20090316Tatum Direct.pdf

Rt:,.l",*- '!.~i:: j
2009'1AR /3
f. IDß ¡--,e, PH 4: 04,Jiii 17'1'1' 11./
:. t2t3
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
)
) CASE NO. IPC-E-09-05
)
)
)
)
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION
OF IDAHO POWER COMPANY FOR
AUTHORITY TO REVISE THE ENERGY
EFFICIENCY RIDER, TARIFF
SCHEDULE 9 i .
IDAHO POWER COMPANY
DIRECT TESTIMONY
OF
TIMOTHY E. TATUM
1 Q.Please state your name and business address.
2 A.My name is Timothy E. Tatum and my business
3 address is 1221 West Idaho Street, Boise, Idaho.
4 Q.By whom are you employed and in what
5 capacity?
6 A.I am employed by Idaho Power Company
7 ("Company") as a Manager of Cost of Service in the Pricing
8 and Regulatory Services Department.
9 Q.Please describe your educational background.
10 A.I received a Bachelor of Business
11 Administration degree in Economics from Boise State
12 University in 2001. In 2005, I earned a Master of Business
13 Administration degree from Boise State University. I have
14 also attended electric utility ratemaking courses including
15 "Practical Skills For The Changing Electrical Industry," a
16 course offered through New Mexico State University's Center
17 For Public Utilities; "Introduction to Rate Design and Cost
18 of Service Concepts and Techniques" presented by Electric
19 Utilities Consultants, Inc., and Edison Electric
20 Insti tute' s "Electric Rates Advanced Course."
21 Q.Please describe your work experience with
22 Idaho Power Company.
23 A.I became employed by Idaho Power Company in
24 1996 as a Customer Service Representative in the Company's
TATUM, DI 1
Idaho Power Company
1 Customer Service Center. Over the first two years I
2 handled customer phone calls and other customer-related
3 transactions. In 1999, I began working in the Customer
4 Account Management Center where I was responsible for
5 customer account maintenance in the area of billing and
6 metering.
7 In June of 2003, after seven years in customer
8 service, I began working as an Economic Analyst on the
9 Energy Efficiency Team. As an Economic Analyst, I
10 maintained proper accounting for Demand-Side Management
11 ( "DSM") expenditures, prepared and reported DSM program
12 accounting and acti vi ty to management and various external
13 stakeholders, conducted cost-benefit analyses of DSM
14 programs, and provided DSM analysis support for the
15 Company's 2004 Integrated Resource Plan ("IRP").
16 In August of 2004, I accepted a position as a
17 Pricing Analyst in Pricing and Regulatory Services. As a
18 Pricing Analyst, I provided support for the Company's
19 various regulatory activities, including tariff
20 administration, regulatory ratemaking and compliance
21 filings, and the development of various pricing strategies
22 and policies.
23 In August of 2006, I was promoted to Senior Pricing
24 Analyst. As a Senior Pricing Analyst, my responsibilities
TATUM, DI 2
Idaho Power Company
1 have expanded to include the development of complex
2 financial studies to determine revenue recovery and pricing
3 strategies, including the preparation of the Company's
4 cost-of-service studies.
5 In September of 2008, I was promoted to my current
6 position, Manager of Cost of Service. As Manager of Cost
7 of Service, I oversee the Company's cost-of-service
8 activities, such as power supply modeling, jurisdictional
9 separation studies, class cost-of-service studies, and
10 marginal cost studies.
11 Q.What is the scope of your testimony in this
12 proceeding?
13 A.My testimony will address the Company's
14 request to increase the Energy Efficiency Rider amount from
15 the current level of 2.5 percent to 4.75 percent of base
16 revenue. Furthermore, my testimony will detail the
17 Company's planned growth of investment in DSM programs and
18 other energy efficiency initiatives that provide for system
19 load reduction and energy management which reduce customer
20 costs over time.
21 BACKGROUN
22 Q.Please explain how the current Energy
23 Efficiency Rider came into being.
TATUM, DI 3
Idaho Power Company
1 A.In Order No. 28722 issued in Case Nos. IPC-
2 E-01-07 and IPC-E-01-11, the Company's 2001-2002 Power Cost
3 Adjustment ("PCA") case, the Idaho Public Utilities
4 Commission ("Commission") directed Idaho Power to develop
5 and file a comprehensive DSM program offering to provide
6 customers with opportunities to reduce electric
7 consumption. The Company complied with the Commission's
8 directive through a filing made on July 31, 2001, which the
9 Commission docketed as Case No. IPC-E-01-13. In the
10 compliance filing, the Company identified a number of
11 potential DSM programs that could be implemented to assist
12 customers in reducing their bills and proposed that the
13 expenditures for the analysis and implementation of energy
14 conservation programs be funded through a charge known as
15 the Energy Efficiency Rider ("Rider").
16 On November 21, 2001, the Commission issued Order
17 No. 28894 directing the Company to implement, on a limited
18 scope, DSM programs for the 2001-2002 winter heating season
19 and to organize the Energy Efficiency Advisory Group
20 ("EEAG") to advise the Company on the implementation of a
21 broader range of long-term DSM programs. Through Order No.
22 28894, the Commission postponed the consideration of
23 funding of DSM programs until the Company's 2002-2003 PCA
24 filing was made in the spring of 2002. In April 2002, the
TATUM, DI 4
Idaho Power Company
1 Energy Efficiency Advisory Group, comprised of members from
2 the Company's customer groups, technical experts, special
3 interest groups, Commission Staff, and Company personnel,
4 was formed. On May 13, 2002, the Commission issued Order
5 No. 29026 authorizing the implementation of the Energy
6 Efficiency Rider as a means to fund DSM programs. The
7 Rider amount for each customer class targeted a level
8 approximately equal to 0.5 percent of overall class
9 revenue.
10 On December 7, 2004, the Company requested
11 authority to increase the Rider to 1.5 percent of base
12 revenue applied uniformly to all customer classes, which
13 the Commission docketed as Case No. IPC-E-04-29. The
14 Commission issued Order No. 29784 on May 13, 2005,
15 authorizing a Rider amount of 1.5 percent of base revenue
16 with a monthly funding cap of $1.75 for residential
17 customers and a cap of $50 per meter per month for
18 irrigation customers.
19 On March 14, 2008, the Company requested authority
20 to increase the Rider to 2.5 percent of base revenue
21 applied uniformly to all customer classes, which the
22 Commission docketed as Case No. IPC-E- 08 - 03 ("2008 Rider
23 Case"). The Commission issued Order No. 30560 on May 30,
24 2008, authorizing the current Rider percentage of 2.5
TATUM, DI 5
Idaho Power Company
1 percent of base revenue applied uniformly to all customer
2 classes, which became effective on June 1, 2008.
3 Q.Does Idaho Power consider energy efficiency
4 and demand response an important part of meeting the future
5 energy needs of its customers?
6 A.Yes. Idaho Power considers energy
7 efficiency and demand response to be an important and
8 necessary part of a balanced approach to meeting the
9 electricity needs of its customers. Energy efficiency is
10 recognized by Idaho Power and its customers as providing
11 economic, operational, and environmental benefits.
12 Therefore, the pursuit of all cost-effective demand-side
13 resources is a primary obj ecti ve for Idaho Power.
14 Idaho Power continues to increase its energy and
15 demand savings through four types of programs:(1) energy
16 efficiency, (2) demand response, (3) market transformation,
17 and (4) other programs and acti vi ties. For example,
18 the energy savings for Idaho Power's energy efficiency
19 programs in 2008 was 107,484 megawatt-hours ("MWh"), a 72
20 percent increase over the 62,544 MWh energy savings in
21 2007. The 2008 energy savings from all DSM programs,
22 including market transformation savings, was 140,156 MWh or
23 16 average megawatts ("aMW"). The demand reduction for
TATU, DI 6
Idaho Power Company
1 Idaho Power's demand response programs increased by 20
2 percent from 48 MW in 2007 to 58 MW in 2008.
3 Q.The Commission authorized the current 2.5
4 percent Rider funding level less than one year ago. Why is
5 the Company seeking additional DSM funding?
6 A.Since the issuance of Order No. 30560, a
7 number of factors have contributed to the need for Rider
8 funding beyond the 2.5 percent level. First, the 2.5
9 percent Rider funding level authorized by the Commission in
10 Order No. 30560 was expected to result in an annual funding
11 shortfall of approximately $3.5 million until such amount
12 was either included for recovery in base rates or the Rider
13 was increased. To date, the Company has not made a request
14 to adjust base rates or the Rider to recover the $3.5
15 million annual funding shortfall. Second, the recently
16 approved modifications to the Irrigation Peak Rewards
17 program (Order No. 30717) are scheduled for implementation
18 in 2009 at an annual cost nearly five times the cost of the
19 Irrigation Peak Rewards program in 2008. Third, in 2009,
20 the Company plans to implement, through a third-party
21 contractor, a new demand response program targeted toward
22 commercial and industrial customers. The annual cost of
23 this new demand response program is expected to ramp to
24 approximately $3.2 million by 2011. Fourth, the Company,
TATUM, DI 7
Idaho Power Company
1 with input from the EEAG, has further enhanced or expanded
2 a number of its energy efficiency programs in an effort to
3 acquire additional cost-effective energy savings.
4 When combined, these factors have increased the
5 Company's planned DSM expenditures beyond the levels
6 presented in the 2008 Rider Case by approximately $12.7
7 million in 2009 and $14.8 million in 2010.
8 FUING SHORTFAL FROM THE 2008 RIDER CASE
9 Q.Please explain why the Commission's Order
10 No. 30560 did not authorize a Rider funding level that
11 would adequately fund the Company's planned DSM programs
12 and other energy efficiency initiatives presented in the
13 2008 Rider Case.
14 A.In the 2008 Rider Case, the Company
15 presented the 2.5 percent Rider funding level as a level
16 that would adequately fund its planned DSM programs and
17 other energy efficiency initiatives provided that
18 approximately $3.5 million of ongoing labor and
19 administrative expenses be recovered through base rates.
20 After considering Staff's Comments in the 2008 Rider Case
21 opposing this approach, the Company decided not to request
22 inclusion of these costs in its 2008 general rate case
23 (Case No.IPC-E-08-10). This resulted in a $3.5 million
TATUM, DI 8
Idaho Power Company
1 shortfall in DSM funding annually based on the proj ected
2 DSM expenditures presented in the 2008 Rider Case.
3 Q.In the 2008 Rider Case, did the Company
4 offer an alternate plan to fund the $3.5 million in ongoing
5 labor and administrative expenses in the event that the
6 Commission did not authorize recovery through base rates?
7 A.Yes. In the 2008 Rider Case, I provided
8 testimony on page 11 as follows:
9 Q. What are the Company's plans10 should the ongoing labor and11 administrative expenses not be12 included in base rates beginning13 January 1, 2009?
14 A. The Company plans to continue15 funding these costs through the16 Rider until they are included in17 base rates. Should these costs18 not be included in base rates19 beginning January 1, 2009, the20 Company will continue to monitor21 the Rider account to ensure that
22 the funding percentage adequåtely23 supports the ongoing labor and24 administrative expenses.
25 Q.Does the Company's current request for a
26 4.75 percent Rider provide a level of funding that is
27 expected to adequately offset the $3.5 million shortfall?
28 A.Yes. The 4. 75 percent funding level
29 includes funding to offset the $3.5 million annual
30 shortfall, as well as funding for and new and enhanced
31 programs.
TATUM, DI 9
Idaho Power Company
1 IRRIGATION PEA RES
2 Q.Please provide an overview of the recently
3 approved modifications to the Irrigation Peak Rewards
4 program.
5 A.On January 14, 2009, the Commission issued
6 Order No. 30717 approving the following modifications to
7 the Irrigation Peak Rewards program:(1) the addi tion of a
8 set of dispatchable interruption options that will allow
9 the Company to remotely dispatch service interruptions to
10 participating irrigation pumps, (2) a broadened
11 availability of the program that will provide the vast
12 majority of agricultural irrigation customers the
13 opportunity to participate, (3) a reduction in the number
14 of weeks over which the program is operated annually from
15 the three summer months of June through August to a six-
16 week period, June 15 through July 31, and (4) a modified
1 7 incentive structure that aligns with the new program
18 design.
19 Q.What are the projected costs of the
20 Irrigation Peak Rewards program over the next three years,
21 2009 through 2011?
22 A.The annual cost of the Irrigation Peak
23 Rewards program is estimated to be $7.2 million in 2009,
24 $7.5 million in 2010, and $9.1 million in 2011. By
TATUM, DI 10
Idaho Power Company
1 comparison, the actqal cost of the Irrigation Peak Rewards
2 program in 2008 was approximately $1.4 million.
3 Q.What impact are the approved modifications
4 expected to have on the Irrigation Peak Rewards program's
5 ability to cost-effectively reduce peak demand in the years
6 2009 through 2011?
7 A.The Irrigation Peak Rewards program is
8 expected to provide summer peak load reduction benefits of
9 approximately 144 MW in 2009, 186 MW in 2010, and 232 MW in
10 2011. By comparison, the Irrigation Peak Rewards program
11 achieved approximateiy 35 MW of load reduction in 2008.
12 Q.How does the Irrigation Peak Rewards program
13 benefit Idaho Power's customers?
14 A.Demand response programs like Irrigation
15 Peak Rewards reduce the system summer peak demand, thus
16 minimizing the need for acquiring higher-cost, supply-side
17 alternatives, such as gas turbine generation. This cost
18 savings ultimately results in lower energy rates for Idaho
19 Power's customers as compared to rates that would have been
20 in place without the program.
21 COMMRCIAL DEM RESPONSE
22 Q.Please provide an overview of the commercial
23 demand response program currently being considered by the
24 Commission in Case No. IPC-E-09-02.
TATU, ni 11
Idaho Power Company
1 A.In Case No. IPC-E-09-02, the Company
2 requested the Commission's authority to:(1) execute an
3 agreement with EnerNOC, Inc. ("EnerNOC") to provide
4 specified load reductions during specified times of the
5 year, (2) implement the program consistent with the terms
6 of the agreement, and (3) recover program expenses through
7 the PCA or the Rider. Under the agreement, EnerNOC is
8 responsible for developing and implementing all marketing
9 plans, securing all participants, installing and
10 maintaining all equipment downstream of the meter used to
11 reduce demand, tracking participant participation, and
12 reporting results to Idaho Power. The agreement will allow
13 the Company to initiate demand response events by notifying
14 EnerNOC, who will, in turn, supply the requested load
15 reduction on Idaho Power's electric system.
16 Q.What are the load reduction targets for the
17 commercial demand response program operated by EnerNOC in
18 the years 2009 through 2011?
19 A.According to the Company's agreement with
20 EnerNOC, the commercial demand response program will
21 provide load reduction benefits of 2 MW in 2009, 30 MW in
22 2010, and 40 MW in 2011.
TATUM, ni 12
Idaho Power Company
1 Q.What are the proj ected costs of the proposed
2 commercial demand response program over the next three
3 years, 2009 through 2011?
4 A.The annual cost of the commercial demand
5 response program is estimated to be approximately $600,000
6 in 2009, $2.4 million in 2010, and $3.2 million in 2011.
7 Q.How will Idaho Power's customers benefit
8 from the implementation of the commercial demand response
9 program?
10 A.Like the Irrigation Peak Rewards program,
11 the commercial demand response program will reduce the
12 system summer peak demand, thus minimizing the need for
13 acquiring higher-cost, supply-side alternatives. The cost
14 savings will then be reflected in the future energy rates
15 that Idaho Power's customers pay. In addition, those
16 customers who participate in the program will receive
17 energy management tools that will help them use energy in a
18 more efficient manner.
19 EXISTING AN EXPANED DSM PROGRAS
20 Q.How has Idaho Power continued to enhance or
21 expand the energy efficiency programs it operates?
22 A.In 2008, Idaho Power's energy efficiency and
23 demand response programs continued to increase in number
24 and customer participation. Idaho Power offered 13 energy
TATUM, ni 13
Idaho Power Company
1 efficiency programs, two demand response programs, and
2 added three new programs:(1) the Home Products program,
3 (2) the Home Weatherization pilot program, and (3) the
4 Attic Insulation pilot program.
5 Q.Please provide a listing of the DSM programs
6 and energy efficiency initiatives that were funded with the
7 Rider during 2008.
8 A.Table 1 lists the name, eligible customer
9 sector, and operational type for each DSM program and
10 energy efficiency initiative that was funded with the Rider
11 during 2008.
Table 1: 2008 DSM Programs, Sectors, and Operational Tye
Program Sector Opera tional Tye
A/C Cool Credit Residential Demand Response
Attic Insulation EnergyPilotResidentialEfficiency
Building EnergyEfficiencyProgramCommercial/ Industrial Efficiency
Commercial
Education Other ProgramsInitiativeCommercial/Industrial and Activities
Energy
Custom Efficiency Commerc ial / Indus trial Efficiency
Energy
Easy Upgrades Commerc ial / Indus trial Efficiency
Energy Efficient Energy
Lighting Residential Efficiency
Energy
Energy House Calls Residential Efficiency
TATUM, ni 14
Idaho Power Company
Table 1 (continued)
Program Sector Opera tional Tye
(!ENERGY STAR Homes Energy
Northwest Residential Efficiency
Heating and Energy
Cooling Efficiency Residential Efficiency
Energy
Holiday Lighting Commercial/Industrial Efficiency
Energy
Home Products Residential Efficiency
Home
Weatherization EnergyPilotResidentialEfficiency
Irrigation EnergyEfficiencyRewardsIrrigationEfficiency
Irrigation Peak
Rewards Irrigation Demand Response
Local Energy Other Programs
Efficiency Funds All and Acti vi ties
Northwest Energy
Efficiency Market
Alliance All Transformation
Energy
Rebate Advantage Residential Efficiency
Residential
Education Other ProgramsInitiativeResidentialand Activities
1 Q.Was each of the energy efficiency and demand
2 response programs listed in Table 1 determined to be cost
3 effective in 2008?
4 A.Wi th the exception of two new programs, each
5 of the DSM programs operated in 2008 was determined to be
6 cost-effecti ve by Idaho Power. The Heating and Cooling
TATUM, ni 15
Idaho Power Company
1 Efficiency and Home Products programs are new programs that
2 were not shown to be cost-effective to date. However,
3 these two programs have been in the developmental stages of
4 implementation and are expected to become cost effective by
5 the end of 2009. Exhibit No.1, the 2008 DSM Annual Report
6 dated March 13, 2009, lists in Appendix 4 benefit-to-cost
7 ratios for each energy efficiency and demand response
8 program listed in Table 1. The Company determined the
9 cost-effectiveness of each program according to the
10 methodology described on pages 11 and 12 of Exhibit No.1.
11 Q.Did the EEAG provide input and guidance into
12 the implementation and ongoing marketing strategies for
13 each of the DSM programs and energy efficiency initiatives
14 operated in 2008?
15 A.Yes. The EEAG continues to be an integral
16 part of the development and monitoring of the Company's DSM
17 programs. In recent years, the EEAG has been particularly
18 effective in helping to shape the marketing strategies for
19 both new and existing DSM programs.
20 FUING PROPOSAL
21 Q.What amount of annual funding is required to
22 support the Company's DSM programs and other energy
23 efficiency initiatives during 2009 through 2011?
TATU, DI 16
Idaho Power Company
1 A.Exhibit No.2, Table I details the expected
2 expenditures for DSM programs by customer class through
3 2011. As can be seen from this exhibit, the expected
4 program expenditures for 2009 through 2011 are $29,668,429;
5 $29,524,131; and $31,804,744, respectively. The total DSM
6 program cost for the three-year period is approximately $91
7 million.
8 Q.Do you believe the current Rider amount is
9 adequate to fund the Company's planned DSM expenditures?
10 A.No. The current Rider collects
11 approximately $17.4 million a year to fund Idaho Power's
12 DSM programs and other energy efficiency initiatives. At
13 the end of 2008, the Rider balancing account had a deficit
14 balance of approximately $3.9 million. At the current 2.5
15 percent funding level, the Rider balancing account is
16 expected to accumulate a deficit of nearly $5.6 million by
17 June 1, 2009. Based on the Company's expected DSM program
18 expenditures for 2009, the deficit balance is expected to
19 grow to an estimated $16.2 million by year-end 2009 at the
20 current 2.5 percent funding level.
21 Q.What is your proposal for increasing the
22 Rider in order to support the expected program
23 expendi t ure s?
TATUM, DI 17
Idaho Power Company
1 A.I propose the Rider be increased from the
2 current 2.5 percent level to 4. 75 percent beginning June 1,
3 2009. Exhibit No.2, Table II, details the expected annual
4 program costs, the anticipated Rider funding at the
5 recommended 4.75 percent level, and the Rider fund balance
6 remaining at the end of each year, 2009 through 2011, at
7 the proposed funding level.
8 Q.Has Idaho Power deviated from its previously
9 established DSM program targets as a result of the current
10 funding deficit?
11 A.No. The Company has continued to pursue all
12 cost-effective DSM in 2008 and into 2009. DSM is an
13 important part of Idaho Power's future resource acquisition
14 strategy. However, it is the Company's desire to align as
15 closely as possible the collection of Rider funds with the
16 ongoing DSM-related expenditures.
17 Q.Have you prepared an exhibit that details
18 the funding to be collected from each customer class under
19 your proposal?
20 A.Yes. Exhibit No. 3 details the annual
21 funding to be provided by each customer class. As can be
22 seen from Exhibit No.3, should the 4.75 percent Rider
23 become effective on June 1, 2009, the annual funding is
TATUM, DI 18
Idaho Power Company
1 estimated to be $27,308,520 in 2009 and $33,209,223 in 2010
2 and 2011.
3 Q.Do you believe the proposed 4.75 percent
4 Rider level will adequately fund the Company's planned DSM
5 expendi tures?
6 A.Based on the Company's current proj ections,
7 yes. However, there are a number of factors that can
8 affect the adequacy of the proposed Rider funding into the
9 future. First, the Company will file Integrated Resource
10 Plans in 2009 and 2011. To the extent that additional DSM
11 programs are selected as part of the preferred resource
12 portfolios, an additional adj ustment to the Rider may be
13 needed. Second, due to the nature of DSM programs and the
14 inherent risk that customers either will not choose to
15 participate at the target level or will choose to
16 participate at a level greater than the target, the
17 estimated program costs used to determine the required
18 funding level may be overstated or understated. And third,
19 Idaho Power is continually exploring potential resource
20 opportunities that may arise through changes in economic
21 considerations, advances in technology, or other new
22 innovations. Given the uncertainty surrounding these
23 issues, the Company plans to monitor the adequacy of Rider
24 funds on a periodic basis. When an adjustment to the
TATUM, DI 19
Idaho Power Company
1 funding level needs to be made, the Company will file a
2 request with the Commission to balance the account.
3 Q.Does this conclude your testimony?
4 A.Yes, it does.
TATU, DI 20
Idaho Power Company
BEFORE THE
IDAHO PUBLIC UTiliTIES COMMISSION
CASE NO. IPC-E-09-05
IDAHO POWER COMPANY
TATUM, 01 .
TESTIMONY
EXHIBIT NO.1
o
An IDACORP Compariv Exhibit NO.1Case No. IPC-E-09-05
T. Tatum, IPC
Page 1 of 104
Idaho Power Company Table of Contents
OF CONTENTS
Table of Contents..................................................... .................................................................................... i
List of Tables ............................................................................................................................................. iii
List of Figues..................................................................... ....................................................................... iii
Glossary of Acronyms................................. ............................................ ................... ......... ............ .......... iv
Executive Summar ..... ............ ....................... .............................. ......... ....................... ....... ................ ........1
Introduction............. ....................... ......... .................. ........ ...... ............. ................. .................... ............ .......3
DSM Program Portfolio Strcture .........................................................................................................5
Program Performance .............. ........ ......................... ........................... ........ ............... ......................... ..6
Regulatory Initiatives................................................................................................................... ..........8
DSM Expenditures and Funding............................................................................................................8
Future Plans.............. ......... ................ ................................................. ......... ................. .................. .......9
Custoiner Satisfaction...... ................................... .................... .............. .................. ...............................9
Cost-Effectiveness ...............................................................................................................................11
DSM Anual Report Structure.............................................................................................................12
Residential Sector Overview..................................................................................................................... .13
Description................................................................................................................... ....................... .13
Prograins ............................................................................................................................................. .13
AlC Cool Credit .............................................................................................................................15
Attic Insulation Pilot..................................................................................................................... .18
Energy Efficient Lighting............................................................................................................. .19
Energy House Calls....................................................................................................................... .21
ENERGY STARil Homes Northwest............................................................................................23
Heating & Cooling Efficiency Program ....................................................... .......... ............. ..........26
Horne Products Program................................................................................................................29
Horne Weatherization Pi1ot.................................:..........................................................................31
Oregon Residential Weatherization ...............................................................................................33
Rebate Advantage ..........................................................................................................................35
Weatherization Assistance for Qualified Customers.....................................................................3 7
Commercial/Industrial Sector Overview.......... ........................................ ................................................ .39
Description.......... ............. ........ ......... .......................... ................... ................ .......................... ......... ...39
Programs ..............................................................................................................................................39
Building Efficiency....... ............ ................. ................................... ............. ... ... ................ ..............41
Demand-Side Management Annual Report 2008
Exhibit NO.1
Case No. IPC-E-09-05
T. Tatum, IPC
Page 3 of 104
Page i
Table of Contents Idaho Power Company
Custom Efficiency..... ............. ............... ....... .............. ............. .................. ......... ....................... ... .43
Easy Upgrades ...... ....................... ... .................. ..................... ........ .................. ............... .............. .46
Holiday Lighting Program ....... .............. ............ ......... ................... ....... ......... ................... ............ .49
Oregon Commercial Audits ...........................................................................................................51
Irrgation Sector Overview ........................................................................................................................53
Description.......... ..... ................. ... ................ ...................... .................. .......... ................. ...... ......... ......53
Programs ..............................................................................................................................................53
Irrgation Peak Rewards.................................................................................................................54
Irrigation Efficiency Rewards........................................................................................................56
Market Transformation ................ .............................. .... ............................. ...... ........... ....... .......... .......... ...59
Northwest Energy Effciency Allance (NEEA)..................................................................................59
NEEA Activities ............................................................................................................................59
NEEA Funding...............................................................................................................................61
Energy Efficiency Advisory Group (EEAG) .............................................................................................63
EEAG Program Recommendations.. ......... .......... ........... ............... ..................... ....... ....... ............ .......63
Residential Programs........ ....................... ..... ....... ........... ....... .... ............... ... .............. ................. .........63
Commercial and Industral Programs.............. .............. ............. ................... ........... ................ ...........65
Irrigation Programs ..............................................................................................................................67
Additional Topics Covered ..................................................................................................................67
Other Programs and Activities...................................................................................................................69
Residential Energy Efficiency Education Initiative... ................................... ...................... ............. ....69
Commercial Education Initiative.. ................ ........... .................. ............. ........... ..................... .............70
Local Energy Efficiency Funds (LEEF) .... ............ .......... ................... .............. .................... ...............70
Regulatory Initiatives.................................................................................................................... .............71
Fixed-Cost Adjustment Pi1ot......... ................. ............................... .............................. ....... ...... ............71
Performance-Based DSM Incentive Pilot............................................................................................71
Enhanced Commitment. ...... ............... ............... ........... ........... ............... ........... ... ..... ........ ..... ....... .............73
Building Code Improvement Activity ................................................................................................. 74
Pursuit of Appliance Code Standards ..................................................................................................74
Continued Expansion ofDSM Programs Beyond Peak-Shaving/Load-Shifting Programs ................74
Third-Part Verification.......................................................................................................................75
Promotion of Energy Effciency through Electricity Rate Design ......................................................76
Idaho Power's Internal Energy Effciency Commitment....................................................................76
Appendices.................................................................................................................... .................. ...........79
Page íi
Exhibit NO.1
Case No. IPC-E-09-05
T. Tatum, ¡PC
Paije4 of 104
Demand-Side Management Annual Report 2008
Idaho Power Company Table of Contents
Appendix 1. Idaho Rider, Oregon Rider, BPA, and NEEA Funding Ba1ances..................................80
Appendix 2. 2008 DSM Expenses by Funding Source (Dollars) .......................................................81
Appendix 3. 2008 DSM Program Activity .........................................................................................82
Appendix 4. DSM Expense and Performance ....................................................................................85
Table 1.
Table 2.
Table 3.
Table 4.
Table 5.
Table 6.
Table 7.
Table 8.
Figure 1.
Figure 2.
Figure 3.
2008 DSM Programs, Sectors, and Operational Type.........................................................6
2008 Program Sector Sumary and Energy Usage.............................................................8
2008 Funding Source and Energy Impact...... .............. .................................... .... ............ ...9
2008 Residential Program Summary...... ....... ...... .................... .................. ............ ............13
Energy Effcient Lighting Energy Savings .................. ........................................ ...... ...... ..20
2008 Commercial/Industrial Program Sumary ...............................................................39
Custom Effciency Anual Energy Savings by Measure...................................................44
2008 Irrgation Program Summary ....................................................................................53
DSM Incremental Expense History 2002-2008 (Milions of dollars).................................
DSM Incremental Energy Savings 2002-2008 (Gigawatt-hour (GWh)) ............................4
Percent of Customers Whose Needs are Met or Exceeded by Idaho
Power's Conservation Efforts.... ..................... .................... ..................... ....... ............... ....1 0
Exhibit NO.1
Case No. ¡PC-E-09-05
T. Tatum, ¡PC
Page 5 of 104
Page iiiDemand-Side Management Annual Report 2008
Glossary of Acronyms Idaho Power Company
GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS
aMW-Average Megawatt
akW-Average Kilowatt
AlC-Air Conditioning
ACEEE-Arerican Council for an Energy-Effcient Economy
ASHRAE-American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers
AMI-Advanced Metering Infrastrctue
B/C-Benefit Cost
BCA----Building Contractors Association
BEEP-Building Owners and Managers Association's Energy Effciency Prograin
BETC-Business Energy Tax Credit
BLC-Basic Load Capacity
BOC-Boise Operations Center
BOMA--Building Owners and Managers Association
BP A--Bonneville Power Administration
BSU-Boise State University
CAC-Central Air Conditioning/Conditioners
CAP-Community Action Partership
CAP AI-Community Action Parnership Association of Idaho, Inc.
CCOA-Canyon County Organzation on Aging and Community Services
CCNG-Community Connection of Northeast Oregon, Inc.
CEE-Consortium for Energy Effciency Inc.
CFL-Compact Fluorescent Lighting
CHQ-Corporate Headquarers (Idaho Power)
CR-Customer Representative
CSR-Customer Service Representatives
DEI-Distribution Effciency Initiative
DOE-U.S. Departent of Energy
DSM-Demand Side Management
EEAG-Energy Effciency Advisory Group
El-Ada--El-Ada Community Action Partership
EEBA-Energy and Environmental Building Association
EICAP-Eastern Idaho Communty Action Partnership
ETO-Energy Trust of Oregon
Page ív
Exhibit NO.1
Case No. IPC-E-09-05
T. Tatum, ¡PC
Page 6 of 104Demand-Side Management Annual Report 2008
Idaho Power Company Glossary of Acronyms
FCA-Fixed-Cost Adjustment
GWh-Gigawatt-hour
H&CE-Heating and Cooling Efficiency Program
HCSCS-Harney County Senior and Community Services Center
HMCAA-Harney-Malheur Community Action Agency
HV AC-Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning
HVR-Home Voltage Regulator
IDL-Integrated Design Lab
IEA-Industrial Effciency Alliance
IECC-International Energy Conservation Code
IESBP-Idaho ENERGY STARil Builders Partership
IPUC-Idaho Public Utilities Commission
IRP-Integrated Resource Plan
kvar-Kilovolt ampere reactive
kW-----Kilowatt
kWh-Ki1owatt-hour
LDL-Lighting Design Lab
LED-Light-Emitting Diode
LEED-Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design
LEEF-Loca1 Energy Efficiency Funds
LIHEAP-Low Income Horne Energy Assistance Programs
MCOA-Ma1heur Council on Aging
MHAFB-Mountain Horne Air Force Base
MW-Megawatt
MWh-Megawatt-hour
NEEM----Northwest Energy Efficient Manufactured Housing Program
NEEA-Northwest Energy Effciency Alliance
NWCC-Northwest Power and Conservation Council
OER-Office of Energy Resources (formerly the Idaho Energy Division)
ODOE-Oregon Department of Energy
OPUC-Public Utility Coinssion of Oregon
PECI--Portland Energy Conservation, Inc.
PLC-Power Line Carrer
PTCS-Performance Tested Comfort System
Demand-Side Management Annual Report 2008
Exhibit NO.1
Case No. ¡PC-E-09-05
T. Tatum, IPC
Paile 7 of 104
Page v
Glossary of Acronyms Idaho Power Company
RFP-Request for Proposal
RTF-Regional Technical Forum
Rider-Idaho Energy Efficiency Rider and Oregon Energy Effciency Rider
SCCAP-South Central Communty Action Parnership
SEER-Seasonal Energy Effciency Ratio
SEICAA-Southeastern Idaho Community Action Agency
SIR-Savings Investment Ratio
TAG-Technical Assessment Guide
TRC-----Total Resource Cost
UC-Utility Cost
USB-Utility Sounding Board
W AQC- Weatherization Assistance for Qualified Customers
Page vi
Exhibit NO.1
Case No. ¡PC-E-09-05
T. Tatum, IPC
Page 8 of 104Demand-Side Management Annual Report 2008
Idaho Power Company Executive Summary
Idaho Power's Demand-Side Management (DSM) 2008 Annual Report provides a review of its DSM
activities and finances throughout 2008, expresses its future plans for DSM activities, and satisfies
the reporting requirements set out in the Idaho Public Utilities Commission's (IPUC) Order No. 29419
and the Public Utility Commission of Oregon's (OPUC) Order No. 89-507.
Idaho Power considers energy effciency and demand response to be an important and necessary part of
a balanced approach to meeting the electricity needs of its customers. Energy effciency is recognzed by
Idaho Power and its customers as providing economic, operational, and environmental benefits.
Therefore, the pursuit of all cost-effective demand-side resources is a priary objective for Idaho
Power. Idaho Power accomplishes this objective with input and consultation with its Energy Effciency
Advisory Group (EEAG).
Idaho Power achieves energy and demand savings through four types of programs, 1) Energy Effciency,
2) Demand Response, 3) Market Transformation, and 4) Other Programs and Activities. Idaho Power's
annual energy savings from 2002 though 2008 increased more than eight-fold. This increase was the
result of customers' participation in Idaho Power's energy efficiency and demand response programs.
In 2008, these effciency efforts saved 140,156 megawatt-hours (MW) of electricity, or 16 average
megawatts (aMW), enough energy to serve about 11,000 average homes for one year. The 2008 energy
savings was a 54% increase over the 91,145 MW energy savings in 2007.
The demand reduction for Idaho Power's demand response programs increased by 20% from 48 MW in
2007 to 58 MW in 2008. By year-end 2008, participation in the AlC Cool Credit program increased by
72%. Total DSM expenses were slightly over $21 milion in 2008, which is a 35% increase over 2007
expenditures of $15.7 millon.
In 2008, Idaho Power's energy effciency and demand response programs continue to increase in
number and customer participation. Idaho Power offered 16 energy effciency programs, two demand
response programs, and added three new programs, the Horne Products program, the Horne
Weatherization pilot, and the Attic Insulation pilot. Additional significant energy savings continue to be
realized through market transformation parership activities with the Northwest Energy Effciency
Allance (NEEA).
Idaho Power was successful in providing customers with accurate and timely information to assist them
in making wise energy choices and participating in energy efficiency programs. In 2008, the results of
Idaho Power's quarterly customer satisfaction survey showed steady improvement over recent years,
as the percent of customers who have a positive perception ofIdaho Power's energy effciency efforts
has continued to rise.
The American Council for an Energy-Effcient Economy (ACEEE) anually publishes a scorecard that
ranks individual states in terms of commitment to energy effciency. In 2008, the ACEEE identified
Idaho as the "most improved" state in the nation, having moved up 12 spots, compared to the 2007
scorecard. The following anual report provides detailed information on activities and programs
resulting from Idaho Power's support ofDSM initiatives.
Demand-Side Management Annual Report 2008
Exhibit NO.1
Case No. IPC-E-09-05
T. Tatum, ¡PC
Page 9 of 104
Page 1
Executive Summary Idaho Power Company
This page left intentionally blank.
Page 2
Exhibit NO.1
Case No. IPC-E-09-05
T. Tatum, IPC
Page 10 of 104Demand-Side Management Annual Report 2008
Idaho Power Company Introduction
INTRODUCTION
Idaho Power's Demand-Side Management (DSM) 2008 Annual Report provides a review of the financial
and operational performance of Idaho Power's DSM activities and initiatives for the 2008 calendar year.
These programs provide a wide range of opportities for all customer classes to balance their energy
needs and reduce their energy consumption.
Idaho Power considers energy effciency to be an important and necessary part of a balanced approach
to meeting the growing demand for electricity. Consistent with this view, energy efficiency is one of
the cornerstones supporting Idaho Power's resource acquisition strategy. Energy effciency is recognized
by Idaho Power and its customers as providing economic, operational, and environmental benefits.
Therefore, the pursuit of all cost-effective demand-side resources is a priary objective for Idaho
Power.
This DSM Annual Report is produced to convey Idaho Power's DSM activities and finances thoughout
2008, to express Idaho Power's future plans for DSM activities, and to conform to the IPUC Order
No. 29419 and the OPUC Order No. 89-507.
Durng 2008, Idaho Power continued to expand the programs that began with the 2004 Integrated
Resource Plan (IRP). Idaho Power's 2006 IRP included the addition of three new DSM programs aiid
the expansion of one program. In addition to the DSM programs identified in the IRP, Idaho Power
continued to offer other energy effciency programs that began prior to the 2004 IRP. Also in 2008,
Idaho Power continued to use its field staff in building customer awareness ot: and participation in,
energy effciency, demand response, and educational programs.
In 2008, the energy savings trom Idaho Power's DSM activities increased by 54%, and the expenditures
for DSM-re1ated activities increased by 35%, compared to 2007. This increase in spending included
increased participation in programs and the development of new programs that wil result in futue
savings. DSM activities throughout 2008 were focused predominantly on increasing program
participation, customer education, and the plannng and implementation of new programs.
Idaho Power's two main objectives for DSM programs are to acquire all cost-effective demand-side
resources in order to meet the electrical system's energy and demand needs and to provide an Idaho
Power customers with programs and information to help them manage their energy usage. Idaho Power
achieves these objectives through the development and implementation of programs with specific
energy, economic, and customer satisfaction objectives. When possible, Idaho Power implements
identical programs in its Idaho and Oregon service areas.
Figures 1 and 2 show the historical growth in expenditures and resource acquisition from 2002 to
the present.
Demand-Side Management Annual Report 2008
Exhibit NO.1
Case No. IPC-E-09-05
T. Tatum, IPC
Page 11 of 104
Page 3
Introduction Idaho Power Company
Figure 1. DSM Incremental Expense History 2002-2008 (Milions of dollars)
$25.00
$20.00-I/i:
.2
l $15.00
¡i:
i $10.00w
::(/c
$5.00
$0.00
$21.19
2002 2007 20082003 2004 2005 2006
Figure 2. DSM Incremental Energy Savings 2002-2008 (Gigawatt-hour (GWhJ)
160.00
140.00
:ê
~ 120.00
I/
~ 100.00
.S:ca(/ 80.00
~
Q)
iñ 60.00
40.00
20.00
140.16
0.00
2002 2007 200820032004 2005 2006
Idaho Power relies on input from the Energy Effciency Advisory Group (EEAG) to provide customer
and public interest review ofDSM programs and expenses. In addition to the EEAG, Idaho Power
solicits furer customer input through stakeholder groups in the residential, commercial, industral,
and irrigation customer sectors. Idaho Power also has enhanced relationships with trade alles,Exhibit NO.1
Case No. IPC-E-09-05
T. Tatum, ¡PC
Page 12 of 104Demand-Side Management Annual Report 2008Page 4
Idaho Power Company Introduction
trade organizations, and regional groups committed to increasing the use of energy efficiency programs
and measures to reduce electrcity load.
During 2008, Idaho Power continued its contractual participation in, and funding of, the Northwest
Energy Effciency Alliance (NEEA). NEEA's efforts in the northwest impact Idaho Power's customers
by providing regional market transformation.
10 Structure
The programs within the DSM pOltfo1io are offered to four major customer sectors: residential,
commercial, industral, and irrigation. Beginnng in 2007, the commercial and industrial energy
efficiency programs were made available to customers in either sector, expanding the availability of
these programs. Because of this change, the sector is now often referred to as the commerciai/industrial
sector. Idaho Power achieved energy and demand savings through four types of programs.
These programs include Demand Response, Energy Efficiency, Market Transformation, and Other
Programs and Activities. A brief description of each of these operational categories follows.
Programs
Demand response programs are designed to reduce participant electricity loads at specific times of
the day and year when electricity is normally in short supply. The need for these programs continues to
increase. Idaho Power set a new system peak of3,214 megawatts (MW) on Monday, June 30, 2008,
at 3:00 p.m. The goal of demand response programs within Idaho Power's DSM portfolio is to reduce
the system summer peak demand, thus minimizing the need for acquiring higher-cost, supply-side
alternatives, such as gas turbine generation. Demand reduction through demand response programs is
usually achieved through the use of load control devices installed on customer equipment. The measure
of program performaiice is the number of megawatts (MW) of reduced demand for electrcity during
peak periods. In 2008, Idaho Power offered two demand response programs, one for residential
customers and one for irrgation customers.
Energy et1iciency programs focus on reducing energy usage through identifying buildings, equipment,
or components where energy-efficient design, replacement, or repair can yield significant energy
savings. These programs are applicable to all customer sectors. Typical project measures range from
entire building constrction to simple light bulb replacement. Savings from these programs are measured
in terms of reduced kilowatt-hour (kWh) usage, or megawatt-hour (MW) usage for larger projects.
These programs usually supply energy benefits throughout the year. Idaho Power's energy effciency
offerings include programs in residential and commercial new construction, residential and commercial
retrofit applications, and irgation and industrial systems improvement or replacement.
Market transformation is a method of achieving energy savings through engaging and influencing large
national and regional organzations. These organizations are in a position to impact the design of energy
usage in products, services, and methods that affect electrical power consumption. Idaho Power
primarily achieves market transformation savings through its participation in NEEA. Idaho Power also
Demand-Side Management Annual Report 2008
Exhibit NO.1
Case No. ¡PC-E-09-05
T. Tatum, ¡PC
Page 13 of 104
Page 5
Introduction Idaho Power Company
supports market transformation accomplished by appliance or building code modifications or
enforcement.
Other Activities
Other Programs and Activities represent a range of small projects that are tyically research,
development, and education oriented. This category includes the Local Energy Effciency Funds
(LEEF), the Residential Energy Effciency Education initiative, and the Commercial Educational
Initiative. These programs enable Idaho Power to offer support for projects and educational
opportnities not normally covered under existing programs.
Table 1 provides a summary of the DSM programs and their respective sectors, as well as operational
category and the state in which each was available in 2008.
Table 1.2008 DSM Programs, Sectors, and Operational Type
Program Sector Operational Type State
AlC Cool Credit Residential Demand Response 10
Attic Insulation Pilot Residential Energy Effciency 10
Building Efficiency Commercial/Industrial Energy Efficiency ID/OR
Commercial Education Initiative Commercial/Industrial Other Programs and Activities ID/OR
Custom Efficiency Commercial/Industrial Energy Effciency ID/OR
Easy Upgrades Commercial/Industrial Energy Efficiency ID/OR
Energy Efficient Lighting Residential Energy Effciency ID/OR
Energy House Calls Residential Energy Effciency ID/OR
ENERGY STARCi Homes Northwest Residential Energy Efficiency ID/OR
Heating & Cooling Efficiency Program Residential Energy Efficiency ID/OR
Holiday Lighting Program Commercial/Industrial Energy Efficiency ID/OR
Home Products Program Residential Energy Effciency ID/OR
Home Weatherization Pilot Residential Energy Effciency ID
Irrigation Effciency Rewards Irrigation Energy Effciency ID/OR
Irrigation Peak Rewards Irrigation Demand Response ID/OR
Local Energy Efficiency Funds All Other Programs and Activities ID/OR
Northwest Energy Effciency Alliance All Market Transformation ID/OR
Oregon Commercial Audits Commercial/Industrial Energy Efficiency OR
Oregon Residential Weatherization Residential Energy Efficiency OR
Rebate Advantage Residential Energy Efficiency ID/OR
Residential Education Initiative Residential Other Programs and Activities ID/OR
Weatherization Assistance for Residential Energy Efficiency ID/ORQualified Customers
Prog
Participation in DSM programs at Idaho Power continues to increase, as does the energy impact in
the fonn of energy savings and demand reduction. The energy savings for Idaho Power's energy
effciency programs in 2008 was 107,484 MW, a 72% increase over the 62,544 MWh energy savings
in 2007. Demand reduction for the demand response programs also increased in 2008. Combined,
Page 6
Exhibit NO.1
Case No. IPC-E-09-05
T. Tatum, ¡PC
Page 14 of 104Demand-Side Management Annual Report 2008
Idaho Power Company Introduction
the Irrgation Peak Rewards and AlC Cool Credit programs resulted in estimated summer peak reduction
of 58 MW, which represented a 20% increase over 48 MW in 2007.
In 2008, energy savings increased, as compared to 2007, for the residential, commercial, and industrial
sectors by 75%,310%, and 38% respectively. The residential sector savings increased to 21,778 MW,
the commercial sector savings increased to 32,786 MW, and the industrial sector increased to
41,059 MWh. The 2008 irrigation sector energy savings decreased slightly to 11,746 MW, from
12,304 MWh in 2007. Additional energy savings continue to be realized through market transformation
partnership activities with NEEA.
Customer participation increased in nearly every existing program from 2007 to 2008. The number of
projects completed under the Easy Upgrades program increased from 104 projects in 2007 to
685 projects in 2008. Projects completed under the Building Efficiency program increased
from 22 to 60. While the energy savings decreased slightly from the Irrgation Effciency Rewards
program, participation increased from 816 to 961 projects. As a result of the downturn in the housing
market in 2008, the number of homes incented under the ENERGY STARil Homes Northwest and
the Rebate Advantage programs both decreased. Participation in the AlC Cool Credit program increased
by 72% to approximately 24,000 customers by year's end.
A few individual programs were big contributors to the overall energy savings. The Custom Effciency
program, the only energy effciency program in the industrial sector, accounted for 38% of Idaho
Power's energy savings from programs, resulting in 41,059 MWh of savings. The Easy Upgrades
program in the coinnercia1 sector provided 24%, or 25,928 MWh, energy savings. In the residential
sector, the Energy Efficient Lighting program saved 14,309 MWh, accounting for 13% of the overall
energy savings.
ACEEE publishes an annual scorecard rai1kng individual states in temis of cointment to energy
effciency. In 2008, Idaho was identified as the "most improved" state in the nation, having moved up
12 spots, as compared to the 2007 scorecard. As the largest utility company in the state, Idaho Power is
proud to contribute to this recognition.
Table 2 shows the 2008 annual energy savings, summer peak demand reduction, and average megawatt
(aMW) savings associated with each of the DSM program categories. The table also provides
a comparson of the 2008 contribution of each sector in terms of weather-adjusted energy usage and its
respective size in number of customers. Unless otherwise noted, all energy savings presented in
this report are measured or estimated at the customer's meter, excluding line losses.
Demand-Side Management Annual Report 2008
Exhibit No. 1
Case No. IPC-E-09-05
T. Tatum, IPC
Page 15 of 104
Page 7
Introduction Idaho Power Company
Table 2. 2008 Program Sector Summary and Energy Usage
Energy Effciency Program Impact1a)ho Power System Sales
MWh MWh %of
Direct Energy aMWLoad Peak Load Sector Energy Number of
Expenses Savings Reduction Reduction1b)Total Usage Customers
Energy Efficiency
Residential................................$7,192,562 21,778 2 23 5,282,337 36%404,373
Commercial.......... ....................$4,076,109 32,786 4 5 3,979,113 27%64,125
Industrial...................................$4,045,671 41,059 5 5 3,365,761 23%122
Irrigation ...................................$3,535,542 11,746 1 39 1,921,608 13%18,542
Market Transformation.............$942,014 32,671 4 nfa nfa nfa nfa
Other Programs and Activities..$421,317 116 0 nfa nfa nfa nfa
Total $20,213,215 140,156 16 72 14,548,819 100%487,162
(a) Energy, demand, and expense data have been rounded to the nearest whole unit, which may result in minor rounding differences.
(b) Includes peak load reduction from both demand response and energy effciency programs.
u Initiatives
Idaho Power has aligned itself with the IPUC and the members of the environmental community to work
toward creating a financial and regulatory environment supportive of utility DSM resource acquisition.
Resulting from this collaborative effort are two financial mechanisms designed to 1) remove the
financial disincentives to utility DSM resource acquisition and 2) provide a financial incentive to
shareowners when DSM programs perform above baseline goals. Idaho Power is optimistic that
this effort wil lead to a sustained environment supportive of its plans to pursue all cost-effective DSM
opportities while balancing its shareowner's financial objectives.
In response to these regulatory mechanisms, Idaho Power has committed to enhancing its efforts toward
promoting DSM and energy effciency in several key areas, including a broad availability of efficiency
and load-management programs, building code improvement activity, pursuit of appliance code
standards, expansion of DSM programs beyond peak shaving/load shifting prograins, and third-part
verification.
DSM res and
Funding for DSM programs in 2008 carne from several sources. The Idaho Energy Efficiency Rider and
Oregon Energy Effciency Rider fuds are collected directly from customers on their monthly bils.
In June 2008, the Idaho Rider was increased from a rate of 1.5% of base rate revenues to 2.5%. The
monthly caps on residential and irrgation customer contrbutions formerly in place were removed. The
Oregon Rider remains at 1.5% of base rate revenues. DSM-re1ated expenses not funded through the
Rider funds, including costs for administration and overhead, are included as part of Idaho Power's
ongoing operation and maintenance costs. Total DSM expenses funded from these sources were slightly
over $21 million in 2008.
Page 8
Exhibit NO.1
Case No. IPC-E-09-05
T. Tatum, ¡PC
Page 16 of 104
Demand-Side Management Annual Report 2008
Idaho Power Company Introduction
Table 3 provides a summary of the 2008 expenses and energy savings by each funding category.
Table 3. 2008 Funding Source and Energy Impact
Funding Source
Idaho Rider.... .......
Oregon Rider........
SPA......................
Idaho Power.........
Total
Expenses
$18,880,276
$625,000
$6,950
$1,681,294
$21,193,520
MWh Savings
131,662
4,277
o
4,217
140,156
Many of Idaho Power's DSM programs are selected for implementation through its biennal IRP.
The IRP is a public document that details Idaho Power's strategy for economically maintainng
the adequacy of its power system into the future. The IRP process balances risk, environmental,
economic, and other considerations in developing a preferred portfolio of futue resources that meet
the specific energy needs of Idaho Power and its customers. The IRP is normally updated every
two years to reflect changes in supply costs, demand for electricity, and other factors. However, with its
acceptance of the 2006 IRP' the IPUC requested that Idaho Power align the submittal of its next IRP
with those submitted by other utilities. To comply with this request, Idaho Power provided an update on
the status of the 2006 IRP to both the IPUC and OPUC in June 2008, and wil file a new IRP in June
2009. Idaho Power DSM staff has participated on the collaborative team compiling both the 2006 IRP
Update and the 2009 IRP.
In 2009, Idaho Power plans to continue to increase paricipation and energy savings from existing
programs and continue to implement new energy effciency and demand response programs. In 2009,
Idaho Power plans to expand its efforts in energy effciency by continuing the Attic Insulation Pilot
under the new name Horne Improvement Program, continuing the Horne Weatherization Pilot under the
new name Weatherization Solutions for Eligible Customers program, and implementing a refrigerator
recycling program. Idaho Power wil expand the Irrgation Peak Rewards program to add an option of a
dispatchable demand response program, which wil greatly increase the demand reduction potential from
this program. Also in 2009, Idaho Power plans to offer a demand response program to its coinrercial
and industral customers though a third-part demand response aggregator.
Idaho Power wil participate in the development of the Northwest Power and Conservation Council's
(NWPCC) Sixth Power Plan, continue and enhance consumer education on energy efficiency,
and complete various research and development projects.
Customer satisfaction is a key consideration in Idaho Power's program design, operations, and
management. Idaho Power uses surveys, focus groups, stakeholder input, and input from the EEAG and
Idaho Power field personnel to assess and monitor customer satisfaction. This information and input aids
in the design and modification of programs and assists in program marketing and management
throughout the life of each program.
Demand-Side Management Annual Report 2008
Exhibit NO.1
Case No. IPC-E-09-05
T. Tatum, IPC
Page 17 of 104
Page 9
Introduction Idaho Power Company
In 2008, the results ofIdaho Power's quarterly customer satisfaction survey showed steady improvement
over recent years as the percentage of customers who have a positive perception of Idaho Power's
energy effciency efforts has continued to increase. Customers' positive perception of Idaho Power's
energy effciency efforts increased from 39% in early 2003 to 49% in late 2008. This represents a 26%
increase in positive customer perception. Idaho Power continues to expand its customer satisfàction
measurement activities, which enable Idaho Power to identify actionable areas for improvement. Figue
3 depicts biannual growth in the number of customers who indicated Idaho Power met or exceeded their
needs concerning energy conservation efforts encouraged by Idaho Power.
Figure 3.Percent of Customers Whose Needs are Met or Exceeded by Idaho Power's Conservation Efforts
60%
50%51%
50%
43%44%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Qtr2 Qtr4 Qtr2 Qtr4 Qtr2 Qtr4 Qtr2 Qtr4 Qtr2 Qtr4 Qtr2 Qtr4
2003 2003 2004 2004 2005 2005 2006 2006 2007 2007 2008 2008
Several surveys measured customer satisfaction with programs in 2008. The surveys also provide
guidance for program modification, marketing, and evaluation. Surey results are presented in
the following program sections of this report: AlC Cool Credit, Energy House Calls, Rebate Advantage,
Residential Energy Efficiency Education, Heating & Cooling Efficiency Program, Weatherization
Assistance for Qualified Customers (W AQC), and Easy Upgrades.
An important measure of customer satisfaction is the retention rate of paricipants in ongoing programs.
A review of utility service agreement end dates indicates less than 1 % of AlC Cool Credit paricipants
cancel enrollment due to dissatisfaction with the program. Both irrigation sector programs, the Irrgation
Peak Rewards and the Irrigation Efficiency Rewards programs, have continued with a high level of
participation. Idaho Power programs have on-going customer satisfaction measurements as a follow-up
to the application process. For example, Easy Upgrades provides an ongoing Web-based customer
survey for its paricipants. Results of these sureys indicate general satisfaction and help guide program
improvement and marketing efforts. Idaho Power energy effciency program staff is preparing surveys
for future use in determining customer satisfaction. Building Effciency developed a customer
satisfaction surey in 2008 and plans to implement it in 2009. Custom Effciency plans to develop a
customer satisfàction survey in 2009. The WAQC program collected customer satisfaction surveys from
participating customers. The results of these surveys showed that customers thought the program helped Exhibit NO.1
Case No. IPC-E-09-05
T. Tatum, IPC
Page 18 of 104Page 10 Demand-Side Management Annual Report 2008
Idaho Power Company Introduction
them lealT about saving electricity in their homes and helped them try some of the ways to save energy
in their homes.
Idaho Power considers cost-effectiveness the priary screening tool prior to DSM program
implementation. Most ofIdaho Power's energy efficiency programs are preliminarily identified through
the IRP planng process. In this process, specific programs or potential energy savings are screened by
sector to determne if the levelized cost of these programs is less than supply-side resource alternatives.
If they are shown to be less costly than supply-side resources from a levelized cost perspective,
the hourly shaped energy savings is subsequently included in the IRP.
Prior to the actual implementation of energy efficiency or demand response programs, Idaho Power
analytical staff creates cost-effectiveness models to assess whether a specific potential program design
wil be cost effective from the perspective of Idaho Power and its customers. Incorporated into
these models are inputs from various sources in order to use the most curent and reliable information
available. When possible, Idaho Power staff leverages the experiences of other companies in the region,
or throughout the country, to help identify specific program parameters. This is tyically accomplished
through discussions with other utilities' program managers and research staff. Idaho Power also uses
electric industry research organizations, such as E Source, Edison Electrical Institute (EEI), Consortium
for Energy Effciency (CEE), American Council for an Energy Effcient Economy (ACEEE), Advanced
Load Control Allance (ALCA), Association of Energy Service Professionals (AESP), Energy Insights,
and others, to identify similar programs and their results.
For other assumptions, including estimated costs, savings, and net-to-gross ratio estimates, Idaho Power
relies on sources such as the Northwest Power and Conservation Council, the Regional Technical Foru
(RTF), NEEA, E Source, the Database for Energy Efficiency Resources (DEER), the Energy Trust of
Oregon (ETO), Bonnevile Power Administration (BPA), third-part consultants, and other regional
utilities. Idaho Power uses a cost-effectiveness model to perform sensitivity analyses in order to
determne optimal program designs. The remaining inputs used in the cost-effectiveness models are
obtained from the IRP process. The Technical Appendix ofIdaho Power's most recent IRP is the source
for the financial assumptions, including the discount rate and inflation rate. The IRP is also the source of
the DSM alternative costs, which is the value of energy savings and demand reduction resulting from
the DSM programs. These DSM alternative costs vary by season and time-of-day. The DSM alternative
energy costs are based on either projected fuel costs of a peaking unit or forward market prices as
detennined by Idaho Power's power supply model, AURORAxmpil Electrc Market ModeL.
The avoided capital cost is based on a gas-fired simple-cycle tubine.
For its cost-effectiveness methodology, Idaho Power relies on the Electric Power Research Institute End
Use Techncal Assessment Guide (TAG) and the California Standard Practice ManuaL. Idaho Power
primarily uses the Total Resource Cost (TRC) test and the Utility Cost (UC) test to develop benefit cost
(B/C) ratios to determne the cost-effectiveness ofDSM programs. As defined in the TAG and
California Standard Practice Manual, the TRC andUC tests are most similar to supply-side tests and
provide a useful basis to compare demand-side and supply-side resources. Idaho Power determnes
cost-effectiveness on a measure-by-measure basis and a program basis. To be consistent with the IRP,
program life B/C ratios for AlC Cool Credit and Irrigation Peak Rewards are calculated over a 20-year
period. In order for a measure or a program to be considered cost-effective, it must have B/C ratios
greater than one for both the TRC and UC tests.
Demand-Side Management Annual Report 2008
Exhibit NO.1
Case No. IPC-E-09-05
T. Tatum, ¡PC
Page 19 of 104
Page 11
Introduction Idaho Power Company
Idaho Power may choose to launch a pilot or a program to evaluate estimates or assumptions in
the cost-effectiveness modeL. Following implementation of a program, cost-effectiveness models are
reviewed as new inputs from actual program activity become available, such as actual program
expenses, savings, or participation. Ifmeasures or programs are determed to not be cost-effective after
implementation, the program or measures are reexamined.
A new addition to the 2008 DSM report is the presentation in Appendix 4 of the UC and TRC B/C ratios
using actual cost information over the life of the program through 2008. These B/C ratios are provided
as a measure of cost-effectiveness for all Idaho Power energy effciency or demand response programs
currently being offered where energy savings and demand reduction is realized.
Evaluation
Program evaluation is an important facet ofIdaho Power's DSM operational activities. Idaho Power
relies on evaluation by third-part contractors, internal analyses, and regional studies to ensure the
ongoing cost -effectiveness of programs through validation of energy savings and demand reduction.
The results ofIdaho Power's evaluation efforts are used to enhance or initiate program changes when
warranted. In 2008, Idaho Power developed a comprehensive evaluation plan for its energy effciency
programs and commenced evaluations for several programs and measures, including Building
Efficiency, ENERGY ST ARiR Homes Northwest, Rebate Advantage, Energy House Calls, and the Attic
Insulation pilot.
As part of its evaluation efforts, Idaho Power is actively participating in several regional studies to
identify and promote emerging technologies that may further enhance opportnities for new program
deployment. Some examples include 1) the Distrbution Efficiency Initiative, which is a study managed
by NEEA to determine effcient ways to design and operate distrbution feeders though voltage
regulators, 2) a regional study to evaluate the energy-savings potential of ductless heat pumps,
and 3) efforts to measure the impacts oflight-emitting diode (LED) lighting. Other regional analyses in
which Idaho Power actively participated include the Commercial Building Stock Assessment and market
progress evaluations.
Annual Report Structure
The strctue of the remaining portion of this report is based on customer sectors (categorized by
residential, commerciai/industral, and irrgation). The description of each sector is followed by
information about each program in that sector. Each program section includes a general program
description, anual activities, and future plans. A chart at the beginnng of each program section
contains 2008 and 2007 program metrics in tabular forniat. Following the sector and program sections of
the report are descriptions of Idaho Power's activities in Market Transformation, Other Programs and
Activities, and Idaho Power's Regulatory Initiatives. The appendices follow the written sections and
contain tabular information on the 2008 expenses and savings, as well as historic information for all
energy effciency and demand response activities at Idaho Power.
Page 12
Exhibit NO.1
Case No. ¡PC-E-09-05
T. Tatum, ¡PC
Page 20 of 104
Demand-Side Management Annual Report 2008
Idaho Power Company Residential Sector
SeCTOR
With over 404,000 service points serving a population of approximately one milion people, residential
customers represent Idaho Power's largest customer segment. Growth within this segment slowed
considerably in 2008, largely in response to regional and national economic conditions. During 2008,
Idaho Power added about 4,000 customers, equaling a growth rate of 1 %. Idaho Power experienced the
smallest residential customer growth rate since 1989. The residential segment represents 36% of Idaho
Power's total electrcity usage.
rams
Table 4. 2008 Residential Program Summary
Program
Demand Response
AJC Cool Credit......... ........ ..........
Total
Energy Effciency
Attic Insulation Pilot............... .....
Energy Effcient Lighting ....... .......
Energy House Calls .... ................
ENERGY STAR'" Homes
Northwest.....................................
Heating & Cooling Effciency
Program .......................................
Home Products Program.............
Home Weatherization Pilot..........
Oregon Residential
Weatherization........................... ..
Rebate Advantage.......................
Weatherization Assistance for
Qualified CustomersIdaho........
Weatherization Assistance for
Qualified Customersregon .....
Total
Total Costs Savings
Summer
Annual Peak
Participants Utilty Resource Energy Demand
(Number)(Units)(Dollars) (Dollars)(kWh)(MW)
20,195 homes $2,969,377 $2,616,072 n/a 23
$2,969,377 $2,616,072 nla 23
282 homes $123,454
436,264 CFL bulbs $1,018,292
1,099 homes $484,379
254 homes $302,061
359 homes $473,551
3,034 appliances/fixtures $250,860
16 homes $52,807
3 homes $7,417
107 homes $90,888
$157,866 317,814
$793,265 14,309,444
$484,379 883,038
$375,007 468,958
$599,771 561,441
$468,056 541,615
$48,162
$28,752
$179,868
71,680
22,196
463,401
439 homes/non-profis $1,375,632 $1,755,749 4,064,301
Note: See Appendix 3 for notes on methodology and column definitions.
13 homes/non-profits $43,843 $74,048 73,841
$4,223,185 $4,964,924 21,777,729
Demand-Side Management Annual Report 2008 .
24
Programs available to residential customers include one demand response program, nine energy
effciency programs, and the energy educational program. The demand response program offering is
the AlC Cool Credit program, with approximately 24,000 customers enrolled. Durng 2008,
this program expanded into Idaho Power's Payette and Twin Falls service areas. The residential
efficiency programs include Energy House Calls, Rebate Advantage, ENERGY STARil Homes Exhibit NO.1
Case No. IPC-E-09-05
T. Tatum, IPC
Page 21 of 104
Page 13
Residential Sector Idaho Power Company
Northwest, Oregon Residential Weatherization, Energy Effcient Lighting, WAQC, and Heating &
Cooling Efficiency Program. The new ENERGY STAR Horne Products Program was operational in
2008, with strong residential customer paricipation.
Additionally, two new pilots were implemented in 2008. One was the Attic Insulation Pilot and the other
was the Horne Weatherization Pilot. Analysis was conducted about the viability of the attic retrofit pilot
program. Plans are underway for implementation in June 2009 under the name Horne Improvement
Program. The Horne Weatherization Pilot wil launch as a program in the Twin Falls area in 2009 under
the name Weatherization Solutions for Eligible Customers.
Idaho Power continued significantly increasing its outreach activities by participating in numerous retail
and community events during 2008. These. partnerships and outreach activities created specific
opportnities for the company to share the importance of energy efficiency and give customers
information and options about paricipating.
Many of these events were parnerships with community retailers, including Horne Depot, Lowe's,
Albertson's, Wal-Mart, and small, locally owned retailers. Idaho Power also participated in horne and
garden shows, Parade of Homes, library education series, and other community events across Idaho
Power's service area. A sample of the new community events Idaho Power participated in during
the course of2008 include the Susan G. Komen Race for a Cure, the St. Luke's Women's Challenge,
and the Idaho Green Expo, where Idaho Power released the new booklet 30 Simple Things You Can Do
To Save Energy. These events drew large crowds, providing Idaho Power an opportnity to share energy
etlìciency information.
Presentations to community groups and businesses were another emphasis during the year. Idaho Power
customer representatives made approximately 100 presentations to civic and community groups,
including chambers of commerce, school boards, service organizations, and businesses. Idaho Power
also developed a new energy effciency presentation, targeting fourh-grade through sixth-grade
students.
Page 14
Exhibit NO.1
Case No. IPC-E-09-05
T. Tatum, ¡PC
Page 22 of 104
Demand-Side Management Annual Report 2008
Idaho Power Company Residential Sector-A1C Cool Credit
Participation and Savings
Participants (homes)(ai
Energy Savings (kWh)
Demand Reduction (Mwyai
Program Costs by Funding Source
Idaho Energy Efficiency Rider
Oregon Energy Effciency Rider
Idaho Power Funds
Total Program Costs-All Sources
Program Levelized Costs
Utility Levelized Cost ($/kWh)
Total Resource Levelized Cost ($/kWh)
Program Life Benefit/Cost Ratios
Utility BenefiUCost Ratio
Total Resource BenefiUCost Ratio
Program Characteristics
Program Jurisdiction Idaho/OregonProgram Inception 2003
(ai Program participation and demand reduction reflect enrollment as of July 15th. Year end enrollment in the program
was 23,505 homes.
2007
13,692
n/a
11
$2,421,461
$0
$4,692
$2,426,154
nfa
nfa
1.38
1.38
AlC Cool Credit is a voluntary dispatchable demand response program for residential customers.
Using communcation hardware and software, Idaho Power cycles participants' central air conditioners
on and ofT via a direct load-control device installed on the air conditioning unit. Participants receive
a monthly, monetary incentive for participating in the program durig the summer season. This program
enables Idaho Power to reduce system peaking requirements during times when summer peak load is
high.
Individual radio-controlled or power line carrer (PLC) switches are installed on customers' air
conditioning unts. These switches allow Idaho Power to cycle customers' air conditioners during
a cycling event. Under this program, Idaho Power may cycle paricipants' air conditioners for up to
40 hours each month in the months of June, July, and August.
In 2008, the program expanded beyond Ada County, Canyon County, and the Emmett valley to
the Payette and Twin Falls area. Mountain Horne Air Force Base (MHAFB) housing residents also
joined the program in 2008. Cycling event hours changed from four-hour cycles to three-hour cycles,
pinpointing the peak time with less potential impact on participants. There were 15 cycling events in
2008, one in June, seven in July, and seven in August. The 2008 target was 16,000 new participants.
There were approximately 13,222 new participants in 2008.
Exhibit NO.1
Case No. IPC-E-09-05
T. Tatum, IPC
Page 23 of 104
Page 15Demand-Side Management Annual Report 2008
Residential Sector-A1C Cool Credit Idaho Power Company
Marketing approaches during 2008 covered a range of methods. AlC Cool Credit pooled resources with
the City of Boise Recycling deparment and with United Water on a joint bil-stuffer campaign.
Idaho Power specialists visited large businesses, providing program information to the businesses'
employees. Idaho Power in-house AlC Cool Credit promotions attracted further program signups.
A cause-related marketing approach involved partering with both The Idaho Foodban and Southeast
Oregon Regional Food Bank. Durng a "limted time offer," a $20 donation went to the food bank in
the participant's location for enrollng in the AlC Cool Credit program. As of December 2008,
this approach yielded 489 new signups and a total of$9,780 to the two food banks.
During 2008, a call center customer service representative (CSR) pilot was conducted. The CSRs
received trainig in signing up new AlC Cool Credit participants at the point of contact when an Idaho
Power customer initiates or transfers hisller account by phone. The project was successfuL.
During the first five months after the training was completed, five trained CSRs signed up 140 new
participants.
An outreach project included an Idaho Power specialist and a heating, ventilating, and air conditioning
(HVAC) journeyman providing AlC Cool Credit switch trainig for field techncians of HVAC
companies. Technicians learned about the direct load-control device installed on participating Idaho
Power customers' air conditioning unts. Increasing the HVAC techncian's knowledge of switch boxes
contrbutes to positive customer relations between the customer and the technician servicing the AlC
Cool Credit program participant's air conditioning unit.
The AlC Cool Credit program conducted a customer satisfaction survey between September and
October 2008. Of the 3,958 sureys sent out, 1,671 completed responses were returned, resulting in
a 42% response rate. A portion of the participants received the survey bye-mail, while the others
received the survey though postal maiL. Results showed a high level of satisfaction with the program,
with high ratings in program application process, comfort, frequency of cycling, overall satisfaction with
the program, and amount of information received. Most respondents indicated they chose to paricipate
in the program "to help reduce electrical usage on hot sumer days," to "receive the bil credit," or both.
An overwhelming majority of respondents indicated they would recommend the program to friends
or family.
2009
The AlC Cool Credit program is expanding into the Pocatello area this spring, with marketing starting in
Febiuar. The program wil expand to areas where the paging signal does not reach, as meters are
installed in those areas as part of the Advanced Metering Infrastrctue (AMI) project. The 2009
AlC Cool Credit target is to add 12,000 new participants. An evaluation of the results of this demand
response program wil be implemented in Pocatello, Twin Falls, and MHAFB. Data loggers wil be
installed on a random sample of participating customer's air conditioning units to collect data on run
time. Once the information is collected, analysis wil commence in autum 2009 to estimate demand
reduction.
Page 16
Exhibit NO.1
Case No. IPC-E-09-05
T. Tatum, IPC
Page 24 of 104
Demand-Side Management Annual Report 2008
Idaho Power Company Residential Sector-AIC Cool Credit
Idaho Power plans to distribute AlC Cool Credit program information by using the technicians installng
the new AMI meters in the upcoming year. The technicians wil leave a door hanger with AlC Cool
Credit program inforniation on the customers' doorknob after completing their installation work.
Demand-Side Management Annual Report 2008
Exhibit NO.1
Case No. IPC-E-09-05
T. Tatum, ¡PC
Page 25 of 104
Page 17
Residential Sector-Attic Insulation Pilot Idaho Power Company
Attic Pilot
Participation and Savings
Participants (homes)
Energy Savings (kWh)
Demand Reduction (MW)
Program Costs by Funding Source
Idaho Energy Effciency Rider
Oregon Energy Effciency Rider
Idaho Power Funds
Total Program Costs-All Sources
Program Levelized Costs
Utility Levelized Cost ($/kWh)
Total Resource Levelized Cost ($/kWh)
Program Life Benefit/Cost Ratios
Utility Cost BenefiVCost Ratio
Total Resource BenefiVCost Ratio
Program Characteristics
Program Jurisdiction
Program Inception
2.48
1.94
Idaho
2008
2007
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
The Attic Insulation Pilot, conducted in Idaho during 2008, consisted of paying an incentive to
residential customers in the Idaho Power service area for installng additional attic insulation.
This program specifically targets the reduction of sumer peak demand.
Activities
The pilot was conducted in Boise, Twin Falls, and Pocatello. Installations began May 2008 and were
completed by the first week of July. The attic insulation program paid a $0.15 per square foot incentive
for professionally installed attic insulation. Analysis of the information obtained from the attic insulation
pilot indicates that this is an opportnity for Idaho Power to provide a cost-effective program beginning
in 2009.
The Attic Insulation Pilot wil become a program in Idaho and Oregon in June 2009 under the name
Horne Improvement Program. Plans include creating program information brochures to market
the program and incentive application forms for customers. In July, a bil stuffer explaining the new
prograin wil be included in all residential customers' bils. Marketing wil include a direct mail
campaign after the program launch, followed by a print campaign later in 2009.
Exhibit No. 1
Case No. IPC-E-09-05
T. Tatum, IPC
Page 26 of 104Demand-Side Management Annual Report 2008Page 18
Idaho Power Company Residential Sector-Energy Effcient Lighting
Participation and Savings
Participants (CFL bulbs)
Energy Savings (kWh)
Demand Reduction (MW)
Program Costs by Funding Source
Idaho Energy Efficiency Rider
Oregon Energy Effciency Rider
Idaho Power Funds
Total Program Costs-All Sources
Program Levelized Costs
Utility Levelized Cost ($/kWh)
Total Resource Levelized Cost ($/kWh)
Program Life Benefit/Cost Ratios
Utility Benefit/Cost Ratio
Total Resource Benefit/Cost Ratio
Program Characteristics
Program Jurisdiction
Program Inception
Idaho/Oregon
2002
2007
219,739
7,207,439
n/a
$519,818
$11,787
$10,445
$557,646
$0.012
$0.015
4.56
4.31
The Energy Efficient Lighting program, called the ENERGY STARil Lighting program in 2007,
strives for residential energy savings through the replacement of less effcient lighting with more
effcient technology. The average existing horne has 38 light bulbs. New homes have an average of
77 light bulbs. Changing these bulbs to more effcient bulbs represents a low-cost, easy way for all
customers to achieve energy savings.
ENERGY STAR qualified compact fluorescent lights (CFLs) are an effcient alternative to standard
incandescent light bulbs and save money and energy. Bulbs come in a varety of wattages, colors,
and applications, including bulbs for three-way and dimmable fixtures. ENERGY STAR qualified bulbs
use 75% less energy and last up to 10 times longer than incandescent bulbs.
Activities
In 2008, the majority of energy savings were achieved through Idaho Power's participation in
two regional Change a Light promotions sponsored by the BP A and one sponsored by Idaho Power.
The 2007 BPA Change a Light promotion (spiral bulbs) carried over until February 2008. The BPA
promotion focusing on specialty bulbs extended through December 2008. Additionally, Idaho Power
initiated its own spiral-bulb promotion during autumn 2008. This spiral promotion ran independent of
the BP A promotion, focusing on smaller retailers and covering a greater Idaho Power service area than
the BPA program.
Exhibit NO.1
Case No. IPC-E-09-05
T. Tatum, IPC
Page 27 of 104
Page 19Demand-Side Management Annual Report 2008
Residential Sector-Energy Effcient Lighting Idaho Power Company
Table 5 describes the energy savings and the number ofCFL bulbs contributed by each segment of
the program.
Table 5.Energy Efficient Lighting Energy Savings
Estimated
Bulbs kWh
Promotion Description Contractor Timeframe Sold Savings
2007 Change a Light Spiral........99t spiral single BPA/Fluid 2007 carryover 60,987 2,000,357
pack spiral bulbs
2007 Change a Light Specialty ..Specialty bulbs in BPA/PECI 2007 carryover 31,880 1,045,664
"big-box" stores
2008 Change a Light Spiral........99t single pack BPA/Fluid Spring 2008 41,660 1,366,448
spiral bulbs
2008 Change a Light Specialty..Specialty bulbs in BPA/PECI 2008 228,169 7,483,943
"big-box" stores
Change a Light Spiral............ .....99t single pack Fluid Fall 2008 71,935 2,359,470
spiral bulbs
Direct Install............. ..................Bulbs given directly n/a 2008 1,633 53,562
to customers
Total 436,234 14,309,444
Marketing during 2008 focused on education and outreach by educating customers about the benefits of
CFLs and selecting the appropriate bulb for a specific application. Idaho Power also marketed
the program through point-of-purchase materials and signs, in-store events and energy effciency events,
the Idaho Power Customer Connection monthly newsletter, and the Idaho Power Web site.
In 2008, Idaho Power conducted 13 special events at national retail stores in Ontaro, Nampa, Boise,
Twin Falls, Pocatello, and Chubbuck. Special events served as opportties for Idaho Power staffto
talk directly with customers at the point-of-purchase, answer questions, and promote all Idaho Power
energy efficiency programs as well as energy effcient lighting. Idaho Power held staff training events
on energy effcient lighting and proper disposal of mercur-containing light bulbs.
Idaho Power wil continue advocating the Energy Effcient Lighting program in 2009 through
paricipation in regional lighting promotions. To ensure geographic coverage and bulb tyes that are not
included in BP A promotions, Idaho Power wil also continue its independent promotion. Additionally,
Idaho Power wil research purchasing habits and market segments of program participants using
coupon-based marketing promotions. The information wil be used to enhance program marketing and
increase program participation.
Page 20
Exhibit NO.1
Case No. IPC-E-09-05
T. Tatum, IPC
Page 28 of 104Demand-Side Management Annual Report 2008
Idaho Power Company Residential Sector-Energy House Calls
Participation and Savings
Participants (homes)
Energy Savings (kWh)
Demand Reduction (MW)
Program Costs by Funding Source
Idaho Energy Effciency Rider
Oregon Energy Efficiency Rider
Idaho Power Funds
Total Program Costs-All Sources
Program Levelized Costs
Utility Levelized Cost ($fkWh)
Total Resource Levelized Cost ($fkWh)
Program Life Benefit/Cost Ratios
Utility Benefit/Cost Ratio
Total Resource Benefit/Cost Ratio
Program Characteristics
Program Jurisdiction
Program Inception
2007
700
699,899
nfa
$251,743
$3,349
$450
$336,372
$0.039
$0.039
2.20
2.20
Idaho/Oregon
2002
The Energy House Calls program helps manufactued and mobile horne owners with electric heat save
on their energy bils by improving the home's effciency. This energy effciency program provides free
duct sealing and additional effciency measures to Idaho Power customers living in Idaho or Oregon in
a manufactured or mobile horne using an electric furnace or heat pump.
Leaking duct systems can lose as much as 70% of the air intended for heating or cooling in a horne.
Ducts operate under pressure, making a one-square-inch hole in a system similar to a 20-square-inch
hole in a wall. Previous studies show typical losses from ducts are about 30%.
Services and products offered through the Energy House Calls program include duct testing and sealing
according to Performance Tested Comfort System (PTCS) specifications, installation of five CFL bulbs,
provision of two funace filters along with replacement instrctions, water heater temperatue test for
proper setting, and distrbution of energy effciency educational materials for manufactued horne
occupants. The value of the service to the customer is dependent on the complexity of the repair.
The tyical range of the average Idaho Power cost of a service call is from $300 to $350. Idaho Power
provides the customer with the contractor contact information. Customers access the service by directly
callng one of the recognized, certified contractors specially trained to provide these services in their
region.
Program management is under contract with Ecos Consulting, a company with experience managing and
supplying duct-sealing service progranis. Ecos Consulting coordinates the contractors performng local
Exhibit NO.1
Case No. IPC-E-09-05
T. Tatum, IPC
Paga 29 of 104
Page 21Demand-Side Management Annual Report 2008
Residential Sector-Energy House Calls Idaho Power Company
weatherization and energy effciency services. To monitor quality assurance, third-pary audits are
conducted in 5% of the homes served.
Activities
Idaho Power renegotiated the contract with Ecos Consulting for continuation of administrative
management of the Energy House Calls program. Idaho Power continued its direct mail campaign.
Recipients were targeted using a database of electrically heated manufactured homes in the Idaho Power
service area in Idaho and Oregon.
After reviewing the locations of program activity and market saturation, it was determned that
marketing efforts should focus priarly in the Treasure Valley area. In 2008, an updated
cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted representing the focused regional marketing efforts, and was
determined to be cost-effective through 2009.
During 2008, Energy House Calls serviced 1,099 manufactured homes, resulting in approximately
883,038 kWh savings. The prograni conducted quality assurance on 5% of the homes serviced in
the Energy House Calls program. Idaho Power's third-par contractors inspected 57 homes,
with 43 homes passing and 13 homes failing the inspection. Contractors are required to revisit fàiled
homes and correct identified problems. The majority of failed homes occured durng a specific period
and was the result of one contractor's activity. Once Ecos Consulting, who manages the
three contractors, was aware of the issue, the contractor sent a quality-assurance person out with
the techncian for a few weeks of observation and released one employee from their duties.
The inspection failures were from jobs completed in early 2008, while subsequent quality inspections
were positive. All contractors suffciently addressed and corrected issues that were identified.
Idaho Power conducted a customer satisfaction survey evaluating past experience with the service.
A total of243 Energy House Calls program participants completed the survey. The majority of these
customers indicated both an improved comfort level in their home as a result of participating in the
program and a high level of satisfaction with the program. Over 90% of the respondents indicated they
would recommend the program to frends or family. Additionally, all 57 Energy House Calls customers
who paricipated in the quality assurance check on 5% of the homes serviced reported having a positive
experience with the Energy House Calls program.
Plans for the upcoming year include continuing the direct mail campaign to all areas to improve limited
participation in some areas. Because of tum over in manufactured homes, some of the customers are not
being reached. Idaho Power plans to update its database to enable targeting new customers who were not
contacted previously. To determine other possible avenues of recruitment and adjustments to direct mail
campaign, Idaho Power is conducting a surey of non-participants, defined as those who have received
direct mail letters but have elected to not participate.
Page 22
Exhibit NO.1
Case No. IPC-E-09-05
T. Tatum, IPC
Page 30 of 104Demand-Side Management Annual Report 2008
Idaho Power Company Residential Sector-ENERGY STAR Homes Northwest
ERGY Homes
Participation and Savings
Participants (homes)
Energy Savings (kWh)
Demand Reduction (MW)
Program Costs by Funding Source
Idaho Energy Effciency Rider
Oregon Energy Effciency Rider
Idaho Power Funds
Total Program Costs-All Sources
Program Levelized Costs
Utility Levelized Cost ($/kWh)
Total Resource Levelized Cost ($/kWh)
Program Life Benefit/Cost Ratios
Utility Benefit/cost Ratio
Total Resource Benefit/Cost Ratio
Program Characteristics
Program Jurisdiction
Program Inception
Idaho/Oregon
2003
2007
303
629,634
1
$451,775
$12,249
$11,020
$475,044
$0.056
$0.067
1.76
1.43
ENERGY STAR Homes Nortwest is a regionally coordinated intiative supported by a partership of
Idaho Power, NEEA, and the State of Idaho Offce of Energy Resources (OER) to improve energy
efficient construction practices for new, single-faini1y homes. Although this program results in sumer
peak reduction, the program specifically targets the reduction in energy usage accomplished by
increasing the efficiency of residential building envelope and air delivery system.
The ENERGY STAR Homes Northwest residential construction program builds homes that are at least
20% more energy effcient than those built to standard Idaho code. The program specifications for
ENERGY STAR Homes are verified by independent third-par horne performance specialists and are
certified by the Idaho OER and the United States Enviromnental Protection Agency. The homes are
more effcient, comfortable, and durable than standard homes constructed according to local
building codes.
Homes that earn the ENERGY STAR label include six "must-have" specifications. The specifications
found in an ENERGY STAR qualified homes are 1) effective insulation, 2) high-perforniance windows,
3) tight construction and sealed ductwork, 4) energy effcient lighting, 5) ENERGY STAR qualified
appliances, and 6) efficient heating and cooling equipment.
Builders involved in ENERGY STAR Homes Northwest receive up toa $400 incentive per horne built
to the Northwest Builder Option Package standards in Idaho Power's service area. Builders who enter
their homes in a Parade of Homes receive a $1,000 incentive.
Exhibit NO.1
Case No. IPC-E-09-05
T. Tatum, IPC
Page 31 of 104Page 23Demand-Side Management Annual Report 2008
Residential Sector-ENERGY STAR Homes Northwest Idaho Power Company
The Idaho Power program collaborates with many local entities for program management, such as
ENERGY STAR Homes Northwest and builders. A large part of the program's role in 2008 was
conducting education and training activities for residential, new constrction industry parers.
The 2006 International Energy Conservation Code (IECC), which the State of Idaho adopted as its
standard building code, took effect January 1,2008. This new code meets ENERGY STAR Homes
Nortwest program standards in several key areas, which decreases the energy savings of each
ENERGY STAR Home. As a direct result of the change in Idaho code and the resulting reduction of
energy savings, Idaho Power reduced the participating builder incentive to $400 per qualifying horne in
2008, down from the $750 incentive previously offered. Incentives for Parade of Homes entries remain
unchanged.
Although new housing starts were down throughout the Idaho Power service area, the ENERGY STAR
Homes Nortwest program achieved a market share of6.2% of new housing starts through 2008. This is
up from 2007 market share of 5%.
Idaho Power conducted numerous ENERGY STAR promotional activities durng 2008. Idaho Power
sponsored the energy efficiency awards for the Building Contractor's Association of Southwest Idaho
(BCASWI) and the Snake River Valley Building Contractor's Association (SRVBCA) Parade of
Homes. Idaho Power presented energy effciency awards at both the BCASWI Parade of Homes awards
banquet and the SRVBCA Parade of Home awards banquet. Idaho Power maintained a presence in the
building industry by participating in and supporting the SRVBCA Builder's Expo, the Magic Valley
Builder's Association Builders Expo, the Idaho Building Effciency Conference, the Horne Depot
Contractor's show, and the Idaho Building Contractors Association Convention. .
Media campaigns heightened awareness of the ENERGY STAR Homes program. Using radio and
bilboard advertising, Idaho Power conducted a cooperative media campaign in conjunction with
ENERGY STAR Homes Northwest and the Environmental Protection Agency. Idaho Power also
co-sponsored, and participated in, activities such as the Cedar Crossing 100% ENERGY STAR
community kick-off event in Caldwell. Cedar Crossing is Caldwell's first 100% ENERGY STAR
community.
Training is a major fuction ofIdaho Power's ENERGY STAR Homes program. To that end, numerous
realtor trainings were conducted in Caldwell, Nampa, and Boise. A builder training was held in
Pocatello.
Other marketing projects involved adding a message about this program to residential customers'
electric bil. These bil messages encouraged Idaho Power customers to visit ENERGY STAR qualified
homes in their local Parade of Homes events. An ENERGY STAR Homes program bil stutTer sent
information to all residential customers in the Idaho Power service area. Additionally, Idaho Power
continued to support the activities of the Idaho ENERGY STAR Builder's Partnership (IESBP) 100%
Builders group. Idaho Power was instrental in the formation of this group in 2007. Currently Idaho
Power assists the group with marketing activities by fuding and offerig marketing services.
Page 24
Exhibit NO.1
Case No. IPC-E-09-05
T. Tatum, ¡PC
Page 32 of 104Demand-Side Management Annual Report 2008
Idaho Power Company Residential Sector-ENERGY STAR Homes Northwest
A key promotional strategy is participation in industry conferences and horne shows. During 2009,
Idaho Power wil continue providing realtor trainings; supporting Parade of Homes events, the Building
Contractors Association (BCA), and realtor associations; improving marketing material distributions;
and supporting the IESBP group and its activities.
Marketing plans include using print advertising to assist existing builders with moving unsold ENERGY
STAR qualified homes inventory. The Idaho Power program staffwil explore new and innovative ways
to educate consumers, realtors, and appraisers about the benefits and features of ENERGY STAR
Homes.
Demand-Side Management Annual Report 2008
Exhibit NO.1
Case No. IPC-E-09-05
T. Tatum, IPC
Page 33 of 104
Page 25
Residential Sector-Heating & Cooling Effciency Program Idaho Power Company
ing Program
Participation and Savings
Participants (homes)
Energy Savings (kWh)
Demand Reduction (MW)
Program Costs by Funding Source
Idaho Energy Effciency Rider
Oregon Energy Effciency Rider
Idaho Power Funds
Total Program Costs-All Sources
Program Levelized Costs
Utility Levelized Cost ($/kWh)
Total Resource Levelized Cost ($/kWh)
Program Life Benefit/Cost Ratios
Utilty Benefit/Cost Ratio
Total Resource Benefit/Cost Ratio
Program Characteristics
Program Jurisdiction
Program Inception
2008 2007
Idaho/Oregon
2007
4
1,595
n/a
$482,051
$3,289
$2,871
$488,211
n/a
n/a
0.53
0.28
The residential Heating & Cooling Efficiency (H&CE) Program provides incentives for the purchase
and proper installation of qualified high-effciency heating and cooling equipment and services to Idaho
Power residential customers. This program has been available to Idaho customers since September 2007
and to Oregon customers since August 2008.
Objectives of the H&CE program are acquirig kWh savings though the implementation of
energy-saving HV AC measures in the existing and new residential sector. Cash incentives are provided
to residential customers and HVAC contractors who install eligible central air conditioners (CAC),
heat pumps, and evaporative coolers. Incentives are also awarded for qualifying heat pump tune-ups and
CAC tune-ups meeting Idaho Power's program specifications. A paricipating HVAC company must
perform all services, except for installation on evaporative coolers. Evaporative coolers are self-installed
pieces of equipment. There is no need for a contractor to be involved and no specific installation
requirements as there are for CACs and heat pumps.
In keeping with quality installation priciples, the H&CE Program requires contractors to become
"participating" companies. To do this, contractors in the program must sign an agreement with Idaho
Power. The participating companes must ensure their service techncians and installers attend required
training on the proper installation of air conditioners and heat pumps. These companies must purchase
and use TrueFlowil Meters to measure air flow and adhere to program specifications.
Exhibit NO.1
Case No. IPC-E-09-05
T. Tatum, IPC
Page 34 of 104
Demand-Side Management Annual Report 2008Page 26
Idaho Power Company Residential Sector-Heating & Cooling Effciency Program
New in 2008 was the addition of the open-loop water source heat pump measure. Idaho Power expanded
the program into Oregon upon approval, in August 2008, of Schedule 72 by the OPUC. In 2008,
the H&CE Program processed 359 incentive applications and paid $72,900 in incentives, resulting in
a total energy savings of 561,440 kWh. During 2008, Idaho Power conducted 22 contractor trainng
sessions on the proper sizing and installation of heat pumps and air conditioners, simplified duct design,
and prograin refresher classes, reaching 201 attendees.
Marketing tactics began in March, using bil inserts, radio ads, newspaper articles, horne and garden
shows, and exhibitor booths at various community events.
Customer
Idaho Power conducted a customer satisfaction survey during 2008. The majority of respondents heard
about the H&CE Program from their heating and cooling contractor. Almost 75% of respondents
indicated their heating and cooling contractor was "very knowledgeable" about the program. Eight out
of ten respondents said they "definitely would recommend" the contractor they used to a frend or
relative. Almost 80% of the respondents said participation in the program was "very easy." The majority
of respondents pursued additional program information from the H&CE Program equipment page on
Idaho Power's Web site. Of those who did go to the Web site, most said it was "easy to use" and
the information they gained from the Web site was "usefuL" Most of the respondents said they were
"very satisfied" with the program and would recommend it to a friend or family member. When asked
what it was they liked best about the program, most responded that it was the incentive or the
energy savings that they liked best.
During 2008, an H&CE Program contractor survey was conducted. Eighteen contractors responded to
the surey. Responses reflected contractors from all regions ofIdaho Power's operations. The majority
of the respondents said they heard about the program through a "notification letter from Idaho Power"
At the time of the survey, in September, most contractors had submitted somewhere between one and
five incentive applications, but there were three contractors who had submitted more than
20 applications. Two contractors indicated they had not submitted any incentive applications, and one of
those said it was because he/she was too busy. Most of the contractors indicated they have a good
understanding of the techncal requirements of the programs and had opportnities for training in the
program. The majority of the respondents indicated they had promoted the H&CE Program by
encouraging customers to paricipate. Satisfaction with the program was varied with one-third of the
contractor respondents being satisfied, one-third being neutral, and one-third being dissatisfied. Results
for wilingness to recommend the program were similar to satisfaction ratings. Most of the contractors'
dissatisfaction with the program was centered around the paperwork and program design. In response,
Idaho Power modified the paperwork to reduce the duplication of information, and also consolidated
forms. Several of the contractors requested removing airflow and sizing requirements. Idaho Power
considers the quality installation requirements of this program essential to maintainng the program's
integrity. In 2009, Idaho Power wil continue to require quality installation of qualifying heats pumps
and increase the contractor incentives.
Demand-Side Management Annual Report 2008
Exhibit NO.1
Case No. IPC-E-09-05
T. Tatum, IPC
Page 35 of 104Page 27
Residential Sector-Heating & Cooling Effciency Program Idaho Power Company
The first-year cost-effectiveness review identified measures that were not cost-effective. Plans for
the upcoming year include removing air conditioner and tune-up incentives, effective second quarter
2009. The program enhanced its criteria for contractors to remain on the paiticipating Idaho Power list.
Contractor training and marketing the program through bil stuffers and communty events wil continue
throughout 2009. Idaho Power is investigating cross-promoting the evaporative coolers with the Horne
Products Program and determining the feasibility of adding duct sealing as a measure.
Idaho Power joined the Northwest Ductless Heat Pump Project and wil implement the Idaho Power
pilot in its service area beginning March 2009. The goals of this pilot are to promote the ductless heat
pump technology as an energy-saving alternative for customers with electrically heated homes, to
determne how much electrcity this technology saves in order to validate a deemed-savings number, and
to obtain customer satisfaction and behavior patterns regarding the technology. Idaho Power wil offer
customers incentives for participating in the pilot. Pilot results wil be available in 2011.
Page 28
Exhibit NO.1
Case No. IPC-E-09-05
T. Tatum, ¡PC
Page 36 of 104
Demand-Side Management Annual Report 2008
Idaho Power Company Residential Sector-Home Products Program
ram
Participation and Savings
Participants (appliances)
Energy Savings (kWh)
Demand Reduction (MW)
Program Costs by Funding Source
Idaho Energy Efficiency Rider
Oregon Energy Effciency Rider
Idaho Power Funds
Total Program Costs-All Sources
Program Levelized Costs
Utility Levelized Cost ($/kWh)
Total Resource Levelized Cost ($/kWh)
Program Life Benefit/Cost Ratios
Utility BenefiUCost Ratio
Total Resource BenefiUCost Ratio
Program Characteristics
Program Jurisdiction
Program Inception
1.42
0.77
IdahoLOregon
2008
2007
nLa
nLa
n/a
$8,746
$460
$69
$9,275
n/a
n/a
The Horne Products Program, fornierly the ENERGY STARil Appliance Program, provides an incentive
payment to Idaho Power residential customers for purchasing ENERGY STAR qualified appliances,
lighting, or other products. ENERGY STAR is a government-backed program designating products as
energy efficient. Appliances and products with ENERGY STAR must meet higher, stricter effciency
criteria than federal standards. Washers must have a Modified Energy Factor of 1.72 or greater and
a Water Factor of 8.0 or lower, the minimum qualifications for an ENERGY STAR qualified clothes
washer. To qualify, the washer must have been purchased after Apri11, 2008 for customers in Idaho and
after May 21, 2008 for customers in Oregon.
The ENERGY STAR Appliance Program rolled out on April 1, 2008 for Idaho Power Idaho customers
and on May 21,2008 for Idaho Power Oregon customers. With the addition of ENERGY STAR
qualified refrigerators, ceiling fans with light kits, light kits, and light fixtures, the ENERGY STAR
Appliance Program was renamed and launched on August 1, 2008.
Initially, the clothes washer incentive was the only product offered under the original program.
CUlTent offerings and related incentives include clothes washers ($50), refrigerators ($30), light fixtues
(up to $15 per fixture), ceiling fans with light kits, or ceiling fan light kit attachments (up to $20 per
fixtue). Only products purchased after August 1, 2008 are eligible. Program participation is a simple
process for customers. The customer completes the brief incentive application, submits it with a copy of
the sales receipt, and then receives an incentive check in the mail if the purchase qualifies.
Exhibit NO.1
Case No. IPC-E-09-05
T. Tatum, IPC
Page 37 of 104
Page 29Demand-Side Management Annual Report 2008
Residential Sector-Home Products Program Idaho Power Company
2008
Marketing of the Horne Product Program to customers occurs primarily through retail outlets.
Idaho Power provides information to store managers and employees through training sessions at store
staff meetings and through periodic visits by Idaho Power representatives. Collateral materials, such as
program brochures with application tear-off forms, were developed and distrbuted to nearly 100 retail
stores. In addition, program modifications are delivered via letters sent directly to store managers.
Retail salespeople also assisted in promoting the program to their customers. Infonnation gathered from
a series of marketing questions on the incentive application form indicated salespeople are a proven,
effective avenue for marketing the program. One question pertains to how the customer learned about
the program. The most common answer was the salesperson.
Idaho Power promotes the program directly to residential customers via bil stuffers, community
promotions, Idaho Power field staff: and other outreach activities. Durng sumer 2008, bill stuffers
detailing the program were mailed to all Idaho Power residential customers.
The Home Products Program exceeded the goals for 2008. Idaho Power paid the first Horne Products
Prograin incentive in May 2008, and paid 3,034 incentives during 2008, resulting in 541,615 kWh of
savings. Incentives were issued for 2,451 clothes washers, 480 refrigerators, 98 light fixtues,
three ceiling fans, and two light kits.
Based on the current success, the marketing strategy for 2009 wil remain similar with only minimal
adjustments and updates as needed. The curent strategy enhances Idaho Power's ability to meet
the 2009 program goals. The Home Products Program wil cross-promote with other Idaho Power
programs, evaluate success, and develop promotional materials. Idaho Power wil continue to evaluate
potential products for addition to the program during 2009 and beyond.
Page 30
Exhibit NO.1
Case No. IPC-E-09-05
T. Tatum, IPC
Page 38 of 104Demand-Side Management Annual Report 2008
Idaho Power Company Residential Sector-Home Weatherization Pilot
Home
Participation and Savings
Participants (homes)
Energy Savings (kWh)
Demand Reduction (MW)
Program Costs by Funding Source
Idaho Energy Effciency Rider
Oregon Energy Efficiency Rider
Idaho Power Funds
Total Program Costs-All Sources
Program Levelized Costs
Utility Levelized Cost ($/kWh)
Total Resource Levelized Cost ($/kWh)
Program Life Benefit/Cost Ratios
Utility Benefit/Cost Ratio
Total Resource Benefit/Cost Ratio
Program Characteristics
Program Jurisdiction
Program Inception
1.31
1.43
Idaho/Oregon
2008
2007
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Idaho Power introduced a new weatherization pilot in the Twin Falls area. This program is modeled
after the Weatherization Assistance for Qualified Customers (WAQC) program. The pilot targeted
customers who applied, but were deemed financially ineligible, for participation in Low Income Horne
Energy Assistance Programs (LIHEAP), and who are not likely to participate in other programs.
The difference between the existing W AQC program and the pilot are the pilot's higher income
eligibility criteria of 151 % to 250% of the state povert level, and federal governent dollars are not
used in the pilot. In all other aspects, the pilot resembled W AQC.
Idaho Power contracted with Home Energy Management, LLC, with a goal of weatherizing 20 homes in
2008 at no cost for the customer. After the weatherization measures were installed, Idaho Power
completed the verification and analysis process, comparing the curent Savings Investment Ratio (SIR)
with Idaho Power cost-effectiveness modeL.
The pilot was launched during the last quarter of2008 in the Twin Falls area. Horne Energy
Management, LLC, weatherized 16 electrically heated homes of eligible Idaho Power customers. Energy
savings achieved was 71,680 kWhyear with an average horne saving 4,480 kWhyear. Total costs were
$52,807 with an average job cost of $3,300.
Exhibit No. 1
Case No. IPC-E-09-05
T. Tatum, IPC
Page 39 of 104
Page 31Demand-Side Management Annual Report 2008
Residential Sector-Home Weatherization Pilot Idaho Power Company
Strategies
Based on the pilot results, Idaho Power plans to expand the pilot into a program offered in the Twin
Falls area in 2009. Horne Energy Management, LLC, wil weatherize 45 homes in Idaho Power's
southern region service area under the newly named program, Weatherization Solutions for Eligible
Customers Program. Eligible customers wil include Idaho Power customers that heat their homes
electrically and earn an income between 161 % and 250% of the federal povert leveL. Customers who
are either purchasing or renting their homes may be eligible.
Identification of potential participants is done through the Communty Action Parnership Association of
Idaho (CAP AI), who serves as administrator for LIHEAP for the Idaho Departent of Health and
Welfare. Customers deemed financially ineligible for federal LIHEAP assistance are sent denial letters
by CAP AI. For the 2009 program, eligible candidates with electrically heated homes are selected from
the list of denial letter recipients within the Twin Falls service area.
Idaho Power plans to save an average of 6,000 kWh per weatherized horne per year, for a total energy
savings of 270,000 kWh annually. The Idaho Power program and field staff plans to complete
an evaluation of measures installed in weatherized homes in 2009 and the participants' knowledge
gained regarding energy efficiency.
Page 32
Exhibit NO.1
Case No. IPC-E-09-05
T. Tatum, IPC
Page 40 of 104Demand-Side Management Annual Report 2008
Idaho Power Company Residential Sector-Oregon Residential Weatherization
Participation and Savings
Participants (homes)
Energy Savings (kWh)
Demand Reduction (MW)
Program Costs by Funding Source
Idaho Energy Efficiency Rider
Oregon Energy Effciency Rider
Idaho Power Funds
Total Program Costs-All Sources
Program Levelized Costs
Utility Levelized Cost ($/kWh)
Total Resource Levelized Cost ($/kWh)
Program Life Benefit/Costs Ratios
Utility BenefiUCost Ratio
Total Resource BenefiUCost Ratio
Program Characteristics
Program Jurisdiction
Program Inception
n/a
n/a
Idaho/Oregon
1980
2007
1
9,971
n/a
$0
$0
$3,781
$3,781
$0.028
$0.042
Idaho Power offers free energy audits for electrically heated homes of customers within the Oregon
service area. This is a statutory program offered under Oregon Rate Schedule No. 78. Upon a customer's
request, an Idaho Power representative visits the horne to analyze it for energy efficiency. An estimate of
costs and savings for specific measures is given to the customer. Idaho Power offers financial assistance
for a portion of the costs for weatherization measures, either as a cash incentive or with a 6.5% interest
loan.
2008
During the month of July, Idaho Power sent every Oregon residential customer an informational
brochure about energy audits and horne weatherization financing. A total of 37 Oregon customers
responded. Each of the 37 customers returned a card from the brochure indicating they were interested
in a horne energy audit, weatherization loan, or incentive payment. Twenty-three audits and responses to
customer inquiries to the program were completed.
Idaho Power issued three rebates totaling $1,908.22 for 22,196 kWh savings. The rebates and related
savings were for ceiling insulation, window replacement, and a wall insulation project. There were no
loans made through this program during 2008. Five customer responses were directed to Cascade
Natural Gas.
Exhibit NO.1
Case No. IPC-E-09-05
T. Tatum, IPC
Page 41 of 104
Page 33Demand-Side Management Annual Report 2008
Residential Sector-Oregon Residential Weatherization Idaho Power Company
2009 Strategies
Plans for the upcoming year include notifying customers in their May bil about the program.
Idaho Power wil complete requested audits and fulfill all cost-effective rebate and loan applications.
Page 34
Exhibit NO.1
Case No. IPC-E-09-05
T. Tatum, ¡PC
Page 42 of 104
Demand-Side Management Annual Report 2008
Idaho Power Company Residential Sector-Rebate Advantage
Participation and Savings
Participants (homes)
Energy Savings (kWh)
Demand Reduction (MW)
Program Costs by Funding Source
Idaho Energy Effciency Rider
Oregon Energy Effciency Rider
Idaho Power Funds
Total Program Costs-All Sources
Program Levelized Costs Ratios
Utility Levelized Cost ($/kWh)
Total Resource Levelized Cost ($/kWh)
Program Life Benefit/Cost Ratios
Utiity Benefit/Cost Ratio
Total Resource Benefit/Cost Ratio
Program Characteristics
Program Jurisdiction
Program Inception
7.19
2.80
Idaho/Oregon
2003
2007
123
554,018
n/a
$58,854
$4,609
$733
$89,269
$0.010
$0.021
Idaho Power customers who purchase a newall-electrc, ENERGY STAR1\ qualified manufactued
horne and site it in Idaho Power's service area are eligible for a $500 rebate through the Rebate
Advantage program. Salespersons receive a $100 incentive for each qualified horne that they sell.
In addition to offering financial incentives, the Rebate Advantage program promotes and educates
buyers aiid retailers of manufactured homes about the benefits of owning energy effcient models.
Quality control and energy efficiency specifications for qualified homes are established by
the Northwest Energy Efficient Manufactued Housing (NEEM) program. NEEM is a consortium of
manufacturers and state energy offices in the Northwest. In addition to specifications and quality,
NEEM tracks the production and on-site performance of ENERGY STAR qualified manufactued
homes.
The Rebate Advantage program helps Idaho Power customers with the initial costs associated with
purchasing a new energy effcient ENERGY STAR qualified manufactued horne. This enables the
homebuyer to enjoy the long-term benefit oflower electric bils and greater comfort provided by these
homes. In addition, Idaho Power encourages sales consultants to discuss energy effciency with their
customers durig the sales process.
Exhibit NO.1
Case No. IPC-E-09-05
T. Tatum, IPC
Page 43 of 104
Page 35Demand-Side Management Annual Report 2008
Residential Sector-Rebate Advantage Idaho Power Company
Activities
During 2008, Idaho Power paid 107 incentives on new manufactured homes. The customer target for
2008 on the number of homes purchased was 150 homes. The slow economy had a dramatic effect on all
tyes of housing and contrbuted to the lower number of incentives. New Rebate Advantage marketing
materials were developed during the year, including a program brochure and new display posters for
placement at dealership sales offces and in ENERGY STAR qualified model homes. Idaho Power
customer representatives (CR) visited each of the approximately 19 dealerships at least three times
during 2008, answering questions and distributing materials.
Satisfaction
Idaho Power conducted two different sureys in 2008 for the Rebate Advantage program. The first
survey covered manufàctured home dealers who participated in the Rebate Advantage program.
Seventeen dealer program participants completed the survey. Results indicated strong awareness and
understanding of the Rebate Advantage program. One hundred percent of the respondents indicated they
"always use" or "occasionally use" the program materials provided by Idaho Power. Almost 94% of
the respondents "strongly agreed" and "somewhat agreed" the materials were useful in promoting
ENERGY STAR qualified manufactured hom~s.
The second Rebate Advantage program survey conducted was with customers who purchased an
ENERGY STAR qualified manufactured horne and received an incentive from Idaho Power.
Ninety-four program participants responded to this survey, with almost 87% using their new horne as
a primary residence. Close to 68% of the respondents reported they were "very knowledgeable" or
"somewhat knowledgeable" about ENERGY STAR qualified homes before entering the dealership,
and almost 95% of the respondents were "very knowledgeable" or "somewhat knowledgeable" about
ENERGY STAR qualified homes after leaving the dealership.
Strategies
Idaho Power plans to continue the Rebate Advantage program in 2009, explore new marketing methods,
and promote the program. CRs wil enhance relationships with dealerships by visiting each dealership
quarterly, offering program support, answering questions, and distributing materials. The involvement of
local Idaho Power personnel interacting with the local dealers reemphasizes the importance of
promoting the benefits of ENERGY STAR qualified homes and products.
Page 36
Exhibit NO.1
Case No. ¡PC-E-09-05
T. Tatum, ¡PC
Page 44 of 104Demand-Side Management Annual Report 2008
Idaho Power Company Residential Sector-WAQC
Qual
Participation and Savings
Participants (homes/non-profits)
Energy Savings (KWh)
Demand Reduction (MW)
Program Costs by Funding Source
Idaho Energy Efficiency Rider
Oregon Energy Effciency Rider
Idaho Power Funds
Total Program Costs-All Sources
Program Levelized Costs
Utility Levelized Cost ($/kWh)
Total Resource Levelized Cost ($/kWh)
Program Life Benefit/Cost Ratios
Utility Benefit/Cost Ratio
Total Resource Benefit/Cost Ratio
Program Characteristics
Program Jurisdiction
Program Inception
Idaho/Oregon
1989
2007
408
3,338,126
n/a
$0
$0
$1,323,624
$1,323,624
$0.030
$0.040
2.17
1.50
The WAQC prograin provides funding for the installation of cost-etlective weatherization measures in
qualified owner-occupied and rental homes that are electrcally heated. Enhancements enable qualified
tàmilies to maintain a comfortable horne environment, while saving energy and money otherwise spent
on heating, cooling, and lighting. Paricipants receive energy effciency education to help save energy in
their horne.
WAQC is modeled after the United States Deparment of Energy (DOE) Weatherization Program.
The DOE program is managed through Health and Human Services offices in Idaho and by the Oregon
Housing and Community Services in Oregon. Idaho Power, in conjunction with Community Action
Partnership (CAP) agencies in the Idaho Power service area, serves as the administrator ofWAQC.
Federal fuds are allocated to the Idaho Deparment of Health and Welfare and Oregon Housing and
Community Services, then to CAP agencies based upon United States Census data of qualifying
household income within each CAP agency's geographic area. The CAP agencies oversee local
weatherization crews and contractors providing implementations that improve energy effciency of
the homes. W AQC allows these state agencies to leverage their federal weatherization dollars and serve
more residents by attainng nonfederal supplemental fuding and other resources to supplement federal
LIHEAP and weatherization fuds.
During 2008, Idaho CAP agencies weatherized 434 electrically heated homes in Idaho and 13 in
Oregon, totaling 452 weatherized homes. Annual energy savings were 4,064 MW for Idaho and Exhibit NO.1
Case No. IPC-E-09-05
T. Tatum, IPC
Page 45 of 104Demand-Side Management Annual Report 2008 Page 37
Residential Sector-WAQC Idaho Power Company
74 MWh for Oregon. W AQC funded the weatherization of five buildings housing nonprofit
organizations that serve special needs populations in their Idaho communities. The annual energy
savings from the nonprofit weatherization was 130 MWh.
Surveys are sent to program participants after completion of the weatherization process in order to
measure satisfaction, education efforts, and behavior changes. Idaho Power mailed a W AQC participant
survey during June aiid December 2008 to customers who received W AQC services in the previous
six months. Twenty-nine percent, or 104 of 360, of all customers surveyed responded to the surey
about WAQC. Of those customers who responded, nearly 87% said they learned "some" or "a lot" about
saving electrcity in their horne. Additionally, 101 of those same customers, or over 97%, said that they
had tried "some" or "a lot" of ways to save energy in their homes.
Additionally, Idaho Power program specialists participated in the Idaho state peer review process,
which involved peer agency weatherization crews within the state reviewing homes weatherized by each
of the agencies. Results show all CAP agency weatherization departments are weatherizing in
accordance to federal guidelines.
Idaho Power is involved with the Policy Advisory Council, which serves as an oversight committee for
weatherization activities in Idaho. Through ths foru, Idaho Power paricipates in the weatherization
policy for the State of Idaho.
The customer satisfaction weatherization survey used during 2008 wil be used again in 2009.
Additionally, in response to a request from regional CAP agencies, Idaho Power employees plan to
participate in National Weatherization Day on October 30.
Page 38
Exhibit NO.1
Case No. IPC-E-09-05
T. Tatum, IPC
Page 46 of 104
Demand-Side Management Annual Report 2008
Idaho Power Company Commercial/Industrial Sector
The commercial and industral sector consists of over 64,000 customers. During 2008, new commercial
customers increased by 1,360, for an increase of about 2% over 2007. Individual customer energy usage
within this segment varies from a few kWh each month to several hundred thousand kWh each month.
The commercial segment of this sector represents approximately 27% of total electricity usage,
while the industrial segment of this sector represents about 30% ofIdaho Power's total electricity usage.
Industrial customers and special contract customers in this sector are Idaho Power's largest individual
energy consumers. This group consists of approximately 122 customers.
Table 6. 2008 Commercial/Industrial Program Summary
Total Costs Savings
Summer
Peak
Demand
Annual
Participants Utilty Resource Energy
Program (Number)CUnits2 (001lars2 COollars2 CkWh2
Energy Effciency
Building Effciency......... ......... .......60 projects $1,055,009 $1,671,375 6,598,123
Easy Upgrades.............................685 projects $2,992,261 $10,096,627 25,928.391
Holiday Lighting Program..............14 businesses $28,782 $73,108 259,092
Oregon Commercial Audit............0 audits $58 $58
Custom Effciency.. ............ ...........100 projects $4,045,671 $16,312,379 41,058,639
Total $8,121,779 $28,153,548 73,84,245
Note: See Appendix 3 for notes on methodology and column definitions.
MW
1
4
5
10
Three major programs targeting different energy effciency market segments are offered to
commercia1lindustral customers in Idaho Power's Idaho and Oregon service areas. Easy Upgrades
offers a menu of tyical commercial retrofit measures with prescriptive incentive amounts for lighting,
HV AC, motors, building shell, plug loads, and grocery refrigeration. The Building Effciency program
for new constrction projects achieves energy savings that are cost-effective at the time of constrction,
enabling Idaho Power customers to apply energy effcient design features and technologies that would
otherwise be lost opportunities for savings to their projects. This program encourages incorporation of
qualified energy-saving improvements for lighting, cooling, building shell, and energy control options.
Participants in the Building Effciency and Easy Upgrades programs can receive incentives for any
projects completed up to $100,000 per site per year. The Custom Effciency program offers financial
incentives for large commercial and industral energy users undertaking custom projects to improve
the efficiency of their electrical systems or processes. Idaho Power continues to offer the Oregon
Commercial Audits program to medium and small commercial customers.
In 2009, Idaho Power plans to launch a commercial demand response program. Idaho Power has
contracted with a third-part aggregator to reduce peak demand at critical times. The aggregator
contracts directly with Idaho Power commercial and industrial customers to achieve the demand
reduction.
Demand-Side Management Annual Report 2008
Exhibit NO.1
Case No. IPC-E-09-05
T. Tatum, IPC
Page 47 of 104
Page 39
Commercial/Industrial Sector Idaho Power Company
In 2008, Idaho Power contracted with the Integrated Design Lab (IDL) in Boise to accomplish specific
tasks to be completed in 2009. IDL wil create an Energy Use Index database from Idaho Power
customers and analyze the quality of coinssioning services in the Treasure Valley. IDL wil provide
educational sessions for the local design community and organize a building simulation users group to
help promote and enhance the local simulation skils. Other IDL tasks are to conduct a post-occupancy
survey to study customer satisfaction with technology incentives through the commercial energy
effciency programs and to evaluate and report on the curent market conditions for system sizing of
package rooftop HV AC units. Lastly, IDL wil identify and summarze key energy efficiency resources,
events, news items, and technologies useful to Idaho Power for evaluating current incentives and future
incentive opportunities for the commercial and industrial sector customers.
Page 40
Exhibit NO.1
Case No. IPC-E-09-05
T. Tatum, IPC
Page 48 of 104
Demand-Side Management Annual Report 2008
Idaho Power Company Commercial/Industrial Sector-Building Effciency
Participation and Savings
Participants (projects)
Energy Savings (kWh)
Demand Reduction (MW)
Program Costs by Funding Source
Idaho Energy Efficiency Rider
Oregon Energy Effciency Rider
Idaho Power Funds
Total Program Costs-All Sources
Program Levelized Costs
Utility Levelized Cost ($/kWh)
Total Resource Levelized Cost ($/kWh)
Program Life Benefit/Cost Ratios
Utility Benefit/Cost Ratio
Total Resource Benefit/Cost Ratio
Program Characteristics
Program Jurisdiction
Program Inception
Idaho/Oregon
2004
2007
22
2,817,248
.:1
$661,485
$5,766
$1,781
$669,032
$0.026
$0.032
2.14
1.55
The Building Effciency program enables customers in Idaho Power's service area in Idaho and Oregon
to apply energy efficient design featues and technologies that would otherwise be lost opportnities for
savings to their projects. The Building Effciency program offers a menu of measures and incentives for
lighting, cooling, building shell, and control-efficiency options. Program incentives also include funding
for custom projects, as well as additional incentives for commissioning that ensures the systems perform
as designed.
The Building Efficiency program is offered to commercial and industrial customers involved in
the construction of new buildings or construction projects with significant additions, remodels,
or expansions. The program offers incentives up to $100,000. Commercial and industral customers
takig service under, or who wil take service under, Schedule 7 (Small General Service), Schedule 9
(Lai'ge General Service), Schedule 19 (Large Power Service), or special contract customers are eligible
to participate.
Program marketing is targeted at architects, engineers, and other local design professionals.
Monthly e-mail program updates are sent to building developers, design professionals, contractors,
building owners, Idaho Power field personnel, and other interested parties.
Through the Building Efficiency prograin, Idaho Power is a primary sponsor of the Boise Integrated
Design Lab (IDL), which provides technical assistance and training seminars to local architects and
Exhibit NO.1
Case No. IPC-E-09-05
T. Tatum, IPC
Page 49 of 104
Page 41Demand-Side Management Annual Report 2008
Commercial/Industrial Sector-Building Efficiency Idaho Power Company
designers. Much of this activity is coordinated and supported through NEEA's BetterBricksil program.
The Building Efficiency program sponsors the annual BetterBricks awards held in October in Boise.
In 2008, Idaho Power made minor modifications to accommodate Idaho's adoption of the 2006 IECC,
effective Januar 1, 2008. Eligibility requirements for three of the 14 measures changed in 2008.
The Building Effciency program completed 60 new construction, major renovations, and major
additions projects in 2008, resulting in 6,598,123 kWh in energy savings. Idaho Power paid $846,931 in
incentives for completed projects in 2008.
The IDL began a measurement and verification study on four of the 14 measures offered under
the Building Efficiency program. Through the contract with IDL, additional measurement and
verification activities for the program are expected to continue through 2009. The results of the first
four measures evaluated wil be available in 2009.
2009
Two incentive measures used through 2008 have been altered for 2009. Idaho Power made minor
modifications to the menu of 14 measures, effective Januar 1,2009. One under-used measure, premium
windows, was replaced with a more popular option, exterior window shading. On another measure,
demand-control ventilation, the incentive level was adjusted down. The incentive payment is now based
on the outside airflow, not the unit-rated airfow, resulting in a lesser incentive amount.
Measurement and verification of selected measures offered through the Building Effciency program
wil continue through the IDL. IDL wil install monitoring equipment on selected Building Effciency
participant üici1ities and report the results in 2009. Idaho Power has designed a surey to measure
participant satisüiction in the Building Effciency program. The program plans to implement this survey
in 2009.
Page 42
Exhibit NO.1
Case No. IPC-E-09-05
T. Tatum, IPC
Page 50 of 104
Demand-Side Management Annual Report 2008
Idaho Power Company Commercial/Industrial Sector-Custom Effciency
Participation and Savings
Participants (projects)
Energy Savings (kWh)
Demand Reduction (MW)
Program Costs by Funding Source
Idaho Energy Efficiency Rider
Oregon Energy Effciency Rider
Idaho Power Funds
Total Program Costs-All Sources
Program Levelized Costs
Utility Levelized Cost ($/kWh)
Total Resource Levelized Cost ($/kWh)
Program Life Benefit/Cost Ratios
Utiity Benefit/Cost Ratio
Total Resource Benefit/Cost Ratio
Program Characteristics
Program Jurisdiction
Program Inception
Idaho/Oregon
2003
2007
49
29,789,304
4
$3,032,047
$110,634
$19,185
$3,161,866
$0.012
$0.026
4.83
1.55
The Custom Efficiency program targets energy savings though the implementation of customized
energy efficiency projects at customers' sites. The program is an opportty for large- and mid-sized
commercial and industrial customers in Idaho and Oregon to lower their electrcal bils and receive
a financial incentive by completing energy effcient projects. Incentives enable companies to do projects
that might not be completed otherwise. Program offerings include training and education on energy
effciency, energy auditing services for project identification and evaluation, and financial incentives for
project implementation.
Interested customers submit applications to Idaho Power for potential projects that have been identified
by a thid-part consultant, Idaho Power staff, or by the customer as applicable to their facility.
The applications must provide sufficient information to support the energy-savings calculations.
Project implementation begins after Idaho Power reviews and approves an application, followed by
the fina1ization of the terms and conditions of the applicant's and Idaho Power's obligations.
When possible, Idaho Power conducts on-site power monitoring and data collection, before and after
project implementation. The measurement and verification process ensures achievement of projected
energy savings. Verifying applicants' information confirms that demand reduction and energy savings
are obtained and within program guidelines.
Exhibit NO.1
Case No. IPC-E-09-05
T. Tatum, IPC
Page 51 of 104
Page 43Demand-Side Management Annual Report 2008
Commercial/Industrial Sector-Custom Effciency Idaho Power Company
If changes in scope take place in a project, a recalculation of energy savings and incentive amounts
occurs, based on the actual installed equipment. Large, complex projects may take as long as two years
to complete.
In 2008, the minimum project size requirement increased from an anual 20,000 kWh to 100,000 kWh.
This change is expected to result in customers with smaller projects participating in other Idaho Power
energy effciency programs, allowing greater Idaho Power resources to be focused on larger projects.
For smaller projects, or those with less complex retrofits, the Easy Upgrades or Building Effciency
programs may be applicable. If a smaller project cannot be accommodated through other Idaho Power
energy effciency programs, the project may be completed under the Custom Efficiency program,
subject to cost-effectiveness analysis. Incentive levels for the Custom Effciency program remain at 70%
of the project cost, or $0. 12/kWh, whichever is less.
Key components in facilitating customer implementation of energy efficiency projects are energy
auditing, customer training, and education services. The link between energy audits and the completion
of projects is historically significant; thus, Idaho Power continued expanding the number of contractors
available for customer scoping audits from four companies in 2007 to five companies in 2008.
Selection of engineering firms was based on the firm's expertise in all major equipment areas and their
ability to provide resources for customers thoughout Idaho Power's service area.
The Custom Efficiency program achieved a high service area penetration rate. Through 2008,
approximately 50% of the large power service customers had submitted an application for a project.
Idaho Power reviewed and approved 135 applications for incentive projects in 2008. A total of
101 projects were completed in 2008 for 59 companies, including four Oregon projects.
Program energy savings increased in 2008 by 37% over the prior year, from 29,789 MW to
41,059 MWh. Additionally, completed projects increased by 106% and approved incentive applications
increased by 55%.
Table 7. Custom Efficiency Annual Energy Savings by Measure
Project Breakdowns
Lighting ......................................
Fan.............................................
Compressed Air.........................
Pump .........................................
Refrigeration............................. .
Other..........................................
Total
# of projects
57
12
11
4
6
11
101
kWh saved
15,300,158
11,399,810
6,612,292
717,068
3,554,444
3,474,867
41,058,639
Eleven more Oregon projects are scheduled for completion in 2009. In 2009, Idaho Power is expanding
the Custom Efficiency program through a number of activities. These activities wil include direct
marketing of the Custom Effciency program by Idaho Power field staff to inform the customers of Exhibit NO.1
Case No. IPC-E-09-05
T. Tatum, IPC
Page 52 of 104Page 44 Demand-Side Management Annual Report 2008
Idaho Power Company Commercial/l ndustrial Sector-Custom Effciency
the Idaho Power energy efficiency programs available and ways the customer can reduce energy costs.
Also, Idaho Power wil continue to provide site visits and energy audits for project identification,
technical training for customers, detailed energy audits for larger, complex projects, and delivery of
Industrial Effciency Allance (IEA)-sponsored continuous energy improvement practices to customers.
Demand-Side Management Annual Report 2008
Exhibit NO.1
Case No. IPC-E-09-05
T. Tatum, IPC
Page 53 of 104
Page 45
Commercialllndustrial Sector-Easy Upgrades Idaho Power Company
u
Participation and Savings
Participants (projects)
Energy Savings (kWh)
Demand Reduction (MW)
Program Costs by Funding Source
Idaho Energy Effciency Rider
Oregon Energy Effciency Rider
Idaho Power Funds
Total Program Costs-All Sources
Program Levelized Costs
Utility Levelized Cost ($/kWh)
Total Resource Levelized Cost ($/kWh)
Program Life Benefit/Cost Ratios
Utility Benefit/Cost Ratio
Total Resource Benefit/Cost Ratio
Program Characteristics
Program Jurisdiction
Program Inception
Idaho/Oregon
2006
2007
104
5,183,640
1
$680,376
$28,014
$3,105
$711,494
$0.015
$0.040
3.88
1.21
Available in the Idaho and Oregon Idaho Power service areas, the objective of the Easy Upgrades
program is to encourage commercial and industral customers to implement energy effciency retrofits
by offering incentives up to $100,000 per site. Eligible measures cover a variety of energy-saving
opportities in lighting, HV AC, motors, building shell, plug loads, and grocery refrgeration.
Idaho Power commercial or industrial customers on Schedule 7 (Small General Service), Schedule 9
(Large General Service), Schedule 19 (Large Power Service), and special contracts are eligible.
Potential participants first assess their energy-saving opportities by talking with their equipment
supplier, contractor, or Idaho Power service representative. For projects with expected incentive
payments of more than $1,000, applicants must submit a pre-app prior to initiating the project. In that
case, the customer completes the preliminar application (pre-app) form and submits it with relevant
worksheet( s), describing the location and planed scope of their project. Upon Idaho Power's review
and acceptance, the pre-app allows a customer to collect an incentive for up to 90 days for project
completion. For smaller projects with expected incentive payments of less than $1,000, customers may
elect to skip the pre-app and just submit their final application for payment. These projects must have
been completed no more than six months prior to submitting their application for payment.
In July, a special lighting incentive promotion was offered under Easy Upgrades. This promotion,
limited to Idaho customers, offered higher incentives for many lighting measures. A review of prior
Exhibit NO.1
Case No. IPC-E-09-05
T. Tatum, IPC
Page 54 of 104Demand-Side Management Annual Report 2008Page 46
Idaho Power Company Commercial/Industrial Sector-Easy Upgrades
lighting projects' actual operating hours justified the higher promotional incentive levels for the lighting
measures. An increased number of lighting project applications occured after the promotion. In Oregon,
an expanded state tax credit pass-through was offered in July for lighting projects. No apparent
additional activity was generated from the offer.
The special offer for VendingMiser™ installations, initiated in November 2007, concluded in
October 2008, with more than 3,600 unts installed. An assessment of the VendingMiser installations
was conducted to determine if the units remained in place. After revisiting a sampling of the
installations, and correcting problems in some cases, the results showed that over 90% of the
VendingMisers were stil in place and functioning within the year after installation.
Additionally, the Lighting Savings/Incentive Calculator became available on the Idaho Power Web site
in April 2008. The calculator helps customers determne the costs and benefits of their potential lighting
projects. Due to the lighting promotion and the online savings/incentive calculator, there was an increase
in applications received and projects completed.
Marketing activities included publishing "Success Stories" on the Idaho Power Web site, providing
workshops, and sponsoring events. Trade ally workshops continued through the spring and autumn.
Idaho Power sponsored events, including the Commercial Real Estate Symposium, an American Society
of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) technical conference, the second
annual Building Owners and Managers Association (BOMA) Energy Effciency Workshop, and the
annual Idaho Energy and Green Building Conference. Additionally, Idaho Power presented payments at
incentive check ceremonies when requested by customers.
Idaho Power continued to sponsor the Lighting Design Lab (LDL) in Seattle through the Easy Upgrades
program. The LDL provides techncal assistance and periodic local training seminars encouraging
energy saving lighting. Additionally, Idaho Power is a sponsor ofNEEA's BetterBricksil program,
disseminating general energy efficiency information to commercial customers.
Easy Upgrades conducts a regular follow-up regarding customer satisfaction. As of December 2008,
81 % of the program participants surveyed "strongly agree" they received excellent value through Easy
Upgrades, while 11 % of the respondents "somewhat agree." Additionally, 86% of the surey
respondents "strongly agree" that they received excellent service while 87% "strongly agree" their
experience when dealing with Idaho Power employees was positive.
The fall series workshops focused on stakeholder input regarding program change implementation for
2009. Based on input from stakeholders, plans for the upcoming year include significant program
changes. New measures eligible for incentives are being added, while others are being dropped.
Idaho Power customers will have 143 eligible measures in 2009, in contrast to the 129 offered in 2008.
Certain incentive levels and a few application requirements are scheduled to change in 2009.
Additionally, an electronic application form wil go online during the upcomig year. To encourage
customers to use the electronic application, an additional incentive is being considered for each
Demand-Side Management Annual Report 2008
Exhibit NO.1
Case No. IPC-E-09-05
T. Tatum, IPC
Page 55 of 104
Page 47
Commercial/Industrial Sector-Easy Upgrades Idaho Power Company
electronic application submitted within a limited period. Details on program changes for 2009 and
additional "Success Stories" wil be available on the Idaho Power Web site in the spring of 2009.
Generally, major program changes occur approximately every two years. A program evaluation is
planned for 2009. Results wil be available in early 2010, allowing incorporation of the results of
this evaluation into the program planning for 201 1.
Page 48
Exhibit No. 1
Case No. IPC-E-09-05
T. Tatum, IPC
Page 56 of 104Demand-Side Management Annual Report 2008
Idaho Power Company Commercial/Industrial Sector-Holiday Lighting Program
Hoi P
Participation and Savings
Participants (projects)
Energy Savings (kWh)
Demand Reduction (MW)
Program Costs by Funding Source
Idaho Energy Efficiency Rider
Oregon Energy Effciency Rider
Idaho Power Funds
Total Program Costs-All Sources
Program Levelized Costs
Utility Levelized Cost ($/kWh)
Total Resource Levelized Cost ($/kWh)
Program Life Benefit/Cost Ratios
Utiity Benefit/Cost Ratio
Total Resource Benefit/Cost Ratio
Program Characteristics
Program Jurisdiction
Program Inception
2.85
1.12
Idaho/Oregon
2008
2007
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
The overall goal of the Holiday Lighting Program is to encourage customers to purchase more efficient
light emitting diode (LED) holiday lights. Although the incentive is available only to commercial
customers, the program is useful as a means of introducing all Idaho Power customers to the advantages
of LED lighting. In doing this, Idaho Power is rapidly helping make LED lighting the preferred choice
when it comes to replacing existing holiday lights. In time, the exposure to cOlnrercial LED lighting
should fiter into the residential market. Along with spreading the message of LED lighting's energy
effciency, Idaho Power also informs customers about the safety benefits of using LED lights.
For the second year, Idaho Power offered an incentive for commercial customers to replace holiday
lighting with higher-efficiency LED lighting. There was over a 700% increase in participation compared
to 2007, resulting in greatly increased savings. With its revitalization of the downtown and train depot
areas, the largest participant in 2008's program was the City of CaldwelL. The city's holiday lighting
served as an excellent exposure to LED holiday lighting for a lai-ge number of viewers. In Boise,
the Idaho Botanical Gardens enlarged their Winter Garden Aglow holiday display, replacing nearly
53,000 incandescent lights with LED lights. Posted at the entrance to the Botanical Garden were signs
promoting energy and safety benefits of LED lights. It is estimated that over 29,000 visitors attended
the event.
Exhibit NO.1
Case No. IPC-E-09-05
T. Tatum, IPC
Page 57 of 104
Page 49Demand-Side Management Annual Report 2008
Commercial/Industrial Sector-Holiday Lighting Program Idaho Power Company
2009 Strategies
Many of the same marketing approaches wil be used in 2009 to increase customer participation.
These promotional methods include providing materals in advance to chambers of commerce,
business and professional organizations, and paricipating trade allies. Idaho Power plans to coordinate
with municipalities and the Idaho Botancal Garden to support their LED-display efforts. A Holiday
Lighting bil stuffer wil be sent in autumn 2009 to promote the program.
Page 50
Exhibit NO.1
Case No. IPC-E-09-05
T. Tatum, ¡PC
Page 58 of 104
Demand-Side Management Annual Report 2008
Idaho Power Company Commercial/lndustrial Sector-OR Commercial Audits
Participation and Savings
Participants (audits)
Energy Savings (kWh)
Demand Reduction (MW)
Program Costs by Funding Source
Idaho Energy Effciency Rider
Oregon Energy Effciency Rider
Idaho Power Funds
Total Program Costs-All Sources
Program Levelized Costs Ratios
Utility Levelized Cost ($/kWh)
Total Resource Levelized Cost ($/kWh)
Program Life Benefit/Cost Ratios
Utility Benefit/Cost Ratio
Total Resource Benefit/Cost Ratio
Program Characteristics
Program Jurisdiction
Program Inception
n/a
n/a
Oregon
1983
2007
8
n/a
n/a
$0
$1,800
$181
$1,981
n/a
n/a
The Oregon Commercial Audits prograni identifies opportities for conunercial building owners to
achieve energy savings. This is a statutory program offered under Oregon Schedule No. 82.
Through this prograin, free energy audits offer evaluations and educational services to customers.
Anual mailings to each customer in the commercial sector communicate program benefits and
offerings.
The third-party energy auditing contract was renewed in 2008, with EnerTech Services providing
services through 2011. Idaho Power sent out its annual mailing to all Oregon commercial customers in
December 2008. Customers were notified of the availability of no-cost energy audits and the Idaho
Power publication Saving Energy Dollars. Three customers requested this publication in 2008.
There were no energy audits conducted in 2008. However, ten customers requested an energy audit,
which wil be completed in 2009.
In 2009, as a method for introducing participants to additional energy efficiency resources and practices,
the audit process wil be maximized by providing Idaho Power incentive information targeting specific
areas for improvement found in the audits. Idaho Power wil help customers tu their maintenance
requirements into energy saving opportnities by providing energy effciency information to
the customers.Exhibit NO.1
Case No. IPC-E-09-05
T. Tatum, IPC
Page 59 of 104
Page 51Demand-Side Management Annual Report 2008
Commercial/Industrial Sector-OR Commercial Audits Idaho Power Company
Ths page left blan intentionally.
Page 52
Exhibit NO.1
Case No. IPC-E-09-05
T. Tatum, IPC
Page 60 of 104Demand-Side Management Annual Report 2008
Idaho Power Company Irrigation Sector
s
Descri ption
The irrigation sector is comprised of agrcultural customers operating a water-pumping or water-delivery
system to in'igate agricultural crops or pasturage. The end-use equipment primarily includes irrigation
pumps, pivots, fertilizer pumps, aiid drainage pumps. This customer group does not include water
pumping for non-agricultural puroses, such as in'igation of lawns, parks, cemeteries, golf courses,
or domestic water supply.
The maximum nuniber of active customers in 2008 was 17,428. In 2008, irgation customers accounted
for 1,921,608 MWh of energy usage and 772 MW of peak demand. This sector represented about 13%
ofIdaho Power's total electrcity usage and about 23% of peak demand.
Table 8. 2008 Irrigation Program Summary
Total Costs Savings
Summer
Annual Peak
Particieants Utility Resource Energy Demand
Program (Number)(Units)(Dollars)(Do/lars)(kWh)MW
Demand Response
Irrigation Peak Rewards................897 service $1,431,840 $189,492 n/a 35points
Total $1,431,840 $189,492 n1a 35
Energy Effciency
Irrigation Effciency Rewards ........961 projects $2,103,702 $5,850,778 11,746,395 3
Total $2,103,702 $5,850,778 11,746,395 38
Note: See Appendix 3 for notes on methodology and column definitions.
Idaho Power curently offers two programs to the irrigation sector, i) Irrgation Peak Rewards,
a demand response program designed to decrease peak demand, and 2) the Irrgation Effciency
Rewards, an energy efficiency program designed to encourage replacement or improvement of
inefficient systems and components. Energy usage for this sector has not grown significantly in many
years; however, there is substantial yearly variation in demand due primarily to the impact of weather on
irrgation needs. There are about 200 new service locations added each year. The new locations are
tyically smaller systems that are only pressurzing water. New for the Irrgation Peak Rewards program
in 2009 is a dispatchable demand response option approved by the IPUC on January 14,2009.
Demand-Side Management Annual Report 2008
Exhibit NO.1
Case No. IPC-E-09-05
T. Tatum, IPC
Page 61 of 104
Page 53
Irrigation Sector-Irrigation Peak Rewards Idaho Power Company
Irrigation Peak Rewards
Participation and Savings
Participants (service points)
Energy Savings (kWh)
Demand Reduction (MW)
Program Costs by Funding Source
Idaho Energy Efficiency Rider
Oregon Energy Effciency Rider
Idaho Power Funds
Total Program Costs-All Sources
Program Levelized Costs
Utility Levelized Cost ($/kWh)
Total Resource Levelized Cost
Program Life Benefit/Cost Ratios
Utility BenefiUCost Ratio
Total Resource BenefiUCost Ratio
Program Characteristics
Program Jurisdiction
Program Inception
2008 2007
Idaho/Oregon
2003
947
nla
37
$1,520,106
$54,747
$41,028
$1,615,881
nla
nla
1.15
1.15
Available to Idaho Power's Idaho and Oregon customers, the 2008 Irrgation Peak Rewards program
was a voluntary program targeted toward agricultural irgation customers with pumps of75 horsepower
(Hp) or greater. The program objective is reduction of peak electrical load during summer, weekday
afternoons. In exchange for a financial incentive, preprograinied electronic time activated switches turn
off the pumps of participating irrgation customers durg intervals predetermned by Idaho Power.
Participants select one of three different options for the months of June, July, and August. A monthly
demand credit is associated with each of the one-, two-, or three-day options and is paid based on
the pai1icipating customer's monthly biling demand. Electronic timers are prograied to turn
inigation pumps off during preprogrammed times associated with the selected option. The following
three options and associated demand credit incentives were available to customers from 4:00 to
8:00 p.m. on weekdays: 1) one day per week, $2.01 per kW demand, 2) two days per week, $3.36 per
kW demand, or 3) three days per week, $4.36 per kW demand. Incentive amounts are credited to the
monthly biling demand at each customer's metered service point. Customers with pumps of 75-99 Hp
pay a one-time $250 installation fee to help offset the cost of the switches and maintain the program's
cost effectiveness.
Idaho Power provided five workshops promoting the Irrgation Peak Rewards program across
the service area. Additionally, a list of each customer's pumps, information for estimating potential
incentives on each pump, and a program application was mailed to every eligible irrigation customer. Exhibit NO.1
Case No. IPC-E-09-05
T. Tatum, IPC
Page 62 of 104Page 54 Demand-Side Management Annual Report 2008
Idaho Power Company Irrigation Sector-Irrigation Peak Rewards
Other marketing efforts included providing an Idaho Power exhibitor booth at regional agricultural trade
shows, such as the Eastern and Western Idaho Agriculture Expos, the United Dairymen ofIdaho Expo,
the Agri-Action Ag show, the Idaho Farm Bureau convention, and the Idaho Irrgation Equipment
Association show and convention. In 2008, several meetings occurred with the Idaho Irigation Pumpers
Association, IPUC stan: and customers regarding proposed changes to the prograin for 2009,
which include a dispatchable demand response option. In December 2008, the Irrigation Peak Rewards
Program Report was submitted to the IPUC. The report describes program results, costs, and savings for
2008.
A dispatchable demand response option was approved by the IPUC on Januar 14,2009, and the OPUC
on February 25, 2009. The proposal included modifications to the Irrgation Peak Rewards program for
2009. A shorter program operating time throughout the sumer, from June 15 to August 15, was
proposed. Idaho Power plans to make the program available to all agricultural customers receiving
service under Irrigation Rate Schedule 24 in 2009, potentially leading to greater energy demand and
increased customer participation.
The prograni marketing strategy includes sponsoring 7 to 10 program update workshops across Idaho
Power's service area, covering new program offerings and demonstrating the new technology operating
the dispatchable demaiid response option. Simultaneously, customer mailings to aU eligible customers
wil provide a detailed explanation of the program offerings and increase awareness of the significant
changes to the prograin. Additionally, one-on-one training with Idaho Power agriculture representatives
wil failiarize customers with the new technology and program details. Results of the program wil be
reported in the 2009 Irrigation Peak Rewards Report.
Demand-Side Management Annual Report 2008
Exhibit NO.1
Case No. IPC-E-09-05
T. Tatum, IPC
Page 63 of 104
Page 55
Irrigation Sector-Irrigation Effciency Rewards Idaho Power Company
Irrigation Efficiency
Participation and Savings
Participants (projects)
Energy Savings (kWh)
Demand Reduction (MW)
Program Costs by Funding Source
Idaho Energy Effciency Rider
Oregon Energy Effciency Rider
Idaho Power Funds
Total Program Costs-All Sources
Program Levelized Costs
Utility Levelized Cost ($/kWh)
Total Resource Levelízed Cost ($/kWh)
Program Life Benefit/Cost Ratios
Utility Benefit/Cost Ratio
Total Resource Benefit/Cost Ratio
Program Characteristics
Program Jurisdiction
Program Inception
Idaho/Oregon
2003
2007
819
12,304,073
3
$1,881,116
$93,924
$26,922
$2,001,961
$0.024
$0.103
5.49
1.64
The Irrgation Effciency Rewards program encourages energy efficient equipment and design in
irrigation systems. Irrgators in Idaho Power's Idaho and Oregon service area can receive financial
incentives and reduce their electrc bills. Idaho Power helps qualified irrgators pay for energy effciency
featues in their irgation system and helps them use electrcity effciently. Incentives for the Irrgation
Effciency Rewards program helps the customer recover the costs of installation of a new, more efficient
irrigation system and energy efficient improvements to an existing irrigation system.
Two separate reward options help meet the needs for major or minor changes on new or existing
systems. The Custom Incentive Option addresses extensive retrofits of existing systems or new irrgation
systems, providing component upgrades and large-scale improvements. For new systems, the incentive
is $0.25 per kWh saved above standard installation methods, not to exceed 10% of total project cost.
For existing system upgrades, the incentive is $0.25 per kWh saved or $450 per kW, whichever is
greater, not to exceed 75% of the total project cost. Idaho Power reviews, analyzes, and makes
recommendations on each application. On each completed project, before final payment, all project
information is re-evaluated. Prior usage history, actual invoices, and, in many situations, post-usage
demand data, are used to calculate savings and incentives.
The Menu Incentive Option covers a significant portion of the costs of repairing and replacing specific
components that help the IiTigation system use less energy. This option is designed for systems in which
small maintenance upgrades provide energy savings. Incentives vary based on specific component
replacement.
Exhibit NO.1
Case No. ¡PC-E-09-05
T. Tatum, IPC
Page 64 of 104
Demand-Side Management Annual Report 2008Page 56
Idaho Power Company Irrigation Sector-Irrigation Efficiency Rewards
Payments are calculated on predetermined average kWh savings per component. Idaho Power reviews
and analyzes each proposal for a system or component modification, determining and verifying
the energy savings.
In addition to incentives, the program offers customer education, training, and irrigation-system
assessments. Idaho Power agricultural representatives sponsor, coordinate, conduct, and present
educational workshops for irrgation customers, providing expert information and training across Idaho
Power's service area. Energy audits, conducted by Idaho Power agricultural representatives,
evaluate prospective customers' potential savings. Agricultural representatives from Idaho Power also
engage agricultural irgation equipment dealers in trainng sessions, increasing awareness of
the program and promoting it through the irrgation equipment distribution channels. Marketing efforts
include direct mailings, advertisements in agricultural publications, and agricultual trade show
paricipation.
Idaho Power provided five workshops promoting the Irrigation Effciency Reward program across
the service area. The program had an Idaho Power exhibitor booth at regional agricultural trade shows,
including the Eastern and Western Idaho Agriculture Expos, the United Dairyen of Idaho Expo,
Agri-Action Ag show, the Idaho Farm Bureau convention, and the Idaho Irrigation Equipment
Association show and convention.
Marketing plans for 2009 include conducting seven to 10 irrgation workshops. These workshops enable
discussions between Idaho Power representatives and customers, while continually educating customers
about the program and ways to participate.
All agricultural customers in Idaho Power's service area are eligible for the Irrgation Effciency Reward
program. The Irrigation Efficiency Reward program has little room for expansion within the customer
class, though additional energy-saving measures may expand as technology becomes available.
The market is becoming saturated to some extent, though there is stil potential in this large market.
Demand-Side Management Annual Report 2008
Exhibit NO.1
Case No. IPC-E-09-05
T. Tatum, IPC
Pagê 65 of 104
Page 57
Irrigation Sector-Irrigation Effciency Rewards Idaho Power Company
Ths page left blank intentionally.
Page 58
Exhibit NO.1
Case No. IPC-E-09-05
T. Tatum, IPC
Page 66 of 104
Demand-Side Management Annual Report 2008
Idaho Power Company Market Transformation-NEEA
Efficiency liance (N
NEEA encourages and supports cost-effective market transformation efforts in Idaho, Oregon,
Washington, and Montana. Through partnerships with local utilities, NEEA motivates marketplace
adoption of energy-saving services and technologies and encourages regional education and marketing
platforms. NEEA provides training and marketing resources across residential, commercial,
and industrial sectors. Idaho Power accomplishes market transformation in its service area though
membership and coordinated activities with NEEA.
Industrial Efficiency Allance (lEA) Activities in Idaho
The IEA is a multi-year strategic effort designed to improve energy effciency in two regional industries
considered heavy energy users, 1) the food processing and 2) the pulp and paper industries.
Although Idaho Power does not have any pulp and paper customers, because of the large number of food
processing customers, Idaho Power considers participation in IEA valuable. The IEA also works with
companies that produce equipment and provide services for these industries and with the utilities that
serve them.
Participants achieve cost savings through the adoption of energy-effcient business practices. The IEA
provides expert support, resources, and services, providing companies with the training and tools for
making energy efficiency a core business value. Participants are asked for a commitment to
a Continuous Energy Improvement Program, which potentially increases production capacity,
improves equipment reliability, and reduces operating costs and energy use by 5% to 20%. This effort is
supported by providing techncal knowledge for individuals, organzations, and manufactung
companies collaborating on energy efiiciency implementation. IEA members include the BP A, regional
utilities, the Energy Trust of Oregon (ETO), the Oregon Deparment of Energy (ODOE), and the Idaho
Offce of Energy Resources (OER).
Training activity in 2008 increased over 2007 and included eight industrial workshops co-sponsored by
the IEA, Idaho Power, and others. Topics focused on pumps, compressed air, motors, and industrial
refrigeration. A market progress evaluation of the IEA was completed in May 2008.
Commercial Allance Activities in Idaho
NEEA continued to provide support for commercial energy efficient activities in Idaho in 2008.
NEEA continued funding the Boise Integrated Design Lab (IDL) and local BetterBricksil trainngs and
workshops. NEEA sponsored Idaho's Four Anual BetterBricks Awards, issued in October in
conjunction with the Idaho Energy & Green Building Conference. Idaho Power's commercial programs,
Building Effciency and Easy Upgrades, are designed to leverage NEEA, BetterBricks, and Boise iDL
activities.
Distribution Efficiency Initiative
In 2008, Idaho Power continued to participate with other northwest utilities in NEEA's Distribution
Efficiency Initiative (DEI) project study.
Demand-Side Management Annual Report 2008
Exhibit NO.1
Case No. IPC-E-09-05
T. Tatum, IPC
Page 67 of 104
Page 59
Market Transformation-NEEA Idaho Power Company
Phase I Projects Completed
NEEA conducted a DEI project study, which included a Load Research project and Pilot Demonstration
projects. The Load Research project was designed to establish the relationship between applied voltage
and energy, in addition to how applied voltage affects demand for different end-use load tyes, such as
electric heating, electric water heating, and air conditioning. The Pilot Demonstration projects controlled
the voltage at the substation in order to determine the performance of different effciency methods.
Phase i Concluded in 2007
The NEEA study's final report shows that operating a utility distribution system in the lower half of
the acceptable voltage range of 120 through 1 l4 volts saves energy (kWh), reduces demand (kW),
and reduces reactive power (i.e., kilovolt ampere reactive (kvar)) requirements without negatively
impacting the customer. The energy-savings results are with the expected values of 1 % to 3% total
energy reduction, 2% to 4% reduction in kW demand, and a 4% to 10% reduction in kvar demand.
As part of the completion of this project, the 66 Horne Voltage Regulators (HVRs) operating in southern
Idaho since March 2006 were removed durig the sumer of2007. The purpose of the HVR was to
adjust service entrance voltage at the residence.
Project for 2007
A new pilot was implemented during the second quai1er of2007 to demonstrate remote end-of-feeder
control of the station transformer load-tap changer. The project used wireless communication between
the end-of-feeder and the substation to adjust the substation voltage based on the measured
end-of-feeder voltage. Application of technology allows better control of the end-of-feeder voltage.
In December 2007, R. W. Beck, Inc., a contractor for NEEA, published the Northwest Energy
Effciency Allance Distrbution Effciency Initiative Project Final Report. This report and additional
information about DEI is available at htt://rwbeck.coinneea. The estimated, annual project savings
were reported to be 8,563 MW.
Project for 2008
In 2008, the remote end-of-feeder control of the station transformer load-tap changer project was
changed from a pilot project to a permanent installation. In addition, studies began to identify additional
locations to implement the technques identified in the pilot study. The initial phase wil include
locations that can be converted with minimal or no capital expenditures. Future phases wil be
those locations that require more extensive resources to implement.
In 2008, DEI Calculators, which are Excel-based tools, were completed and presented to the RTF.
These calculators include a manager's tool that provides high-level results and an engineer's tool that
allows users to develop multiple scenarios and compare results. These tools were developed to be used
primarily by smaller utilities that mayor may not have the resources to do the analysis necessar to
implement a DEI-based project.
Residential NEEA Activities in Idaho
NEEA continues to provide support for the ENERGY ST ARil Homes Northwest program offered by
Idaho Power. NEEA offers techncal assistance, funding for certifications, and builder and marketing
support.
Page 60
Exhibit NO.1
Case No. IPC-E-09-05
T. Tatum, IPC
Page 68 of 104
Demand-Side Management Annual Report 2008
Idaho Power Company Market Transformation-NEEA
Other NEEA Activities in Idaho
In 2008, Idaho Power participated in two major studies in Idaho Power's service area. The ENERGY
STAR Homes Northwest impact evaluation continued throughout 2008 with flla1 results available in
2009. Idaho Power assisted NEEA in developing the sample plan for ths study and provided data
necessary to assess the program. The impact evaluation required that ENERGY STAR certified homes
were audited and had measurement and verification equipment installed.
Idaho Power participated with NEEA to conduct a Commercial Building Stock Assessment (CBSA).
The purpose of this study was to update the original CBSA completed in 2003. Idaho Power contracted
with the Cadmus Group to over-sample buildings in Idaho Power's service area to gather more detailed
information to enhance program planing in the commercial sector. Idaho Power provided data and
assisted the contractor in reviewing the commercial-building characteristics in Idaho Power's service
area.
Each year, NEEA underwrites the Idaho Energy Conference through a contract with the Association of
Idaho Cities. NEEA continues to provide general information support to the region by fuding
the EnergyIdeas C1earinghouseil and ConWeb'ID.
NEEA funded a variety of research projects that were reported on in 2008. These reports are valuable to
Idaho Power in that they provide information for creating and evaluating Idaho Power's programs.
These research projects included Baseline Characteristics of the 2002-2004 Nonresidential Sector of
Idaho, Montana, Oregon, and Washington. They also included Market Research Reports for ENERGY
STAR Homes Nortwest Focus Groups, Residential Ductless Heat Pump Market Research and
Analysis, Residential New Construction Billing Analysis, Analysis of Window Energy Savings in
Commercial Buildings in the Northwest, ENERGY STAR Consumer Products Lighting Project,
80 PLUS Personal Computer Power Supplies, and seven reports on the BetterBricks initiative in
the commercial sector.
NEEA
In 2005, Idaho Power began the first year of the 2005-2009 contract and funding agreement with
NEEA. Per this agreement, Idaho Power cointted to fund $1.3 millon annually in support of NEE A' s
implementation of market transformation programs in Idaho Power's service area. Of this amount in
2008, 72% was funded through the Idaho and Oregon Riders, and 28% was funded by a credit
accumulated during the previous contract period.
In 2008, Idaho Power paid $942,014 to NEEA. The Idaho jurisdictional share of the payments was
$894,913.31, while $47,100.69 was paid for the Oregon jursdiction. Other expenses associated with
NEEA activities, such as administration and travel, were paid by Idaho Power.
Preliminary estimates reported by NEEA indicate that Idaho Power's share of regional market
transformation MW savings for 2008 is 32,672 MWh, or 3.7 aMW. Idaho Power relies on NEEA to
report the energy savings and other benefits of NEE A ' s regional portfolio of initiatives. For further
information about NEE A, visit their Web site at www.nwalliance.org.
Demand-Side Management Annual Report 2008
Exhibit NO.1
Case No. IPC-E-09-05
T. Tatum, IPC
Page 69 of 104
Page 61
Market Transformation-NEEA Idaho Power Company
This page left blank intentionally.
Page 62
Exhibit NO.1
Case No. IPC-E-09-05
T. Tatum, IPC
Page 70 of 104
Demand-Side Management Annual Report 2008
Idaho Power Company Energy Efficiency Advisory Group
EN ADVISORY ROUP ()
Formed in May 2002, the EEAG provides input on formulating and implementing energy effciency and
demand-reduction programs funded by the Rider. Currently, the EEAG consists of 12 members from
across Idaho Power's service area and the Pacific Northwest. Members represent a cross-section of
customers, including individuals from the residential, industrial, commercial, and irrgation sectors, as
well as representatives for the elderly, low-income, environmental organzations, state agencies, public
utility commissions, and Idaho Power.
In 2008, the EEAG met thee times: February 7, May 13, and October 2. During the meetings, Idaho
Power requested recommendations on new program proposals, provided a status of the Rider funding
and expenses, updated ongoing programs and projects, and supplied information on DSM issues.
EEAG ram
The following section provides an overview of topics addressed during the meetings and a review of
the input provided to Idaho Power by the EEAG regarding major program implementation and
operational issues in 2008. Various operational DSM programs were reviewed by EEAG during
the 2008 meetings. Only substantial changes or modifications associated with EEAG input and new
programs and pilots are presented in the following.
Residential programs reviewed in 2008 included the Horne Products Program, Heating & Cooling
Effciency Program, ENERGY STAR(ß Homes Northwest, and AlC Cool Credit. Progress updates were
provided on the Holiday Lighting Program, Idaho Green Expo, and Energy Effcient Lighting program.
Pilots started in 2008, and new programs for 2009, including the Attic Insulation Pilot and the Horne
Weatherization Pilot, and the 2009 Refrigerator Recycling Prograin, were also discussed.
The Horne Products Program targets changing consumer purchases from regular appliances to ENERGY
STAR qualified appliances. Initially Idaho Power considered thee types of appliances to include in this
program. Ultimately, clothes washers were the only appliance that met the cost-effectiveness tests.
The Consortium for Energy Effciency, Inc. (CEE) rates the energy effciency of horne appliances,
including residential clothes washers. CEE rates clothes washers as tier 1, tier 2, or tier 3, with tier 3
being the most effcient. However, the CEE tier ratings are not readily apparent to customers. Due to this
difficulty of letting the public know about the difference in the tier levels of washers, Idaho Power was
considering one incentive amount regardless of the ENERGY STAR qualified washer purchased.
Recommendations
Members discussed reasonable incentive amounts and recommended an incentive of $50 for either Tier I
or Tier II clothes washers be offered. Idaho Power was advised to consider joining with water suppliers
or wastewater companies to add an educational piece to the incentive.
Demand-Side Management Annual Report 2008
Exhibit NO.1
Case No. IPC-E-09-05
T. Tatum, ¡PC
Page 71 of 104Page 63
Energy Effciency Advisory Group Idaho Power Company
Action
Effective April 2008, the $50 clothes washer incentive was offered for either tier clothes washers.
Washer purchases made after April 2008 qualified for Idaho customers, and washer purchases made
after May 21, 2008 qualified for Oregon customers. The ENERGY STAR Appliance program was
renamed the Horne Products Program in August 2008 and expanded to include ENERGY STAR
qualified refrigerators, ceiling fans with light kits, or ceiling fan light kit attachments.
Idaho Power staff met with the Idaho Departent of Environmental Quality (DEQ) to discuss how to
educate water-system operators regarding Idaho Power energy efficiency programs. Many of the water
systems use pump configuations similar to irrgation. There might be opportnities for the users to
participate in Idaho Power Commercial energy effciency programs and receive incentives for upgrading
pumps or, for larger systems, performng facility upgrades. Discussions included the possibility of
putting information in the state driing and wastewater newsletters.
Idaho Power proposed to the EEAG two program management options for conducting the Refrigerator
Recycling prograin. The first option was through an internal program managed and operated completely
by Idaho Power, while the second option was though a contract with a thid-paity for management and
operation of the program. Pros and cons of the two options were discussed. Under the Idaho
Power-operated program, participating customers would be responsible for removal and disposal of
the old refrigerator. Some members felt that might be challenging and prohibitive for customers,
especially the elderly. The EEAG group favored the third-par management option, where the third-
part contractor handles the removal and disposal of the old unit. The third-part contractor could also
conduct the verification of the condition of the old unit. Though an internally managed program was the
more cost-effective option, EEAG thought that the third-party management option might attract higher
participation levels.
Recommendations
The EEAG recommended that Idaho Power pursue a third-par contractor for program implementation
and offer the program in Oregon.
Action
Idaho Power plans to issue a request for proposal (RFP) for a thid-par contractor to operate the
program. After the RFP is received and reviewed, a potential successful contractor wil be selected and a
contract negotiated. Program implementation is planed for May 2009. Idaho Power plans to offer
a $30 refrigerator incentive to customers recycling working refrigerators.
Idaho Power presented to the EEAG a potential program structure for the Attic Insulation Pilot. Potential
energy savings, incentives, data collection, and timelines were discussed.
Page 64
Exhibit NO.1
Case No. IPC-E-09-05
T. Tatum, IPC
Page 72 of 104Demand-Side Management Annual Report 2008
Idaho Power Company Energy Efficiency Advisory Group
Recommendations
Data collection suggestions included taking spot measures from the air handler and measuring attic
temperatures and compressor run-time for air conditioners. Other suggestions included checking
the ductwork prior to insulation.
Action
The Attic Insulation Pilot program was launched. It offered customers a $0.15 per square foot incentive
for the professional installation of additional attic insulation. The pilot was conducted in Boise,
Twin Falls, and Pocatello. Installations began in May 2008 and were completed by mid-July. Idaho
Power collected indoor and outdoor temperatures and compressor rutimes. Also collected was
information on the physical characteristics of the participants' homes, including the pre- and
post-installed insulation R-va1ues.
Information from the pilot was used to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the potential program. It was
deterniined that this was a cost-effective program opportnity. As a result of the Attic Insulation Pilot,
Idaho Power wil proceed in 2009 with the pilot, renamed the Horne Improvement Program.
Introduced in 2008 was a new Horne Weatherization Pilot concept, which targeted customers who
applied for, but were deemed ineligible for participation in, W AQC and who are probably not likely to
participate in other programs. Idaho Power collaborated with Horne Energy Management, LLC, to
complete 20 homes in 2008 in the Twin Falls area. Like the W AQC program, there is no cost to the
customer. After the weatherization projects are completed, Idaho Power wil complete the verification
and analysis process, comparing the current SIR with Idaho Power cost-effectiveness models.
The differences between the existing W AQC program and the pilot are the pilot's higher income
eligibility criteria and that federal dollars cannot be leveraged in the pilot. The guidelines for the pilot
resemble WAQC guidelines in all other aspects. Using the pilot structure allows Idaho Power to proceed
and evaluate the results to detennine utility costs.
Recommendations
Members expressed support of the pilot.
Action
The pilot was launched durng the last quarter of2008. Energy Management, LLC, weatherized
16 homes for the pilot. Energy savings achieved were 71,680 kWhyear. The average horne saved
4,480 kWhyear. Total costs were $52,807. Average individual project cost was $3,300. Based on
the pilot, Idaho Power plans to expand in 2009 and weatherize 60 homes in Idaho Power's southern
region service area under the newly named Weatherization Solutions for Eligible Customers program.
Ind Prog
At the October EEAG meeting, Idaho Power presented the Commercial Demand Response program and
the Small Commercial AlC Cycling Pilot program. Updates were also provided on the Easy Upgrades
program changes.
Demand-Side Management Annual Report 2008
Exhibit No. 1
Case No. IPC-E-09-05
T. Tatum, IPC
Page 73 of 104
Page 65
Energy Effciency Advisory Group Idaho Power Company
Demand
Idaho Power proposed the Commercial Demand Response program where Idaho Power would contract
with a third-party demand response aggregator for provision of peak load reduction. The third-part
would recruit customers and guarantee Idaho Power a determed amount of peak load reduction at a
contracted price.
Recommendations
The third-party contractor selected for the program should tailor their program to Idaho Power's service
area commercial customers.
Action
Idaho Power issued an RFP in August for a demand response aggregator. Four proposals were received
and reviewed. Idaho Power selected EnerNOC as the contractor. EnerNOC provides demand response
services for numerous other utility companes throughout the United States, has established relationships
with the many businesses in Idaho Power's service area, and understands the unique characteristics of
Idaho Power's customers. Idaho Power and EnerNOC have negotiated a contract to reduce peak demand
at critical times. The aggregator wil negotiate contracts directly with Idaho Power commercial and
industrial customers to achieve the contracted demand reduction. Analysis has shown that this program
will be cost-effective. Pending IPUC approval, Idaho Power expects to launch the commercial demand
response program in 2009.
Commercial Cycling Pilot
Idaho Power introduced a proposed demand response program for small commercial users. Demand
reduction would be achieved by controlling customers' use of air conditioners using programmable
thermostats. It is similar to the residential AlC Cool Credit prograin, except it is designed for small
commercial customers using less than 2,000 kWh per month. Under this proposed program, there would
not be a customer bil credit, as there is in the residential program, and the customer's benefit would be
the provided programable thermostat and installation.
Recommendations
Given the high cost of serving the summer peak hours, it was requested that Idaho Power consider
aggressively launching the program and, if possible, incorporate a lighting retrofit along with the
programmable thermostat.
Action
The cost-effectiveness analysis of a small commercial AlC Cycling program is under review.
The proposed implementation and administrative costs are higher than initially expected. The potential
for cost-effective peak load reduction in the market is uncertain. Idaho Power believes a pilot program to
study the energy impacts is needed. Idaho Power is renegotiating with vendors, exploring additional
program offerings, and considering including the small commercial program in the current residential
AlC Cool Credit program. Through these efforts, Idaho Power is attempting to design a cost-effective
program.
Page 66
Exhibit NO.1
Case No. IPC-E-09-05
T. Tatum, IPC
Page 74 of 104Demand-Side Management Annual Report 2008
Idaho Power Company Energy Efficiency Advisory Group
The redesigned Irrigation Peak Rewards program was introduced at the October 2, 2008, EEAG
meeting. Idaho Power proposed the Irrigation Peak Rewards program include a dispatchable demand
response option.
This program would be offered to Idaho Power customers in Idaho and Oregon. Three options would be
available for customers to choose between: 1) the currently offered timer option, 2) a dispatchab1e
option that allows Idaho Power to remotely turn participants' pumps on or off, or 2) a large service
location option that allows participating customers, after being notified by Idaho Power, to turn large
horsepower pumps off during summer peak hours. High savings and benefits are expected from this new
program.
Recommendations
Based on the success of the curent Irrigation Peak Rewards program and the potential for substantially
increased cost-effective peak-demand reduction, the EEAG recommended that Idaho Power expand the
program. A dispatchable irrigation demand response option could be implemented for irrgation
customers in 2009.
Actions
Expanding on the curent Irrigation Peak Rewards program, Idaho Power developed a new program that
offers thee options for eligible service locations in Idaho and Oregon. The first option wil continue
with a timer option. The second, new dispatchab1e option allows Idaho Power to remotely tum on and
off participating customers' pumps. Under the thrd option, for large service locations of 1,000 or
greater, participants would manually turn their pumps on and off. The combination of these three
options enables Idaho Power to substantially decrease demand during peak load hours.
On Januar 14,2009, the IPUC approved the program proposaL. In February 2009, Idaho Power began
sending mailings to irrigation customers and holding workshops to educate irrgation customers and
mai"ket the new program offering.
Add
In the EEAG meetings, Idaho Power presented additional topics, including an overview of the Demand-
Side Management 2007 Annual Report, the report's structure, and 2007 programs documented in the
report. EEAG was updated throughout the year regarding the Rider balance and energy effciency
program performance.
In 2008, as the result of an RFP process, Idaho Power hired a consultant company, Nexant, for a DSM
potential study regarding creating or expanding programs. Prelimnary findings from this report
indicated that, within the residential sector, there was a limited amount of additional energy savings
potential beyond what Idaho Power is currently offering.
Recommendations
A peer review of the results of the Nexant report 2008 market potential study was recommended.
Demand-Side Management Annual Report 2008
Exhibit NO.1
Case No. IPC-E-09-05
T. Tatum, IPC
Page 75 of 104Page 67
Energy Effciency Advisory Group Idaho Power Company
Action
A peer review was initiated and results are due in the spring of2009.
Page 68
Exhibit No. 1
Case No. IPC-E-09-05
T. Tatum, IPC
Page 76 of 104Demand-Side Management Annual Report 2008
Idaho Power Company Other Programs and Activities
AND
Residential Energy Ed Initiative
Idaho Power recognizes the value of general energy effciency awareness and education in creating
behavior change and customer demand for, and satisfaction with, its programs. The Residential Energy
Effciency Education initiative's goal is promoting energy effciency to the residential community
sector. This goal is achieved by creating and delivering educational progranis that result in
energy-effcient and conservation-oriented behaviors and choices.
The Residential Energy Effciency Education initiative distributed energy effciency messages though
a varety of communication methods during 2008. Increased customer awareness of energy-saving ideas
was accomplished via distribution of over 8,000 copies of the 96-page book 30 Simple Things You Can
Do To Save Energy, a joint publishing project between Idaho Power and The Earthworks Group. In
June, an Energy Efficiency Guide outlining the residential programs and monthly tips was published in
area newspapers. Energy Awareness month, held in October, included ajoint1y sponsored energy
effciency exhibit at the Discovery Center, a newspaper campaign, and the Fall Energy Effciency &
Green Livings Series. Held at the Boise Public Library, this five-class series promoting energy
effciency was initiated in 2007. This year's topics included an open dialogue with energy leaders;
simple no- and low-cost ways to save energy; easy ways to re-think, reduce, reuse, and recycle; how to
landscape for energy savings; and how to remodel existing homes and build new homes consistent with
the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) and Northwest ENERGY ST ARil Homes
Nortwest standards. The five sessions combined attracted 147 participants.
The Residential Energy Effciency Education initiative collected participant evaluations at the end of
each of the five classes focusing on energy effciency held at the Boise Public Library during 2008.
Combined, the five sessions had 147 paricipants and a surey return rate of 51 %. The majority of
respondents indicated they "strongly agreed" that the information was useful and met their expectations.
The majority of respondents indicated they "definitely would" recommend the class to family and
friends.
During the fourth quarter of 2008, Idaho Power provided weekly energy efficiency messages on
The HomeFix Show with Joe Prin on 580 KIDO AM. Another media campaign around energy-efficient
gift purchases rounded out the year.
In addition to these activities, Idaho Power sponsored the Energy Conservation and Recycling track at
the first anual Idaho Green Expo. Specialists from Idaho Power presented three workshops and
addressed attendees' questions at the Idaho Power's exhbitor booth. During 2008, Idaho Power
developed a new educational program for fourt- to sixth-grade students. "Simple Ways to Save
Energy" is a 45-60 minute presentation focusing on energy-effcient actions with each child's ability.
Idaho Power furter increased its energy efficiency presence in the community by providing program
information at events such as Teachers' Night Out, Idaho Smar Growth, and the St. Luke's Women's
Show.
Demand-Side Management Annual Report 2008
Exhibit NO.1
Case No. IPC-E-09-05
T. Tatum, IPC
Page 77 of 104Page 69
Other Programs and Activities Idaho Power Company
Plans for 2009 include expanding the Energy Efficiency & Green Livings Series to other customers
outside the Treasure Valley. Adult energy efficiency presentations for corporate and community settings
are being developed for use by Idaho Power staff. Energy effciency displays such as three-dimensional
demonstration devices, brochures, and other educational materials wil be developed in 2009.
Placing stand-alone energy effciency displays in high-traffc public venues, such as librares and
corporate lobbies, is another method Idaho Power intends to use to reach large numbers of customers
with energy effciency messages.
Initiative
Idaho Power launched its Commercial Education initiative in the spring of2008. The main objectives of
this initiative are to educate commercial customers about energy efficiency, increase participation in
existing commercial energy effciency and demand-reduction programs, enhance customer satisfaction,
and reduce energy use. In 2008, Idaho Power identified methods for educating customers about energy
effciency and addressed ways of changing customer practices and behaviors.
The initiative made progress in helping commercial customers, trade allies, field staff, professional
organizations, and community organizations indentify common problems or energy effciency
opportnities. Potential solutions and ideas were addressed through networking with energy information
sources, such as E Source, Idaho Power staff, trade allies, and customers. For example, many customers
have been very successful in reducing their energy usage by utilizing Idaho Power incentive programs.
Subsequently, customers have invited Idaho Power field staff and other customers with similar facilities
to visit their projects and see, firsthand, successful energy effciency projects.
In 2009, the initiative will continue its efforts in commercial customer education. Plans are to increase
the focus on providing commercial customers with information pertinent to their facilities and
operational constraints and to identify resources for achievement of their energy effciency objectives.
nergy Efficiency Funds (LEEF)
The purpose of LEEF, formerly called the Small Projects and Education Fund, is to provide modest
funding for short-term projects and activities that do not fit within other categories of energy efficiency
programs, but that stil provide a defined benefit to furthering DSM targets.
Two projects were paid for from this fund in 2008. In spring 2007, MHAFB applied for funds to remove
incandescent lighting from an outdoor running track and replace them with solar lighting. A cost-
effective analysis was completed for the project in 2007 and permssion was provided by Idaho Power
for the AFB to move forward. The actual lighting was installed in the sumer of 2008, and LEEF fuds
paid $13,764 for 114,700 kWh savings per year.
Another completed project in 2008 was in a Marsing home. The owner created a "Living Wall"
consisting of hundreds of plants blanketing a wall and floor. The plants serve as an air conditioner,
decreasing the air temperature around the "Living Wall" and reducing energy use by up to 20% per
month. LEEF funds paid $450 for 1,231 kWh savings per year.
Page 70
Exhibit NO.1
Case No. ¡PC-E-09-05
T. Tatum, IPC
Page 78 of 104
Demand-Side Management Annual Report 2008
Idaho Power Company Regulatory Initiatives
LATORY IN
Idaho Power is testing the effects of a Fixed Cost Adjustment (FCA) and a Performance-Based DSM
Incentive as par of a three-year, two-pilot initiative. The two pilots are being operated on a limted basis
to allow for a thorough evaluation to be conducted prior to a broader application of the financial
mechanisms. 2007 was the first year of the pilots. Actual performance and usage data from 2007 was
evaluated during the spring of 2008, and Idaho Power made the following filings in response to the
first-year results.
Adjustment lot
Under the FCA, rates are annually adjusted up or down to recover or refud the difference between the
fixed costs authorized by the IPUC in the most recent rate case and the fixed costs that Idaho Power
actually received the previous year through energy sales. This decoupling mechanism removes the
financial disincentive that exists when Idaho Power invests in DSM resources. The FCA pilot is limited
to the residential and small commercial classes in recognition of the fact that, for these customers, a high
percentage of fixed costs are recovered through energy charges. Confining the pilot to the residential and
small commercial classes also allows the true-up mechanism to be tested on a limited basis to miimize
any unintended consequences. On March 12, 2007, the IPUC authorized a three-year pilot of the FCA
under Order No. 30267.
On March 14, 2008, Idaho Power fied an application to implement FCA rates reflecting 2007 actual
data. According to the application, during 2007, the average energy use per residential customer
increased. Idaho Power collected approxiniately $3.5 milion more for its fixed costs than was
established in the agreed-upon residential FCA formula. The application also indicated that the small
commercial class saw a decrease in per-customer energy use durng 2007. This means Idaho Power
under-collected approximately $ 1.1 milion of its fixed costs for this customer class. On May 30, 2008,
the IPUC issued Order No. 30556 directing Idaho Power to collect the net fixed cost adjustment of
$2.4 milion and to distribute the rate adjustment across both residential and small commercial
customers. This action resulted in a rate reduction of 0.045676 centslkWh, effective June 1, 2008,
through May 31, 2009, for all residential and small commercial customers. On March 13,2009,
Idaho Power wil fie an application to implement FCA rates reflecting 2008 actual data.
Incentive
To complement the FCA pilot, Idaho Power is testing the effects of a Perfonnance-Based DSM
Incentive mechanism. On March 12, 2007, the IPUC issued Order No. 30268 authorizing the
implementation of a Performance-Based DSM Incentive pilot that allows Idaho Power to retain a portion
of the financial benefits resulting from DSM activities when energy savings targets are exceeded.
Should it fail to meet energy savings levels previously achieved, Idaho Power is subject to a penalty
under the incentive pilot. Durng the pilot period, the incentive mechanism is being applied only to the
ENERGY STAR Homes Northwest Program. By applying ths mechanism on a limited basis,
Idaho Power is able to gain a better understanding of the effects of a performance incentive while
minimizing the potential impact to customers. Idaho Power ultimately intends to use the information
gained durig the pilot period to develop a performance-based incentive mechanism that can be applied
to the entire portfolio of DSM programs.
Demand-Side Management Annual Report 2008
Exhibit NO.1
Case No. IPC-E-09-05
T. Tatum, IPC
Page 79 of 104
Page 71
Regulatory Initiatives Idaho Power Company
On March 14, 2008, Idaho Power filed the actual 2007 data in the Performance-Based Demand-Side
Management Incentive Pilot Performance Update. According to the final ENERGY STAR Homes
Northwest program results for 2007, Idaho Power has estimated the program achieved a market share
of 5%. This value is within the mai-ket share dead-band established for 2007 at 5.0% to 7.0%, and,
therefore, Idaho Power is not eligible for a perfonnance incentive nor is Idaho Power subject to a
penalty.
Page 72
Exhibit NO.1
Case No. IPC-E-09-05
T. Tatum, IPC
Page 80 of 104Demand-Side Management Annual Report 2008
Idaho Power Company Enhanced Commitment
As part of the FCA implementation process, Idaho Power is cointted to enhancing its efforts toward
promoting energy efficiency. Idaho Power's overall DSM pedormance last year is an indication of this
commitment. In 2008, the energy savings from Idaho Power's DSM in-house programs increased 54%
over 2007 levels while expenditures increased only 35%. In several other key areas, Idaho Power
actively pursued numerous, additional opportnities to promote energy efficiency, including, but not
limited to:
.Broad availability of effciency and load management programs
.Building code improvement activity
.Pursuit of appliance code standards
.Continued expansion ofDSM programs beyond peak-shaving/10ad-shifting programs
.Third-part verification
.Promotion of energy effciency through electricity rate design
.Idaho Power's internal energy efficiency cointment
Through its DSM portfolio, Idaho Power now offers programs in virtally every major market segment
in its service area. For residential customers, there are programs for new homes, existing homes, and
lower-income buildings. In the commercial and industrial sectors, there are programs in both the new
and existing building market segments. In the irrgation sector, Idaho Power offers incentives for
existing systems and new irrigation systems. Furhermore, Idaho Power has implemented demand
response programs in the residential and irrgation sectors and plans to implement a new demand
response prograin in the commercial and industral sector in 2009. The specific programs added,
modified, or expanded in 2008 include:
· A new Horne Weatherization Pilot launched in the Twin Falls area in the fourth quarer of2008.
Based on the pilot results, Idaho Power plans to expand the pilot into a full-scale program,
titled Weatherization Solutions for Eligible Customers, offered in the Twin Falls area in 2009.
· A new Attic Insulation Pilot was launched in 2008. This successful pilot wil expand to a full-scale
program in 2009 under the name Horne Improvement.
· A new ENERGY STARil Appliance Program began in 2008 and wil continue into 2009 under
the name Horne Products Program.
.The A1C Cool Credit program expanded into the new service areas of Payette and Twin Falls.
Additionally in 2008, Idaho Power applied ths program to the housing at Mountain Home Air Force
Base.Exhibit NO.1
Case No. IPC-E-09-05
T. Tatum, ¡PC
Page 81 of 104
Page 73Demand-Side Management Annual Report 2008
Enhanced Commitment Idaho Power Company
· The Easy Upgrades program sponsored a special summer lighting product promotion.
· Easy Upgrades concluded a special offer ofVendingMiser™ units that ran from November 2007
through October 2008, with more than 3,600 units installed.
· In 2008, Idaho Power fied with the IPUC to expand the Irrgation Peak Rewards prograin to provide
a dispatchable demand response option.
· The Custom Eflciency program was modified to increase the minimum project size from
20,000 kWh to 100,000 kWh in order to allow resources to be focused on larger projects.
· For Oregon customers, Idaho Power fied three new programs and modified three more. The new
programs are AlC Cool Credit, Horne Products Program, and Heating & Cooling Eflciency
Program. The programs modified are Change a Light Program, Easy Upgrades, and Manufactued
Housing Energy Effciency Program.
Buildi Code Improvement Activity
Through Idaho Power's funding of the NEEA and codes-related efforts, Idaho Power has assisted in
increasing energy eflciency requirements in Idaho's building codes, including the adoption of a new
commercial and residential code (2006 IECC) effective Januar 1,2008. Idaho Power has two key roles
once the codes are adopted: l) informing the design community of code changes and 2) modifying Idaho
Power energy effciency programs to reflect the new codes. In 2008, Idaho Power modified the Building
Eflciency program to reflect the adoption of the new 2006 IECC. Furthermore, the new residential code
in 2008 resulted in code corning closer to the requirements in the ENERGY STAR Homes Northwest
Builder Option Package, which directly led to a decrease in the Idaho Power ENERGY STAR Homes
Northwest program incentive amount.
Idaho Power contracted with Quantec, LLC, to conduct a study of potential savings and costs associated
with enacting appliance eflciency standards in Idaho similar to those recently enacted in Oregon.
The frna1 report, Idaho Power Appliance Standards Assessment, was completed January 9, 2008.
The 2009 IRP wil include an evaluation of the frndings from this study.
Expansion of DSM Programs
Beyond Peak,.Shaving/load..Shifting Programs
Idaho Power has focused additional resources toward energy effciency education, marketing, and
promotion. Increased customer awareness of energy-saving ideas was accomplished via distrbution of
over 8,000 copies of the 96-page book 30 Simple Things You Can Do To Save Energy. The five-class
Fall Energy Efficiency & Green Living Series were held for a second year at the Boise Public Library,
with 147 participants attending in 2008. Incremental educational programs for 2008 included weekly
energy effciency messages on The HomeFix Show with Joe Prin on 580 KIDO AM radio, provision of
energy effcient gift purchase tips durng the holidays, sponsorship of the Energy Conservation and
Recycling track at the first anual Idaho Green Expo, and development of a new presentation for
fourth- and sixth-grade students titled "Simple Ways to Save Energy."
Page 74
Exhibit NO.1
Case No. IPC-E-09-05
T. Tatum, IPC
Page 82 of 104
Demand-Side Management Annual Report 2008
Idaho Power Company Enhanced Commitment
For industrial and commercial customers, Idaho Power continues to promote the offerings of the IEA
through NEEA to food processing customers. In 2008, there were six facilities in the Idaho Power
service area committed to implementing Continuous Energy Improvement practices at their facilities.
In 2008, there were nine offered classes covering motors, pump systems, compressed air, and aionia
refrgeration. This technical training is a key element of customer education, which helps drive energy
effciency projects at customer facilities. Idaho Power strengthened the working relationship with the
Boise chapter of the Building Owners and Managers Association (BOMA). Also, Idaho Power worked
closely with Bonnevile Power and other utilities on research into the effectiveness of replacing
damaged door gaskets in refrigerated walk-ins and reach-in display cases. In 2008, Idaho Power became
a member of the Utility IT Energy Effciency Coalition, which is charged with supporting development
of energy efficient instrctional technology and data center operations. Idaho Power also became an
associate member of the Climate Savers Computing Initiative.
In 2008, Idaho Power continued to increase energy effciency awareness among its customers through a
variety of media outlets. Idaho Power distributed energy efficiency information via 28 Update articles,
22 News Scans articles, 5 E-News videos, 15 articles in Consumer Connection, 10 bil inserts, 13 radio
interviews, 1 television article, and 2 press releases. In March, Idaho Power celebrated its first
company-wide Energy Effciency Month for employees, encouraging their participation in programs.
Thi
Idaho Power uses third-part consultants to verifY that program specifications are met, to verify the
amount of energy savings achieved, and to obtain data on energy effciency, demand response measures,
and programs.
Idaho Power provides funding and participation in the RTF. The RTF is an advisory committee that was
established in 1999 to develop standards for verifYing and evaluating savings from energy effciency
programs and measures. Idaho Power uses the RTF as a source for information on programs and
measures, and uses the RTF databases to provide deemed savings for some energy effciency measures.
In 2008, Idaho Power contracted with Nexant, Inc., to assess the market potential for DSM activities in
Idaho Power's service area. For this study, Nexant developed spreadsheet models estimating DSM
potential as economic conditions and end-use measure assumptions change. Nexant wil provide a final
docmnent in 2009. The information provided by the potential study wil be included in the 2009 IRP.
In spring 2008, Idaho Power contracted with Ecotope, Inc., to provide energy savings estimates for the
Attic Insulation Pilot. At the conclusion of the pilot, Idaho Power sought Ecotope's expertise to update
the estimated energy savings impacts of the program based on revised assumptions from the pilot.
With these updated energy-savings estimates, the cost-effective program wil continue under the name
Home Improvement Program.
Idaho Power contracted with the Boise Integrated Design Laboratory (IDL) to provide evaluation
fuctions, including measurement and verification. Under this contract, an evaluation has been initiated
on certain measures in the Building Efficiency program. Idaho Power expects to work closely with IDL
to study other commercial sector programs in the futue.
Demand-Side Management Annual Report 2008
Exhibit NO.1
Case No. IPC-E-09-05
T. Tatum, IPC
Page 83 of 104
Page 75
Enhanced Commitment Idaho Power Company
In the commercial sector, Idaho Power participated in the NEEA Commercial Building Stock
Assessment (CBSA), updating the original study from 2003, which is used for identifying and verifying
commercial building stock characteristics in the Pacific Northwest. Idaho Power contracted with the
Cadmus Group for this study, requesting an over-sample ofIdaho Power's service area to obtain a
statistically valid building sample for program planning puroses.
Since 2005, the AlC Cool Credit program contracted with a third-part installation contractor,
Honeywell, Inc., for installation of radio-pager controlled switches on participants' AlC units. To ensure
customer satisfaction, this contractor performs quality-assurance inspections on installations and makes
follow-up phone calls to recent switch recipients. Honeywell submits weekly reports to Idaho Power
program staff on inspections, follow-ups, and results.
Idaho Power participated with NEEA throughout 2008 to evaluate the impacts of the ENERGY STAR
Homes Northwest program. Results of this study will be fmalized in 2009. The ENERGY STAR Homes
program regularly uses certified Horne Performance Specialists for third-part verification, ensurig that
each ENERGY STAR qualified horne is built to ENERGY STAR standards. The Idaho Office of Energy
Resources then certifies each of these homes as an ENERGY STAR home.
The Energy House Calls program contracts with third-part experts to perform quality assurance on 5%
of homes serviced by the program. These contractors visit the site within approximately one month of
the energy house call and verify that the energy effciency measures were performed to program
specifications.
The Heating & Cooling Efficiency Program has a third-par quality assurance contractor.
Honeywell, Inc., performs on-site verifications on approximately 5-7% of completed jobs.
Promotion of Efficiency through Electricity n
In June, Idaho Power fied the 2008 General Rate Case with proposals for significant changes in rate
design for most customer classes. These rate-change proposals were driven by the explicit Idaho Power
objective of providing customers with cost-based price signals, which encourage the wise and effcient
use of energy. Rate design proposals for the residential and small commercial customers included
inclining block rates for both summer and non-summer seasons. These block rates encourage customers
to use fewer kWh each month and thereby save a larger increment on their electrcity bils than if they
did not have block rates. Rate design proposals for the larger commercial and industrial customers
included time-of-use rates, which encourage customers to reduce or shift electrcity usage from peak
times of the day. The rate design proposal for the irgation customer centered around encouraging
energy effciency through load-factor pricing.
Power's i Energy Efficiency Comm nt
Idaho Power's continued commitment toward promoting energy efficiency extends beyond encouraging,
incenting, and educating its customers. In 2008, Idaho Power constructed a new operations facility in
Lake Fork, Idaho. Almost 99% complete as of December 2008, it is the first facility built by Idaho
Power to use an integrated approach to maximize expertise and coordination throughout the process.
Many companes, including Idaho Power, are concentrating their efforts towards LEED certification.
Page 76
Exhibit NO.1
Case No. IPC-E-09-05
T. Tatum, IPC
Page 84 of 104
Demand-Side Management Annual Report 2008
Idaho Power Company Enhanced Commitment
The Long Valley Operations Center is certain to qualify for Silver LEED certification, and wil most
likely have enough points for the Gold leveL.
In 2008, Idaho Power successfully retrofitted the entire fifth floor ofthe Corporate Headquarers (CHQ).
Included in this retrofit was the use of low volatile organc compounds (VOC) paint, recycled carpet tile,
and low VOC glue to adhere them. The new window shading and the use ofT5 lighting and ballasts are
projected to save approximately 40% of the energy expended by the old lighting packages. Additionally,
shorter, 53" wall panels are used for cubical partitions, allowing more daylight and reducing lighting
costs. The plan is to use the fifth floor as the standard for office space in the CHQ and other offce areas
as budget dollars are approved. Lighting and HVAC upgrades were also made at the Min-Cassia
Operations Center.
Demand-Side Management Annual Report 2008
Exhibit No. 1
Case No. IPC-E~09-05
T. Tatum, IPC
Page 85 of 104
Page 77
Enhanced Commitment Idaho Power Company
This page left blank intentionally.
Page 78
Exhibit NO.1
Case No. IPC-E-09-05
T. Tatum, IPC
Page 86 of 104
Demand-Side Management Annual Report 2008
Idaho Power Company Appendices
This report includes four appendices. Appendix 1 contains financial information for 2008, showing the
beginng balance, ending balance, and the expenditures for the Idaho Energy Effciency Rider,
the Oregon Energy Effciency Rider, BPA funding, and NEEA payments and credits. Appendix 2 also
contains financial information. This second appendix shows expenses by funding source for each of
Idaho Power's energy efficiency programs or activities. Appendix 3 shows participation, utility cost,
total resource cost, energy and demand savings, measure life, and 1eve1ized costs for Idaho Power's
curent energy effciency programs and activities for 2008. Appendix 4 shows similar data as Appendix
3, but also includes data for past years' program performance, benefit-cost ratios from the utility
perspective, and from the total resource cost perspectives for active programs.
Demand-Side Management Annual Report 2008
Exhibit NO.1
Case No. IPC-E-09-05
T. Tatum, IPC
Page 87 of 104
Page 79
Appendices-Appendix 1 Idaho Power Company
Appendix 1. Idaho Rider, Oregon Rider, BPA, and NEEA Funding Balances
2008 Beginning Balance..... ............... ..... .......... .......... ................ ............... ..... ....................
2008 Funding plus Accrued Interest........... ..... ...... ............................. ............... ...............
Total 2008 Funds
1,483,074.58
13,454,883.09
14,937,957.67
2008 Expenses...................................................................................................................( Î
2008 Year-End Balance $(3,942,318Ji6)
2008 Beginning Balance..... .......... ........... .............. ................ ................... .......... ................
2008 Funding plus Accrued Interest.... ............. ............... ............... .......................... .........
Total 2008 Funds
2008 Expenses. ........ ........................ .................................................... .............. ................(625.000.31 )
2008 Year-End Balance $196,827.28
Total Funding and Accrued Interest October 2001-December 2007.................................
2008 Accrued Interest........... ........... ...... .............. ............. ............. ............. .... ............. .......
Total Funds May 2002-December 2008
Total Expenses-Inception through December 2007.........................................................
2008 Expenses........................................................................... ................................ ........
Total BPA Funded Expenses
2008 Year-End Balance (a) $42,248.32
2008 IPC Contractual Obligation.............. ........... ....... ... ..... .......... ................ .... ................ ...
Credit Applied to 2008 Contractual Obligation....... ............. ................. .........................
Interest Credit Applied to 2008 Contract Obligation (b)................................................
Interest Credit Applied to 2009 Contract Obligation (c).................................................
Total 2008 Cash Payments by IPC
(5,061.00)
942,014.00
Credit Balance
Beginning Balance Funds Held by NEEA................... ....................... ........... ................
2005-2007 Credit Applied to Contract Obligation.............................. .............. ..............
2008 Credit Applied to Contract Obligation...................................... ..... ........................
2008 Year-End Credit Balance $
¡aJ The 2008 balance of SPA funds was committed to two Solar 4R Schools projects prior to the suspension of SPA funding
in 2007. These projects were scheduled for completion in 2008 but have been delayed to 2009.
1 Î
1,463,970.00
325,588.00
(b) The first quarter invoice for the Idaho Power 2008 contractual obligation to NEEA was processed in December 2007 with the
amount scheduled to be amortized over the first quarter. Interest credit of $14,781 was immediately recognized in 2007.
(c) The first quarter invoice for the Idaho Power 2009 contractual obligation to NEEA was processed in December 2008 with the
amount scheduled to be amortized over the first quarter. Interest credit of $5,061 was immediately recognized in 2008.Exhibit NO.1
Case No. IPC-E-09-05
T. Tatum, IPC
Page 88 of 104
Demand-Side Management Annual Report 2008Page 80
Idaho Power Company Appendices-Appendix 2
Appendix 2.2008 DSM Expenses by Funding Source (Dollars)
Rider
Sector/Program Idaho Oregon BPA IPC Total Progra'!
Energy Efficiency/Demand Response
Residential
AlC Cool Credit ................. ..................... ..... ........ ........$ 2,922,985 $45,404 $0 $988 $2,969,317
Attic Insulation Pilot................ .... ................................123,454 0 0 0 $123,45
Energy Effcient Lighting..............................................1,011,850 6,242 0 200 $1,018,292
Energy House Calls ....... ....................... ...... ........ ........448,992 35,388 0 0 $484,379
ENERGY STAR' Homes Northwest ...............................294,579 6,388 0 1,094 $302,061
Heating & Cooling Efficiency Program......... ...............466,094 6,959 0 498 $473,551
Home Products Program.............................................245,219 5,541 0 100 $250,860
Home Weatherization Pilot..........................................51,670 0 0 1,138 $52,807
Oregon Residential Weatherization.............................0 1,908 0 5,509 $7,417
Rebate Advantage.......................................................79,547 11,341 0 0 $90,888
Weatherization Assistance for Qualified Customers...0 0 0 1,419,475 $1,419,475
Commercialllndustrial
Building Efficiency......................................................1,006,025 47,550 0 1,434 $1,055,009
Easy Upgrades................. ...........................................2,922,340 52,556 0 17,364 $2,992,261
Holiday Lighting Program............................................28,782 0 0 0 $28,782
Oregon Commercial Audit.......................... .................0 0 0 58 $58
Custom Effciency........................................................3,948,617 86,858 0 10,196 $4,045,671
Irrigation
Irrigation Efficiency Rewards.......................................1,878,960 193,276 0 31,466 $2,103,702
Irrigation Peak Rewards.... ....... .................. ......... .......1,373,855 17,570 0 40,415 $1,431,840
Energy Efficiency Total 16,802,969 516,981 °1,529,934 $18,849,884
Market Transformation
Northwest Energy Efficiency Allance................. .........894,913 47,101 0 0 $942,014
Market Transformation Total 894,913 47,101 °°$942,014
Other Programs and Activities
Residential
Residential Education Initiative....................................142,969 7,818 0 130 $150,917
Commercial
Commercial Education Initiative...... ...........................69,059 3,632 0 46 $72,738
Other
CRC Renewables................. .......................................0 0 6,950 0 $6,950
Distribution Effciency Initiative(a). . . . . ...............................0 0 0 -1,913 $-1,913
DSM Direct Program Overhead..................................135,788 6,945 0 27,178 $169,911
Local Energy Effciency Funds....................................22,714 0 0 0 $22,714
Other Programs and Activities Total 370,530 18,396 6,950 25,441 $421,317
Indirect Program Expenses
DSM Accounting and Analysis.......... ............. ..... ........792,478 41,483 0 123,942 $957,904
Energy Efficiency Advisory Group......................... ......2,148 63 0 0 $2,211
Special Accounting Entries................................. .........17,236 977 0 1,977 $20,191
Indirect Program Expenses Total 811,863 42,523 °125,919 $980,305
Totals $18,880,276 $625,000 $6,950 $1,681,294 $21,193,520 Exhibit NO.1
(a) 2007 Expenses reversed in 2008.Case No. IPC-E-09-05
T. Tatum, IPC
Page 89 of 104
Demand-Side Management Annual Report 2008 Page 81
""
II CO CD CON o CD3II::0-iena:
CD š:II::IIco CD3 CD::..;i::::c:e1 AI
CD -g

l

(
)
;:

D
.
'"
I\

C
1
o
Z
o
-
i
!
=
co

.

i
j
~
C1

-
i

(
)
:
:
~Ë

m

Q
:
o3
6
i
=~
b
?
~(
)
O
l
~
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x

3
.

2
0
0
8

D
S
M

P
r
o
g
r
a
m

A
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
To
t
a
l

C
o
s
t
s
No
m
i
n
a
l

L
e
v
e
l
i
z
e
d
Co
s
t
s
(
a
)
Sa
v
i
n
g
s
Su
m
m
e
r
An
n
u
a
l

P
e
a
k

M
e
a
s
u
r
e

T
o
t
a
l
Pa
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
n
t
s

U
t
i
l
t
y
b
)

R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
'
.
)

E
n
e
r
g
y

D
e
m
a
n
d
(
d
)

L
i
f
e

l
J
t
i
l
i
t
y

R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
Af
C

C
o
o
l

C
r
e
d
i
t

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
20
,
1
9
5
ho
m
e
s
$2
,
9
6
9
,
3
7
7
$2
.
6
1
6
,
0
7
2
n/
a
22
.
6
0
n/
a

n
/
a
n/
a
Ir
r
i
g
a
t
i
o
n

P
e
a
k

R
e
w
a
r
d
s

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
89
7
se
r
v
i
c
e

p
o
i
n
t
s
$1
,
4
3
1
,
8
4
0
$1
8
9
,
4
9
2
n/
a
35
.
1
0
nl
a
n/
a
n/
a
To
t
a
l
$4
,
4
0
1
,
2
1
7

$
2
,
8
0
5
,
5
6
3
nf
a
57
.
7
0
At
t
i
c

I
n
s
u
l
a
t
i
o
n

P
i
l
o
t
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
28
2
ho
m
e
s
$1
2
3
.
4
5
4

$
1
5
7
.
8
6
6
31
7
,
8
1
4
0.
0
3
25
$0
.
0
2
9
$0
.
0
3
7
En
e
r
g
y

E
f
f
c
i
e
n
t

L
i
g
h
t
i
n
g

.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
43
6
,
2
3
4
CF
L

b
u
l
b
s
$1
,
0
1
8
.
2
9
2
$7
9
3
.
2
6
5
14
,
3
0
9
,
4
4
4
7
$0
.
0
1
1
$0
.
0
0
9
En
e
r
g
y

H
o
u
s
e

C
a
l
l
s
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
1,
0
9
9
ho
m
e
s
$4
8
4
.
3
7
9
$4
8
4
.
3
7
9
88
3
,
0
3
8
20
$0
.
0
4
5

$
0
.
0
4
5
EN
E
R
G
Y

S
T
A
R
I
I

H
o
m
e
s
25
4
ho
m
e
s
$3
0
2
,
0
6
1
$3
7
5
,
0
0
7
46
8
,
9
5
8
0.
6
1
25
$0
.
0
4
8

$
0
.
0
5
9
No
r
t
h
w
e
s
t
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
He
a
t
i
n
g

&

C
o
o
l
i
n
g

E
f
f
c
i
e
n
c
y
35
9
ho
m
e
s
$4
7
3
,
5
5
1

$
5
9
9
.
7
7
1
56
1
,
4
4
1
18
$0
.
0
7
3
$0
.
0
9
2
Pr
o
g
r
a
m

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Ho
m
e

P
r
o
d
u
c
t
s

P
r
o
g
r
a
m
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
3,
0
3
4
ap
p
l
i
a
n
c
e
s
l
x
t
u
r
e
s
$2
5
0
,
8
6
0

$
4
6
8
,
0
5
6
54
1
,
6
1
5
15
$0
.
0
4
4

$
0
.
0
8
2
Ho
m
e

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

P
i
l
o
t

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
16
ho
m
e
s
$5
2
,
8
0
7
$4
8
.
1
6
2
71
,
6
8
0
25
$0
.
0
5
5
$0
.
0
5
0
Or
e
g
o
n

R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l

W
e
a
t
h
e
r
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
3
ho
m
e
s
$7
,
4
1
7
$2
8
,
7
5
2
22
,
1
9
6
25
$0
.
0
2
5

$
0
.
0
9
6
Re
b
a
t
e

A
d
v
a
n
t
a
g
e
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
10
7
ho
m
e
s
$9
0
,
8
8
8
$1
7
9
,
8
6
8
46
3
,
4
0
1
45
$0
.
0
1
2
$0
.
0
2
5
We
a
t
h
e
r
i
z
a
t
i
o
n

A
s
s
i
s
t
a
n
c
e

f
o
r
43
9
ho
m
e
s
/
n
o
n
-
p
r
o
f
i
t
s
$1
,
3
7
5
,
6
3
2

$
1
,
7
5
5
,
7
4
9
4,
0
6
4
,
3
0
1
25
$0
.
0
2
5
$0
.
0
3
2
Qu
a
l
i
f
i
e
d

C
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
s
I
d
a
h
o
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
We
a
t
h
e
r
i
z
a
t
i
o
n

A
s
s
i
s
t
a
n
c
e

f
o
r
13
ho
m
e
s
/
n
o
n
-
p
r
o
f
i
t
s
$4
3
,
8
4
3

$
7
4
,
0
4
8
73
,
8
4
1
25
$0
.
0
4
0

$
0
.
0
6
8
Qu
a
l
i
f
i
e
d

C
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
s
-
o
r
e
g
o
n
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Se
c
t
o
r

T
o
t
a
l
$4
,
2
2
3
,
1
8
5
$4
,
9
6
4
,
9
2
4
21
,
7
7
7
,
7
2
9
0.
6
4
a.

L
e
v
e
l
i
z
e
d

C
o
s
t
s

a
r
e

b
a
s
e
d

o
n

f
i
n
a
n
c
i
a
l

i
n
p
u
t
s

f
r
o
m

I
d
a
h
o

P
o
w
e
r
'
s

2
0
0
6

I
n
t
e
g
r
a
t
e
d

R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e

P
l
a
n

a
n
d

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

i
n
c
l
u
d
e

l
i
n
e

l
o
s
s

a
d
j
u
s
t
e
d

e
n
e
r
g

s
a
v
i
n
g
s
.
b.

T
h
e

T
o
t
a
l

U
t
i
l
i
t
y

C
o
s
t

i
s

a
l
l

c
o
s
t
s

i
n
c
u
r
r
e
d

b
y

I
d
a
h
o

P
o
w
e
r

t
o

i
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t

a
n
d

m
a
n
a
g
e

a

D
S
M

p
r
o
g
r
a
m
.
c.

T
h
e

T
o
t
a
l

R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e

C
o
s
t

i
s

t
h
e

t
o
t
a
l

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

f
o
r

a

D
S
M

p
r
o
g
r
a
m

f
r
o
m

t
h
e

p
o
i
n
t

o
f

v
i
e
w

o
f

I
d
a
h
o

P
o
w
e
r

a
n
d

i
t
s

c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
s

a
s

a

w
h
o
l
e
.
d.

S
u
m
m
e
r

P
e
a
k

D
e
m
a
n
d

i
s

r
e
p
o
r
t
e
d

w
h
e
r
e

p
r
o
g
r
a
m

M
W

r
e
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

i
s

d
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
e
d
.
;i
"0"0 CD::a.g'1"0"0 CD::0-x'W 0-
II::o ""~..()o3"0II::
"C
o(13Cl
:J0.i(fa:
(1 s:Cl::Cl
(0 (13(1:J--:i
:J:Ji:Cl ;;
(1
'0o;:I\ooo:
'"
J

(
)
Cl

i
i
(0

f
J
(1

(
l
z
o:

0
w.

:
-
~
r
r
(l

-
l

(
)
:
:
(D
a
i
s
:
~c

r
r
;
:
2,
.
3

g

z
~
=
a
b
~
~(
)
c
.

~
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x

3
.

2
0
0
8

D
S
M

P
r
o
g
r
a
m

A
c
t
i
v
i
t
y

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

C
o
s
t
s
Sa
v
i
n
g
s
No
m
i
n
a
l

L
e
v
e
l
i
z
e
d
Co
s
t
s
(
a
)
Su
m
m
e
r
An
n
u
a
l

P
e
a
k

M
e
a
s
u
r
e
Pa
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
n
t
s

U
t
m
t
y
1
b
)

R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
1
c
)

E
n
e
r
g
y

D
e
m
a
n
d
(
d
l

L
i
f
e

U
t
i
l
t
y
To
t
a
!
Re
s
o
u
r
c
e
Pr
o
g
r
a
m
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
!
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g

E
f
f
c
i
e
n
c
y
Ea
s
y

U
p
g
r
a
d
e
s
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Ho
l
i
d
a
y

L
i
g
h
t
i
n
g

P
r
o
g
r
a
m
Or
e
g
o
n

C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l

A
u
d
i
t

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Se
c
t
o
r

T
o
t
a
!
60
pr
o
j
e
c
t
s
68
5
pr
o
j
e
c
t
s
14
pr
o
j
e
c
t
s
0
au
d
i
t
s
$1
,
0
5
5
,
0
0
9
$1
,
6
7
3
,
2
6
8
6,
5
9
8
,
1
2
3
0.
9
6
12
$0
.
0
1
7
$0
.
0
2
8
$2
,
9
9
2
,
2
6
1
$1
0
,
0
9
6
.
6
2
7
25
,
9
2
8
,
3
9
1
4.
4
9
12
$0
.
0
1
3
$0
.
0
4
3
$2
8
,
7
8
2
$7
3
,
1
0
8
25
9
,
0
9
2
10
$0
.
0
1
4
$0
.
0
3
5
$5
8
$5
8
nl
a

n
l
a
nl
a
$4
,
0
7
6
,
1
0
9
$1
1
,
8
4
3
,
0
6
1
32
,
7
8
5
,
6
0
6
5.
4
5
$4
,
0
4
5
,
6
7
1
$1
6
,
3
1
2
,
3
7
9
41
,
0
5
8
,
6
3
9
4.
7
7
12
$0
.
0
1
1
$0
.
0
4
$4
,
0
4
5
,
6
7
1
$1
6
,
3
1
2
,
3
7
9
41
,
0
5
8
,
6
3
9
4.
7
7
$2
,
1
0
3
,
7
0
2
$5
,
8
5
0
,
7
7
8
11
,
7
4
6
,
3
9
5
3.
4
7
8
$0
.
0
2
6

$
0
.
0
7
3
$2
,
1
0
3
,
7
0
2
$5
,
8
5
0
,
7
7
8
11
,
7
4
6
,
3
9
5
3.
4
7
$9
4
2
,
0
1
4
$9
4
2
,
0
1
4
32
,
6
7
1
,
4
6
5
In
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
!
Cu
s
t
o
m

E
f
f
c
i
e
n
c
y
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Se
c
t
o
r

T
o
t
a
!
10
1

p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
Ir
r
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
Ir
r
i
g
a
t
i
o
n

E
f
f
c
i
e
n
c
y

R
e
w
a
r
d
s

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
Se
c
t
o
r

T
o
t
a
!
96
1

p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
!
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l

E
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n

I
n
i
t
a
t
i
v
e
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
!
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l

E
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n

I
n
i
t
a
t
i
v
e
.
.
.
.
.
.
$1
5
0
,
9
1
7

$
1
5
0
,
9
1
7
$7
2
,
7
3
8
$7
2
,
7
3
8
a.

L
e
v
e
l
i
z
e
d

C
o
s
t
s

a
r
e

b
a
s
e
d

o
n

f
i
n
a
n
c
i
a
l

i
n
p
u
t
s

f
r
ò
m

I
d
a
h
o

P
o
w
e
r
'
s

2
0
0
6

I
n
t
e
g
r
a
t
e
d

R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e

P
l
a
n

a
n
d

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

i
n
c
l
u
d
e

l
i
n
e

l
o
s
s

a
d
j
u
s
t
e
d

e
n
e
r
g
y

s
a
v
i
n
g
s
.
b.

T
h
e

T
o
t
a
l

U
t
i
l
i
t
y

C
o
s
t

i
s

a
l
l

c
o
s
t
s

i
n
c
u
r
r
e
d

b
y

I
d
a
h
o

P
o
w
e
r

t
o

i
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t

a
n
d

m
a
n
a
g
e

a

D
S
M

p
r
o
g
r
a
m
.
c.

T
h
e

T
o
t
a
l

R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e

C
o
s
t

i
s

t
h
e

t
o
t
a
l

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

f
o
r

a

D
S
M

p
r
o
g
r
a
m

f
r
o
m

t
h
e

p
o
i
n
t

o
f

v
i
e
w

o
f

I
d
a
h
o

P
o
w
e
r

a
n
d

i
t
s

c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
s

a
s

a

w
h
o
l
e
.
d.

S
u
m
m
e
r

P
e
a
k

D
e
m
a
n
d

i
s

r
e
p
o
r
t
e
d

w
h
e
r
e

p
r
o
g
r
a
m

M
W

r
e
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

i
s

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

S
a
v
i
n
g
s

a
r
e

p
r
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
r
y

e
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
s

p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d

b
y

t
h
e

N
E
E
A
.
ã:Cl::o '"~..()o3'0 Cl::~):
"0"0(1::0.õ'
(1 t'0'0(1:J0.x'W
):
"0"0 CD:Ja.2'¡"0"0 CD:Ja.x'w
ïJ Q)
co CD co.p
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x

3
.

2
0
0
8

D
S
M

P
r
o
g
r
a
m

A
c
t
i
v
i
t
y

(
c
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
)
No
m
i
n
a
l
l
e
v
e
l
i
z
e
d
Co
s
t
s
(
a
)
Sa
v
i
n
g
s
To
t
a
l

C
o
s
t
s
Su
m
m
e
r
An
n
u
a
l

P
e
a
k

M
e
a
s
u
r
e

T
o
t
a
l
Ut
i
l
t
y
!
b
)

R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
!
-
)

E
n
e
r
l
i
l

D
e
m
a
n
d
(
d
)

l
i
f
e

U
t
i
l
t
y

R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
Pa
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
n
t
s
Pr
o
g
r
a
m
Ot
h
e
r
CR
C

R
e
n
e
w
a
b
l
e
s

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Di
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

E
f
f
c
i
e
n
c
y

I
n
i
t
i
a
t
i
v
e

(
2
)

.
.
.
.
DS
M

D
i
r
e
c
t

P
r
o
g
r
a
m

O
v
e
r
h
e
a
d
.

.
.
.
.
.
Lo
c
a
l

E
n
e
r
g
y

E
f
f
c
i
e
n
c
y

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

P
r
o
g
r
a
m

D
i
r
e
c
t

E
x
p
e
n
s
e
In
d
i
r
e
c
t

P
r
o
g
r
a
m

E
x
p
e
n
s
e
To
t
a
l

D
S
M

E
x
p
e
n
s
e
(N
u
m
b
e
r
)
Un
i
t
s
(D
o
l
l
a
r
s
)
$6
,
9
5
0
-$
1
,
9
1
3
$1
6
9
,
9
1
1
$2
2
,
7
1
4
$6
,
9
5
0
-$
1
,
9
1
3
$1
6
9
,
9
1
1
$6
0
,
1
0
0
$0
.
0
1
9
$0
.
0
4
9
11
5
,
9
3
1
15
2
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
$2
0
,
2
1
3
,
2
1
5

$
4
3
,
1
7
7
,
4
2
3

1
4
0
,
1
5
5
,
7
6
5
$9
8
0
,
3
0
5
$2
1
,
1
9
3
,
5
2
0
72
.
0
3
a.

L
e
v
e
l
i
z
e
d

C
o
s
t
s

a
r
e

b
a
s
e
d

o
n

f
i
n
a
n
c
i
a
l

i
n
p
u
t
s

f
r
o
m

I
d
a
h
o

P
o
w
e
r
'
s

2
0
0
6

I
n
t
e
g
r
a
t
e
d

R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e

P
l
a
n

a
n
d

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

i
n
c
l
u
d
e

l
i
n
e

l
o
s
s

a
d
j
u
s
t
e
d

e
n
e
r
g
y

s
a
v
i
n
g
s
.
b.

T
h
e

T
o
t
a
l

U
t
i
l
t
y

C
o
s
t

i
s

a
l
l

c
o
s
t
s

i
n
c
u
r
r
e
d

b
y

I
d
a
h
o

P
o
w
e
r

t
o

i
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t

a
n
d

m
a
n
a
g
e

a

D
S
M

p
r
o
g
r
a
m
.
c.

T
h
e

T
o
t
a
l

R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e

C
o
s
t

i
s

t
h
e

t
o
t
a
l

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

f
o
r

a

D
S
M

p
r
o
g
r
a
m

f
r
o
m

t
h
e

p
o
i
n
t

o
f

v
i
e
w

o
f

I
d
a
h
o

P
o
w
e
r

a
n
d

i
t
s

c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
s

a
s

a

w
h
o
l
e
.
d.

S
u
m
m
e
r

P
e
a
k

D
e
m
a
n
d

i
s

r
e
p
o
r
t
e
d

w
h
e
r
e

p
r
o
g
r
a
m

~

r
e
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

i
s

d
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
e
d
.
o
I

2
.

2
0
0
7

e
x
p
e
n
s
e
s

r
e
v
e
r
s
e
d

i
n

2
0
0
8
.
CD3 Q)
:Ja.i(la:
CD s:Q):JQ)
CO CD3 CD:J.-
a:Q)::o "'~..()o3"0Q):J
'.
:i:J:Ji:~::CD 15

J

(
)
;:

I
I
CI
I\

(
1
o
z
o
-
l
9
co
.

.

'
ü

~
(1

-
l

(
"

:
:
(C
a
i
e
;
'"

c

m

_
.
03
0
2
::
~

6
9
~
(
)
c
,

~
ìJ Q)
co CDc:0)
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x

4
.

D
S
M

E
x
p
e
n
s
e

a
n
d

P
e
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e

2
0
0
2
-
2
0
0
8

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

C
o
s
t
s
Sa
v
i
n
g
s

a
n
d

D
e
m
a
n
d

R
e
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
Le
v
e
l
i
z
e
d

C
o
s
t
s
!
'
)
Re
s
o
u
r
c
e
An
n
u
a
l
Av
e
r
a
g
e
Pe
a
k
Me
a
s
u
r
e
To
t
a
l

T
o
t
a
l
Pa
r
i
c
i
p
a
n
t
s
Ut
i
l
i
t
y

C
o
s
t
l
C
)
Co
s
t
!
d
)
En
e
r
g
y
De
m
a
n
d
!
e
)
De
m
a
n
d
(
i
Li
f
e
Ut
i
l
i
t
y
Re
s
o
u
r
c
e
Pr
o
g
r
a
m
f
Y
e
a
r
(N
u
m
b
e
r
)
(d
o
H
a
r
s
)
(d
o
l
l
a
r
s
)
(k
W
h
)
(a
M
W
)
(M
W
(Y
e
a
r
s
)
($
/
W
h
)
($
I
k
W
h
)
En
e
r
g
y

E
f
f
c
i
e
n
t

L
i
g
h
t
i
n
g
Ut
i
l
i
t
y
Be
n
e
f
i
t
C
o
s
t
Ra
t
i
o
Ra
t
i
o
s
!
b
)
To
t
a
l
Re
s
o
u
r
c
e
Be
n
e
f
i
t
/
C
o
s
t
Ra
t
i
o
o CD3 Q):J0.i(ja:
CD š:Q):J Q)
CO CD3 CD:J-
20
0
2
11
,
6
1
9
$2
4
3
,
0
3
3

$
3
1
0
,
6
4
3
3,
2
9
9
,
6
5
4
20
0
3
12
,
6
6
3
$3
1
4
,
6
4
1
$4
6
4
,
0
5
9
3,
5
9
6
,
1
5
0
20
0
4
0
20
0
5
43
,
7
6
0
$7
3
,
1
5
2
$1
0
7
,
8
1
0
1,
7
3
4
,
6
4
6
20
0
6
17
8
,
5
1
4
$2
9
8
,
7
5
4

$
5
3
9
,
8
7
7
6,
3
0
2
,
7
9
4
20
0
7
21
9
,
7
3
9
$5
5
7
,
6
4
6

$
4
3
3
,
6
2
6
7,
2
0
7
,
4
3
9
20
0
8
43
6
,
2
3
4
$1
,
0
1
8
,
2
9
2
$7
9
3
.
2
6
5
14
,
3
0
9
,
4
4
4
To
t
a
l
90
2
,
5
2
8
En
e
r
g
y

H
o
u
s
e

C
a
l
l
s
20
0
2
17
$2
6
,
0
5
3
$2
6
,
0
5
3
25
,
9
8
9
20
0
3
42
0
$1
6
7
,
0
7
6
$1
6
7
,
0
7
6
60
2
,
7
2
3
20
0
4
1,
7
0
8
$7
2
5
,
9
8
1

$
7
2
5
,
9
8
1
2,
3
4
9
,
7
8
3
20
0
5
89
1
$3
7
5
,
6
1
0

$
3
7
5
,
6
1
0
1,
7
7
5
,
7
7
0
20
0
6
81
9
$3
3
6
,
7
0
1
$3
3
6
,
7
0
1
77
7
,
2
4
4
20
0
7
70
0
$3
3
6
,
3
7
2
$6
7
,
6
1
6
69
9
,
8
9
9
20
0
8
1,
0
9
9
$4
8
4
,
3
7
9
$4
8
4
,
3
7
9
88
3
,
0
3
8
To
t
a
l
5,
6
5
4
$2
,
4
5
2
,
1
7
2
$2
,
1
8
3
,
4
1
6
7,
0
8
8
,
4
5
7
7
$0
.
0
1
2
$0
.
0
1
5
7
$0
.
0
1
4
$0
.
0
2
1
7
$0
.
0
0
7
$0
.
0
1
0
7
$0
.
0
0
8

$
0
.
0
1
4
7
$0
.
0
1
2
$0
.
0
1
0
7
$0
.
0
1
1
$0
.
0
0
9
7
$0
.
0
1
1
$0
.
0
1
2
20
$0
.
0
8
2

$
0
.
0
8
2
20
$0
.
0
2
3
$0
.
0
2
3
20
$0
.
0
2
5
$0
.
0
2
5
20
$0
.
0
1
7

$
0
.
0
1
7
20
$0
.
0
3
5

$
0
.
0
3
5
20
$0
.
0
3
9
$0
.
0
3
9
20
$0
.
0
4
5
$0
.
0
4
5
20
$0
.
0
2
8
$0
.
0
2
5
0.
3
8
0.
4
1
0.
2
0
0.
7
2
0.
8
2
1.
6
3
0.
0
0
0.
0
7
0.
2
7
0.
2
0
0.
0
9
0.
0
8
0.
1
0
4.
5
6

4
.
3
1
2.
2
0
(a
)

L
e
v
e
l
i
z
e
d

C
o
s
t
s

a
r
e

b
a
s
e
d

o
n

f
i
n
a
n
c
i
a
l

i
n
p
u
t
s

f
r
o
m

I
d
a
h
o

P
o
w
e
r
'
s

2
0
0
6

I
n
t
e
g
r
a
t
e
d

R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e

P
l
a
n

a
n
d

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

i
n
c
l
u
d
e

l
i
n
e

l
o
s
s

a
d
j
u
s
t
e
d

e
n
e
r
g
y

s
a
v
i
n
g
s
.
(b
)

P
r
o
g
r
a
m

L
i
f
e

B
e
n
e
f
i
t
/
C
o
s
t

R
a
t
i
o
s

a
r
e

p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d

f
o
r

a
c
t
i
v
e
,

n
o
n
-
s
t
a
t
u
t
o
r
y

p
r
o
g
r
a
m
s

o
n
l
y
.
(c
)

T
h
e

T
o
t
a
l

U
t
i
i
t
y

C
o
s
t

i
s

a
l
l

c
o
s
t
s

i
n
c
u
r
r
e
d

b
y

I
d
a
h
o

P
o
w
e
r

t
o

i
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t

a
n
d

m
a
n
a
g
e

a

D
S
M

p
r
o
g
r
a
m
.
(d
)

T
h
e

T
o
t
a
l

R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e

C
o
s
t

i
s

t
h
e

t
o
t
a
l

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

f
o
r

a

D
S
M

p
r
o
g
r
a
m

t
o
m

t
h
e

p
o
i
n
t

o
f

vie
w

o
f

I
d
a
h
o

P
o
w
e
r

a
n
d

i
t
s

c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
s

a
s

a

Y
A
o
l
e
.
(e
)

A
v
e
r
a
g
e

D
e
m
a
n
d

=

A
n
n
u
a
l

E
n
e
r
g
y

1
8
,
7
6
0

a
n
n
u
a
l

h
o
u
r
s
.
(f
)

S
u
m
m
e
r

P
e
a
k

D
e
m
a
n
d

i
s

r
e
p
o
r
t
e
d

f
o
r

p
r
o
g
r
a
m
s

t
h
a
t

d
i
r
e
c
t
l
y

r
e
d
u
c
e

l
o
a
d

o
r

m
e
a
s
u
r
e

d
e
m
a
n
d

r
e
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
s

d
u
n
n
g

s
u
m
m
e
r

p
e
a
k

s
e
a
s
o
n
.
(5
)

U
t
i
l
i
t
y

c
o
s
t
s

r
e
s
t
a
t
e
d

t
o
m

$
1
8
3
,
6
5
3

f
o
r

h
i
s
t
o
r
i
c
a
l

r
e
p
o
r
t
i
n

g

p
r
i
o
r

t
o

t
h
e

2
0
0
6

D
S
M

A
n
n
u
a
l

R
e
p
o
r
t
.
(6
)

U
t
i
l
i
t
y

c
o
s
t
s

r
e
s
t
a
t
e
d

t
o
m

$
7
2
5
,
7
3
2

f
o
r

h
i
s
t
o
r
i
c
a
l

r
e
p
o
r
t
i
n
g

p
r
i
o
r

t
o

t
h
e

2
0
0
6

D
S
M

A
n
n
u
a
l

R
e
p
o
r
t
.
;i:J:Ji:Ë.
;0(1 15

l

(
)
;:

I
I
ti
I\

C
D
o
Z
o
-
1
9
Q:
.

.

=
¡

r
p
CD

-
I

(
)
:
:
~Ë

m
2
:
o3
0
z
--
~

C
O
o
..

=
u

b
.
~(
)
0
1
~
(5
)
(6
)
2.
2
0
;i
"C"C CD:J0.
e'.CD l"C"C CD:J0.X'
.¡õ:Q)::o ìJo ~.,oo3i:J
'-
o(!3m:J0-i(fa:
(!š:m:Jmco(!3(!:J-
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x

4
.

D
S
M

E
x
p
e
n
s
e

a
n
d

P
e
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e

2
0
0
2
-
2
0
0
8

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

C
o
s
t
s
Sa
v
i
n
g
s

a
n
d

D
e
m
a
n
d

R
e
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
le
v
e
l
i
z
e
d

C
o
s
t
s
l
a
)
Re
s
o
u
r
c
e
An
n
u
a
l
Av
e
r
a
g
e
Pe
a
k
Me
a
s
u
r
e
To
t
a
l

T
o
t
a
l
Co
s
t
d
)
En
e
r
g
y
De
m
a
n
d
l
"
)
De
m
a
n
d
1
i
j
li
f
e
Ut
i
l
t
y
Re
s
o
u
r
c
e
(d
o
l
l
a
r
s
)
(k
W
h
)
(a
M
W
)
(M
W
)
(Y
e
a
r
s
)
($
/
W
h
)
($
W
h
)
Ut
i
l
i
t
y
Be
n
e
f
i
t
/
C
o
s
t
Ra
t
i
o
Pr
o
g
r
a
N
e
a
r
EN
E
R
G
Y

S
T
A
R
'
"

H
o
m
e
s
No
r
t
w
e
s
t
20
0
3
20
0
4
20
0
5
20
0
6
20
0
7
20
0
8
To
t
a
l
He
a
t
i
n
g

&

C
o
o
l
i
n
g

E
f
f
c
i
e
n
c
y
Pr
o
g
r
a
m
20
0
6
20
0
7
20
0
8
To
t
a
l
Ho
m
e

P
r
o
d
u

c
t
s

P
r
o
g
r
a
m
20
0
7
20
0
8
To
t
a
l
Ho
m
e

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

P
i
l
o
t
20
0
8
To
t
a
l
Ra
t
i
o
s
1
b
J
~T
o
t
a
l
Re
s
o
u
r
c
e
Be
n
e
f
i
t
/
C
o
s
t
Ra
t
i
o
0.
0
1
0.
0
9
25
$0
.
1
0
3

$
0
.
2
4
6
(7
)
0.
0
5

0
.
4
0
25
$0
.
0
4
5

$
0
.
0
5
6
0.
1
0

0
.
8
8
25
$0
.
0
3
8
$0
.
0
4
9
0.
0
7
0.
6
1
25
$0
.
0
5
6
$0
.
0
4
7
0.
0
5
0.
6
1
25
$0
.
0
4
8
$0
.
0
5
9
25
$0
.
4
9
$0
.
0
6
0
1.
1
6
1.
4
3
):
:J:Ji:e.::(!
"0o;:Noo00
0
$1
3
,
5
9
7
$1
3
,
5
9
7
44
$1
4
0
,
1
6
5
$3
3
5
,
4
3
7
10
1
,
2
0
0
20
0
$2
5
3
,
1
0
5
$3
1
5
,
3
1
1
41
5
,
6
0
0
43
9
$4
6
9
,
6
0
9
$6
0
2
,
6
5
1
91
2
,
2
4
2
30
3
$4
7
5
,
0
4
4
$4
0
0
,
3
7
62
9
,
6
3
4
25
4
$3
0
2
,
0
6
1
$3
7
5
,
0
0
7
46
8
,
9
5
8
1,
2
4
0
$1
,
6
5
3
,
5
8
1
$2
,
0
4
2
,
6
4
1
2,
5
2
1
,
6
3
4
0
$1
7
,
4
4
4
$1
7
,
4
4
4
$4
8
8
,
2
1
1
$4
9
4
,
9
8
9
1,
5
9
5
35
9
$4
7
3
,
5
5
1

$
5
9
9
,
7
7
1
56
1
,
4
4
1
36
3
$9
7
9
,
2
0
7
$1
,
1
1
2
,
2
0
4
56
3
,
0
3
6
0
$9
,
2
7
5

$
9
,
2
7
5
3,
0
3
4
$2
5
0
,
8
6
0
$4
6
8
,
0
5
6
54
1
,
6
1
5
3,
0
3
4
$2
6
0
,
1
3
5
$4
7
7
,
3
3
1
54
1
,
6
1
5
16
$5
2
,
8
0
1
$4
8
,
1
6
2
71
,
6
8
0
16
$5
2
,
8
0
7
$4
8
,
1
6
2
71
,
6
8
0
$2
7
.
3
4
$0
.
0
7
3
$0
.
1
5
0
$2
7
.
7
1
0
$0
.
0
9
2
$0
.
1
7
0
0.
0
0
0.
0
6
18 18 18
0.
0
6
15 15
$0
.
0
4
4
$0
.
0
8
2
$0
.
0
4
4
$0
.
0
8
2
$0
.
0
5
5
$0
.
0
5
0
$0
.
0
5
5
$0
.
0
5
0
25 25
(a
)

L
e
v
e
l
i
z
e
d

C
o
s
t
s

a
r
e

b
a
s
e
d

o
n

f
i
n
a
n
c
i
a
l

i
n
p
u
t
s

f
r
o
m

I
d
a
h
o

P
o
w
e
r
'
s

2
0
0
6

In
t
e
g
r
a
t
e
d

R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e

P
l
a
n

a
n
d

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

i
n
c
l
u
d
e

l
i
n
e

l
o
s
s

a
d
j
u
s
t
e
d

e
n
e
r
g
y

s
a
v
i
n
g
s
.
(b
)

P
r
o
g
r
a
m

L
i
f
e

B
e
n
e
f
i
t
/
C
o
s
t

R
a
t
i
o
s

a
r
e

p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d

f
o
r

a
c
t
i
v
e
,

n
o
n
-
s
t
a
t
u
t
o
r
y

p
r
o
g
r
a
m
s

o
n
l
y
.
(c
)

T
h
e

T
o
t
a
l

U
t
i
l
t
y

C
o
s
t

i
s

a
l
l

c
o
s
t
s

i
n
c
u
r
r
e
d

b
y

I
d
a
h
o

P
o
w
e
r

to

i
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t

a
n
d

m
a
n
a
g
e

a

D
S
M

p
r
o
g
r
a
m
.
(d
)

T
h
e

T
o
l
a
l

R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e

C
o
s
t

i
s

t
h
e

t
o
t
a
l

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

f
o
r

a

D
S
M

p
r
o
g
r
a
m

t
o
m

t
h
e

p
o
i
n
t

o
f

vi
e
w

o
f

I
d
a
h
o

P
o
w
e
r

a
n
d

i
t
s

c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
s

a
s

a

\
/
o
l
e
.
(e
)

A
v
e
r
a
g
e

D
e
m
a
n
d

=

A
n
n
u
a
l

E
n
e
r
g
y

/
8
,
7
6
0

a
n
n
u
a
l

h
o
u
r
s
.
(f
)

S
u
m
m
e
r

P
e
a
k

D
e
m
a
n
d

i
s

r
e
p
o
r
t
e
d

f
o
r

p
r
o
g
r
a
m
s

t
h
a
t

d
i
r
e
c
t
l
y

r
e
d
u
c
e

l
o
a
d

o
r

m
e
a
s
u
r
e

d
e
m
a
n
d

r
e
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
s

d
u
n
n
g

s
u
m
m
e
r

p
e
a
k

s
e
a
s
o
n
.
"'
J

(
7
)

E
n
e
r
g
y

s
a
v
i
n
g
s

b
a
s
e
d

o
n

N

E
E
A

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

p
e
r

h
o
m
e

k
V
l

s
a
v
i
n
g
s

e
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
s
.
m
(
)
CO

l
A
(!

C
D
00

Z
..

-
l

9
.
.

-
m
CD
-
l
l
J
X
(O
e
l
t
;
:
r
~~

r
¡
g
-.
-

°
z
~
-

t
p

0
o
l
J

O
'
-l

(
)

0
'

.
.
0.
0
1
0.
5
3
0.
2
8
1.
4
2
0.
7
7
1.
3
1
1.
4
3
õ:m::o "'o ~..()o3-0m:J-.;i
-0"0(!::0-g'
enl"0-0(!::a.X'~
-0 Ql
co CD CO CO o CD3Ql
:J0-Ú'
ëi CD s:Ql
:J Ql
co CD3 CD:J-
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x

4
.

D
S
M

E
x
p
e
n
s
e

a
n
d

P
e
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e

2
0
0
2
-
2
0
0
8

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

C
o
s
t
s
Sa
v
i
n
g
s

a
n
d

D
e
m
a
n
d

R
e
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
Le
v
e
l
i
z
e
d

C
o
s
t
s
(
'
)
Pr
o
g
r
a
l
Y
e
a
r
Or
e
g
o
n

R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
We
a
t
h
e
r
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
Pa
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
n
t
s

u
t
i
l
t
y

C
o
s
f
e
)
(N
u
m
b
e
r
)

(
d
o
l
l
r
s
)
Re
s
o
u
r
c
e
Co
s
f
d
l
(d
o
l
l
a
r
s
)
Av
e
r
a
g
e
De
m
a
n
d
l
ø
)
(a
M
W
)
Pe
a
k
De
m
a
n
d
1
n
(M
W
)
To
t
a
l
Re
s
o
u
r
c
e
($
/
W
h
)
Me
a
s
u
r
e
Li
f
e
(Y
e
a
r
s
)
To
t
a
l
Ut
i
l
i
t
y
($
W
h
)
An
n
u
a
l
En
e
r
g
y
(k
V
1
)
Re
b
a
t
e

A
d
v
a
n
t
a
g
e
20
0
2
24
-$
6
6
2
20
0
3
0
-$
9
4
3
20
0
4
4
$1
,
0
5
7
20
0
5
4
$6
1
2
20
0
6
0
$4
,
1
2
6
20
0
7
1
$3
,
7
8
1
20
0
8
3
$7
,
4
1
7
To
t
a
l
36
$1
5
,
3
8
9
20
0
3
73
$2
7
,
3
7
2
20
0
4
10
5
$5
2
,
1
8
7
20
0
5
98
$4
6
,
1
7
3
20
0
6
10
2
$5
2
,
6
7
3
20
0
7
12
3
$8
9
,
2
6
9
20
0
8
10
7
$9
0
,
8
8
8
To
t
a
l
60
8
$3
5
8
,
5
6
3
20
0
3
99
$6
,
6
8
7
To
t
a
l
99
$6
,
6
8
7
$0
.
0
1
0
$0
.
3
8
9
$2
3
,
9
7
1
4,
5
8
0

0
.
0
0
25
$1
,
0
5
7
$3
,
6
0
8
$4
,
1
2
6
$5
,
5
8
9
$2
8
,
7
5
2
$6
7
,
1
0
3
7,
9
2
7
0.
0
0
9,9
7
1
0.
0
0
22
,
1
9
6
0.
0
0
44
,
6
7
4
25
$0
.
0
0
6
$0
.
0
3
4
25
$0
.
0
2
8
$0
.
0
4
2
25
$0
.
0
2
5
$0
.
0
9
6
25
$0
.
0
2
6
$0
.
1
1
2
45
$0
.
0
0
8

$
0
.
0
2
2
45
$0
.
0
1
0
$0
.
0
3
4
45
$0
.
0
0
9
$0
.
0
3
2
45
$0
.
0
1
0

$
0
.
0
2
7
45
$0
.
0
1
0
$0
.
0
2
1
45
$0
.
0
1
2
$0
.
0
2
5
45
$0
.
0
1
0
$0
.
0
2
6
12
$0
.
0
5
1
$0
.
0
7
9
12
$0
.
0
5
1
$0
.
0
7
9
Wi
n
d
o
w

A
l
C

T
r
a
d
e

U
p

P
i
l
o
t
$7
9
,
3
9
9
22
7
,
4
3
4
$1
7
8
,
7
1
2
33
2
,
5
8
7
$1
5
8
,
4
6
2
31
2
,
3
1
1
$1
4
0
,
2
8
9
33
3
,
4
9
4
$1
8
2
,
1
5
2
55
4
,
0
1
8
$1
7
9
,
8
6
8
46
3
,
4
0
1
$9
1
8
,
8
8
2
2,
2
2
3
,
2
4
5
$1
0
,
4
9
2
14
,
4
5
4
$1
0
,
4
9
2
14
,
4
5
4
0.0
0
0.
0
3
0.
0
4
0.
0
4
0.
0
4
0.
0
6
0.
0
5
;:
:J:JC Ql
(a
)

L
e
v
e
l
i
z
e
d

C
o
s
t
s

a
r
e

b
a
s
e
d

o
n

f
i
n
a
n
c
i
a
l

i
n
p
u
t
s

f
r
o
m

I
d
a
h
o

P
o
w
e
r
'
s

2
0
0
6

I
n
t
e
g
r
a
t
e
d

R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e

P
l
a
n

a
n
d

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

i
n
c
l
u
d
e

l
i
n
e

l
o
s
s

a
d
j
u
s
t
e
d

e
n
e
r
g
y

s
a
v
i
n
g
s
.
(b
)

P
r
o
g
r
a
m

L
i
f
e

B
e
n
e
f
i
t
/
C
o
s
t

R
a
t
i
o
s

a
r
e

p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d

f
o
r

a
c
t
i
v
e
,

n
o
n
-
s
t
a
t
u
t
o
r
y

p
r
o
g
r
a
m
s

o
n
l
y
.
(c
)

T
h
e

T
o
t
a
l

U
t
i
l
i
t
y

C
o
s
t

i
s

a
l
l

c
o
s
t
s

i
n
c
u
r
r
e
d

b
y

I
d
a
h
o

P
o
w
e
r

t
o

i
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t

a
n
d

m
a
n
a
g
e

a

D
S
M

p
r
o
g
r
a
m
.
(d
)

T
h
e

T
o
t
a
l

R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e

C
o
s
t

i
s

t
h
e

t
o
t
a
l

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

f
o
r

a

D
S
M

p
r
o
g
r
a
m

t
o
m

t
h
e

p
o
i
n
t

o
f

vie
w

o
f

I
d
a
h
o

P
o
w
e
r

a
n
d

i
t
s

c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
s

a
s

a

w
t
o
l
e
.
(e
)

A
v
e
r
a
g
e

D
e
m
a
n
d

=

A
n
n
u
a
l

E
n
e
r
g
y

I

8
,
7
6
0

a
n
n
u
a
l

h
o
u
r
s
.
(f
)

S
u
m
m
e
r

P
e
a
k

D
e
m
a
n
d

i
s

r
e
p
o
r
t
e
d

f
o
r

p
r
o
g
r
a
m
s

t
h
a
t

d
i
r
e
c
t
l
y

r
e
d
u
c
e

l
o
a
d

o
r

m
e
a
s
u
r
e

d
e
m
a
n
d

r
e
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
s

d
u
r
i
n
g

s
u
m
m
e
r

p
e
a
k

s
e
a
s
o
n
.
(8
)

U
t
i
l
t
y

C
o
s
t

r
e
p
o
r
t
s

r
e
v
e
r
s
a
l

o
f

$
2
7
7
8

a
s
s
e
t

f
r
o
m

2
0
0
1

e
x
p
e
n
s
e
,

t
h
i
s

a
m
o
u
n
t

i
s

i
n
c
l
u
d
e
d

i
n

l
e
v
e
l
i
z
e
d

c
o
s
t

c
a
l
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
.
æ
I
n

a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
,

U
t
i
l
i
t
y

C
o
s
t

a
l
s
o

r
e
p
o
r
t
s

f
u
n
d
s

s
u
b
s
e
q
u
e
n
t
l
y

c
o
l
l
e
c
t
e
d

o
n

b
a
d

l
o
a
n

w
r
i
t
e
o
f
f

e
x
p
e
n
s
e
.

T
h
e
s
e

f
u
n
d
s

a
r
e

e
x
c
l
u
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

t
h
e

a
n
n
u
a
l
l
e
v
e
l
i
z
e
d

c
o
s
t

c
a
l
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
.
15

~
9
)

U
t
i
l
i
t
y

C
o
s
t

r
e
f
l
e
c
t
s

c
o
l
l
e
c
t
e
d

f
u
n
d
s

o
n

p
r
e
v
i
o
u
s

b
a
d

l
o
a
n

w
r
i
t
e
o
f
f
.
~
~
1
0
)

U
t
i
l
i
t
y

C
o
s
t

r
e
f
l
e
c
t
s

o
n
l
y

a
u
d
i
t

a
n
d

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

c
o
s
t
s
;

t
h
e
r
e

w
a
s

n
o

f
u
r
t
h
e
r

a
c
t
i
v
i
t
y

i
n

2
0
0
6
.
g
;
;
1
1
)

L
e
v
e
l
i
z
e
d

c
o
s
t

c
a
l
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n

i
n
c
l
u
d
e
s

b
a
d

l
o
a
n

w
r
t
e
-
o
f
f

e
x
p
e
n
s
e

a
n
d

f
u
n

d
s

c
o
l
l
e
c
t
e
d

t
o
m

p
r
e
v
i
o
u
s
l
y

w
r
i
t
t
e
n
-
o
f
f

l
o
a
n
s
.
o
CO
.

;
-

~
1
i
1

U
t
i
l
i
t
y

C
o
s
t

r
e
s
t
a
t
e
d

i
n

2
0
0
6

t
r
a
m

$
3
7
,
3
1
9

t
o

r
e
f
l
e
c
t

t
o
t
a
l

e
x
p
e
n
s
e
.
~~
n
~
~~

r
¡
~
_.

°
z
~-
~
o
o"
U

o
.
.i
(
'
o
i
.
.
Ut
i
l
i
t
Be
n
e
f
i
t
/
C
o
s
t
Ra
t
i
o
Ra
t
i
o
s
l
b
l
To
t
a
l
Re
s
o
u
r
c
e
Be
n
e
f
i
t
C
o
s
t
Ra
t
i
o
7.
1
9
(8
)
(9
)
(1
0
)
(1
1

)
(1
2
)
2.
8
0
;:
"0 ~:J0-
fJ
'L"0"0 CD:J0-X'
.p 0-Ql::o -0 ~..()o3 "C Ql
:J-.
o(I3 Q)::a.i(ja:
(I s:Q)::Q)
(Q(I3(I::-
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x

4
.

D
S
M

E
x
p
e
n
s
e

a
n
d

P
e
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e

2
0
0
2
-
2
0
0
8

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

C
o
s
t
s
Sa
v
i
n
g
s

a
n
d

D
e
m
a
n
d

R
e
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
Le
v
e
l
i
z
e
d

C
o
s
t
s
l
-
)
Av
e
r
a
g
e
De
m
a
n
d
l
-
)
(a
M
W
)
Pe
a
k
De
m
a
n
d
(
Q
(M
W
)
Ut
i
l
t
y
Be
n
e
f
i
t
C
o
s
t
Ra
t
i
o
Ra
t
i
o
s
l
b
)
-T
o
t
a
l
Re
s
o
u
r
c
e
Be
n
e
f
i
t
/
C
o
s
t
Ra
t
i
o
To
t
a
l

T
o
t
a
l
Ut
i
l
t
y

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

(
$
W
h
)
Me
a
s
u
r
e
Li
f
e
(Y
e
a
r
s
)
Pr
o
g
r
a
m
l
Y
e
a
r
An
n
u
a
l
En
e
r
"
(k
V
V
)
WA
Q
C
-
I
d
a
h
o
20
0
2
19
7
$2
3
5
,
0
4
8

$
4
9
2
,
1
3
9
20
0
3
20
8
$2
2
8
,
1
3
4
$4
8
3
,
3
6
9
20
0
4
26
9
$5
1
6
,
8
8
2
$8
5
9
,
4
8
2
1,
2
7
1
,
6
7
7
20
0
5
57
0
$1
,
4
0
2
,
4
8
7
$1
,
9
2
7
,
4
2
4
3,1
7
9
,
3
1
1
20
0
6
54
0
$1
,
4
4
9
,
8
0
7

$
2
,
2
3
1
,
0
8
6
2,
9
5
8
,
0
2
4
20
0
7
39
7
$1
,
2
9
0
,
0
1
7
$1
,
7
5
7
,
1
0
5
3,
2
9
6
,
0
1
9
20
0
8
43
9
$1
,
3
7
6
,
5
4
3
$1
,
7
5
5
,
7
4
9
4,
0
6
4
,
3
0
1
To
t
a
l
2,
6
2
0
$6
,
4
9
8
,
9
1
8
$9
,
5
0
6
,
3
5
4
14
,
7
6
9
,
3
3
2
20
0
2
31
$2
4
,
7
7
3
$4
7
,
2
2
1
68
,
3
2
3
20
0
3
29
$2
2
,
2
5
5
$4
2
,
3
3
5
10
2
,
6
4
3
20
0
4
17
$1
4
,
5
8
6
$2
5
,
4
5
2
28
,
4
3
6
20
0
5
28
$4
4
,
3
4
8
$5
9
,
4
3
94
,
2
7
9
20
0
6
0
$5
,
5
6
6
20
0
7
11
$3
3
,
6
0
7
$4
1
,
7
0
0
42
,
1
0
8
20
0
8
13
$4
2
,
9
3
2
$7
4
,
0
4
8
73
,
6
4
1
To
t
a
l
13
0
$1
8
8
,
0
6
7
$2
9
0
,
1
9
9
40
9
,
6
3
0
20
0
2
75
$5
5
,
9
6
6
$1
1
8
,
2
5
5
31
1
,
3
4
7
20
0
3
57
$4
9
,
8
9
5
$1
0
6
,
9
1
5
22
3
,
5
9
1
20
0
4
40
$4
9
,
8
8
5
$1
0
5
,
0
2
1
12
5
,
9
1
9
To
t
a
l
17
2
$1
5
5
,
7
4
6
$3
3
0
,
1
9
1
66
0
,
8
5
7
;i::::c:Q)::(I
"0o;:!'oo CO
0.
1
5
0.
3
6
0.
3
4
0.
3
8
0.
4
6
25
$0
.
0
2
9
$0
.
0
5
0
25
$0
.
0
3
3
$0
.
0
4
5
25
$0
.
0
3
7

$
0
.
0
5
6
25
$0
.
0
2
9

$
0
.
0
4
0
25
$0
.
0
2
5

$
0
.
0
3
2
25
$0
.
0
3
3

$
0
.
0
4
8
25
$0
.
0
2
7
$0
.
0
5
1
25
$0
.
0
1
6
$0
.
0
3
1
25
$0
.
0
3
5

$
0
.
0
6
7
25
$0
.
0
3
5

$
0
.
0
4
7
25
$0
.
0
5
4

$
0
.
0
7
4
25
$0
.
0
4
0

$
0
.
0
6
8
25
$0
.
0
3
3
$0
.
0
5
3
25
$0
.
0
1
3

$
0
.
0
2
8
25
$0
.
0
1
7

$
0
.
0
3
6
25
$0
.
0
4
1
$0
.
0
6
2
25
$0
.
0
2
0

$
0
.
0
3
7
WA
Q
C
-
O
r
e
g
o
n
0.0
1
0.0
1
0.
0
0
0.0
1
0.
0
0
0.
0
1
WA
Q
C
-
B
P
A

S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
0.
0
4
0.
0
3
0.
0
1
(a
)

L
e
v
e
l
i
z
e
d

C
o
s
t
s

a
r
e

b
a
s
e
d

o
n

f
i
n
a
n
c
i
a
l

i
n
p
u
t
s

f
r
m

I
d
a
h
o

P
o
w
r
'
s

2
0
0
6

I
n
t
e
g
r
a
t
e
d

R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e

P
l
a
n

a
n
d

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

I
n
c
l
u
d
e

l
i
n
e

l
o
s
s

a
d
j
u
s
t
e
d

e
n
e
r
g
y

s
a
v
i
n
g
s
.
(b
)

P
r
o
g
r
a
m

L
i
f
e

B
e
n
e
f
i
t
l
C
o
s
t

R
a
t
i
o
s

a
r
e

p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d

f
o
r

a
c
t
i
v
e
,

n
o
n
-
s
t
a
t
u
t
o
r
y

p
r
o
g
r
a
m
s

o
n
l
y
.
(c
)

T
h
e

T
o
t
a
l

U
t
i
l
i
t
y

C
o
s
t

i
s

a
l
l

c
o
s
t
s

i
n
c
u
r
r
e
d

b
y

I
d
a
h
o

P
o
w
e
r

to

i
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t

a
n
d

m
a
n
a
g
e

a

D
S
M

p
r
o
g
r
a
m
.
(d
)

T
h
e

T
o
t
a
l

R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e

C
o
s
t

i
s

t
h
e

t
o
t
a
l

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

f
o
r

a

D
S
M

p
r
o
g
r
a
m

1
ì
o
m

t
h
e

p
o
i
n
t

o
f

vi
e
w

o
f

I
d
a
h
o

P
o
w
e
r

a
n
d

i
t
s

c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
s

a
s

a

w
h
o
l
e
.
~J

a
e
)

A
v
e
r
a
g
e

D
e
m
a
n
d

=

A
n
n
u
a
l

E
n
e
r
g
y

1
8
,
7
6
0

a
n
n
u
a
l

h
o
u
r
s
.
ti
~
~
f
)

S
u
m
m
e
r

P
e
a
k

D
e
m
a
n
d

i
s

r
e
p
o
r
t
e
d

f
o
r

p
r
o
g
r
a
m
s

t
h
a
t

d
i
r
e
c
t
l
y

r
e
d
u
c
e

l
o
a
d

o
r

m
e
a
s
u
r
e

d
e
m
a
n
d

r
e
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
s

d
u
n
n
g

s
u
m
m
e
r

p
e
a
k

s
e
a
s
o
n
.
~.

;
-

~
1
~

T
o
t
a
l

R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e

C
o
s
t

r
e
s
t
a
t
e
d

i
n

2
0
0
5

t
o

i
n
c
l
u
d
e

f
e
d
e
r
a
l

f
u
n
d
i
n
g

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

b
y

C
A
P

a
g
e
n
c
i
e
s
.

2
0
0
2
-
2
0
0
3

s
a
v
i
n
g
s

n
o
t

r
e
p
o
r
t
e
d

d
u
e

t
o

i
n
t
e
g
r
a
t
i
o
n

o
f

fu
e
l

t
y
e
s
.
ro

i
i

~
~

B
e
g
i
n
n
i
n
g

i
n

2
0
0
5
,

B
P
A

f
u
n
d
s

w
e
r
e

n
o

l
o
n
g
e
r

a
p
p
l
i
e
d

t
o

C
A
P

a
g
e
n
c
y

p
a
y
m
e
n
t
s
;

B
P
A

e
x
p
e
n
s
e

i
n

s
u
b
s
e
q
u
e
n
t

y
e
a
r
s

i
s

r
e
f
l
e
c
t
e
d

i
n

t
h
e

r
e
s
p
e
c
t
i
v
e

s
t
a
t
e

e
x
p
e
n
s
e
s
.
(l
.
.

I

_
.
~
§

r
y

g
;
_.

O
z
~
-
C
P
o
0-
0
0

.
-1
0

o
i
.
.
2.
1
7
2.
0
2

1
.
2
6
(1
3
)
1.
5
0
(1
4
)
õ:Q)::o iJ ~(I..()o3"0 Q)::
-e ;i
"0"0(I::a.&r
enl"0"0(I::a.X'
.¡
"U Q)
co co coo
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x

4
.

D
S
M

E
x
p
e
n
s
e

a
n
d

P
e
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e

2
0
0
2
-
2
0
0
8

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

C
o
s
t
s
Sa
v
i
n
g
s

a
n
d

D
e
m
a
n
d

R
e
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
Pr
o
g
r
a
m
l
Y
e
a
r
Re
s
o
u
r
c
e
Pa
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
n
t
s

u
t
i
l
i
t

c
a
s
t
l
e
)

C
o
s
t
d
)
(N
u
m
b
e
r
)

(
d
o
l
l
r
s
)

(
d
o
l
l
a
r
s
)
An
n
u
a
l
En
e
,

_
(k
W
h
)
Av
e
r
a
g
e
De
m
a
n
d
l
e
)
(a
M
W
)
Pe
a
k
De
m
a
n
d
(
f
(M
W
)
Me
a
s
u
r
e
Li
f
e
(Y
e
a
r
s
)
Le
v
e
l
i
z
e
d

C
o
s
t
s
l
a
)
To
t
a
l

T
o
t
a
l
ut
i
l
t
y

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

(
$
i
k
W
h
)
Ut
i
l
i
t
y
Be
n
e
f
i
t
/
C
o
s
t
Ra
t
i
o
Ra
t
i
o
s
1
b
)
To
t
a
l
Re
s
o
u
r
c
e
Be
n
e
f
i
t
/
C
o
s
t
Ra
t
i
o
Ai
r

C
a
r
e

P
l
u
s

P
i
l
o
t
20
0
3
4
$5
,
7
6
4
$9
,
0
6
1
33
,
9
7
6
20
0
4
°
$3
4
4
$3
4
4
To
t
a
l
4
$6
,
1
0
8
$9
,
4
0
5
33
,
9
7
6
20
0
4
°
$2
8
,
8
2
1

$
2
8
,
8
2
1
20
0
5
12
$1
9
4
,
0
6
6

$
2
3
3
,
1
4
9
49
4
,
2
3
9
20
0
6
40
$3
7
4
,
0
0
8
$4
6
3
,
7
7
0
70
4
,
5
4
1
20
0
7
22
$6
6
9
,
0
3
2
$8
2
9
,
6
0
0
2,
8
1
7
,
2
4
8
20
0
8
60
$1
,
0
5
5
,
0
0
9
$1
,
6
7
3
,
2
6
8
6,
5
9
8
,
1
2
3
To
t
a
l
13
4
$2
,
3
2
0
,
9
3
7
$3
,
2
2
8
,
6
0
9
10
,
6
1
4
,
1
5
1
20
0
6
0
$3
1
,
8
1
9
$3
1
,
8
1
9
20
0
7
10
4
$7
1
1
,
4
9
4
$1
,
8
8
2
,
0
3
5
5,
1
8
3
,
6
4
0
20
0
8
68
5
$2
,
9
9
2
,
2
6
1
$1
0
,
0
9
6
,
6
2
7
25
,
9
2
8
,
3
9
1
To
t
a
l
78
9
$3
,
7
3
5
,
5
7
4
$1
2
,
0
1
0
,
4
8
1
31
,
1
1
2
,
0
3
1
20
0
8
14
$2
8
,
7
8
2

$
7
3
,
1
0
8
25
9
,
0
9
2
To
t
a
l
14
$2
8
,
7
8
2

$
7
3
,
1
0
8
25
9
,
0
9
2
0.
0
3
0.
0
0
10
$0
.
0
2
1
$0
.
0
3
3
10
$0
.
0
2
2

$
0
.
0
3
4
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g

E
f
f
c
i
e
n
c
y
0.
0
6
0.
0
8
0.
3
2
0.
7
5
o CO3 Q):l0.
,ena:CO š:Q):l Q)
CO CO3 CO:l-
Ea
s
y

U
p
g
r
a
d
e
s
0.
5
9
2.
9
6
Ho
l
i
d
a
y

L
i
g
h
t
i
n
g

P
r
o
g
r
a
m
0.
1
6
0.
3
4
0.
4
5
0.
9
6
0.
7
8
4.
4
9
12 12 12 12 12
$0
.
0
4
3
$0
.
0
5
2
$0
.
0
5
8
$0
.
0
7
2
$0
.
0
1
5
$0
.
0
4
0
$0
.
0
1
7

$
0
.
0
2
8
$0
.
0
2
4
$0
.
0
2
6
$0
.
0
1
5
$0
.
0
4
0
$0
.
0
1
3

$
0
.
0
4
3
$0
.
0
4
2
$0
.
0
1
4
$0
.
0
3
5
$0
.
0
1
4
$0
.
0
3
5
12 12 12 10 10
(a
)

L
e
v
e
l
i
z
e
d

C
o
s
t
s

a
r
e

b
a
s
e
d

o
n

f
i
n
a
n
c
i
a
l

i
n
p
u
t
s

f
r
m

I
d
a
h
o

P
o
w
e
r
'
s

2
0
0
6

I
n
t
e
g
r
a
t
e
d

R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e

P
l
a
n

a
n
d

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

i
n
c
l
u
d
e

l
i
n
e

l
o
s
s

a
d
j
u
s
t
e
d

e
n
e
r
g
y

s
a
v
i
n
g
s
.
(b
)

P
r
o
g
r
a
m

L
i
f
e

8
e
n
e
f
i
t
I
C
o
s
t

R
a
t
i
o
s

a
r
e

p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d

f
o
r

a
c
t
i
v
e
,

n
o
n
-
s
t
a
t
u
t
o
r
y

p
r
o
g
r
a
m
s

o
n
l
y
.
(c
)

T
h
e

T
o
t
a
l

U
t
i
l
i
t
y

C
o
s
t

i
s

a
l
l

c
o
s
t
s

i
n
c
u
r
r
e
d

b
y

I
d
a
h
o

P
o
w
r

to

i
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t

a
n
d

m
a
n
a
g
e

a

D
S
M

p
r
o
g
r
a
m
.
(d
)

T
h
e

T
o
t
a
l

R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e

C
o
s
t

i
s

t
h
e

t
o
t
a
l

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

f
o
r

a

D
S
M

p
r
o
g
r
a
m

f
r
o
m

t
h
e

p
o
i
n
t

o
f

vie
w

o
f

I
d
a
h
o

P
o
w
e
r

a
n
d

i
t
s

c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
s

a
s

a

w
h
o
l
e
.
(e
)

A
v
e
r
a
g
e

D
e
m
a
n
d

=

A
n
n
u
a
l

E
n
e
r
g
y

/
8
,
7
6
0

a
n
n
u
a
l

h
o
u
r
s
.
(f
)

S
u
m
m
e
r

P
e
a
k

D
e
m
a
n
d

i
s

r
e
p
o
r
t
e
d

f
o
r

p
r
o
g
r
a
m
s

t
h
a
t

d
i
r
e
c
t
l
y

r
e
d
u
c
e

l
o
a
d

o
r

m
e
a
s
u
r
e

d
e
m
a
n
d

r
e
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
s

d
u
r
i
n
g

s
u
m
m
e
r

p
e
a
k

s
e
a
s
o
n
.
~:l:lC!æ;;CO 15
J

(
)
;:

Q
l
'"
I'

C
D
o
Z
o
0
00

:
-
:
.

m
ro

¡
;

~

~
~Ë
~
g
Q.
.
3

g

z
~=
i
b
?
~
(
)

c
.
.
.
2.
1
4
1.
5
5
3.
8
8
1.
2
1
2.
8
5
1.
1
2
~"0"0 CO:l0.g'¡"0"0 CO:l0.X'~õ:Q)::o "U ~-.()o3-0 Q):l"'
0
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x

4
.

D
S
M

E
x
p
e
n
s
e

a
n
d

P
e
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e

2
0
0
2
-
2
0
0
8

(
c
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
)
a.
(1
ro
3
:T
ro
0
::
Pr
o
g
r
a
m

L
i
f
e

B
e
n
e
f
i
t
/
C
o
s
t
i:
a.
Le
v
e
l
i
z
e
d

C
o
s
t
s
l
o
Ra
t
i
o
s
1
b
)
0
i
To
t
a
l

C
o
s
t
s
an
d

D
e
m
a
n
d

R
e
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
en
::
a:
To
t
a
l
(1..
(1
ut
i
l
t
y
Re
s
o
u
r
c
e
()
s:
Re
s
o
u
r
c
e
An
n
u
a
l
Av
e
r
a
g
e
Pe
a
k
Me
a
s
u
r
e
To
t
a
l

T
o
t
a
l
B
e
n
e
f
i
t
C
o
s
t
Be
n
e
f
i
t
l
C
o
s
t
0
ro
Pa
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
n
t
s
ut
i
l
i
t
y

C
o
s
t
l
e
)
Co
s
t
l
d
l
En
e
r
g
y
De
m
a
n
d
!
e
)
De
m
a
n
d
(
!
Li
f
e
Ut
i
l
i
t
y
Re
s
o
u
r
c
e
Ra
t
i
o

R
a
t
i
o
3
::
"0
ro
Pr
o
g
r
a
m
l
Y
e
a
r
(N
u
m
b
e
r
)
(d
o
l
l
a
r
s
)
(d
o
l
l
a
r
s
)
(k
W
h
)
(a
M
W
)
(M
W
)
(Y
e
a
r
s
)
($
/
W
h
)
($
/
W
h
)
ro
CO
::
(1
Or
e
g
o
n

C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l

A
u
d
i
t
s
..
3 (1
20
0
2
24
$5
,
2
0
0
$5
,
2
0
0
::..
20
0
3
21
$0
$4
,
0
0
0
:i::
20
0
4
7
$0
$0
::c
20
0
5
7
$5
,
4
5
0

$
5
,
4
5
0
ro ;0
20
0
6
6
(1
20
0
7
8
$1
,
9
8
1
$1
,
9
8
1
"00
20
0
8
0
$5
8
$5
8
;:I\
To
t
a
l
73
$1
2
,
6
8
9
$1
6
,
6
8
9
(1
5
)
0
Or
e
g
o
n

S
c
h
o
o
l

E
f
f
c
i
e
n
c
y
00)
20
0
5
0
$8
6
$8
6
20
0
6
6
$2
4
,
3
7
9
$8
9
,
7
7
1
22
3
,
3
6
8
0.
0
3
12
$0
.
0
1
2
$0
.
0
4
4
To
t
a
l
6
$2
4
,
4
5
$8
9
,
8
5
8
22
3
,
3
6
8
12
$0
.
0
1
2
$0
.
0
4
4
Cu
s
t
o
m

E
f
f
c
i
e
n
c
y
20
0
3

0

$
1
,
3
0
3

$
1
,
3
0
3
20
0
4

1

$
1
1
2
,
3
1
1

$
1
3
3
,
4
4
1

2
1
1
,
2
9
5

0
.
0
2

1
2

$
0
.
0
5
8
20
0
5

2
4

$
1
,
1
2
8
,
0
7
6

$
3
,
6
5
3
,
1
5
2

1
2
,
0
1
6
,
6
7
8

1
.
3
7

1
2

$
0
.
0
1
0
20
0
6

4
0

$
1
,
6
2
5
,
2
1
6

$
4
,
2
7
3
,
8
8
5

1
9
,
2
1
1
,
6
0
5

2
.
1
9

1
2

$
0
.
0
0
9
20
0
7

4
9

$
3
,
1
6
1
,
8
6
6

$
7
,
0
1
2
,
6
8
6

2
9
,
7
8
9
,
3
0
4

3
.
4
0

3
.
6
2

1
2

$
0
.
0
1
2
20
0
8

1
0
0

$
4
,
0
4
5
,
6
7
1

$
1
6
,
3
1
2
,
3
7
9

4
1
,
0
5
8
,
6
3
9

4
.
6
8

4
.
7
7

1
2

$
0
.
0
1
1
To
t
a
l

2
1
4

$
1
0
,
0
7
4
,
4
4
2

$
3
1
,
3
8
6
,
8
4
6

1
0
2
,
2
8
7
,
5
2
1

1
2

$
0
.
0
1
8
.:
a
)

L
e
v
e
l
i
z
e
d

C
o
s
t
s

a
r
e

b
a
s
e
d

o
n

f
i
n
a
n
c
i
a
l

i
n
p
u
t
s

f
r
o
m

I
d
a
h
o

P
o
w
e
r
'
s

2
0
0
6

In
t
e
g
r
a
t
e
d

R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e

P
l
a
n

a
n
d

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

i
n
c
l
u
d
e

l
i
n
e

l
o
s
s

a
d
j
u
s
t
e
d

e
n
e
r
g
y

s
a
v
i
n
g
s
.
(b
)

P
r
o
g
r
a
m

L
i
f
e

B
e
n
e
f
i
t
I
C
o
s
t

R
a
t
i
o
s

a
r
e

p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d

f
o
r

a
c
t
i
v
e
,

n
o
n
-
s
t
a
t
u
o
r
y

p
r
o
g
r
a
m
s

o
n
l
y
.
(c
)

T
h
e

T
o
t
a
l

U
t
i
l
i
t
y

C
o
s
t

i
s

a
l
l

c
o
s
t
s

i
n
c
u
r
r
e
d

b
y

I
d
a
h
o

P
o
w
r

t
o

i
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t

a
n
d

m
a
n
a
g
e

a

D
S
M

p
r
o
g
r
a
m
.
i.
d
)

T
h
e

T
o
t
a
l

R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e

C
o
s
t

i
s

t
h
e

t
o
t
a
l

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

f
o
r

a

D
S
M

p
r
o
g
r
a
m

f
r
o
m

t
h
e

p
o
i
n
t

o
f

vi
e
w

o
f

I
d
a
h
o

P
o
w
e
r

a
n
d

i
t
s

c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
s

a
s

a

w
h
o
l
e
.
(e
)

A
v
e
r
a
g
e

D
e
m
a
n
d

=

A
n
n
u
a
l

E
n
e
r
g
y

/
8
,
7
6
0

a
n
n
u
a
l

h
o
u
r
s
.
(f
)

S
u
m
m
e
r

P
e
a
k

D
e
m
a
n
d

i
s

r
e
p
o
r
t
e
d

f
o
r

p
r
o
g
r
a
m
s

t
h
a
t

d
i
r
e
c
t
l
y

r
e
d
u
c
e

l
o
a
d

o
r

m
e
a
s
u
r
e

d
e
m
a
n
d

r
e
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
s

d
u
r
i
n
g

s
u
m
m
e
r

p
e
a
k

s
e
a
s
o
n
.
~J

~
1
5
l

O
r
e
g
o
n

s
t
a
t
u
t
o
r
y

p
r
o
g
r
a
m
.

T
h
e

c
o
m
p
a
n
y

d
o
e
s

n
o
t

m
o
n
i
t
o
r

c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r

i
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n

o
f

a
u
d
i
t

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

a
n
d

t
h
u
s

d
o
e
s

n
o
t

e
s
t
i
m
a
t
e

s
a
v
i
n
g
s

f
o
r

t
h
i
s

p
r
o
g
r
a
m
.
(1

C
D

A
u
d
i
t

e
x
p
e
n
s
e

n
o
t

i
n
v
o
l
v
i
n
g

o
u
t
s
i
d
e

c
o
n
t
r
a
c
t
o
r

s
e
r
v
i
c
e
s

a
r
e

b
o
o
k
e
d

t
o

g
e
n
e
r
a
l

c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r

s
e
r
v
i
c
e
.
CO

z
..

-
l

9
CD

:
.

i
j

~
c.
æ
.
Q
2
'
to

c

m
!
2
03

i

.
.
_.

O
z
..

-

t
p

0
0"
0
0
'
""
O
(
J
.
.
$0
.
0
6
9
$0
.
0
3
3
$0
.
0
2
4
$0
.
0
2
6
$0
.
0
4
4
$0
.
0
5
6
4.
8
3
1.
5
5
:i
"0
'0(1::a.2"L'0"0(1::a.x'
.¡
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x

4
.

D
S
M

E
x
p
e
n
s
e

a
n
d

P
e
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e

2
0
0
2
-
2
0
0
8

(
c
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
)
'"Q)
co CD CDI\
To
t
a
l

C
o
s
t
s
Sa
v
i
n
g
s

a
n
d

D
e
m
a
n
d

R
e
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
Le
v
e
l
i
z
e
d

C
o
s
t
s
l
.
'
Re
s
o
u
r
c
e
An
n
u
a
l
Av
e
r
a
g
e
Pe
a
k
Me
a
s
u
r
e
To
t
a
l
To
t
a
l
Co
s
t
d
)
En
e
r
g
y
De
m
a
n
d
l
.
'
De
m
a
n
d
(
!
Li
f
e
ut
i
l
i
t
Re
s
o
u
r
c
e
(d
o
l
l
a
r
s
)
(k
W
h
)
(a
M
W
)
(M
W
)
(Y
e
a
r
s
)
($
W
h
)
($
/
1
W
h
)
Ra
t
i
o
s
(
b
)
To
t
a
l
Ut
i
l
i
t
y

R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
Be
n
e
f
i
t
/
C
o
s
t

B
e
n
e
f
i
t
C
o
s
t
Ra
t
i
o

R
a
t
i
o
Ir
r
i
g
a
t
i
o
n

E
f
f
c
i
e
n
c
y

R
e
w
a
r
d
s
20
0
3
20
0
4
20
0
5
20
0
6
20
0
7
20
0
8
To
t
a
l
2
$4
1
,
0
8
9
$5
4
,
6
0
9
36
,
7
9
2
0.
0
0
0.
0
2
15
$0
.
1
0
6
$0
.
1
4
1
33
$1
2
0
,
8
0
8
$4
0
2
,
9
7
8
80
2
,
8
1
2
0.
0
9
0.
4
5
15
$0
.
0
1
4
$0
.
0
4
8
38
$1
5
0
,
5
7
7
$6
5
7
,
4
6
0
1,0
1
2
,
8
8
3
0.
1
2
0.
4
0
15
$0
.
0
1
4
$0
.
0
6
2
55
9
$2
,
7
7
9
,
6
2
0
$8
,
5
1
4
,
2
3
1
16
,
9
8
6
,
0
0
8
1.
9
4
5.
1
0
8
$0
.
0
2
4
$0
.
0
7
3
81
6
$2
,
0
0
1
,
9
6
1
$8
,
6
9
4
,
7
7
2
12
,
3
0
4
,
0
7
3
1.
4
0
3.
4
1
8
$0
.
0
2
4
$0
.
1
0
3
96
1
$2
,
1
0
3
,
7
0
2
$5
,
8
5
0
,
7
7
8
11
,
7
4
6
,
3
9
5
1.
3
4
3.
4
7
8
$0
.
0
2
6
$0
.
0
7
3
2,
4
0
9
$7
,
1
9
7
,
7
5
8
$2
4
,
1
7
4
,
8
2
7
42
,
8
8
8
,
9
6
3
8
$0
.
0
2
4
$0
.
0
8
2
71
$4
8
,
8
5
3
$4
8
,
8
5
3
1,
8
2
5
,
0
0
0
0.
2
1
5
$0
.
0
0
6
$0
.
0
0
6
26
$4
3
,
9
6
9
$4
3
,
9
6
9
65
0
,
0
0
0
0.0
7
5
$0
.
0
1
4
$0
.
0
1
4
7
$1
,
7
5
0
$4
,
4
8
0
43
4
,
1
6
7
0.0
5
5
$0
.
0
0
1
$0
.
0
0
2
10
4
$9
4
,
5
7
2
$9
7
,
3
0
2
2,
9
0
9
,
1
6
7
5
$0
.
0
7
$0
.
0
7
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g

O
p
e
r
a
t
o
r

T
r
a
i
n
i
n
g
o CD3 Q)::a.
ena:CD s:Q)::Q)
CO CD3 CD::-
20
0
3
20
0
4
20
0
5
To
t
a
l
5.
4
9
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l

E
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n
In
i
t
i
a
t
i
v
e
$3
,
4
9
7
$4
,
6
6
3
$2
6
,
8
2
3
$7
2
,
7
3
8
$1
0
7
,
7
2
1
$3
,
4
9
7
$4
,
6
6
3
$2
6
,
8
2
3
$7
2
,
7
3
8
$1
0
7
,
7
2
1
20
0
5
20
0
6
20
0
7
20
0
8
To
t
a
l
):::::c:Q)::CD
"0o;:I\oo
(a
)

L
e
v
e
l
i
z
e
d

C
o
s
t
s

a
r
e

b
a
s
e
d

o
n

f
i
n
a
n
c
i
a
l

i
n
p
u
t
s

f
r
o
m

I
d
a
h
o

P
o
w
r
'
s

2
0
0
6

I
n
t
e
g
r
a
t
e
d

R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e

P
l
a
n

a
n
d

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

i
n
c
l
u
d
e

l
i
n
e

l
o
s
s

a
d
j
u
s
t
e
d

e
n
e
r
g
y

s
a
v
i
n
g
s
.
(b
)

P
r
o
g
r
a
m

L
i
f
e

B
e
n
e
f
i
l
/
o
s
t

R
a
t
i
o
s

a
r
e

p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d

f
o
r

a
c
t
i
v
e
,

n
o
n
-
s
t
a
t
u
t
o
r
y

p
r
o
g
r
a
m
s

o
n
l
y
.
(c
)

T
h
e

T
o
t
a
l

U
t
i
l
i
t
y

C
o
s
t

i
s

a
l
l

c
o
s
t
s

i
n
c
u
r
r
d

b
y

I
d
a
h
o

P
o
w
e
r

to

i
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t

a
n
d

m
a
n
a
g
e

a

D
S
M

p
r
o
g
r
a
m
.
(d
)

T
h
e

T
o
t
a
l

R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e

C
o
s
t

i
s

t
h
e

t
o
t
a
l

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

f
o
r

a

D
S
M

p
r
o
g
r
a
m

f
r
o
m

t
h
e

p
o
i
n
t

o
f
v
i
e
w

o
f

I
d
a
h
o

P
o
w
e
r

a
n
d

i
t
s

c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
s

a
s

a

w
h
o
l
e
.
(e
)

A
v
e
r
a
g
e

D
e
m
a
n
d

=

A
n
n
u
a
l

E
n
e
r
g
y

/
8
,
7
6
0

a
n
n
u
a
l

h
o
u
r
s
.
(1
)

S
u
m
m
e
r

P
e
a
k

D
e
m
a
n
d

i
s

r
e
p
o
r
t
e
d

f
o
r

p
r
o
g
r
a
m
s

t
h
a
t

d
i
r
e
c
t
l
y

r
e
d
u
c
e

l
o
a
d

o
r

m
e
a
s
u
r
e

d
e
m
a
n
d

r
e
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
s

d
u
r
i
n
g

s
u
m
m
e
r

p
e
a
k

s
e
a
s
o
n
.
,l
t
6
)

R
e
s
t
a
t
e
d

f
r
o
m

$
1
1
,
1
9
0

i
n

p
r
i
o
r

r
e
p
o
r
t
s
.
~(
1
7
)

O
r
i
g
i
n
a
l
l
y

r
e
p
o
r
t
e
d

e
x
p
e
n
s
e

a
n
d

e
n
e
r
g
y

i
n
c
l
u
d
e
d

a
c
c
r
u
e
d

a
m
o
u
n
t
s
,

r
e
s
t
a
t
e
d

h
e
r
e

t
o

a
l
i
g
n

w
i
t
h

a
c
c
o
u
n
t
i
n
g

r
e
c
o
r
d
s
.
~1
8
)

M
e
a
s
u
r
e

l
i
f
e

i
s

w
e
i
g
h
t
e
d

l
i
f
e

(
b
a
s
e
d

o
n

e
n
e
r
g
y

s
a
v
i
n
g
s
)

o
f

c
u
s
t
o
m

o
p
t
i
o
n

(
1
5

y
e
a
r
s
)

a
n
d

m
e
n
u

o
p
t
i
o
n
s

(
5

y
e
a
r
s
)
.
-l

.
:.

=
t
Q
l
)

O
r
i
g
i
n
a
l
l
y

r
e
p
o
r
t
e
d

e
x
p
e
n
s
e

a
n
d

e
n
e
r
g
y

i
n
c
l
u
d
e
d

a
c
c
r
u
e
d

a
m
o
u
n
t
s
:

2
0
0
3

r
e
s
t
a
t
e
d

f
r
o
m

$
3
6
.
0
8
4
,

2
0
0
4

r
e
s
t
a
t
e
d

f
r
o
m

$
4
8
,
8
5
3
.
c2
t
ç
'
2
:
oc
:

m
g
:
03
'

-
..
.

O
z
~-
e
.
o
o
'
U

o
.
.¡

0

"
'
.
.
(1
6
)
(1
7
)
1.
6
4

(
1
8
)
(1
9
)
):
"0"0 CD::a.g'1"0"0 CD::a.x'
.¡a:Q)::o '"o ~..()o3"0Q)::
--
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x

4
.

D
S
M

E
x
p
e
n
s
e

a
n
d

P
e
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e

2
0
0
2
-
2
0
0
8

(
c
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
)
a:
Ii:;o iJo ~~
o CD3Ii:Ja.1(ja:
CD s:Ii:JIi
co CD3 CD:J-
Le
v
e
l
i
z
e
d

C
o
s
t
s
!
-
)
Ra
t
i
o
s
l
b
)
To
t
a
l
Re
s
o
u
r
c
e
Be
n
e
f
i
t
/
C
o
s
t
Ra
t
i
o
To
t
a
l

C
o
s
t
s
Sa
v
i
n
g
s

a
n
d

D
e
m
a
n
d

R
e
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
Ut
i
l
i
t
y
Be
n
e
f
í
t
C
o
s
t
Ra
t
i
o
()o3"'Ii:J-c
Pe
a
k
De
m
a
n
d


f
j
(M
W
)
Re
s
o
u
r
c
e
Co
s
t
l
d
J
(d
o
l
l
a
r
s
)
Av
e
r
a
g
e
De
m
a
n
d
'
-
)
(a
M
W
)
An
n
u
a
l
En
e
r
Me
a
s
u
r
e
Li
f
e
(Y
e
a
r
s
)
To
t
a
l
ut
i
l
i
t
y
($
I
k
W
/
)
To
t
a
l
Re
s
o
u
r
c
e
($
l
k
W
h
)
(k
l
M
)
Pr
o
g
r
a
m
l
Y
e
a
r
Dis
t
n
b
u
t
i
o
n

E
f
f
c
i
e
n
c
y

I
n
i
t
i
a
t
i
v
e
$2
1
,
5
5
2
$4
3
,
9
6
9
$2
4
,
3
0
6
$2
4
,
3
0
6
$8
,
9
8
7
-$
1
,
9
1
3
-$
1
,
9
1
3
$5
2
,
9
3
2
$6
6
,
3
6
2
$5
6
,
9
0
9
$5
6
,
9
0
9
$1
6
9
,
9
1
1
$1
6
9
,
9
1
1
$2
2
6
,
8
2
0
$2
2
6
.
8
2
0
$5
5
,
7
2
2
$5
5
,
7
2
2
$6
7
,
0
1
2

$
6
7
,
0
1
2
$1
0
8
,
1
9
1

$
1
0
8
,
1
9
1
$1
0
1
,
1
7
7

$
1
0
1
,
1
7
7
$1
2
4
,
9
5
6

$
1
2
4
,
9
5
6
$3
1
,
6
4
5

$
3
1
,
6
4
5
$6
,
9
5
0

$
6
,
9
5
0
20
0
5
20
0
6
20
0
7
20
0
8
To
t
a
l
):
:J:Jc:9l Al
CD"'o;:NooQ:
DS
M

D
i
r
e
c
t

P
r
o
g
r
a
m
Ov
e
r
h
e
a
d
20
0
7
20
0
8
To
t
a
l
Ot
h
e
r

C
&
R
D

a
n
d

C
R
C

B
P
A
20
0
2
20
0
3
20
0
4
20
0
5
20
0
6
20
0
7
20
0
8
To
t
a
l
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l

E
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n

I
n
i
t
i
a
t
i
v
e
):
"'"'CD:Ja.õ.
CD 1"'"'CD::0.X'
.¡
$7
,
4
9
8
$5
6
,
7
2
7
$0
$1
5
0
,
9
1
7
$2
1
5
,
1
4
2
$7
,
4
9
8
$5
6
,
7
2
7
$0
$1
5
0
,
9
1
7
$2
1
5
,
1
4
2
20
0
5
20
0
6
20
0
7
20
0
8
To
t
a
l
(a
)

L
e
v
e
l
i
z
e
d

C
o
s
t
s

a
r
e

b
a
s
e
d

o
n

f
i
n
a
n
c
i
a
l

i
n
p
u
t
s

f
r
o
m

I
d
a
h
o

P
o
w
e
r
'
s

2
0
0
6

In
t
e
g
r
a
t
e
d

R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e

P
l
a
n

a
n
d

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

i
n
c
l
u
d
e

l
i
n
e

l
o
s
s

a
d
j
u
s
t
e
d

e
n
e
r
g
y

s
a
v
i
n
g
s
.
~b
)

P
r
o
g
r
a
m

L
i
f
e

8
e
n
e
f
i
t
C
o
s
t

R
a
t
i
o
s

a
r
e

p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d

f
o
r

a
c
t
i
v
e
,

n
o
n
-
s
t
a
b
J
o
r
y

p
r
o
g
r
a
m
s

o
n
l
y
.
'"CO
(
c
)

T
h
e

T
o
t
a
l

U
t
i
l
i
t
y

C
o
s
t

i
s

a
l
l

c
o
s
t
s

i
n
c
u
r
r
e
d

b
y

I
d
a
h
o

P
O
'
N
r
t
o

i
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t

a
n
d

m
a
n
a
g
e

a

D
S
M

p
r
o
g
r
a
m
.
Z
-i

!
=
t
d
)

T
h
e

T
o
t
a
l

R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e

C
o
s
t

i
s

t
h
e

t
o
t
a
l

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

f
o
r

a

D
S
M

p
r
o
g
r
a
m

f
r
o
m

t
h
e

p
o
i
n
t

o
f

vi
e
w

o
f

I
d
a
h
o

P
o
w
e
r

a
n
d

i
t
s

c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
s

a
s

a

w
h
o
l
e
.
.
-
m
~
¡
;

~
~
A
v
e
r
a
g
e

D
e
m
a
n
d

=

A
n
n
u
a
l

E
n
e
r
g
y

1
8
,
7
6
0

a
n
n
u
a
l

h
o
u
r
s
.
0_

1
-
'
;
~

i
n
r
S
u
m
m
e
r

P
e
a
k

D
e
m
a
n
d

i
s

r
e
p
o
r
t
e
d

f
o
r

p
r
o
g
r
a
m
s

t
h
a
t

d
i
r
e
c
t
l
y

r
e
d
u
c
e

l
o
a
d

o
r

m
e
a
s
u
r
e

d
e
m
a
n
d

r
e
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
s

d
u
n
n
g

s
u
m
m
e
r

p
e
a
k

s
e
a
s
o
n
.
""
"

°
z
~-
i
:
o
0-
0
0

.
.i
(
)
o
i
~
iJIi CO CD CO
'"Ql
co CD 'f
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x

4
.

D
S
M

E
x
p
e
n
s
e

a
n
d

P
e
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e

2
0
0
2
-
2
0
0
8

(
c
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
)
);
'0'0 CD::0-~;
r 1'0'0 CD::0-x'
.¡
To
t
a
l

C
o
s
t
s
Sa
v
i
n
g
s

a
n
d

D
e
m
a
n
d

R
e
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
Le
v
e
l
i
z
e
d

C
o
s
t
s
l
'
)
Re
s
o
u
r
c
e
An
n
u
a
l
Av
e
r
a
g
e
Pe
a
k
Me
a
s
u
r
e
To
t
a
l

T
o
t
a
l
Co
s
t
l
d
)
En
e
r
g
y
De
m
a
n
d
l
.
)
De
m
a
n
d
l
l
Li
f
e
ut
i
l
t
y
Re
s
o
u
r
c
e
Pr
o
g
r
a
m
l
Y
e
a
r
(N
u
m
b
e
r
)
(d
a
H
a
r
s
)
(d
o
/
l
a
r
s
)
(k
W
h
)
(a
M
W
)
(M
W
)
(Y
e
a
r
s
)
($
W
h
)
($
I
k
W
h
)
Lo
c
a
l

E
n
e
r
g
y

E
f
f
c
i
e
n
c
y

F
u
n
d
s
20
0
3
56
$5
,
1
0
0
$5
,
1
0
0
20
0
4
0
$2
3
,
4
4
9
$2
3
,
4
9
20
0
5
2
$1
4
,
8
9
6

$
2
6
,
7
5
6
78
,
0
0
0
0.
0
1
10
$0
.
0
2
4

$
0
.
0
4
2
20
0
6
48
0
$3
,
4
5
9
$3
,
4
5
9
19
,
0
2
7
0.0
0
7
$0
.
0
0
9

$
0
.
0
0
9
20
0
7
1
$7
,
5
2
0

$
7
,
5
2
0
9,
0
0
0
0.0
0
7
$0
.
1
3
5

$
0
.
1
3
5
20
0
8
2
$2
2
,
7
1
4

$
6
0
,
1
0
0
11
5
,
9
3
1
0.
0
1
15
$0
.
0
1
9

$
0
.
0
4
9
To
t
a
l
54
1
$7
7
1
3
8
$1
2
6
,
3
8
4
22
1
,
9
5
8
10
$0
.
0
4
$0
.
0
7
0
NE
E
A
20
0
2
$1
,
2
8
6
,
6
3
2

$
1
,
2
8
6
,
6
3
2
13
,
2
5
1
,
6
4
4
1.5
1
20
0
3
$1
,
2
9
2
,
7
4
8
$1
,
2
9
2
,
7
4
8
12
,
0
5
0
,
1
5
7
1.
3
8
20
0
4
$1
,
2
5
6
,
6
1
1
$1
,
2
5
6
,
6
1
1
13
,
5
4
5
.
8
9
6
1.
5
5
20
0
5
$4
7
6
,
8
9
1
$4
7
6
,
8
9
1
16
,
2
9
7
,
2
3
5
1.
8
6
20
0
6
$9
3
0
,
4
5
5
$9
3
0
,
4
5
5
22
,
3
3
7
,
4
7
7
2.5
5
20
0
7
$8
9
3
,
3
4
0
$8
9
3
,
3
4
0
28
,
6
0
1
,
4
1
0
3.2
7
20
0
8
$9
4
2
,
0
1
4
$9
4
2
,
0
1
4
32
,
6
7
1
,
4
6
5
3.7
3
To
t
a
l
$7
,
0
7
8
,
6
9
0
$7
,
0
7
8
,
6
9
0

1
3
8
,
7
5
5
,
2
8
3
Ra
t
i
o
s
l
b
)
To
t
a
l
Re
s
o
u
r
c
e
Be
n
e
f
i
t
/
C
o
s
t
Ra
t
i
o
Ut
i
l
t
y
Be
n
e
f
i
t
/
C
o
s
t
Ra
t
i
o
o CD3 Ql::a.
ien õ.
CD s:Ql::Ql
CO CD3 CD::.-
(2
0
)
(a
)

L
e
v
e
l
i
z
e
d

C
o
s
t
s

a
r
e

b
a
s
e
d

o
n

f
i
n
a
n
c
i
a
l

i
n
p
u
t
s

f
r
o
m

I
d
a
h
o

P
o
w
e
r
'
s

2
0
0
6

I
n
t
e
g
r
a
t
e
d

R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e

P
l
a
n

a
n
d

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

i
n
c
l
u
d
e

l
i
n
e

l
o
s
s

a
d
j
u
s
t
e
d

e
n
e
r
g
y

s
a
v
i
n
g
s
.
(b
)

P
r
o
g
r
a
m

L
i
f
e

8
e
n
e
f
i
t
I
C
o
s
t

R
a
t
i
o
s

a
r
e

p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d

f
o
r

a
c
t
i
v
e
,

n
o
n
-
s
t
a
t
u
t
o
r
y

p
r
o
g
r
a
m
s

o
n
l
y
.
(c
)

T
h
e

T
o
t
a
l

U
t
i
l
i
t
y

C
o
s
t

i
s

a
l
l

c
o
s
t
s

i
n
c
u
r
r
e
d

b
y

I
d
a
h
o

P
o
w
e
r

to

I
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t

a
n
d

m
a
n
a
g
e

a

D
S
M

p
r
o
g
r
a
m
.
(d
)

T
h
e

T
o
t
a
l

R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e

C
o
s
t

i
s

t
h
e

t
o
t
a
l

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

f
o
r

a

D
S
M

p
r
o
g
r
a
m

1
i
o
m

t
h
e

p
o
i
n
t

o
f

vie
w

o
f

I
d
a
h
o

P
o
w
e
r

a
n
d

i
t
s

c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
s

a
s

a

w
h
o
l
e
.
(e
)

A
v
e
r
a
g
e

D
e
m
a
n
d

=

A
n
n
u
a
l

E
n
e
r
g
y

1
8
,
7
6
0

a
n
n
u
a
l

h
o
u
r
s
.
(f
)

S
u
m
m
e
r

P
e
a
k

D
e
m
a
n
d

i
s

r
e
p
o
r
t
e
d

f
o
r

p
r
o
g
r
a
m
s

t
h
a
t

d
i
r
e
c
t
l
y

r
e
d
u
c
e

l
o
a
d

o
r

m
e
a
s
u
r
e

d
e
m
a
n
d

r
e
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
s

d
u
r
i
n
g

s
u
m
m
e
r

p
e
a
k

s
e
a
s
o
n
.
(2
0
)

S
a
v
i
n
g
s

a
r
e

p
r
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
r
y

e
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
s

p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d

b
y

t
h
e

N
o
r
t
w
e
s
t

E
n
e
r
g
y

E
f
f
c
i
e
n
c
y

A
l
l
i
a
n
c
e
.
õ.Ql::o lJ ~..()o3'0 Ql::-.
);::::c:Ql ;0 CD "8;:
'"oo
()II'"(lz
-;
9
.
-
m
~-
;
i
l
)
(
oæ
.
ç
'
2
:
N
i
:

m
o
o
03

i

;
:
_-

O
z
~
-
(
0
0
o
i
l
b
.
.¡
(
)
o
i
~
o CD3o.::0.
enã:CD s;o.::o.
co CD3 CD 3-:i::::c:o.;0 CD
"0o;:I'oo()
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x

4
.

D
S
M

E
x
p
e
n
s
e

a
n
d

P
e
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e

2
0
0
2
-
2
0
0
8

(
c
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
)
Pr
o
g
r
a
l
Y
e
a
r
To
t
a
l

C
o
s
t
s
Sa
v
i
n
g
s

a
n
d

D
e
m
a
n
d

R
e
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
Le
v
e
l
i
z
e
d

C
o
s
t
s
(
o
)
Re
s
o
u
r
c
e
An
n
u
a
l
Av
e
r
a
g
e
Pe
a
k
Me
a
s
u
r
e
To
t
a
l
To
t
a
l
Co
s
t
(
d
)
En
e
r
g
y
De
m
a
n
d
(
e
)
De
m
a
n
d
(
f
Li
f
e
Ut
i
l
i
t
y
Re
s
o
u
r
c
e
(d
o
l
l
a
r
s
)
(k
W
h
)
(a
M
W
)
(M
W
)
(Y
e
a
r
s
)
($
/
W
h
)
($
/
k
W
h
)
$1
,
9
3
2
,
5
2
0
$2
,
3
6
6
,
5
9
1
17
,
1
1
7
,
2
9
4
1.
9
5
0.
0
0
$2
,
5
6
6
,
2
2
9
$3
,
1
1
9
,
6
0
9
18
,
7
1
2
,
9
1
9
2.
1
4
0.
0
2
$3
,
8
2
7
,
2
1
3

$
4
,
6
8
8
,
6
3
7
19
,
4
1
9
,
6
0
5
2.
2
2
6.
5
4
$6
,
5
2
3
,
3
4
8
$9
,
3
5
8
,
6
2
0
37
,
8
5
3
,
0
4
6
4.
3
2
43
.
9
6
$1
1
,
1
7
4
,
1
8
1
$1
9
,
7
6
1
,
6
3
3
70
,
7
6
5
,
8
2
5
8.
0
8
43
.
7
2
$1
4
,
8
9
6
,
8
1
6
$2
5
,
2
6
9
,
3
4
3
91
,
1
4
5
,
3
5
7
10
.
4
0
57
.
0
7
$2
0
,
2
1
3
,
2
1
5
$4
3
,
1
7
7
,
4
2
3
14
0
,
1
5
5
,
7
6
5
15
.
9
9
72
0
3
$6
1
,
1
3
3
,
5
2
3
$1
0
7
,
7
4
1
,
8
5
6
39
5
,
1
6
9
,
8
1
0
20
0
2
20
0
3
20
0
4
20
0
5
20
0
6
20
0
7
20
0
8
To
t
a
l

D
i
r
e
c
t

P
r
o
g
r
a
m
Ut
i
l
i
t
y
Be
n
e
f
i
t
l
C
o
s
t
Ra
t
i
o
Ra
t
i
o
s
(
b
)
To
t
a
l
Re
s
o
u
r
c
e
Be
n
e
f
i
t
/
C
o
s
t
Ra
t
i
o
DS
M

O
v
e
r
h
e
a
d

a
n
d

O
t
h
e
r
In
d
i
r
e
c
t
20
0
2
20
0
3
20
0
4
20
0
5
20
0
6
20
0
7
20
0
8
To
t
a
l
$1
2
8
,
8
5
5
-$
4
1
,
5
4
3
$1
4
2
,
3
3
7
$1
7
7
,
6
2
4
$3
0
9
,
8
3
2
$7
6
5
,
5
6
1
$9
8
0
,
3
0
5
$2
,
4
6
2
,
9
7
1
(a
)

L
e
v
e
l
i
z
e
d

C
o
s
t
s

a
r
e

b
a
s
e
d

o
n

f
i
n
a
n
c
i
a
l

i
n
p
u
t
s

f
r
o
m

I
d
a
h
o

P
o
w
e
r
'
s

2
0
0
6

I
n
t
e
g
r
a
t
e
d

R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e

P
l
a
n

a
n
d

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

i
n
c
l
u
d
e

l
i
n
e

l
o
s
s

a
d
j
u
s
t
e
d

e
n
e
r
g
y

s
a
v
i
n
g
s
.
(b
)

P
r
o
g
r
a
m

L
i
f
e

B
e
n
e
f
i
t
/
C
o
s
t

R
a
t
i
o
s

a
r
e

p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d

f
o
r

a
c
t
i
v
e
,

n
o
n
-
s
t
a
t
u
o
r
y

p
r
o
g
r
a
m
s

o
n
l
y
.
(c
)

T
h
e

T
o
t
a
l

U
t
i
l
i
t
y

C
o
s
t

i
s

a
l
l

c
o
s
t
s

I
n
c
u
r
r
d

b
y

I
d
a
h
o

P
o
w
e
r

t
o

i
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t

a
n
d

m
a
n
a
g
e

a

D
S
M

p
r
o
g
r
a
m
.
(d
)

T
h
e

T
o
t
a
l

R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e

C
o
s
t

Is

t
h
e

t
o
t
a
l

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

f
o
r

a

D
S
M

p
r
o
g
r
a
m

f
i
o
m

t
h
e

p
o
i
n
t

o
f

vi
e
w

o
f

I
d
a
h
o

P
o
w
e
r

a
n
d

i
t
s

c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
s

a
s

a

l
I
o
l
e
.
(e
)

A
v
e
r
a
g
e

D
e
m
a
n
d

=

A
n
n
u
a
l

E
n
e
r
g
y

/
8
.
7
6
0

a
n
n
u
a
l

h
o
u
r
s
.
(f
)

S
u
m
m
e
r

P
e
a
k

D
e
m
a
n
d

i
s

r
e
p
o
r
t
e
d

f
o
r

p
r
o
g
r
a
m
s

t
h
a
t

d
i
r
e
c
t
l
y

r
e
d
u
c
e

l
o
a
d

o
r

m
e
a
s
u
r
e

d
e
m
a
n
d

r
e
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
s

d
u
r
i
n
g

s
u

m
m
e
r

p
e
a
k

s
e
a
s
o
n
.
(2
1
)

A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s

a
n
d

i
n
d
i
r
e
c
t

e
x
p
e
n
s
e

w
e
r
e

n
o
t

s
e
p
a
r
a
t
e
d

i
n

t
h
e

a
c
c
o
u
n
t
i
n
g

f
o
r

t
h
i
s

r
e
p
o
r
t
i
n
g

p
e
r
i
o
d
.
ìJo.
CO CD CO
~'"C1Z
-l

9
..
:
.

'
ü

~
oæ
,
Ç
)
:
:
wC
m
O
'
03

i

;
:
..
"

°
z
..
-
C
D
o
0-
0
6
.
~
0
0
1
.
.
(2
1
)
(2
1

)
0.
o.::o ìJ ~.,('o3"0o.::
'-:i
"0"0 CD::0.
ë'ï CD 1"0"0 CD::0.x'.;
""o.
co CD CO0)
);
"0i:CD:ia.~.1i:i:CD:i0-x'~
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x

4
.

D
S
M

E
x
p
e
n
s
e

a
n
d

P
e
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e

2
0
0
2
-
2
0
0
8

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

C
o
s
t
s
Le
v
e
l
i
z
e
d

C
o
s
t
s
l
-
)
Ra
t
i
o
s
l
b
)
To
t
a
l
Re
s
o
u
r
c
e
Be
n
e
f
i
U
C
o
s
t
Ra
t
i
o
Sa
v
i
n
g
s

a
n
d

D
e
m
a
n
d

R
e
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
Pr
o
g
r
a
m
l
Y
e
a
r
Pa
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
n
t
s

u
t
i
l
i
t
y

C
o
s
t
l
e
)
(N
u
m
b
e
r
)

(
d
o
l
l
a
r
s
)
Re
s
o
u
r
c
e
Co
s
t
l
d
)
(d
o
l
l
a
r
s
)
Ut
i
l
i
t
y
B
e
n
e
f
i
t
/
C
o
s
t
Ra
t
i
o
Av
e
r
a
g
e
De
m
a
n
d
l
.
)
(a
M
W
)
Pe
a
k
De
m
a
n
d
l
Q
(M
W
)
An
n
u
a
l
En
e
r
g
y
(k
W
h
)
Me
a
s
u
r
e
Li
f
e
(Y
e
a
r
s
)
To
t
a
l
Ut
i
l
i
t
y
($
/
W
h
)
To
t
a
l
Re
s
o
u
r
c
e
($
W
h
.
)
To
t
a
l

2
0
0
2
-
2
0
0
8
20
0
2
20
0
3
20
0
4
20
0
5
20
0
6
20
0
7
20
0
8
To
t
a
l
$2
,
0
6
1
,
3
7
5
$2
,
5
2
4
,
6
8
6
$3
,
9
6
9
,
5
5
0
$6
,
7
0
0
,
9
7
2
$1
1
,
8
4
0
1
3
$1
5
,
6
6
2
,
3
7
7
$2
1
,
1
9
3
,
5
2
0
$6
3
,
5
9
8
,
9
4
o CD3o.:i0-enñ:
CD s:o.:io.
CO CD3 CD:i-
(a
)

L
e
v
e
l
i
z
e
d

C
o
s
t
s

a
r
e

b
a
s
e
d

o
n

f
i
n
a
n
c
i
a
l

i
n
p
u
t
s

f
r
m

I
d
a
h
o

P
o
w
e
t
s

2
0
0
6

I
n
t
e
g
r
a
t
e
d

R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e

P
l
a
n

a
n
d

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

i
n
c
l
u
d
e

l
i
n
e

l
o
s
s

a
d
j
u
s
t
e
d

e
n
e
r
g
y

s
a
v
i
n
g
s
.
(b
)

P
r
o
g
r
a
m

L
i
f
e

B
e
n
e
f
i
t
o
s
t

R
a
t
i
o
s

a
r
e

p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d

f
o
r

a
c
t
i
v
e
,

n
o
n
-
s
t
a
t
u
t
o
r
y

p
r
o
g
r
a
m
s

o
n
l
y
.
(c
)

T
h
e

T
o
t
a
l

U
t
i
i
i
t
y

C
o
s
t

i
s

a
l
l

c
o
s
t
s

i
n
c
u
r
r
d

b
y

I
d
a
h
o

P
o
w
e
r

t
o

i
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t

a
n
d

m
a
n
a
g
e

a

D
S
M

p
r
o
g
r
a
m
.
(d
)

T
h
e

T
o
t
a
l

R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e

C
o
s
t

i
s

t
h
e

t
o
t
a
l

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

f
o
r

a

D
S
M

p
r
o
g
r
a
m

f
r
m

t
h
e

p
o
i
n
t

o
f
v
i
e
w

o
f

I
d
a
h
o

P
o
w
e
r

a
n
d

i
t
s

c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
s

a
s

a

w
h
o
l
e
.
(e
)

A
v
e
r
a
g
e

D
e
m
a
n
d

=

A
n
n
u
a
l

E
n
e
r
g
y

/
8
,
7
6
0

a
n
n
u
a
l

h
o
u
r
s
.
(f
)

S
u
m
m
e
r

P
e
a
k

D
e
m
a
n
d

i
s

r
e
p
o
r
t
e
d

f
o
r

p
r
o
g
r
a
m
s

t
h
a
t

d
i
r
e
c
t
l
y

r
e
d
u
c
e

l
o
a
d

o
r

m
e
a
s
u
r
e

d
e
m
a
n
d

r
e
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
s

d
u
r
i
n
g

s
u
m
m
e
r

p
e
a
k

s
e
a
s
o
n
.
a.o.:ro ""~-.
);:i:ic!:~i:o::'"oo
()Ql
'"CDZ
-l

9
.
-
m
~-
l
"
U
x
oæ
.
n
;
;
.i
C
:
m
O
"
03

i

;
:
_.

°
z
..

-

(
0

0
o-
C
6
.
.¡
(
)
o
i
~
()o3i:o.:i-.
BEFORE THE
IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
CASE NO. IPC-E-09-05
IDAHO POWER COMPANY
TATUM, 01
TESTIMONY
EXHIBIT NO.2
Idaho Power Company
Energy Efficiency Rider Account Projections
Table I
Projected DSM Expenditures
2009 - 2011
2009 2010 2011
Residential $8,035,052 $7,440,157 $7,309,308
Commercial/Industrial 10,376,010 10,789,055 11,542,777
Irrigation 8,751,393 8,588,169 10,173,989
Other 2,505,974 2,706,750 2,778,670
Total DSM Expenditures $29,668,429 $29,524,131 $31,804,744
Table II
Projected Year-End Energy Efficiency Rider Account Balances
2009 - 2011
2009 2010 2011
Beginning Balance $3,942,318 $6,302,227 $2,617,135
DSM Expenditures 29,668,429 29,524,131 31,804,744
Funding Forecast (27,308,520)(33,209,223)(33,209,223)
Ending Balance $6,302,227 2,617,135 1,212,656
Exhibit NO.2
Case No. IPC-E-09-05
T. Tatum, IPC
Page 1 of 1
BEFORE THE
IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
CASE NO. IPC-E-09-05
IDAHO POWER COMPANY
TATUM, 01
TESTIMONY
EXHIBIT NO.3
Id
a
h
o

P
o
w
e
r

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

E
f
f
c
i
e
n
c
y

R
i
d
e
r

F
u
n
d
i
n
g

P
r
o
j
e
c
t
i
o
n

2
0
0
9

-

2
0
1
1
4.
7
5

%

o
f

B
a
s
e

R
e
v
e
n
u
e

E
f
f
e
c
t
i
v
e

J
u
n
e

1
,

2
0
0
9
20
0
9
20
1
0
20
1
1
Ef
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
Ef
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
Ef
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
Te
s
t

Y
e
a
r
Fu
n
d
i
n
g
Te
s
t

Y
e
a
r
Fu
n
d
i
n
g
Te
s
t

Y
e
a
r
Fu
n
d
i
n
g
Re
v
e
n
u
e

·
Ri
d
e
r

F
u
n
d
i
n
g
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e
Re
v
e
n
u
e

·
Ri
d
e
r

F
u
n
d
i
n
g
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e
Re
v
e
n
u
e

·
Ri
d
e
r

F
u
n
d
i
n
g
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e
Ma
j
o
r

C
u
s
t
o
m
e
r

C
l
a
s
s
e
s
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
$
3
2
3
,
0
6
2
,
9
6
2
$
12
,
3
1
9
,
1
0
7
3.
8
1
%
$
3
2
3
,
0
6
2
,
9
6
2
$
15
,
3
4
5
,
4
9
1
4.
7
5
%
$
3
2
3
,
0
6
2
,
9
6
2
$
15
,
3
4
5
,
4
9
1
4.
7
5
%
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
18
2
,
3
9
5
,
8
3
2
7,
1
0
3
,
6
7
8
3.
8
9
%
$
1
8
2
,
3
9
5
,
8
3
2
8,
6
6
3
,
8
0
2
4,
7
5
%
$
1
8
2
,
3
9
5
,
8
3
2
8,
6
6
3
,
8
0
2
4.
7
5
%
In
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l
74
,
2
1
9
,
9
7
3
2,
8
8
4
,
5
3
9
3.
8
9
%
$
74
,
2
1
9
,
9
7
3
3,
5
2
5
,
4
4
9
4.
7
5
%
$
74
,
2
1
9
,
9
7
3
3,
5
2
5
,
4
4
9
4,
7
5
%
Ir
r
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
81
,
6
6
8
,
2
5
6
3,
6
1
2
,
0
9
3
4.
4
2
%
$
81
,
6
6
8
,
2
5
6
3,
8
7
9
,
2
4
2
4.
7
5
%
$
81
,
6
6
8
,
2
5
6
3,
8
7
9
,
2
4
2
4.
7
5
%
To
t
a
l

S
t
a
n
d
a
r
d

T
a
r
i
f
f

R
a
t
e
s
$
6
6
1
,
3
4
7
,
0
2
3
$
25
,
9
1
9
,
4
1
7
3.
9
2
%
$
6
6
1
,
3
4
7
,
0
2
3
$
31
,
4
1
3
,
9
8
4
4.
7
5
%
$
6
6
1
,
3
4
7
,
0
2
3
$
31
,
4
1
3
,
9
8
4
4.
7
5
%
Sp
e
c
i
a
l

C
o
n
t
r
a
c
t
s
Mi
c
r
o
n
$
21
,
2
0
4
,
2
3
8
$
81
3
,
6
0
3
3.
8
4
%
$
21
,
2
0
4
,
2
3
8
$
1,
0
0
7
,
2
0
1
4.
7
5
%
$
21
,
2
0
4
,
2
3
8
$
1,
0
0
7
,
2
0
1
4,
7
5
%
Si
m
p
l
o
t
5,
3
1
9
,
2
8
1
20
2
,
2
1
0
3.
8
0
%
$
5,
3
1
9
,
2
8
1
25
2
,
6
6
6
4.
7
5
%
$
5,
3
1
9
,
2
8
1
25
2
,
6
6
6
4.
7
5
%
De
p
t
.

o
f

E
n
e
r
g
y
6,
1
7
7
,
9
3
5
23
2
,
1
7
0
3.
7
6
%
$
6,
1
7
7
,
9
3
5
29
3
,
4
5
2
4.
7
5
%
$
6,
1
7
7
,
9
3
5
29
3
,
4
5
2
4.
7
5
%
To
t
a
l

S
p
e
c
i
a
l

C
o
n
t
r
a
c
t
s
32
,
7
0
1
,
4
5
4
1,
2
4
7
,
9
8
4
3.
8
2
%
32
,
7
0
1
,
4
5
4
1,
5
5
3
,
3
1
9
4.
7
5
%
32
,
7
0
1
,
4
5
4
1,
5
5
3
,
3
1
9
4.
7
5
%
20
0
8

T
e
s
t

Y
e
a
r
$
6
9
4
,
0
4
8
,
4
7
7
$
27
,
1
6
7
,
4
0
0
3.
9
1
%
$
6
9
4
,
0
4
8
,
4
7
7
$
32
,
9
6
7
,
3
0
3
4.
7
5
%
$
6
9
4
,
0
4
8
,
4
7
7
$
32
,
9
6
7
,
3
0
3
4.
7
5
%
Ho
k
u

b
$
2,
9
7
0
,
9
5
4
$
14
1
,
1
2
0
4.
7
5
%
$
5,
0
9
3
,
0
6
4
$
24
1
,
9
2
1
4.
7
5
%
$
5,
0
9
3
,
0
6
4
$
24
1
,
9
2
1
4,
7
5
%
To
t
a
l

P
r
o
j
e
c
t
e
d
$
6
9
7
,
0
1
9
,
4
3
1
$
27
,
3
0
8
,
5
2
0
3,
9
2
%
$
6
9
9
,
1
4
1
,
5
4
1
$
33
,
2
0
9
,
2
2
3
4.
7
5
%
$
6
9
9
,
1
4
1
,
5
4
1
$
33
,
2
0
9
,
2
2
3
4.
7
5
%
No
t
e
s
:
(a
)

T
h
e

R
i
d
e
r

f
u
n
d
i
n
g

p
r
o
j
e
c
t
i
o
n
s

f
o
r

2
0
0
9

-

2
0
1
1

a
r
e

b
a
s
e
d

u
p
o
n

t
h
e

2
0
0
8

t
e
s
t

y
e
a
r

r
e
v
e
n
u
e
s

(
C
a
s
e

N
o
.

I
P
C
-
E
-
0
8
-
1
0
,

O
r
d
e
r

N
o
.

3
0
7
2
2
)
.
(b
)

R
i
d
e
r

f
u
n
d
i
n
g

f
r
o
m

H
o
k
u

M
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
,

I
n
c
"

a

n
e
w

s
p
e
c
i
a
l

c
o
n
t
r
a
c
t

c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
,

h
a
s

b
e
e
n

e
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

t
h
e

p
o
r
t
i
o
n

o
f

t
h
e
i
r

b
i
l

a
m
o
u
n
t

t
h
a
t

w
i
l

b
e

s
u
b
j
e
c
t

t
o

t
h
e

R
i
d
e
r

p
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e
.
Ex
h
i
b
i
t

N
O
.
3
Ca
s
e

N
o
,

I
P
C
-
E
.
0
9
-
0
5
T.

T
a
t
u
m
,

I
P
C
Pa
g
e

1

o
f

1