d
)

T
h
e

T
o
t
a
l

R
e
s
o
u
r
c

c
o
s
t

i
s

t
h

t
o
t
a
l

e
x
p
n
d
i
t
u
r
e

f
o
r
a

p
r
o
r
a
m

f
r
o
m

t
h
e

p
o
i
n
t

o
f

v
i
e
w

o
f

I
P
C

a
n
d

It
s

c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
s

a
s

a

w
h
o
l
e
.
(e
)

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

I

8
,
7
6
0

a
n
n
u
a
l

h
o
u
r
,

e
x
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
i
n
i
g
a
t
l
o
n

d
e
m
a
n
d

r
e
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
.
(f
)

S
u
m
m
e
r

P
e
a
k

De
m
a
n
d

i
s

r
e
p
r
t
e
d

w
h
e
r
e

p
r
o
g
r
a
m

k
W

r
e
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

i
s

d
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
e
d
.

R
e
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

o
f

k
W

f
(
O
O

d
e
m
a
n
d

r
e
s
p
o
n
s
e

i
s

n
o
t

a
d
d
i
l
v
e
,
(1
3
)

E
n
e
r
g
y

s
a
v
i
n
g
s

a
d
j
u
s
t
e
d

f
o
r

a
c
u
a
l

s
a
l
e
s

o
f

6
5
,
4
3
0

b
u
l
b
s

f
r

3
5
,
0
0
8
,

w
i
t
h

m
e
a
s
u
r
e

U
f
e

r
e
v
i
s
e
d

t
ø

7

f
r
m

9

y
e
a
r
s
.
("IIC/(1Z
"0

-
i

9
Il
'

-
m
co

-
i
"
O
x
(1
!
!
Ç
'
2
:
èl
§

i
;
g
;
a:
-
~
~
0)
"
0
0
'
o(
"
w
.
.
ìJ Q)
co CD 0)-"
o CD3 Q)::c-o(J õ.
CD s:Q)::Q)
co CD3 CD::-
""Ql
co CDoiN
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x

4
.

5
-
Y
e
a
r

D
S
M

E
x
p
e
n
s
e

a
n
d

Pe
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e

2
0
0
3
-
2
0
0
7

(
c
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
)
No
m
i
n
a
l

L
e
v
e
l
l
z
e
d
Co
s
l
$
(
a
l
To
t
a
l

C
o
s
t
s
sa
v
i
n
g
s
Av
e
r
a
g
e
De
m
a
n
d
(
e
l
To
t
a
l
To
t
a
l

U
t
i
l
i
t
y

R
e
s
o
u
r
e
,
e
($
/
W
h
)

(
$
I
k
V
V
)
Pe
a
k
De
m
a
n
d
(
f
)
Me
a
s
u
r
e
Li
f
e
(Y
e
a
r
s
)
Pr
o
r
a
m
i
Y
e
a
r
Pa
r
t
k
:
i
p
a
n
t
s
(
b
)
(N
u
m
b
e
r
)
Re
s
o
u
r
c
e
(
d
)
An
n
u
a
l
En
e
r
g
y
(k
V
V
)
(k
l
A
Ut
l
l
i
t
y
(
c
l
(d
o
l
l
a
r
s
)
(d
o
l
l
a
r
s
)
(a
k
l
A
WA
O
o
-
D
20
0
3
20
8
$2
2
8
,
1
3
4
$4
8
3
,
3
6
9
0
20
0
26
9
$4
9
8
,
4
7
4
$8
5
9
,
4
8
2
1,
2
7
1
,
6
n
14
5
25
$0
.
0
2
9
$0
,
0
5
0
20
0
5
57
0
$1
,
4
0
2
,
4
8
7
$1
,
9
2
7
.
,
4
2
4
3,
1
7
9
,
3
1
1
36
3
25
$0
.
0
3
3
$0
.
0
4
5
(1
4
)
20
0
54
0
$1
,
4
5
5
.
3
7
3
$2
,
2
3
1
,
0
8
6
2,
9
5
8
.
0
2
4
33
8
25
$0
.
0
3
7
$0
.
0
5
6
20
0
7
39
7
$1
.
9
0
.
1
6
$1
,
7
5
4
,
1
9
1
3,
2
9
6
,
0
1
9
37
6
25
$0
.
0
2
9
$0
.
0
4
0
To
t
a
l
1,
9
8
4
$4
,
8
7
4
,
4
8
4
$7
,
2
6
5
.
5
5
2
10
,
7
0
5
.
0
3
1
1,
2
2
2
25
$0
.
3
4
$0
,
0
5
0
WA
O
C
-
R
20
0
3
29
$2
2
.
2
5
5
$4
2
,
3
3
5
10
2
,
6
4
3
12
25
$0
.
0
1
6
$0
.
0
3
1
20
0
17
$1
3
,
6
9
$2
5
,
4
5
2
28
,
4
3
6
3
25
$0
.
0
3
5
$0
.
6
7
20
0
5
28
$4
4
,
3
4
8
$5
9
,
4
4
3
94
.
2
7
9
11
25
$0
.
0
3
5
$0
.
0
4
7
(1
5
)
20
0
0
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
20
0
7
11
$3
3
,
6
0
7
$4
,
6
1
3
42
,
1
0
8
5
25
$0
.
0
5
9
$0
.
0
7
9
To
t
a
l
85
$1
1
0
,
7
6
6
$1
6
8
,
9
3
0
26
7
,
4
6
31
25
$0
.
0
3
1
$0
.
0
4
7
:i::::c:~::CD
"8;:Noo..
(a
)

N
o
m
i
n
a
l
l
e
v
e
l
i
z
e
d

c
o
t
s

a
r
e

b
a
s
e
d

o
n

f
i
n
a
n
c
i
a
l

i
n
p
u
t

f
r
o
m

l
P
C
'
s

2
0
0

i
n
t
e
g
r
a
t
e
d

r
e
s
o
u
r
c
e

p
l
a
n

a
n
d

c
a
l
c
u
l
a
t
i
n
s

i
n
c
u
d
e

l
i
n
e

l
o
s
.
s
e
s
.
(b
)

P
a
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
n
t

t
o
l
a
l
s

f
o
r

e
n
e
r
g
y

e
f
f
c
i
e
n
c
y

p
r
o
g
r
a
s

ar
e

i
n
c
r
e
m
e
n
t
a
t

T
o
t
a
l
s

f
o
r

D
e
m
a
n
d

R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e

p
r
g
r
a
m
s

r
e
f
l
o
o
t

a
n
n
u
a
l

$
l
b
s
C
l
b
e
r
s
,

w
h
i
c
h

m
a
y

r
e
p
r
e
s
e
n
t

t
h
e

s
a
m
e
pa
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
n
t

a
c
r
o
s
s

m
u
l
t
i
p
l
e

ye
a
r
s
.
(e
)

T
h
e

T
o
t
a
l

U
t
i
l
i
t
y

c
o
t

I
s

a
l
l

c
o
U
n
c
u
r
r
d

b
y

I
P
C

t
o

i
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t

a

D
S
M

p
r
o
r
a
m
.
(d
)

T
h
e

T
o
t
a
l

R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e

c
o
s
t

i
s

l
h
e

t
o
t
a
l

e
x
p
n
d
i
t
u
r
e

fo
r

a

p
r
o
r
a
m

f
r
o

t
h
e

p
o
i
n
t

O
f

v
i
e
w

of

I
P
C

a
n
d

its

cu
s
t
o
m
e
r
s

a
s

a

W
h
o
l
e
.
(e
)

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

I

8
,
7
6
0

a
n
n
u
l

h
o
u
r
s
,

e
x
c
l
u
d
i
n
g

i
r
r
i
g
a
t
i
o
n

d
e
m
a
n
d

r
i
l
u
c
t
l
o
n
,
(f
)

S
u
m
m
e
r

P
e
a
k

D
e
m
a
n
d

i
s

r
e
p
o
r
t
e
d

W
h
r
e

p
r
o
g
r
a
m

k
W

r
e
d
u
c
t
o
n

i
s

d
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
e
d
.

R
è
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

o
f

k
I
N

f
r
o
m

d
e
m
a
n
d

r
ß
$
p
o
n
s
e

i
s

n
o
t

a
d
d
i
t
i
v
e
.
()

(
1
4
)

T
o
t
a
l

R
e
s
o
u
r
c

C
o
t
s

r
e
t
a
t
e
d

i
n

2
0
0
5

t
o

i
n
c
u
d
e

f
e
d
e
r
a
l

f
u
n
d
i
n
g

a
d
m
i
n
i
s
t
e
r
e

b
y

C
A
P

a
g
e
n
c
i
e
s
;

2
0
0
3

s
a
v
i
n
g
s

n
o
t

r
e
p
o
e
d

d
u
e

t
o

i
n
t
e
g
r
a
t
i
o
n

o
f

fu
e
l

ty
p
e
s
.
~
(
1
5
)

B
e
g
i
n
l
n
g

i
n

2
0
0
,

B
P
A

f
u
n
d
s

w
e
r
e

n
o

l
o
n
g
e
r

a
p
p
l
i
e
d

t
o

C
A
P

a
g
e
n
c
y

p
a
y
m
e
n
t
s
,

e
P
A

e
x
p
n
s
e

i
n
s
l
J
b
s
e
u
e
n
t

y
e
a
r
s

i
s

r
e
o
o
t
e
d

i
n

t
h
e

r
e
s
p
e
c
t
i
v
e

s
l
a
t
e

e
x
p
e
s
e
s
.
z
"'
-
l

9
Il
'

-
m
CO
-
l
"
'
x
ØI
l
(
)
:
T
-.

Ë

m

§
:
~3

i

-
0-

°
z
;=
e
b
9
O(
)
V
'
.
.
o CD3Ql::a.
,en õ:
CD ~Ql::Ql
co CD3 CD::.-a.Ql=ro ""~.,()o3"0Ql::
-e
?;
:¡c:9l::CD"to;:Noo-.
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x

4
.

5
-
Y
e
a
r

D
S
M

E
x
p
e
n
s
e

a
n
d

Pe
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e

2
0
0
3
-
2
0
0
7

(
c
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
)
õ:
ti::o '1 ~..()o3"tti:¡
'-
'1tico CD æ
(c
)
(d
)
o
(
e
)
Ql g¡

(
f
)
Z
"t

-
i

!
'
Ql
'

-

m
to

-
i
"
t
x
(1
2
t
Ç
ì
2
:
;j

§

r
;

g
o.

°
z
~=
e
6

p
oO
V
'
.
.
To
t
a
l

C
o
s
t
s
Sa
v
i
n
g
s
Av
e
r
a
g
e
De
m
a
n
d
(
e
)
No
m
i
n
a
l

L
e
v
e
l
i
z
e
d
Co
s
t
s
(
a
)
Pe
a
k
De
m
a
n
d
(
l
)
Me
a
s
u
r
e
Li
f
e
(Y
e
a
r
s
)
To
t
a
:
1
To
t
a
l

U
t
i
l
i
t

R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
($
/
W
h
)

(
$
I
k
W
h
)
Pr
o
r
a
m
l
Y
e
a
r
Pa
r
t
l
c
i
p
a
n
t
s
(
b
)
(N
u
m
b
e
r
)
Re
s
o
u
r
c
e
(
d
)
(d
o
l
l
a
r
s
)
An
n
u
a
l
En
e
r
g
y
(k
W
h
)
(k
l
t
Ut
l
l
t
y
(
C
)
(d
o
l

Ja
r
s
)
(a
k
l
t
WA
Q
C
-
B
P
A
Su
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
$4
9
,
8
9
5
$1
0
6
,
9
1
5
22
3
,
5
9
1
26
25
$0
.
0
1
7
$0
.
0
3
6
$4
9
,
8
8
5
$1
0
5
,
0
2
1
12
5
,
9
1
9
14
25
$0
.
0
4
1
$0
.
0
6
2
$2
1
1
,
9
3
6
34
9
,
5
1
0
40
25
$0
.
0
2
1
$0
.
0
4
5
Ai
r

C
a
r
e

P
l
u
s

P
O
o
t
20
0
3
4
$5
,
7
6
4
$9
,
0
8
1
33
,
9
7
6
4
10
$0
.
0
2
1
$0
.
0
3
3
20
0
0
$3
4
4
$3
To
t
a
l
4
$6
,
1
0
8
$9
,
4
0
5
33
.
9
7
6
4
10
$0
.
2
2
$0
.
3
4
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g

E
f
f
c
i
e
n
c
y
Pr
o
g
r
a
m
20
0
0
$2
8
,
2
1
$2
8
,
8
2
1
20
0
5
12
$1
9
4
,
0
6
$2
3
3
,
1
4
9
49
4
,
2
3
9
56
16
2
12
$0
.
0
4
3
$0
.
0
5
2
20
0
40
$3
7
4
,
0
0
8
$4
6
3
,
7
7
0
70
4
,
5
4
1
SO
33
8
12
$0
.
5
8
$0
.
0
7
2
20
0
7
22
$6
6
9
,
0
3
2
$8
2
9
,
6
0
0
2,
8
1
7
,
2
4
8
32
2
45
4
12
$0
.
0
2
6
$0
.
0
3
2
To
t
l
74
$1
,
2
6
5
,
9
2
8
$1
,
5
5
5
,
3
4
1
4,
0
1
6
,
0
2
8
45
8
95
4
12
$0
.
0
3
4
$0
.
0
4
2
(a
)

N
o
m
i
n
a
l
l
e
v
e
l
i
z
e
d

c
o
t
s

a
r

b
a
s
e
d

o
n

f
i
n
a
n
c
i
a
l

i
n
p
u
t
s

!
'
m

I
P
C
'
s

2
0
0

i
n
t
e
g
r
a
t
e

r
e
o
u
r
c

p
l
a
n

a
n
d

c
a
l
c
u
l
a
t
i
n
s

i
n
c
l
u
d
e

l
i
n
e

lo
s
s
e
s
.
(b
)

P
a
r
t
c
i
p
a
t

t
o
t
a
l
s

f
o
r

e
n
e

e
f
f
c
i
e
n
c
Y

p
r
o
g
r
a
m
s

a
r

l
n
c
r
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
.

T
o
t
l
s

f
o
r

D
e
m
a
n
d

R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e

p
r
r
a
m
s

r
e
f
t
e
ç

a
n
n
u
a
l

s
u
b
$
c
n
b
e
r
s
,

w
h
i
c
h

m
a
y

r
e
p
r
s
e
n
t

th
e

s
a
m
e
pa
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
n
t

I
l
c
r
o
s
s

m
u
l
t
i
p
l
e

y
e
a
r
s
,
Th
e

T
o
t
a
l

U
t
i
l
i
l
y
c
o
t

i
s

a
l
l

c
O
$
t
i
n
e
u
r
r
d

b
y

I
P
C

t
o

i
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t

a

D
$
M

p
t
o
g
r
a
m
.
Th
e

T
o
t
a
l

R
e
s
o
u
r
c

c
o
s
t

i
s

t
h
e

t
o
t
a
l

e
x
p
n
d
i
t
u
r
e

f
o
r

a

p
r
o
r
a
m

!
'
m

t
h
e

p
o
n
t

o
f

v
i
e
w

o
f

I
P
C

a
n
d

Î
t
$

c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
s

a
s

a

w
h
o
l
e
.
Av
e
r
a
g
e

D
e
a
n
d
:
:

A
n
n
u
a
l

E
n
e
r
g
y

1
8
,
7
6
0

a
n
n
u
a
l

h
o
u
r
s
,

e
x
c
l
u
d
i
n
g

i
r
r
g
a
t
i
o
n

d
e
m
a
n
d

r
e
u
c
t
i
o
n
.
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

w
h
e
r
e

p
r
o
g
r
a
m

I
#

r
e
d
u
c
t
o
n

I
s

d
o
c
u
m
e
n
l
è
d
.

R
e
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

o
f

k
W

f
r
o

d
e
m
a
n
d
'
!
s
p
o
l
'
s
e

i
s

n
o
t

a
d
d
i
t
i
v
e
.
o CD3ti:¡a.iena:CD š:ti:¡ti
co CD3CD:¡..
"0Ql
(Q(1 ~
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x

4
.

5
-
Y
e
a
r

D
S
M

E
x
p
e
n
s
e

a
n
d

P
e
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e

2
0
0
3
-
2
0
0
7

(
c
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
)
No
m
i
n
a
l

L
e
v
e
l
l
z
e
d
Co
s
t
s
(
a
)
To
t
a
l

C
o
s
t
s
Sc
l
v
i
n
g
s
Av
e
r
a
g
e

P
e
a
k
De
a
n
d
(
e
)

D
ê
m
a
n
d
(
f
)
Me
a
s
u
r
e
Li
f
e
(Y
e
a
r
s
)
To
t
a
:
1
To
t
a
l

U
t
i
l
i
t
y

R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
($
/
W
h
)

(
$
I

kW
h
)
Pr
o
r
a
m
l
e
a
r
Pa
r
t
l
c
i
p
a
n
t
(
b
)
(N
u
m
b
e
r
)
An
n
u
a
l
En
e
r
g
y
(k
W
h
)
(a
k
W
)

(
k
W
)
Ut
l
i
t
y
Ç
)
(d
o
l
l
a
r
s
)
Re
s
o
u
r
c
e
(
d
)
(d
o
l
a
f
$
)
Ea
s
y

U
p
g
r
a
d
e
s
20
0
20
0
7
To
t
a
l
$3
1
,
8
1
9
$7
1
1
,
4
9
4
$7
4
3
,
3
1
3
12 12
$3
1
,
8
1
9
$1
,
8
8
2
,
0
3
5
$1
,
9
1
3
,
8
5
4
$0
,
0
1
5
$0
.
0
1
5
$0
.
0
4
0
$0
.
0
4
0
10
4
10
4
5,
1
8
3
,
6
4
0
5,
1
8
3
,
6
4
0
59
2
59
2
78
0
78
0
Or
e
o
n

C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
Au
d
i
t

(
S
c
h
e
d
u
l
e

8
2
)
20
0
3
20
0
20
0
5
20
0
20
0
7
To
t
a
l
$4
,
0
0
0
21 7 7 6 8 49
$5
,
4
5
0
$5
.
5
0
$1
,
9
8
1
$7
,
4
3
1
$1
.
9
8
1
$1
1
,
4
3
1
(a
)

N
o
m
i
n
a
l
l
e
v
e
l
i
z
e
d

c
o
s
t
s

a
r
e

b
a
s
e
d

o
n

f
l
n
a
n
c
l
a
l
l
n
p
u
t
s

f
r
o
m

I
P
C
'
s

2
.
0
0

i
n
t
e
g
r
a
t
e
d

r
e
s
o
u
r
c
e

pl
a
n

a
n
d

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

i
n
c
l
u
d
e

l
i
n
e

lo
s
s
e
s
.
(b
)

P
a
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
n
t

t
o
t
a
l
s

f
o
r

e
n
e
r
g
y

ef
f
i
e
n
c
y

p
r
o
g
r
a
m
s

ar
e

I
n
c
r
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
.

T
o
t
l
s

f
o
r

D
e
m
a
n
d

R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e

p
r
g
r
a
m
s

r
e
f
l
e
c
t

a
n
n
u
a
l

s
u
b
s
c
n
b
e
r
s
,

W
h
i
c
h

m
a
y

r
e
p
r
e
s
e
n
t

th
e

s
a
m
e
pa
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
n
t

a
c
r
o
s
s

m
u
l
t
i
p
l
e

y
e
a
r
s
.
(e
)

T
h
e

T
o
t
a
l

U
t
H
l
t
y
c
o
t

I
s

a
l
l

c
o
s
t

i
n
c
r
r
e
d

b
y

I
P
C

t
o

i
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t

a

D
S
M

p
r
o
r
a
m
.
(d
)

T
h

T
o
t
a
l

R
e
s
o
u
r
c

c
o
s
t

i
s

t
h
e

t
o
t
a

e
x
p
e
n
d
i
t
u
r
e

f
o
r

a

p
r
o
r
a
m

f
r
o

t
h
e

p
o
i
n
t

o
f

v
i
e
w

o
f

I
P
C

a
n
d

i
t
s

c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
s

i
l
s

a

W
h
o
l
e
.
(e
)

A
v
e
r
e

D
e
m
a
n
d

=

A
n
n
u
a
l

E
n
e
r
g
y

I

8
,
7
6
0

a
n
n
u
a
l

h
o
u
r
s
,

e
x
c
l
u
d
i
n
g

I
r
r
i
g
a
t
i
o
n

d
e
m
a
n
d
r
'
u
o
t
i
o
n
.
(f
)

S
u
m
m
e
r

P
e
a
k

D
e
m
a
n
d

i
s

r
e
p
o
r
t
e
d

w
h

p
r
o
r
a
m

k
W

r
e
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

i
s

d
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
e
d
.

R
e
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

o
f

k
W

f
r
o
m

d
e
m
a
l
l

r
e
s
p
o
n
s
e

I
s

n
o
t

a
d
d
i
t
i
v
e
.
(1
6
)

T
h
i
s

i
s

a
n

O
r
e
g
o
n

s
t
a
t
u
t
o
r
y

p
r
o
g
r
a
m
.

T
h

c
o
m
p
a
n
y

d
o
e
s

n
o
t

m
o
n
i
t
o
r

c
u
s
t
o
e
r

i
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
n

o
f

a
u
d
i
t

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

a
n
d

t
h
u
s

d
o
e
s

n
o
t

e
s
t
ì
m
a
t
e

s
a
v
i
n
g
s

f
o
r

t
h
i
s
pr
o
g
r
a
m
.

A
u
d
i
t

e
x
p
n
s
e

n
o
t

i
n
v
o
l
v
i
n
g

ou
t
s
i
d
e

c
o
n
r
a
c
t
o
r

s
e
r
v
i
c
e
s

a
r
e

b
o
o
k
e
d

t
o

g
e
n
e
r
a
l

c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r

s
e
r
v
c
e
.

S
i
x

c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r

s
e
r
v
i
c
e

a
u
d
i
t

w
e
r
e

c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
d

i
n

2
0
0
6
.
:t::::c:9l ~"8;:Noo-.
á?tilÐ Z
i:

-
t
?
Il
l
'

-
m
co

-
t
i
:
x
CÐ
2
t
Ç
ì
2
:
(j

~

r
;

g
a-
-

~

~
co

"
'

b
.
oO
w
.
.
(1
6
)
o (13Ql::9-(fa:
(1 š:Ql::Ql
(Q(13 (1::-õ:Ql::o "0 ~(1..()o3-cQl::-o
~::c:9?;u(I
"8;:I\oo-.
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x

4
.

5
-
Y
e
a
r

D
S
M

E
x
p
e
n
s
e

a
n
d

Pe
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e

2
0
0
3
-
2
0
0
7

(
c
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
)
No
m
i
n
a
l

L
e
v
e
l
i
z
e
d
Co
s
t
s
(
a
)
To
t
a
l

C
o
s
t
s
Sa
v
i
n
g
s
Av
e
r
a
g
e
De
a
n
d
(
l
l
)
Me
a
s
u
r
e
L.
i
f
e
(Y
e
a
r
s
)
To
t
a
l
To
t
a
l

U
t
i
l
i
t
y

R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
($
'
W
h
)

(
$
'
W
h
)
Pe
a
k
De
m
a
n
d
(
f
)
Re
s
.
o
u
r
c
e
(
d
)
An
n
u
a
l
En
e
r
g
y
(k
W
h
)
(k
I
M
Pa
r
I
C
i
p
a
i
r
(
b
)
(N
u
m
b
e
r
)
Ut
i
l
l
t
y
c
)
(d
o
l
l
a
r
s
)
(s
k
I
M
Pr
o
r
a
m
I
e
a
r
(d
o
l
l
a
r
s
)
Or
e
g
o
n

S
c
h
o
o
l

E
f
f
c
i
e
n
c
y
20
0
5
20
0
To
t
a
l
0
S8
6
$8
6
$2
4
.
3
7
9
$8
9
,
7
7
1
22
3
,
3
6
8
25
12
S0
-
1
2
$0
.
0
4
4
6
$2
4
,
4
6
5
$8
9
,
8
5
22
3
,
3
6
8
25
12
$0
.
1
2
$0
.
0
4
4
(1
7
)
Cu
s
t
q
m

E
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
c
y
20
0
3
20
0
20
0
5
20
0
20
0
7
To
t
a
l
$1
,
3
0
3
$1
,
3
0
3
0
1
$1
1
2
.
3
1
1
$1
3
3
,
4
4
1
21
1
.
2
9
5
24
12
$0
.
5
8
$0
.
0
6
9
(1
8
)
24
$1
,
1
2
8
.
0
7
6
$3
,
6
5
3
,
1
5
2
12
,
0
1
6
,
6
7
8
1.
3
7
2
12
$0
.
0
1
0
$0
.
0
3
3
40
$1
.
6
2
5
,
2
1
6
$4
,
2
7
3
,
8
8
5
19
,
2
1
1
.
6
0
5
2,
1
9
3
12
$0
.
0
0
9
$0
.
0
2
4
49
$3
,
1
6
1
,
8
6
$7
.
0
1
2
,
6
8
6
29
,
7
8
9
,
3
0
4
3,
0
1
3.
6
2
2
12
$0
.
0
1
2
$0
.
0
2
6
11
4
$6
,
0
2
8
.
7
7
1
$1
5
,
0
7
4
,
4
6
7
61
,
2
2
8
,
8
8
2
6.
9
9
0
3,
6
2
2
12
$0
.
0
1
1
$0
.
0
2
7
(a
)

N
o
m
i
n
a
l
l
e
v
e
l
i
z
e
d

c
o
s
t
s

a
r
e

b
a
s
e
d

q
n

f
i
n
a
n
c
i
a
l

i
n
p
u
t

f
r
o
m

I
P
C
'
s

2
0
0
6

i
n
t
e
g
r
a
t
e
d

r
e
s
o
u
r
c
e

p
l
a
n

a
n
d
c
a
i
o
u
l
a
t
l
o
n
s

i
n
c
l
u
d
e

l
i
n
e

l
o
s
s
e
s
.
(b
)

P
a
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
t

t
o
a
l
s

f
o
r

e
n
e
r
g
y

ef
f
c
i
e
n
c
y

p
r
o
r
a
m
s

a
r
e

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

T
o
t
l
s

f
o
r

D
e
m
a
n
d

R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e

p
r
g
r
a
m
s

r
e
f
t
e
e

a
n
n
u
a
l

s
u
b
s
i
:
r
i
b
a
r
s
.

w
h
i
c
h

m
a
y

r
e
p
r
e
s
e
n
t

t
h
e

s
a
m
e
pa
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
n
t

a
i
r
o
s
s

m
u
l
t
i
p
l
e

y
e
a
r
s
.
.
(c
)

T
h
e

T
o
t
a
l

U
t
i
l
i
t
y

c
o
t

i
s

a
l
l

c
o
s
t

i
n
c
u
r
r
e
d

b
y

I
P
C

t
o

i
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t

a

D
S
M

p
r
o
g
r
a
m
.
(d
)

T
h
e

T
o
t
l

R
e
s
o
u
r
c

C
O
s
t

i
s

t
h
e

t
o
t
a
l

e
x
p
e
n
d
i
t
u
r
e

f
o
r

a

p
r
o
r
a
m

f
l
'

t
h
e

p
o
i
n
t

o
f

v
i
e
w

o
f

I
P
C

a
n
d

i
t
s

c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
s
.

a
s

a

w
h
o
l
e
.
(e
)

A
v
e
r
a
g

D
e
m
a
n
d

=

A
n
n
u
a
l

E
n
e
r
g
y

I

8
,
7
6
0

a
n
n
u
a
l

h
o
u
r
s
,

e
x
c
l
u
d
i
n
g

i
r
r
i
g
a
t
i
o
n

d
e
m
a
n
d

r
e
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
.
(f

S
u
m
m
e
r

P
e
a
k

D
e
m
a
n
d

i
s

r
e
r
t
e
d

w
h
e
r
e

p
r
o
g
r
a
m

k
W

r
e
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

i
s

d
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
e
d
.

R
e
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

o
f

k
W

f
r
o

d
e
m
a
n
d

re
p
o
n
s
e

i
s

n
o
t

a
d
d
i
t
i
v
e
.
(1
1
)

E
n
e
r
g
y

I
n
c
n
t
i
v
e
s

o
f

$
6
,
6
7
4

w
e
e

p
a
i
d

f
o
r

t
h
i
s

p
r
r
a
m

u
n
d
e
r

t
h
e

E
a
s
y

U
p
g
r
a
d
e
s

p
r
g
r
a
m
.
.
(1
8
)

O
r
i
g
i
n
a
i
i
y

r
e
p
o
r
t
e
d

e
x
p
e
n
s
e

an
d

e
n
e
r
g
y

i
n
c
l
u
d
e
d

a
c
c
r
u
e
d

a
m
o
u
n
t
s
,

r
e
s
t
a
t
è
d

h
e
r
e

t
o

a
l
i
g
n

w
i
t
h

a
c
c
o
u
n
t
n
g

r
e
c
o
r
d
s
.
-0Ql
(C(Imoi
oDl g¡Z
"0

-
I
?
Dl
'

-

m
(Q

-
1
"
0
)
(
CÐ
D
l
O
:
:
~~
r
:
g
O'

°
z
;;
.
=
õ

6

~
oO
w

~
õ:Ql::o -0 ~(I..()o3i:Ql
::
'-o(I3 Ql
::Cl
ienã:
(I š:Ql
::Ql
(C(I3(I::..
"tQl
10(I enen
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x

4
.
5
-
Y
e
a
r

D
S
M

E
x
p
e
n
s
e

a
n
d

Pe
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e

2
0
0
3
-
2
0
0
7

(
c
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
)
No
m
i
n
a
l

L
e
v
e
l
l
z
e
Co
s
t
s
(
a
)
To
t
a
l

C
o
s
t
s
sa
v
i
n
g
s
Av
e
r
a
g
e

P
e
a
k
De
m
a
n
d
(
e
)

D
e
m
a
n
d
(
f
)
Me
a
s
u
r
e
Li
f
e
(Y
e
a
r
s
)
To
t
a
l
To
t
a
l

U
t
i
l
i
t

R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
($
!
W
h
)

(
$
I
k
W
h
)
Pr
o
r
a
m
l
Y
e
a
r
Pa
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
n
t
s
(
h
)
(N
u
m
b
e
r
)
An
n
u
a
l
En
e
r
g
y
(k
W
h
)
(a
k
W
)

(
k
W
)
Ut
l
l
i
t
y
(
C
)
(d
o
l
l
a
r
s
)
Re
s
o
u
r
c
e
(
d
)
(d
o
l
l
a
r
s
)
Ir
r
g
a
t
i
o
n

E
f
f
c
i
n
c
y
Pr
o
g
r
a
m
20
0
3
2
$4
1
,
0
8
9
$5
4
,
6
0
9
36
,
7
9
2
18
15
$0
.
1
0
6
$0
.
1
4
1
(1
9
)
20
0
33
$1
2
0
,
0
8
$4
0
2
,
9
7
8
60
2
,
6
1
2
44
9
15
$0
.
0
1
4
$0
.
0
4
8
(2
0
)
20
0
5
3B
$1
5
0
,
5
7
7
$6
5
7
,
6
0
1,
0
1
2
,
6
8
3
40
1
15
$0
.
0
1
4
$0
.
0
6
2
20
0
55
9
$2
,
7
7
9
.
6
2
0
$8
,
5
1
4
,
2
3
1
16
,
9
8
6
,
0
0
8
1,
9
3
9
5,
1
0
0
8
$0
.
0
2
4
$0
.
0
7
3
(2
1
)
20
0
7
81
6
$2
,
0
0
1
,
9
6
1
$8
,
6
9
4
,
7
7
2
12
,
3
0
4
,
0
7
3
1,
4
0
5
3,
4
0
7
8
$0
.
0
2
4
$0
.
1
0
3
To
t
a
l
1,
4
4
$5
,
0
9
4
,
0
5
5
$1
8
,
3
2
4
,
0
5
0
31
,
1
4
2
,
5
6
8
3,
3
4
4
9,
3
7
6
8
$0
.
0
2
4
$0
.
0
8
6
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g

O
p
e
a
t
o
r
Tr
a
i
n
i
n
g
20
0
3
71
$4
8
,
8
5
3
$4
8
.
8
5
3
1,
8
2
5
,
0
0
0
20
8
5
$0
,
0
0
6
$0
.
0
0
(2
2
)
20
0
26
$4
3
,
9
6
9
$4
3
,
9
6
9
65
0
,
0
0
0
74
5
$0
.
0
1
4
$0
.
0
1
4
20
0
5
7
$1
,
7
5
0
$4
,
4
8
0
43
4
,
1
6
7
50
5
$0
.
0
0
1
$0
.
0
0
2
To
t
a
l
10
4
$9
4
,
5
7
2
$9
7
,
3
0
2
2,
9
0
9
,
1
6
7
33
2
5
$0
.
0
0
7
$0
.
0
0
7
;i::::c:~$l
"8;:I'o~
(i
l
)

N
o
m
l
n
a
l
l
e
v
e
l
l
z
e
d

c
o
s
t
s

a
r
e

b
a
s
e
d

o
n

f
i
n
a
n
c
i
a
l

i
n
p
u
t

f
r
m

¡
P
C
'
s

2
0
0
l
n
t
e
g
r
a
t
e
d

r
e
s
o
u
r
c

p
l
a
n

a
n
d

c
a
l
c
l
a
t
i
o
n
s

i
n
c
l
u
d
e

l
i
n
e

lO
S
s
e
s
.
(h
)

P
a
r
t
c
i
p
a
n
t

t
o
t
a
l
s

f
o
r

e
n
e
r
g
y

ef
e
n
c
y

p
r
o
r
a
m
s

a
r
e

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

T
o
t
a
l
s

f
o
r

D
e
m
a
n
d

R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e

p
r
o
g
r
a
m
s

r
e
e
c
t

a
n
n
u
a
l

s
u
b
s
c
r
i
b
e
s
,

W
h
i
c
h

m
a
y

r
e
p
r
e
s
e
n
t

t
h
e

s
a
m
e
pa
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
n
t

a
c
r
o
s
s

m
u
l
t
i
p
l
e

y
e
a
r
s
.
(c
)

T
h
e

T
o
t
a
l

U
t
i
l
i
t
y

c
o
s
t

I
s

a
l
l

c
o
s
t

i
n
c
u
r
r
d

b
y

I
P
C

t
o

i
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t

a
O
S
M

p
r
o
g
r
a
m
.
(d
)

T
h

T
o
t
a
l

R
e
s
o
u
r
c

c
o
s
t

i
s

t
h
e

t
o
t
a
l

e
x
p
n
d
i
t
u
r
e

fo
r

a

p
r
o
g
r
a
m

f
r
o
m

t
h
e

p
o
i
n
t

o
f

v
i
e
w

o
f

I
P
C

a
n
d

i
t
s

c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
s

a
s

a

w
h
o
l
e
.
(e
)

A
v
e
r
a
e

D
e
m
a
n
d

=

A
n
n
u
a
l

E
n
e
g
y

I

8
,
7
6
0

a
n
n
u
a
l

h
o
u
l
'
,

e
x
c
l
u
d
i
n
g

i
r
r
g
a
t
i
o
n

d
e
m
a
n
d

r
e
u
c
t
i
o
n
.
(I
)

S
u
m
m
e
r

P
e
a
k

D
e
m
a
n
d

i
s

r
e
p
o
r
t
e
d

w
h
e
r
e

p
r
o
g
r
a
m

k
W

r
e
d
u
c
t
o
n

.
I
s

d
o
u
m
e
n
t
e
d
.

R
e
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

o
f

k
W

f
r
o
m

d
e
m
a
n
d

r
e
s
p
o
n
s
e

i
s

n
o
t

a
d
d
i
t
i
v
e
.
(1
9
)

R
e
s
t
a
t
e
d

f
r
o
m

$
1
1
,
1
9
0
.
ãi

(
2
0
)

O
i
i
i
n
a
l
l
y

r
e
p
o
r
e
d

e
x
p
e
n
s
e

a
n
d

e
r
e
r
g
y

i
n
c
l
u
d
e

a
c
c
r
u
e
d

a
m
o
u
l
1
,

r
e
s
t
a
t

h
e
r
t
)

t
o

a
l
i
g
n

w
i

a
c
o
o
u
n
t
i
n
g

r
e
d
s
.
Ul ~
(
2
1
)

M
e
a
s
u
r
e

L
i
f

i
s

w
e
i
g
h
t
e
d

l
i
f
e

(b
a
s
e
d

o
n

e
n
e
r
g

s
a
i
n
g
s
)

o
f

c
u
m

o
p
t
i
o
n

(
1
5

y
e
a
)

a
n
d

m
e
n
u

o
p
o
n
s

(
5

y
e
a
r
s
)
.
o
~
:
-

:
.

~
2
)

O
r
i
g
i
n
a
l
y

r
e
o
r
t

e
x
p
e
n
s
e

a
n
d

en
e
r

i
n
c
l
u
d
e

a
c
c
e
d

a
m
o
u
n
t
s
:

2
0
0
3

r
e
t
a
e
d

f
r
o

$
3
6
.
8
4
,

2
0
0
4

r
e
s
t
a
t
e
d

fr
m

$
4
,
8
5
3
,
co

-
l
1
J

x
(l

I
I

O
:
:
..

Ë

m

2
:
CJ
3

i

-
O'

°
z
;;

:
¡

b

9
oO
w
.
.
o(I3Ql::a.ien õ:
(I š:Ql::Ql
10(I3(I::..ã:Ql::o "t ~(I..("o3~::
'-
5'::c:~~-g;:I\oo--
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x

4
.

5
-

Y
e
a
r

D
S
M

E
x
p
e
n
s
e

a
n
d

P
e
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e

2
0
0
3
-
2
0
0
7

(
c
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
)
a:Q)
';o iJ ~.,
No
m
i
n
a
l

L
e
v
e
l
i
z
e
d
Co
s
t
s
(
a
)
To
t
a
l

C
o
s
t
s
Sa
v
i
n
g
s
Av
e
r
a
g
e
Oe
a
n
e
l
(
é
)
To
t
a
l
To
t
a
l

U
t
l
i
t

R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
($
"
W
h
)

(
$
"
W
h
)
()o3-0Q)::
'-
Pe
a
k
De
m
a
n
d
(
f
)
Me
a
s
u
r
e
Li
f
e
(Y
e
a
r
s
)
Re
s
o
u
r
c
e
(
d
)
An
n
u
a
l
En
e
r
g
y
(k
W
h
)
(k
V
\
Pa
r
t
l
c
i
p
a
n
t
(
b
)
(N
u
m
b
e
r
)
Ut
i
i
t
y
e
l
(d
o
l
l
a
r
s
)
Pr
o
g
r
a
m
l
Y
e
a
r
(a
k
l
4
(d
o
J
f
a
r
s
)
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l

E
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
In
i
t
i
a
t
i
v
e
20
0
5
20
0
20
0
7
To
t
a
l
$3
,
4
9
7
$4
,
6
6
3
$2
6
,
8
2
3
$3
4
,
9
8
3
$3
,
4
9
7
$4
,
6
6
3
$2
6
,
8
2
3
$3
4
,
9
8
3
o
Di
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

E
f
f
c
i
e
n
c
y
In
i
t
i
a
t
i
v
e
20
0
5
20
0
To
t
a
l
$2
1
,
5
5
2
$2
4
,
3
0
6
$4
,
8
5
$4
3
,
9
6
9
$2
4
,
3
0
6
$6
8
,
2
7
5
o
DS
M

D
i
r
e
c
t

P
r
o
g
r
a
m
-
O
v
e
r
h
e
a
d
20
0
7
To
t
l
$5
6
,
9
0
9
$5
6
,
9
0
9
o
(a
)

N
o
m
l
n
a
l
l
e
v
e
l
i
z
e
d

c
o
s
t
s

a
r
e

b
a
s
e
d

o
n

f
i
n
a
n
c
i
a
l

i
n
p
u
t

f
r
m

I
P
C
'
s

2
0
0

i
n
t
e
g
r
a
l
è
d

r
e
s
o
u
r
c

p
l
a
n

a
n
d

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

i
n
c
l
u
d
e

I
i
n
e
l
a
s
s
e
s
.
(b
)

P
a
r
t
c
i
p
a
n
t

t
o
t
a
l
s

f
o
r

e
n
e
r
g
y

e
f
i
e
n
c
y

p
r
o
g
r
a
m
s

a
r
e

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

T
o
t
a
l
s

f
o
r

D
e
m
a
n
d

R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e

p
r
o
g
r
a
m
s

r
e
f
l
e
c
t

an
n
u
a
l

s
u
b
s
c
r
i
b
e
r
s
,

w
h
i
c
h

m
a
y

r
e
p
r
e
s
e
n
t

t
h
e

s
a
m
e
pa
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
n
t

a
c
r
o
s
s

m
u
l
t
i
p
l
e

y
e
a
r
s
.
(e
l

T
h
e

T
o
t
a
l

U
t
i
l
i
t
y

c
o
s
t

i
s

a
l
l

c
o
s
t

i
n
c
u
r
r

b
y

I
P
C

t
o

I
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t

a

D
S
M

p
r
r
a
m
.
(d
)

T
h
e

T
o
t
a
l

R
e
s
o
u
r
c

c
o
s
t

i
s

t
h
e

t
o
t
a
l

e
x
p
n
d
i
t
u
r
e

fo
r

a

p
r
o
r
a
m

f
r
o
m

t
h
e

p
o
n
t

o
f

v
i
e
w

o
f

I
P
C

a
n
d

i
1
s

c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
s

a
s

a

w
h
o
i
e
.
(e
)

A
v
e
r
a

D
e
m
a
n
d
'
"

A
n
n
u
a
l

E
n
e
r
g
y

/
8
.
7
6
0

a
n
r
i
a
t

h
O
u
r
s
,

e
x
c
l
u
d
i
n
g

i
r
r
g
a
t
i
o
n

d
e
m
a
n
d

r
e
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
.
(f
l

S
u
m
m
e
r

P
e
a
k

D
e
m
a
n
d

i
s

r
e
p
r
t
e
d

w
h
e

p
r
o
g
r
a

k
W

r
e
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

i
s

d
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
e
c
t

R
e
d
u
c
t
n

o
f

k
W

f
r
o
m

d
e
m
a
n
d

r
e
s
p
o
n
s
e

i
s

r
i
o
t

a
d
d
i
t
i
v
e
.
CJ CD3 Q)::9-C/e:CD š:Q)::Q)
co CD3 CD::-
iJ Q)
co CDai--
á?i£z
II

-
i
?
ll
'

-
m
to

-
i
l
l
x
CD
æ
,
c
;
2
:
àl
§

n
i
i
s
o.

O
z
--
'
P
o
CO
l
l
O
'
o(
'
w
.
.
"UQl
(Q(I 0)CX
To
t
a
l

C
o
s
t
s
No
m
i
n
a
l

L
e
v
e
l
i
z
e
d
Co
s
t
s
(
a
)
o(I3Ql
:Jc.iena:(I š:Ql
:J Ql
(Q(I3(I:J-
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x

4
.

5
-
Y
e
a
r

D
S
M

E
x
p
e
n
s
e

a
n
d

P
e
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e

2
0
0
3
-
2
0
0
7

(
c
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
)
Pr
o
r
a
m
l
Y
e
a
r
Pa
r
t
c
:
l
p
a
n
t
s
(
O
)
(N
u
m
b
e
r
)
Ut
l
i
t
y
(
e
)
(d
o
l
l
a
r
s
)
Re
s
o
u
r
c
e
(
d
)
(d
o
l
l
a
r
s
)
An
n
u
a
l
En
e
r
g
y
(k
W
h
)
Sa
v
i
n
g
s
Av
e
r
a
g
e

P
e
a
k
De
m
a
n
d
(
e
)

D
e
m
a
n
d
(
f
)
To
t
a
l
To
t
l

U
t
i
l
i
t

R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
($
/
W
h
)

(
$
/
W
h
)
Me
a
s
u
r
e
li
e
(Y
e
a
r
s
)
Ot
h
e
r

C
&
R
D

a
n
d

C
R
C
BP
A
(a
k
H
.

(
k
H
.
20
0
3
20
0
20
0
5
20
0
20
0
7
To
t
a
l
o
$6
7
,
0
1
2
$1
0
8
,
1
9
1
$1
0
1
,
1
7
7
$1
2
4
,
9
5
6
$3
1
,
5
4
5
$4
2
,
9
8
1
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l

E
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
in
i
t
i
a
t
v
e
20
0
5
20
0
6
To
t
l
$7
,
4
9
8
$5
6
,
7
2
7
$&
4
,
2
2
5
o
$6
1
,
0
1
2
$1
0
8
,
1
9
1
$1
0
1
,
1
7
7
$1
2
4
,
9
5
6
$3
1
,
5
4
5
$4
3
2
,
9
8
1
$7
,
4
9
8
$5
6
,
7
2
7
$6
4
,
2
5
5
(a
)

N
o
m
l
n
a
l
l
e
v
e
l
i
z
e
d

c
o
s
t
s

ar
e

b
a
s
e
d

o
n

f
i
n
a
n
c
i
a
l

i
n
p
u
t
s

f
r
o
m

I
P
C
'
s

2
0
0
6

i
n
t
e
g
r
a
t
e
d

r
e
s
o
u
r
c

p
l
a
n

a
n
d

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

I
n
c
l
u
d
$
l
i
n
e

l
o
s
s
e
s
,
(0
)

P
a
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
n
t

t
o
t
a
l
s

f
o
r

e
n
e
r
g
y

e
f
c
i
e
n
c
y

p
r
o
g
r
a
m
s

a
r
e

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

T
o
t
l
s

f
o
r

D
e
m
a
n
d

R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e

p
r
o
g
r
a
m
s

r
e
l
e
c
t

a
n
n
u
a
l

s
u
b
S
c
r
b
e
r
s
,

w
h
i
C
h

m
a
y

r
e
p
r
e
s
e
n
t

t
h
e

s
a
m
e
pa
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
n
t

a
c
r
o
s
s

m
u
l
t
i
p
l
e

y
e
a
r
s
.
(e
)

T
h
e

T
o
t
a
l

U
t
i
l
t
y

c
o
s
t

i
s

a
l
l

c
o
s
t

i
n
c
u
r
r
e
d

b
y

¡
P
C

t
o

i
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t

a

D
S
M

p
r
o
g
r
a
m
.
(d
)

T
h
e

T
o
t
a
l

R
e
s
o
u
r
c

c
o
t

i
s

t
h
e

t
o
t
a
l

e
x
p
n
d
i
t
u
r
e

f
o
r

a

p
r
o
r
a
m

f
r
o
m

t
h
e

p
o
i
n
t

o
f

v
i
e
w

o
f

I
P
C

a
n
d

i
t
s

c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
s

a
s

a

w
h
o
l
e
,
(e
)

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
,

e
x
c
l
u
d
i
n
g

I
r
r
g
a
t
i
o
n

d
e
m
a
n
d

r
e
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
,
(f
)

S
u
m
m
e
r

P
e
a
k

D
e
m
a
n
d

i
s

r
e
p
r
t
e
d

w
h
e
r
e

p
r
o
g
r
a
m

k
W

r
e
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

i
s

d
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
e
d
.

R
e
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

o
f

k
W

f
r
o

d
e
m
a
n
d

r
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
l
s

n
o
t

a
d
d
i
t
i
v
e
,
):
:J:Jc:!!::(I
"8;:l'oo--
()II ¡ßZ
"1

.
.
9
Il
'

-
m
co
.
.
"
1
x
(t

2
a
n

2
:
::
§

r
;
g
;
o.

°
z
Õ;
=
e
6
?
O(
)
W
'
"
c.Ql:Jo "U ~..()o3 -g:J
'-
5'::c:9?;:CD"'o;:I\oo-.
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x

4
.

5
-

Y
e
a
r

D
S
M

E
x
p
e
n
s
e

a
n
d

P
e
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e

2
0
0
3
-
2
0
0
7

(
c
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
)
fI
,
o
m
l
n
a
I

L
e
v
e
l
i
z
e
d
Co
s
t
s
(
a
l
To
t
a
l

C
o
s
s
Sa
v
i
n
g
s
Av
e
r
a
g
e
De
m
a
n
d
(
e
)
To
t
a
l
To
t
l

U
t
i
l
i
t

R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
($
!
W
h
)

(
$
!
W
h
)
Pe
a
k

M
e
i
i
s
u
r
.
De
m
a
n
d
!
!
)

L
.
l
f
e
(k
I
N

(
Y
e
a
r
s
)
An
n
u
a
l
En
e
r
g
y
(k
W
h
)
Re
s
u
r
c
e
(
d
)
(d
o
l
l
s
r
s
)
Pa
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
n
t
s
(
b
(N
u
m
b
e
r
)
Ut
l
l
l
t
y
(
c
)
(d
o
l
l
a
r
s
)
Pr
o
g
r
a
m
I
e
a
r

0
(a
k
I
N
LO
C
l
I

E
n
e
r
g
y

E
f
f
i
e
n
c
Fu
n
d
s
20
0
3
20
0
20
0
20
0
20
0
7
To
t
a
l
55
$5
,
1
0
0
$5
,
.
1
0
0
(2
3
)
0
$2
3
,
4
4
9
$2
3
,
.
4
4
9
2
$1
4
.
8
9
6
$2
6
.
7
5
5
78
,
0
0
0
9
10
$0
.
0
2
4
$0
.
0
4
2
48
0
$3
.
4
5
9
$3
.
4
5
9
19
,
0
2
7
2
7
$0
.
0
9
So
.
0
9
(2
4
)
1
$7
,
5
2
0
$7
,
5
2
0
9.
0
0
0
1
7
$0
.
1
3
5
$0
.
1
3
5
53
9
$5
4
,
4
2
4
$6
6
,
2
8
4
1O
G
,
0
2
7
12
9
$O
.
O
G
6
$0
.
8
1
(a
)

N
o
m
i
n
a
l

l
e
v
e
l
i
z
e
d

c
o
s
t
s

a
r
e

b
a
s
e
d

o
n

f
i
n
a
n
c
i
a
l

i
n
p
u
t
s

f
r
o

I
P
C
'
s

2
0
0
6

I
n
t
e
g
r
a
t
e
d

l
"
s
o
u
r
c

p
l
a
n

a
n
d

c
a
l
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
l
"

I
n
c
l
u
d
e

l
i
n
e

lo
s
s
e
s
.
(P
)

P
a
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
n
t

t
o
t
a
l
s

f
o
r

e
n
e
r
g
y

e
f
i
e
n
c
y

p
r
o
r
a
m
s

a
r
e

i
n
c
r
m
e
n
t
a
l
.

T
o
t
a
l
s

f
o
r

D
e
m
a
n
d

R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e

p
r
o
r
a
m
s

r
e
f
é
C
t
a
n
n
u
a
l

s
u
b
s
c
r
i
b
e
r
s
,

w
h
i
c
h

m
a
y

r
e
p
r
e
s
e
n
t

t
h
e

s
a
m
e
pa
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
n
t

a
c
r
o
s
s

m
u
l
t
i
p
l
e

y
e
a
r
s
.
(e
)

T
h
e

T
o
t
a
l

U
t
i
l
i
t
y

c
o
t

i
s

a
l
l

c
o
t

i
n
c
u
r
r
e
d

b
y

I
P
C

t
o

i
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t

a

D
S
M

p
r
o
g
r
a
m
.
(d
)

T
h
e

T
o
t
a
l

R
e
s
o
u
r
c

c
o
s
t

i
s

t
h
e

t
o
t
a
l

e
x
p
n
d
i
t
u
r
e

f
o
r

a

p
r
o
g
r
a
m

f
r
o

t
h
e

p
o
i
n
t

o
f

v
î
e
w

o
f

I
P
C

a
n
d

i
t

c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
s

a
s

a

w
h
o
l
e
.
(e
)

A
v
e
r
a
g
e

D
e
a
n
d

"
'
A
n
n
u
a
l

E
n
e
r
g
y

i

8
,
7
6
0

a
n
n
u
a
l

h
o
u
r
s
,

e
x
c
l
u
d
i
n
g

i
r
r
i
g
a
t
i
o
n

d
e
m
a
n
d

r
e
d
u
c
o
n
.
(f
)

S
u
m
m
e
r

P
e
a
k

D
e
m
a
n
d

I
s

r
e
p
o
r
t
e
d

w
h
e
r
e

pr
o
g
r
a
m

k
W

r
e
u
c
t
i
o
n

I
s

d
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
e
d
.

R
e
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

o
f

k
W

f
r
m

d
e
m
a
n
d

r
e
s
p
o
n
s
e

i
s

n
o
t

a
d
d
i
t
i
v
e
.
(2
3
)

R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
a
l

E
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

I
n
i
t
i
a
t
i
v
e

c
o
s
t
s

w
e
r
e

a
l
l
o
c
e
d

a
m
o
n
g

a
l
l

r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l

e
n
e
r
g
y

e
f
f
e
n
c
y

p
r
o
r
a
m
s

f
o
r

2
0
0
7
.
(2
4
)

L
e
v
i
z
e
d

c
o
t

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

b
a
s
e
d

o
n

d
i
r
e
c
t

p
r
o
r
a
m

c
o
s
t

o
n
l
y

(
$
1
,
0
0
8
)

as
s
o
i
a
t
e

w
i
t
h

s
p
e
i
a
l

C
F
l

t
r
a
d
e
s
h
o
w

d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
.
"U Q)
co CD 0)co
()II g¡Z
"U

-
l
?
Il
'

-
m
(0

-
l
"
U

)
(
(1

I
I

(
)

:
T
~~
~
g
0-

°
z
C;
'
õ
b
?
O(
)
w
.
.
õ:Q)::o "U ~-,()o3"'Q)::o.o CD3 Q)::a.i(Je:
CD š:Q)::Q)
co CD3 CD::-
"UII CO CD-.o
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x

4
.

5
-
Y
e
a
r

D
S
M

E
x
p
e
n
s
e

a
n
d

P
e
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e

2
0
0
3
-
2
0
0
7

(
c
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
)
Pr
o
g
r
a
m
l
Y
e
a
t
Pa
r
t
l
c
l
p
a
n
t
s
l
b
)
(N
u
m
b
e
r
)
To
t
a
l

c
o
S
t
s
Sa
v
i
n
g
s
Av
e
r
a
g
e

P
e
a
k

"
'
.
a
s
u
r
e
De
a
n
d
(
E
I
)

D
e
m
a
n
d
l
f
)

L
i
f
e
No
m
i
n
a
l

L
e
v
e
l
l
z
e
d
Co
s
t
s
(
a
l
To
t
a
l
To
t
a
l

U
t
i
l
i
t

R
e
$
O
U
r
Ç
e
($
/
W
h
)

(
$
I
k
W
h
)
NE
E
A
20
0
3
20
0
20
0
5
20
0
20
0
7
To
t
a
l

0
Ut
l
i
t
c
)
(d
o
l
l
a
r
s
)
Re
s
o
u
r
ç
e
(
d
)
(c
l
o
l
l
e
i
r
s
)
An
n
u
a
l
En
e
r
g
y
(k
W
h
)
(s
k
W
)
$1
,
2
9
2
,
7
4
8
$1
,
2
9
2
,
7
4
8
12
,
0
5
0
,
1
5
7
1,
3
7
6
$1
,
2
5
6
,
6
1
1
$1
,
2
5
6
,
6
1
1
13
.
,
5
4
5
,
8
9
6
1,
5
4
6
$4
7
6
,
8
9
1
$4
7
6
,
8
9
1
16
,
2
9
7
,
2
3
5
1,
8
6
0
(2
5
)
$9
3
0
,
4
5
5
$9
3
0
,
4
5
5
22
,
3
3
7
,
4
7
7
2,
5
5
0
(2
6
)
$8
9
3
,
3
4
0
$8
9
3
,
3
4
0
28
,
6
0
1
,
4
1
0
3,
2
6
5
(2
6
)
$4
,
8
5
0
,
0
4
92
,
8
3
2
,
1
7
4
10
,
5
9
1
$2
,
5
6
6
,
2
2
9
$3
,
1
1
9
,
6
0
9
18
,
7
1
2
,
9
1
9
2,
1
3
2
18
9
$3
.
,
8
0
7
,
6
8
8
$4
,
6
8
8
,
6
3
7
19
,
4
1
9
,
8
0
5
2,
1
2
5
6,
6
3
6
56
,
5
2
3
,
3
4
9
$9
,
3
5
8
,
6
2
0
37
,
8
5
3
,
0
4
8
4,
2
0
5
44
,
0
3
4
$1
1
,
1
7
4
,
1
8
1
$1
9
,
1
6
1
,
6
3
3
10
,
1
6
5
,
8
2
5
8,
0
7
8
43
,
7
9
0
$1
4
,
8
9
6
,
8
1
6
$2
5
,
9
3
8
,
5
5
0
91
,
1
4
3
,
1
6
1
10
,
4
0
4
57
,
0
1
.
2
$3
8
,
9
6
8
,
2
6
3
$6
2
,
8
6
7
,
0
4
9
23
7
,
8
9
5
,
1
5
6
27
,
1
5
7
15
1
,
6
2
1
(k
W
)
(V
a
s
r
s
)
20
0
3

0
20
0
20
0
5
20
0
6
20
0
7
To
t
a
l

D
i
r
e
t

Pr
o
g
r
a
m

0
la
)

N
o
m
i
n
a
l

i
e
v
e
l
i
z
e
d

c
o
t
s

a
r
e

b
a
s
e
d

o
n

f
i
n
a
n
c
i
a
l

i
n
p
u
t

f
r
m

I
P
C
'
s

2
0
0

i
n
t
e
g
r
a
t
e
d

r
e
s
o
u
r
c

p
l
a
n

a
n
d

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

i
n
c
u
d
e

l
i
n
e

l
o
s
s
e
s
,
lb
)

P
a
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
n
t

t
o
t
a
l
s

f
o
r

e
n
e
r
g
y

e
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
c
y

p
r
o
g
r
a
m
s

a
r
e

i
n
c
r
e
m
n
t
a
l
.

T
o
t
a
l
s

f
o
r

D
e
m
a
n
d

R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e

p
r
o
r
a
m
s

r
e
f
l
e
c
t
a
n
n
u
a
:
1

s
u
b
s
c
n
b
e
r
s
,

w
h
i
c
h

m
a
y

r
e
p
r
e
s
e
n
t

t
h
e

s
a
m
e
pa
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
n
t

a
c
o
s
s

m
u
l
t
i
p
l
e

y
e
a
r
s
,
(e
)

T
h
e

T
o
t
a
l

U
t
H
i
t
y
c
o
t

i
s

a
l
l

(
l
s
l

i
n
c
u
r
r
e
d

b
y

I
P
C

t
o

i
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t

a

D
S
M

p
r
o
g
r
a
m
.
(d
)

T
h
e

T
o
t
a
l

R
e
s
o
u
r
c

c
o
s
t

I
s

t
h
e

t
o
t
a
l

e
x
p
n
d
i
t
u
r
e

f
o
r

a

p
r
r
a
m

f
r
o
m

t
h
e

p
o
i
n
t

o
f

l
I
e
w

o
f

¡
P
C

a
n
d

I
t
s

c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
s

a
s

a

w
h
o
l
e
.
Ie
)

A
v
e
r
a
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
,

e
x
c
l
u
d
i
n
g

i
r
r
g
a
t
i
o

d
e
m
a
n
d

r
e
d
u
c
t
o
n
,
(f
)

S
u
m
m
e
r

P
e
t
k

D
e
m
a
n
d

i
s

r
e
e
d

W
h
e
r
e

p
r
o
g
r
a
m

k
W

r
e
û
C
t
o
n

i
s

d
O
Q
u
m
e
n
t
e
d
,

R
e
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

o
f

k
W

f
r

d
e
m
a
n
d

r
e
p
o
n
s
e

i
s

n
p
t

a
d
d
i
t
i
v
e
.
(2
5
)

E
n
e
r
g

i
s

r
e
s
t
a
t
e
d

f
r
o
m

2
0
0
5

e
s
t
i
m
a
t
e

o
f

20
,
0
5
3
,
7
5
6

k
W
h
.
&'

(
2
6
)

E
n
e
r
g

i
s

a

p
r
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
r
y

e
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
,
VI(lZ
"0

-
¡

~
Il
'

-
m
10

-
¡
"
O
x
(l

I
I

O
:
:
-i
Ë
m
2
:
co
3

i

-
o.

°
z
-.

-

(
)

0
00
"
0
6
,
oO
w
.
.
?:::i:!!::CD "8;:Noo-.
o CD3II::0.
iena:CD s:II::II
co CD3 CD::-c:
II::o "U ~..()o3i:II::-c
Idaho Power Company Demand-Side Management
t:a~."'i e ~:iGl1;0.!:~1)l-I,.iì It ~
Gl 11..
ãi !l .~r:(.~Ë sa::0 ãi ~z -
l!
e 'i=~II
= ...~lI ~
.:~~r:II IIGlE ~0.a
lD !II l:."~Il l!r:c "!os .E~~1IQ.."0
CD:3CË
8-
-,.
! ~ ;§C lD S~¿j ~
1 î
g ~
i ~
~~~~ì813~~~lê¡(;;V7W7~..
~~~I~l
l
"0
lä
i
5õ
:: .~~~
o
~¡E~i;~i¡..~¡iiNM_...rO.... ~~:.
I i II i
l:
¡
l
G)EI'VI
Gl:5ëG)VI!Co!
ir
Es:,2
¡i
'"¡"0Q)(I'".i ÕII'C
B
c:
l!,S!:J .~(l=:'"'"(l li c:
-g s:II::.~Õ c:
~.S c:I'II '"'"~l'ic:e.2 !lG
~Q)iE
~
'"0E1i jl!::i C)QelJ ~I'Co i ¿c:G);.i:l VI 1~~'õc:0
8-~c:î~:J ~::i 'õ ~::gi00:"0 iæ"0 .~c:ic:.~t'0:"0 1~E i:.m ~0 G)!"0 l ~m CI e ë c:
âl ..!'8..2 CDS11E ..:5 ë :J oS.!Q)C)88~
0.£i :s "0 2'0 ::E C).f 'ËNm,g s:
ibÈ0'g 5
~c:t'E ¡ts
~
ë l!::
E Q)C)"0 Q)
g i K iê e :5Q
~.i.5 is ::i ti 0!.5 J:"0
.2 i E .!
.5 iu g l!8.VI e
I E (.
~s:ë el!~t'C)Co ilIIë,.!0 I!'"c:.i Ie õ~Co i (Ixl1i c:
ã ~(l ..iic::!;:"0
l ¡
Q ei s£.5 ~B ã (l 8-d)
:5 w I!31
I!::.:i Q .!!"i c:
II ro!'i 1i :J ,!!~fI c:
'21ic: ,..!0 c:ilGl :;Q 0:8 ..E §~
lG Õ$!II E e"0 II "0 ~~.!II .?:J c:'6iu§£t',;.S'a Š l Gl E I'-gj¡ti 0:~Ql
'E 'E ti !Q.I'
~iu iu
l ~~Q.Q.~~'ë 'ü :2 b:e 1:(l (l E II0I'l1 J:J:::c::z Q.....m 0:
..oo
~ooN
8cm
E
.g
£.
'"Cm
~c
CD0.XW
::(jCi-
~.
.!!iIl
~
'i
1;I-u ~
l' S
l l
z
-_I 1iQ. tQ ~
I -
l6
~
!
ëQ.& ~ ~ £; ~,s -s.Exhibit NO.1
Case No. IPC-E-08-03
T. Tatum, IPC
Page 80 of 80
Annual Report 2007 Page 71
BEFORE THE
IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
CASE NO. IPC-E-08-03
IDAHO POWER COMPANY
EXHIBIT NO.2
TIM TATUM
I...'.....'..:
!'.~;..' .
:; ~.\-~ ...I.
I:::;;~.'
l:.II'..¡
æ;gil~i~ii~~;rr4~~-fe_ii~_#il;¡pM~a;~
H-'11~PO.
An IDACORP company .
ÃppenClix D-Technical Appendix
'For the 2006 Integrated Resource Plan
Exhibiì NO.2
Case No. IPC-E-08-03
, Tiatum, IPC
Page 1 of 13
Appendix D- Technical Appendix Idaho Power Company .
DSM Analysis and Screening Criteria
DSM Program Development
In November 2004, Quantum Consulting of Berkeley, California, (now Itron Inc. of Oakland,
Californa) completed a study for Idaho Power assessing the energy savings potential within the
residential and commercial sectors. The study served as the basis for the residential and commercial
retrofit program options analyzed in this IR. The Company filed the Quantu stUdy with the IPUC in
December 2004 as an addendum to the 2004 IR. In order to meetthe guidelies of the 2006 IRP, the
study output was later expanded with support from Qúantu for program extension from 10 to 20 years
of utity operation.
The assumptions and energy estimates that support the industral efficiency program extension were
developed internally by Idaho Powees engineering staff The industral program expansion and the
residential and commercial retrofit progrm options were each designed to maximize the potential .
energy benefits of the resource . while remaining cost-effective from a tota resource perspective.
All DSM program options anlyzed as par of the 2006 IR included the followig cost components:
· Adminstrative costs
· Marketing and advertising costs
· Incentive payments
· Parcipant costs
Once the program design and costig phase was completed, each new progrm was put though a series
of static screening apalyses prior to being introduced into the dynamic IR portolio analysis in Aurora.
Screening Criteria
DSM screening criteria are des.igned to assess a program's potential to maxmie benefits at the lowest
cost for all stakeholders. In addition to the strtegic criteria listed in Chapter 5 of the 2006 IR Pla, key
screening elements are:
.. Progrs wil be cost-effective. From a total reource p,erspective, estimated program benefits
must be greater than estimated program costs.
· Progrs wil be customer-focused."From the participants' perspective, programs will offer real
benefits' and value to customers. The Idao Public Utilities Commssion stated in Order
No. 29026, "It is. our hope that the prograis created by the DSM rider will empower customers
to exercise control over their energy consumption and reduce their bils."
· Programs wil be equitably distributed. From the customers' perspective, programs wil be
selected to benefit all groups of customers. Over time, program wil be offered to customers in
all sectors and in all regions of the company's servce terrtory.
· Programs wil be as close to earnings-neutral as possible. From the utility's perspective,
programs will be selected to minimze the negative impact on shareowners. Exhibit NO.2
Case No. IPC-E-08-03
T.Tatum, IPC
Page 2 of13
Page 62 2006 Integrated Resource Plan
c
4
.
4
4
4
A
.
4
4
........l.......................,".;::
r
.
.
.
. .
~
.
a
~
.
.
.
~
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
~
.
,
Idaho Power Company Appendix D-Technical Appendix
These criteria are used as guidelines in selecting a new program or initiative. A program that doesn '.t
meet all of these criteria is not excluded from consideration, but would have to be fuer evaluated for
other valued characteristics. IDtimately, all programs must be cost-effective in order to be consid,ered as
ordered by the IPUC.1
Static Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
The cost-effectiveness analysis' is the 'priary fócus of the screening criteria. The static cost-.
effectiveness analysis ofDSM programs at Idaho Poyter is performed using the methods descnbed in the
EPRI End-Use Techncal Assessment Guide Manual as well as The California Standard Practices
Manual: Economic Analysis of Demand-side Programs and Projects.2 The proposed DSM progrs
considered for inclusÍon into the 2006 IRP are evaluated from Utility Cost Test and Total Resource Cost
test perspectives.
Total Resource Cost Test (TRC) ;3
The TRC test is a measure of the total net resource expenditues of a DSM progra:t from the point
of view of the utility and its customers as a whole. Costs include changes in supply costs, utility
costs, and paricipant costs. (Tranfer payments between customers and the utility are ignored).
The followig are the calculations performed by this test:
Net Present Value: A net present value of zero or greater indicates that the program is cost-effective from the total resource cost perspective. .
Benefits-Cost Ratio: A benefit-cost ratio of 1.0 or greater indicates the program is cost-effecave
from the tota resource cost perspective. .'
Levelized Cost: This measurement makes the evaluation of potential demand-side resources
comparable to that of supply side resources. The cost stream of DSM resource (in ths case, the
stream of utility costs ard paricipant costs) is discounted and then divided by the stream of
discounted kW or kWh that is expected from the program.
L¡. v-. Utilty Cost Test 4
The Utility Cost tet is a measure of the total costs to the utility to implement a DSM progr.
1 IPUC Order No. 29026, May 20, 2002
2 ww.cpuc.ca.gov/static/energYlelectric/energy+effciency/rulemaking/std+practice+manual.doc
3 EPRI End-pse Technical Assessment Guide (End-Use TAG), Volume 4: Fundamentas and Methods. Bar~kat and
Çhamberlin, Inc, April 1991
4 EPRI End-Use Technca Assessment Guide (End-Use TAG), Volume 4: Fundamental and Methods. Bart and
Chamberlin, Inc, April 1991
Exhibit NO.2
Case No. IPC-E-08-03
T.Tatum, IPC
Page 3 of 1'
2006 Integrated Resource Plan Page 63
Appendix D- Technical Appendix Idaho Power Company
The following are the calcllations performed by this test:
Net Present Value: A net present value of zero or greater indicate that the progrm is cost-
effective from the Utilty Cost perspective. .
Benefis-Cost Ratio: A benefit-cost ratio of l.O or greater indicates the program is cost-effective
from the Utility Cost perspective.
Levelized Cost: This measurement attempts to put demand side resources on equal ground with
supply-side resources. As with supply-side resources, the cost stream ofDSM resource is
discounted and then divided by the stream ofkW and kWh that is expected from the program.
Payback: Number of years requíred for the energy benefits to equal the parcipants' costs for a
progrm.
DSM Analysis Calculation Definitions
Net Present Value: Calculated as the discounted stream of progrm benefits minus the discounted
stream of program costs using the Company's weighted average cost of capital NlACC) for resource
planng.
N
L Program Benefits (mius)
T=I (1 + W ACC) t-I
N
L Program Costs
T=1 (l+WACC)t-l
Where: N = the total number .ofyears, t = the incremental year, and WACC = the Company's
weighted average cost of capitaL.
Benefis-Cost Ratio: Calculated as the discounted stream òf program benefits divided by the
dis,Counted stream of progrm costs.
N
L Program Benefits
t=1 (l + WACC) t-l
N
L Program Costs
t=I' (1+ WACC) t-l
Levelied Costs: The present value of total costs of the resource over the life of the progrm in the
base year divided by the discounted stream of energy pr demand savings, dependig on how the
resource size has been defined.
N
L Proaram Costs
T=r (1+ WACC) t-l
+'
N
L Energy Savings
T=1 (1+ WACC) t-l
Payback: Number of years from the initial program parcipation to the point at which the'
cumulative benefits exceed the cumulative undiscounted costs for parcipants.
Page 64
Exhibit NO.2
Case No. IPG-E-D8-03
T.Tatum, IPC
Page 4 of 13
2006 Integrated Resource Plan
~
~
..
4i
~.
fJ
t'
f'
f',t,,,
('
,.
f'
fA
f'
f'r
,.
l'
f',
~
~t
'f!
t.t
~
~
(!
~
~
.t
.f!tttl
,
.
J
~
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
~
.
.
.
.
. '
.
~
l
l
.
I
I
I
Idaho Power Company Appendix D-Technical Appendix
Incremental Costs: The additional cost incurred by choosing to select one option over another. .
. Total Intalled Cost of Energy Effcient Optio,I
- Total Installed Cost of a Non-Energy Effcient Option
= Incremental Cost
Program Benefits Calculations .
To quantify the "benefit" portion of the calculation five costig periods were created for the year that are
consistent with the ¡PUC approved rate schedule 19 tarff rate pricing periods. Each costig period
contains a price that reflects the alterntive cost of energy and capacity at the associated time period.
The alternative cost represents the cost of energ resources that would most likely be the alternative at
that time period. Each time segment has a different alternative cost associated with it depending on the
expected price for that period.
Two methodologies were developed, at the request ofthe IRP AC, to evaluate the potential benefits
associated wtth alternative supply costs: 'peak oriented (gas tubine) and baseload oriented (thennal
plant) resource alternatives.
The peak alternative resource methodology employs five costing periods for each ye'ar to reflect the
market dynamics impacting costs associated with different ties of the day or seasonally. Each costig .
period contains a price that reflects the alternative cost of energy and capacity at the associated time '
period. The alternative cost represents the cost of energy- resource that would most likely be an
alternative includig peak' plant or the. market cost of energy depending upon the load profile associated
with the program. Each time segment has a different alterntive cost associated with it depending on the
expected price for that period. The baseload alternative utilized the capacity and varable cost associated
with a thennal (coal plant) alterative which applied to all hours of the year~ .
The results of the analyses showed all programs to'be cost-effective under both the peak and the
baseload alternative resource cost methodologies. All programs showed greater benefits associated using
the peak resource alternative, however, the industral effciency program showed th~ showed highest
benefits using the baseload analysis. Ths benefit differential is attbutable to the unque seasonal loadprofies associated with each program. .
Exhibit NO.2
Case No. IPC-E-08-03
T.Tatum, IPC
Page 50f 13
2006 Integrated Resource Plan Page 65
Appendix D-Technical Appendix Idaho Power Company
The following tables ilustrate the time of day and time of year costig period definitions used in thepeak static program screening analysis:
SUMMER SEASON"
June 1 through August 35
Hour
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
. 19
20
21
22
23
24
SOFP = Summer Off-Peak
SMP = Summer Mid-Peak
SONP = Summer On-Peak
Page 66
Exhibit NO.2
Case No. IPC-E-oá-03
T.Tatum, IPC
Page 6. of 13
2006 Integrated Resource. Plan ..
.
.
4
.
.
~
.
~
f
.
~
l.,.
ll
.fjl
fi
CI
CI
. n;
Idaho Power Company.
l
~
~
~
~
.
.
~
.
~
.
.
.
.
~
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
~
l
.
.
Appendix D- Technical Appendix
Hour
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
NSOFP = Non-Summer Off-Peak
NSMP = Non-Summer Mid-Peak
Market prices were developed within Aurora using the Preferred Portfolio as a resource basis (May
Aurora_2006IR _ P3 _ hrly _zone -prices _ 20yr So Idaho). The values beyond 20 years are extended by
escalating the final year of the forward market price schedule for the additional years needed for the
anlysis using the Company's escalation rate of3.0% for capital investments.
The costing period prices are calculated using the following method::.
· NSMP =; Average of heavy load prices.in Januar-May and September-December.
· NSOFP = Average of light load prices in Januar-May and September-December.
· SOFP = Average of light load prices in June-August.
· SMP = Average of heavy load prices in June-August.
· SONP :: ¡PC varable energy and operating cost of a 162 MW Simple-Cycle Gas Tubine
· Anual:: ¡PC variable energy and operatig cost of thermal coal plant
Exhibit NO.2
Case No. IPC-E-08-03
T.Tatum, IPC
Page 7 of 13
Page 672006 Integrated Resource Plan
Appendix D-Technìcal Appendix Idaho Power Company
The following table shows the schedule of variable and market alternative costs used to 'calculate the f
benefit value of each program in the static analysis:
f
f
f
f
.Year .ßOFP "S"4T
1 $91.08 $68.57 $51.54 $77.61 $65.59 $15.93 f
2 $95.30 $69.89 $51.61 $78.95 $65.64 $15.91 .
3 $88.97 $65.98 $48.07 . $68..96 $55.61 $15.80
44$88.12 $66,39 .$48.52 $68.15 $55.39 $15.80
5 $67.14 $50.43 $37.03 $52.75 $42.31 $15.27 4
6 $67.81 $55.93 $41.28 $54.30 $42.99 $15.43 .7 $68.94 $67.85 $50.72 $64.61 $51.51 .$31.14
8 $71.25 $71.71 $54.18 $68.18 $54.33 $31.84 .
9 $73.30 $74.02 $56.01 $70.06 $56.05 $32.88 . .
10 $75.73 $78.45 $59.19 .$74.07 $59.74 $33.43
11 $78.91 $82.40 $62.08 $78.96 $63.83 $34.43 .
12 $82.37 $90,38 $66.94 $86.37 $69.54 $35.34 .13 $85,26 $92.36 $70.70 $90.27 $72.64 $36.43
14 $89.35 $98.01 $75~25 $95.24 $76.92 $31.61 .
15 $92.64 $102.92 $79.15 $100.11 $80.34 $38~67 .
16 $86.04 $97.28 $75.60 . $94.42 $76.63 $39.40
417$89.19 $104.05 $80.51 $101.25 $81.28 $40.54
18 $93.13 $108.84 $84.94 $105.87 $85.53 $41.53 .
19 $95.86 $114.48 $90.26 $111.23 $90.19 $42.77 .20 $99.47 $120.35 $96.05 $118.21 $95.55 . $44.00
21'$93.36 $123.96 $98.93 $121.75 $98,42 $45.23 4
22 $97.22 $127.68 $101.90 $125.40 $101.37 $49.65 .23 $100.74 $131.51 $104.95 $129.17 $104.41 $51.20
24 $104.46 $135.46 $108.10 $133.04 . $107.55 $52.82 4
25 $108.97 $139.52 $111.35 $137.03 $110.77 $54.49 .26 $110.64 $143.71 $114.69 $141.14 $114.10 $57.01
27 $112.32 $148.02 $118.13 $145.38 $117.52 $58.85 4
28 $114.01 $152.46 $121.67 $149.74 $121.04 $60.75 .29 $115.71 $157.03 $125.32 $154.23 $124.68 $62.79
430$117.42 $161.74 $129.08 $158.86 $128.42 $64.84
.
Fixed plant costs were combined with the variable costs for developing total alternative costs. For the fpeak alternative, a 162MW Simple Cycle Combustion Turbine plant was used as the cost basis, for the
baseload alternative, a coal thermal plant served as the cost basis. The levelized capacity cost factors .
applied were $64.92/KW (peak) and $247.52(baseload).f
DSM progrm analysis includes the assumption that the energy savings wil continue beyond the 4
. measure life time period for each progrm partcipant. This assumption is based on the pnnciple that it is ,. C
reasonable to assume that ónce a person partcipates in the program; they will not revert back to a less .
effcient behavior after the measure life expires. As a result, the energy savigs schedule for each
Cprogram shows a ramp-up period followed by a sustained maxium level for the entie analysis period..In the 2004 IR the total period 'for analysis was 20 years. For the 2006 IR this period was 30 year.
.
Exhibit NO.2 fCase No. IPC-E-08-03
T.Tatum, IPC
CPage 8 of 13
Page 68 2006 Integrated Resource Plan C
,
,
.
~
.
.
~
.
~
.
.
.
)
) .
t
.
.
.
I
I
.
.
Idaho Power Company Appendix D- Technical Appendix
Dynamic Modeling
The results of the levelized cost analysis showed that the proposed DSM programs had sufciently
lower costs than all but the geothermal supply-side resources. This result allowed the DSM portolio to
be included in the dynamc modeling (Aurora simulation mod~l) as a fixed resource for all supply-side
alternative portolio analyses. This approach differs from the analysis in the 2004 IR where the .
programs were introduced in an equivalent maner as were the supply-side resources to determe the
beneficial impacts to the overal resource portolio.
The followig tables show the anual costs and energy savings associated with the DSM programs.
Appendix D-Technical Appendix Idaho Power Company
Average Peak Reduction
aMW (Including Transmission losses)
All Residential Commercial Industrial
Year Programs Retro ' Retro Expansion
2006
2007 2.7 0.7 1.0 0.9
2008 7.4 2.4 2.8 2.2
2009 18.1 7.0 6.7 4.5
2010 27.9 11.4 9.8 6-7
2011 36.5 15.4 12.2 9.0
2012 44.2 18.9 14.0 11.2
2013 51.0 22.0 15.6 13.5
2014 57.q 24.5 16.8 15.7
2015 62.2 26.7 17.6 18.0
2016 66.8 28.4.18.2 20.2
2017 69.0 28.3 18.2 22.4
2018 71.3 28.4 18.2 24.7
2019 13.7 28.5 18.2 26.9
2020 76.1 28.6 18.3 29.2
2021 78.4 28.7 18.3 31.4
2022 80.7 28.7 18.4 33.7
2023 83.0 28.7 18.4 35.9
2024 85.3 28.8 18.4 38.2
2025 87.6 28.8 18.4 40.4
2026 89.8 28.8 18.4 42.6
2027 89.8 28.8 18.4 42.6 I
2028 89.8 28.8 18.4 42.6
L202989.8 28.8 18.4 42.6
2030 89.8 28.8 18.4 42.6 I
2031 89.8 28.8 18:4 42.6 L
2032 89..8 28.8 18.4 42.6 .2033 89.8 28.8 18.4 42.6
4203489.8 28.8 18.4 42.6
2035 89.8 28.8 . 18.4 42.6 .
2036 89.8 28.8 18.4 42.6 f
f
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
.
Exhibit NO.2 .Case No. IPC-E-08-03
~T.Tatum, IPC
4"Page 10 of 13
Page 70 2006 Integrated Resource Plan .
.
Appendix D-TechnicaJ Appendix.Idaho Power Company..July Peak Reduction.MW (Including Trà'i:smissio~ Losses)
.',.AJl Residential Commercial 'IndustrialYearProgramsRetroRetroExpansion.2006t2007 4.4 1.9 1.5 1.1t200815.8 9.1 4.1 2.6200944.7 29.7 9.8 5.2~2010 70.6 48.3 14.4 7.9t201191.8 63.4 17.9 10.5t2012110.4 76.6 20.7 13.1.2013 126.6 88.0 22.9 15.72014140.5 97.5 24.7 18.3.2015 152.3 105.5 25.9 20.9~2016 162.5 112.2 26.8 23.6.2017 165.1 112.2 26.8 26.2.2018 167.7 112.1 26.8 28.82019170.7 .112.4 26.9 31.4~2020.173.6 112.6 26.9 34.0~2021 176.5 112.8 27.0 36.7
~2022 179.2 112.9 27.0 39.3
I 2023 181.9 ,113.0 27.1 41.92024184.6 113.0 27.1 44.52025187.2 113.0 27.1 47.12026189.9 113.0 27.1 49.82027189.9 113.0 27.1 49.82028189.9 113.0 27.1 49.82029189.9 113.0 27.1 49.82030189.9 113.0 27.1 49.82031189.9 113.0 27.1 49.82032189.9 113.0 27.1 49.82033189.9 113.0 27.1 49.82034189.9 113.0 27.1 49.82035189.9 113.0 27.1 49.82036189.9 113.0 27.1 49.8
Exhibit NO.2
Case No. IPC-E-08-03
T.Tatum, IPC
Page 11 of 13
2006 Integrated ,Resource Plan n___ "'A
Appendix D-Technica! Appendix
Utilty Costs (Revised 10/12/06)
(OOOs-Present Value)
All Residential ~. Commercial
Year Programs Retro Retro
2006
2007 $3,558 $1,318 $1,361
2008 $5,995 $2,664 $1,958
2009 $17,299 $9,625 $4,238
2010 $16,581 $9,327 $3,983
2011 '$15,611 $8,755 $3,770
2012 $14,486 $7,936 . $3,639
2013 $13,789 $7,065 $3,595
2014 $12,218 $6,236 $3,033
2015 $10,693 $5,491 $2,421
2016 $9,895 $4,846 $2,115
2017 $3,599 $499 $336
2018 . $3,377 $480 $291
2019 $3,148 $439 $252
2020 $3,174 $401 $219
2021 $2,983 $386 $190
2022 $2,784 $351 $164
2023 $2,599 $319 $142
2024 $2,427 $288 $123
2025 . $2,437 $259 $107
2026 $2,276 $231 $93
Total $148,928 $66,917 $32,030
Idaho Power Company
Industrial
Expansion
$878
$1,374
$3,436
$3,271
$3,08~
$2,911
$3,128
$2,949
$2,780
$2,934
$2,765
$2,606
$2,456
$2,555
$2,407
$2,268
$2,138
$2,016
$2,071
$1,952
$49,981
Exhibit NO.2
Case No. IPC-E-08-03
T.Tatum, IPC
Page 12 of 13
Page 72 2006 Integrated Resource Plan
,
f
.
.
.
.
4
4
4
4
~
4
4
.
f
f
f
f
f
f
f
f
f
f,
f
f
f
f
f
f
f
f..
,
.Idaho Power Company Appendix D- Technical Appendix
.
~Total Resource Cost (Revised 10/12106)
~
(OOOs-Present Value)
~All Residential ¿ommerclal IndustrialYearProgramsRetroRetroExpansion
~ .2006
.2007 $7,107 $2,893 $2,937 $1,276
~2008 $14,434 $5,075 $4,249 $5,110
.2009 $30,427 $14,522 $8,974 $6,931
2010 $28,266 $14,009 $7,718 $6,539.2011 $25,776 $13,063 $6,571 $6,142.2012 $23,307 $11,747 $5,791 $5,769
."2013 $21,503 $10,353 $5,349 $5,801~2014 $18,834 $9,032 $4,353 $5,448..2015 $16,334 $7,855 $3,362 $5,118.2016 $14,775 $6,841 $2,814 $5,120.2017 $6,321 $1,030 .$482 $4,809
.2018 $5,791 $876 $398 $4,517
2019 $5,312 $736 $332 $4,244
~2020 $5,127 $622 $279 $4,226.2021 $4,753 $547 $235 $3,970
.2022 $4,401 $471.$200 $3,730
.2023 $4,083 $408 $171 $3,505
2024 $3,798 $357 $146 $3,294
~2025 $3,707 $314 $126 $~,267.2026 $3,455 $277 $108 $3,070
.Total $247,510 $101,028 $54,597 $91,885
.
.DSM Portfolio Options-2006 IRP (Revised 10/12/06)
.
~Present Value
Savings ·Cost (OOOs)Levelized Costs Ble Ratio Payback*".Summer Annual
..Peak Energy Utility TRC UC TRC
aMW MW MWh Cost Cost ($/kW)($/kWh)UC TRC.Residential
.existng 28.8 113.0 251,989 $66,917 $101,028 . $0.029 $0.044'. 3.7 2.5 3.0
Commercial
.existing 18.27.1 161,157 $32,030 $54,597 $0.020 $0.035 5.2 3.0 3.4
Industrial
expansion 40.4 47.1 353,939 $49,981 $91.885 $0.022 $0.04 5.1 2.8 3.4
Total 87.6 18r.2.767.085 $148,928 $247,510:
· Based on Cumulative Savings in 2025
** Based on December 2005 Rate Schedule
Exhibit NO.2
Case No. IPC-E-08-03
T.Tatum, IPC
Page 13 of 13
2006 Integrated Resource Plan'Page 73
BEFORE THE
IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
CASE NO. IPC-E-08-03
IDAHO POWER COMPANY
EXHIBIT NO.3
TIM TATUM
Idaho Power Company
Energy Efficiency Rider Account Projections
Table I
Projected DSM Expenditures
2008 - 2010
2008 2009 2010
Residential $6,701,164 $4,092,940 $4,581,842
Commercial/Industrial 6,875,972 7,255,894 7,184,421
Irrigation 3,364,520 3,934,655 3,480,362
Other 2,351,627 1,503,627 1,782,112
Total DSM Expenditures $19,293,284 $16,787,116 $17,028,738
Table II
Projected Year-End Energy Effciency Rider Account Balances
2008 - 2010
(At 2.5% Including Ongoing DSM Labor and Administrative Costs in 2009 and 2010)
2008 2009 2010
Beginning Balance $(1,483,075)$4,583,626 $4,441,793
DSM Expenditures 19,293,284 16,787,116 17,028,738
Funding Forecast (13,226,583)(16,928,949)(17,275,217)
Ending Balance $4,583,626 4,441,793 4,195,314
Table II
Projected Year-End Energy Efficiency Rider Account Balances
2008 - 2010
(At 2.5% Excluding Ongoing DSM Labor and Administrative Costs in 2009 and 2010)
2008 2009 2010
Beginning Balance $(1,483,075)$4,583,626 $1,209,934
DSM Expenditures 19,293,284 13,555,257 13,545,723
Funding Forecast (13,226,583)(16,928,949)(17,275,217)
Ending Balance $4,583,626 1,209,934 (2,519,560)
Exhibit NO.3
Case No. IPC-E-08-03
T. Tatum, IPC
Page 1 of 1
BEFORE THE
IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
CASE NO. IPC-E-08-03
IDAHO POWER COMPANY
EXHIBIT NO.4
TIM TATUM
o..oN
..oo ~.N a: Q)
i;e êm (; ~
~ ~ &(/w
o..oN
Q)
IXIX 0o 0o NN ..C Glo C:g :J~ Gl ..
~ '2 ~E D. 1;o gi :!(, '6 w
0; § !lL C
~ ~ ~
i ïi ..
:5 ;: Gl(J 11¡ ii
ëj 'õ
ff ~In~ N
GlCW
g¡oN
..oo ~.N a: Q)
i;e ê- - Q).! ~ ã;
~ f- 0:(/w
Q)
IXooN
..g '- -I
N a: Q)
i;e êco ên ~~~&(/w
ef"#?f?f ?f00 0 0 0LOlOLOLO l(N N N N N
c
'5c::u.
Q;"0
0:
(" 0' ~ (0 cJS)~~~ g
-- C' i. -- r:o: co .... i.~LOCOCO -qcõ-.~~ cD
fI
COO)(OLO ..OLOMlO LOO)mo'l M
i~~~ 1.. i. 0 en ('LÕÑLÕoe c:NCO.. f' LOC' ~ co
E: Eß El tA lß
ef ';?f cf ?f0000 0101iLOLO LONNNN N
c
'5c::u.~Q)"0
0:
co 0 ll v llo 0) N~ ('OLOmi. 0riai""Ñ ri0) C" N I' (Imvcoc: -r~----CÔ~
fI
~~~;: ~
ci~~~ ~NCO'l 0 N.. lO ~ 0' (V
OlA ..- ri -o i.
M ~..,. (b
fI fI fI fI fI
tf?f cf?f cf("'l 'l 0 enO't 'l (" 0N N N N N
c'5c::u.
Q;"0
0:
.. co C' co C'.. C'.. v C'COOO)O) coC' -- ~ Ô CÔNCO.. -. N'l oc C" co CDcôri~ - Ñ
fI
V 'l.. N lOióió~~ ;'LÖ CÔ ..£ __- a)
¡; ~ ¡! i! ¡goeÑ~oe Ñ'l l'.. f' ("C' ~ co
ERlßE:-E '&
ti2
&.lI
~Q;E _ ii "Eo a:.- a:(;~~~5 -g::Q)El:.- co
C:~E~(O û5
l&!8~§ l
gi(/tia:U
fI
fI
fI
ef"# ?f000ll ll ll
N N N
0) 0 0)co N ~co CD C"öÑetC' C' llll ~ ~
fI
0) ~ cov ~ v.. co..cô -- ÑNOC'N C' ~
~ Eñ cDN
fI fI fI
?f?f ?F000ll ll llNNN
~ 0 C'NCO C'N N V
r- 0) ai~NVll~..
fI
O)'llO co lO~~~ ~ ~~~~ g riCD'lO) ca 't~lÔLÖ C; ~-
cofI fI fI fI
ff tf #.0) co ll000NNN
0) N coV co ~COOO
cñ ~ C'co 0) ~C'
fI
(õ f8 ~ll C' co;i~~~O cog i. i. M
EiEßEl Yl
t~
§U
~ollN
~oo~N
co ..
g NcD i.
a; ~~
fI
co C'o coC' co-- r:
~ E~ 0;co
fI
;¡ cfo 0ll llN N
v 0)m '3i. CÕ0) N.. 0)
CÔ
fI
:R ";åJ eno 0N N
0) C'~ :g
sf ~ll N
C'~
fI
N coco N.. cocñ cñ
~t ~C'coco
Q)::C
~0:
Q)
~in
l
'"
E'Q)cQ)
Q)'"ÜQ)a.(/~
Q):5'".0titia:ë3..()a:Q)~Q
ã)olloC'
Óz
Q;
"Eor:or-ON
i. C?, coUNa. (/- Q)Ó a:Z a.
~ 1t
U ~~ Q)~O:: u.
ff~
é s
~ "0a: CQ) a:
'" (/
-m "*
- (Jt; ,00:
~ .~
£; -g
Ol Q)c~-e
ii a.
~ 0:Q) -'" co.0 0i~a. Q)..5Q) ~
ä) .E"0 't
~ ~
~ ~o il
o ~NO
, ..
~ -g~ a:~ ti.E ~
l! 8lo Q):. .c() -
.~ EeOa. .i
Q) -
ê ~
%? e
~ .E
Q) ..~ 3'.0 e
ih ~ ti
~ ~ Q)z em Exhibit NO.4
Case No. IPC-E-08-03
T. Tatum, IPC
Page 1 of 1
BEFORE THE
IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
CASE NO. IPC-E-08-03
IDAHO POWER COMPANY
EXHIBIT NO.5
TIM TATUM
Idaho Power Company
I.P.U.C. No. 29, Tariff No. 101 Original Sheet No. 91-1
SCHEDULE 91
ENERGY EFFICIENCY RIDER
APPLICABILITY
This schedule is applicable to all retail Customers served under the Company's schedules and
special contracts. This Energy Efficiency Rider is designed to fund the Company's expenditures for the
analysis and implementation of programs and initiatives that promote energy conservation.i aM
demand response programsand renewable energy options.
MONTHLY CHARGE
The Monthly Charge is equal to the applicable Energy Effciency Rider percentage times the
sum of the monthly billed charges for the base rate components. The Menthly Charge wil be
separately stated on the Customer's regular billng.
Schedule Energy Efficiency Rider
Schedule 1
Schedule 4
Schedule 5
Schedule 7
Schedule 9
Schedule 15
Schedule 19
Schedule 24
Schedule 39
Schedule 40
Schedule 41
Schedule 42
Schedule 26
Schedule 29
Schedule 30
~2.5 %, but not to oxceed $1.75 per meter per month
~2.5 %, but not to exceed $1.75 per meter per month
~2.5 %, but net te exceed $1.75 per meter per month~2.5%~2.5%
~2.5%
~2.5%
~2.5 %, but net to exceed $50.00 per meter per month~2.5%~2.5%~2.5%~2.5%
~2.5%
~2.5%
~2.5%
Exhibit NO.5
Case No. IPC-E-08-03
T.Tatum, IPC
Page 1 of 1