20090311Application.pdf

LISA D. NORDSTROM
Senior Counsel
esIDA~POR~
An IDACORP Company
March 11, 2009
VIA HAND DELIVERY
Jean D. Jewell, Secretary
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
472 West Washington Street
P.O. Box 83720
Boise, Idaho 83720-0074
Re: Case No. IPC-E-09-04
IN THE MA ITER OF THE APPLICA TION OF IDAHO POWER COMPANY
FOR AUTHORITY TO IMPLEMENT MODIFICATIONS TO THE
PERFORMANCE-BASED DEMAND-SIDE MANAGEMENT INCENTIVE
PILOT PROGRAM.
Dear Ms. Jewell:
Enclosed for filing are an original and seven (7) copies of Idaho Powets Application
in the above matter.
Very truly yours,
6o£r?J~
LDN:csb
Enclosures
P.O. Box 70 (83707)
1221 W. Idaho St.
Boise, 10 83702
LISA D. NORDSTROM, ISB #5733
BARTON L. KLINE, ISB #1526
Idaho Power Company
P.O. Box 70
Boise, Idaho 83707
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
InordstromCâidahopower.com
bkline(Çidahopower.com
Attorneys for Idaho Power Company
Street Address for Express Mail:
1221 West Idaho Street
Boise, Idaho 83702
2009 MAR , I PM 12: 47
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
IN THE MAnER OF THE APPLICATION
OF IDAHO POWER COMPANY FOR
AUTHORITY TO IMPLEMENT
MODIFICATIONS TO THE
PERFORMANCE-BASED DEMAND-SIDE
MANAGEMENT INCENTIVE PILOT
PROGRAM.
)
) CASE NO. IPC-E-09-04
)
) APPLICATION
)
)
)
)
COMES NOW, Idaho Power Company ("Idaho Powet' or the "Company" or the
"Applicant"), in accordance with Idaho Code § 61-502, § 6'1-503, and RP 052, hereby
respectfully makes application to the Idaho Public Utilities Commission ("IPUC" or the
"Commission") for an Order authorizing Idaho Power to implement modifications to the
Performance-Based Demand-Side Management Incentive Pilot program ("Pilot"). More
specifically, the Company requests that the Commission: (1) authorize the Company to
implement a number of modifications to the metrics used under the Performance-Based
Demand-Side Management Incentive Pilot program to determine incentive eligibility, (2)
APPLICATION - 1
approve the Company's determination of its market share achievement for the Pilot
years of 2007 and 2008, (3) authorize the Company to discontinue the operation of the
Pilot effective January 1, 2009, and (4) initiate workshop proceedings to investigate the
potential benefits of a properly designed portolio-based demand-side management
("DSM") incentive mechanism applied to Idaho Power.
In support of this Application, Idaho Power represents as follows:
I. PROGRAM BACKGROUND
1. On December 18, 2006, Idaho Power filed an Application with the
Commission in Case No. IPC-E-06-32 requesting authority to implement a DSM
incentive mechanism which would allow the Company to retain a portion of the financial
benefits associated with a DSM program operated by the Company.
2. Under the Pilot, the Company would receive an incentive payment if the
market share of homes constructed under the ENERGY STAR~ Homes Northwest
program exceeded: (1) 7 percent of the total number of homes constructed in Idaho
Power's service area in 2007, (2) 9.8 percent of total service area homes in 2008 and
(3) 11.7 percent of total service area homes in 2009. These percentage levels were
established as the target goals under the program. If Idaho Power exceeded these
targets, it would receive an incentive payment equal to the percentage benefit in excess
of the target. For example, if Idaho Power was able to achieve 105 percent of the 7
percent target percentage in 2007, Idaho Power would receive a payment equal to 5
percent of the total program net benefits for that year. The incentive payment has been
capped at 10 percent of program net benefits.
APPLICATION - 2
3. Furthermore, under the Pilot, the Company is subject to a penalty if the
ENERGY STARæl Homes Northwest program failed to reach a market share equal to the
Company's market share achievement for the program in 2006. In its Application, the
Company estimated the 2006 market share achievement for ENERGY STARæl Homes
Northwest to be 4.9 percent. The actual 2006 market achievement was later
determined to be 5.0 percent when the final year-end 2006 results became available. If
the market share of homes constructed under the ENERGY STARæl Homes Northwest
program was at least at the level achieved in 2006 but not greater than the annual goal
level, the performance level would be considered to be within the market share dead-
band where Idaho Power would not be eligible for an incentive or penalty.
4. The Commission issued Order No. 30268 on March 12, 2007, approving
the Performance-Based DSM Incentive Pilot to be operated over a three-year period,
January 2007 through December 2009, as proposed by the Company in its Application.
Order No. 30268 requires Idaho Power to file progress reports; the Company intends
this Application and the description of the Company's 2008 market share achievement
found in Attachment No. 1 to satisfy that periodic reporting requirement.
II. PILOT METRICS
5. In Order No. 30268, the Commission detailed several "technical
diffculties" or "challenges" with the Pilot identified by the Commission Staff ("Staff) in its
Comments. The technical difficulties identified by the Staff included:
(1) arbitrariness in setting reasonable, 'average'
achievement goals; (2) uncertainty in measuring the actual
ENERGY STAR homes percentage achieved; (3) ambiguity
in determining what constitutes 'exceptional' and 'poor'
levels of achievement; (4) potential for rewarding or
penalizing Idaho Power due to factors unrelated to its
APPLICATION - 3
program efforts; (5) necessary but problematic exclusion of
regional marketing costs and benefits; (6) calculating the
incentive or penalty using allocation of joint costs based only
on heating and cooling degree days, not on actual energy
savings or peak reductions; and (7) uncertainties of average
savings per home and base percent of ENERGY STAR
homes achieved in 2006.
6. As discussed in the Performance-Based Demand-Side Management
Incentive Pilot 2007 Performance Update dated March 14, 2008, the Company and
Staff made significant progress in addressing each of these issues. The Company and
the Staff agreed that the following challenges warranted consideration but did not
require any immediate investigation or adjustment:
(1) arbitrariness in setting reasonable, 'average'
achievement goals . . . (3) ambiguity in determining what
constitutes 'exceptional' and 'poor' levels of achievement; (4)
potential for rewarding or penalizing Idaho Power due to
factors unrelated to its program efforts; (5) necessary but
problematic exclusion of regional marketing costs and
benefis. . . .
7. The Company and Staff spent a great deal of time discussing Staffs
concerns related to "(2) uncertainty in measuring the actual ENERGY STAR homes
percentage achieved." The Company understood the Staffs concern to be related to
the quantification of total new single-family homes used in the market share calculation.
In its original Application, the Company proposed to use the Wells Fargo Idaho
Construction Report listing of new single-family home permits issued in Idaho Power's
service area as the source for the new home data. Under this approach, the
Company's market share achievement was to be determined by dividing the number of
ENERGY STARæl homes that received an incentive from Idaho Power by the number of
single-family homes reported by Wells Fargo during the same period.
APPLICATION - 4
8. In its Quarterly Progress Report dated October 12, 2007, the Company
recommended a revised method for calculating market share under the Pilot. Under the
revised method, the Wells Fargo data has been used to calculate a ratio of single-family
homes to total new residential homes in Idaho Power's service area. The ratio has
been applied to Idaho Power's records of total new residential services added during
the same period. The Company and Staff agreed that the market share value derived
under the revised method is more representative of new home construction in Idaho
Power's service area.
9. Attachment NO.2 details how the revised method for calculating market
share compares to the original approach. As can be seen in Attachment NO.2, the
market share achieved in 2006 under the original derivation method was 5.0 percent
(estimated to be 4.9 percent in Case No. IPC-E-06-32). Under the Pilot program design
proposed by the Company in its original Application, 5.0 percent is the market share
threshold whereby the Company would be subject to a penalty if it achieves a market
share below that threshold. Under the revised market share calculation, the actual
market share achieved in 2006 would be calculated at 4.1 percent, which becomes the
new penalty threshold. While this new market share derivation method had the effect of
lowering the penalty threshold from 5.0 percent to 4.1 percent, it did not improve the
Company's ability to avoid a penalty. That is, since the Company's future market share
achievement was computed using the same calculation method, the relationship
between the market share achievement and the penalty threshold remains unchanged.
The Wells Fargo Idaho Construction Reports dated December 2007 and December
APPLICATION - 5
2008 that were used in the derivation of the market share values are included with this
Application as Attachment NO.3.
10. The Company and the Staff also spent a considerable amount of time
exploring ways to address the following diffculty of "(6) calculating the incentive or
penalty using an allocation of joint costs based on heating and cooling degree days, not
on actual energy savings or peak reductions." In its original Application, Idaho Power
proposed allocating the costs associated with effciency measures that save both gas
and electricity based on heating degree days versus cooling degree days, resulting in
about 12 percent of these joint costs being allocated to electricity cost-effectiveness
calculations. Staff countered in Comments that the proposed allocation ignored the
value of benefits of peak load reductions for electricity versus natural gas. Over the
past several months, the Staff and the Company have explored various other methods
of allocating these joint costs between gas and electricity.
11. After considerable discussion, the Company and Staff agreed, for the
purposes of this Pilot, to allocate joint costs based on an annualized electricity value
equal to Idaho Power's estimated present value of its 25-year, hourly-weighted, DSM
alternative costs versus a gas value equal to Intermountain Gas Company's current
weighted average cost of gas as stated in its tariff. Both values would be subject to
change annually as conditions change; however, at the time of its development, the
method resulted in about 55 percent of the joint costs of ENERGY STARæl Homes being
allocated to electricity cost-effectiveness calculations. The use of either allocation
method causes no immediate effect on the Pilot due to the fact that the percentage of
APPLICATION - 6
ENERGY STARæl Homes compared to total market is within the market share dead-
band.
12. In an effort to address diffculty number "(7) uncertainties of average
savings per home and base percent of homes achieved in 2006," the Company
commissioned a study to validate the average savings per home under the ENERGY
STARæl Homes Northwest program. Included as Attachment NO.4 is the report titled,
Energy Savings and Peak Load Impacts of the Northwest ENERGY STARæl Program in
Idaho Climate Zones, dated October 2007 and prepared for Idaho Power by ECOS
Consulting Research Design. The report provides detailed estimates of the potential
energy savings of ENERGY STARæl Homes cited within Idaho-specific climate zones.
13. The Company views the recommended modifications to the DSM
Performance-Based DSM Pilot program metrics as improvements to the Pilot program
and requests that the Commission approve the proposed metrics for the purpose of
determining incentive eligibility during the Pilot's effective period.
II. MARKET SHARE ACHIEVEMENT - 2007 & 2008
14. According to the revised market share determination methodology,
ENERGY STARæl Homes Northwest achieved a market share level of 5.0 percent in
2007 and 6.2 percent in 2008. The 2007 and 2008 market share values both were
within the market share dead-band under the Pilot. Based on the program's
performance in 2007 and 2008, the Company was not eligible to earn a financial
incentive and did not incur a penalty under the Pilot. As can be seen in Attachment No.
2, the market share of new ENERGY STARæl Homes to total new homes constructed in
2007 and 2008 derived under either the original method or the revised method resulted
APPLICATION - 7
in a percentage value within the market share dead-band under the Pilot, resulting in no
financial impact to the Company in those years.
IV. PILOT OPERATION
15. Wells Fargo Idaho Construction Report. After the Company and Staff
resolved the "technical diffculties" raised by Staff in Comments, the Pilot encountered
another setback during 2008 related to the ongoing performance metrics. In the Idaho
Construction Report dated June 2008, Wells Fargo announced that it would discontinue
the publication of the report at the end of 2008. Since the Wells Fargo report has been
the basis for the market share calculation under the Pilot, its absence wil require that a
revised market share calculation be developed in order to continue the Pilot in 2009.
16. Should the Commission wish to continue the Pilot in 2009, there are a
number of ways that the market share calculation could be modified in the absence of
the Wells Fargo report. Wells Fargo has offered to continue to make available to Idaho
Power the same data contained in its Idaho Construction Report publications. The data
would be sent to Idaho Power monthly via e-mail in Excel file format. While this method
is the easiest way to continue the agreed upon Pilot metrics, it is less transparent from
an external stakeholder's perspective. There are a number of publicly available sources
of new home construction data. However, as was the case with the Wells Fargo data,
each source comes with its own set of challenges when attempting to convert the
numbers to be representative of Idaho Power's service area.
17. Other Issues for Consideration. A number of other forces outside of the
Company's control have also surfaced during the Pilot's operations that are
compromising the Company's ability to operate the Pilot as intended. First, the
APPLICATION - 8
ENERGY STARæl Homes Northwest program has been operating under abnormal
market conditions during the entire Pilot period. Since the development of the Pilot in
2006, housing starts in Idaho as reported by Wells Fargo declined by approximately 41
percent in 2007 and another 46 percent in 2008. While the promotional strategy for this
new construction program has been adapted to maximize the program's success under
the current conditions, the Company's ability to meet or exceed the predetermined
performance goals has been largely driven by market forces outside of the Company's
control. This is not to say that the Company's potential to achieve the predetermined
goals has been directly hindered by the current market conditions; however, the link
between the Company's efforts and the resulting performance outcome has been
significantly altered since the inception of the Pilot.
18. Additionally, the ENERGY STARæl Homes Northwest program is operated
in partnership with the Idaho Offce of Energy Resources ("OER"). The OER is
responsible for the quality assurance aspect of the program. Since a portion of the
program's success is incumbent upon a third-party, a disconnect exists between the
effort Idaho Power staff puts toward marketing and implementing the program and the
program's ultimate performance leveL.
19. As a result of the issues mentioned above, there is a general sense
among Idaho Power's staff responsible for the implementation of the new construction
program that the potential to earn a financial incentive under the Pilot is quite limited
and largely outside of their control. That is, the connection between effort and reward
has been severed to the extent that the current Pilot design provides little or no
incentive to perform at a level above what would exist absent the incentive mechanism.
APPLICATION - 9
20. Idaho Power Recommendation. While the overall mechanics of the
performance incentive are quite simple in theory, each of the issues described above
are ilustrative of the complexity that exists with applying the mechanism to the
ENERGY STARæl Homes Northwest program under the current performance metrics. In
light of the challenges facing the Pilot in 2009, the Company recommends that the
Commission authorize the termination of the Pilot effective January 1, 2009.
V. PORTFOLIO-BASED DSM INCENTIVE MECHANISM
21. Despite the challenges that have arisen during the first two years of the
Pilot's operation, Idaho Power is stil convinced that a regulatory model that includes a
performance incentive aspect is essential to creating an environment supportive. of the
acquisition of all cost-effective DSM. A properly designed performance incentive
mechanism can be an effective means to properly aligning customers' energy effciency
goals with the financial goals of the Company's shareowners.
22. With that said, the Company intends to explore the development of a
performance incentive mechanism that can be applied to the Company's entire portolio
of DSM programs. Idaho Power uses a broad portolio of energy effciency and demand
response programs to help reduce its exposure, as well as the exposure of its
customers, to the ever increasing costs of supplying electricity. With that in mind, the
Company believes that a properly designed portolio-based incentive mechanism could
more closely align with the Company's overall DSM program implementation approach
than incentive that exists under the current Pilot. An incentive mechanism applied to a
diverse portolio of DSM programs could provide additional operational flexibility and
allow the Company to better adapt to changing market conditions. This approach could
APPLICATION - 10
also provide a stronger incentive to optimize available resources to maximize energy
savings potential regardless of economic conditions.
23. Idaho Power feels that the development of a mechanism of this nature is
best accomplished through a collaborative process involving a broad set of
stakeholders. Therefore, the Company requests that the Commission open a separate
docket to investigate and potentially develop a performance-based incentive
mechanism to be applied to Idaho Power's entire portolio of DSM programs.
Vi. MODIFIED PROCEDURE
24. Idaho Power believes that a technical hearing is not necessary to consider
the issues presented herein and respectfully requests that this Application be processed
under Modified Procedure; Le., by written submissions rather than by hearing. RP 201,
et seq. If, however, the Commission determines that a technical hearing is required, the
Company stands ready to present its testimony and support the Application in such
hearing.
VII. COMMUNCIATIONS AND SERVICE OF PLEADINGS
25. Communications and Service of Pleadings with reference to this
Application should be sent to the following:
Lisa D. Nordstrom
Barton L. Kline
Idaho Power Company
P.O. Box 70
Boise, Idaho 83707
Inordstrom(Çidahopower.com
bkline(Çidahopower.com
Timothy Tatum
John R. Gale
Idaho Power Company
P.O. Box 70
Boise, Idaho 83707
ttatum(Çidahopower.com
rgale(Çidahopower.com
APPLICATION - 11
VII. REQUEST FOR RELIEF
26. Based on the foregoing, Idaho Power respectfully requests that the
Commission issue an Order that:
(1) Authorizes that this matter may be processed by Modified
Procedure;
(2) Authorizes the Company to implement a number of modifications to
the metrics used under the Performance-Based Demand-Side Management Incentive
Pilot program to determine incentive eligibility as described above;
(3) Approves the Company's determination of its market share
achievement for the Pilot years of 2007 and 2008;
(4) Authorizes the Company to discontinue the operation of the Pilot
effective January 1, 2009; and
(5) Initiates workshop proceedings to investigate the potential benefits
of a properly designed portolio-based demand-side management incentive mechanism
applied to Idaho Power.
DATED at Boise, Idaho this 11th day of March 2009.
~f).~~LANORDST OM
Attorney for Idaho Power Company
APPLICATION - 12
2009 HAFr ! !
PH 12: ~
IDAHO PUBLIC UTiliTIES COMMISS1ifHo 8lC~.. '.,~,l
BEFORE THE
CASE NO. IPC-E-09-04
IDAHO POWER COMPANY
ATTACHMENT NO.1
Idaho Power Company
Performance-Based Demand-Side Management Incentive Pilot
2008 Year-End Performance Update
Market Share Estimate
ENERGY STARIl Homes Completed'254
Estimated Total New Single-Family
Homes2 4,095
2008 Market Share Estimate 6.2%
Notes:
(1) The number of ENERGY STAR~ Homes completed is based on the number of incentive payments
that Idaho Power issued during 2008.
(2) The estimate of total new homes is based on a combination of data from the most recent Wells
Fargo Idaho Construction Report dated December 2008 and Idaho Power's records of new
residential service points added during 2008.
ENERGY STARIl Homes Northwest
Program Costs
Expense Category
Incentives
Evaluation
Labor
Marketing
Other Expense
Training
Staff Expense
Total
Year-End 2008
$ 164,100
6,860
77,912
53,784
(13,392)
450
4,866
$ 294,579
Attachment No. 1
Case No. IPC-E-09-Q4
Idaho Power Company
Page 1 of 1
BEFORE THE..
~r:l'i::i, ;". v..,. 1
2009 HAR f 1 P~f 12: 48
IDAHO PUBLIC UTiliTIES COMMISSIØøi~Jt~=:dd":'Jk;
CASE NO. IPC-E-09-04
IDAHO POWER COMPANY
ATTACHMENT NO.2
Id
a
h
o

P
o
w
e
r

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

D
S
M

I
n
c
e
n
t
i
v
e

P
i
l
o
t

-

E
N
E
R
G
Y

S
T
A
R
C
I

H
o
m
e
s

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

M
a
r
k
e
t

S
h
a
r
e

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

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

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

T
o
t
a
l

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

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

(
1
)
Ma
r
k
e
t

S
h
a
r
e
Re
s
i
d
.

(
2
)
Ra
t
i
o

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

(
1
)
Ma
r
k
e
t

S
h
a
r
e
(B
/
A
)
(O
x
E
)
(G
/
F
)
20
0
8
2,
7
4
4
25
4
9.
3
%
5,
0
4
3
81
.
2
%
4,
0
9
5
25
4
6.
2
%
20
0
7
4,
4
2
0
30
3
6.
9
%
8,
3
3
6
73
.
2
%
6,
1
0
2
30
3
5.
0
%
20
0
6
8,
8
6
0
43
9
5.
0
%
12
,
4
6
2
86
.
0
%
10
,
7
1
7
43
9
4.
1
%
No
t
e
s
:
(1
)

"
H
o
m
e
s

C
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
d
"

i
s

t
h
e

n
u
m
b
e
r

r
e
p
o
r
t
e
d

i
n

t
h
e

2
0
0
6
,
2
0
0
7

a
n
d

2
0
0
8

D
S
M

A
n
n
u
a
l

R
e
p
o
r
t
s
.
(2
)

N
e
w

a
c
t
i
v
e

r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l

m
e
t
e
r
e
d

s
e
r
v
i
c
e

p
o
i
n
t
s

w
i
t
h

u
s
a
g
e

g
r
e
a
t
e
r

t
h
a
n

z
e
r
o
.
(3
)

R
a
t
i
o
s

o
f

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

d
w
e
l
l
i
n
g

u
n
i
t
s

t
o

t
o
t
a
l

r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l

d
w
e
l
l
i
n
g

u
n
i
t
s

f
o
r

2
0
0
6
,

2
0
0
7

a
n
d

2
0
0
8

a
r
e

b
a
s
e
d

o
n

n
e
w

h
o
m
e

p
e
r
m
i
t

d
a
t
a
re
p
o
r
t
e
d

b
y

W
e
l
l
s

F
a
r
g
o

B
a
n
k
,

t
w
e
l
v
e

m
o
n
t
h
s

e
n
d
i
n
g

D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r

3
1
,
2
0
0
6
,

D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r

3
1
,
2
0
0
7
,

D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r

3
1
,
2
0
0
8

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

i
n
c
l
u
d
e

o
n
l
y

d
a
t
a

c
o
l
l
e
c
t
e
d

f
r
o
m

s
a
m
p
l
e

a
r
e
a
s

w
i
t
h
i
n

I
d
a
h
o

P
o
w
e
r
'
s

s
e
r
v
i
c
e

a
r
e
a
.
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

N
O
.
2
Ca
s
e

N
o
.

I
P
C
-
E
-
0
9
-
0
4
Id
a
h
o

P
o
w
e
r

C
o
m
p
a
n
y
Pa
g
e

1

o
f

1
BEFORE THE CEll'!
20n9 MAR I i PH 12: 48
IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSI~¥ftl"bc¿;;~i',~t~,;j!
CASE NO. IPC-E-09-04
IDAHO POWER COMPANY
ATTACHMENT NO.3
.
-1daho Construction Report
Volum 55, NUmer 12 Dr. Kelly K. Mattews - Economist . Deceer 2008
Aftr 55 yeas of publication, the prite
verson of this report wil no longer be available.
To cotiue reiving the Idao Conson
Reprt via email, plea send your request and
email addressto:ronda.burrell(gellsfago.com
All cagories in 2009 ended on a low note.
Total Residentbtl Valuation was do\; 74.3
percnt in Dembe when compa to Deber
2007, and reorded a 46.6 percnt dece overa
in 2008 copar to 2007. Actal housing st
wer down 65.3 percet in Decber and 45.7
percet cumulative in 2008.
Alterations and Repairs were down 52.5
percet in December and 25.6 percet down in
2008 compared to 2007. Until this yea, ths
catgory has trditiona shown stady growt.
Although Non-Residential Valuation was
down 58.2 perc in Dember, valuation
comparisons year-over-yea in this caegory reai
relatively flat - thoug positive, grwt of only 3.3
percnt over 2007 figus was report in 2008.
Tota Construction Valuation in Decber
was down 65.5 pert, $66.4 millon copa to
$192.7 Inilion in Deber 2007. In 2008 tota
conscton valuaon was down 27.4 perct
compar to 2007 figues, $2.4 billon in 2008
compar to $3.4 billon in 2007, equaing to a
reuction in speding of nealy $1 billion.
The following is a sumar ofIdaho's anua
Tota Consction Valuation and percent chage
from previous yea for the pa decade:
1998 $1,880,698,428 8.4 £.
1999 2,020,462,323 1.4 £.
2000 2, 113,294,271 4.6 £.
2001 2,101,630,710 -0.6 T
2002 2,083,156,523 -0.9 T
2003 2,362,060 764 13.4 £.
2004 3,017,618,475 30.2 .Â
2005 4,049,768,241.31.6 .Â
2006 3,884,685,60 -4.1 T
2007 3,312,804,450 -14.7 T
2008 2,404,377,577 -27.4 T
BUIING PERMIT CONSTRUCTION SUMMARY
Dec-08 % Change 12-Month 2008
Total New Dwellng Unit 189 -65.3 5,21
Single-Family 138 -56.5 4,161
Multi-Family 25 -88.5 788
Mobile Homes 26 160.0 282
Total Residentil Value $26,048,191 -74.3 $844,572,705
Single-Family $23.314,825 -60.6 $759,205,23 1
Multi-Family $2,420,523 -94.3 $81,464,933
Mobile Homes $312,843 167.7 $3,902,541
New Non-Residential Value $22,367,461 -58.2 $972,493,064-1\
$18,002,379 -52.5 $587,311 ,80 8;, Alterations & Repairs Value
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION VALUE $66,418,031 -65.5 $2,404,377,577
Case No. IPC-E-09-04
Idaho Power Company
Page 1 of 20
IDAHO CONSTRUCTION REPORT DECEER200
NE NEDWEGTOALNEWNON.ADD,ALT TOAL
CIT OR AREA UN PERIT REEN RE &BEAI COUCON....-.
iBonn Fer 0 1 SO SO $5.000 SS.OOli-.Co d'Alen 11 57 1,584,364 732,259 496.430 2.813.053
Kooteai Couty Un 11 43 3,030,860 373,706 1,017,00 4.421,569
Crgmont 0 °0 0 0 0Grge°4 °0 43,500 43.500Lestn430403.835 61,572 147.820 613.227
Nez Perce Co Un 1 5 0 °31,386 31.386Mosco517442,000 0 153,795 595.795
La Coun Un 1 5 0 23.408 60.675 84.083Orfi04°°77100 77,100Shohone Co.1 5 8.655 0 61,51 70,196
Sandpoit 17 9 1.769,250 210.000 11.107 2,094,357StMaes01003.000 3.000
Post Fal 14 53 2,075,093 263.707 53.000 2,391.800
TOAL NORTHRN 65 23 59,314,Sl,2 52,2 S13,l
Bois Ci ,;;'" ~ ~ .10 781 51.809.966 51,292752 S8,859.760 Sl1.962,'f78
Merdi -22 109 4,29,081 1,766.668 1.781.081 7.816.830
Ada Coun Un 10 58 2,158,270 107.663 503,455 2,769,388CadwU131481,326.412 10.37.939 1,043.435 12,407,786
Cayo COWlly Un 4 19 348.205 242.875 183.590 774.670
Nampa 6 19 595.082 1.100,000 178,552 1.873.634Valey Co.°3 0 0 140,000 140.000Ge Co - Em 1 5 104,285 0 78,912 183,197Goo Coun.2 7 593,388 0 100,476 693,864
Haey 0 7 0 0 54,500 54.500
Ketum 0 5 0 0 16,000 16.000
SùnValey 0 5 0 0 219.194 219.194
Bla Co Un 0 8 0 53.500 17.601 231,101
Jerome 4 6 258.806 0 165.900 424.106
Mouai Home 2 17 211.530 0 29.490 241.020.--,
Payett 0 2 0 0 7.000 7,00 .
Shhone 0 0 0 0 0 0'.
Tw Fal City 3 33 388.580 1,460.055 445,455 2,94,090
Twi Falls Co Un 5 11 472730 324.553 0 797,283
Weier 0 0 0 0 0 0
TOAL SOUTTER 82 1,2 512,,35 516,,l $13,,401 542,9741
Blackoo 0 2 $0 $30,000 $1.000 $31,000
Bingh Coun Un 3 7 219,339 14.500 67.200 301.039
Idao Fal 3 21 395.432 327,530 403,790 1.126.752
Amon 1 3 72.910 0 143,500 216.410
Boneve Co Un 8 44 949,209 240,980 319.121 1,509,310Reur000000
'. Rigb .. ":~:.....fO..' .-0.0 0 0 0
Salon 1 2 0 0 9,00 9.60
Le Coun Un 1 3 65.000 0 64.500 129.500
StAnony 0 1 0 316.110 0 316.110
Fremon Cou Un 5 21 660,2 319.932 37.190 1,017.347
TOTAL EARN 22 104 52,1,115 SI,29,052 51,15,91 54,657,08
Amca Falls 8 3 5130.000 $0 53,000 $133.000
Powe Coun Un 1 3 5,000 °110,000 115,000
Cassia COWlty 3 12 505.770 320.000 154.536 980,306
Chubbuck °2 0 400 36,658 37058
Montplier 0 2 0 0 1,878 1.878
P()telo 3 21 231,723 2,489.500 249.660 2.970,883
Banoc Co Un 2 7 496,90 126.252 27.300 650,456Prstn02009,300 9,300
Frain Coun Un 1 3 278,~0 30,000 308.000
Ruer 0 3 0 0 10.000 10.000
Mido Coimty Un 2 10 188,287 131,600 74.388 394,275
Soda Spri 0 0 0 0 0 r'
TOTAL SOUTSTE io 68 51,85.684 $3,067,752 5706720 ss610,l~
TOTAL 57 LOCATIONS 189 1,649 S248,191 $267,461 518,002,79 566,418,031
.Includ enire county. .Attachment NO.3 Wells Faro Ban N.A.
Case No. IPC-E-09-04
Idaho Power Company
Page 2 of 20
IDAHO CONSTRUCTION REPORT DECEER 2ll07
NEW NEDWEGTOTALNENON-ADD,ALT TOTAL
~cqQRAREA UN PER REID REIDEN &REAJR CONSucN( ,..mer Fer 1 1 S108,ooO SO $0 5108,00
COur d'Alene 6 20 2,078,977 14,334,900 2,997,09 19,410,971
Kooten County Un .22 52 7,499,883 1.086,27 199,760 8,785,89Cragmnt030085.410 85.410Granevile000028,099 28.09Le16191,546,217 112,040 347,980 2,006,237
Nez Per Couty Un .2 4 192,542.160,24 23,142 375,938
Moscow 7 13 513,488 35,000 248.156 796,64
Lata County Un 2 7 173,592 15.600 1,300 190,492
Orofio 0 2 0 0 10,918 10,918
Shosone Coun.0 1 0 737,460 0 737,460Sandpint0609.024.688 265,44 9,290,128StMaes135,000 0 1,500 6,50
Pot Fal 5 14 829,303 543,477 0 1,372,780
TOTAL NOR11 62 145 512,97,02 526,049,666 54,208,m S4,i054(7
BoiSe CitY -",-.. - 1'50
- .' .977"538,311,063 $4,310,779-521,188,98' . - ."$63.810,800Mer441728,986,299 2,82,076 2,126,101 13,935,476
Ad Coun Un 34 59 8,146,574.4.820,000 1,490,191 14,456,765
Cadwell 26 134 2,82862 650,000 43.888 3,516,750
Cayon County Un 16 39 2.927,439 389,794 .190,64 3,507,877
Nampa 8 36 580,775 3.775.600 667,878 5,024,23
Valley Coun~0 1 0 0 24.000 24,00Emett2122028020190,495 393,297Good Coty.2 9 419,148 0 307,28 726,406
Hailey 0 7 0 0 112,500 112,500
Kechum 7 8 4.960,000 0 215,000 5,175,000
Sun Valey 0 6 0 35,000 556.000 591,00
Blaine County Un 0 1 0 0 30,000 30,00Jerme410336,610 131,472 337,520 805,602
~autain Home 12 17 893,760 0 106,208 . 99,968
: :ette 2 4 242,967 0 34,44 277,11
. ",l1ôshone 0 0 0 0 0 0Tw Fals City 20 46 3,580.979 1,365,23 623,209 5,569,441
Twi Fals Co Un 2 16 135,600 103,334 589,767 828,701
Weiser 0 4 0 12,120 336,500 348,620
TOTALSOUTFSRN 329 I,sSS 5778 518,16,428 $2,170,51 5120,133,67
Blac 2 4 $327,120 527000 $40,00 5754,120
Bingham County Un 5 8 559,28 40,600 76,320 676,178
Idaho Fal 18 36 1,593.868 668,661 459,088 2,721,617Amon60164,504,089 743,736 75,654 5,323,479
Booneve Co Un 19 54 1,466,00 745,100 190,2 2,401,357Rex7101,173,114 2.913,z6 235,20 4,321,550
Rigby -..-2..- 7-222378--'1;ó41,j1 -22575 . "1"8"86,534Salon0302,650 38,800 41.450
Leií County Un I 9 64,400 0 239,249 303.649
StAnthony 0 0 0 0 0 0
Freont County Un 12 34 2,02,207 502325 399,489 2,927,021
TOAL EATERN 126 181 511,95,44 57,2,889 52,136623 52 1,3,955
America Falls 1 6 $190,000 $0 521,483 $211,48Pow County Un 0 3 0 0 35,2 35,2
Ca County 5 7 64,600 0 29,200 673,800
Chubbuk 0 9 0 1,595,000 267,275 1.862,275Motplier0100500500Pocaello926981,130 97,200 1,718,597 2,796,927
Baock County Un 5 6 1,063,117 0 48,280 1,11,397Prn01030,000 0 30,00
Fra County Un 2 3 456,000 0 14,400 470,400
Rurt 2 4 284.074 0 59,198 343,2
Miidoka County Un 0 2 0 0 7.740 7,740I~Sprgs 0 0 0 0 0 0.:A SOUT 24 68 53618,921 51,720 S21,9 57,543,076
TOTAL 57 LOCTIONS 541 1,952 5101.1,2 553,473,183 53.717,938 5192,,3
*Incude8 enire' c:un.Wells Faro Bank N.A.
Attachment NO.3
Case No. IPC-E-09-04
Idaho Power Company
Page 3 of 20
IDAHO CONSTRUCTION REPORT TWVE MONT
CUMTI 20
NEW NEWDWEGTOTALNEWNON.ADD,ALT TOTAL
ClOBAREA UN PE RESIENAL RESIENAl."BEPAI è9NSTUgiN ,~Bon Fer 3 '43 $26212 $160,645 $193,370 $616,327 L
. CO d Alene 263 842 543,392;691 567,762,419 $8,89,369 $120,045,479 .
Kooi Coun Un 221 915 558,891,212 $27,123,304 $13,049,738 $99,64,254Cnónt1 .16 $55,00 SO $227,052 $282,052Gìo4146$632,922 $610,991 $1,031,9 $2275,99Leston74S7$9;724,482 $10,692,277 $6,171,498 $26,588,257
Nez Pe Coun Un 60 180 $7,40,681 $426,560 $1,46,025 $9,298,2
Mosow 102 26 $14,642,00 $9~4,850 $2453,488 $26,390,338
La Co Un 61 272 $6,232,122 $2,042,69 $752,05 59,026,696
Orfio 3 136 $202,000 5398,456 $1,204,981 51,805,437. Shos Co 24 137.$3,200,695 $2,926,350 $2045,2 $8,17279
Sandpoint 94 IS8 59,791,603 510,116,012 53,958.738 $23,86,353St Mies 5 59 $170,00 5219,00 5878.149 51,267,149
Pos Fal 196 536 $31,86,717 $9,983,723 $18,927,472 $60,775,912
TOAL NORTH 1,111 4,30 51867 5141,75656 561,29,415 $39,474,708
BoisoCity 232 12,739 $50,331,383 $6,04,186 $271,168,778 5386,54,347Meria780_~:L5(4.. .SI$Q,5S9,l37 599,8 1 ~l,øo .. :;SS5,529,807 .$296,90;1~ _ _ .
. 'Äda dnty Un .~., .. ,,_,.. ..' :.'l ~...32 914 578,738,747 510,306,170 $15,005,688 $'104,050,605
Cadwcll 374 3,29 541,504,755 $42,490,892 $13,6262 597,618,009
Ca Co Un 151 547 $22,942,072 $ 1 2,074,888 52,803,965 $37,820,925
Nampa 247 582 528.671,385 $4,40,168 532,739,967 5101,819,520
Valey Coun.64 201 519,696,571 $533,019 55,115,962 525,345,552Ge Co. Ei 20 191 52,513,098 SI,09,752 $2,531,550 $6,142,40Goog Coun.36 102 SS,363,m $30,808,071 51,84,982 538,018,830
Haey 22 236 S5,325,726 $4,173,750 $7,039,149 516,538,625Komn45169. 524,667,000 51,406,80 $11,241,598 537,315,398
Sun Valley 4 149 $3,190,000 515,300,530 510,64,826 529,135,356
Blae Coun Un 32 187 $2,464,146 514,142,020 $15,975,740 $55,581,90
1erme 117 232-$8,572,806 S9,774,29 $2,501,124 $20,848,189
Mou Home 115 489 $9,237,016 $2567,700 $3,894,258 515,698,914Paye157551,532,53 51,341,66 5629,053 53,503,256Sbon5175331,311 $4,00 5170,210 $51,521 '--.Twn Pals Cit 217 795 $29,304,26 5146,881,823 513,365,998 5189,552,057
Twn Falls Co Un 70 205 512,Ó80,059 $7,433,020 52,56,633 521,869,712 1"-;
Weier 12 70 SI,237,611 5m,546 $421,411 52,631,568
TOTAL SOUTRN i.931 23,713 $521,264,0'S497,611,754 S46l601 $M3? ,4804
Blacoot 42 74 S3,365,OO $2,535,758 $1,097,372 _$6,998,130
Bingh County Un 114 304 512,188,435 $4,321,812 $877,785 $17,388,032
Idao Fal 148 407 S11,897,834 517,04,268 512,99,222 $41,893,324
AmOn 53 125 55,21,584 58,736,683 $4,786,788 $18,755,055
Bonvile Co Un 196 663 $17,702,482 $8,342,998 53,288,389 529,333,869Rebur132136.$19,808.96 $84,676,114 59,136,565 $113,621,375
Rigby 21 56 $1,494,40 $5,468,337 $324,293 57,287,036
Salon 15 58 $99,00 5275,563 5254,185 $1,525,754
Lei Cou Un 26 127 $2,024,761 $341,437 $1,976,714 $4,342,912
. St. Anon ....~ \"r'"2 19 ,S26S;24!l $7,422,931 $227,471 $7,915,651
Freon Couty Un 88 220 $13,325,376 $11,192065 $1,907,878 $2,425,319
TOTAL EARN 837 2,189 $88,299,829 $150,359,966 536,86,662 5275,486,57
Amer FallS 11 36 $790,00 SO $412,124 51,202,124
Pow Cou Un 10 47 $645,00 $475,500 $78,286 SI,848,786Casia Co 30 95 54,514,587 $30,195,850 $3,296,903 $38,00,3
Chbbuck 60 93 $6019,767 56,746,562 5585,92 $13,352,252
Montpier 4 70 $590,000 $1,817,246 $1,425,178 $3,832,424Poco95371$9,508,320 $135,586,607 $7,250,106 $152,345,033
Ban Coun Un 56 140 $11,310,987 S3,042,09 $1,492,28 $15,845,319Pr124152;193,500 $1,895,00 SS22,40 $4,610,900Franin Co Un .29 83 57,021,00 $238,00 $1,487,90 $8,746,900
Rupert 7 90.$700,996 $6,400 $694,688 51,58,084
. Miidoka County Un 35 201 $4,796,203 $2,585,29 $2,415,886 $9,797,318
Soa Springs 3 14 5450,000 $120,000 $319,038 $889,038
TOTAL SOUTRN'352 1,281 $4l10;30 5181,764488 SZD,0,670 $151,935,18
TOTAL 57 LOATIONS 5,21 31,5 5844,1,705 $9,493,06 $58 ,iU,8 52,04,377,577
+lnclud entire ccun.,r,Wells Faro Bo N.A. ¡ .\..
Attachmerit NO.3
Case No. IPC-E-09-04
Idaho Power Company
Page 4 of 20
IDAHO CONSTRUCTION REPORT twVE MONf
CUTI 2007NENEW
DWELLG TOTAL NEW NON-ADD,ALT TOTAL~QRAR UN PERM RESNTL RESENTL &REPAIR CONSUcnON
, )oner Fer 8 38 $803,854 51,279,300 5289,460 $2,372,614
- Co dAlene 545 887 584,461,889 $109,390,404 515,534,874 $209,387,167Kooteai Couty Un 397 1,149 $114,988,418 $27,427,858 $13,635,79 S156,052,070Crgmont119$2,000 $3,800 $261,722 $485,522Gragevie10130S1,046,465 $2189,20 $1,82,570 $4,318,315Leston146781$16,205,352 531,096,093 $6,767,180 554,068,625
Nez Per County Un 63 126 57,286,634 $498,808 $977,892 58,763,334Mos86268516,21,358 $2527,500 S5,802,732 $2,561,590Laah Coun Un 75 269 $8,648,493 Sl,731,13 Sl,068,14O $11,447,768Orfi6153$570,000 $1,883,741 $93,516 $3,447,27Shoson Cou.76 207 $5,864,06 Sl1,788,593 51,266,035 518,918,69Sandpoint54162513,783,507 $25,875,688 $4,564,363 $4,22,558SlMares4595379,536 S2,010,OOO 5841,21 53,230,797
Post Fal 48 933 $60,035,179 $41,438,796 59,795,964 Sll,269,939
TOTAL NORTHRN 1,954 5,181 533,5,751 $2,140,99 562,81,5 565,57,20.. ~. ..r... _.'. ~i.. .' .'An ..." "_':
5166;O(8)'88' .
I.... .".~
- -$'9Ï,343,329Boise Ci ,- .1,084 15;921 .5105,789,700 $419,535,241 -
Merdian 853 .2,932 5198480,581 593,246,964 $41,742,702 $333,470,247Ada Cou Un 569 1,151 5147,855,448 550,915;319 $21,2,104 $219,993,871Cadwell9101,977 $102,696,92 $40,770,060 58,643,358 5152,110,346
Caon Couty Un 273 855 556,494,591 52,628,814 56,551,655 586,675,06
Nampa 377 862 $48,306,151 572,363,958 $30,21,513 $150,921,62Valley County.148 247 $35,188,64 517,083,176 $3,367,552 $55,639,368Emett4926057,965,917 $411,595 $3,204,603 S11,582115Goodig Coty 64 151 $9,20,009 52,718,074 $2537 514,140,620Haiey21249$4,800,059 513,544,560 $4,623,174 $2967,793Ketch35156$26,624,758 $5,200,000 $9,927,146 $41,751,904
Sun Val 31 226 $3,312,00 $12,980,700 $15,356,999 $62,649,699Blae Coun Un 39 149 $50,739,165 56,933,800 S17,655,452 575,328,417.Je 183 258 $13,531,712 $9,335,564 $2102917 524,970.193~ounta Home 240 505 $18,997).75 $3,945,056 S7,355,578 530,27,909
, 'ayet 32 94 $2,66,811 $514,969 $582014 $3,761,794
'. -,:'hosone 0 14 $0 $20,000 527,178 $257,178
Twi Falls City 288 86 $37,307,214 $48,033,825 513,860,887 $99,201,92
Twi Falls Co Un 102 258 $18,130,018 $3,898,754 51,710,133 $23,738,905Weisr1792$1,749,396 $516,181 51,004,973 S3,270,550TOAL SOUTESTE 5,315 27,21 5981,06,061 $511,81,09 5611,15716 52.104,02,6
Blackt 82 116 $7,815).79 $12,616,000 $2,3,680 $2,974,959Bin County Un 181 364 $19,000,017 $3,545,478 $1,216,547 $23,762042
Idao Fal 497 703 $37,988).67 $19,449,112 $11,68,351 $69,123,730Amon276349$2,905,350 $2,156.757 $2,783.966 $53,846,073
Bonevm Co Un 385 879 $33,594,363 516,685,743 $3,455,696 $53,735,802Rexbur145170$27,634,101 $18,10269 $58,948,169 SI04,684,539
Rigby-; :," .:....:.22 - - -. ,- '::67'--$2,830;1S4 - .~S3, 726;353 ::. $337;274 "-'$7;393.761
Salmon 10 55 $428,900 $2,051 $40,470 51,157,421
Lehi County Un 42 179 $4,207,072 51,063,824 $2,811,396 S8,082,292
SiAntbony 13 21 Sl,485,113 $891,740 5160,367 $2,537,220
Freont County Un 142 287 $2654,5 18 $4,527,339 $2,628,692 $29.810,549
TOTAL EASTRN 1,79 3,190 5183,5,114 5106,066 S8,52,08 $377,108,38
Amerca Falls 9 65 $757,000 $2839,002 $582,836 $4,178,838
Powe County Un 14 58 $2,98,813 . 51,390,019 51.041,460 $5,420.292
Cassia County 93 201 519.773,767 $16,759.626 $2,825,762 539,359,155
Chubbuck 67 106 $7,119,396 $3,696,22 Sl,008,611 $ll,824,229Motpier1653$2,554,000 SO $309,170 $286,170Pocatelo169-594 518,880.997 $27,637,453 513,72,156 560,247,60
Banoc Coun Un 75 172 $16,309).71 51,924,570 52,350,434 520,584,275Prstn336355,575).00 $4,029,500 5867,600 $10,472,300Franin Coun Un 31 82 55,670,500 $210,000 $1,48,700 $7,364,200Rupe10107$1,260,519 $199).00 51,167,042 $2,626,761
Miidoka Couty Un 41 200 55,159,537 55.361,897 52,539,561 $13,06,995~daSprgs 2 26 $262,820 $165.729 S136,802 $565,351ijTAL SOUTSTERN 560 1,n7 586,311,80 564,213,18 528,82,13 5178,567,172
TOTAL 57 LOCATIONS 9,624 37,319 51,581,442,746 5941,27,949 5789,614,961 53,312,295656
.lnclude entire count.Wells Faro Ba N.A.
Attachmerit NO.3
Case No. IPC-E-09-04
Idaho Power Company
Page 5 of 20
NEW RESIDENTIAL UNTS Deember 2008
# SINGLE SINGLÉ # MUTI- MULTI-# MOBILE MOBI
FAMIY FAMY FAMY FAMY HOME HOME
cn OR ARE UN VALUATION UN VALUATION UN VALUATI()\I ,
. Bo Fer 0 $0 0 $0 0 ,,.Co d'Alen 8 $1,197,026 2 $359,338 1 $28,000
Kooen County Un 10 $3,030,860 0 SO 1 $0Crigont0$0 0 $0 0 $0. Grgee 0 $0 0 SO 0 $0Len2$378,747 0 $0 2 $25,088
Nez Perce Co Un 0 $0 0 $0 1 SO
Moscow 4 $42,000 0 $0 1 $0
La Coun Un 0 SO 0 $0 1 $0Orfi0SO0$0 0 $0Shosh Co 0 $0 0 $0 1 S8,655
Siadpoin 2 $500,000 15 $1,269,250 0 SO
StMares 0 SO 0 SO 0 $0
Pos Falls 10 Sl,608,158 4 $466,935 0 SO
TOTAL NORTH 3($1,156791 21 52095,5 8 561,'43
.. Boise Cit ~.'8 51,634,96 '2 . $175,000 0 $0Mendi21$4,269,081 0 $0 1 $0
Ada Coun Un .10 $2,158,270 0 $0 0 SO
Cadwc 13 $1,326,412 0 $0 0 SO
Canyo Couty Un 2 S264,305 0 $0 2 $83,900
Nama 5 $595,082 0 $0 1 $0
Valey Couty.0 $0 0 SO 0 SOGe Cou - Em ,1 $104,25 0 $0 0 SOGog Coun.2 $593,388 0 SO 0 $0
Hailey 0 $0 0 SO 0 $0Ketc0$0 0 $0 0 SO
Su Valley 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
. Blaie Coun Un 0 SO 0 $0 0 $0
Jerome 1 $98,806 2 $150,00 1 S10,OOOMouta Hoe 2 '. $211,530 0 $0 0 ..A.
Payet 0 $0 0 $0 0 l '¡
Shoshoe 0 SO 0 $0 0 ~TrTw Fal Ci 2 $387,380 0 $0 1 S1,200
Tw Falls Co Un 5 $472.730 0 $0 0 $0Wcî0$0 0 SO 0 SOTOTAL SOUT 72 512116,4 $325000 Ii 595,100
Blaclot 0 $0 0 SO 0 SO
Bingham Cou Un 2 $216,339 0 '$0 1 $3,000. Ida Fal 3 $395,432 0 $0 0 SO
Amon 1 $12,910 0 $0 0 SO
Boevlle Co Un 7 d $931,209 0 $0 1 S18,OO
Reurg 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
'Rgby 0 $0 0 $0 0 "SOSaon0$0 0 $0 1 $0
Le Co Un 1 $65,000 0 $0 0 $0
St Anony 0 $0 0 $0 0 SOFreon Co Un 5 $660,2 0 $0 0 SOTOAL EA 19 52,1,115 0 SO 3 S21,O
Amercan Falls 0 $0 0 $0 8 S130,OOO
Pow County 0 $0 0 SO 1 $5,000
Cassìa Coty 3 $505,770 0 $0 0 $0
Chubbuc 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0.Moner 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Poctello 3 $21,72 0 SO 0 $0
. Baoc Cou Un 2 ' $496,904 0 $0 0 $0
Prston 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Fran Co Un 1 S278,OOO 0 SO 0 $0Rup0$0 0 SO 0 $0
Midoka Coty Un 2 $188,287 0 $0 0 $0
So Sprigs 0 SO 0 $0 0 r..TOTAL SOU1RN 11 51,700,6 0 SO 9 SIis0
TOTAL 57 LOCATIONS 138 523,314,825 25 $2,420,5 U;5312,8
.1nclud entir county.Attachment NO.3 Wells Fargo Bak, N.A.
Case No. IPC-E-09-Q4
Idaho Power Company
Page 6 of20
NEW RESIDENTIAL UNITS December 2007
# MOBIL
# SINGLE SINGLE # MULTI- MULTI-HOME MOBILE
FAMILY FAMLY FAMLY FAMILY DWEING HOME
rlTYORAR UNIT VALUATION UNIS VALUATION UNIT VALUATION- iJonnrs Fen 1 S108,000 0 $0 0 SOCour d'Alene 6 52,078,977 0 $0 0 $0Kooteai County Un 22 $7,499,883 0 $0 0 $0Cragmont0SO0$0 0 SOGrageve0$0 0 $0 0 SOLewi5$1,03,926 10 $48,000 1 $2,21Nez Perce Coun Un 2 5192542 0 $0 0 $0Mosow1S196,000 6 $317,488 0 $0Lat Coty Un 1 SI62342 0 $0 1 $11,20Orfio0$0 0 $0 0 $0Shoshone Coun 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0Sadpint0$0 0 $0 0 $0StMaes0$0 0 $0 1 $5.000
Post Fals 4 $829,303 0 $0 1 $0TOAL NORTI .42 $12,101,9 16,S805,48 4 539,51"-
Boise Cit .,'.' 1,26 $5,449,439 \. .124 $32,861,624 0 ", ,:' $0Meñdi3558,24,147 8 - $732,152 1 SOAda County Un 34 58,146,574 0 SO 0 $0Caldwell26$2,82.862 0 $0 0 SOCanyon Coty Un 16 $2,927,439 0 SO 0 $0Nampa3S310,642 3 $20,000 2 $40,133Valey Coun.0 $0 0 $0 0 $0Emett2S28020SO0$0Goodig Coun*2 $419,148 0 $0 0 $0Haiey0$0 0 $0 0 $0Ketum1$1,800,000 6 $3,160,000 0 $0
Sun Valley 0 SO 0 $0 0 $0
Blai County Un 0 SO 0 $0 0 $0Jerme2$311,610 2 $2,000 0 $0__¥ounta Home 8 $604,620 4 $29.140 0 SO( 'ayet 2 5242,97 0 $0 0 SO---Shosone 0 SO 0 $0 0 50Tw Falls City 18 $3,361,612 2 $219,367 0 $0
Twi Fal Co Un 2 513,600 0 $0 0 , $0Weis0$0 0 $0 0 $0TOAL SOUTRN 177 534,9,462 149 137,517,2 3 $40,133
Blackoot 2 $327,120 0 $0 0 $0Bingham County Un 5 $559,258 0 $0 0 $0
Idao Falls 18 $1,593,868 0 SO 0 . SOAmon8572,063 52 $3,780,026 0 $0
Bonnevle Co Un 17 $1,453,009 0 $0 2 513,000Rexur7$1,173,114 0 $0 0 $0_. 'Rigb .- - ----- 2 - ' -- - - S222378'--0-0_$0 0 ---SO
, Salmon 0 SO 0 $0 0 SOLem County Un 1 S64,4oo 0 $0 0 SOSt.Anthony 0 $0 0 SO 0 $0Fremont County Un 12 52,025,207 0 $0 0 $0
TOTAL EASlRN 72 $8,142417 52 $3,780,026 2 $13,0
Ameñca Falls 1 5190,000 0 $0 0 $0Powe Coty 0 SO 0 $0 0 SOCasia Couty 5 $64,600 0 $0 0 $0
Chubbuck 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0Motpelier0$0 0 SO 0 $0Pocaello9$981,130 0 $0 0 $0Baock Coun Un 5 51,063,117 0 $0 0 $0Preton0SO0SO0$0Frain County Un 2 $456,00Rup2$24,074 0 $0 0 SOMiidoka Coun Un 0 $0 0 SO 0 $0
r-"lod Sprgs 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
'JTAL SOUTHTERN 24 $3618,91 0 SO 0 SO
TOTAL 57 LOCATIONS 315 S5SS52 77 217 $42,102,797 9 S92,64
*Incfude enire county.Wells Faro Bank, N.A.Attachment NO.3
Case No. IPC-E-09-Q4
Idaho Power Company
Page 7 of 20
. NEW RESIDENTL UNITS 1WELVE-MONTH
CUMULTIVE 2/18
1# SIGLE SINGLE iI!\ULTI.l\LTI-t1MOBILE !\OBIL
FAMIY FAMY FAMY FAMIY HOME HOME 1..'CI OR AREA IINITS VALUATION UNI VALUATION UNI YALIJATN \ ~Bo Fer 2 $167,312 0 $0 1 595.00 '"
Co d'Al 207 $35,897,248 50'57,438,23 6 557,2Ko Coim Un 172 556,880 11 $2010,2 38 $0Cron ,1 $55,00 0 $0 0 $0Grgevile .3 .$623,92 0 $0 1 $9,0Le46$8,759,115 16 5754,836 12 $210,531
Nez Per Coun .Un 56 57,27,153 0 $0 4 $179,528Mos52$9,583,00 46 $5,059,00 4 $0
La Co Un 49 $6,22,632 0 $0 12 $29,490Orofi3$2,00 0 $0 0 SOSho Co.18 $3.151,178 0 $0 6 $49,517Sadpin26$4,631,012 68 $5,160,591 0 $0
St Maes 2 5150,000 0 $0 3 S200.
Pos Fal 163 $29,09,780 24 $2767,937 9 $0
TOAL NORTH 80 5162627,312 215 m.l!l,8 96 S666
., Bois Ci ...179 $4,597,23 .1."'53 ..$5,'7~,130 0 $0.... .Me 568 $131,216,65 210 $19,343,180 2 50Ada Co Un 348 576.663,057 25 $2075,690 0 $0Cadw364$41,499,755 0 $0 10 $5,00
Ca Co Un 124 $2,932 0 $0 27 $654,140
Nampa 184 $2,856,566 61 $3.814,819 2 SOValey Co 60 SI9,643,553 0 $0 4 $53,018Ge Co - Emet 18 $246,360 0 $0 2 $5.138Going Co 32 $5,22,77 0 $0 4 511,OOHaey22$5,325,726 0 $0 0 $0Ke8$9,2,000 36 $15,40,00 1 $3,00
Sun Val 4 $3,190,00 0 $0 0 SOBlai Co Un 27 $2,420,146 0 $0 5 $4,00Jere58$4,97,44 SO $3,50,160 9 $88,2
Mounin Home 94 $8,190,804 18 $1,038,90 3 $7,72Paet10SI,443,488 0 $0 5 589,055Sho3.$3 11,3 II 0 $0 2 $20,00 .,,....\Tw Fal City 195 $28,151,21 12 $932,324 10 $2,691 1 .
Twi Fal Co Un 68 $12,018,166 0 $0 2 $61,893 ''-
Wei 12 51,237,611 0 $0 0 $0TOTALSOUT2,S4,8 465 $51,8,793 88 51,410,457
Blaoo 40 $3.190,00 2 $175,00 0 $0
Bingh Coun Un 98 SI2,OO,915 0 $0 16 $178,5
Idaho Falls 101 $10.06,65 47 $1,831,182 0 $0
Amon 53 $5,21,584 0 $0 0 $0
Boneve Co Un 166 $16.696,27 4 $265,180 26 $741,035Reur108518,113,467 24 $1.695,29 0 $0Ri1851,486,0 $0 3 $8,172Saon6$47,796 4 S520,OO 5 $28,210
Lei Cow Un 15 $200,859 0 $0 11 $23,90St Ai .2 :: $265,29 ... 0 $0 0 $0.. . "Freont Co Un 81 $12,949,198 3 5317,178 4 $59,00
TOTAL EARN 68 5827,21 84 $4,8769 65 51,03,8
Amerca Fal 3 $6,000 0 $0 , 8 $130,00
Pow Cow Un 3 $5,000 0 $0 7 .$105,00Caa Co 30 $4,514,587 0 $0 0 $0Chubbu56. $5,833,959 4 $185,80 0 $0Moner4S590,OOO 0 $0 0 $0Poo7558,309,686 18 $1,198,634 2 $0
Bak Comty Un 52 511,254,447 0 $0 4 $554Pr12$2193,500 0 $0 0 $0Frain CoUn 29 $7,021,00 0 $0 0 $0Rup5S4,926 2 $2,070 0 $0Miok Co Un 23 $4,284.764 0 $0 12 SS1l,439So Sprg!3 $450,00 0 $0 0 SOTOTAL SOUT 29 S4 12,8 24 51,6212 33 580,9
TOTAL 57 LOTIONS 4,161 $759,205,21 78 581,464,933 28 $3021
.In11 enre cou.Wells Far Ba N.A "-',
(.~
Attachment NO.3
Case No. IPC-E-09-04
Idaho Power Company
Page 80f20
NEW RESIDENTIAL UNITS TWVE MONTHS
CUMUTIVE 2007
# SINGLE SINGLE-# MULTI- MULTI.# MOBILE MOBILE
FAMY FAMILY FAMILY FAMLY HOME HOME. ~ORARE UN VALUATION UNIT VAWATION UNITS VAWATION/; oonn Fer 8 $803,854 0 SO 1 $0Coeur d'Alene 275 $5,074,580 266 $30,219,597 4 S167,712Koote County Un 320 $100,903,734 28 $14,084,684 49 $0Craigmt1$20,000 °SO 0 $0Grgeve7$956,465 0 SO 3 $9,000Leto5759,840,030 66 56,02,482 23 $344,839Nez Per Coun Un 61 $7,20,569 0 SO 2 $66,065Moscow49S11,654,OOO .34 54,577,358 3 SO
Lat County Un 60 $8,533,526 0 SO 15 S114,967Orfio55552,000 0 SO 1 $18,000
Shosone Coty.32 $3,22,592 36 $2591,289 8 543,185Sa6pt35Sl1,548,883 18 . $234,624 1 $0St Mars 3 $374,536 0 SO 1 $5,000
Post Fal 176 $34,697,46 297 $2,337,711 10 50TO4i NORTI .1 "" lQ!9..52,6,2 ... ..... ,7.4 ,ss65.745 121 '-.....589.768
Boise City
"...
426 S88.9S4,750 658 , $77063,638 0 ! .$0Merdian805S193,984,855 40 . $4.495,72 7 $0Ada Coun Un 527 SI44,934,457 40 $2843,991 2 $77,000Caldwel586$8,770,969 306 $17,863,562 18 $697Canyon Coty Un 243 SS5.767,095 0 SO 30 $77,496Nampa287542,91.991 87 S5,315,927 3 $48,23. Valey County.116 $32,290,832 18 $2697,451 14 $200,357Emet48$7,950,317 0 $0 1 $15,600Gog Couty.51 $8,843.119 0 SO 13 $356,890
Hai1ey 15 $3,965,561 6 S834,498 0 SOKetchum13$14,332,230 22 512,22,528 0 $0
Su Valley 10 $16,912,000 21 517,400,000 0 $0Blaine Cowity Un 39 SSO,739,165 0 50 0 SOJerme98510,514,650 82 $2978,312 3 $38,750Mounta Home 135 512,62,270 104 56,670,005 1 $65,00r "-Payett 25 $2652,661 0 $0 7 $12,150Shosone0$0 0 $0 0 $0
Twi Falls Ci 258 535,021,417 22 $205,64 8 580.157
Twi Falls Co Un 102 $18,130,018 0 $0 0 $0Weisr16S1,749,396 0 50 1 SO
TOAL SOUTHSTE 3,800 5826717,753 1,406 $152,661,278 108 $1,6.030
Blacloot 36 $4,849,720 46 52,965,559 0 $0
Bingham Cowity Un'157 S18,699,901 2 5147,26 22 $153,090
Idao Fals 300 $27,94,995 197 S10,043,272 0 $0Amon22$21,957,324 54 $3,948,026 0 $0
Boevile Co Un 347 $32,819,013 8 5219,200 30 $556,150Reburg139$26,687,993 6 $946,108 0 $0-.-Rigby'-------~--.-----.--22--$2830;1:34-- ,,'- -'~~'-6. -'------$0 ..--_.-0---" ,-- -$0 ,--Salon 7 $421,400 0 $0 3 $7,500Lemhi Coty Un 38 $4,198,492 0 $0 4 $8,580
St. Anthony 8 S813,763 4 $661,216 I $10,134
Fremont County Un ;134 $22525,491 0 $0 8 S129,027
TOTAL EAST 1,410 $163,748,26 317 S18,93O,407 68 $864,481
Amerca FaIs 7 $77,000 0 $0 2 $30,000
Power County Un 10 $2956,618 0 SO 4 $32,195
Casia County 78 $19,383,397 2 S108,OOO 13 $282,370
Chubbuck 67 $7,119,396 0 $0 0 $0
Montplier 16 $254,000 0 $0 0 $0Pocatello162$18,,103 7 $6,894 0 $0
Banoc Coun Un 74 S16,2,831 0 $0 i $14,440Prcon29$5,25,200 4 $350,000 0 $0
Fra County Un 31 $5,670,500 0 $0 0 $0Ru8$1,062,109 2 $198,410 °SO
Midoka County Un 31 $4,82,535 0 SO 10 $337,002
r". So Sprgs 2 $262,820 0 $0 0 $0;oTAL SOUTST SIS 58,312,15 51,303,3 30 $6%,00
TOTAL 57 LOCATIONS 6,814 51,31',387,726 2,483 5257,%,734 327 54,894,286
.1ncludes entire coN.Attachment NO.3 WelTs Far Ban N.A.
Case No. IPC-E-09-04
Idaho Power Company
Page 9 of 20
"'..-t '.,,."
IDAHO CONSTRUCTION REpORT
Published by Wells Fargo Ban N.A.,
Economics Deparent, Salt Lae City, Uta
Contact Information:
Dr. Kelly K. Mattews
Wells Fargo Ban N.A.
299 South Ma Street 10th Floor
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
801/246-5582 (phone)
801/246-5198 (fax)
,-.. ,
\--,/0
kmatte(gellsfargo.com
For questions regardig this publication
contat Ronda Burell at
Ronda.Bureiicæwellsfargo.com
~,.'"...
Attachment NO.3
Case No. IPC-E-09-04
Idaho Power Company
Page 10 of 20
,/, ..
t
.. . - ~ -.~..: .
£idaho Construction Re ort
Volume 54, Number 12 Dr. Kelly K.Mattews :- Economist
.....
As report in. Decemer 2006, Idao's
. concton' inustr beg to slow durg the
latt par' of 2006 aI contid to weaen
thugout 2007.. The tr in Idao mirs the
decse in constrcton across the nation:. The'. .
. over declie in constrction valuation is due
.laely to the deClie in new single-famy. sts.
The tale below ilustttes Id$o's anu~
. constrction valuaon tota and grwt rates for
the pas dece:
1997
1998
'1999
2000
2001
\2002
. -.." 2003
"2004
2005
2006
2007
$1,734,624,821
1,880,698,428
2,020,462,323
2,113,294,271
2,101,630,710
2,083,156,523
2,362,960,764
. 3,017,618,475
4,049~768,241
3,884,685,~06
3,312,295,656
~3.4
8.4
7.4
4.6
-0.6
-0.9
13.4
30.2
31.6
, -4.1
-14.7
"
Â
..
..""
..
....""
hi . 2007 single-famly dwellg st were
down 40.7 perent, with tota valuation in the .sae .
category fag 38.3 peent when compaed to .
2006 figuës. .
, Although non~residential cotrction ha
been inconsstent dug the yea, valuation at
. yèar-ed was tip'6.1 pert over 2006 - $941.2
mion in 2007 verus $886.7 mion ii 2006.
Altertions and Re~,. which includes
imrovements to both reideâl and non-
redential' categories, maita heathy gai .
alost èver month in 2007 and fished solid at
32.9 perceit ove 2006 figu - $789.6 mion in '
2007 ver $594.4 mion in 2006. '
The tâble beow, provide a regiona'
comparson for' all th categories as well as
percen chage frm 2006 yea-end figues. '
Ar
Norem
'% Chaiige .
Soùthwestem
% Change Ea
. .%Change
Souteate
% Oiiige
Altions &
Reirs
$. 6~88i.5
-10.4%
$ 6li,158.7
36.0%
$ 87,532.6
53.7%
$ . 28,42.1
57.3%
$ .330,524.8
-12.3%
$ 981,063.1
-43.6%
$ 183,543.1
-2.5%
$ 86,311.8
-12.6% .
...;. .~.-;.,". ,..
BUIDING PER CONSTRUCTION SUMY
% Change
December 2007 December 2006 12-Month 2007 12:Montb 200
Total New Dwellg Units
Single-Famly
Multi-Famy
. Mobile HQmes
Total Residential Value
Single-Famly.
Multi-Family
Mobile Homes
541 -9.4 9,624
315 -49.5 6,814'
217 66.9.2,483
9 44.0 327
101,048,24 0.4 1,581,442,746
58,852,773 -26.3 l,319,387,726
42,102,797 105.8 257,960,734
92,674.~75.3 A,094,286
43.1 941,237,949
8.1 789,614;961
-31.6
-40.7
10.7.
1.6
-34.2
, -38.3
-1.8
-0.5
6.1
32.9
...
'. . few Non-Residential Value, .
Alterations & Re airs Value
Case No. IPC-E-09-04
Idaho p'ower Company
Page 11 of20
..
lDAHP CONSTRUCTION REPORT ..
DECER 2007 -l
NEW NEWDwiNGTOTALNEWNON-ADD,ALT TOT-4.TJ, ,
CI OR ARA " UNITS PEMIT REIAl,RESIDENIAL &REPAJ CONSTRue ",-J
Bonn Fer 1 1 $108,000 SO 50 5108,000
Cour d'Alene 6 20 2,078/)77 14,334,900 2,997,094 19.410,971
Kootenai County Un 22 .52 7.499,883 1,086,247 199.760 8,785,890
Cragmont °3 0 0 85,410 85.410
Grgevile 0 0 0 °28,099 28,099Leton16191,546,217 112,04 347,980 2,00,27
Nez Per County Un 2 4 19242 160,254 23,142 375,938
Moscw 7 13 513,488 35,000 248,156 796.64
Lah County Un 2 7 173,592 15,600 1,300 190,492
Orofino 0 2 0 0 10,918 10,918
Shoshone Coun 0 1 0 737,460 0 737,460
Sandpoint °6 0 9,02,688 265,440 9,290,128
St. Maes 1 3 5,000 0 1,500 6,500
Post FaJls 5 14 829,303 543,477 0 1,372,780
TOTAL NORTHERN 62 145 S12,97,002 $26,049,66 $4,208,7"$4,205,467
Boise City 150 977 538,311,063 $4,310,779 $21,188,958 $6,810,80
Merdian 44 172 8,986,299 2.823,076 2,126,101 13.935.476
Ada Coun Un 34 59 . 8,146,574 4,820,000 1,490,191 14;456,765
Cadwell 26 134 2,822,862 650,000 43,888 3,516,750
Canyon County Un 16 39 2,927,39 389,794 190;64 3,507,877
Nampa 8 36 580,775 3,775,600 667,878 5,024,253
Valley County.0 1 0 0 24,000 24.000
Emmet 2 12 202,802 °190,495 393,297
Goog County.2 9 419,148 0 307,258 726.406
Hailey 0 7 0 0 112,500 112,500
"Kethum 7 8 . 4,960,00 0 215,000 5,175,000
Sun Valey 0 6 0 35,000 556,000 591,00
Blaie Count Un 0 1 0 0 30,000 3~.ix,
Jerme 4 10 336,610 131,472 337,520 80;
Mounta Hom 12 17 893,760 °106,208 '999~
Payet 2 4 242,~67 °34,44 277,411
ShoshOne 0 °°°0 0
Twiii Falls City 20 46 3,580,979 1,365,23 623;209 5,569,441
Twi Fans Co Un 2 16 135,600 103,334 589,767 828,701
Weise 0 4 0 12,120 336,500 348.620
TOTAL SOUTTERN '.329 1,558 572,56,78 $18,416,428 529,170,561 $120,133,867
Blackfoot 2 4 5327,120 S27,OOO $40,00 $754,120
Bingh Coun Un 5 8 559,258 40,600 76,320 676,178
Idaho Falls 18 36 1,593,868 668,661 459,088 2,721,617
Amon.60 16 4,504,089 743,736 75,654 5,323,479
Bonnevle Co Un 19 54 1,466,009 745,100 190,248 2,401,357
Rexburg 7 10 1,173,114 2,913,236 235,200 4,321,550
Rigby 2 7 222,378 1,641,581 22,575 1,886,534
Salmon 0 3 0 2,650 38,800 41,450
Lehi County Un 1 9 '. 64,400 0 239,249 303,649
StAnhony 0 0 0 0 °-0
Freont Coun Un 12 34 2.025,207 502,325 399,489 2,927.021
TOTAL EASTERN 126 181 5Ù.93SM 57,284,88 $2,136,623 $21,35695
America Falls 1 6 5190,000 so 521,483 $211,483
Power County Un 0 3 °°35,282 35,282
Cassia County 5 7 64,600 °29,200 673,800
Chubbuck 0 9 0 1,595,00 267,275 1,862,275
Montplier 0-i 0 0 500 500
Pocatell . 9 26 981,130 97.200 1,718,597 2,796,927
Banck County Un 5 6 1,063,117 a 48,280 1.111,397
Preston 0 1 °30.000 0 30,00
Frain County Un 2 3 456,000 0 14,400 470,,4.Q.Q.
Ruper 2 4 28.074 0 59,198 34:
Minidoka Coun Un .0 2 0 0 7,740 ~
Soda Sprngs °°0 0 °°
TOTAL SOUTERN 24 68 $3,618,921 $1,722,200 $2,201,9 $7,53.076
TOTAL 57 LOCATIONS 541 1,952 $101,048,$53,473,183 $37,717,938 $192,29,365
Attaëhment No. 3
*Includes enti couty.Case No. IPC-E-09-t Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
Idaho p0:tr Company
Page 20f20
'::lDAHO CONSTRUCTION REPORT TWLVE MONTS
'.CUMULATIVE 2007
. NEW NEW
DWELR\G TOAL ; NEW NON-ADD,ALT TOT~.~,
çrr OR AREA .... 1J PERMITS REIDENiAl.REIDENAlI & REPS CONSTugJ(
d: 8
'--
Bonners Feny 38 $803,854 $1,279,300 $289,460 $2,372,614
Co d'Alene S45 887 584,461,889 $109,390,40 $15,534,874 5209,387,167
Kooten Coun Un 397 1,149 5114,988,4l8 527,427,858 513,635,794 5156,052,070
Crgmont ~: 1 19 $220,60 53,800 5261,72 $45,522Grvile..)0 130 51,04,465 $2,189,280 51,082,570 $4,318,315Leto'1'4 781 516,205,352 $31,096,093 $6,767,180 $54,068,625
Nez Pene Counl; Un :¡63 126 57,286,634 $498,808 $977,892 58,763,334
Moscow :86 268 516,231,358 $2,527,500 S5,802732 $24,561,590
Lata Count Un .:75 269 58,64,493 51,731,135 SI,068,140 511,447,768
Orfino ; 6 153 5570,000 51,883,741 . $993,516 S3,447,27
Shoshone Coun~76 207 55,864,066 51 1,788,593 $1,26,035 $18,918,694
Sadpoint :54 162 $13,783,507 $2,875,688 $4,564,363 $4,22,558StMaes459$379,536 $2,010,00 $$41,261 $3,20,797
Post Falls :4S3 . 933 560,035,179 $41,438,796 $9,795,964 S11,269,939
TOTAL NOR,THERN '1,2.$4 5,181 $330,524,7S1 $29,140,996 562,i.03 .565,57,250; ,\:
Boise City i;~~4 15,921 5166,018,388 $105,789,700 $419,535,241 $691,343,329
Merdian .~.:.$53 2,932 5198,480,581 $93,246,964 $41,742,702 $333,470,27
Ada Cóiity uii "$"69 1,151 . 5147,855,'48 .$50,915,3 19 $21,2,104 . $219,993,871
Caldwell 910 1,977 $102,696,928 $40,770,060 $8,643,358 $152,110,346
Canyon Coun Un '113 855 $56,494,59.1 523,628,814 $6,551,655 $86,675,060
Nampa .3:T 862 $48,306,15J 572,363,958 $30,251,513 $150,921,622
Valley Coty"r48 247 535,188,64 517,083,176 53,367,552 555,639,368Emet..:49 260 57,965,917 $411,595 53,204,603 511,582,115
Gooing Coun~:';64 151 $9,200,009 $2,718,074 $2,22,537 $14,140,620
Hailey '21 249 $4,800,059 513,544,560 $4,623,174 522,967,793
Kethum '35 156 $26,624,758 55,200,000 59,927,146 $41,751,90
Sun Valley ;31 22 '534,312,00 512,980,700 $15,356,999 $62,649,699
Blane County Un . :39 149 $50,739,165 $6,933,800 $17,655,452 $75,328,41.7~.
Jerme 'l¡83 258 S13,531,7I2 59,335,564 $2,102,917 $24,970,1!
Mountn Home..24 505 $18,997,275 . 53,945,056 .$7,355,578 $30,297,9lb'
Payet . .. :~2 94 S2.664,811 5514,969 5582,014 53,761,794
Shoshone :' 0 14 $0 520,000 . $237,178.$257,178.
Twn Falls City .2:88 864 $37,307,214 $4,033;825 $13,86,887 $99,201,926
Twin Falls Co Un '.102 258 5Ì8;130,018 $3;898,754 51,710,133 523,738,905
Weise .. ,)7 92 51,749,396 $516,181 51,004,973 $3,270,550
TOTAL SOUlERN:sJis.17,iii 5981.06,061 5511,81.069 $611,1S716 $2l04.im,84
BlackfoDt '-- ;82 116 $7,815,279 512,616,000 $2.543,68Q 522,974,959
Binam Coull Un : li8t 364 519,000,017 53,545,478 51,216,547 523,762,042
Idao Fals 497 703 537,988,26'7 $19,449,112 $11,686,351 $69,123,730
Amon '2'16 349 $2,905,350 $25,156,757 52,783,966 553,84,073
Bole Co Un ~85 879 $33,594,363 $16,685,743 53,455,696 $53,735,802~bu II:S 170 527,634,101 518,102,269 558,948,169 5104,684,539
Rigby 22 67 $2,830,134 $3,72,353 $837,274 57,393,761
SBlin . JO 55 $428,90 $268,051 $460,470 $1.157,421
. LemhFCounty Un '::'.42 179 .;$4,201;072 '$1;063,824 52.811,396 58,082:,292
StAnthony . .ft3 .21 51,485,113 $891,740 5160,367 .52,537,20
. Freont County Un l~2 287 S2,654,5l8 $4,527,339 $2,628,692 $29,810,59
TOTAL EARN i.i!t 3J90 $183,53.114 $106,032,666 587,51,608 $377108,88
Amca Falls ; ;::9 65 5757,000 $2,839,002 5582,836 $4,178,838
Power County Un ',14 58 $2,988,813 $1,390,019 $1,041,460 $5,420,292
Caia County .' 93 201 $19,773,767 516,759,626 $2,825,762 539,359,155
Chubbuck .:67 106 $7,119,396 53,696,222 $1,008,611 $11,824,229
Montpelier "16 53 $2,554,000 $0 5309,170 $2,863,170
Pocatello l;9 594 518,880,997 $27,637,453 513,729,156 $60,247,606
Baock County Un .-. ,..'75 172 516,309,271 51,924,570 52,350,434 $20,584,275Prton. .'.;33.63 $5,575,200 $4;029,500 5867,600 510,472,300
Fraklin County Un :31 82 55,670,500 5210,000 51,483,700 $7,364,2QO,
Ruper '. .:to 107 51,2G0,519 $199,200 $1,167,042 52,626,71
Mindoka County Un . :41 200 55,159,537 55,361,897 52,539,561 513,060,99s-
Soda Sprngs ._.....,2 26 5262,820 $165,729 5136,802 $565,351TOAL soUTRN :~O 1,727 $86,311.820 $64213,218 $18,042,134 $178,57.172
.; ~;~.
TOTAL 57 LOCATI9NS~:'9~&'"37,319 $1,581,442,746 5941,27,949 5789,614,961 $3,312,295,656
, :,;"Atachment No. 3
"'Includes entie county.Case No. IPC.E-09-04 Wèlls Faro Ban"- N.A.
~._--_.Idaho powf.r Company
Page 40f20
NEW RESIDENTIAL UNITS.December 2007 .
# MOBILE
, )'SINGLE SIGLE-# MULTI- . MUTI-HOME MOBILE
..; FAMILY FAMY FAMILY FAMILY DWELLING HOME
ÇrrQRARA :t UNIT VALUATON UNIT VALUATION UNITS VALUATr..
...
'$'((Bonner Ferr :,:; .1 $108,00 0 $0 0
Coed'Alene 6 $2,078,977 0 SO 0 SO
Koote County Un 22 $7,499,883 0 . $0 0 $0
Craigmnt "' ,-0 $0 0 $0 0 $0Grgee',y,0 SO 0 $0 0 $0Leon5$1,034,926 10 $488,000 1 $23,291
Nez Per Coun Un " "2 SI92,542 0 $0 0 $0
Moscw ..1 $196,00 6 $317,488 0 $0
Lata County Un
..;~
1 $162,342 0 $0 1 Sl1,20Orfi.' .:',0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Shshne County 0 SO 0 SO 0 SO
Sandpoint 0 SO 0 $0 °$0
St.Maes 0 SO 0 SO 1 $5,000
Post Fal :,:;",.4 $829,303 0 SO 1 $0
TOTAL NORTHRN. ...41 SI;101,9 16 ss488 4 539,51.'.,
"(
Boise City 26 $5,449,439 124 532,861,624 0 SO
Merdian ....35 $8,24,147 8 $732,152 1 SO
. Ada County Un 34 $8,146,574 0 $0 °$0
Caldwell 26 $2,822,862 0 $0 0 $0
Caon County Un -.16 $2,927,439 0 SO 0 SO
Nampa .'3 $310,642 3 S230,000 2 $40,13
Valey County . ,0 SO 0 SO a $0
Emett 2 $202,802 0 SO °SO
Goodig Coun 2 $419,t48 0 $0 0 SO
Haey 0 SO 0 SO °SO
Keum 1 $1,800,000 6 53,160,000 0 SO
SU Valley .,0 $0 0 SO 0 SO
Blai County Un '.f 0 $0 0 $0 0 ,~,Jerme . ,2 $311,610 2 $25,00 0 i
Mounta Home ,"8 5604,620 4 S289,14O 0 '-..
.Payett : !.2 .S242,967 0 $0 0 SO
. . Shoshne .0 SO 0 $0 0 SO
'Twin Falls City 18 S3,361,612'2 '$219,367 0 SO -
Twi FàI.1s Co Un 2 $135,600 0 $0 0 SO
Weise : .~.'0 $0 0 $0 0 SO
TOTAL SOQTmf... '!.177 $34,989,4 149 $37,517,283 3 $40,133i:'.
Blackft 2 $327,120 0 SO 0 SO
Bingh CountY Un 5 $559,258 0 $0 0 SO
Idaho Falls .:, - ~18 $1,593,868 0 $0 0 $0.- :'¡.Ammon ::'8 $724,063 52 $3,780,026 °SO
Bonneville Co Un 17 $1,453,009 0 $0 2 S13,OOO
Rexburg . .~~ .7 $l,173,1l4 0 $0 0 SO
Rigb 2 S222,378 0 $0 0 $0
Salmon 0 SO 0 $0 0 SO
LeHi County Un 'j.1 S64,400 O'$0 0 "SO
StAnthony . 'r 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Freont County Un
.:.12 $2,025,207.0 SO 0 SO.lr.'
TOTAL EASTERN .d'71 $8141,417 S1 $3,780,016 1 $13,000
Amerca Falls l :T"
1 $190,00 .0 SO 0 SO
Power County ,~;0 SO 0 $0 0 SO
Cas Count . ..'i.
S . $644,60 0 $0 0 SO" r.Chuuck .,0 SO 0 SO 0 SO
Montpelier 0 $0 0 SO 0 SO
POctello 9 $981,130 0 $0 0 SO
Bamk County Un S S1,063,117 0 SO 0 SO
Preon 0 $0 0 SO 0 $0
Frain County Un 2 $456,00 (,'-,
Ruper 2 $284,074 0 SO 0
Mindoka COunty Un 0 SO 0 SO 0 .';"'...
So Springs ..-'.t:'0 $0 a so 0 $0
TOTAL SOUTASERN.'..,":' .r 24 53,6'8,921 0 SO 0 $0
.1;...,.
TOTAL 57 LOCATIONS", ~~'.31S 558,852,773 217 $42,101,797 9 592,674
:-',Attachment NO.3*Include entire co.Case No. IPC-E-09-D4 We/lsFareJ Bank, N.A.
...~._.... ....Idaho Pow6r Company
Page 16 of 20
NEW RESIDENTIA' UNITS DECEMBER 2006
# SINGL SINGLE-#I MUTI- MULTI-# MOBILE MOBILEFAMYFAMLYFAMLYFAMY. HOME HOME
('fORAREA DWLUN VALUATION DWLUNITS VALUATION DWLUNS VALUATION" i .NO NEW RESIDEN. ....ODner Fer
Coeud'Alene 4 589,020 0 0 0 0
Koote County Un 18 5,306,594 0 0 2 0
Crgmont NO NEW RESIDENIA
Grgevlle NO NEW RESIDENTILeston5.557,490 2 343,295 2 34,560
Nez Per Co Un 1 28,539 0 0 0 0
Moscow 5 1,058,000 2 248,000 0 0
Lata County Un 4 432,685 0 0 0 0OrfioNO NE RESIDENIA
Shoshone County NO NEW RESIDEN
Sandpoint 0 0 42 13,60,00 .0 0
St..Maes NO NEW RESIDEN
PostFals 7 1,173,23 23 3,105,702 0 0
TOTAL NORTH 44.$9,145,611 69 $17,296,997 4 $34,560
Boise City 32 $R,330,495 .54 $2,526,802 0 $0
Merdian 60 15,260,750 0 0 0 0
Ada Conty Un 28 7,30t,695 0 0 3 207;000.'àùwell '-C 45 .6,91,100 '-.¡;'"0 3 :0'. ~ '2,00 . ..
Canyon County Un 17 4,459,516 0 0 3 .19,40
Nampa 41 6,594,531 5 412,957 0 0
Valley County 4 1,272,913 0 0 1 0Emet3433,177 0 0 0 0
Gooing Conty.4 287,307 0 0 1 . 30,000
Hailey NO NEW REIDEN
Ketchum NO'NW RESIDENIA
Sun Valle NO NE RESIDEN
Blaine County Un . NO NE REIDENAL..me 0 0 °.0 1 1,50
, .ounta Hoe 8 '614,645 0 0 0 0
'pilet.2 242,967 0 0 0 0
Shnshone 0 - 0 2.220,00 0 Ó
Twin :Falls City .14 1,581,97 0 0 .0 0
. 'tin Falls Co Un 6 \1,125,397 0 0 1 40,320
Weise NO NE RESIDENTIA
TOTAL SOúTHWTERN 264 $54,482,470 61 $3,159,759 13 $300,220
Blackoot 2 $315,00 0 $0 0 $0
Bingham County Un 8 829,537 0 0 2 24,500
Idao Falls 25 2,76,231 0 0 0 0
Ammon 8 849,517 0 0 0 0
. Bonrievlle Co Un .- 26-1,885,500 0 0 1 16,500
Rexburg 10 2,273,796 0 0 0 0
Rigby NO NE RESIDENTI
Salmon NO NEW RESIDEN
'1tenihiCountyUn _...--' -.----3 -..' --i.18;995... -- --"",.,.0 --..--0 ....-.._.- "-O~..:.'.....--... ,O..~. ,
StAnthony NO NE REIDENIA
Freont County Un 3 1,392,559 0 0 0 0ToTAL EA 85 .$10,041,135 0 $0 3 541,000
Amerca Falls' .NO NEW RESIDENTAL
Power County Un NO NEW RESIDENIAL
Caia County 8 503,879 0 0 0 0
Chubbuck 3 319,068 0 0 0 0
Montplier NO NEW RESIDENT
Pocatello 32 3,196,938 0 0 0 0
Bannock County Un 7 1,54,159 0 0 0 0
Preton NO NEW RESIDEN
.?rain County Un 2 220,00 0 0 0 0r )per .NO NE RESIDENAL
. _.._finidoka County Un 2 389,544 0 0 0 0
Soda SPrlgs NO NEW REIDENAL
TOTAL SOUTHEASTERN 54 56,169,588 0 50 0 SO
ITOTAL 57 LOATIONS 5375,780 I447$79,838,80 130 S20,456,756 20
Attachment NO.3
.II1Cludes entire COUiity.Case No. IPC-E-09-04 Wells Fargo BaJ N.A.
Idaho Po1ler Company
Page 17 of 20
"
NEW RESIDENTIAL UNITS .-,
TWLVE MONTHSi.
",'CUTIVE 2007
.:~S1NGLE SINGLE-# MULTI- MULTI-# MOBILE MOBILB
';, FAMY FAMLY FAMILY FAMILY HOME H~~',\
CITOBARÅ ..UNI VALUATION UNIT VAWON UNI VALUATI --Boer Fer 8 $803,854 0 SO 1 SO
Co d'Alene 275 S54,074,580 266 S30,219,597 4 S167;712
Kooteni Cowi Un 320 S100,903,734 28 SI4,084,684 49 $0Crgm ,1 5220,000 °$0 0 $0Gragee. ..7 $956,465 0 $0 3 ' 590,000.. '.',Leton ' .57 $9,84,030 66 $6,020,482 23 5344,839
Nez Perc CountUn 61 $7,220,569 0 $0 2 $66,065
Mosow 49 $11,654,000 34 $4,577,358 3 $0
La County Un 60 $8,533,526 0 $0 15 S114,967 ,
Orfmo 5 S552,000 0 SO 1 S18,OOO
Shshne County 32 $3,229,592 36 S2,591,289 8 $43,185
Sandpoin -.
35 $11,548,883 18 $2,234,624 1 50
StMares :;.3 $374,536 °$0 1 $5,000PostFal176534,697,469 297 525,337,711 10 $0
TOAL NORTBKRN 1089 $24,609;28 745 $85065,745 12i $849,768
BOise City 426 588,954,750 658 577,063,638 °$0
Merdian 80S 5193,984,855 40 S4,495,726 7 SO
AdáCoUnty Un 527 51440934,457." 40 .-'S2,843,991 2 577,000
Cadwell 586 $84,770,969 306 S17,863,562 18 S62,397
Canyon County Un 243 $55,767,095 0 $0 30 $727,496
Nampa 287 $42,91,991 87 S5,315,927 3 $48,233
Valley County.,116 $32,290,832 18 $2,697,451 14 $200,357
Emett .48 $7,950,317 °$0 1 $15,600
Gooding County.51 $8,843,119 °SO 13 S356,890
Hailey ,15 $3,965,561 6 5834,498 0 SO"
Ketchum 13 SI4,332,20 22 512,292,528 °SO
Suvaiiey 10 516,912,00 21 517,400,000 0 SO
Blaie Cowi Ùn ,
39 $50,739,165 0 50 0 ..t!..
Jerme 98 51o,14,650 82 $2,978,312 3 $38,\
Moun Home 135 SI2,262,270 104 $6,670,005 1 S65,OW''-
Payette 25 52,652,661 0 SO 7 S12,150
, Shoshone 0 $0 0 $0 0 50
Twin FaIls City 258 S35,021,417 22 S2,205,640 8 '$80,157
. Tw Fal Co '!n 102 S18,130,018 °SO °$0Wei16$1,749,396 0 SO 1 SO
TOTAL SOUIRN ,3.s 5826,717;753 1,406 5152,"1,78 108 $1,68030
Blackft "1;
36 $4,849,72 46 52,965,559 0 $0
Bingham County Un 157 $18,699,901 2 $147,026 22 $153,090
Idao Fàlls 300 527,9,995 197 $10,043,272 °50
Amon 222 $21,957,324 54 $3,948,026 0 $0
Bonnevíle Co Un ¡347 $32,819,013 8 $219,200 30 $556,150' '.:.
Rexburg 139 526,687,993 6 $946,108 °$0
Rigby '"22 $2,830,134 0 $0 0 $0Saln7$421,400 O.SO 3 S7,500
Lemhi Cowi Un 38 $4,198,492 ,- Ö"SO 4 $8,580
St. Anthony 8 5813,763 4 S661,216 1 $10,134
Fremont County Un 134 522,525,491 0 SO 8 $129,027
TOTAL EASTRN . .'.1,410 $163,748,226 317 $18,93ll07 68 $864,481
America Falls 7 5727,00 0 $0 2 $30,000
,Power County Un 10 $2,956,618,0 $0 4 $32,195
CaSia Count 78 $19,383,397 2 $108,000 13 $282,370
Chubbuck 67 $7,119,396 0 $0 °SO
Montpelier 16 $2,554,00 0 $0 0 $0
Pocatello 162 $18,234,103 7 $64,894 0 $0
Banoc County Un 74 $16,294,831 °$0 1 $14,44Pr'.'29 $5,225,200 4 S350,OOO 0 $0
Frain COunty Un 31 $5,670,500 '0 SO 0 ~-.'IRup8SI,062,109 2 S198,410 0
S337,ÒÒr"Minidoka County Un 31 $4,822,535 '0 SO 10
Soda Sprgs 2 $262,820 0 $0 0 SO
TOTAL SOUTHASTERN, ,;;;515 584,311,09 15 SI,303,304 30 566,007
; 'ii'
TOTAL 57 LOCATIONS -"6,814 SI,319,387,7ll eI t t4 82,483 $257,960,734 327 54,094,286, .~ a "iieii o.
-*Includes ertire-county.' "'."Case No. IPC-E-09-04 Wells Fargo Bank N.A.
- -Idaho po~r-company
Page 80f20
. .',' '
:';.
. . 'J
IDAHO CONSTRUCTION REpORT, ,.".
.,¡'
..~; Published by Wells Faro Ban, N .A.,
Economics Deparent, Salt Lake City, Utah
Contact Information:
'. 'i.
Dr. Kelly K. Mattews
Wells Fargo Ban N.A. .
299 SouthMai Street, ioth Floor
Salt Lake City, UT 841 1 1
801/246-5582 (phone)
801/246-5198 (fax)
. ¡
.¡-
" . ~ .,..
kmatthe(gwellsfargo.com
. :.'
'.;r
." For questions regarding this publication
, contat Ronda Burell at
Ronda. Burrell(gweUsfaio. com
: :;~.. .
Attachment NO.3
Case No. IPC-E-09-04
Idaho PowerCompany --
Page 20 of 20
.., ".
ri.\..
",,'
,r( ...'-...
,-".~/
BEFORE THE RECEIV
lOU9HAR , 1 PM 12: 48
IDAHO PUBLIC UTiliTIES COMMISStlQlJ;F
. ~ ",*' '.,,'
CASE NO. IPC-E-09-04
IDAHO POWER COMPANY
ATTACHMENT NO.4
Energy Savings and Peak Load Impacts of the
Northwest EnergyStar( Program in Idaho Climate Zones
IECC 2006 Base Standards
for
Idaho Power Company
~ECClTClPE 4056 9TH AVENUE NE SEATTLE, WA 9a 105
[phone] FAX: [phone]
David Baylon
October, 2007
Attachment No.4
Case No. IPC-E-09-04
Idaho Power Company
Page 1 of 12
1. Introduction
Beginning in 2003 the Pacific Northwest embarked on a new home program based in part
on the national EnergyStarq New Homes program. The Northwest platform was
designed to replace previously-run utilty conservation programs in new single-family
construction (SGe, etc). The measures were focused on a set of insulation, glazing and
(most importntly) equipment measures that would provide significant savings especially
to the region's more stringent code in Oregon and Washington. It was also designed to
provide the region's utilities and contractors with a single prescriptive standard that could
provide energy savings and could improve constrction stadards throughout the region.
Of course the savings from this standard vary substantially throughout the region,
partially because of the relatively colder climates in places like Boise, Idaho and partly
because building standards in Idaho and Montana were somewhat less stringent than
those in Oregon and Washington.
The program has been in operation for the past three years and has been paricularly
effective in Idaho as it provided a market differentiation that was accepted by several
builders in the Boise market. Furthermore, the inspections required by the Nortwest
EnergyStar Builder Option Packages (NWBOP) represented an increased level of quality
assurance over what had been previously practiced.
In the previous analysis, all these factors were taen into account to develop the energy
savings estimates and economic benefits of this program to both the Idaho consumers and
Idaho Power. Many of these savings were the result of significant improvements over
then-enforced standards of insulation, heating and cooling equipment and window
performance.
The situation in Idaho has changed significantly since the original analysis was
completed. Most importantly, the IEee has become a universally accepted standard
throughout the building departments and code jurisdictions in Idaho. At least in the
major markets of the Boise area it has been accepted as the guide for constrction
practice for almost all new homes. Previous energy savings analysis was based on the
IEee 2003 standard. Beginning in January 2008, revised IEee 2006 standards wil be
implemented and enforced in Idaho. This standard includes a significant increase in the
insulation and window performance requirements as well as a full implementation of the
federal equipment performance (heat pumps and air conditioning) standards that were
introduced in early 2006.
Significant features ofthe new code are largely the thermal standards for windows, walls
and floors that have come to mirror the NWBOP EnergyStaril standard. A very
significant change in the new code is the development of a revised federal standard that
applies to heat pumps and air conditioning units requiring that the units have a cooling
standard ofSEERiI13, which is essentially the same as the NWBOP standard for cooling
1
Attachment No.4
Case No. IPC-E-09-04
Idaho Power Company
Page 2 of 12
equipment. The result of these changes in stadards is that many of the energy savings
opportnities available in the old Idaho standards and practices are no longer available.
The areas that EnergySta~ now exceeds the IECC 2006 standards are significant but
they focus on quality control and quality installation, rather than on incremental
improvements in insulation and windows specifications. There are several areas where
the NWBOP specifications offer additional savings over the IECC standard:
. The most significant one of these is the use of 90+ AFUE furnaces, which result in
significant gas savings but no appreciable change in electric savings.
· For this analysis we have developed heat pump paths to be applied as upgrades in
homes that might otherwise include a heat pump operating at federal minimum
standard. The NWBOP requirement for these heat pumps is HSPF 8.5 and was
used in this analysis. However, it must be noted that the Federal minimum SEER
requirement remains the same as the requirement ofthe NWBOP.
. The NWBOP anticipates a substantial commissioning function in terms of training
and installation of heat pumps and air conditioning units. This has come about
under agreements in the region and with various providers to allow about a five
percent additional savings as a result of proper charge, proper airflow, and proper
installation. The heat pump commissioning standards also include a credit for
implementation of a control stadard that insures the effective operation of
modem systems.
. The IECC has broad guidelines for duct sealing and calculations of duct effciency.
These are largely unenforced and unenforceable and represent a similar level of
sealing to what has been used as base case for regional standards over the last
year. We use the averages associated with the regional residential baselines study
(RL W, 2006). The NWBOP standards has specific leakage targets that are
verified by the contractor and the EnergyStar rater through a quality control
process, adopted by the RTF and known by the acronym PTCS.
· Basement insulation requirements in the IECC 2006 are appreciably less stringent
than the NWBOP standards.
. The lighting and appliance standards requirements ofthe NWBOP are not
represented in the current IECC 2006.
2. Savings Analysis Methodology
2.1. Energy Savings
To evaluate the impacts of the various features of the NW EnergyStar
specifications as applied through the NWBOP, we used the SEEMiI simulation
modeL. The SEE~ model is an hourly simulation that allows for a direct
modeling of annual heating and cooling energy requirements and load shapes for
purposes of evaluating energy performance. This model was developed by
Ecotope with support from the Northwest Power and Conservation Council
(NPCC) and the Northwest Energy Effciency Allance (NEEA) to provide the
region with an accurate model for simulating the heating and cooling impacts of
improved duct sealing and improved equipment specifications. The SEEM model
2
Attachment NO.4
Case No. IPC-E-09-04
Idaho Power Company
Page 3 of 12
is capable of developing hourly load shapes for peak load conditions. Thus, the
entire analysis was conducted using the SEE~ hourly simulation model,
providing savings estimates for a series of analytical prototypes used to
characterize the savings in the range of new residences in the Idaho Power service
territory.
The analysis was conducted using three separate prototypes designed to represent
a range of construction practices and building designs:
1. The "standard" prototype, 2200 square feet, used for savings estimates of
NWBOP throughout the region.
2. A basement prototype, 2688 square feet;
3. A small home prototype, 1344 square feet.
Given the nature of Boise construction, it is likely that the use ofthe standard
prototype should remain the basis for savings calculations. However, in this
report, results for all three models are presented.
A base case for comparison was generated for each prototype using the stadards
from the IECC, which exactly mimic the required U-values or R-values for each
component of the home. The EnergyStartI model is also produced and mimics
the NWBOP specification applied to each prototype. These specifications include
duct leakage and heat pump control and equipment commissioning. In addition to
this set of analysis runs and savings estimates, an additional run was conducted
assessing the impact of an increase in insulation levels and thermal standards that
would reflect the prescriptive standard developed by the state of Idaho to qualify
for the Federal Tax Credit (FTC). These standards also include an upgrade in the
Air conditioning SEER and the heat pump HSPF and a 35% improvement in
building shell tightness leading to an reduced infiltration rate in the home. Finally
this stadard mandates that all ducts would be moved inside the heated shell of
the home substantially reducing the duct leakages and thermal losses.
2.2. Peak Load Impacts
We reviewed the Typical Meteorological Year (TMY) tapes to see to what extent
the conditions that lead to peak utility demand is represented in the standard
weather file for Boise. Careful examination showed that the July 10 day in the
TMY2 tape reaches 102°. This is not a peak temperature for the Boise area in the
most extreme years but it is consistent with the records presented by the Utility
for the typical conditions over the last decade.
The overall energy estimation was done using the entire TM tape, but the
program was asked to output detailed data from the "peak" day. The sizing of the
air conditioning unit was not done using these temperatures. The ASHR
design temperature for Boise is 96°. Using this temperature, a load was
calculated and equipment was sized roughly 25% and i 00% above this value
(depending on the run). In both cases, the sizing included an arbitrar addition of
3
Attachment NO.4
Case No. IPC-E-09-04
Idaho Power Company
Page 4 of 12
6000 BTU/h to account for duct losses. The EnergyStar home uses a simplified
sizing algorithm developed for this program. This results in a smaller equipment
size than was assumed for the current practice. The IEee 2006 does not provide
direct guidance so the sizing is based on the observed practice in the Boise
market.
The SEEM model was used to explore the impact of cooling "set-up" temperature
as part of thermostat behavior. This is a timer or clock mechanism that sets the
cooling temperature at 40 above the comfort temperature during daytime periods
when there is no occupancy. The impact of this behavior would typically save
about 10% of the energy required but since the thermostat is reset as people return
from work (about 5 PM) it has a very large effect on the peak draw of the home at
that time.
3. Prototype Analysis
Three prototypes were used in this analysis. The first one mimicked the standard
prototye and was used in previous analyses as well as for all the regional savings and
specification developments. This prototype is a one and a half story home with 2200 ft.2
of heated floor area, 16.6% glazing area, and a crawlspace.
The second prototye is a somewhat larger home with a fully conditioned basement that
is one story above grade and one story below grade and is 2688 ft.2 with a glazed area of
14% of total floor area with roughly half of the heated floor area is a below grade
concrete slab.
The third prototype is a small home of 1344 ft.2. This prototype is a ranch style home
with 13% glazed area and is modeled as a single-story building with a crawlspace.
Table 1 summarizes the characteristics of each prototype for both the IEee 2006 base
case and for the NWBOP improvement case. In addition, a proposed EnergyStaiI Plus
case (designed to meet the requirements of the Federal Tax Credit) is shown and
represents additional savings packages available to the utility. For the most part, savings
calculations are made comparing the IEee base case to the EnergyStariI NWBOP and
EnergyStariI Plus packages to generate savings based on envelope performance,
equipment and duct standards, and control and commissioning standards met under the
EnergyStarQ program.
The modeling was repeated for all prototypes with all measures and equipment, using the
Pocatello, Idaho weather data. Pocatello has a noticeably lower cooling load than Boise.
As a result, much of the savings available from cooling equipment, for both peak and
average, were not available in the Pocatello climate. A summary of both climate zones is
included in the simulation results.
4
Attachment NO.4
Case No. IPC-E-09-04
Idaho Power Company
Page 5 of 12
Table 1: Prototype Packaiie Assumptions
Component Packages
Base EStar FTC
Ceiling R38 R38 R49t
Wall R19 R21 R21*
Basement Wall R13 R21 R21*
Floor (Over Crawl)R30 R30 R30
WindowU 0.35 0.35 0.32
WindowSHGC 0.4 0.35 0.3
Ducts Normal Sealed Interior
AFUE (Gas)80 90 92
HSPF (Heat pump)7.7 8.5 9.0
SEER 13 13 14
DHW (elect EF).90 .93 .93
DHW(gas EF).58 .61 .61
Liahtina LPD (WIst)1.75 1.1 1.1
* Advanced frame wall
t Advanced frame ceilng trses
4. Simulation Results
Table 2 summarizes the simulation results for heating and cooling energy use for the two
climate zones and the three prototyes with each package including the IEee base case
and the two EnergyStariI packages. These runs were made using a gas furnace and
central air conditioner.
Table 2 Simulation Results Gas Furnace,
Boise Pocatello
Usage Usage
Package Heating Fan Cooling Heating Fan Cooling
th kWh kWh kW th kWh kWh kW
Standard (2200 sf)
Base (IECC 2006)844 482 1844 6.1 1070 604 1273 5.4
Estar (NWBOP1)667 458 1416 3.7 829 568 959 3.5
Estar+ (FTC)471 331 835 3.1 581 410 543 2.7
Basement (2688 sf)
Base (IECC 2006)686 408 1253 4.5 870 518 783 3.9
Estar (NWBOP1)591 405 974 3.7 740 509 586 3.2
Estar+ (FTC)481 337 647 2.7 603 424 370 2.3
Small (1344 sf)
Base (IECC 2006)411 246 1160 3.7 526 315 796 3.4
Estar (NWBOP1)341 233 915 2.5 429 294 616 2.3
Estar+ (FTC)245 171 626 2.1 309 216 422 1.8
The SEEM model allows the simulation to calculate both the heating and the fan energy
when describing the impact of a furnace. In the case of the gas furnace analysis, this
means that there wil be some electrical savings that are generated as the result of the
assumed operation ofthe gas furnace. For this purpose we have used the standard fan
5
Attachment NO.4
Case No. IPC-E-09-04
Idaho Power Company
Page 6 of 12
(PSC) as part ofthe analysis. As can be seen in the summary in Table 2, the fan
represents a small but perceptible impact on the overall electric energy use of the heating
and cooling system.
In Table 2, the results of all the SEEM runs associated with all the prototypes and the
individual types ofEnergyStarq¡ measures are summarized. These represent total
estimated space heating in the two climates for which the runs were performed. In all
cases, the runs assumed a nighttime thermostat set back during the heating season from
seventy degrees to sixty four degrees. The thermostat is set up from seventy four degrees
to seventy eight degrees in the daytime during the cooling season. These two
assumptions have the effect of reducing the overall energy use predicted by SEE~ and
are especially relevant to the capacity factors associated with the peak cooling loads
during a given period.
The kilowatt capacity estimates from SEE~ are based on a maximum of energy used by
the air conditioning system on the peak day of the cooling season. This invariably occurs
when the set up ofthe thermostat is implemented, in this case, at five o'clock in the
evening.
The EnergyStarq¡ cases have been simulated using a heating and cooling system sized in
accordance with the EnergyStarq¡ calculator presented to the RTF and used by the
regional EnergyStaq¡ program. It has the effect of reducing the equipment cooling
capacity by approximately one ton. As a result, most of the reduced capacity demanded
for the EnergySta~ cases is the result of smaller equipment.
There are numerous ways to look at capacity and capacity impacts. For this discussion,
we have presented what seems to be the most likely scenario for thermostat operation
during the cooling season in the Boise climate. The set-up assumed here was 4°F for 8
hours from 9 AM to 5 PM. This mirrors the winter heating setback of 6°F for 8 hours
from 10 PM to 6 AM. A larger set-up ofthe thermostat would result in an increase of
capacity requirements for the base case, but would not result in any significant increase in
the EnergyStariI cases, since the capacity of the equipment is already maximized in this
scenario. It should also be noted that while the set-up behavior has a substantial impact
on overall capacity requirements, it also results in approximately 11 % savings in energy
requirements from the overall cooling energy requirement.
Table 3 summarizes the savings implied by the SEEM simulation results and also
includes the impact ofthe lighting, domestic hot water (DHW) and appliance savings
mandated by the EnergyStarq¡ interior lighting specification and DHW specifications.
This represents an increase over the previous analysis, based on regional data for overall
lighting power density in single family residences and on the available savings
determined in the preliminary evaluation of the EnergyStarq¡ program from 2005-06.
Both these results suggest about a 10% increase in electric energy savings from the
improved l~hting package and from the improvements involved in specifying an
EnergyStar dishwasher as part of the package. The DHW improvement mandated by
6
Attachment No.4
Case No. IPC-E-09-04
Idaho Power Company
Page 7 of 12
the EnergyStar program enhances the gas savings slightly. This effect is taken to be
about 13 therms of annual savings.
T hI 3 E S .S G H dHaenerl! aVlD2S ummary,as eate omes
Boise Pocatello
Savings Savings
PackaQe kWh th kW kWh th kW
Standard (2200 sf)
Base (IECC 2006)
Estar (NWBOP1)1402 189 2.4 1299 255 1.9
Estar+ (FTC)2109 386 3.0 1874 502 2.7
Basement (2688 sf)
Base (IECC 2006)
Estar (NWBOP1)1422 108 0.8 1346 143 0.6
Estar+1817 218 1.8 1647 280 1.6
Small (1344 sf)
Base (IECC 2006)
Estar (NWBOP1)879 83 1.2 820 110 1.1
Estar+ (FTC)1229 179 1.6 1093 231 1.6
Tables 4 and 5 repeat the same analysis using the heat pump. In this case there are no
heating system splits between the therms and the kilowatt hours. So all fan energy and
all fan energy savings are subsumed in the savings estimates for the heat pump.
T hI 4 S' I f R It H Pa e imu a ion esu s.eat ump
Boise Pocatello
Usage Usage
Package Heating/Cooling Heating/Cooling
kWh kW kWh kW
Standard (2200 sf)
Base (IECC 2006)14001 6.1 18262 5.4
Estar (NWBOP1)9498 4.3 12027 4.1
Estar+5684 3.1 7043 2.7
Basement (2688 sf)
Base (IECC 2006)10885 4.5 14254 3.9
Estar (NWBOP1)7784 3.8 9881 3.2
Estar+5519 2.7 6975 2.3
Small (1344 sf)
Base (IECC 2006)7726 3.9 10287 3.5
Estar (NWBOP1)5028 3.1 6304 2.7
Estar+3186 2.1 3858 1.9
As with the gas analysis, the lighting savings are added into the analysis in the final
summary shown in table 5. In all the analyses, the heating and cooling interaction
between reduced lighting loads (and thus offsets to internal heat gains) increased heating
loads and decreased cooling loads are taken into account by the simulation. In all cases a
7
Attachment NO.4
Case No. IPC-E-09-04
Idaho Power Company
Page 8 of 12
reduction in internal gains commensurate with the reduction in lighting watts is estimated
and included in the simulation results.
T bi 5E S .S H P HaenersnaVlD!!S ummarv.eat ump omes
Boise Pocatello
Package Savings Savings
kWh kW kWh kW
Standard (2200 sf)
Base (IECC 2006)
Estar (NWBOP1)5535 1.8 7266 1.3
Estar+(FTC)9350 3.0 12251 2.7
Basement (2688 sf)
Base (IECC 2006)
Estar (NWBOP1)4322 0.7 5604 0.6
Estar+6587 1.7 8502 1.6
Small (1344 sf)
Base (IECC 2006)
Estar (NWBOP1)3400 0.8 4687 0.7
Estar+(FTC)5242 1.8 7131 1.6
In these calculations the impact ofthe small improvement in the electric DHW tank is
included in the total savings numbers. For this analysis slightly more than 80 kWh are
included as the added savings from the DHW measure.
Because of the relatively larger heating loads in Pocatello, the savings associated with the
heat pump are quite a bit larger. This is also due to the assumptions used as par ofthe
RTF base case heat pump analysis, which include the use of auxilar heat beyond that
recommended by and used in the ARI and other recommended practices.
Savings associated with this change and control strategy, as well as with the
commissioning savings used in the air conditioning estimates are included as net savings
in Table 5.
5. Measure Costs
The measure costs used for this analysis were based on RTF tables associated with
individual insulation, windows and heating system measures. The costs are based on
regional averages across the entire Pacific Northwest so their precise effect on the Boise
markets may vary somewhat. The most problematic features ofthese costs are the
effcient equipment, heat pumps and gas furnaces. These markets are somewhat
immature and the available cost information used here is a medium estimate from the
RTF table for heat pumps and a somewhat higher estimate than prices observed in the
Portland, OR market for the high efficiency furnace which is more established. There is
good evidence in several other regional markets that as these components become
accepted in the market place, the costs come down and HV AC contractors and suppliers
become more competitive in high effciency equipment.
8
Attachment NO.4
Case No. IPC-E-09-04
Idaho Power Company
Page 9 of 12
In the case of the "EStar+ (FTC)," work in the Portland and Southwest Washington
markets suggest that the incremental costs of interior ducts are comparable to the
incremental cost of duct sealing and testing protocols used in the standard EnergyStar(l
design. Nevertheless, we added an additional $250 beyond those costs to cover the
potential incremental costs involved in this sort of technique.
Table 6 summarizes the individual costs ofthis analysis. At the bottom of Table 6, the
cost for the two package used in this analysis are summed up so that direct calculations
can be made using package costs only.
T bl 6M C tA taeeasureosssumpiions
Measure Life Measure Cost
Prototype
1344 2200 2688
EStar
Basement Insulation 70 100
AFUE 90/92 18 500 700 700
Duct Sealing 25 350 450 150
EF61 Gas DHW 12 150 150 150
EF 93 Electric DHW 12 50 50 50
HP HSPF 8.5 18 600 600 600
EStar+(FTC)
Advanced Frame 70 275 450 525
Window U=.32 45 110 225 240
Interior Ducts 250 250 0
Air Sealing 300 350 350
HP HSPF 9.0, SEER 14 18 1000 1200 1000
Lighting (LPD=1.1)12 90 140 170
Aooliance (DW)12 10 10 10
Packaae Costs
EStar Gas Heat 1100 1450 1280
EStar Heat Pumo 1100 1250 1080
EStar+ Gas Heat 3035 3925 3395
EStar+ Heat Pumo 3035 3725 3195
As can be seen, the impact of the relatively small amount of ducts in the basement home
and the relatively small amount of glazing in both the basement and the small prototype
homes result in somewhat lower incremental costs than the 2200 ft? standard prototype.
Included in this analysis, but not included in the savings packages, was the review of
electric resistance heating. This heating system tye is allowed under the NWBOP 2 but
under the IEee requirements, the energy requirement would have to be equivalent to the
base case heat pump. This results in essentially the same savings as the heat pump case.
The base package would need to be adjusted until it got to be equivalent to the base heat
pump. However, in this case, additional measures would need to be applied beyond those
9
Attachment NO.4
Case No. IPC-E-09-04
Idaho Power Company
Page 10 of 12
described for the electric heat pump system. In both cases, cooling would not be
included in the final run.
6. On-Peak Impact of Thermostat Behavior
As mentioned above, there afê substantial impacts from thermostat behavior in setting the
overall capacity requirements on the peak cooling day. We believe that the set-up
assumptions that are used here are not only typical but may be conservative for
thermostat behavior in the Boise market (about 4°). Even at that, the impact of
thermostat set-up on overall capacity requirements for new home constrction is both
substantial and extremely undesirable from the perspective ofthe utilty. In this analysis,
the peak capacity requirement appears at around 5 PM as the customers return from work
and set point returns to 74°. In the case where the thermostat is maintained at a constant
temperature the peak is much reduced and the peak hour is reset to 4 PM reflecting peak
temperature and solar conditions.
Figure 1 is a graphic representation of four scenarios; two EnergyStar~ scenarios, one
with and one without a thermostat set-up and, two base case scenarios, one with and one
without a set-up.
Hourly Cooling Demand
7
6
- Base,set-up
Base, no set-up
- EStar, set-up
EStar, no set-up
5
4
~3
2
1
o
3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23
Hours
Figure 1: Peak Demand, Cooling Equipment
In the Boise climate, when outdoor temperatures are stil at or near the daily peak,
virtally all the cooling capacity would be required within the entire hour. Ifthe air
conditioning is oversized as in the base case, then the overall requirement is slightly
smaller than what would be available. In the EnergyStarQ! cases where specific
equipment sizing algorithms are used, peak requirements are somewhat reduced as the
10
Attachment NO.4
Case No. IPC-E-09-04
Idaho Power Company
Page 11 of 12
available capacity for this condition is not adequate to meet the set point in the first hour.
In both cases, however, it is the nature of the set-up of the thermostat behavior that results
in large peak. In both cases, peak reductions of thirt to fift percent would be expected
when maintaining the uniform thermostat set point throughout the entire peak day.
As can be seen, the savings associated with the EnergyStar~ case where the thermostat
set-up is not used is a third greater than the estimated savings quoted in Table 3. It
should be noted that the change in thermostat setting to a constant temperature results in a
5% increase in energy use on this peak day and an 11 % increase in cooling energy use
over the entire cooling season.
7. Conclusions
This analysis closely parallels the analysis done in 2004. For the most part, the results
are quite comparable and the changes in savings are the specific result of the changes in
the base case requirements for the Boise market. For purposes ofthese savings estimates,
the most important change in the base case is the increased effciency of the cooling
equipment required under the IECC 2006 and the federal standard. Insulation and
window standards have a smaller impact on the overall savings estimate; however, the
overall result of changes in the base case is about a thirt two percent reduction in
savings estimates.
The use ofthe Federal Tax Credit standard adds substantially to the available savings
from the NWBOP specifications. This package increases electric savings by about 70
percent. Unfortnately, the added cost of the equipment packages and the improvements
to the envelope more than double the package costs. It should be noted however that the
ta credit offered is about $2000 to the home buyer. This offset substantially
compensates for the increased package costs. This tax credit is up for renewal and at this
writing the credit remains problematic after 2008.
As with the previous analysis the peak impacts depend in large part on the occupant
thermostat behavior. The daytime set-up increases peak load by about 50% and the
impact of this behavior would be reflected throughout the Boise area. The use of careful
sizing requirements for the Air Conditioning system (as is recommended by the EStar
program reduces this peak somewhat by reducing the amount of equipment available to
meet the lower set point. This saves peak energy but also requires more than one hour to
recover from the daytime cooling set point. This may be desirable from the Utility
perspective but it does reduce the occupant comfort on these peak days where
temperature is substantially above the cooling design temperature. In Pocatello the
impact is much lower as the temperature on the peak is not only lower but the hours at or
near the peak temperature is also much less than the Boise climate.
Overall it appears that the EnergyStar program offers an adequate TRC cost/enefit ratio
when the savings from gas and peak reduction are taken into account. In the case of heat
pump the EnergyStar specification offer a substantial benefit both to the home to the
utility.
11
Attachment NO.4
Case No. IPC-E-09-04
Idaho Power Company
Page 12 of 12