20130403DSM 2012 Annual Report Supplement 2 Evaluation.PDF

March 15, 2013
SUPPLEMENT 2:
Evaluation
Demand-Side Management
2012 ANNUAL REPORT
Printed on recycled paper
Idaho Power Company Supplement 2: Evaluation
Demand-Side Management 2012 Annual Report Page i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table of Contents ......................................................................................................................................... i
List of Tables ............................................................................................................................................... i
Evaluation Summary ....................................................................................................................................1
Evaluation Plan ............................................................................................................................................2
Energy Efficiency Advisory Group Minutes ...............................................................................................3
NEEA Market Effects Evaluations ............................................................................................................35
Research .....................................................................................................................................................37
Evaluations ...............................................................................................................................................179
Process Evaluations ........................................................................................................................ 179
Impact Evaluations.......................................................................................................................... 233
Other Evaluations............................................................................................................................ 423
Surveys .....................................................................................................................................................575
Success Stories .........................................................................................................................................717
Weatherization Assistance for Qualified Customers 2011 Annual Report .............................................731

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. 2012 NEEA Market Effects Evaluations ...........................................................................35
Table 2. 2012 Research ....................................................................................................................37
Table 3. 2012 Process Evaluations ................................................................................................179
Table 4. 2012 Impact Evaluations..................................................................................................233
Table 5. 2012 Other Evaluations....................................................................................................423
Table 6. 2012 Surveys ....................................................................................................................575
Table 7. 2012 Success Stories ........................................................................................................717

Idaho Power Company Supplement 2: Evaluation
Demand-Side Management 2012 Annual Report Page 1
EVALUATION SUMMARY
Idaho Power considers program evaluation an essential component of its demand-side-management
(DSM) operational activities. In accordance with the 2010 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)
with the Idaho Public Utilities Commission (IPUC) staff, the company contracts with third-party contractors to conduct impact, process, and other evaluations on a scheduled and as-required basis.
Third-party contracts are generally awarded using a competitive bid process and are managed by
Idaho Power’s Procurement department. In some cases, research and analysis is conducted internally
and managed by Idaho Power’s Research and Analysis team within the Customer Relations and
Energy Efficiency (CR&EE) department. Third-party evaluations are specifically managed by the company’s energy efficiency evaluator.
Idaho Power uses industry-standard protocols for its internal and external evaluation efforts,
including the National Action Plan for Energy Efficiency—Model Energy Efficiency Program Impact
Evaluation Guide, the California Evaluation Framework, the International Performance Measurement
and Verification Protocol, the Database for Energy Efficiency Resources, and the Regional Technical Forum’s (RTF) evaluation protocols.
The company also supports regional and national studies to promote ongoing cost-effectiveness of
programs, validation of energy savings and demand reduction, and the efficient management of its
programs. Idaho Power considers primary and secondary research, cost-effectiveness analyses,
potential assessments, impact and process evaluations, and customer surveys important resources in providing accurate and transparent program savings estimates. Recommendations and findings from
evaluations and research are used to continuously refine its DSM programs.
In 2012, Idaho Power completed six program impact evaluations, one program process evaluation,
a 20-year energy efficiency potential study, and two program research projects using third-party
contractors. Portland Energy Conservation, Inc. (PECI), was selected to conduct a process evaluation and summer research project for the A/C Cool Credit program. ADM Associates, Inc., was selected to
perform impact analyses for the See ya later, refrigerator®, Building Efficiency, and Easy Upgrades
programs. The Cadmus Group, Inc., was retained to provide an impact analysis of the Heating and
Cooling Efficiency (H&CE) Program. D&R International, Ltd., was chosen to provide impact
evaluations for the Weatherization for Qualified Customers (WAQC) and Weatherization Solutions for Eligible Customers programs.
Final reports from all evaluations, research, and surveys completed in 2012 and an evaluation schedule
are provided in this supplement. A revised version of the Building Efficiency impact evaluation report
was received after printing Supplement 2. These revisions do not materially change the results of the
evaluation. A copy of this revised report is available upon request.
The evaluation schedule is intended to be used as a guide and may be changed periodically based on
need, timing, or other relevant factors.

Supplement 2: Evaluation Idaho Power Company
Page 2 Demand-Side Management 2012 Annual Report
EVALUATION PLAN

Im
p
a
c
t

P
r
o
c
e
s
s

O
t
h
e
r

I
m
p
a
c
t

P
r
o
c
e
s
s

O
t
h
e
r

I
m
p
a
c
t

P
r
o
c
e
s
s

O
t
h
e
r

I
m
p
a
c
t

P
r
o
c
e
s
s

O
t
h
e
r
Du
c
t
l
e
s
s

H
e
a
t

P
u
m
p

P
i
l
o
t
En
e
r
g
y

E
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t

L
i
g
h
t
i
n
g

En
e
r
g
y

H
o
u
s
e

C
a
l
l
s


EN
E
R
G
Y

S
T
A
R
® H
o
m
e
s

N
o
r
t
h
w
e
s
t

He
a
t
i
n
g

a
n
d

C
o
o
l
i
n
g

E
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
c
y

P
r
o
g
r
a
m



Ho
m
e

I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t

P
r
o
g
r
a
m


Ho
m
e

P
r
o
d
u
c
t
s

P
r
o
g
r
a
m

Re
b
a
t
e

A
d
v
a
n
t
a
g
e



Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l

E
n
e
r
g
y

E
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
c
y

E
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n

I
n
i
t
i
a
t
i
v
e

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

Q
u
a
l
i
f
i
e
d

C
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
s



We
a
t
h
e
r
i
z
a
t
i
o
n

S
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
s

f
o
r

E
l
i
g
i
b
l
e

C
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
s



Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g

E
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
c
y



Cu
s
t
o
m

E
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
c
y


Ea
s
y

U
p
g
r
a
d
e
s





Ir
r
i
g
a
t
i
o
n

E
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
c
y

R
e
w
a
r
d
s



A/
C

C
o
o
l

C
r
e
d
i
t




Fl
e
x
P
e
a
k

M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t





Ir
r
i
g
a
t
i
o
n

P
e
a
k

R
e
w
a
r
d
s





De
m
a
n
d

R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e

P
r
o
g
r
a
m
s
Ir
r
i
g
a
t
i
o
n

P
r
o
g
r
a
m
s
20
1
0
20
1
1
20
1
3
20
1
2
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
/
I
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l

P
r
o
g
r
a
m
s
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l

P
r
o
g
r
a
m
s
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l

E
d
c
a
t
i
o
n

I
n
i
t
i
a
t
i
v
e
Se
e

y
a

l
a
t
e
r
,

r
e
f
r
i
g
e
r
a
t
o
r
®
Idaho Power Company Supplement 2: Evaluation
Demand-Side Management 2012 Annual Report Page 3
ENERGY EFFICIENCY ADVISORY GROUP MINUTES
The following pages include minutes from 2012 EEAG meetings held February 22, July 19,
and November 6, the webinar held December 5, and the conference call held December 14.
Supplement 2: Evaluation Idaho Power Company
Page 4 Demand-Side Management 2012 Annual Report
This page left blank intentionally.

1

Energy Efficiency Advisory Group (EEAG) Minutes dated February 22nd, 2012
Present:
Catherine Chertudi–City of Boise, Public Works Dept. Celeste Becia*–Idaho Power
Ken Robinette–South Central Comm. Action Partnership Lynn Young–AARP
Stacey Donohue–Idaho Public Utilities Commission Sue Seifert–Office of Energy Resources
Tom Eckman–Northwest Power & Conservation Council Sid Erwin–Idaho Irrigation Pumpers Association
Tami White–Idaho Power Kent Hanway-CSHQA

Not Present:
Don Sturtevant–Simplot
Ben Otto-Idaho Conservation League
Nancy Hirsh–Northwest Energy Coalition
Guests and Presenters*:
Pete Pengilly*–Idaho Power Cory Read–Idaho Power
Kathy Yi–Idaho Power Theresa Drake–Idaho Power
Shelley Martin–Idaho Power Andrea Simmonsen–Idaho Power
Warren Kline–Idaho Power Denise Humphreys*–Idaho Power
Gary Grayson-Idaho Power Todd Schultz*-Idaho Power
Sheree Willhite-Idaho Power Todd Greenwell-Idaho Power
Darlene Nemnich-Idaho Power Nikki Karpavich-Idaho Public Utilities Commission
Donn English-Idaho Public Utilities Commission Ken Miller-Snake River Alliance
Billie McWinn-Idaho Power Randy Thorn-Idaho Power
David Davis-Idaho Power Chellie Jensen-Idaho Power
Liz Paul-Idaho Rivers United Anne Wadsworth – Idaho Power
Chris Pollow – Idaho Power
Recording Secretary:
Shawn Lovewell (Idaho Power) with Kathy Yi (Idaho Power)
Meeting Convened at 9:35
Celeste started the meeting by introducing new member, Tami White. She will be replacing Mike Youngblood as the Idaho Power representative from Regulatory Affairs. Tami introduced herself and gave a brief background of her position at Idaho Power. All other members and guests introduced themselves. The minutes were reviewed.
9:42-Preliminary Results-Pete Pengilly
Appendix 1 shows a high level status of all Energy Efficiency funding accounts. The Idaho rider had a deficit balance of $17.5 million at the beginning of 2011. The Idaho Public Utilities Commission (IPUC) allowed Idaho
Power to transfer 10 million dollars, which was deemed prudent, from the rider into the Power Cost Adjustment (PCA). This account earns accrued interest of 1%.
2

The Oregon rider started out with 1.8 million dollar deficit balance and ended with 3.5 million dollar deficit
balance.
Order number 32245 from the IPUC allows Idaho Power to capitalize the Custom Efficiency Incentive payments. This is a regulatory asset account that will eventually be incorporated into base rates. Idaho Power’s contract with
the Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance (NEEA) is a $3.1 million dollar commitment per year. It is paid
quarterly based on actual and forecasted amounts.
One member asked why there is a difference in obligation amount vs. actual paid amount for last year. Why did
Idaho Power only pay $2.4 million. Pete stated that $3.1 million is the obligated amount but Idaho Power paid based on NEEA’s actual amount spent and invoiced.
Appendix 2- The Custom Efficiency line shows funds that have been spent, but have not been recovered in rates.
Due to an accounting error in 2011 an amount that should have been applied to the Oregon Rider was applied to the Idaho Rider; therefore the Idaho Rider column was understated. This was fixed early in 2012. During a previous meeting, Nancy Hirsh asked that all funding sources be included in this appendix.
One member asked if these numbers still subject to change or are they final.
Pete stated that the numbers are always subject to change but these are solid numbers.
During the DSM History presentation there was some discussion around slide #4 (Expenditures by Category) and
what was included in purchased services. Anne responded that vendor payments such as Honeywell and M2M Communications are included in purchased services. One member asked how much was spent on evaluations.
Pete stated that $380,000 was spent and those are in “other expenses.”
10:00-Commercial Review and Preview-Todd Schultz
Todd stated that 2011 was a challenging and successful year. It was a year of validation as well. The Custom
Efficiency program had an Impact evaluation which validated the work done so far in this program.
The numbers for the Building Efficiency program are preliminary. The number of commercial and industrial new construction and remodels decreased from 70 projects in 2010 to 63 in 2011. Idaho Power is taking part in the
2030 Challenge with American Institute of Architects (AIA) which started last September. The target energy savings for 2012 has decreased from 2011 due to the economy and new building codes. One member asked about multi-family incentives and if this was something the company is looking into. Todd stated that with multi-family
units, cost effectiveness is usually the deciding factor, but does offer incentives for common spaces. It’s possible that it will be revisited in the future. One member asked if the target numbers come from the Integrated Resource Plan (IRP). Todd stated that these numbers come from various areas such as analysis and the program managers.
The Easy Upgrades program had a 12% total project increase from the previous year. The lighting tool was upgraded to include new measures. The amount of pre and post inspections performed has increased. The program manager Shelley Martin has incorporated training sessions in the trade ally workshops. This program
participated in a Comprehensive Lighting Project with NEEA. The original target was to have 25 projects, but 7 or 8 projects have been identified. This project was much more challenging because it was not just a simple
lighting replacement, but a more comprehensive approach to lighting design in the building 2013. With regard to
the T-12 lighting phase out, Idaho Power will continue paying incentives for the rest of this year. The company is looking to work with regional partners on a plan for 2013. One member asked if the school projects via the Office
of Energy Resources (OER) have come in or are we still waiting on those. Todd stated that as of now, no
incentives have been paid, but that we should start to see them come thru in the next several weeks.
3

The Custom Efficiency target for 2012 is lower than 2011. Due to changes in the lighting tool, some of the
projects that typically would have gone thru Custom program have now been processed thru the Easy Upgrade
program. An impact evaluation was conducted on this program which reviewed75 projects and completed 35 site inspections. The energy savings realization rate came in at 94%.
Projects for the Irrigation Efficiency Rewards program increased 17% from 2010. This growth can be attributed
in part to an increase in workshops and conferences that were held. A participant survey was done on this program and of the 379 respondents, 95% of participants were very or somewhat satisfied with the program and
62% said that the incentive helped motivate their decision to participate. One member asked when Idaho Power would be getting the University of Idaho study. Todd stated that we should receive it by the end of 2012.
No events were called last summer for the Irrigation Peak Rewards program. There were some major changes in
the incentive structure in 2011 but no changes are scheduled for this program in 2012. There were 2,342 participating service points in 2011. A process evaluation was done in 2011. A participant survey was done on this program and 85% of participants surveyed were very satisfied with the program. Most of the respondents
(89%) said that they would be very likely to participate in the program if there wer 1-2 events included in the fixed bill credit. One member asked if there still room for growth in this program. Todd replied that there is still room for growth, especially with smaller systems. Demand Response can be a very complex program and
company analysts are always looking at it.
In 2011, there were 54 customers enrolled in the FlexPeak Management Program. There were 14 events called in
2011. The achieved season average demand reduction was 11% more than the committed amount. The IPUC said
Idaho Power should look at calling more events that what is currently called for this program. This is not an automated process. Customers have to do something to reduce their usage, such as turn off a pump. The CHQ
building is enrolled in this program and has participated in 14 events. All customers who participate in the
FlexPeak program receive software that helps track their load reduction. A customer survey was conducted and 78% of those surveyed stated that they were very likely to participate again. Idaho Power partners with EnerNOC
and is in the third year of a five year contract.
There are no verifiable savings with the Commercial Education program, but it gets us engaged with customers. Idaho Power would welcome member comments on trainings and how they could be more effective. One member
asked what the biggest program challenge will be in 2012. Todd stated that the T-12 issue is definitely going to be a challenge along with the lack of low hanging fruit in the custom/industrial programs.
10:35 2011- Residential Review-Celeste Becia
All the numbers that are presented are close, but there might be some changes before the Demand Side Management Annual report comes out in March. There was a small dip in energy savings in the residential programs for 2011. Some of that can be attributed to the write down of CFL bulb savings by the Regional
Technical forum. One member wanted clarification of what is the Regional Technical Forum (RTF) is. Celeste stated that it is a forum that analyzes energy savings in the market. One member stated that the reason for the
write-down in CFL bulb savings is the issue of storing bulbs. Customer will buy multiple bulbs, changing out
some and storing the rest. The write-down isn’t zero forever, the savings are just delayed for a period of time He would like to see utilities look at this issue when doing their evaluations.
The A/C Cool Credit program currently has 37,000 participants. The A/C Cool Credit program is the most
recognized of Idaho Power’s DSM programs, and may provide a bridge to participating in other programs. The goal is to reach 40,000 participants. There have been dropouts due to people moving and some for dissatisfaction.
Idaho Power had a promotion that gave customers an additional incentive when they signed up for the program. Idaho Power offered customers the option of donating their sign-up incentive to the food banks in Idaho and Oregon or receiving a gift card. Thirty-three percent selected the Food Bank Option. There have been issues with
switches and AMI but that will be covered in a later presentation.
4

In the Boise City Home Audit program, 650 audits have been completed. CFL’s were the largest measure
installed during the audits. The average number of CFL’s installed per home were 15. There was about $90,000
left over from the original audit. Those American Recovery & Reinvestment Act (ARRA) funds cannot be given back to the government, so these additional funds will go towards an evaluation and auditing an additional 100-
200 homes. Idaho Power is working with a few of the same contractors involved in the initial audits. The
Integrated Design Lab (IDL) will be doing evaluations on the measures installed in the homes; this will give them an opportunity to work with the residential sector. One member asked about the end date of the grant. Celeste
stated that it will conclude at the end of September.
The Ductless Heat Pump Pilot will be receiving the final data analysis from the regional study at the end of March. There are plans to add this as a measure to the Heating and Cooling Efficiency program, pending the
outcome of savings results. Last year many applications came in during January of 2011 to take advantage of the tax credit that expired in December 2010. Idaho Power will discontinue the contract with Fluid Marketing Strategies and begin managing this program wholly in-house starting in April. The challenge will be in
communicating the higher standards that are required by Idaho Power’s Heating & Cooling Efficiency program versus the regional DHP standards. There is also the issue of customers being able to buy heat pumps online or at your local big box hardware stores, but the challenge is that most contractors will not install them unless the
product is purchased from them. One member stated that there might be a sub trade popping up since it doesn’t require years of journeyman training to install ductless heat pumps.
It was a great year of workshops and partnerships for Residential Energy Efficiency Education. The City of
Hailey received some sub grants from ARRA funds to incent people to put in new heating systems in their homes. Free standing inserts in the newspaper will start publishing twice a year. The first insert winter insert was
delivered to over 100,000 newspaper subscribers.
The target for Energy Efficient lighting is lower for 2012. Lighting is less of a driver in residential applications and 100 watt incandescent bulbs will be phased out.
The Energy House Calls program has experienced high volume in the last couple of years. We anticipate that in the next couple years this program will have run its course. In anticipation of that, we’ve moved the administration of this program in house which gives more flexibility and money savings for when the program
starts winding down. There is some sort of repair on about 90% of homes that went through the program.
Incentives for non-electrically heated homes will no longer be part of the Home Improvement program at the end of February. It has been determined that there isn’t significant cooling savings for gas heated homes. Later in
2012 windows and wall and floor insulation measures will be added.
There will not be a lot of changes to the Home Products program for 2012. The light fixtures, light kits and ceiling fan measures will be taken out of the program. At least one light fixture will be moved to the retailer buy downs
along with the CFL’s.
The Heating and Cooling Efficiency program did not see the same participation rate as the Ductless Heat Pump
pilot. This is more than likely due to the fact that it is a more expensive upgrade for customers.
Out of the 15 homes audited in the Oregon Weatherization program, 8 homes had insulation done. The Weatherization program has more measures along with some financing available, as opposed to the limited
measures for the Home Improvement Program which is currently only offered in Idaho. Idaho Power would like
to offer both options in Oregon so that customers have a choice.
The See ya later refrigerator® program experienced a great year and met all goals. There is a very high customer
satisfaction rate for this program. A customer survey was included in the process evaluation and 98% of
5

customers surveyed were somewhat or very satisfied with the overall process from start to finish. An impact
evaluation is scheduled for 2012 on this program.
283 homes participated in the Weatherization Assistance for Qualified Customers program (WAQC) with most of these homes being in Idaho. The Community Action Partnership Association of Idaho (CAPAI) asked for
additional funding but this was not approved. There will be upcoming workshops with CAPAI, the IPUC staff,
Investor Owned Utilities (IOU) and other interested parties. This is not a rider funded program. One member asked if there was is an evaluation scheduled for WAQC. Pete stated that there are evaluations scheduled for both
WAQC and Weatherization Solutions in 2012.
11:20-Break
11:35-AC Cool Credit-Celeste Becia
When this program first started, there were a number of different methods to communicate with customers’ air conditioners. During the first years or pilot stage, thermostats were used. In 2005 the options that were available were paging switches and vhf signals. AMI and the power line carrier communication channel was not available
so paging switches were the best option. For the past few years paging service has been reduced or eliminated in several areas within Idaho Power’s service territory where it had previously been available. For this reason, only power line carrier switches have been installed since May 2009.
Since 2009 the program has installed Automated Metering Infrastructure (AMI) switches wherever it could. There are two versions of the paging switch and two of the AMI switch. In the summer of 2011 there were issues
with AMI software that prevented the newest version of the switch from operating. In the fall of 2010, because
there were two AMI switches, the company put together a hardware firmware update. Code changes in the AMI switches were tested in a “test” environment but were never put into production. There were almost 8000 switches
that didn’t get cycled last summer which wasn’t discovered until after the October 2011 EEAG meeting. One
member asked if both switches that were in use failed to cycle. Celeste stated that it was the newer AMI switches that didn’t cycle, but the older ones did.
There are two paging systems for redundancy, American Messaging and USA Mobility. USA Mobility discontinued service and did not notify Idaho Power until October of 2011. They had taken down some of their equipment on Table Rock which affects the Mountain Home area, specifically Mountain Home Air Force Base
(MHAFB) which wasn’t upgraded to AMI. The only solution for Mountain Home will be the paging service. One member stated that because hardware was removed, that this paging service company seems unreliable and asked if there was any instance of this happening in the past. Andrea stated that this also happened in Twin Falls and
Pocatello where Idaho Power was not notified at all.
Idaho Power never had a direct contract with the paging company until August of 2011. We are working with the contracting department to see if there is any recourse as we were not the customer of record for receiving paging
service. Going forward, we will not be relying on the paging company to inform us if there is no signal. For the Mountain Home Air Force Base, there isn’t a prognosis for getting the base up and running for this paging season.
We are working with American Messaging to see what can be done to get a signal out there.
Pete stated that the reason an AMI upgrade wasn’t done to the substation serving the Air Force Base is because there are phone lines that run into those meters. The Air Force base is a rate 19 customer and is constantly
monitored. MHAFB is our customer, not the residents on the base.
Pete stated that determining cost effectiveness for energy efficiency programs is different than for Demand Response programs. For demand response the previous years’ expenses and demand reduction are combined with
the forecasted expenses and demand reduction which are brought into this year’s dollars. Pete commented on the
6

Cost Effectiveness Impact slide (8) stating that the word “annual” should be in the heading somewhere. It shows
that this program becomes cost effective in 2019. Typically, we like to see more of a cushion for all of the
expenses. One member asked if these calculations are refigured when the Integrated Resource Plan numbers change.
Our DSM alternative cost and other financial assumptions are update and used in current analysis when an IRP is
acknowledged or accepted by the Commissions.
Pete gave an explanation on the Two Day Comparison slide (11). He stated that on August 26th the A/C Cool
Credit program was the only Demand Response program that was called. He stated that from the evaluation we were able to see the duty cycles and could see the air conditioners that were not running at all.
There was some discussion around the Recommendations slide (18) where one member asked what “cycling
rates” referred too. Celeste answered that it refers to how often the system is off during events. Both rates could go up, right now it’s 50% in Boise and 67% in Twin Falls and Pocatello. Pete also stated that it looks at cycling during the unit’s natural duty cycle, rather than just 50% on 50% off. Andrea stated that the newer switches have
intelligence built in to base it on the natural duty cycle.
The next steps will be to get the uncommunicative paging switches replaced before the next cycling season. The M&V plan will be re evaluated to be more comprehensive and then repeat the impact evaluation after all changes
have been made. One member said that for the 2013 evaluation, it might be useful to look at the EER equipment. The SEER 10 was the performance of the past. It’s not linear with the temperature. The rate EER is done at 95
degrees so on a hotter day it might be different. EER deteriorates as temperatures increase. One member asked if
the cost effectiveness graph includes the Air Force Base. Celeste stated that demand reduction will be there whether it’s from the Air Force Base or other participants. The CE still doesn’t include Mountain Home AFB
costs but the benefits side of the cost effectiveness assumes that we have 40,000 participants in 2012.
12:15-Lunch
1:08-Meeting Reconvened.
Ken Robinette shared some material for the Energy Outreach Conference. Idaho Power is a sponsor of this event.
1:11—Denise Humphreys- This presentation was a demonstration of the Idaho Power Account Manager/Energy
Use Advisory Tool. Twenty-five percent of customers have Account Manager and the tool has had almost 40,000 visits since the first of the year. This is a new version of the Account Manager tool. Denise used her personal accounts to demonstrate how to navigate thru the account manager screen. This tool is available to residential
customers and very small commercial customers. It has been redesigned and is now based on three tabs, How I use Energy, How My Usage compares and When I use energy (the AMI meter use). The software for the How I Use Energy tab is proprietary software from Aclara. One member asked if there is a way to show people who
don’t have internet access their energy usage for client education. Celeste stated that as long as the customer is the one creating the password and account number there shouldn’t be a problem but would need to check on it
further. Denise stated that “fake” customer can’t be built for demonstration purposes.
1:40 Economizer Study—Celeste Becia
This presentation was to provide preliminary results from the study fielded in the summer of 2011.. Out of the
initial 1000 letters that were sent out, 52 responded and from that, 19 were eligible and actually had the equipment
installed. These were single family homes.
7

NEEA looked at 1000 customers and what their average energy consumption was based on an average
temperature day. One member asked if the average was of all homes or was it highest to lowest. Todd stated that
24 data points were used to determine the average temperature, not just the highs and lows of the day. NEEA determined that the average cooling load is 10kWh per day. This model doesn’t work as well after 80 degrees. As
the temperature goes up the percentage change of people using energy is indicated by the bin(slide 7). As the
temperature climbs, people start using more energy.
IDL Analysis slide (slide 8) shows that for Model 1, the economizer model had an additional set point that
allowed you to run fan more to pre-cool the house over night. For Model 1, the average single site savings showed more energy usage post installation than before the economizer was installed due to the fan usage. Model 2 average single site savings show more savings after the economizer was installed.
The study characterized customers by their thermostat settings.. Constant Setters are customers that keep their home a constant temperature all day. They typically do not mess with the thermostat. The Time Zoner is a customer who programs the thermostat or someone who has a schedule and they don’t open their windows at
night for cooling. Night Coolers have a schedule, but also open their windows at night.
A variety of issues prevented the company from collecting enough data to provide definitive results. There was a very short cooling season and most systems were not installed until August of 2011 so data is limited. One of the
economizer models required a software update after data collection had begun. Some of these systems needed custom work done on them in order to operate properly. Contractors did not estimate enough time for installation
which didn’t account for call backs. There seemed to be more customer satisfaction with the more expensive,
labor intensive units (Model 1) even though there was no energy savings associated with them.
The main purpose of this pilot was to gather as much data on these units as there isn’t much available from
secondary research. Next steps are to continue the research in 2012. Both models will be used but the night flush
feature in Model 1 will be reduced. One member asked if we are looking at the specific participant types from the previous applicants in order to focus on a specific customer type for future participants. He stated that the “Night
Coolers are already achieving what we were hoping for from the economizers. Celeste stated that since the customer sample size is rather small, it is difficult to know which customer types saved the most energy.
2:10 Timely Topics—Celeste Becia/Todd Schultz
Celeste shared with the group that Idaho Power is looking into a Shade Tree Program. Idaho Power wants to explore the possibility of partnering with Idaho Department of Lands to pilot an incentive program.
As of right now, the Time of Day Plan is only in Idaho. This is still an open case with the IPUC. There is a docket
to expand the program that is currently in place in Emmett area. The goal is to have 1200 customers participating in a two season plan, summer and winter. Customers could save energy if they monitor their usage along with changing the time of day that they use most of their energy. One member asked how Idaho Power will help
customers decide whether or not it is beneficial for them to switch plans. Celeste stated that there will be a rate comparison tool on the website so that customers can estimate the impact of switching rates before they sign up.
With Account Manager, it will calculate their last 12 month’s usage and will apply the new rate to show them
what their bills would be.
Celeste gave an update on the Multifamily Roof Upgrade in Sun Valley, ID. The project will cost $1 million to
upgrade the roof with insulation. The building was built back in 1982 with no roof insulation. In 1988 the roof
was replaced. The calculated savings could result in approximately $150,000 incentive. The Homeowners Association is reviewing the proposed agreement and incentive amount. A new agreement will be done for each
phase of the project and could take 4-5 years to complete, so there is no guarantee on the incentive.
8

Todd Schultz highlighted the Success Stories that are on the company’s website under the “business tab.” There
are things that are not measured when doing a project and that’s where the Success Stories fit in. He highlighted a
project that was done on Kuna Middle School, an Office of Energy Resource project. This building was built back in the 1960’s, it had very dark hallways, the gymnasium had such bad lighting that parents were not able to take
pictures of their children during sporting events. After the lighting project had been completed, everyone at the
school was so excited because of the quality of the lighting, highlighting the positive impact it has on the community. Todd also shared with the group that Idaho Power will be receiving an award for the highest
customer satisfaction for a mid size utility from a national study. One member commented that he felt Idaho Power had a great year and that it is nice to see continued progress.
2:38 Meeting Adjourned

1

Energy Efficiency Advisory Group (EEAG) Minutes dated July 19th, 2012
Present:
Catherine Chertudi–City of Boise, Public Works Dept. Don Sturtevant–Simplot
Kent Hanway-CSHQA Lynn Young–AARP
Stacey Donohue–Idaho Public Utilities Commission John Chatburn–Office of Energy Resources
Nancy Hirsh–Northwest Energy Coalition Sid Erwin–Idaho Irrigation Pumpers Association
Tami White*–Idaho Power Ben Otto-Idaho Conservation League
Tom Eckman–Northwest Power & Conservation Council Celeste Becia*–Idaho Power

Not Present:
Ken Robinette–South Central Comm. Action Partnership Sue Seifert-Office of Energy Resources

Guests and Presenters*:
Pete Pengilly*–Idaho Power Gary Grayson–Idaho Power
Dave Thornton*–Idaho Power Theresa Drake–Idaho Power
Shelley Martin–Idaho Power Andrea Simmonsen–Idaho Power
Quentin Nesbitt–Idaho Power Darlene Nemnich–Idaho Power
Todd Schultz*z–Idaho Power Ken Miller–Snake River Alliance
Nikki Karpavich–Idaho Public Utilities Commission Billie McWinn–Idaho Power
Roberta Rene–Idaho Power
Mindi Shodeen-Idaho Power
Dennis Merrick-Idaho Power
Diana Echeverria–Idaho Power
Randy Thorn-Idaho Power
Todd Greenwell-Idaho Power

Recording Secretary:
Shawn Lovewell (Idaho Power) with Kathy Yi (Idaho Power)
Meeting Convened at 9:35am
Celeste opened the meeting and had the members and guests introduce themselves. The minutes from February’s
meeting were reviewed.
9:40 am -EEAG Meting Objectives & Content-Celeste Becia
Celeste explained to the members that she would like to break up into two groups to brainstorm the way the
meetings are currently conducted and also to get suggestions on what the members would like to see change with
the current meeting content and structure. No decisions will be made today, but these ideas will help to create a roadmap for meetings going forward. Before the members split into their groups Celeste passed out the EEAG
Charter that was created in 2003 and asked that everyone review.
2

10:20-EEAG Members reconvened. Results of the brainstorming session will be summarized in a separate
document.
10:55 Break
11:05- Demand Response Activities-Pete, Celeste, Todd
Pete started the presentation with some highlights from the previous week’s high temperatures in relation to
Demand Response. Every Thursday there is a meeting with Power Supply to try and predict how to use these programs by looking at system loads, temps, etc. The challenge is trying to figure out how to dispatch these
programs without the snapback.
There was a new system peak on Thursday July 12th at 3:30 in the afternoon. Pete explained that the system load slide (4) is unofficial data, but it provides a good visual of the load. July 9th was a very peaky day and loads grew
fast, but in the afternoon a storm came in and there was some involuntary demand response from outages and cooler temps so A/C Cool Credit cycling was cancelled.The load shape on the July 9th looks very similar to the peak day in 2008.
July10th provides a good comparison because no demand response was used that day. On July 11th A/C Cool Credit was dispatched in two blocks which reduced snapback. July 12th was the highest peak day. Loads peaked at approximately 3:35 and demand response programs started at 4. There were some late outages that day as well.
One member asked if irrigation programs were used. Todd explained that it costs the company about $275,000 to call an event. Pete stated that since there is a variable cost associated with the Irrigation Peak Reward program at
about $200/MW, the expense to use it wouldn’t have been reasonable. Celeste added that since there are no
variable costs with the A/C Cool Credit program, it costs the same whether it’s used or not. Pete also stated that the costs do not change regardless of how often it is used. With the FlexPeak Management Program, if there are
more than 2 events in a week an additional cost is incurred to dispatch the program. .
One member asked if there was a difference in energy usage on Fridays as opposed to other days of the week. Quentin stated that historically there have been peaks on Fridays but they are less probable due to work schedules,
etc. One member stated that according to slide 4, it looks as if peaks are starting earlier. Is the company looking at
cycling the A/C Cool Credit program earlier in the day? Celelste stated that it will be discussed later but there is a customer satisfaction and comfort issue. Pete stated that the there are notification restrictions with the FlexPeak
program, it has a two hour notification policy and A/C Cool Credit has no restrictions. One member asked how much the price of power was on the market when it was decided to not dispatch Irrigation Peak Rewards. Todd answered that peak power was $21-$37/MW.
There was much discussion during the A/C Cool Credit Update slide about customer dropout rates. One member wanted to know if there was a way to segment cycling by geographic area. Celeste stated that the software that runs the meters is designed to “set it and forget it.” Eventually it might become an option. One member stated that
some of the dropouts could be attributed to the fact that customers who haven’t been cycled due to switch problems are now being cycled and are not happy being in the program. One member stated that there is research
that shows that if customers see how their contribution of conservation is having an impact and explains how they
are part of the solution, than they are more satisfied and are more likely to stay in the program rather than dropout. He advised to take a more proactive role in educating customers and to remind customers a few months before the
cycling season starts, that they are signed up for this program and what to expect in the upcoming summer
months. One member asked if customers are asked why they are opting out of the program when they call. Celeste stated that typically customers will offer up that information when calling in.
Commercial Programs-Todd Schultz
3

There are a number of customers on the FlexPeak program that have multiple buildings enrolled. As of the
meeting date there were three events called. Automatic notification to customers happens two hours before an
event. For most customers taking action is a manual process without much automation. On July 9th there was some loop flow, or outside energy on the transmission lines. Extra energy on lines can cause problems, so it was
decided that the FlexPeak event should be cancelled, but people still started manually shutting down operations.
These customers will still receive a two hour credit. One member stated his appreciation for the credit. One member asked if customers get paid for events. Billie McWinn stated that customers are compensated.
Commercial lighting slide-Federal T12 lighting standard
Shelley Martin, Easy Upgrades Program Manager, gave a presentation and updated the members of upcoming lighting changes. Effective July 14th, manufacturers of linear fluorescent tubes can no longer manufacture them
unless they meet federal standards. She attended the West Coast Utility Lighting meeting earlier this month and had the opportunity to hear from some of the manufacturers that stockpiling of T12 fluorescents is going on and that after the July 14th deadline, the production of these will continue. They are producing 40 watt bulbs that have
better color rendering. Shelley asked the group for their feedback on the program’s existing wattage baseline. Currently Idaho Power uses 82 input watts as a baseline and BPA uses 96 input watts as a baseline. The feedback from BPA is that Idaho Power has been very conservative so do not change the baseline.
Contractors are anxiously waiting to see if the program incentives will change for T12’s. One member stated that there is still a large amount of T12’s in the current building stock and recommends continuing T12 incentives into
2013. One member stated that he was in agreement with keeping this incentive. It makes the decision to upgrade
his buildings much easier. One member stated that having a 2-3 year phase down of this incentive thru advertising would help let customers and contractors know how long they have to act on these incentives. Another member
stated that it could be overlapped with a standard re-lamp option. Shelley stated that a “time limited” offer usually
helps motivate customers to make changes. One member stated that along with deadlines, there needs to be an education piece so that customers know what the best products are.
Todd asked the group for feedback in regards to the Irrigation Peak Program and if there should be some events in
the fixed portion of the incentive. The last changes to this program occurred in March of 2011. The biggest changes were to the fixed and variable payments. It is currently a 75% fixed and 25% variable incentive structure.
One free event in the fixed incentive was not approved in that filing. There is the potential than an event won’t be called for another year. Todd asked for feedback from the group in response to the question, “Should we have some events included in the fixed portion of the incentive?”
One member commented that there is a feeling out there with current participants that the Irrigation Pumpers Association will support some events within the fixed incentive structure. He stated that he would support having one event the last two weeks of June and the other two events sometime in July and August at least two weeks
apart. The participants are not interested in a program where people feel entitled to just a rate cut. They are willing to have three events that are part of the fixed incentive; he just requested that all three events not be in a two week
time period. He stated that he did not want to commit to any incentive structure change until the PURPA case is
finished. The Irrigation Pumpers Association supports Idaho Power and their position in the PURPA rates. One member asked if Idaho Power was thinking about filing these changes with the Idaho Public Utilities
Commission. Todd stated that he just needed to address some of the current issues and get feedback from the
group.
12:30 Lunch
1:15 Meeting Reconvened
1:15 Regulatory Update-Tami White
4

Tami presented the regulatory slides to the group. There have been 8 filings between February 1st and mid April.
Celeste asked what the black numbers represented on slide one. Tami stated that black is a positive amount or an
increase and the red numbers showing a decrease. During the presentation one member asked if the FCA (fixed cost adjustment) portion has a direct link to Energy Efficiency. Tami stated that previously the Energy Efficiency
Rider and the FCA were combined on a customer’s bill. Now, the rider is on one line item and the FCA and PCA
(Power Cost Adjustment) are combined on one line item. In March of each year, Idaho Power files the Demand Side Management Prudence filing with the Idaho Public Utilities Commission for determination of prudency.
Idaho Power’s reply comments are due on Monday July 23rd.
1:30 Time of Day Pricing Plan-Dave Thornton
Dave gave the history of the pilot program that started in Emmett and McCall. There were a couple hundred
customers signed up for this pilot. For the Time of Day Pricing Plan, the objectives are to utilize the data that the smart meters provide and to offer pricing options to customers. From this data the company can study changes in customers’ energy usage, evaluate the revenue impact of this plan, and learn and improve from the customer
experience. The brochure that was designed is a standalone piece so that the customer can look at it and see if it will be a good option for them. (Brochures were passed out to the group).
One member asked if the rate increases happen on the weekend. Dave stated that they do not. One member
pointed out that the July 4th holiday is showing as peak (yellow) when all of the other holidays are shown as off-peak. One member asked if during a customer contact, is energy usage looked at and is the customer informed
what their rates would be if they chose to participate. Dave explained that the customer service center is walking
customers through the plan comparison calculator. One member asked what the future customer roll-out numbers will be. Dave explained that until the new Customer Information System is in place the numbers are uncertain.
Currently, there are less than 1200 people signed up. Dave asked the group for input and ideas on helping to
market this to customers. One member stated that it could be challenging for residential customers to shift loads. He suggested thinking about shrinking the window of time in the Non-Summer months and increase the price
since its 7am-9pm and that makes it hard for families to shift loads. He asked what types of energy use a customer
could move. Dave stated that pre-cooling a house, laundry, having a timer on electric water heater and delay starting a dishwasher. One member asked what the demographics are on the target group being looked at. Is there
a specific square footage size for the house as well? Dave explained that for the initial pilot he eliminated customers who had landlord agreements. Customers need to have lived at the residence for a minimum of 12 months. He stated that Claritas Prism will be the tool used to build demographic data for customers who have
signed up. Surveys will be done. His hope is that some of the customers that sign up will have been part of the Boise Audit or the End Use Study as there will be a lot of information on these customers. Darlene stated that they are targeting customers who have the ability and interest to shift their load.
One member provided other marketing suggestions such as giving people a reason why they want to change their behavior, or a reason to be interested. Highlight the reasons people have chosen to live in Idaho; the clean air,
water, great place to raise a family, etc. Get your customer to care for these reasons and not just focus on the
price. Energy orbs that change color based on the rate/time of day that would be a visual reminder for customers to make changes in the moment. One member suggested an app for Smartphone’s. It was also stated by this
member that based on the Non-Summer months, it might not be worth it for customers to sign up for such a small
window of time if they can’t opt out. One member said that communicating to customers the difference between the summer peak issues and winter conservation is important. Another member stated that customers who are
willing to go thru the process to sign up for this are motivated to change so giving them all the options is
important. Darlene expressed her appreciation for the comments regarding the load shifting ability and winter conservation. The purpose of designing this was cost of service. This is fairer than tiered rates and the pricing is
more reflective of costs. One member stated that in general, customers will agree with the concept of only paying
5

for what they use, but in reality they love the subsidy. Dave stated that the goal for this year is to have 1200
customers signed up and then be able to study their behavior into 2013.

2:17 Residential Programs-Celeste Becia
Celeste explained to the group that Idaho Power is gathering information on a Shade Tree Program. She asked the
group if they had any experience with a similar type of program. One member said that she remembered one in Idaho about 25 years ago. Celeste explained that slide 4 (The Treasure Valley Urban Tree Canopy Study) shows
where potential trees could be planted based on location of structures, homes, streets, power lines, etc. Slide 5 (Arbor Day Model) is designed as a turnkey program for utilities. It was developed to enable communities to quantify the benefits of urban forests. This model includes an I-Tree Planting Tool which explains how a
customer can select their home on Google Earth and based on the home’s location it will provide a colored grid of the best and worst areas to plant a tree. It then provides a list of tree species that work best for the location. The cost effectiveness has not been done on this program yet. One member suggested checking with the Forest
Products Commission to find out how many seedling trees that are given out on Arbor Day are actually planted. One member asked if the customer pays for the tree. Patti stated that some utilities pay for the tree or the cost is reduced for the customer. One member stated that this would be a program that the Idaho Conservation League
would support. One member suggested combining this with energy efficiency education and it could become a partnership opportunity with other organizations.
Celeste stated that Idaho Power is looking at what it will take to put a program like this together and would like to
get the group’s feedback. One member asked how much the Arbor Day tool would cost. Patti stated that they will set up Idaho Power’s service area for $1000 and Idaho Power could commit to 2500 trees. She also asked the
foundation for a quote to just set up the tool so that we can play around with it. One member stated that the tool
would help people make better choices on where to plant their trees. Another member thought that this program could have some potential for education in school age children. One member stated that they didn’t have an
opinion on the delivery mechanism that is used. She likes the idea of this program. In the long run this could be an important program to help with climate change so starting sooner rather than later would be preferred. Celeste let the group know that she hopes to have more cost effectiveness information available at the next meeting. One
member stated that there seems to be enough quantifiable non energy savings benefits that you don’t have to drill down too far for.
Celeste informed the group that the administration for the Energy House Calls program was brought in house,
saving about $100,000 per year. There seems to be some saturation but we currently do not anticipate this program ending.
The Economizer project is in its 2nd year. We are doing more homes this year than last. It’s been a warmer cooling
season which could be detrimental for this program because more people are using mechanized cooling rather than ambient outside air. We won’t have final results on this program for a while. There is still a high customer satisfaction with customers who have had these installed in their homes.
Celeste informed the group that the Classroom Energy Kits, where kids perform energy audits at their homes with their parents, is still within Idaho Power’s capacity to continue it with Rider Funds. Dave Thornton refreshed the
group on what the students do during the audits. One member asked what is being done with the customer
information that is obtained from the surveys and audits. There should be some follow up with these homes to see if the home could benefit from other energy efficiency measures.
6

Celeste asked for feedback from the group. One member stated that they felt continuing with the Classroom
Energy Kits was an appropriate use of rider funds. Another member stated that teaching a new generation about
energy efficiency is always a good thing.
3:05 Evaluation Activities, Financial Update-Pete Pengilly
Pete presented a summary of the financial status as of the end of June. The forecasts show that the Idaho Rider
balance should become positive at the end of August. One member wanted to know the reason the rider balance becomes positive in August. Pete stated that it is catching up from prior deficits. In 2011 Idaho Power received a
10 million dollar relief from the Idaho Public Utilities Commission. The Custom Efficiency incentive payments are now booked in an asset account which has relieved the pressure on the rider account. The rider was changed from 4.75% to 4% and is a balancing account that should become positive at the end of the year. The Demand
Response incentives should reach 14 million by the end of the year.
2012 DSM Actual expenses YTD slide- Overall 37% of the budget has been spent. It seems that the majority of budgeted money is spent towards the end of the year. The Custom Efficiency incentives are included in those
amounts. One member asked if the amount and when it’s spent is similar from year to year. Pete stated that he wasn’t sure, but he would check on it. One member asked if there was a handout for energy savings. Pete stated that he will add that to the list for the next meeting. Todd Schultz did have energy savings amounts for the
Commercial programs that he gave to the group.
• Custom Efficiency thru July 16th has 38,000 MWh of savings, about 69% of target.
• Building Efficiency has 12,000 MWh of savings, about 171% of target.
• Easy Upgrades has 20,000 MWh of savings, about 56% of target.
• Irrigation programs have 7,000 MWh of savings, about 61% of target.
The residential programs combined are at 49% of targets.
Pete gave a high level explanation on the differences between a process evaluation and an impact evaluation. In 2011 there were process and impact evaluations done on numerous programs. One member asked in regards to the Home Products program, if incentives could be given on products that are on the Consortium for Energy
Efficiency (CEE) list. Celeste stated that it needs to be something that is easy for customers and sales people to identify and Energy Star® is a great label. The challenge with CEE is with the customer knowing whether they
are getting that product or not. Pete briefly reviewed the results of the completed evaluations that took place in
2011 and outlined 2012 evaluations. One member asked if there is a due date for the Energy Efficiency Potential Study. Pete stated that it is almost done and the preliminary findings will be presented to the Integrated Resource
Plan Advisory Committee (IRPAC) on August 16th.
3:38 Meeting Adjourned

1

Energy Efficiency Advisory Group (EEAG) Minutes dated November 6th, 2012
Present:
Catherine Chertudi–City of Boise, Public Works Dept. Ben Otto-Idaho Conservation League
Ken Robinette–South Central Comm. Action Partnership Lynn Young–AARP
Stacey Donohue–Idaho Public Utilities Commission John Chatburn–Office of Energy Resources
Nancy Hirsh–Northwest Energy Coalition Lynn Tominaga-Idaho Irrigation Pumpers Assoc.
Tami White–Idaho Power Kent Hanway-CSHQA
Tom Eckman–Northwest Power & Conservation Council Todd Schultz*–Idaho Power
Not Present:
Sid Erwin–Idaho Irrigation Pumpers Association
Don Sturtevant–Simplot
Name–Company
Guests and Presenters*:
Pete Pengilly*–Idaho Power Cory Read–Idaho Power
Gary Grayson–Idaho Power Theresa Drake–Idaho Power
Shelley Martin–Idaho Power Andrea Simmonsen–Idaho Power
Warren Kline–Idaho Power Celeste Becia-Idaho Power
Chris Pollow-Idaho Power Diana Echeverria-Idaho Power
Ken Miller-Snake River Alliance Chellie Jensen-Idaho Power
Randy Thorn-Idaho Power
Donn English-Idaho Public Utilities Commission
Nikki Karpavich-Idaho Public Utilities commission
Andrea Simmonsen-Idaho Power
Mindi Shodeen-Idaho Power
Quentin Nesbitt-Idaho Power
Denise Humphreys-Idaho Power
Brad Akers-Integrated Design Lab
Todd Greenwell-Idaho Power
Patti Best-Idaho Power
Billie McWinn-Idaho Power
Sheree Willhite-Idaho Power
Cheryl Paoli-Idaho Power
Becky Arte-Howell-Idaho Power
Dave Thornton-Idaho Power
Anne Alenskis*-Idaho Power
Bridgett Hanna-Idaho Power
Jim Madarieta-Idaho Power
Curtis Hoovestol-Idaho Power
Recording Secretary:
Shawn Lovewell (Idaho Power) with Kathy Yi (Idaho Power)
Meeting Convened at 9:35 am
Todd opened the meeting with general housekeeping and a safety topic. He asked members if there is one topic
that they would like to share with the group to go ahead and do it during introductions. One member asked about the workshop notes that were sent out from the July meeting. There was feedback in regards to the original memo
from some of the members that wasn’t incorporated into a final document. Todd said that he would put it on the list of things to go over at the end of the meeting. One member wanted a couple changes made to page 2, last paragraph of the minutes. This was in regards to customer satisfaction with staying in the A/C Cool Credit
2

Program. It should state “than they are more satisfied and are more likely to stay in the program.” This will be
changed on the final draft copy of the minutes. She had another edit to page 3, paragraph 1. This is in regards to
clarifying how customers are notified of an event in the FlexPeak Management Program. The actual notification is automated but the action that the customer takes is a manual response. There was one change in the Regulatory
update that the word “reply” should be inserted before the word “comments.”
9:50am Review EEAG topic requests Todd had a list of proposed topics submitted by the members located at the front of the room. Todd read off the
topics to the group and informed everyone that a lot of these would be addressed during the meeting.
9:51 Commercial Programs – Todd Schultz Todd asked Kent Hanway to talk to the group what is going on in commercial construction. Kent is the principal
architect and owner of CHSQA in Boise. He stated that the East Coast is seeing more of an increase in commercial construction than the West Coast. In the last 2 years there has been an increase in revenues. Commercial construction in downtown Boise has seen more of an increase than outlying areas. There is currently
only a 10% vacancy rate in downtown Boise where the outlying areas are reporting about a 20% vacancy rate. Industrial new construction is flat unless it’s a ‘build to suit’ project. The residential market is less promising. Ada County has about 5000 buildable lots with just under a three year absorption rate. In Canyon County there is a 13
year backlog of lots. The one bright spot is in the Retail Sector. We are seeing a lot of remodels, new development and upgrades happening. With interest rates expected to rise in the next few years, the cost structures
will be changing and with growth, material prices will increase. Due to the construction downturn in the past,
skilled labor moved to other areas to find work or have completely gotten out of the business to find stable jobs.
Todd continued with the Program Update Savings slide. One member stated that it would be helpful to have a
column added that shows year end targets. Todd gave the target numbers for Custom Efficiency Program;
55,000MWh and 85.00% of target, Building Efficiency; 7,000MWh and 173% of target, Easy Upgrades; 36,000MWh and 86.00% of target, and Irrigation Menu; 11,500 MWh and about 89% of target. These numbers
are year to date to Oct 10, 2012 and are compared to October 10, 2011 YTD numbers. One member asked what Todd thought was driving the change in the Building Efficiency Program. Todd stated that there have been quite a few projects that have wrapped up this year.
Todd informed the group that the version of this presentation sent prior to the meeting might have contained an error. On slide number 3on the last line for FlexPeak, it might have said “customers” when it should have said “sites.” FlexPeak is in the 4th year of a 5 year contract.
During the Customer Outreach Slide Todd passed around some handouts to the members demonstrating some of the ways Idaho Power is reaching out to commercial customers. Todd asked the group for input and ideas on other ways to reach out to the commercial sector. One member asked if Todd knew how many commercial customers
have participated in energy efficiency projects. Randy Thorn stated that it is estimated about 95% of industrial customers have participated. One member asked if any outreach is done with the financial community, other utilities have found that educating lenders about their programs has been useful for when builders come to them
for other reasons. Todd stated that outreach has not been done specifically with the financial community but have met with them at events like ones held by the Chamber of Commerce. Diana Echeverria stated that there is an
online campaign for the Easy Upgrades Program with a click thru ad for the financial community. Another
member asked what percentage of each customer segment is being reached. Todd stated that the numbers aren’t broken down that small. Todd informed the group of a couple new projects that are currently in the works. The
Kilowatt Crackdown is a partnership with BOMA and NEEA’s Better Bricks. This will be a competition between
commercial buildings in the Boise area. There will be two different areas, smaller offices and larger office space. The goal is to have 30 office buildings participate. There is no cost for the customer. One member suggested tying
this to the building operators’ certification program if possible. Another member asked if coaching will be done
3

by Idaho Power staff. Todd stated that some of Idaho Power’s customer reps might be involved but coaching will
be done by NEEA (?) and Integrated Design Lab (IDL).
Todd introduced Randy Thorn to the group to discuss Custom Efficiency projects. Randy stated that the current program has reached a certain level of maturity so he is exploring what can be done differently to increase savings
in the program. He is looking into small industrial and commercial offerings. Incentives would be prescriptive for
smaller measures that we can’t dedicate current engineering resources to collect information on. Measures such as small compressed air, pump and fan vfd, fast acting doors and walk in refrigeration. Application review would be
done by a contractor. Project inspections would be required and Idaho Power engineers would do a cursory review and analysis. He is looking at about 2mil kWh target. One member stated that the Regional Technical Forum (RTF) has been beta testing a pump and fan calculator that some of the contractors could test.
Randy spoke to the group about a potential refrigeration project that would be similar to the ETO (?) program. This project would engage six different sites and Idaho Power would meet with the customer and contractor once a month for 6-8 months. The measures could include compressors, compressor sequencing and evaporative
among other things. It would be collaborative environment with customers touring each other’s facilities. It would focus on technical training and a collaboration approach along with low or no cost measures. Idaho Power is looking at a target of 3mil kWh savings per year. Another project that IPC is looking at is paying on complete
offerings for multi-family homes in Building Efficiency. One member asked for the definition of Multi Family and asked if these units will be individually heated or as a whole. Sheree answered that it is anything that is 5
units or above. She would like to see scenarios where it would be both individually heated/cooled or as a whole
unit. Currently, cost effectiveness and potential measures are being evaluated and hope to have more information by mid 2013.
The NEEA Existing building Renewal is still being worked on. As of yet Idaho Power hasn’t been able to secure a
participant. One member asked what metrics would qualify a project. Todd stated that a 30-35% energy savings would be the minimum and would like up to 50% energy savings. Another member stated that a new model is
being piloted in Oregon and Washington. The utility buys the energy savings like a purchase power agreement rather than incentivizing. It could be a new way to obtain a deeper savings for building retrofits.
The initial draft of the impact evaluation has come in for the Easy Upgrade Program and Building Efficiency. The
data needs to be analyzed which should be done by the end of the year. The Easy Upgrades program will continue to offer incentives on T12 lighting. There will be a lighting training in December. The research being done by University of Idaho for Irrigation Efficiency will be wrapped up by the end of the year. This information will be
shared with the RTF. One member asked if both participants and non participants are part of the research. Quentin answered that the researcher is looking at what is out in the field. He does have a list of participants but that wasn’t the requirement. Pete stated that Rocky Mountain Power is looking at just participants. The group talked in
the July EEAG meeting about having some Irrigation Peak Rewards events in a fixed piece and changing the opt out penalty. These issues are still being worked on and a final decision has not been made. One member noted
that he has seen an uptick in Idaho Power’s advertising and said it was nice to see it.

10:45 Customer Communications – Anne Alenskis Anne passed out an example of what customers receive in their monthly bills. She asked the members what they
think of the communication from a customer perspective and also as members of this group. One member stated that she liked that it is two pages, if there are more pages you run the risk of customers just picking and choosing
or not looking at all. Another member stated that less is better. Usually a customer will pick out the most significant piece. She cautioned against making it a 4 page newsletter. Maybe incorporate the extra pieces into the newsletters and eliminate the inserts. One member said that if it doesn’t pertain to him it gets tossed in the
garbage. Another member stated that he is more likely to read the newsletter and throw away the inserts. One
4

member stated that she likes the inserts because they are small and she can put them somewhere that will remind
her, for example the See ya later refrigerator® insert on the refrigerator. One member stated that she preferred the
bill inserts. She doesn’t care as much about the “feel good” stories. She asked if Anne has looked into customer focus groups. Anne stated that yes they are looking at doing some and also have been looking at how other
utilities handle their communications with customers. One member asked if the newsletter could be sent
separately or electronically. Anne stated that bill inserts are posted on the company website. She sent around an example of what the customer bill would look like with the expanded 4 page newsletter. One member stated that
if more information is added to the newsletter, it would be important to have a table of contents on the front so that customers would know what’s inside. Anne then sent around another example of a 4 page Customer Connection that had no energy efficiency information and one that was an all energy efficiency newsletter. These
would be done quarterly. One newsletter would just focus on energy efficiency and the other two newsletters would focus on non energy efficiency topics each quarter. She asked for feedback from the group. One member stated that she liked the idea of a more in-depth energy efficiency newsletter. Another member stated that he
didn’t think energy efficiency information should ever be on the back page. Things that benefit the customer should always be on the front page. Another member stated that she liked having the energy efficiency newsletter its own piece. One member stated that he thought there should be something on energy efficiency every month,
but a quarterly energy efficiency newsletter could give Idaho Power the opportunity to focus on specific energy efficiency topics. Anne thanked the group for their input.

11:08 Break 11:17 Residential Programs – Celeste Becia
Celeste went over some of the minor changes to a few of the residential programs. The Heating and Cooling Efficiency program will be dropping some measures as of January 1st. An incentive on the 8.2 HSPF (?) heat
pumps will no longer be available, but we will continue with the incenting 8.5 HSPF and above. The incentive
amounts for Rebate Advantage will be changing. For homeowners it will increase to $1000 and for salespeople it will increase to $200. An incentive for upgrading windows will be added to the Home Improvement program in
2013. This incentive will be for replacing low efficiency windows such as double pane aluminum or single pane wood for electrically heated homes only. The suggested incentive is about $3.00 per sq foot. Ducted air sealing as a separate stand alone measure might be something recommended in the potential study. One member asked if
Celeste had looked at the new NEEA Residential Building Stock data. Celeste stated that she hadn’t. Celeste updated the group on the Shade Tree Pilot. There is a potential grant opportunity that might enable us to
use those funds as part of the program or as stand- alone program. Idaho Power would be the main coordinator of the program. During the last EEAG Meeting, two different models were discussed. Celeste asked the group if they had a preference on which model is used. One member stated that she is excited about this program. She stated
that she would be more likely to plant the tree if she was able to go pick it up locally. Another member stated that by working with local nurseries it helps the economy, if the mail fulfillment tree option is used; you need to be
sure that the nursery has the ability to mail the tree into the state of Idaho and that you won’t run into any
regulatory issues. One member asked if this pilot would just be for the Treasure Valley. Celeste confirmed that yes; it is just for the Treasure Valley. The same member suggested the possibility of teaming up with the Boy
Scouts to help those unable to plant the tree themselves. Celeste stated that could be something to look in to.
One member stated that he had a strong preference for the in person fulfillment. He also stated that if a larger tree could be given out it might increase participation and benefits would be realized sooner. Another member liked
the idea of using a local nursery so that if a problem occurred customers could take their tree back or talk to someone if they had questions. Another member said that it is critical to make sure that the right tree is planted in the right place. Also stressed making sure it isn’t a high water demand tree or one that won’t interfere with
overhead power lines. One member suggested sending out a letter to the nurseries in the valley to see who would be willing to participate. A list of nurseries can be obtained from the Department of Agriculture. Another member stated that keeping the pilot small will enable Idaho Power to learn what works and what doesn’t.
5

Celeste stated that energy savings verification has not been obtained yet and asked the group for their feedback on
the long timeline for savings results. One member asked what some of the other utility regulators have said about
similar programs. Patti Best stated that other utility regulators have asked for expansion. Customers of Arizona Public Service have been asked to attend a one hour class and at the end of the class they receive their tree. Some
places like PEPCO (?) do not claim savings. One member asked how much money and savings was anticipated
for the pilot. Celeste stated that if we receive a grant, Idaho Power would pay the administrative and research costs with that money. Overall, it’s not a huge budget for this small of a program.
Celeste informed the group that it has been decided to move forward with the Energy Kits in the spring of 2013. It isn’t being looked at as an energy savings program, but as an educational tool for younger children. A total of 5000 kits with about a $175,000 budget. One member asked what the kits contain. Celeste stated that at this point
it can be whatever we want. It is usually lighting and showerheads but that there is at least 50 items to choose from. These kits will have to work with non electrically heated homes as well. One member asked how the selection process works. Celeste explained that the Customer Reps and Community Education Reps will do a lot
of this work since they are in the field and classrooms. No specific criteria has been set. Celeste explained that Idaho Power is looking at giving gift cards to ensure that the student feedback comes back to the teachers. She asked the group for feedback on this idea. One member asked if IPC gives gift cards to the teacher after the
feedback is received. Celeste stated that yes; it is an incentive for the teacher to make sure the audits get done. One member suggested asking a question on the forms that states; “I would like Idaho Power to follow up with
me.” Celeste stated that’s a good idea and something we could look into adding.
Celeste went over the results of the Boise City Home Audit Project. The audit was only done in Boise. One of the
lessons learned is that we do not want to conduct the audit ourselves in addition to generating the report. We
would like to have a third party doing the audit. A sample of 93 homes was done after the audit and it showed that 60% of the homes implemented some of the additional measures within one year after the audit was complete.
Celeste asked the group for feedback on whether to do a fuel neutral program where it’s just educational or limit it to electrically heated homes only and make it cost effective. One member stated that it should be all electric homes, especially in the rural areas since they are usually larger homes. Another member stated that by doing a
program like this, you will get whatever savings you can get, but it is also an educational opportunity in being able to help customers recognize the benefits of energy efficiency measures which will help down the road with building code adoption. When customers see the results of the audit and the different things they can do to save
energy, it helps them make the connection of what’s in that code. Celeste mentioned that in the Idaho Public Utilities Commission Order on Prudency from 10/22/12, the IPUC encouraged Idaho Power to take other opportunities to educate customers about Idaho Power’s energy efficiency programs. One member stated that if
it’s a fuel neutral program, it will pretty much just be lighting. Another member asked about plug loads and if there were significant savings from those. One member responded that unless the customer has a home office it’s
not even worth bringing up.
Celeste spoke to the group about a Solar Thermal Hot Water measure. This would not be part of Net Metering as
it won’t generate electricity, it would just heat water. This measure could be incorporated into the Heating &
Cooling Efficiency program. In 2011, there was a LEEF (?) project that was deemed cost effective and the project was monitored. The current roadblock is that Idaho Power doesn’t know how many vendors could meet the
$3000-$3500 cost threshold to install these units. Most vendors are probably over that price point. Celeste asked the group for feedback on whether or not a participating contractor situation should be used. By doing that, it could move the market and potentially transform it sooner, but it could also encourage fraud. One member stated
that when there is that much of a tax credit prices seem to go up. Another member stated that the issue would be what is cost effective for Idaho Power and not what the participant has to pay. One member stated, for example, if
the system costs $3000, you can’t deem the costs at $3000 since there are other factors that could drive up cost,
regardless of other incentives. Todd Greenwell stated that there have been three commercial projects that have used and applied for a Solar Thermal incentive in the last 4 years.
6

12:15 Lunch
1:10 Meeting Reconvened

1:15 Regulatory Update – Tami White
In March 2011, Idaho Power made a prudence filing. At the time of our last meeting on July 19th, we were still waiting for determination. On October 22nd, Idaho Power received a ruling. One member asked if the standard
time to determine prudence was 7 months. One member answered that there had been some scheduling issues with IPUC Staff and lawyers and that it had nothing to do with any findings. Tami pointed out that there was a misunderstanding with the accounting adjustment. $526,781 was charged incorrectly to the Idaho rider in 2010
and the correction was made in 2011. There was $89,601 that IPUC staff needed more information on in order to determine if it is prudent. A/C Cool Credit incentives of $82,856 was disallowed which is half of what staff recommended. One member asked if the A/C Cool Credit customers’ switches weren’t cycled or were just not
working. Celeste stated that the switches were not working. During the explanation of the FCA Filing slide, one member asked if this is for customer class or individuals.
Tami stated that the FCA is only for residential and small commercial customer classes. Another member asked if Tami has any idea in which years this methodology would have changed the past FCA’s. Tami stated that she
didn’t think it would have changed. The big change in use per customer happened in 2006 and that was before the
FCA. If use per customer decreases, that increases the FCA balance and if use per customer increases, that decreases the FCA. Tami explained the Custom Efficiency Program filing in Idaho slide and there was no
member discussion

1:38 Evaluation Activities, Financial Update – Pete Pengilly During the discussion of 2012 DSM Actual Expenses YTD vs. Total Expense spread sheet, Pete indicated that the EE Education for low income customers program appears to be 200% over budget. That occurred because 2011 dollars were accrued in 2012, meaning we did not pay the agencies in 2011. AC Cool Credit is above budget
because the budget was set before the paging switches were replaced with AMI switches. Most of the increase is material and installation costs. There were quite a few Townhouse style homes that qualified for incentives in the ENERGY STAR Homes® program. One member asked if the Ductless Heat Pump Pilot is under budget due to
interest level. Celeste answered that Todd Greenwell thinks that after talking to some of the contractors, some people are in an emergency situations and need to replace their ducted systems. As for DHP, people are replacing
working systems so there is no urgency. Other than that, they are not sure what the motive is.
The Idaho, Oregon Rider, Regulatory Asset and Demand Response spreadsheet shows balances through September. This is similar to appendix 1 from the Annual Report. The Idaho Rider had a contra beginning
balance. The balance is expected to be positive by the end of the year. One member asked if this happened faster
than expected. Pete stated that it was projected to be $3 million at the end of the year. A member of the audience asked if there was intent to increase expenses or decrease the rider. Pete stated that the company is looking at it.
Idaho Power is not going to spend money just because there is a positive balance. It hasn’t been decided on yet. The Oregon Rider will have an adjustment to the balance as an error was found in the billing system. All incentives and Demand Response incentives come out of the rider for Oregon.
Tami White asked the group if they would be interested in a webinar to have a better understanding of what the different accounts mean and an explanation of this process. Some members expressed that it would be nice to see
7

the benefits of the money spent from the rider. One member suggested having a line that shows the savings vs.
what was spent. One member asked if there could be another column on the spreadsheet showing what the $19
million rider expenses got not in kWh savings but in dollar savings. This would help customers understand in a metric they could relate to. One member said it would be helpful to have the total expected savings to date in a
similar spreadsheet to the financial, just for the groups purpose. Pete stated that any numbers related to savings
are not final and things can change. One member stated that it might be nice to have this in a quarterly newsletter.
Preliminary avoided costs estimates (from sheet)
We don’t have the final alternative cost for Demand Side Management from the Integrated Resource Plan (IRP); the numbers are preliminary right now. These costs are going down due to gas prices, low market prices in the northwest and assumptions on carbon have changed in 2013 compared to the 2011. If some measures are not cost
effective then we will need to work with commission staff on what to do going forward. One member asked what would be done about the avoided cost structure if costs are falling. Another member stated that Idaho Power could focus exclusively on the Utility Cost Test (UCT). The commission doesn’t hold Idaho Power exclusively to the
Total Resource Cost (TRC). Pete stated that Idaho Power has also never used the 10% adder for the Northwest Power Act that Oregon and Washington use. He stated that other ways can be explored on how alternative costs are used. One member stated that by the time the EEAG group sees the numbers, it’s already done so there isn’t
any opportunity for input from this group. One member stated that a few more things need to happen in the IRP process before this conversation can be had with members of EEAG. Pete stated that once we get the alternative
costs a sensitivity analysis can be done and at that point the conversation can begin. One member stated that
alternative costs are now 30% lower than what they were during the 6th Power Plan. A few of the marginal items might be impacted but there are still inexpensive measures that can still be done.
Pete presented the Customer Research & Analysis slides that outlined the teams’ responsibilities. Pete discussed
the evaluation schedule and vendor selection process. The Request for Proposal (RFP) process is heavily scrutinized as cost is not the only driving factor. The typical industry standard for evaluations is 3%-4% of the
budget and many agencies come to the table with exactly that amount. Idaho Power requires a cost/hour
breakdown. The Potential Study results should be finalized in the next two weeks and a webinar could be set up with EEAG to go over the results. Kathy explained the non participant survey that Idaho Power will be doing. It
will be across all sectors: residential, irrigation and commercial/industrial customers. One member commented that he is looking at data from the region on refrigerator recycling and asked if the data could be emailed to Adam Hadley (from the RTF). Pete stated that Navigant has the data. Cory stated that he sent the evaluation data. One
member stated that it would be useful to have a presentation of what the company will do with the evaluation results and what changes if any will be implemented. Pete stated that it will be in the annual report, but that it can be summarized for this group.
2:45 Wrap up discussion
Shawn will be sending out the dates for all of next year’s meetings, which will likely be in February, May, August and November. Todd stated that a webinar will be scheduled to present the results of the potential study. He then
asked the group for their feedback on having an outside facilitator to run the EEAG Meetings. The costs haven’t
been explored deeply, but there could be some benefits in helping to pull out more detailed information from the group. One member stated that this group doesn’t deal with very tricky issues where a facilitator would help to
keep things moving. She did state that a benefit of a facilitator would be that suggestions from the group to Idaho
Power would then hold the company accountable for addressing them in the next meeting. Another member stated that unless it’s too much of a burden for Idaho Power staff to do both jobs, then he doesn’t think a facilitator is
necessary. One member thought that a facilitator would be beneficial because they would be more objective. Another member stated that a third party should be an expert in the field so that they could add to the conversation.
8

Todd addressed the topic checklist from the beginning of the meeting. One member asked if Idaho Power is
planning to address the revisions to the Idaho building and energy codes. Todd stated that Celeste participates on
the sub- committee for the Energy Efficiency task force. Idaho Power will support and lend assistance and expertise where needed. One member stated that the Fixed Cost Adjustment (FCA) order requires the company to
support codes. One member stated that Idaho Power could help in the communication of energy savings to the
Idaho Legislature.

Next on the checklist was an update on the NEEA Meeting (Efficiency Connections Northwest). Todd was unable to attend but three of his staff went and found it to be very good, especially the opportunity to network with peers. Celeste stated that there were sessions provided on what is going on in the Pacific Northwest region. They gave
an up to date look at new technologies and the retail strategies.
The next item on the checklist is to address is what Idaho Power’s commitment to NEEA is for the next two years.
Theresa answered by clarifying that there is still two years left in Idaho Power’s current contract with NEEA and there are a number of regularly engaged individuals participating on this subcommittee. The board has just started discussions for the next funding cycle. One member thinks the memo from brainstorming session of the last
meeting got overlooked. After the first memo was sent out, a few members had some suggested edits and that finalized memo did not get sent out. Celeste stated that she will look into this. It was suggested that a presentation
of what was recommended, what was changed, and what couldn’t be changed could be given.
3:08 Meeting Adjourned

1

Energy Efficiency Advisory Group (EEAG) Webinar
Minutes dated December 5th, 2012
Present:
John Chatburn-Office of Energy Resources Todd Schultz*–Idaho Power
Stacey Donohue-Idaho Public Utilities Commission Tami White–Idaho Power
Lynn Tominaga-Idaho Irrigation Pumpers Association Ben Otto-Idaho Conservation League

Present on Phone:
Nancy Hirsh–Northwest Energy Coalition Don Strickler-Simplot
Kent Hanway–CSHQA Randy Lobb-Idaho Public Utilities Commission

Not Present:
Lynn Young-AARP Catherine Chertudi-City of Boise, Public Works Dept
Tom Eckman-NW Power & Conservation Council Don Sturtevant-JR Simplot
Ken Robinette-South Central Community Action Partnership

Guests and Presenters*:
Pete Pengilly*–Idaho Power Quentin Nesbit-Idaho Power
Donn English–Idaho Public Utilities Commission Theresa Drake*–Idaho Power
Billie McWinn–Idaho Power Mark Stokes–Idaho Power
Celeste Becia–Idaho Power Ken Miller–Snake River Alliance
Nikki Karpavich–Idaho Public Utilities Commission Shirley Linstrom–NW Power and Conservation Council
Jan Borstein*-EnerNoc Ingrid Rohmund*-EnerNOC
Sogol Kananizadeh*–EnerNOC
Recording Secretary:
Shawn Lovewell (Idaho Power) with Kathy Yi (Idaho Power)
Meeting Convened at 3:30 pm
Todd started the meeting with introductions of EEAG members and guests.
3:37pm—EE Potential Study-Jan Borstein, Ingrid Rohmund
Ingrid and Jan introduced themselves to the group. During the Overview slide (# 4) one member asked for
clarification on whether or not Idaho Power’s achievable potential was constrained by the current programs or
budgets. Ingrid verified that it is not constrained or limited by either. Ingrid explained the three different levels of potential. In the case of Idaho Power, past programs give guidance on what is possible but it isn’t a constraint.
One member wanted to know if the numbers on the Summary slide (#6) were cumulative. Ingrid confirmed that they are cumulative.
2

During the discussion of Residential Market Characterization, 2011 (#11) Ingrid highlighted that the largest
segment of usage is single family homes, second highest is limited income single family homes. Jan stated that
the mobile home stock in Idaho tends to not have access to natural gas thus having a higher intensity. They usually have less insulation therefore are less efficient. One member asked how it was determined which
customers had limited incomes since Idaho Power doesn’t income qualify its customers. Ingrid stated that Idaho
Power did the bulk of gathering the data. Pete stated that it was based on the residential end use survey and CLARITAS. During the Residential Market Profile slide (#12) one member asked if the data on single family
homes from the Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance (NEEA) Residential Building Stock Assessment (RBSA) has been looked at. Ingrid stated that the data is just now becoming available, so no, it was not incorporated. Jan stated that this data is based on Idaho Power’s own residential end use survey and Ingrid added that it was also
matched to the customer bills so it is uniquely Idaho Power. Someone from the audience asked if this data is mostly from 2009. Pete clarified that the survey was one in 2010.
There was some discussion during the Residential Baseline Projection slide (#13). One member asked if the
forecast of use for baseline is the same sales forecast that the Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) used. Pete stated that no because this is without energy efficiency, present or future. It just has codes and standards. The IRP has energy efficiency embedded. Another member asked for the definition of Legacy Energy Efficiency Measures, stated at
the top of the slide. Ingrid answered that 2015 includes savings from refrigerators purchased in 2010. It is action taken prior from 2011 past programs, but past savings are still there. Pete stated that it contains results of previous
energy efficiency programs, but no new savings going forward from current programs. Ingrid stated that they are
careful not to call it a forecast. They don’t want to overstate the savings. One member asked if this only includes codes and standards as of 2011. Ingrid stated that is doesn’t speculate about codes and standards in the future,
only includes the codes that we know. Pete stated that the codes and standards have to currently be in law or
policy.
The Residential EE Cumulative Potential slide (#15) shows that the key measure still providing opportunity in the
residential sector is lighting. There is still some headroom to promote CFL and specialty lighting. Jan stated that the potential study does not provide guidance on how the savings are achieved, such as, direct install, market transformation, etc. The ramp rate looks at how the council group measures and then groups similarly. The
council ramp rate isn’t used but is adjusted based on program history. One member stated that if historical ramp rates are used it could potentially limit penetration based on existing program delivery. Jan stated that they start with history the first few years, in the next couple years they use what is currently going on in the programs and
future years are increasing based on upcoming technologies. Ingrid stated that program history gives them a starting point. One member observed that the achievable savings in 2015 for lighting seemed larger than expected. Ingrid stated that it is large because lighting standards are still being phased in and technology turns over quickly.
The first three years of the study show more opportunity but that it will look differently after 2015. She stated that the full report will show the potential of this measure over the duration of the study.
One member stated that one of the biggest factors in this is the assumptions going from economic to achievable.
Will the final report be more detailed by measure or sector and sources and how they affect analysis? Ingrid stated that it will describe how they came up with participation rates and these will be in the appendices. Another
member stated that she was appreciative of Jan and Ingrid walking EEAG through this study, but that she was
unsettled with the gap between economic and achievable potential. One member wanted to know how the economic potential is screened, is today’s Total Resource Cost (TRC) used or is it a future TRC. Jan stated that
Idaho Power developed an avoided cost stream thru 2056 and the TRC ratio for every measure for every year. One member asked if they checked the avoided cost projection with other utilities in the region. Ingrid stated that each utilities avoided costs are specific to their circumstances so the client is always asked to provide that
information. A member of the audience asked what other potential study data sources were used. Ingrid stated that they look at other studies to see what estimates are coming out and they have a library that they refer to. She
couldn’t give specifics.
3

4:30-Demand Response at Idaho Power-Pete Pengilly
Demand Response (DR) is a capacity product that is designed to meet deficits in extreme conditions. In all of the
IRPS done in recent history, load resource balances have all showed deficits in near or long term. The planning criteria are 90% water conditions coinciding with 95% load conditions. The Peak Hour Deficit with 2013 IRP
Resource slide (#2) indicates that there will be no deficits in 2013 thru 2015. The Peak Hour Deficit Hours by
Year slide (#3) shows the total number of hours per year of deficits. In 2016 only saw 76 MW deficit over a 4 hour span. With our current programs, we can cover 105 hours for about 400 MW. Our immediate concern is
having no need for DR for the next three years, and we are exploring different ways to change these programs to save customers money. Pete stated that he would like feedback from EEAG on ideas on how to change these programs in the near and long term. In 2011 $16 million was spent on DR, of which $12 million was incentives.
In 2012 $15 million was spent on incentives and approximately $6 million in expenses for a total of $20 million. One member asked if the incentive numbers are fixed or variable. Pete stated that they are all fixed costs. Another member asked why there was a $4 million increase when there weren’t any events called. Quentin stated that
there was an increase in participation but there were some customer drop outs. There was also some maintenance expenses associated with battery replacement on the communication devices. Todd asked the group for their thoughts.
One member said that it might be good to rethink the goals that can be achieved with DR. Right now it’s about shaving peak, but now Idaho Power might need to find different ways to extract the value of the programs since
so much has been invested to build them up. Another member said that they were glad that Idaho Power is
looking at ways to save customer money. A member of the audience asked if studies have been done to see varying levels of customer engagement. What is the likelihood that customers will stay in these programs after
they have been ramped down? Pete stated that a participation study was done last year to glean information but
that question wasn’t specifically asked. Kathy answered the question in regards to the A/C Cool Credit survey. Customers were asked if they would participate if costs were fixed or variable. 98% stated that they would
continue if it stayed the same but dropped off when it changed from fixed. One member stated that the irrigators have wanted to sit down with the company to talk about frequency of use without incentives changing, but have been put off until this study was done. One member observed that Idaho Power can handle its peak deficits until
2021-2022. Pete stated that there is another IRP in 2 years but from the data that we currently have that would be a reasonable assumption. One member expressed his concern for the industrial customers. If there are not enough events employees might not be engaged or know what to do when it’s needed. Todd thanked everyone for their
comments and suggestions and stated that this subject will be brought up to the EEAG members in the near future.
4:46 NEEA Discussion-Theresa Drake
Theresa started by acknowledging the impact this announcement had on members of EEAG. She assured them that it was not the company’s intention to cause frustration. Idaho Power respects and values the time and the
input of the EEAG members. An important aspect of Idaho Power’s core values is respect and integrity and the
company honored those by communicating its intentions to the executive director of NEEA first and members of EEAG immediately after.
NEEA was created during a time of when deregulation was on the horizon. Idaho Power had just a few demand
side management (DSM) employees. NEEA was created in 1996, and the company’s first contract was in 1997. In 2002 NEEA was able to offer 3 times more energy savings than what the company could achieve on its own. By
2011 IPC generated about 9 times the savings of NEEA. What the company currently pays to NEEA has increased 3 times since the first contract. During the 2008-2009 funding cycle, IPC purposed a different business model that would offer ala carte options that allowed funding specific initiatives meet the needs of customers in
our service territory. NEEA stated that they could not support the ala carte program. The contract was created, and the Idaho Public Utilities Commission (IPUC) approved, with some reservations.
4

The executive director of NEEA has been informed of IPC decision and respectfully accepts the company’s
decision. They are interested in IPC’s opinions during the next funding cycle. IPC is proud of its partnership with
NEEA and we believe that customers have found value in it and will extract as much value in the next 2 years.
One member asked what NEEA’s total budget is from all utilities. Theresa stated that she didn’t have those
figures. Another member answered that she thought it was approximately $192 million over 5 years. One member
commended IPC for taking the step to not renew its contract with NEEA. He believes that NEEA plays an important role, but it needs to have value to the Idaho Power customer. Another member stated that he has been
exchanging emails with NEEA. The State of Idaho is very interested in a breakdown of how much of NEEA’s budget is spent in Idaho and the benefits to the people who live in this state. One member stated that the IPUC staff doesn’t have a position on NEEA yet. The functions of NEEA are much more difficult to quantify on a
utility or even at the state level. At best, we only get sales data at the point of sale. Another member stated that NEEA needs to do a better job at reporting benefits. Theresa stated that NEEA has provided a scorecard for deliverables to the stakeholders. A member of the audience asked if the implication is that Idaho Power no longer
believes that NEEA is cost effective, because the order from the IPUC is to pursue all cost effectiveness. Theresa answered that it is more about maximizing customer dollars. Should IPC customers be paying for services that are not beneficial for them? One member inquired how IPC would handle market transformation, something that
NEEA has been very influential in helping with. Theresa stated that IPC believes in supporting the activities that bring value to customers, things that the company could not do on its own. IPC has left the door open with NEEA
for those conversations.
A member of the audience asked for specific things that the company does not find value in. Theresa answered that she would rather speak to the things that IPC does find value in. IPC finds much value in the Integrated
Design Lab (IDL) and training classes that are offered in the region. IPC’s service territory has the highest
attendance in those trainings. One member state that she would like to see a specific list of what IPC doesn’t find value in. In NEEA’s 2011 annual report, NEEA provides a huge amount of savings in the residential market
which is proportional to what residential customers pay into the rider fund. How will Idaho Power fill that gap?
A member on the phone stated that she understands that IPC’s obligation was to inform NEEA first, but was upset about the fact that there was no consultation at any of the prior EEAG meetings before the final decision was
made. She stated that she hasn’t heard that the programs are not cost-effective. She understands the IPUC concerns of judicious use of customer funds, but that implies they are not cost-effective. There are programs that some customers do not get any benefit from because they choose not to participate, but in the big picture, they all
benefit. As a whole, the programs and services all work together even though not everyone participates. The opt in approach has been looked into and it’s pretty hard to run a program with that kind of funding stream. If Idaho Power no longer provides funding to NEEA it will essentially become a free rider. How will Idaho Power pick up
the slack with code training and R&D activities? She stated that she hoped EEAG is consulted on future plans.
Another member stated that the Pumpers Association has been relatively silent even though they contribute about
14% toward the rider, yet have not seen a NEEA program that benefits the irrigators. Theresa stated that this
concern has been communicated with NEEA and they are testing some technology in a few sites. A member of the audience stated that NEEA has a test site in Grandview, Idaho. Another member addressed that the irrigators
pay 14% into the rider but receive a 36% benefit. Another member stated that he appreciated the discussion on
Demand Response; it’s a good example of the kind of discussions that can be had with EEAG, makes him feel more vested in the process. Theresa stated that NEEA was appreciative of the 2 year notice to work thru the
process. She wanted to discuss CEERI, but that will have to wait for a later discussion.

5:30 meeting convened.

1

Energy Efficiency Advisory Group (EEAG) Minutes dated December 14th, 2012
Conference Call
Present:
Catherine Chertudi–City of Boise, Public Works Dept. Ben Otto-Idaho Conservation League
Ken Robinette–South Central Comm. Action Partnership Tami White–Idaho Power
Stacey Donohue–Idaho Public Utilities Commission John Chatburn–Office of Energy Resources
Nancy Hirsh–Northwest Energy Coalition Todd Schultz–Idaho Power

Not Present:
Don Sturtevant–Simplot Lynn Young-AARP
Tom Eckman–Northwest Power & Conservation Council Kent Hanway-CSHQA
Sid Erwin–Idaho Irrigation Pumpers Association
Guests and Presenters*:
Pete Pengilly–Idaho Power Celeste Becia–Idaho Power
Quentin Nesbitt–Idaho Power Theresa Drake–Idaho Power
Billie McWinn-Idaho Power Andrea Simmonsen–Idaho Power
Donn English-Idaho Public Utilities Commission Ken Miller-Snake River Alliance
Nikki Karpavich-Idaho Public Utilities Commission
Randy Lobb-Idaho Public Utilities Commission

Recording Secretary:
Shawn Lovewell (Idaho Power) with Kathy Yi (Idaho Power)
Meeting Convened at 10:03am
Members and guests on the phone introduced themselves. The two topics for today’s discussion are Demand
Response and CAES Energy Efficiency Research Institute (CEERI). Before the meeting got started, Tami read and discussed the non-disclosure agreement statement. This statement was also emailed to all members prior to
the meeting. After the statement was read, there were no objections from the participants.
10:10am Pete Pengilly-Demand Response Discussion
Pete stated that there are no peak hour deficits from 2013-2015. In 2022 there is about 400 MW for 96 hours that
can presumably be covered by current programs.
A member on the phone stated that in the past, Idaho Power has had pretty significant peak hour deficits. What do you attribute to this change? Pete answered that past IRPs showed significant deficits in near term and long term.
Idaho Power’s peak forecast and load forecast has gone down for a number of reasons; economic downturn, lost a large load customer, and there was another large load customer that did not come on system. Langley Gulch was brought on last summer. As loads were decreasing, resources were increasing. Quentin added that the economic
downturn was in the 2011 IRP, but the 2013 IRP has a prediction of load being substantially less. Pete stated that
2

planning criteria has remained the same. An information sheet was sent to all the members via email on Thursday
December 13th. That material was reviewed with the group. As a company, Idaho Power is questioning whether
these are prudent expenses in the short term since there is no need based on forecasts. The peak deficit became available on November 30th, hence this conference call today. A member on the phone asked if these programs
could be restarted if the equipment is left out in the field.
Todd stated that since information has become available, we’ve been looking at what each of the programs can do and would like to discuss with the group these three programs.
Quentin spoke to the group about the Irrigation Peak Rewards program. We have a capacity of 330 MW M2M is the contractor that maintains the equipment in the field. We have been in discussions with the contractor about what can be done about keeping this program in maintenance mode. By continuing to pay the contractor to
maintain the equipment, it makes us feel more comfortable about starting up again, but on the flip side we started this program up in one year and got 160 MW. The contract we have with M2M expires in December and we have talked with contractor about an extension until we figure things out. We also need to take into consideration how
customers will react. If the customer demands to have devices uninstalled then we have to honor that.
Todd spoke to the group about the FlexPeak Program for the commercial and industrial customers. The contract with EnerNOC runs thru next summer and ends in February of 2014. Discussions have been started to see if any
possible amendments can be made to the contract. There is a minimum requirement of 35 MW. Another unique aspect of this contract is that EnerNOC has individual contracts with participants within the program.
Celeste gave an update on A/C Cool Credit. There are currently 35,000 participants. The bulk of the costs have
always been infrastructure for installing and reinstalling switches. This past year we embarked on the task of replacing 23,000 paging switches. So far, about two thirds have been replaced and there is only 8,000 left to
replace. Last summer an evaluation was done and we just recently received results. Customers were cycled at
higher rates and we are pleased with the dispatch results on this program from last summer. Honeywell is the contractor that provides installations and deinstallation and they provide customer service during events. They
also maintain the primary program database for this program. We have expenses related to software and licensing fees in regards to AMI switches which is a fixed cost of about $17,000 per year.
One of the guests on the phone asked if the equipment has to be uninstalled, what costs would be associated with
that. Celeste answered that the preference would be to keep equipment in the field unless the customer request it be removed.
Another member on the phone asked if there is any debate within IRPAC about the forecast.
Pete answered that the energy forecast is done first then it turns into peak forecast.
One member commented that the load forecast is slower growing than the last IRP and he feels comfortable with the refinement. Another member agreed with that statement.
Pete stated that on the supply side, there have been some changes in water forecast, and in some of the rulings in how we have to manage our resources. We have to remember, we will be doing another IRP in a couple years. It’s
an ongoing process.
A member on the phone stated that in last week’s EEAG webinar it was mentioned that Idaho Power was still increasing participation in irrigation as of this summer. With the economic downturn and then Langley being
brought on board, this seems a bit abrupt.
3

Quentin stated that two years ago, changes were filed for the program and workshops were held with the IPUC.
IPC showed at that time how the company’s need would vary going forward based on the 2011 IRP. That need
went down about 150 MW after Langley was in place, but the projected growth was still 300-500 MW. It was a quick change, but if the numbers are added up, all those losses add up to the 300 MW: 80MW loss from the large
customer, the 70 MW loss from the other large customers, 100 MW from the economic downturn, and 50 MW
because this summer’s peak wasn’t 1 in 20 load condition year. Going back to the participation issue and still adding customers it had a lot to do with the filing that said to not limit participation. Marketing was only done to
existing customers but people were not turned away due to the directive that said to not turn down customers based on need.
Tami stated that good stakeholder input is needed in order to move forward. Idaho Power came to the conclusion
that there just isn’t enough time to get that input and file it with the commission to get it in place before the upcoming season. For the irrigation program, people sign up in March and residential customers need to get signed up in April. Tami gave the timeline from a regulatory perspective to the group. This is Idaho Power’s
opinion based on experience, once an application is submitted the timeline is really in the IPUC’s hands.
The first step takes a total of about 30 days, which includes the initial filing and any third party intervening. Also, at the time of the initial filing, Idaho Power has to file a communication to its customers through bills and press
releases. The IPUC then decides if the public interest needs a hearing, if so that is about a 3 month time frame. A comment period of about 30-60 days is provided to interested parties. Once that is complete, Idaho Power would
submit any reply comments within 14 days. At that point, the IPUC needs time to make their opinions to issue the
final order. The IPUC could also hold public workshops or hearings during that time. Idaho Power feels that there just isn’t enough time with this process to have a program redesign for the 2013 season.
Todd stated that each of the programs have unique characteristics. We want to make sure we are making the best
decisions for the customer in the long term. The best option for Idaho Power is to prepare a filing to temporarily suspend the tariffs for 2013 for A/C Cool Credit and Irrigation Peak Rewards. This will mean the customers will
not receive incentives and events will not be called. The FlexPeak program will be available for the summer of 2013. Todd then opened up the discussion for comments.
One member on the phone stated that as part of the IRP, we see huge surpluses of energy. We don’t talk about
dismantling resources and there are more resources that are actually needed. This is not unique to demand response. All resources take time to build. It is cheaper to keep demand response active at a lower level in order to have them available in 2016. Tami stated that the idea isn’t to completely dismantle the programs but going
forward, how can the costs be minimized during this temporary hold so that we can have them available when they are needed. One member responded that he had been unclear about the original intent for the program, he understood now that Idaho Power wants to find a way to keep them available. He then suggested maybe changing
the tariff to make the program variable so that it could be ready if needed. Pete stated that because of the time crunch, Idaho Power is just purposing a pause for 2013 so that the right decisions can be made. Another member
on the phone stated that it makes sense to keep FlexPeak operational. She also agreed to suspend the other two
programs and have one operational in reserve for when it’s needed.
Todd stated that the plan is to work on the filing and ask for a temporary suspension on A/C Cool Credit and
Irrigation Peak. Todd thanked everyone for their inputs and thoughts.
11:00 CEERI Update-Theresa Drake
The CAES Energy Efficiency Research Institute (CEERI) was developed in Oct 2010. There are a number of
interested parties interested in leveraging the CEERI system in Idaho to focus on energy efficiency research. Idaho Power is looking at a possible short term funding cycle. Some of the outcomes of projects would be studies of technology, research and validating some of the models that we use. Theresa emphasized that she wanted to
4

keep members of EEAG informed and asked if they had any questions. One member on the phone asked what the
purposed funding would be and if this would come out of rider funds. Theresa answered that she was not in a
position to share what the funding would be at this time, but that they are currently working with CEERI and partners on the development agreement. This is not meant to replace anything, but rather it would be supplemental
research. The funding would come out of the rider. One member on the phone stated that she fully supported
Idaho Power’s involvement with CEERI, just want to make sure that there is still funding available for current programs and research projects. Another member on the phone stated that he thought it was an exciting
opportunity and stressed that the company should be specific with how the research will benefit Idaho with savings. Theresa stated that since this is research, there will not be cost effectiveness test; it won’t be a widget based program. It will support research and development to help us promote other technologies going forward.
Todd informed the group that meetings for 2013 will be sent out early next week and thanked everyone for their comments and attendance

11:10 meeting ended.
Idaho Power Company Supplement 2: Evaluation
Demand-Side Management 2012 Annual Report Page 35
NEEA MARKET EFFECTS EVALUATIONS
Table 1. 2012 NEEA Market Effects Evaluations
Report Title Sector Analysis Performed by Study Manager Study/Evaluation Type
2011–2012 Northwest Residential Lighting Tracking and Monitoring Study Residential DNV KEMA Energy & Sustainability NEEA Market Effects
2011 Residential Codes Energy Use Savings Residential Ecotope Inc. NEEA Market Effects
2011 Water Heater Market Update Residential Verinnovation Inc. NEEA Market Effects
Ductless Heat Pump Impact & Process Evaluation: Field Metering Report Residential Ecotope, Inc. NEEA Market Effects
Idaho Residential Energy Code Compliance Residential The Cadmus Group, Inc. NEEA Market Effects
Idaho ENERGY STAR Homes Program: Eighth Market Progress Evaluation Report Residential Evergreen Economics NEEA Market Effects
Residential Building Stock Assessment: Single-Family Characteristics and
Energy Use
Residential Ecotope, Inc. NEEA Market Effects
NEEA Market Progress Evaluation Report #4: 80 PLUS Commercial/Industrial Navigant Consulting, Inc. NEEA Market Effects
Existing Building Renewal/Commercial Real Estate Research Commercial/Industrial SBW Consulting, Inc.

NEEA Market Effects
Long-Term Monitoring and Tracking Report on 2011 Activities
Residential/Commercial Navigant Consulting, Inc NEEA Market Effects
NEEA Market Progress Evaluation Report #7: Evaluation of NEEA’s Industrial Initiative
Industrial Energy & Resource Solutions NEEA Market Effects
Strategic Energy Management Market Assessment Study: Food Processors and Beverage Manufacturers
Industrial Market Strategies International
NEEA Market Effects
Strategic Energy Management Market Assessment Study: Small, Medium, and Metals Manufacturers
Industrial Market Strategies International NEEA Market Effects
Strategic Energy Management Market Assessment Study: Dairies, Irrigators, and Nurseries
Irrigation Market Strategies International NEEA Market Effects
2011 Stakeholder Perception Survey All Market Strategies International NEEA Survey
Direct Savings from 2011 Integrated Design Lab Projects All SBW Consulting, Inc NEEA Market Effects
Northwest Ductless Heat Pump Initiative: Market Progress Evaluation Report #2 Residential Evergreen Economics NEEA Market Effects
Regional Industrial Training Update December 2012
Industrial NEEA NEEA Market Effects

For NEEA reports, see the CD included at the back of this supplement.
Supplement 2: Evaluation Idaho Power Company
Page 36 Demand-Side Management 2012 Annual Report
This page left blank intentionally.
Idaho Power Company Supplement 2: Evaluation
Demand-Side Management 2012 Annual Report Page 37
RESEARCH
Table 2. 2012 Research
Report Title Sector Analysis Performed by Study Manager Study/Evaluation Type
A/C Cool Credit Program Research Residential PECI Idaho Power Research
Building Efficiency Program Research Commercial/Industrial Market Decisions Idaho Power Research
Irrigation Efficiency Rewards Research Irrigation University of Idaho Idaho Power Research

Supplement 2: Evaluation Idaho Power Company
Page 38 Demand-Side Management 2012 Annual Report
This page left blank intentionally.
i

A/C Cool Credit Program
Research Results

Idaho Power Company | December 2012
Demand Response

ii

Page intentionally left blank
iii

Table of Contents
List of Tables .............................................................................................................................................................. v List of Figures ............................................................................................................................................................ vi
Introduction .................................................................................................................................................................1 Background .............................................................................................................................................................1
Load Control Technology ........................................................................................................................................2
Methodology ............................................................................................................................................................2
Sampling plan ......................................................................................................................................................3
Participant Recruitment .......................................................................................................................................4
Adjusting Compressor kW for Outside Air Temperature .....................................................................................4
Baseline Data ......................................................................................................................................................5
Offset Factor ........................................................................................................................................................5
Predictive Model ..................................................................................................................................................5
Curtailment plan ..................................................................................................................................................6
Data Collection ........................................................................................................................................................9
kW Measurements ..............................................................................................................................................9
Outdoor Temperature Data .................................................................................................................................9
Indoor Air Temperature Measurements ..............................................................................................................9
AMI Meter Data ................................................................................................................................................ 10
Results ..................................................................................................................................................................... 10 Curtailment Events ............................................................................................................................................... 10
Demand Reduction Analysis Results ................................................................................................................... 11
Verification of AMI Data for Estimating Results ............................................................................................... 11
Individual Event Results ................................................................................................................................... 13
June 21st Curtailment ....................................................................................................................................... 15
July 2nd Curtailment .......................................................................................................................................... 17
July 11th and 12th Curtailments ......................................................................................................................... 19
July 19th Curtailment ......................................................................................................................................... 21
July 31st Curtailment ......................................................................................................................................... 22
July 25th and August 13th Curtailments ............................................................................................................. 24
August 16th and August 20th Curtailments ........................................................................................................ 27
August 22nd Curtailment ................................................................................................................................... 29
Indoor Temperature Analysis Results .................................................................................................................. 30
Conclusions ............................................................................................................................................................. 34
Appendix .................................................................................................................................................................. 36 June 21 Curtailment: ............................................................................................................................................ 36
July 2 Curtailment ................................................................................................................................................ 40
July 11 Curtailment .............................................................................................................................................. 43
July 12 Curtailment .............................................................................................................................................. 47
iv
July 19 Curtailment .............................................................................................................................................. 50
July 25 Curtailment .............................................................................................................................................. 53
July 31 Curtailment .............................................................................................................................................. 57
August 13 Curtailment ......................................................................................................................................... 60
August 16 Curtailment ......................................................................................................................................... 63
August 20 Curtailment ......................................................................................................................................... 66
August 22 Curtailment ......................................................................................................................................... 69

v
List of Tables
Table 1. Control Device Distribution ...........................................................................................................................3 Table 2. Design: Sample and Logger Distribution - Design .......................................................................................3
Table 3. Sample and Logger Distribution - Actual ......................................................................................................4 Table 4. Hobo Logger Distribution - Actual ................................................................................................................4
Table 5. 2012 Curtailment Plan – Boise Metro Area ..................................................................................................6 Table 6. Frequency of Week Day High Temperatures from 2007-2011 – Boise Metro Area ....................................7
Table 7. 2012 Curtailment Plan –Twin Falls/Pocatello Metro Area ............................................................................8 Table 8. Frequency of Week Day High Temperatures from 2007-2011 – Twin Falls/Pocatello Area .......................9
Table 9. 2012 Executed Control Events ................................................................................................................. 10 Table 10. 2012 Executed Control Events - Boise Metro Area ................................................................................ 10
Table 11. 2012 Executed Control Events – Twin Falls /Pocatello Area .................................................................. 11 Table 12. 2012 Summary Results of Executed Control Events .............................................................................. 14
Table 13. Loggers/Homes Analyzed by Curtailment Event ..................................................................................... 16
vi
List of Figures
Figure 1. Aclara Demand Response Unit (DRU) ........................................................................................................2 Figure 2. Aclara Load Control Transponder (LCT) .....................................................................................................2
Figure 3. Maximum kW Reduction per Curtailment Event ..................................................................................... 12 Figure 4. Average kW Reduction per Curtailment Event........................................................................................ 13
Figure 5. Curtailment Results by Temperature Bin ................................................................................................. 15 Figure 6. June 21 Curtailment Results: Loggers – Boise Metro Region (DRU Only) ............................................. 16
Figure 7. June 21 Curtailment Results: Loggers – Boise Metro Region (LCT Only) .............................................. 17 Figure 8. July 2 Curtailment Results: AMI – Boise Metro Region ........................................................................... 18
Figure 9. July 11 Curtailment Results: AMI – Both Regions ................................................................................... 19 Figure 10. July 12 Curtailment Results: AMI – Both Regions ................................................................................. 19
Figure 11. July 11 Curtailment Results: Loggers – Boise Metro Region (DRU Only) ............................................ 20 Figure 12. July 11 Curtailment Results: Loggers – Boise Metro Region (LCT Only) ............................................. 20
Figure 13. July 19 Curtailment Results: AMI – Boise Metro Region ...................................................................... 21 Figure 14. July 19 Curtailment Results: AMI – Twin Falls / Pocatello Region ....................................................... 22
Figure 15. July 31 Curtailment Results: AMI – Boise Metro Region ....................................................................... 23 Figure 16. July 31 Curtailment Results: AMI – Twin Falls / Pocatello Region ....................................................... 23
Figure 17. July 25 Curtailment Results: AMI – Both Regions ................................................................................ 24 Figure 18. August 13 Curtailment Results: AMI – Both Regions ........................................................................... 24
Figure 19. July 25 Curtailment Results: AMI – Boise Metro Region ...................................................................... 24 Figure 20. July 25 Curtailment Results: AMI – Twin Falls / Pocatello Region ....................................................... 24
Figure 21. August 13 Curtailment Results: AMI – Boise Metro Region ................................................................. 25 Figure 22. August 13 Curtailment Results: AMI – Twin Falls / Pocatello Region .................................................. 25
Figure 23. July 25 Curtailment Results: Loggers – Boise Metro Region (LCT Only) .............................................. 26 Figure 24. July 25 Curtailment Results: Loggers – Boise Metro Region (DRU Only) ............................................. 26
Figure 25. July 25 Curtailment Results: Loggers – Twin Falls / Pocatello Region .................................................. 27 Figure 26 August 16 Curtailment Results ................................................................................................................ 28
Figure 27 August 20 Curtailment Results ................................................................................................................ 28 Figure 28. August 22 Curtailment Results: AMI – Boise Metro Region .................................................................. 29
Figure 29. August 22 Curtailment Results: AMI – Twin Falls / Pocatello Region ................................................... 30 Figure 30. Average IAT Increase ............................................................................................................................. 31
Figure 31. Max IAT Increase ................................................................................................................................... 31 Figure 32. July 12th IAT Increase: Boise Metro ....................................................................................................... 32
Figure 33. July 12th IAT Increase: Twin Falls / Pocatello ........................................................................................ 33 Figure 34. July 31st IAT Increase: Boise Metro ....................................................................................................... 33
Figure 35. June 21 Curtailment Results: AMI – Both Regions ................................................................................ 36 Figure 36. June 21 Curtailment Results: AMI – Boise Metro Region ...................................................................... 37
Figure 37. June 21 Curtailment Results: AMI – Twin Falls / Pocatello Region ....................................................... 37 Figure 38. June 21 Curtailment Results: Loggers – Boise Metro Region ............................................................... 38
Figure 39. June 21 Curtailment Results: Loggers – Boise Metro Region (DRU Only) ........................................... 38 Figure 40. June 21 Curtailment Results: Loggers – Boise Metro Region (LCT Only) ............................................ 39
Figure 41. June 21 Curtailment Results: Loggers – Twin Falls / Pocatello Region ................................................ 39 Figure 42. July 2 Curtailment Results: AMI – Both Regions ................................................................................... 40
Figure 43. July 2 Curtailment Results: AMI – Boise Metro Region ......................................................................... 41 Figure 44. July 2 Curtailment Results: AMI – Twin Falls / Pocatello Region .......................................................... 41
Figure 45. July 2 Curtailment Results: Loggers – Boise Metro Region ................................................................... 42 Figure 46. July 2 Curtailment Results: Loggers – Twin Falls / Pocatello Region .................................................... 42
Figure 47. July 11 Curtailment Results: AMI – Both Regions ................................................................................. 43 Figure 48. July 11 Curtailment Results: AMI – Boise Metro Region ....................................................................... 44
Figure 49. July 11 Curtailment Results: AMI – Twin Falls / Pocatello Region ........................................................ 44 Figure 50. July 11 Curtailment Results: Loggers – Boise Metro Region ................................................................. 45
Figure 51. July 11 Curtailment Results: Loggers – Boise Metro Region (DRU Only) ............................................. 45 Figure 52. July 11 Curtailment Results: Loggers – Boise Metro Region (LCT Only) .............................................. 46
Figure 53. July 11 Curtailment Results: Loggers – Twin Falls / Pocatello Region .................................................. 46 Figure 54. July 12 Curtailment Results: AMI – Both Regions ................................................................................. 47
vii
Figure 55. July 12 Curtailment Results: AMI – Boise Metro Region ....................................................................... 48 Figure 56. July 12 Curtailment Results: AMI – Twin Falls / Pocatello Region ........................................................ 48
Figure 57. July 12 Curtailment Results: Loggers – Boise Metro Region ................................................................. 49 Figure 58. July 12 Curtailment Results: Loggers – Twin Falls / Pocatello Region .................................................. 49
Figure 59. July 19 Curtailment Results: AMI – Both Regions ................................................................................. 50 Figure 60. July 19 Curtailment Results: AMI – Boise Metro Region ....................................................................... 51
Figure 61. July 19 Curtailment Results: AMI – Twin Falls / Pocatello Region ........................................................ 51 Figure 62. July 19 Curtailment Results: Loggers – Boise Metro Region ................................................................. 52
Figure 63. July 19 Curtailment Results: Loggers – Twin Falls / Pocatello Region .................................................. 52 Figure 64. July 25 Curtailment Results: AMI – Both Regions ................................................................................. 53
Figure 65. July 25 Curtailment Results: AMI – Boise Metro Region ....................................................................... 54 Figure 66. July 25 Curtailment Results: AMI – Twin Falls / Pocatello Region ........................................................ 54
Figure 67. July 25 Curtailment Results: Loggers – Boise Metro Region ................................................................. 55 Figure 68. July 25 Curtailment Results: Loggers – Boise Metro Region (DRU Only) ............................................. 55
Figure 69. July 25 Curtailment Results: Loggers – Boise Metro Region (LCT Only) .............................................. 56 Figure 70. July 25 Curtailment Results: Loggers – Twin Falls / Pocatello Region .................................................. 56
Figure 71. July 31 Curtailment Results: AMI – Both Regions ................................................................................. 57 Figure 72. July 31 Curtailment Results: AMI – Boise Metro Region ....................................................................... 58
Figure 73. July 31 Curtailment Results: AMI – Twin Falls / Pocatello Region ........................................................ 58 Figure 74. July 31 Curtailment Results: Loggers – Boise Metro Region ................................................................. 59
Figure 75. July 31 Curtailment Results: Loggers – Twin Falls / Pocatello Region .................................................. 59 Figure 76. August 13 Curtailment Results: AMI – Both Regions ............................................................................ 60
Figure 77. August 13 Curtailment Results: AMI – Boise Metro Region .................................................................. 61 Figure 78. August 13 Curtailment Results: AMI – Twin Falls / Pocatello Region ................................................... 61
Figure 79. August 13 Curtailment Results: Loggers – Boise Metro Region ............................................................ 62 Figure 80. August 13 Curtailment Results: Loggers – Twin Falls / Pocatello Region ............................................. 62
Figure 81. August 16 Curtailment Results: AMI – Both Regions ............................................................................ 63 Figure 82. August 16 Curtailment Results: AMI – Boise Metro Region .................................................................. 64
Figure 83. August 16 Curtailment Results: AMI – Twin Falls / Pocatello Region ................................................... 64 Figure 84. August 16 Curtailment Results: Loggers – Boise Metro Region ............................................................ 65
Figure 85. August 16 Curtailment Results: Loggers – Twin Falls / Pocatello Region ............................................. 65 Figure 86. August 20 Curtailment Results: AMI – Both Regions ............................................................................ 66
Figure 87. August 20 Curtailment Results: AMI – Boise Metro Region .................................................................. 67 Figure 88. August 20 Curtailment Results: AMI – Twin Falls / Pocatello Region ................................................... 67
Figure 89. August 20 Curtailment Results: Loggers – Boise Metro Region ............................................................ 68 Figure 90. August 20 Curtailment Results: Loggers – Twin Falls / Pocatello Region ............................................. 68
Figure 91. August 22 Curtailment Results: AMI – Both Regions ............................................................................ 69 Figure 92. August 22 Curtailment Results: AMI – Boise Metro Region .................................................................. 70
Figure 93. August 22 Curtailment Results: AMI – Twin Falls / Pocatello Region ................................................... 70 Figure 94. August 22 Curtailment Results: Loggers – Boise Metro Region ............................................................ 71
Figure 95. August 22 Curtailment Results: Loggers – Twin Falls / Pocatello Region ............................................. 71

1
Introduction
Background
Summer use of air conditioning (A/C) systems places a burden on Idaho Power Company’s power supply, power contracts, and transmission and distribution departments. Demand reduction programs in which customers agree
to curtail A/C use in times of demand stress have proven to successfully deliver significant and dispatchable demand (kW) savings.
Idaho Power’s A/C Cool Credit program addresses this growing residential A/C demand. The program operated
during the summer 2012 season, from June 1st through August 31st, offering a $7 credit on the approximately 38,000 participants’ electric bills during those three months. The program’s function was to curtail some
residential Heating, Ventilating and Air Conditioning (HVAC) demand during the peak hours by implementing load reduction strategies which limited the time each HVAC unit operated within the specified curtailment period. A/C
Cool Credit program curtailment events were limited to non-holiday weekdays and totaled 40 hours or less per month (with the exception of a system emergency). Idaho Power determined the desired cycling strategy
implemented.
PECI conducted research with Idaho Power during the 2012 A/C Cool Credit (residential load control) curtailment season to identify optimal curtailment strategies to meet cost-effectiveness targets and develop a predictive model that correlates weather forecasts with achievable kW load shifts from curtailment events. For the 2012 summer curtailment season, Boise Metro and Twin Falls/Pocatello area participants were cycled at between 50%
and 100%. The one curtailment event in each of the areas executed at 100%, at a temperature between 87 and 90 degrees, lasted for only one hour; The remaining A/C Cool Credit curtailment events during the 2012
curtailment season had durations of two or three hours. Most events began at 4:00 pm with durations of three hours. On three days, events were started at 5:00 pm, two events had durations of three hours, and one event lasted only two hours.
The goals of this research were to:
 Verify that savings can be estimated using AMI data.
 Verify the adaptive algorithm is working as designed.
 Estimate kW reductions at different temperatures and cycling strategies.
 Create a predictive model for planning purposes.
 Test the comfort impacts of higher cycling strategies to find the optimum curtailment strategy that
maximizes kW results with minimum comfort impacts.
In order to obtain the necessary data to inform optimal strategies and develop a predictive model, PECI needed observations of different curtailment strategies (based on percent cycling) at different temperatures with
corresponding baseline days where no curtailments occurred. The baseline days provided us with comparison information to ensure the impact on a curtailment day was fully attributed to the program. Overall, this curtailment
research approach was a departure from previous years, where resources were called based on perceived system need and value. The key differences in implementing 2012 curtailments included:
 Events were called based on the predicted weather and which cycling levels needed to be tested. PECI
requested different curtailment levels at the same temperatures so this will factor into the decision made on a given day.
 More curtailments were requested to ensure enough observations at various cycling levels – however not all requested curtailments were executed.
 Different target cycling levels were requested between Boise Metro and Twin Falls/Pocatello regions based on
predicted high temperatures in each region however, execution of each event was conducted at the same cycling level.

2
Load Control Technology
Idaho Power currently utilizes four load control switches. Two of the devices operate with a power line carrier (PLC) signal and two operate utilizing a paging signal. The two PLC devices are manufactured by Aclara (formerly
TWACS and DCSI). Idaho Power is phasing out the paging based devices due to changes in the paging provider marketplace. Therefore, the research focused only on the PLC devices.

Figure 1. Aclara Demand Response Unit (DRU)

Figure 2. Aclara Load Control Transponder (LCT)

Methodology
The demand reduction impact evaluation was conducted through the use of two primary data sources: state
(ON/OFF) loggers installed on air-conditioning units of a random sample of the population, and AMI meter data for a census of program participants. To evaluate the impact of curtailments on occupant comfort, an analysis was
conducted utilizing indoor air temperature loggers installed inside the homes of a subset of the homes that had received state (ON/OFF) data loggers.
Analysis of the three data sources was conducted using the SAS analytics program. SAS provides a robust
platform for analyzing large amounts of data in a consistent manner. A unique SAS “model” was built to conduct the analysis of the three primary data sources. Each model was developed to first, import the relevant data from
CSV files; second, process the data to configure it in a way suitable for analysis; and third, analyze the data to produce the desired result metrics.
The sub-sections below describe the methodology for the development of the sampling plan, recruitment of
participants, analysis of the load reductions & indoor air temperature impact, and the predictive model.

3

Sampling plan

The sample plan was designed to enable research and analysis on the following:
1. Achieved kW at different temperatures and cycling strategies by climate zone (Twin Falls/Pocatello areas and
the Boise Metro area) and provide the basis for a model for projecting kW demand reduction per cycling
strategy and outside air temperature
2. Determine if adaptive algorithm embedded in the devices is operating as intended
3. Measure temperature drift in homes due to program curtailments in both climate zones.
The sampling plan for logger placement is based on the distribution of LCT and DRU units in both the Twin
Falls/Pocatello and Boise Metro areas as of April 2012. The distribution is as follows:
Table 1. Control Device Distribution
Boise Metro Twin Falls/
Pocatello % Distribution
LCT 5783 16 40%
DRU 4051 4779 60%
% Distribution 46% 54% 100%

Due to the very limited number of LCTs in the Twin Falls/Pocatello area (n=16), PECI determined more value
could be obtained by concentrating the LCT sample in Boise Metro only. The purpose of testing both LCTs and
DRUs is to evaluate the adaptive algorithm. Splitting the sample between populations does not provide additional
value to the research project. By concentrating the LCT sample in Boise Metro only, other analysis can be
completed at a higher confidence and precision.
Table 2. Design: Sample and Logger Distribution - Design
Actual distribution - Meets nearly 90/15 C.V. =0.7 or 80/20 c.v.=1.0
Switch Type Boise Metro Twin Falls/Pocatello Total Precision
LCT 58 -- 58 90/15 for the LCT
units
DRU 54 58 112 Meets better than
90/15 for DRU
Total 112 58 170
Precision Meets better than
90/15 in Boise Metro
90/15 for the
TF/Pocatello area

Table 2 describes the sampling plan that was put in place in April 2012. Due to a variety of reasons such as
logger malfunction, misplacement, and removals, the actual number of loggers analyzed is 6.5% less than the
original sampling plan.

4

Table 3. Sample and Logger Distribution - Actual
Switch Type Boise Metro Twin Falls/Pocatello Total
LCT 53 -- 53
DRU 49 57 106
Total 102 57 159

In addition, 78 Hobo temperature loggers were distributed between the Twin Falls/Pocatello and Boise Metro samples to measure rise in indoor air temperature during curtailment events. However, eight of the loggers were
either lost by the home owners and were not recovered or the data was unusable. The final distribution of Hobo loggers is shown below.

Table 4. Hobo Logger Distribution - Actual
Switch Type Boise Metro Twin Falls/Pocatello Total
LCT 5 -- 5
DRU 34 31 65
Total 39 31 70

Participant Recruitment
PECI, with cooperation from Idaho Power staff, selected a random sample from the entire installed population of A/C Cool Credit program participants. Idaho Power sent a letter to these participants notifying them that they may
be requested to be included in an evaluation of the A/C Cool Credit program. From this random sample, PECI called potential participants and asked if they were willing to participate. To protect the integrity of the sample,
participants were not allowed to participate in the study unless they were called by PECI. Participants agreed to allow PECI to install a small data collection device on their A/C unit, along with a temperature sensor near the
indoor thermostat. PECI successfully recruited all participants from the lists provided.
Adjusting Compressor kW for Outside Air Temperature
Outside air (OSA) temperature was also recorded at the same time as the compressor kW measurements. OSA temperature measurements were used to adjust the kW values to account for increases in the compressor kW
demand during the hotter temperatures during curtailment events. The adjustment factor used to account for changes in compressor demand is based on a study that Paragon Consulting conducted on the relationship
between OSA and compressor demand1. Paragon analyzed 130 AC units, recording demand data over a range of temperature values for each unit. This data was used to regress the relationship between compressor kW and
OSA. The study found that for every degree increase in OSA, the compressor demand increased by 0.0164 kW. The kW of each compressor was calculated using the following equation:

Where:
Tt = OSA temperature at time (t)
Ti = OSA temperature at the time of the onsite spot measurement kWt is the kW of the compressor at time (t) kWi is the kW of the compressor at the time of the onsite spot measurement
1 Paragon Consulting (2006), “Residential Air Conditioning Load Management Program M&V Report: Nevada Power Company.”
5
Baseline Data
For the AMI and ON/OFF logger analysis, the load reduction achieved during load curtailments was calculated by comparing the average load from each curtailment day against the average load developed from non-curtailment
days selected for the baseline. The “previous days” approach was used, which utilizes the average load data from the previous 10 non-weekend, non-curtailment days. Baseline kW was calculated as the average of the three
days with the greatest demand from these previous ten non-curtailment days, as ranked by the highest hourly demand occurring during the curtailment timeframe. Curtailment days normally occur on hot, high demand days,
thus selecting high demand days for the baseline ensures a similar load profile is used for the baseline days as the curtailment days.
The selection of baseline days for indoor air temperature analysis was conducted in a slightly different way.
Singular baseline days were selected based on the closest average temperature during the curtailment event window.
Offset Factor
In order to effectively compare baseline and curtailment day loads, the baseline load was adjusted using an offset
factor, calculated as the difference in kW between the baseline and curtailment event day load during the hour prior to the start of the curtailment. The offset factor was applied to the baseline day to “normalize” the baseline
kW to the curtailment day kW. The offset factor mitigates underlying differences in load due to slight differences in outdoor temperature or other external factors. The same approach was used for the indoor air temperature
analysis.
Predictive Model
The “IPC Curtailment Calculator” was developed with the aim of providing IPC with a tool for estimating demand reduction levels based on temperature and cycling percentage inputs. The calculator is Excel-based and driven
by regression formulas developed in the SAS analytics program. The methodology for developing the regressions in SAS incorporated the following steps:
1. Using the “Average kW per unit” results from the AMI data analysis, the following variables were analyzed to
determine the strength of correlation between the variable and the “Average kW per unit” result. Strength of
correlation was defined by the variables’ “r-squared” value.
a. Temperature at start of curtailment event
b. Curtailment event day high temperature
c. Percent cycling
d. Previous day high temperature
e. Previous night low temperature
f. Length of event
g. Start time
h. All combinations of the variables listed above
2. A regression formula was developed for both regions (Boise Metro & Pocatello/Twin Falls) based on the
independent variables of “Temperature at start of curtailment event,” “Percent cycling,” and the interactive
effect of the two variables. While other independent variables did have higher r-squared values (e.g. start
time), further data investigation indicated that the high correlation was due to chance and inclusion of the
variables in the regression would not be a valid approach.
3. The Excel-based calculator was developed using the regression formula for each region. Users can input
expected temperature at start of curtailment event and percent cycling, and the calculator will provide an
estimated kW reduction per unit and total MW for the population of program participants. Alternatively, users
can input temperature and a requested MW reduction amount, and the calculator will estimate the percent
cycling required to achieve the requested MW reduction.
6
The Curtailment Calculator’s regression formula is based on the “Average kW per unit” metric, and not “Max kW per unit.” This is because the “Max kW per unit” metric does not produce statistically significant results in a
regression based on the independent variables of “Temperature at start of curtailment event,” “Percent cycling,” and the interaction between the two. Whereas the regression based on “Average kW per unit” is statistically
significant for those variables at the 95% confidence level for both regions’ model, the regression based on “Max kW per unit” is not statistically significant for those variables. That is, when using “Max kW per unit” as the
dependent variable, it is unclear whether the three independent variables analyzed impact estimated kW reduction in a positive or negative way. To enable Idaho Power to use the calculator to estimate max kW per unit
for planning purposes, the relationship between the average and max kW was analyzed. The average variance between the two measured values was 11%, that is to say, on average, the max kW reduction was 11% larger
than the average kW reduction. For the Curtailment Calculator, the average kW returned by the model is scaled up by 11% to estimate the max kW reduction for a planned event. This methodology is sufficient for planning
purposes but should not replace post event evaluation.
Curtailment plan
A curtailment plan was provided to Idaho Power as a guide to gathering data for developing the predictive model. Weather and system operation were acknowledged variables that would impact the execution of curtailments.
Boise Metropolitan Area Curtailment Plan
The curtailment plan for the Boise Metropolitan area is shown in Table 1. It also shows the minimum number of
events for each temperature and cycling strategy combination. PECI set a goal for a minimum number of baseline days where IPC did not curtail at a given temperature to compare to the event days. It was expected that IPC would likely exceed the number of baseline days targeted but a minimum number was specified to ensure these observations were captured in addition to the curtailment events.

Table 5. 2012 Curtailment Plan – Boise Metro Area
Cycling Percent <90° 90-94° 95-99° >100° Total
100 1 (one
hour)
1
80 2 2
75 1 3 4
70 3 3 1 7
65 3 1 4
60 2 2
55 0
50 0
Min Target Baseline Day (0%) 6 6 2 14
Max events called 1 6 9 4 20

As shown in Table 1, PECI asked IPC to execute one single event at 100% in the Boise Metro area. In order to reduce potential customer impacts, this event was called at a temperature between 87 and 90 degrees and for
only one hour. On baseline days at the various target temperature ranges, IPC would intentionally avoid curtailments.
For the remaining events, the curtailment period followed the typical curtailment window of 3 hours between 4PM
and 7PM. For each temperature bin, the requested curtailment events/levels were:
 90 to 94 degrees: Six (6) total events.
 Two (2) events executed at 80% cycling;
7
 One (1) at 75% and
 Three (3) would be executed at 70% cycling.
 Six (6) baseline days were also requested.
 95 to 99 degrees: Nine (9) total events.
 Three (3) events executed at 75% cycling,
 Three (3) would be executed at 70% cycling, and
 Three (3) at 65%.
 Six (6) baseline days were also requested.

 Greater than 100 degrees. Four (4) total events.
 One (1) event executed at 70% cycling;
 One (1) at 75% and
 Two (2) would be executed at 60% cycling.
 Two (2) baseline days were also requested. To ensure the total number of baseline and curtailment days at each temperature bin was realistic, PECI cross-checked the number with the average number of days reaching those high temperatures over the past five years.
Table 2 summarizes the number of weekdays in each temperature bin for the Boise Metro area. The average number of weekdays where temperatures reach 100 degrees or more is five, unless it was a temperate year like
2011, in which there were no 100 degree weekdays.
Table 6. Frequency of Week Day High Temperatures from 2007-2011 – Boise Metro Area
Year Less than 80° 80-89° 90-94° 95-99° Greater than 100°
2007 6 17 10 24 9
2008 10 17 20 13 5
2009 16 16 15 14 5
2010 20 17 13 11 5
2011 17 16 15 18 0
Average 14 17 15 16 5

Twin Falls/Pocatello Area Curtailment Plan
The curtailment plan for the Twin Falls/Pocatello area is shown in Table 3. Table 3 shows the minimum number of events for each temperature and cycling strategy combination.

8
Table 7. 2012 Curtailment Plan –Twin Falls/Pocatello Metro Area
Cycling Percent <90° 90-94° 95-99° >100° Total
100 1 1
80 1 5 6
75 2 2
70 5 2 7
65 2 2
60 1 1
55 0
50 0
Min Target Baseline Day (0%) 1 6 3 1 11
Max events called 2 10 6 1 19
As shown in Table 3, PECI asked IPC to execute one single event at 100% in the Twin Falls /Pocatello area. This
event was to be called at a temperature between 87 and 90 degrees and for only one hour.
For the remaining events, the curtailment period followed the typical curtailment window of 3 hours between 4PM and 7PM. For each temperature bin, the required curtailment events/levels were:
 90 to 94 degrees: Ten (10) total events.
 Five (5) events executed at 80% cycling, and
 Five (5) executed at 70% cycling.
 Six (6) baseline days were also requested.
 95 to 99 degrees: Six (6) total events.
 Two (2) events executed at 75% cycling,
 Two (2) executed at 70% cycling, and
 Two (2) executed at 65% cycling.
 Three (3) baseline days were also requested.

 Greater than 100 degrees. One (1) event at temperatures over 100 degrees.
 This event would be executed at 60% cycling.
 One (1) baseline day was also requested.
To ensure that the total number of baseline and curtailment days at each temperature bin was realistic for the
Twin Falls/ Pocatello area, PECI cross-checked the number with the average number of days reaching those high temperatures over the past five years. Table 4 summarizes the number of weekdays in each temperature bin for
the Twin Falls/Pocatello area. Twin Falls and Pocatello typically experience slightly cooler temperatures than Boise Metro. As such, we only included one event day and one baseline day when temperatures reach 100
degrees.
9
Table 8. Frequency of Week Day High Temperatures from 2007-2011 – Twin Falls/Pocatello Area
Year Less than 80° 80-89° 90-94° 95-99° Greater than 100°
2007 7 21 21 13 4
2008 11 25 20 8 1
2009 20 24 11 11 0
2010 22 18 18 6 2
2011 15 22 24 5 0
Average 15 22 19 9 1

To facilitate event tracking, PECI developed a checklist to track the curtailment combinations during the summer in the Boise Metro and Twin Falls/Pocatello areas, shown in Attachment A.

Data Collection
kW Measurements
The demand reduction analysis used a baseline day methodology, comparing the demand during the event day
against the demand of similar baseline days. In order to collect demand reduction data, DENT Instrument’s SMARTlogger™ series CTlogger™ were used to record the on/off state of the A/C compressor in each home
selected for the Measurement and Verification (M&V) sample. The loggers continually monitored the signal of a split core current transformer (CT) clamped around the electrical supply wire to the A/C compressor unit. At the
time of the logger installation, spot measurements of the demand (kW) of the A/C compressor were taken at unit start-up and after the unit had been operating for 10 minutes. Following the end of the curtailment season, the
data loggers were retrieved and the A/C compressor run-time data was combined with measured A/C kW data to determine 5-minute average kW loads for each A/C unit. The compressor run-time data was converted to a
percentage run time for 5-minute intervals. Multiplying the percentage run-time for each five minute interval by the kW value measured at the time of logger installation gave 5-minute average demand values for each compressor.
These 5-minute average loads were used to determine kW load reduction during curtailment events as compared to baseline kW load.
Outdoor Temperature Data
Weather data, sourced from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), for both the baseline and curtailment days was incorporated into the load profile charts of the Load Management Model. The
temperature patterns on the curtailment event and baseline days provide an indication of the effect of ambient temperature on the load of the air conditioners, and in most cases, demonstrate a high level of similarity of
temperatures between curtailment event and baseline days. This data is also incorporated into the regression models. For the Twin Falls/Pocatello area, the Pocatello temperatures were used. The NOAA data varied slightly
from the target temperatures provided by Idaho Power. Since they are separate data sets, the slight differences are likely due to micro climate variations where the data was collected.
Indoor Air Temperature Measurements
In order to analyze the effects of curtailment events on indoor air temperature in participating homes, indoor air
temperature during curtailment days was compared to the indoor air temperature in homes during a selected baseline day. Singular baseline days for the indoor air temperature analysis were selected by taking the day with
the closest average outdoor air temperature to the curtailment event day during the curtailment event window.
The baseline day was selected from the 10 previous non-weekend, non-curtailment days. Indoor air temperature data was collected using the U-series HOBO loggers. A total of 78 HOBO loggers were installed in sample participants’ home near the indoor thermostat. The HOBO loggers recorded the indoor temperature in 5-minute
intervals throughout the summer curtailment season.
10
AMI Meter Data
Idaho Power also provided the hourly AMI meter data for the census of A/C Cool Credit participants for the curtailment months for analysis.
Results
Curtailment Events
Using the curtailment plan developed by PECI, Idaho Power executed curtailment events. In some cases deviations from the plan were necessary. On July 11th and 12th, Idaho Power was expecting high system loads.
System Operators staggered the start times of the A/C Cool Credit participants. One group was curtailed for three hours beginning at 4:00pm and the second was curtailed for three hours beginning at 5:00pm. In addition,
the curtailment plan did not include curtailments at 50% but concerns for customer comfort motivated program staff to request events at this level to be included in the research. Table 9 below details the curtailments
executed for the 2012 season.
Table 9. 2012 Executed Control Events
Date
Boise Metro
Temp (hi) TF/Pocatello Temp (hi)
Control Event Start Time
Control Event End Time Cycling Percent Length (hrs.) Event Notes
6/21/2012 95 89 16:00 19:00 65% 3
7/2/2012 95 89 17:00 18:00 100% 1 Only partial event
7/11/2012 99 94 16:00 20:00 60% 4* 2 Staggered groups
7/12/2012 106 99 16:00 20:00 60% 4* 2 Staggered groups
7/19/2012 104 95 16:00 19:00 65% 3
7/25/2012 97 90 16:00 19:00 50% 3
7/31/2012 97 94 17:00 19:00 70% 2 Two hour event
8/13/2012 97 93 16:00 19:00 50% 3
8/16/2012 93 92 16:00 19:00 75% 3
8/20/2012 94 86 16:00 19:00 65% 3
8/22/2012 90 89 17:00 18:00 100% 1 One hour event
* Note: Individual customers were curtailed for three hours. The event from the system view lasted four hours
Table 10. 2012 Executed Control Events - Boise Metro Area
Cycling Percent <90° 90-94° 95-99° >99° Total
100 22-Aug 2-Jul 2
80 0
75 16-Aug 1
70 31-Jul 1
65 20-Aug 21-Jun 19-Jul 3
60 11-Jul 12-Jul 2
55 0
50 25-Jul, 13-Aug 2
Total events called 0 3 6 2 11

11
Table 11. 2012 Executed Control Events – Twin Falls /Pocatello Area
Cycling Percent <90° 90-94° 95-99° >99° Total
100 2-Jun,
22-Aug 2
80 0
75 16-Aug 1
70 31-Jul 1
65 21-Jun, 20-Aug 19-Jul 3
60 11-Jul 12-Jul 2
55 0
50 25-Jul, 13-Aug 2
Total events called 4 5 2 0 11

Demand Reduction Analysis Results
Verification of AMI Data for Estimating Results
One of the goals of the research was to verify AMI data for estimating demand reduction from curtailment events. There are several benefits to using AMI data.
 Data from virtually all program participants can be utilized in estimating the demand reduction.
 By taking a census of the participants, sampling error is no longer a consideration.
 The data is available immediately after events making verification of results possible within days of the event
as opposed to waiting until after the curtailment season to retrieve loggers from the field.
Logger Data vs. AMI Data
This research evaluates data from two different sources: data from loggers that were installed at a sample of
participant’s homes, and AMI meter data that is automatically collected from a census of participants in the study. The main differences between these sources are as follows:
 Sample size: Loggers are installed on a sample of the population of participants, introducing sampling error,
where the AMI meter data represents a census of the population.
 Load measurement: Loggers measure A/C unit power, while AMI data represents the full home’s power load.
Both of these measurements can be used to estimate kW reduction that results from a curtailment event. AMI
data however, also captures any behavioral impacts resulting from curtailments. For example, some
homeowners may realize they are in a curtailment event and reduce usage further or they may turn on fans or
portable air conditioning units.
 Cost of installation: Loggers must be placed and removed each season they are used. There are costs
associated with the technical expertise for properly installing and removing the loggers as well as rental costs
for the loggers themselves. The AMI meters are already installed and used for billing purposes.
 Data upload: Loggers must be individually connected to a computer and data must be uploaded one home at
a time. It is easier to access AMI data.
Even though the AMI meters and loggers measure slightly different parameters, these sources produce similar
estimations of energy reduction per curtailment event. This is illustrated in Figure 4 and Figure 3. In these figures, the blue bars represent the kW reduction that is calculated using AMI data, while the red points represent the kW
reduction that is calculated using logger data. Since the logger data is gathered from a sample of the population, there is a sampling precision associated with this data. The black bars represent this sampling precision, which is
12
±15% for the logger data. It is important to note that since AMI meters and loggers measure slightly different parameters (one is whole house energy and the other is just the AC unit), the kW reduction is not expected to be
exactly the same using both datasets. This means that the precision bars are not expected to overlap with the AMI data in all cases. However, these figures do illustrate the fact that calculating kW reduction using AMI or
logger data provides results that are approximate, further confirming the reliability of the AMI data.
It is clear that AMI data is reliable, cost effective, and produces more immediate feedback than gathering data through loggers. PECI recommends using only AMI data for all subsequent analyses of this Demand Response
program.

Figure 3. Maximum kW Reduction per Curtailment Event

0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
Max kW
Reduction
AMI
Loggers
13
Figure 4. Average kW Reduction per Curtailment Event

Results from both data sets are used to investigate unexpected results from the 2012 season. The data from the two sources have very different profiles when graphed. The AMI data appears smooth, while the data from the
loggers appears jagged. This difference is due to the time interval of the measurements. The AMI data is obtained hourly while the logger data is keyed to shorter time intervals of five minutes.
Individual Event Results
Table 12 summarizes the AMI data analysis results for each curtailment. Figure 5 shows an overview of the results for each curtailment event. Because temperatures in Boise Metro differ from the Twin Falls/Pocatello
area, they are treated as separate events. The curtailment plan targeted events to take place in different temperature bins, the different bins are color coded. Each event is a unique occurrence as the events were called at different percentages and some at different time intervals. Each event is discussed in detail in the
following section.
Results from both data sets are used to investigate unexpected results from the 2012 season. The data from the
two sources have very different profiles when graphed. The AMI data appears smooth, while the data from the loggers appears jagged. This difference is due to the time interval of the measurements. The AMI data is obtained hourly while the logger data is keyed to shorter time intervals of five minutes.

0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
Avg kW
Reduction
AMI
Loggers
14
Table 12. 2012 Summary Results of Executed Control Events
Date/
High Temp
%
Curtail
Data
source Region
Max kW
Reduction
Avg. kW
Reduction
21-Jun
Boise Metro: 95
TF/POC: 89 65%
AMI All 0.50 0.46
AMI Boise Metro 0.51 0.47
AMI Twin Falls/Pocatello 0.44 0.40
2-Jul
Boise Metro: 95
TF/POC: 89 100%
AMI All 0.25 0.25
AMI Boise Metro 0.28 0.28
AMI Twin Falls/Pocatello 0.02 0.02
11-Jul
Boise Metro: 99
TF/POC: 94
60%
AMI All 0.33 0.12
AMI Boise Metro 0.44 0.21
AMI Twin Falls/Pocatello -0.24 -0.49
12-Jul
Boise Metro: 106
TF/POC: 99 60%
AMI All 1.09 0.71
AMI Boise Metro 1.14 0.75
AMI Twin Falls/Pocatello 0.69 0.45
19-Jul
Boise Metro: 104
TF/POC: 95 65%
AMI All 0.95 0.89
AMI Boise Metro 0.99 0.92
AMI Twin Falls/Pocatello 0.66 0.65
25-Jul
Boise Metro: 97
TF/POC: 90 50%
AMI All 0.37 0.34
AMI Boise Metro 0.35 0.31
AMI Twin Falls/Pocatello 0.64 0.57
31-Jul
Boise Metro: 97
TF/POC: 94 70%
AMI All 0.89 0.84
AMI Boise Metro 0.89 0.84
AMI Twin Falls/Pocatello 0.90 0.83
13-Aug
Boise Metro: 97
TF/POC: 93 50%
AMI All 0.40 0.33
AMI Boise Metro 0.40 0.32
AMI Twin Falls/Pocatello 0.44 0.38
16-Aug
Boise Metro: 93
TF/POC: 92 75%
AMI All 0.80 0.76
AMI Boise Metro 0.83 0.79
AMI Twin Falls/Pocatello 0.59 0.56
20-Aug
Boise Metro: 94
TF/POC: 85 65%
AMI All 0.57 0.54
AMI Boise Metro 0.58 0.55
AMI Twin Falls/Pocatello 0.52 0.47
22-Aug
Boise Metro: 90
TF/POC: 87 100%
AMI All 0.85 0.85
AMI Boise Metro 0.86 0.86
AMI Twin Falls/Pocatello 0.75 0.75

The curtailment plan organized requested events by temperature bin. Figure 5 below shows the curtailment results are organized by date and are indexed by temperature bin. Only event data used in development of the
predictive tool are shown below. On each curtailment event day, the temperatures in the Boise Metro and Twin Falls/Pocatello areas are different; therefore, they are treated in the development of the predictive model as
separate events entirely. In the table, each day has two events at different temperatures.
15
Figure 5. Curtailment Results by Temperature Bin
NOTE: Data from June 21, July 2, July 11 and July 25 is not included due to data anomalies described in the demand reduction results by event section.
June 21st Curtailment
One of the goals of the research was to verify the adaptive algorithm imbedded in the DRU devices was working
as designed. Although the details of the algorithm are proprietary, the purpose of the adaptive algorithm is to reduce free ridership of program participants by taking into account previous runtime of the A/C unit when
calculating the amount of time the A/C can run during a curtailment period. This is the only event where the devices relied on the adaptive algorithm. As a result of this curtailment, more was learned about how the device
operates in Idaho Power’s climate. After this curtailment, it was determined that utilizing a capped methodology for determining runtime, more similar to the LCT units, which does not consider previous runtime of the A/C unit is
preferred to maintain consumer comfort and offer predictability of load shed to Idaho Power.
The event called on June 21st was executed at a temperature of 96 degrees in Boise Metro with a 65% curtailment strategy. For the LCT’s, the curtailment was based on the number of available minutes in the event, a
65% curtailment prevents the device from running 65% of the time. The DRU’s however, considered previous runtime when calculating the amount of time the device is allowed to run. The maximum kW reduction for a single
hour during the curtailment demonstrates more reduction from the adaptive algorithm. The DRU devices yielded a maximum single hour reduction of 1.38kW and the LCTs delivered 0.85kW maximum kW reduction.
Although Idaho Power determined they would use a capped methodology for controlling the switches, the data
from this event was examined to determine if a difference could be seen between the LCT units and the DRU units. Below are the graphs from the Boise Metro area only. The Twin Falls/Pocatello region has only DRU units.
By comparing only the Boise Metro population, some variables are reduced.
Note that the y-axis (range of demand) scale on the graphs below varies based on the number of loggers or homes included in each analysis. The number of loggers/homes analyzed is dependent on the data source
(logger or AMI data) and the curtailment event date. Table 13 below details the number of loggers/homes included in each graph. The June 21st curtailment event analysis included less than 100% of potential loggers
because not all of the loggers were installed on the earliest baseline day (June 12th) for that event. Only loggers that were installed prior to that day were included in the analysis for June 21st.

0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
1.20
7/12
60%
7/12
60%
7/19
65%
7/19
65%
7/31
70%
7/31
70%
8/13
50%
8/13
50%
8/16
75%
8/16
75%
8/20
65%
8/20
65%
8/22
100%
8/22
100%
Avg kW
Reduction
per unit
Curtailment Date & Percent Curtailed
>99 degrees F
95-99 degrees F
90-94 degrees F
<90 degrees F
Bo
i
s
e
TF
/
P
o
c
Bo
i
s
e
Bo
i
s
e
Bo
i
s
e
Bo
i
s
e
Bo
i
s
e
Bo
i
s
e
TF
/
P
o
c
TF
/
P
o
c
TF
/
P
o
c
TF
/
P
o
c
TF
/
P
o
c
TF
/
P
o
c
16

Table 13. Loggers/Homes Analyzed by Curtailment Event
Date Data Source Boise Metro Twin Falls/Pocatello Loggers/Homes Analyzed Percent of
Total
21-Jun Loggers - DRU 9 57 66
Loggers - LCT 12 -- 12
Loggers - All 21 57 78 49%
All (except 21-Jun) Loggers - All 102 57 159 100%
All AMI 32,000 4,288 36,288 100%

Figure 6. June 21 Curtailment Results: Loggers – Boise Metro Region (DRU Only)

0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
-
5
10
15
20
25
2:
0
0

P
M
3:
0
0

P
M
4:
0
0

P
M
5:
0
0

P
M
6:
0
0

P
M
7:
0
0

P
M
8:
0
0

P
M
9:
0
0

P
M
Te
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e
kW
Time
Baseline Energy Curtailment Event Energy Curtailment Event Temp Baseline Temp
17
Figure 7. June 21 Curtailment Results: Loggers – Boise Metro Region (LCT Only)

Idaho Power determined that the adaptive algorithm was not the preferred way to control devices for their climate and after this event all DRU devices were reprogrammed to operate using the capped methodology. This
methodology does not differ from the operation of the LCTs. AMI data is utilized to analyze the remaining events, with some exceptions where more investigation was necessary.
July 2nd Curtailment
The curtailment scheduled on July 2nd was intended to be a one hour curtailment at 100%. Per the curtailment plan, 100% events were scheduled for temperatures less than 90 degrees and for only 1 hour durations to
minimize customer discomfort. On July 2nd, the temperature rose above 90 degrees so the event was canceled. However, only the DRU group was canceled, the LCT group did not get canceled. Since a curtailment event occurred, the data was analyzed, but is not included in the data for the predictive model. All LCT’s are located in
the Boise Metro region. Therefore the results for the Twin Falls/Pocatello region are not shown. Calling only the
LCTs yielded a single hour demand reduction of 0.28 kW per unit in the Boise Metro area. Since the event was only one hour long, this represents both the maximum and average demand reduction.

0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
-
5
10
15
20
25
2:
0
0

P
M
3:
0
0

P
M
4:
0
0

P
M
5:
0
0

P
M
6:
0
0

P
M
7:
0
0

P
M
8:
0
0

P
M
9:
0
0

P
M
Te
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e
kW
Time
Baseline Energy Curtailment Event Energy Curtailment Event Temp Baseline Temp
18
Figure 8. July 2 Curtailment Results: AMI – Boise Metro Region

0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
-
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
3:
0
0

P
M
4:
0
0

P
M
5:
0
0

P
M
6:
0
0

P
M
7:
0
0

P
M
8:
0
0

P
M
Te
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e
kW
Time
Baseline Energy Curtailment Event Energy Curtailment Event Temp Baseline Temp
19
July 11th and 12th Curtailments
Back to back curtailments were called on July 11th and July 12th. July 12th was Idaho Power’s system peak day. The table below shows the temperatures on each day in both areas as well as the curtailment strategy. The
paging units (LCRs) were called to curtail from 4:00-7:00pm. The power line carrier devices (LCTs and DRUs) were controlled from 5:00-8:00pm.

Date
Boise
Metro
Hi Temp
Pocatello
Hi Temp Strategy Time
Max Demand
Reduction Boise
Metro (kW)
Max Demand
Reduction TF/Poc.
(kW)
July 11th 99 94 60%
LCRs 4-7pm,
LCTs/DRUs 5-8 pm 0.44 -0.24
July 12th 106 99 60%
LCRs 4-7pm,
LCTs/DRUs 5-8pm 1.14 0.69
Given the similar nature of the two events, the results were expected to produce similar patterns and load
reductions. However, according to the data, this was not the case. The figures below show the entire system results for the two days.

Figure 9. July 11 Curtailment Results: AMI – Both Regions

Figure 10. July 12 Curtailment Results: AMI – Both Regions

It appeared that on July 11, only the group called from 4:00-7:00 pm responded to the control event. As seen in both Figure 9 and Figure 10 above, it is evident that the total kW demand drops starting at 4pm. However, only
Figure 10 shows a further drop in demand at 5pm for when the second group is called. This suggests that the second group was not called during the July 11 curtailment event. To investigate this further, logger data from the
DRU’s and LCTs on July 11 was examined. The figures below show the curtailment results from the loggers placed in the Boise Metro area. The DRU’s show no response where the LCT devices clearly are activated at
5:00pm as intended.

0
20
40
60
80
100
-
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
160,000
2:0
0

P
M
3:0
0

P
M
4:0
0

P
M
5:0
0

P
M
6:0
0

P
M
7:0
0

P
M
8:0
0

P
M
9:0
0

P
M
Te
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e
kW
Time
Baseline Energy Curtailment Event Energy Curtailment Event Temp Baseline Temp
0
20
40
60
80
100
-
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
160,000
2:0
0

P
M
3:0
0

P
M
4:0
0

P
M
5:0
0

P
M
6:0
0

P
M
7:0
0

P
M
8:0
0

P
M
9:0
0

P
M
Te
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e
kW
Time
Baseline Energy Curtailment Event Energy Curtailment Event Temp Baseline Temp
20
Figure 11. July 11 Curtailment Results: Loggers – Boise Metro Region (DRU Only)

Figure 12. July 11 Curtailment Results: Loggers – Boise Metro Region (LCT Only)
The event called on July 12th resulted in a system wide average demand reduction for one hour of 1.09 kW per
participant. In the Boise Metro area, the average 1 hour max reduction was 1.14 kW and in the Twin Falls/Pocatello area it was 0.69 kW per participant.

0
20
40
60
80
100
-
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
2:
0
0

P
M
3:
0
0

P
M
4:
0
0

P
M
5:
0
0

P
M
6:
0
0

P
M
7:
0
0

P
M
8:
0
0

P
M
9:
0
0

P
M
Te
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e
kW
Time
Baseline Energy Curtailment Event Energy Curtailment Event Temp Baseline Temp
0
20
40
60
80
100
-
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
2:
0
0

P
M
3:
0
0

P
M
4:
0
0

P
M
5:
0
0

P
M
6:
0
0

P
M
7:
0
0

P
M
8:
0
0

P
M
9:
0
0

P
M
Te
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e
kW
Time
Baseline Energy Curtailment Event Energy Curtailment Event Temp Baseline Temp
21
July 19th Curtailment
As expected with the high temperature in Boise of 104° (and 96 in the Twin Falls/Pocatello area) for the July 19 curtailment, the 65% curtailment yielded a significant load shed for this timeframe. The event ran from 4:00-7:00
pm. The maximum kW reduction in the Boise Metro area was 0.99 kW and the maximum single hour kW reduction in the Twin Falls/Pocatello area was 0.66kW.

Figure 13. July 19 Curtailment Results: AMI – Boise Metro Region

0
20
40
60
80
100
-
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
160,000
2:
0
0

P
M
3:
0
0

P
M
4:
0
0

P
M
5:
0
0

P
M
6:
0
0

P
M
7:
0
0

P
M
8:
0
0

P
M
9:
0
0

P
M
Te
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e
kW
Time
Baseline Energy Curtailment Event Energy Curtailment Event Temp Baseline Temp
22
Figure 14. July 19 Curtailment Results: AMI – Twin Falls / Pocatello Region

July 31st Curtailment
On July 31st, a curtailment at 70% was executed, but because of concerns regarding customer comfort, the event was shortened to two hours. The maximum load reduction in the Boise Metro area was 0.89kW and the Twin
Falls/Pocatello area achieved a maximum kW reduction for a single hour of 0.90 kW. While the curtailment was at a high percentage, the measured increase in indoor air temperature in the Boise Metro area averaged only 0.53 degrees during the curtailment with a maximum increase of 1.09 degrees. A more complete discussion on the
indoor air temperature analysis is in the section titled “Indoor Temperature Analysis Results”

0
20
40
60
80
100
-
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
16,000
2:
0
0

P
M
3:
0
0

P
M
4:
0
0

P
M
5:
0
0

P
M
6:
0
0

P
M
7:
0
0

P
M
8:
0
0

P
M
9:
0
0

P
M
Te
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e
kW
Time
Baseline Energy Curtailment Event Energy Curtailment Event Temp Baseline Temp
23
Figure 15. July 31 Curtailment Results: AMI – Boise Metro Region

Figure 16. July 31 Curtailment Results: AMI – Twin Falls / Pocatello Region

0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
-
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
3:
0
0

P
M
4:
0
0

P
M
5:
0
0

P
M
6:
0
0

P
M
7:
0
0

P
M
8:
0
0

P
M
9:
0
0

P
M
Te
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e
kW
Time
Baseline Energy Curtailment Event Energy Curtailment Event Temp Baseline Temp
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
-
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
16,000
3:
0
0

P
M
4:
0
0

P
M
5:
0
0

P
M
6:
0
0

P
M
7:
0
0

P
M
8:
0
0

P
M
9:
0
0

P
M
Te
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e
kW
Time
Baseline Energy Curtailment Event Energy Curtailment Event Temp Baseline Temp
24
July 25th and August 13th Curtailments
The program team wished to gather data at a 50% curtailment and executed two events at this level, one on July 25th and one on August 13th. The overall results were very similar from a system perspective; however on July
25th the kW per unit achieved in the Twin Falls/Pocatello area is nearly twice as much as the Boise Metro area. This result was unexpected, especially since the temperature in Boise was higher and therefore A/C use was
expected to be higher.
Region
July 25th August 13th
Hi Temp Max kW Reduction Hi Temp Max kW Reduction
Boise Metro 97 0.35 97 0.40
TF/Pocatello 90 0.64 93 0.44

Figure 17and Figure 18 below show the system wide results for the curtailments on these two days. The overall
results appear similar; however the analysis of the individual events reveals unexpected differences.
Figure 17. July 25 Curtailment Results: AMI – Both Regions

Figure 18. August 13 Curtailment Results: AMI – Both Regions

Figure 19 – Figure 22 show the curtailment results both regions on these two days. It is important to note that the scale differs between individual graphs for the Boise Metro and Twin Falls/Pocatello regions; however, the
intensity of the load reductions should be similar. The difference can be seen when comparing Figure 19 and Figure 20.

Figure 19. July 25 Curtailment Results: AMI – Boise Metro Region

Figure 20. July 25 Curtailment Results: AMI – Twin Falls / Pocatello Region

0
20
40
60
80
100
-
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
160,000
2:0
0

P
M
3:0
0

P
M
4:0
0

P
M
5:0
0

P
M
6:0
0

P
M
7:0
0

P
M
8:0
0

P
M
9:0
0

P
M
Te
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e
kW
Time
Baseline Energy Curtailment Event Energy Curtailment Event Temp Baseline Temp
0
20
40
60
80
100
-
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
2:0
0

P
M
3:0
0

P
M
4:0
0

P
M
5:0
0

P
M
6:0
0

P
M
7:0
0

P
M
8:0
0

P
M
9:0
0

P
M
Te
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e
kW
Time
Baseline Energy Curtailment Event Energy Curtailment Event Temp Baseline Temp
0
20
40
60
80
100
-
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
160,000
2:0
0

P
M
3:0
0

P
M
4:0
0

P
M
5:0
0

P
M
6:0
0

P
M
7:0
0

P
M
8:0
0

P
M
9:0
0

P
M
Te
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e
kW
Time
Baseline Energy Curtailment Event Energy Curtailment Event Temp Baseline Temp
0
20
40
60
80
100
-
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
16,000
2:0
0

P
M
3:0
0

P
M
4:0
0

P
M
5:0
0

P
M
6:0
0

P
M
7:0
0

P
M
8:0
0

P
M
9:0
0

P
M
Te
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e
kW
Time
Baseline Energy Curtailment Event Energy Curtailment Event Temp Baseline Temp
25

The load reductions shown in Figure 21 and Figure 22 are in line with expectations as well as measured results from 2011.

Figure 21. August 13 Curtailment Results:
AMI – Boise Metro Region

Figure 22. August 13 Curtailment Results:
AMI – Twin Falls / Pocatello Region

Logger data was examined to see if there was an explanation for these results. The curtailment was executed at 50% which is close to the natural duty cycle of the A/C units. The LCT unit results (Figure 23) more clearly show
demand savings during this curtailment, however because the cycling is so close to the natural duty cycle the demand reduction is small. The DRU unit results are less clear, however this could be explained by variability in
the baseline days, localized cloud cover, and a high temperature of only 90 degrees. The combination of these factors contributes to the reduced savings that are visible in the analysis. One factor that does point to savings
reductions as a result of the units being controlled is an apparent “snap back” effect even where a demand reduction is less apparent. Analysis of the logger data from the Twin Falls/Pocatello area (Figure 25), which are
also DRU devices, shows a definite demand reduction during the curtailment event.

0
20
40
60
80
100
-
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
2:0
0

P
M
3:0
0

P
M
4:0
0

P
M
5:0
0

P
M
6:0
0

P
M
7:0
0

P
M
8:0
0

P
M
9:0
0

P
M
Te
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e
kW
Time
Baseline Energy Curtailment Event Energy Curtailment Event Temp Baseline Temp
0
20
40
60
80
100
-
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
2:0
0

P
M
3:0
0

P
M
4:0
0

P
M
5:0
0

P
M
6:0
0

P
M
7:0
0

P
M
8:0
0

P
M
9:0
0

P
M
Te
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e
kW
Time
Baseline Energy Curtailment Event Energy Curtailment Event Temp Baseline Temp
26
Figure 23. July 25 Curtailment Results: Loggers – Boise Metro Region (LCT Only)

Figure 24. July 25 Curtailment Results: Loggers – Boise Metro Region (DRU Only)

0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
-
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
2:
0
0

P
M
3:
0
0

P
M
4:
0
0

P
M
5:
0
0

P
M
6:
0
0

P
M
7:
0
0

P
M
8:
0
0

P
M
9:
0
0

P
M
Te
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e
kW
Time
Baseline Energy Curtailment Event Energy Curtailment Event Temp Baseline Temp
27
Figure 25. July 25 Curtailment Results: Loggers – Twin Falls / Pocatello Region

August 16th and August 20th Curtailments
The August 16 load curtailment event executed at 75% shows a reasonable kW reduction in both areas relative to temperature. The event on August 20th executed at 65% yielded a smaller demand reduction as expected.

Date
Boise Metro
Hi Temp
TF/Poc Hi
Temp Times % Curtail
Max kW
Reduction
Boise
Metro
Max kW
Reduction
TF/Poc
Aug 16 93 92 4-7 pm 75% 0.83 0.59
Aug 20 94 86 4-7 pm 65% 0.57 0.52
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
-
20
40
60
80
100
120
2:
0
0

P
M
3:
0
0

P
M
4:
0
0

P
M
5:
0
0

P
M
6:
0
0

P
M
7:
0
0

P
M
8:
0
0

P
M
9:
0
0

P
M
Te
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e
kW
Time
Baseline Energy Curtailment Event Energy Curtailment Event Temp Baseline Temp
28

Figure 26 August 16 Curtailment Results

Figure 27 August 20 Curtailment Results

0
20
40
60
80
100
-
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
2:
0
0

P
M
3:
0
0

P
M
4:
0
0

P
M
5:
0
0

P
M
6:
0
0

P
M
7:
0
0

P
M
8:
0
0

P
M
9:
0
0

P
M
Te
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e
kW
Time
Baseline Energy Curtailment Event Energy Curtailment Event Temp Baseline Temp
0
20
40
60
80
100
-
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
2:
0
0

P
M
3:
0
0

P
M
4:
0
0

P
M
5:
0
0

P
M
6:
0
0

P
M
7:
0
0

P
M
8:
0
0

P
M
9:
0
0

P
M
Te
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e
kW
Time
Baseline Energy Curtailment Event Energy Curtailment Event Temp Baseline Temp
29

August 22nd Curtailment
The final curtailment event for the season was at 100% for one hour. Since the first 100% event had been canceled prior to full execution, a second event was called on August 22. The curtailment was intentionally
executed at a low temperature to minimize any customer comfort impacts of a complete load shed. In spite of a relatively low temperature for a curtailment, the data shows good load reduction for the shed event. The event
was conducted between 5:00 and 6:00pm and achieved a maximum kW reduction in Boise Metro of 0.86kW and 0.75 kW in the Twin Falls/Pocatello Area.

Figure 28. August 22 Curtailment Results: AMI – Boise Metro Region

0
20
40
60
80
100
-
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
3:
0
0

P
M
4:
0
0

P
M
5:
0
0

P
M
6:
0
0

P
M
7:
0
0

P
M
8:
0
0

P
M
Te
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e
kW
Time
Baseline Energy Curtailment Event Energy Curtailment Event Temp Baseline Temp
30
Figure 29. August 22 Curtailment Results: AMI – Twin Falls / Pocatello Region

Indoor Temperature Analysis Results
A potential concern of running demand response events that curtail customers’ A/C units is the impact on indoor air temperature (IAT) and occupant comfort in the home during the curtailment event. To understand how much
IAT is impacted during the curtailment event, temperature loggers were installed in a subset of participants’ homes. The resulting data from the IAT loggers was analyzed to investigate how much IAT increased as a result
of the homes’ A/C units being cycled.
This analysis was completed for both the Boise Metro and Twin Falls / Pocatello region participants. The average temperature increases for the Boise Metro population is shown in Figure 30 below, and the maximum temperature
increase is shown in Figure 31. The IAT increase per curtailment event was 0.55°F on average and ranged from -0.14°F to 1.49°F. The maximum temperature increase was 1.01°F on average and ranged from 0.23°F to 2.39°F.
This sort of variation is well within the range of temperatures reported on Idaho Power’s online FAQ2 which states that “participants in the program in 2003-2004 experienced an overall average increase in home temperature of
less than two degrees” and that “nearly 90 percent of homes experienced less than a four-degree temperature increase.”

2 http://www.idahopower.com/EnergyEfficiency/Residential/Programs/ACCoolCredit/ACfaqs.cfm#14
0
20
40
60
80
100
-
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
3:
0
0

P
M
4:
0
0

P
M
5:
0
0

P
M
6:
0
0

P
M
7:
0
0

P
M
8:
0
0

P
M
Te
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e
kW
Time
Baseline Energy Curtailment Event Energy Curtailment Event Temp Baseline Temp
31
Figure 30. Average IAT Increase

Figure 31. Max IAT Increase

It is evident that increases in IAT are correlated to outside air temperature, percent curtailment, and the length of the curtailment. The event on July 12th illustrates a high outside air temperature scenario; the high temperature
on that day was 106 degrees, and consequently, the event on that day provided the largest change in IAT. Figure 32 shows the plot of indoor air temperature for July 12th. The red line shows the baseline temperature and the
blue line indicates the temperature for the curtailment day.
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
100
105
110
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
7/12
60%
7/12
60%
7/19
65%
7/19
65%
7/31
70%
7/31
70%
8/13
50%
8/13
50%
8/16
75%
8/16
75%
8/20
65%
8/20
65%
8/22
100%
8/22
100%
Outdoor
Air Temp
Change in
Indoor
Air Temp
Avg IAT Increase (°F)CE day high (°F)
Bo
i
s
e
Bo
i
s
e
Bo
i
s
e
Bo
i
s
e
Bo
i
s
e
Bo
i
s
e
TF
/
P
o
c
TF
/
P
o
c
TF
/
P
o
c
TF
/
P
o
c
TF
/
P
o
c
TF
/
P
o
c
TF
/
P
o
c
Bo
i
s
e
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
100
105
110
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
7/12
60%
7/12
60%
7/19
65%
7/19
65%
7/31
70%
7/31
70%
8/13
50%
8/13
50%
8/16
75%
8/16
75%
8/20
65%
8/20
65%
8/22
100%
8/22
100%
Outdoor
Air Temp
Change in
Indoor
Air Temp
Max IAT Increase (°F)CE day high (°F)
Bo
i
s
e
Bo
i
s
e
Bo
i
s
e
Bo
i
s
e
Bo
i
s
e
Bo
i
s
e
TF
/
P
o
c
TF
/
P
o
c
TF
/
P
o
c
TF
/
P
o
c
TF
/
P
o
c
TF
/
P
o
c
TF
/
P
o
c
Bo
i
s
e
32
The event on August 22nd shows the effects of a very short curtailment in low temperature conditions. Even
though participants were curtailed at 100%, the average IAT increase was close to 0, and the max was around 0.25 degrees. This is because the curtailment period only lasted one hour and the temperature in Boise Metro
and the Pocatello / Twin Falls area was low compared to other event days.
July 31st is also of interest as the curtailment was shortened due to concerns regarding customer comfort. Figure 34 shows the indoor air temperature variation on that day in Boise Metro. As shown in the chart, indoor air
temperature was 0.8 degrees above the baseline scenario during the curtailment. Since the baseline model is consistently about 1 degree higher than the actual indoor air temperature, we also compared the maximum
temperature rise from the temperature right before the curtailment period. That comparison only resulted in a 1.8 degree increase in indoor air temperature.

Figure 32. July 12th IAT Increase: Boise Metro

72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
10
:
0
0

A
M
12
:
0
0

P
M
2:
0
0

P
M
4:
0
0

P
M
6:
0
0

P
M
8:
0
0

P
M
10
:
0
0

P
M
Indoor Air
Temperature
(degrees F)
Curtailment Event Day Baseline Day
2.4
deg F
33
Figure 33. July 12th IAT Increase: Twin Falls / Pocatello

Figure 34. July 31st IAT Increase: Boise Metro

73.5
74
74.5
75
75.5
76
76.5
77
77.5
78
78.5
79
10
:
0
0

A
M
12
:
0
0

P
M
2:
0
0

P
M
4:
0
0

P
M
6:
0
0

P
M
8:
0
0

P
M
10
:
0
0

P
M
Indoor Air
Temperature
(degrees F)
CE_TEMP BL_TEMP
1.7
deg F
73
73.5
74
74.5
75
75.5
76
76.5
77
77.5
78
11
:
0
0

A
M
1:
0
0

P
M
3:
0
0

P
M
5:
0
0

P
M
7:
0
0

P
M
9:
0
0

P
M
11
:
0
0

P
M
Indoor Air
Temperature
(degrees F)
CE_TEMP BL_TEMP
0.8
deg F
1.8
deg F
34
Conclusions
PECI conducted research on behalf of Idaho Power to identify optimal curtailment strategies to meet cost-effectiveness targets and develop a predictive model that correlates weather forecasts with achievable kW load
shifts from curtailment events.
The goals of this research were to:
 Verify that savings can be estimated using AMI data.
 Verify the adaptive algorithm is working as designed.
 Estimate kW reductions at different temperatures and cycling strategies.
 Create a predictive model for planning purposes.
 Test the comfort impacts of higher cycling strategies to find the optimum curtailment strategy that
maximizes kW results with minimum comfort impacts.
The research successfully addressed these research goals.
The analysis shows that AMI data can be used to reliably estimate demand reduction of curtailment events. Even though the AMI meters and loggers measure slightly different parameters, these sources produce similar
estimations of energy reduction per curtailment event. The AMI data is less expensive and faster to obtain, represents a census of the program population, and will take into account behavioral changes as a result of
curtailment events. PECI recommends that Idaho Power utilize their AMI data for future research, evaluating events in real time for program management, as well as impact evaluations.
The data collected also shows that the adaptive algorithm available in the DRU devices does work as designed.
While data from only one curtailment event was examined, the evidence supports this conclusion. The demand reduction achieved from the DRU devices was significantly larger than from the older LCT devices. The DRU
devices yielded a maximum single hour reduction of 1.38kW and the LCTs delivered 0.85kW maximum kW reduction. During the research, more was learned about how the algorithm calculates previous runtime. Idaho
Power has determined that this calculation results in more customer discomfort at the beginning of the cooling season and has decided not to use this feature at this time, relying instead on a capped methodology which limits
runtime based on the length of the curtailment event and not prior usage.
Using the data collected from the loggers as well as the AMI data provided by Idaho Power, demand reduction estimates are provided for each cycling event. Idaho Power program staff sought to optimize curtailment
strategies to balance the demand reduction and participant comfort. Therefore, the events executed during the 2012 curtailment season were conducted at different cycling strategies and outdoor high temperatures. The
curtailments executed were successful and no system failures were evident during the analysis. Human error was detected on two event days. The data from these days was not usable for creating the predictive model, but
the analysis can be used to detect errors and correct them for future events. Other general conclusions cannot be drawn regarding the events in total; however the entirety of the data is useful in creating a predictive model for
planning purposes.
PECI utilized the analysis from each cycling event to build a predictive tool for planning purposes. The “IPC Curtailment Calculator” was developed with the aim of providing IPC with a tool for estimating demand reduction
levels based on temperature and cycling percentage inputs. A regression formula was developed for both regions (Boise Metro & Pocatello/Twin Falls) based on the independent variables of “Temperature at start of curtailment
event,” “Percent cycling,” and the interactive effect of the two variables. The Excel-based calculator was then developed using the regression formula for each region. The regression formula is based on the “Average kW
per unit” metric, and not “Max kW per unit.” This is due to the fact that the “Max kW per unit” metric does not produce statistically significant results in a regression based on the independent variables of “Temperature at
start of curtailment event,” “Percent cycling,” and the interaction between the two. However, to enable Idaho Power to use the calculator to estimate max kW per unit for planning purposes, PECI analyzed the relationship
between the average and max kW. As a result, the average kW returned by the model is scaled up by 11% to estimate the max kW reduction for a planned event. This is sufficient for planning purposes but should not
35
replace post event evaluation. It is recommended that Idaho Power continue to collect data in future curtailment seasons to refine the model. It is possible, with more data points in the regression, the calculator can be revised
to predict “Max kW per unit” for planning purposes and eliminate the need to scale the results.
Higher cycling strategies do have an impact on indoor air temperature. These increases, on average, have minimal impacts to overall customer comfort. Individual homes may have higher impacts due to differences in
system design and the energy efficiency of the home. The IAT increase per curtailment event was 0.55°F on average and ranged from -0.14°F to 1.49°F. The maximum temperature increase was 1.01°F on average and
ranged from 0.23°F to 2.39°F. This sort of variation is well within the range of temperatures reported in Idaho Power’s program information.

36
Appendix
June 21 Curtailment:

Event Details:
Time: 4-7pm Notes: Devices were programmed to run the smart algorithm for this event
Curtailment: 65%
Region
Hi
Temp
AMI Data Logger Data
Ave. kW
Reduction
Max kW
Reduction
Ave. kW
Reduction
Max kW
Reduction
Boise Metro 95 0.47 0.51 0.78 0.92
Boise Metro (DRU) 95 N/A N/A 1.29 1.38
Boise Metro (LCT) 95 N/A N/A 0.72 0.85
TF/Pocatello 89 0.40 0.44 0.51 0.60
All 95 0.46 0.50 N/A N/A

Figure 35. June 21 Curtailment Results: AMI – Both Regions

0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
-
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
2:
0
0

P
M
3:
0
0

P
M
4:
0
0

P
M
5:
0
0

P
M
6:
0
0

P
M
7:
0
0

P
M
8:
0
0

P
M
9:
0
0

P
M
Te
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e
kW
Time
Baseline Energy Curtailment Event Energy Curtailment Event Temp Baseline Temp
37
Figure 36. June 21 Curtailment Results: AMI – Boise Metro Region

Figure 37. June 21 Curtailment Results: AMI – Twin Falls / Pocatello Region

0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
-
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
70,000
80,000
90,000
100,000
2:
0
0

P
M
3:
0
0

P
M
4:
0
0

P
M
5:
0
0

P
M
6:
0
0

P
M
7:
0
0

P
M
8:
0
0

P
M
9:
0
0

P
M
Te
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e
kW
Time
Baseline Energy Curtailment Event Energy Curtailment Event Temp Baseline Temp
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
-
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
2:
0
0

P
M
3:
0
0

P
M
4:
0
0

P
M
5:
0
0

P
M
6:
0
0

P
M
7:
0
0

P
M
8:
0
0

P
M
9:
0
0

P
M
Te
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e
kW
Time
Baseline Energy Curtailment Event Energy Curtailment Event Temp Baseline Temp
38
Figure 38. June 21 Curtailment Results: Loggers – Boise Metro Region

Figure 39. June 21 Curtailment Results: Loggers – Boise Metro Region (DRU Only)

0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
-
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
2:
0
0

P
M
3:
0
0

P
M
4:
0
0

P
M
5:
0
0

P
M
6:
0
0

P
M
7:
0
0

P
M
8:
0
0

P
M
9:
0
0

P
M
Te
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e
kW
Time
Baseline Energy Curtailment Event Energy Curtailment Event Temp Baseline Temp
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
-
5
10
15
20
25
2:
0
0

P
M
3:
0
0

P
M
4:
0
0

P
M
5:
0
0

P
M
6:
0
0

P
M
7:
0
0

P
M
8:
0
0

P
M
9:
0
0

P
M
Te
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e
kW
Time
Baseline Energy Curtailment Event Energy Curtailment Event Temp Baseline Temp
39
Figure 40. June 21 Curtailment Results: Loggers – Boise Metro Region (LCT Only)

Figure 41. June 21 Curtailment Results: Loggers – Twin Falls / Pocatello Region

0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
-
5
10
15
20
25
2:
0
0

P
M
3:
0
0

P
M
4:
0
0

P
M
5:
0
0

P
M
6:
0
0

P
M
7:
0
0

P
M
8:
0
0

P
M
9:
0
0

P
M
Te
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e
kW
Time
Baseline Energy Curtailment Event Energy Curtailment Event Temp Baseline Temp
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
-
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
2:
0
0

P
M
3:
0
0

P
M
4:
0
0

P
M
5:
0
0

P
M
6:
0
0

P
M
7:
0
0

P
M
8:
0
0

P
M
9:
0
0

P
M
Te
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e
kW
Time
Baseline Energy Curtailment Event Energy Curtailment Event Temp Baseline Temp
40
July 2 Curtailment

Event Details:
Time: 5-6 pm Notes: LCTs only
Curtailment: 100%
Region
Hi
Temp
AMI Data Logger Data
Ave. kW
Reduction
Max kW
Reduction
Ave. kW
Reduction
Max kW
Reduction
Boise Metro 95 0.28 0.28 0.4 0.40
TF/Pocatello 89 0.02 0.02 -0.01 -0.01
All 95 0.25 0.25 N/A N/A

Figure 42. July 2 Curtailment Results: AMI – Both Regions

0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
-
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
3:
0
0

P
M
4:
0
0

P
M
5:
0
0

P
M
6:
0
0

P
M
7:
0
0

P
M
8:
0
0

P
M
Te
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e
kW
Time
Baseline Energy Curtailment Event Energy Curtailment Event Temp Baseline Temp
41
Figure 43. July 2 Curtailment Results: AMI – Boise Metro Region

Figure 44. July 2 Curtailment Results: AMI – Twin Falls / Pocatello Region

0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
-
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
3:
0
0

P
M
4:
0
0

P
M
5:
0
0

P
M
6:
0
0

P
M
7:
0
0

P
M
8:
0
0

P
M
Te
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e
kW
Time
Baseline Energy Curtailment Event Energy Curtailment Event Temp Baseline Temp
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
-
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
3:
0
0

P
M
4:
0
0

P
M
5:
0
0

P
M
6:
0
0

P
M
7:
0
0

P
M
8:
0
0

P
M
Te
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e
kW
Time
Baseline Energy Curtailment Event Energy Curtailment Event Temp Baseline Temp
42
Figure 45. July 2 Curtailment Results: Loggers – Boise Metro Region

Figure 46. July 2 Curtailment Results: Loggers – Twin Falls / Pocatello Region

0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
-
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
3:
0
0

P
M
4:
0
0

P
M
5:
0
0

P
M
6:
0
0

P
M
7:
0
0

P
M
8:
0
0

P
M
Te
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e
kW
Time
Baseline Energy Curtailment Event Energy Curtailment Event Temp Baseline Temp
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
-
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
3:
0
0

P
M
4:
0
0

P
M
5:
0
0

P
M
6:
0
0

P
M
7:
0
0

P
M
8:
0
0

P
M
Te
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e
kW
Time
Baseline Energy Curtailment Event Energy Curtailment Event Temp Baseline Temp
43
July 11 Curtailment

Event Details:
Time: 4-8 pm
Notes: LCRs curtailed from 4-7, LCTs/DRUs curtailed from 5-8.
Curtailment: 60%
Region
Hi
Temp
AMI Data Logger Data
Ave. kW
Reduction
Max kW
Reduction
Ave. kW
Reduction
Max kW
Reduction
Boise Metro 99 0.21 0.44 0.09 0.21
TF/Pocatello 94 -0.49 -0.24 -0.26 -0.10
All 99 0.12 0.33 N/A N/A

Figure 47. July 11 Curtailment Results: AMI – Both Regions

0
20
40
60
80
100
-
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
160,000
2:
0
0

P
M
3:
0
0

P
M
4:
0
0

P
M
5:
0
0

P
M
6:
0
0

P
M
7:
0
0

P
M
8:
0
0

P
M
9:
0
0

P
M
Te
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e
kW
Time
Baseline Energy Curtailment Event Energy Curtailment Event Temp Baseline Temp
44
Figure 48. July 11 Curtailment Results: AMI – Boise Metro Region

Figure 49. July 11 Curtailment Results: AMI – Twin Falls / Pocatello Region

0
20
40
60
80
100
-
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
160,000
2:
0
0

P
M
3:
0
0

P
M
4:
0
0

P
M
5:
0
0

P
M
6:
0
0

P
M
7:
0
0

P
M
8:
0
0

P
M
9:
0
0

P
M
Te
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e
kW
Time
Baseline Energy Curtailment Event Energy Curtailment Event Temp Baseline Temp
0
20
40
60
80
100
-
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
2:
0
0

P
M
3:
0
0

P
M
4:
0
0

P
M
5:
0
0

P
M
6:
0
0

P
M
7:
0
0

P
M
8:
0
0

P
M
9:
0
0

P
M
Te
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e
kW
Time
Baseline Energy Curtailment Event Energy Curtailment Event Temp Baseline Temp
45
Figure 50. July 11 Curtailment Results: Loggers – Boise Metro Region

Figure 51. July 11 Curtailment Results: Loggers – Boise Metro Region (DRU Only)

0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
-
50
100
150
200
250
2:
0
0

P
M
3:
0
0

P
M
4:
0
0

P
M
5:
0
0

P
M
6:
0
0

P
M
7:
0
0

P
M
8:
0
0

P
M
9:
0
0

P
M
Te
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e
kW
Time
Baseline Energy Curtailment Event Energy Curtailment Event Temp Baseline Temp
0
20
40
60
80
100
-
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
2:
0
0

P
M
3:
0
0

P
M
4:
0
0

P
M
5:
0
0

P
M
6:
0
0

P
M
7:
0
0

P
M
8:
0
0

P
M
9:
0
0

P
M
Te
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e
kW
Time
Baseline Energy Curtailment Event Energy Curtailment Event Temp Baseline Temp
46
Figure 52. July 11 Curtailment Results: Loggers – Boise Metro Region (LCT Only)

Figure 53. July 11 Curtailment Results: Loggers – Twin Falls / Pocatello Region

0
20
40
60
80
100
-
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
2:
0
0

P
M
3:
0
0

P
M
4:
0
0

P
M
5:
0
0

P
M
6:
0
0

P
M
7:
0
0

P
M
8:
0
0

P
M
9:
0
0

P
M
Te
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e
kW
Time
Baseline Energy Curtailment Event Energy Curtailment Event Temp Baseline Temp
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
-
20
40
60
80
100
120
2:
0
0

P
M
3:
0
0

P
M
4:
0
0

P
M
5:
0
0

P
M
6:
0
0

P
M
7:
0
0

P
M
8:
0
0

P
M
9:
0
0

P
M
Te
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e
kW
Time
Baseline Energy Curtailment Event Energy Curtailment Event Temp Baseline Temp
47
July 12 Curtailment

Event Details:
Time: 4-8 pm
Notes: LCRs curtailed from 4-7, LCTs/DRUs curtailed from 5-8.
Curtailment: 60%
Region
Hi
Temp
AMI Data Logger Data
Ave. kW
Reduction
Max kW
Reduction
Ave. kW
Reduction
Max kW
Reduction
Boise Metro 106 0.75 1.14 0.67 1.05
TF/Pocatello 99 0.45 0.69 0.38 0.70
All 106 0.71 1.09 N/A N/A

Figure 54. July 12 Curtailment Results: AMI – Both Regions

0
20
40
60
80
100
-
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
160,000
2:
0
0

P
M
3:
0
0

P
M
4:
0
0

P
M
5:
0
0

P
M
6:
0
0

P
M
7:
0
0

P
M
8:
0
0

P
M
9:
0
0

P
M
Te
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e
kW
Time
Baseline Energy Curtailment Event Energy Curtailment Event Temp Baseline Temp
48
Figure 55. July 12 Curtailment Results: AMI – Boise Metro Region

Figure 56. July 12 Curtailment Results: AMI – Twin Falls / Pocatello Region

0
20
40
60
80
100
-
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
160,000
2:
0
0

P
M
3:
0
0

P
M
4:
0
0

P
M
5:
0
0

P
M
6:
0
0

P
M
7:
0
0

P
M
8:
0
0

P
M
9:
0
0

P
M
Te
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e
kW
Time
Baseline Energy Curtailment Event Energy Curtailment Event Temp Baseline Temp
0
20
40
60
80
100
-
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
16,000
2:
0
0

P
M
3:
0
0

P
M
4:
0
0

P
M
5:
0
0

P
M
6:
0
0

P
M
7:
0
0

P
M
8:
0
0

P
M
9:
0
0

P
M
Te
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e
kW
Time
Baseline Energy Curtailment Event Energy Curtailment Event Temp Baseline Temp
49
Figure 57. July 12 Curtailment Results: Loggers – Boise Metro Region

Figure 58. July 12 Curtailment Results: Loggers – Twin Falls / Pocatello Region

0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
-
50
100
150
200
250
300
2:
0
0

P
M
3:
0
0

P
M
4:
0
0

P
M
5:
0
0

P
M
6:
0
0

P
M
7:
0
0

P
M
8:
0
0

P
M
9:
0
0

P
M
Te
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e
kW
Time
Baseline Energy Curtailment Event Energy Curtailment Event Temp Baseline Temp
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
-
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
2:
0
0

P
M
3:
0
0

P
M
4:
0
0

P
M
5:
0
0

P
M
6:
0
0

P
M
7:
0
0

P
M
8:
0
0

P
M
9:
0
0

P
M
Te
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e
kW
Time
Baseline Energy Curtailment Event Energy Curtailment Event Temp Baseline Temp
50
July 19 Curtailment

Event Details:
Time: 4-7 pm Notes:
Curtailment: 65%
Region
Hi
Temp
AMI Data Logger Data
Ave. kW
Reduction
Max kW
Reduction
Ave. kW
Reduction
Max kW
Reduction
Boise Metro 104 0.92 0.99 0.80 0.89
TF/Pocatello 95 0.65 0.66 0.65 0.69
All 104 0.89 0.95 N/A N/A

Figure 59. July 19 Curtailment Results: AMI – Both Regions

0
20
40
60
80
100
-
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
160,000
2:
0
0

P
M
3:
0
0

P
M
4:
0
0

P
M
5:
0
0

P
M
6:
0
0

P
M
7:
0
0

P
M
8:
0
0

P
M
9:
0
0

P
M
Te
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e
kW
Time
Baseline Energy Curtailment Event Energy Curtailment Event Temp Baseline Temp
51
Figure 60. July 19 Curtailment Results: AMI – Boise Metro Region

Figure 61. July 19 Curtailment Results: AMI – Twin Falls / Pocatello Region

0
20
40
60
80
100
-
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
160,000
2:
0
0

P
M
3:
0
0

P
M
4:
0
0

P
M
5:
0
0

P
M
6:
0
0

P
M
7:
0
0

P
M
8:
0
0

P
M
9:
0
0

P
M
Te
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e
kW
Time
Baseline Energy Curtailment Event Energy Curtailment Event Temp Baseline Temp
0
20
40
60
80
100
-
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
16,000
2:
0
0

P
M
3:
0
0

P
M
4:
0
0

P
M
5:
0
0

P
M
6:
0
0

P
M
7:
0
0

P
M
8:
0
0

P
M
9:
0
0

P
M
Te
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e
kW
Time
Baseline Energy Curtailment Event Energy Curtailment Event Temp Baseline Temp
52
Figure 62. July 19 Curtailment Results: Loggers – Boise Metro Region

Figure 63. July 19 Curtailment Results: Loggers – Twin Falls / Pocatello Region

0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
-
50
100
150
200
250
300
2:
0
0

P
M
3:
0
0

P
M
4:
0
0

P
M
5:
0
0

P
M
6:
0
0

P
M
7:
0
0

P
M
8:
0
0

P
M
9:
0
0

P
M
Te
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e
kW
Time
Baseline Energy Curtailment Event Energy Curtailment Event Temp Baseline Temp
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
-
20
40
60
80
100
120
2:
0
0

P
M
3:
0
0

P
M
4:
0
0

P
M
5:
0
0

P
M
6:
0
0

P
M
7:
0
0

P
M
8:
0
0

P
M
9:
0
0

P
M
Te
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e
kW
Time
Baseline Energy Curtailment Event Energy Curtailment Event Temp Baseline Temp
53
July 25 Curtailment

Event Details:
Time: 4-7 pm
Notes:
Curtailment: 50%
Region
Hi
Temp
AMI Data Logger Data
Ave. kW
Reduction
Max kW
Reduction
Ave. kW
Reduction
Max kW
Reduction
Boise Metro 97 0.31 0.35 0.24 0.34
TF/Pocatello 90 0.57 0.64 0.72 0.82
All 97 0.34 0.37 N/A N/A

Figure 64. July 25 Curtailment Results: AMI – Both Regions

0
20
40
60
80
100
-
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
160,000
2:
0
0

P
M
3:
0
0

P
M
4:
0
0

P
M
5:
0
0

P
M
6:
0
0

P
M
7:
0
0

P
M
8:
0
0

P
M
9:
0
0

P
M
Te
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e
kW
Time
Baseline Energy Curtailment Event Energy Curtailment Event Temp Baseline Temp
54
Figure 65. July 25 Curtailment Results: AMI – Boise Metro Region

Figure 66. July 25 Curtailment Results: AMI – Twin Falls / Pocatello Region

0
20
40
60
80
100
-
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
160,000
2:
0
0

P
M
3:
0
0

P
M
4:
0
0

P
M
5:
0
0

P
M
6:
0
0

P
M
7:
0
0

P
M
8:
0
0

P
M
9:
0
0

P
M
Te
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e
kW
Time
Baseline Energy Curtailment Event Energy Curtailment Event Temp Baseline Temp
0
20
40
60
80
100
-
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
16,000
2:
0
0

P
M
3:
0
0

P
M
4:
0
0

P
M
5:
0
0

P
M
6:
0
0

P
M
7:
0
0

P
M
8:
0
0

P
M
9:
0
0

P
M
Te
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e
kW
Time
Baseline Energy Curtailment Event Energy Curtailment Event Temp Baseline Temp
55
Figure 67. July 25 Curtailment Results: Loggers – Boise Metro Region

Figure 68. July 25 Curtailment Results: Loggers – Boise Metro Region (DRU Only)

0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
-
50
100
150
200
250
2:
0
0

P
M
3:
0
0

P
M
4:
0
0

P
M
5:
0
0

P
M
6:
0
0

P
M
7:
0
0

P
M
8:
0
0

P
M
9:
0
0

P
M
Te
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e
kW
Time
Baseline Energy Curtailment Event Energy Curtailment Event Temp Baseline Temp
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
-
20
40
60
80
100
120
2:
0
0

P
M
3:
0
0

P
M
4:
0
0

P
M
5:
0
0

P
M
6:
0
0

P
M
7:
0
0

P
M
8:
0
0

P
M
9:
0
0

P
M
Te
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e
kW
Time
Baseline Energy Curtailment Event Energy Curtailment Event Temp Baseline Temp
56
Figure 69. July 25 Curtailment Results: Loggers – Boise Metro Region (LCT Only)

Figure 70. July 25 Curtailment Results: Loggers – Twin Falls / Pocatello Region

0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
-
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
2:
0
0

P
M
3:
0
0

P
M
4:
0
0

P
M
5:
0
0

P
M
6:
0
0

P
M
7:
0
0

P
M
8:
0
0

P
M
9:
0
0

P
M
Te
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e
kW
Time
Baseline Energy Curtailment Event Energy Curtailment Event Temp Baseline Temp
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
-
20
40
60
80
100
120
2:
0
0

P
M
3:
0
0

P
M
4:
0
0

P
M
5:
0
0

P
M
6:
0
0

P
M
7:
0
0

P
M
8:
0
0

P
M
9:
0
0

P
M
Te
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e
kW
Time
Baseline Energy Curtailment Event Energy Curtailment Event Temp Baseline Temp
57
July 31 Curtailment

Event Details:
Time: 5-7 pm
Notes: Shortened time frame due to comfort concerns
Curtailment: 70%
Region
Hi
Temp
AMI Data Logger Data
Ave. kW
Reduction
Max kW
Reduction
Ave. kW
Reduction
Max kW
Reduction
Boise Metro 97 0.84 0.89 0.67 0.74
TF/Pocatello 94 0.83 0.90 0.98 1.12
All 97 0.84 0.89 N/A N/A

Figure 71. July 31 Curtailment Results: AMI – Both Regions

0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
-
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
3:
0
0

P
M
4:
0
0

P
M
5:
0
0

P
M
6:
0
0

P
M
7:
0
0

P
M
8:
0
0

P
M
9:
0
0

P
M
Te
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e
kW
Time
Baseline Energy Curtailment Event Energy Curtailment Event Temp Baseline Temp
58
Figure 72. July 31 Curtailment Results: AMI – Boise Metro Region

Figure 73. July 31 Curtailment Results: AMI – Twin Falls / Pocatello Region

0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
-
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
3:
0
0

P
M
4:
0
0

P
M
5:
0
0

P
M
6:
0
0

P
M
7:
0
0

P
M
8:
0
0

P
M
9:
0
0

P
M
Te
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e
kW
Time
Baseline Energy Curtailment Event Energy Curtailment Event Temp Baseline Temp
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
-
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
16,000
3:
0
0

P
M
4:
0
0

P
M
5:
0
0

P
M
6:
0
0

P
M
7:
0
0

P
M
8:
0
0

P
M
9:
0
0

P
M
Te
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e
kW
Time
Baseline Energy Curtailment Event Energy Curtailment Event Temp Baseline Temp
59
Figure 74. July 31 Curtailment Results: Loggers – Boise Metro Region

Figure 75. July 31 Curtailment Results: Loggers – Twin Falls / Pocatello Region

0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
-
50
100
150
200
250
300
3:
0
0

P
M
4:
0
0

P
M
5:
0
0

P
M
6:
0
0

P
M
7:
0
0

P
M
8:
0
0

P
M
9:
0
0

P
M
Te
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e
kW
Time
Baseline Energy Curtailment Event Energy Curtailment Event Temp Baseline Temp
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
-
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
3:
0
0

P
M
4:
0
0

P
M
5:
0
0

P
M
6:
0
0

P
M
7:
0
0

P
M
8:
0
0

P
M
9:
0
0

P
M
Te
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e
kW
Time
Baseline Energy Curtailment Event Energy Curtailment Event Temp Baseline Temp
60

August 13 Curtailment

Event Details:
Time: 4-7 pm
Notes: Curtailment: 50%
Region
Hi
Temp
AMI Data Logger Data
Ave. kW
Reduction
Max kW
Reduction
Ave. kW
Reduction
Max kW
Reduction
Boise Metro 97 0.32 0.40 0.35 0.36
TF/Pocatello 93 0.38 0.44 0.37 0.42
All 97 0.33 0.40 N/A N/A

Figure 76. August 13 Curtailment Results: AMI – Both Regions

0
20
40
60
80
100
-
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
2:
0
0

P
M
3:
0
0

P
M
4:
0
0

P
M
5:
0
0

P
M
6:
0
0

P
M
7:
0
0

P
M
8:
0
0

P
M
9:
0
0

P
M
Te
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e
kW
Time
Baseline Energy Curtailment Event Energy Curtailment Event Temp Baseline Temp
61
Figure 77. August 13 Curtailment Results: AMI – Boise Metro Region

Figure 78. August 13 Curtailment Results: AMI – Twin Falls / Pocatello Region

0
20
40
60
80
100
-
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
2:
0
0

P
M
3:
0
0

P
M
4:
0
0

P
M
5:
0
0

P
M
6:
0
0

P
M
7:
0
0

P
M
8:
0
0

P
M
9:
0
0

P
M
Te
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e
kW
Time
Baseline Energy Curtailment Event Energy Curtailment Event Temp Baseline Temp
0
20
40
60
80
100
-
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
2:
0
0

P
M
3:
0
0

P
M
4:
0
0

P
M
5:
0
0

P
M
6:
0
0

P
M
7:
0
0

P
M
8:
0
0

P
M
9:
0
0

P
M
Te
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e
kW
Time
Baseline Energy Curtailment Event Energy Curtailment Event Temp Baseline Temp
62
Figure 79. August 13 Curtailment Results: Loggers – Boise Metro Region

Figure 80. August 13 Curtailment Results: Loggers – Twin Falls / Pocatello Region

0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
-
50
100
150
200
250
2:
0
0

P
M
3:
0
0

P
M
4:
0
0

P
M
5:
0
0

P
M
6:
0
0

P
M
7:
0
0

P
M
8:
0
0

P
M
9:
0
0

P
M
Te
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e
kW
Time
Baseline Energy Curtailment Event Energy Curtailment Event Temp Baseline Temp
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
-
20
40
60
80
100
120
2:
0
0

P
M
3:
0
0

P
M
4:
0
0

P
M
5:
0
0

P
M
6:
0
0

P
M
7:
0
0

P
M
8:
0
0

P
M
9:
0
0

P
M
Te
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e
kW
Time
Baseline Energy Curtailment Event Energy Curtailment Event Temp Baseline Temp
63
August 16 Curtailment

Event Details:
Time: 4-8 pm
Notes:
Curtailment: 75%
Region
Hi
Temp
AMI Data Logger Data
Ave. kW
Reduction
Max kW
Reduction
Ave. kW
Reduction
Max kW
Reduction
Boise Metro 93 0.79 0.83 0.84 0.91
TF/Pocatello 92 0.56 0.59 0.68 0.76
All 93 0.76 0.80 N/A N/A

Figure 81. August 16 Curtailment Results: AMI – Both Regions

0
20
40
60
80
100
-
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
2:
0
0

P
M
3:
0
0

P
M
4:
0
0

P
M
5:
0
0

P
M
6:
0
0

P
M
7:
0
0

P
M
8:
0
0

P
M
9:
0
0

P
M
Te
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e
kW
Time
Baseline Energy Curtailment Event Energy Curtailment Event Temp Baseline Temp
64
Figure 82. August 16 Curtailment Results: AMI – Boise Metro Region

Figure 83. August 16 Curtailment Results: AMI – Twin Falls / Pocatello Region

0
20
40
60
80
100
-
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
2:
0
0

P
M
3:
0
0

P
M
4:
0
0

P
M
5:
0
0

P
M
6:
0
0

P
M
7:
0
0

P
M
8:
0
0

P
M
9:
0
0

P
M
Te
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e
kW
Time
Baseline Energy Curtailment Event Energy Curtailment Event Temp Baseline Temp
0
20
40
60
80
100
-
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
16,000
2:
0
0

P
M
3:
0
0

P
M
4:
0
0

P
M
5:
0
0

P
M
6:
0
0

P
M
7:
0
0

P
M
8:
0
0

P
M
9:
0
0

P
M
Te
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e
kW
Time
Baseline Energy Curtailment Event Energy Curtailment Event Temp Baseline Temp
65
Figure 84. August 16 Curtailment Results: Loggers – Boise Metro Region

Figure 85. August 16 Curtailment Results: Loggers – Twin Falls / Pocatello Region

0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
-
50
100
150
200
250
2:
0
0

P
M
3:
0
0

P
M
4:
0
0

P
M
5:
0
0

P
M
6:
0
0

P
M
7:
0
0

P
M
8:
0
0

P
M
9:
0
0

P
M
Te
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e
kW
Time
Baseline Energy Curtailment Event Energy Curtailment Event Temp Baseline Temp
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
-
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
2:
0
0

P
M
3:
0
0

P
M
4:
0
0

P
M
5:
0
0

P
M
6:
0
0

P
M
7:
0
0

P
M
8:
0
0

P
M
9:
0
0

P
M
Te
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e
kW
Time
Baseline Energy Curtailment Event Energy Curtailment Event Temp Baseline Temp
66
August 20 Curtailment

Event Details:
Time: 4-7 pm
Notes:
Curtailment: 65%
Region
Hi
Temp
AMI Data Logger Data
Ave. kW
Reduction
Max kW
Reduction
Ave. kW
Reduction
Max kW
Reduction
Boise Metro 94 0.55 0.58 0.56 0.61
TF/Pocatello 86 0.47 0.52 0.48 0.55
All 94 0.54 .57 N/A N/A

Figure 86. August 20 Curtailment Results: AMI – Both Regions

0
20
40
60
80
100
-
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
2:
0
0

P
M
3:
0
0

P
M
4:
0
0

P
M
5:
0
0

P
M
6:
0
0

P
M
7:
0
0

P
M
8:
0
0

P
M
9:
0
0

P
M
Te
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e
kW
Time
Baseline Energy Curtailment Event Energy Curtailment Event Temp Baseline Temp
67
Figure 87. August 20 Curtailment Results: AMI – Boise Metro Region

Figure 88. August 20 Curtailment Results: AMI – Twin Falls / Pocatello Region

0
20
40
60
80
100
-
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
2:
0
0

P
M
3:
0
0

P
M
4:
0
0

P
M
5:
0
0

P
M
6:
0
0

P
M
7:
0
0

P
M
8:
0
0

P
M
9:
0
0

P
M
Te
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e
kW
Time
Baseline Energy Curtailment Event Energy Curtailment Event Temp Baseline Temp
0
20
40
60
80
100
-
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
2:
0
0

P
M
3:
0
0

P
M
4:
0
0

P
M
5:
0
0

P
M
6:
0
0

P
M
7:
0
0

P
M
8:
0
0

P
M
9:
0
0

P
M
Te
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e
kW
Time
Baseline Energy Curtailment Event Energy Curtailment Event Temp Baseline Temp
68
Figure 89. August 20 Curtailment Results: Loggers – Boise Metro Region

Figure 90. August 20 Curtailment Results: Loggers – Twin Falls / Pocatello Region

0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
-
50
100
150
200
250
2:
0
0

P
M
3:
0
0

P
M
4:
0
0

P
M
5:
0
0

P
M
6:
0
0

P
M
7:
0
0

P
M
8:
0
0

P
M
9:
0
0

P
M
Te
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e
kW
Time
Baseline Energy Curtailment Event Energy Curtailment Event Temp Baseline Temp
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
-
20
40
60
80
100
120
2:
0
0

P
M
3:
0
0

P
M
4:
0
0

P
M
5:
0
0

P
M
6:
0
0

P
M
7:
0
0

P
M
8:
0
0

P
M
9:
0
0

P
M
Te
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e
kW
Time
Baseline Energy Curtailment Event Energy Curtailment Event Temp Baseline Temp
69
August 22 Curtailment

Event Details:
Time: 5-6 pm
Notes:
Curtailment: 100%
Region
Hi
Temp
AMI Data Logger Data
Ave. kW
Reduction
Max kW
Reduction
Ave. kW
Reduction
Max kW
Reduction
Boise Metro 90 0.86 0.86 0.77 0.77
TF/Pocatello 89 0.75 0.75 0.67 0.67
All 90 0.85 0.85 N/A N/A

Figure 91. August 22 Curtailment Results: AMI – Both Regions

0
20
40
60
80
100
-
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
3:
0
0

P
M
4:
0
0

P
M
5:
0
0

P
M
6:
0
0

P
M
7:
0
0

P
M
8:
0
0

P
M
Te
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e
kW
Time
Baseline Energy Curtailment Event Energy Curtailment Event Temp Baseline Temp
70
Figure 92. August 22 Curtailment Results: AMI – Boise Metro Region

Figure 93. August 22 Curtailment Results: AMI – Twin Falls / Pocatello Region

0
20
40
60
80
100
-
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
3:
0
0

P
M
4:
0
0

P
M
5:
0
0

P
M
6:
0
0

P
M
7:
0
0

P
M
8:
0
0

P
M
Te
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e
kW
Time
Baseline Energy Curtailment Event Energy Curtailment Event Temp Baseline Temp
0
20
40
60
80
100
-
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
3:
0
0

P
M
4:
0
0

P
M
5:
0
0

P
M
6:
0
0

P
M
7:
0
0

P
M
8:
0
0

P
M
Te
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e
kW
Time
Baseline Energy Curtailment Event Energy Curtailment Event Temp Baseline Temp
71
Figure 94. August 22 Curtailment Results: Loggers – Boise Metro Region

Figure 95. August 22 Curtailment Results: Loggers – Twin Falls / Pocatello Region

0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
-
50
100
150
200
250
3:
0
0

P
M
4:
0
0

P
M
5:
0
0

P
M
6:
0
0

P
M
7:
0
0

P
M
8:
0
0

P
M
Te
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e
kW
Time
Baseline Energy Curtailment Event Energy Curtailment Event Temp Baseline Temp
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
-
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
3:
0
0

P
M
4:
0
0

P
M
5:
0
0

P
M
6:
0
0

P
M
7:
0
0

P
M
8:
0
0

P
M
Te
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e
kW
Time
Baseline Energy Curtailment Event Energy Curtailment Event Temp Baseline Temp
Building Efficiency Program Research
December 2012

Research conducted by:
Dima Sokolov / [e-mail]
Jakob Lahmers / [e-mail]
Irene O’Reilly / [e-mail]
Objectives & Methodology
●This research is designed to obtain feedback from building Owners/Managers, Architects and
Engineers regarding Idaho Power Company’s (IPC) Building Efficiency program. More detailed
objectives include capturing feedback regarding:
Awareness of program benefits and incentives
Barriers to program participation
Overall satisfaction with the program
Satisfaction with the program’s processes (pre-application, engagement with IPC and final application
submittal)
Recommendations for program changes
●In an effort to accommodate the program participants’ schedules, two methodologies were
employed:
Owners – 30 minute in-depth interviews (10 total interviews)
o Interviews were conducted between November 14 and December 4, 2012
o Each Owner was sent a “thank you” for their time, and to stress the importance of the research
Architects and Engineers – 2 hour focus groups with each audience (two total groups; one group per
audience with seven participants in each group)
o Focus groups were conducted on November 28, 2012
o Participants received monetary compensation upon completion of each group as a “thank you” for their time, and to
stress the importance of the research
●All research candidates were prescreened by IPC to represent the more engaged Building
Efficiency program participants.
Results are not intended to represent the broad audience of all Owners/Architects/Engineers within IPC’s
service territory
●Research was conducted by Market Decisions Corporation (www.mdcresearch.com).
2
Key Findings
●The Building Efficiency Program is typically brought to Owners’ attention by Architects or
Engineers during the design phase of a project. Architects/Engineers rely primarily on IPC Reps
for their initial program awareness and updates to the program.
●Projects are designed to be efficient and cost effective. Private sector Owners expect to see
payback within 2-3 years (10-25 for public sector), and program incentives are factored into the
Return on Investment (ROI) calculations.
While the Building Efficiency Program offers incentives, the incentives alone do not drive the design
process.
●Architects and Engineers find the Integrated Design Lab (IDL) a valuable resource, which often
serves as a training or consulting resource for design professionals.
●Overall, program participants are highly satisfied with the Building Efficiency Program.
The pre-application is considered an easy process; the only pain point is finding the most current
application forms on the Idaho Power website.
Interactions with the IPC team during the project are overwhelmingly positive.
Final application submittal is a tedious task for most involved. The need to “chase down” paperwork (spec
sheets, invoices, proof of purchase, etc.) after the project is completed is time consuming, and often
requires re-contacting sub-contractors.
●Architects and Engineers are familiar with all program incentives, and Owners are familiar with
the incentives applicable to their projects.
Perceived incentive value is based entirely on the applicability to a given project. If an incentive fits the
project, and helps speed the payback period for efficiency upgrades, it is deemed valuable.

3
Suggestions
●Continue to educate Owners, Architects and Engineers about the documentation
required for the application submission.
Providing a check list of detailed requirements could help Architects/Engineers build the
documentation into their contracts with sub-contractors.

●Improve the navigation and usability of the Building Efficiency page on the Idaho
Power web site.
Use the site for the clear and efficient delivery of all documents and forms related to the
program. The site is where participants expect to find the current/most updated
documents and forms.
Consider an online form to submit the pre-application as well as the final submission. A
collaborative form, where all parties involved can input information and post documents
(e.g., proof of purchase, specs, etc.) may help streamline the application process.

●Consider incentives for commissioning.
Architects and Engineers point out that commissioning will help ensure buildings and
equipment are running at their maximum efficiency, but the cost is typically prohibitive for
all but the largest projects. Incentives may help boost the ROI on commissioning.
4
Program Discovery
●In general, program participants’ original discovery of the Building
Efficiency program tends to be organic. Most common discovery methods
include:
Conversation with a dedicated IPC representative
Seminars/events
Integrated Design Lab
o Program discovery through the IDL is exclusive to Architects and Engineers.
Colleagues
Involvement and partnership with other organizations, such as the US Green
Building Council (USGBC)
Legacy program involvement
o Mentioned by Owners (and more specifically Facility Managers) and Engineers who
learned of the program through their organization’s historical involvement, where
previous management initially engaged IPC.

●All of the above methods are seen as appropriate and effective ways for
initial program discovery.
5
“Idaho Power’s reps
came to our office.”
– Engineer

“Kevin [of IDL] has
been huge proponent
of Idaho Power
efficiency programs.”
- Architect

“Somebody had
applied for a project
before I was with the
company. This was
seven years ago. I
got involved in the
project and one of
the Idaho Power
employees walked me
through the process.”
– Engineer

“I work with Idaho
Power all the time.
A field rep asked if I
knew about the
program.”
- Owner
Program Discovery (cont.)
●As the program evolves, participants are most interested in learning about
changes from their IPC reps and/or seminars.
While Architects and Engineers may prefer in-person conversations with their IPC
rep, they are also comfortable learning of program changes via phone calls,
seminars and emails.
Several mention community outreach efforts, such as an IPC rep (not necessarily
their rep) making an in-person visit to provide program updates.
The more engaged Owners desire a more personal communication method, ideally
coming either from their dedicated IPC rep, or the Building Efficiency program
specialist.
o Most prefer a personalized email or an on-site visit (for larger customers) over
telephone contact; the personalized outreach communicates a level of the customer’s
importance to IPC.
o Less engaged Owners rely on their “consultants” (architects and engineers) to keep
track of program changes, and they are not concerned with receiving updates from
IPC.

●Architects and Engineers recall seeing information about the Building
Efficiency program in business publications (e.g., Idaho Business Review),
event posters, email, newsletters and seminars.
When prompted, the more engaged Owners recall seeing information about the
program from the same sources. However, they recall less detail, and rarely have
taken the initiative to seek out more information.
6
“Swing by and check
in. That would be
very helpful.”
– Architect

“With a town like
Boise, we all know
each other…It is more
of a personal
relationship than it is
than a focused
campaign like you
might see in Seattle,
or Portland or San
Francisco. It is about
connectedness… The
IDL spreads the word
to the community.”
- Architect

“I received an email
from my energy
engineer.”
- Owner
Program Integration
●Architects and Engineers are almost always looking for ways to incorporate
efficiency into their designs.

However, this group is very careful to point out that it is a bonus if the program
integrates into a design. They rarely build the design around Building Efficiency
Program parameters (i.e., the tail does NOT wag the dog).

Architects in particular will incorporate the Building Efficiency Program into their
initial design, and build the potential incentives into their plans to help offset some
of their clients’ expenditures.
o Incentives built into the original bid can sometimes help “sell the project.”

Engineers mention that lighting presents an opportunity area where an efficient
design will be below code, and may qualify for an incentive. However, the final
decision comes down to a cost-benefit analysis to determine the best solution, with
a range of incentive scenarios considered. Then, the Owner/design team will
determine whether that solution qualifies for an incentive.
7
“In my practice, it
has been that we are
already doing these
efficiency measures
already.”
– Architect

“From the first
interaction with the
client, we’re driving
energy efficiency
primarily, so it’s part
of our proposal to
work in grants and
incentives.”
– Engineer

“We start a project
and we are driving the
measures in the scope
of the work outside of
any incentives. Then,
we go back through
the Idaho Power
incentives and say,
‘OK, what works
best’.”
– Engineer

Program Integration (cont.)
●Owners typically rely on architects and engineers for design, and program
integration is typically built in (sometimes as an option) when the design is
brought to the owner’s attention.

●The consensus across all audience groups is that ROI is a critical selling
point for Owners.
Most Owners want to see payback within two to three years; this is confirmed by
Architects and Engineers.
o Engineers/Architects often try to educate their clients about efficiency returns over the
lifecycle of equipment, but most Owners are fixed on a 2-3 year payback period.
In many cases, if ROI is not realized in two to three years, the Owners will not fund
the efficiency measures. Owners are hesitant to invest not knowing the business
conditions in the future, or whether they will still own the building in three to five
years.
Public agencies tend to be an exception; these agencies often have building
lifecycles of 10-25+ years, allowing for a substantially longer period to realize ROI
on efficiency measures.
In addition, there some companies who view energy efficiency as a positive
marketing/PR opportunity.
8
“When you tell them
they can get some
money back, they
smile. That’s
probably the driving
force.”
– Engineer

“Most businesses
expect payback in 2
years or less. I
expect to see
payback within 2-3
years.”
- Owner

“Public agencies look
at the lifecycle. For
the typical business,
you’re looking at 3
years or less.”
– Engineer

“Our energy is so
cheap that the
payback can be soooo
long. This can be a
challenge in ROI.”
- Architect
IDL (Integrated Design Lab)
●Architects and Engineers show a high level of awareness and familiarity
with IDL, and speak very highly of the organization.
Architects have especially close relationships with IDL staff, and know many of
their team members on a first name basis.

●IDL is seen as a leader in innovation and design.
Architects and Engineers look to IDL to help educate them about the “latest and
greatest” offerings related to lighting and efficiency measures.
Most Architects and Engineers have attended in-person training sessions or seminars
at some time in the past; these sessions are considered informative and useful.
Many are grateful to have IDL in “their back yard.”

●IDL team is praised as being very helpful and beneficial to the design
process. IDL is seen as a “consultant’s consultant” for efficient design.

●Most Owners know very little about IDL.
Only the most engaged Owners are familiar with IDL, and few are even aware of the
IDL.
9
“IDL is very helpful
on the simulation
side. A lot of what
we’ve learned has
been in conjunction
with IDL.”
– Engineer

“They’ve done a good
job of educating us
on the breadth of the
industry and how
different components
apply.”
– Engineer

“They give a forum
to kick the tires on
some of the newer
technologies.”
- Architect

“As architects, we
can’t possibly know
of all of the
innovations. We
don’t have the time
to keep up.”
- Architect
Pre-Application Process

●Overall, there is a high level of satisfaction with the pre-application
process.

●Most describe the process and quick, simple and easy.
Because the process is easy, most fill out the pre-application if there is even a
possibility the project will benefit from the program.
Engineers (and sometimes Architects) typically fill out the form, so Owners only
need to submit the pre-application.
10
8.3 8.3 8.4
Architects Engineers Owners
Satisfaction with Pre-Application Process
Scale: 1=low and 10=high “We often do the
pre-application, and
we check most
everything. Then on
the final application
we have to narrow it
down. They don’t
hold you to any of
the measures.”
– Engineer

“The owner’s
signature may be
required; this is
difficult as we’re
removed from the
owners.”
- Engineer

“Every year they
seem to change the
program, which
makes it difficult to
keep up with.”
- Architect

Average ratings are not representative of all program participants; scores
represent only the opinion of the research participants.
Pre-Application Process (cont.)
●Even with a high level of satisfaction, two challenges are consistently
brought up:
Locating the pre-application on the Idaho Power website
o Participants say IPC’s website is difficult to navigate, and locating the correct form can be
time consuming. A more direct way to access the form is desired.
Ensuring the pre-application form is the most current available
o With the program constantly changing and evolving, program participants are never really sure
if they are filling out the most current pre-application, even if they find the form on IPC’s
website.

●Both of the above challenges are more commonly mentioned by Architects
and Engineers, as they most commonly initiate the pre-application process
and fill out most of the paperwork.
11
“Their website is a
real pain… I would
like something more
user friendly to find
the form.”
– Architect

“If I could interact
directly with the
Building Efficiency
team for the pre-
application, as
opposed to using
their website, I
would rate this
component a 12.”
– Architect

“The weakest aspect
of the program are
the changing
requirements.”
- Architect

“I can only write the
specs to what was
last expected by the
program.”
- Architect

Program Engagement with IPC

●Any engagement with IPC that occurs during the construction process is
seen as highly positive.
IPC, and especially the Building Efficiency team members, are perceived to be
extremely responsive and helpful.

●Architects and Engineers tend to be the ones with the most frequent and
close interactions with the Building Efficiency team.
Most Architects and Engineers praise Building Efficiency team members by name for
their willingness to work with their firms and lend an accommodating hand.
12
10.0 9.3 8.0
Architects Engineers Owners
Satisfaction with IPC Engagement
Scale: 1=low and 10=high “They seem more and
outgoing to help you
with whatever you
need to do to help
the client get the
rebates.”
- Architect

“Sheree does a great
job being responsive
to my needs.”
- Architect

“I have no experience
working with Idaho
Power, my
consultants do the
leg work. My account
rep will contact me
after the project is
completed to follow
up.”
- Owner
Average ratings are not representative of all program participants; scores
represent only the opinion of the research participants.
Final Application Submission

●The final application submission process receives the lowest satisfaction
scores of all measures tested.

●This step of the process is often seen as a “pain.”
For most projects, submission is handled “for the good of the order” and
Architects/Engineers are not compensated.
Some Architects and Engineers budget for the final submission process, as this can
be such a time consuming process; budgeted time can range from 10 to 40 hours
depending on the size and scope of project.
13
6.6 7.9 6.7
Architects Engineers Owners
Satisfaction with Final Application Submission
Scale: 1=low and 10=high “The final
application is where
the real work
happens.”
- Architect

“They tell you what
you have to do ahead
of time, but it is still
a pain to get all the
information. There
are multiple
iterations missing or
insufficient
information. It can
get frustrating.”
– Engineer

“Pulling all the
paperwork can be
cumbersome on
larger projects.”
– Architect

“Trying to get things
out of contractors
can be pretty tough.”
- Architect Average ratings are not representative of all program participants; scores
represent only the opinion of the research participants.
Final Application Submission (cont.)
Tracking down the proper paperwork tends to be the greatest challenge.
o Final submission happens after the project is complete, and the necessary paperwork needs to
come from contractors (and most commonly sub-contractors), most of whom have moved on to
their next project and have no interest in spending time to provide paperwork that yields little
to no value to them.
o A few have built the necessity for the proper paperwork into their specs for contractors.
While building in the necessity for paperwork into the specs is a good idea in theory,
many Architects have not done this due to the constant program changes; some state it
may be easier to track down the proper paperwork than try to keep up with program
changes and constantly tweaking their specs to the contractors.

●Architects typically “own” the final submission.
Some Engineers feel as though Architects “pawn” off this process on them.
Financial incentives would be welcomed to increase motivation to submit the final
application; however, if Architects built the program into the design, the firm is on
the hook to finish this process.
●The more engaged Owners are involved in the submission process, and
experience the same pain points in tracking down paperwork from
contractors and sub-contractors.
The less engaged Owners expect their Architects to own the final submission
process.
14
“Cumbersome and
difficult at times.
We don’t usually see
invoices because
contractors consider
that proprietary
information.”
– Engineer

“It’s our job to make
sure we ask for that
info up front.
Contractors are
becoming more aware
of the
requirements.”
– Engineer

“Requirements for
the submittal process
changes job to job.
That has been the
most difficult piece
of the program for
me.”
– Architect

Overall Program Satisfaction and Improvements
●Overall, program satisfaction is extremely high.
●While not explicitly stated by respondents, the Building Efficiency program
appears to build goodwill towards IPC among these audiences.
●Program participants would like to see a number of program
improvements/additions to increase overall satisfaction:
Improve the final submittal process – all parties would like to see IPC eliminate or
simplify the paperwork in order to speed up the submission process, and ultimately
speed up the incentive fulfillment.
o Although the submittal process slows down payment, Owners are satisfied with the speed of
payment once the application has been finalized.
Provide incentives for building commissioning – proper calibration of systems would
boost efficiency, but the upfront cost is often prohibitive for all but the biggest
projects.
o Building commissioning is seen as an extremely valuable component; one that could help
confirm savings is realized as a result of the efficiency initiatives.
o Both Engineers and Architects mention that systems designed to be as efficient as possible as a
whole can hurt performance on individual measures.
Have IPC on-site to evaluate the completed project or components, rather than
extensive paperwork (e.g., invoices, proof of purchase, specifications, etc.).
Expand list of incentives (e.g., refrigeration).
15
“We can design
systems, we can spec
systems, but I can’t
emphasize enough
proper commissioning
to make sure the
systems are
performing as they
should.”
- Architect

“Better insulation
can hurt your air
conditioning load,
because it could start
running when it’s
cold outside because
it’s insulated too
well. It is important
to think about how to
be energy efficient
overall, not just how
it fits into electrical
load.”
– Engineer
Overall Program Satisfaction and Improvements
Improve the IPC Building Efficiency website.
o Make it easier to locate program files and documents (e.g., pre-application forms).
o Ensure only the most current forms are available online.
o Allow submission of forms directly through the site.
o Improve general navigation.
Provide a submittal exchange platform, where invoices, documentation, etc. can
be posted online, and easily exchanged with all parties involved. This could include
architects, engineers, contractors, sub-contractors, etc.
Provide specifications that Architects and Engineers can incorporate into their
contracts to set expectations for documentation requirements for contractors and
sub-contractors.
Educate trade allies to help ensure all parties involved in a project understand the
requirements of the Building Efficiency Program, which should help streamline the
process of gathering documentation for the final submission.
16
“The cost of proper
commissioning is a
barrier to using it.”
– Architect

“Higher incentives
and increase the
breadth of measures,
such as wastewater
treatment
equipment.”
– Engineer

“I did not know
before about more
documentation.
There could have
been better
instructions in the
application.”
- Owner

“It would be nice to
have a walk through,
or review of drawings
instead of the
paperwork.”
- Owner
Incentive/Measure Awareness
17
Incentive Name Awareness Value to Typical Build (1=low and 10=high)
Architects Engineers Owners Architects Engineers Owners
Li
g
h
t
i
n
g

Interior Light Load Reduction 100% 100% 80% 8.0 6.9 7.4
Exterior Light Load Reduction 100% 86% 50% 6.6 6.1 6.5
Daylight Photo Controls 100% 100% 90% 7.3 6.1 6.7
Occupancy Sensors 100% 86% 100% 7.7 6.1 8.0
High Efficiency Exit Signs 100% 71% 80% 7.0 5.3 7.5
Ai
r

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

(H
V
A
C
)

Premium Efficiency HVAC Units 100% 86% 100% 8.3 4.6 8.2
Additional HVAC Unit Efficiency
Bonus 71% 86% 70% 6.8 3.9 7.4
Efficient Chillers 71% 71% 80% 6.7 5.7 8.0
Air Side Economizers 100% 71% 100% 7.0 5.3 8.3
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g

Sh
e
l
l
Reflective Roof Treatment 100% 86% 60% 5.9 5.3 6.4
High Performance Windows &
Skylights 100% 86% 90% 6.0 4.9 7.2
Co
n
t
r
o
l
s
Energy Management Control System 100% 100% 100% 7.9 6.6 7.5
Demand Controlled Ventilation 71% 86% 80% 7.8 7.0 7.3
Variable Speed Drives 86% 100% 80% 7.8 7.1 6.6
●Awareness is high among Engineers/Architects and the most engaged Owners (i.e., those with many projects, or
those with hands-on involvement during the project).
Awareness numbers and average ratings are not representative of all program participants; scores represent only the opinion of the research participants.
Incentive/Measure Awareness (cont.)
●Participants who do not build specific components into their designs are
unaware of the corresponding incentives (i.e., warehouse owner not aware
of air conditioning incentives because space is unconditioned, etc.).
This is also echoed in the incentive value ratings; if participants do not build a
component (e.g., air conditioning) into their specs, they do not see much value in
the incentive.
Engineers and Architects tend to work on a broad enough range of projects to have
been exposed to all program incentives, and awareness levels are higher than
among Owners.

●Most Owners have a vague level of familiarity with most incentives, but
don’t know the details (e.g., the specific requirements and incentive
amounts).

●The research did not reveal a single instance where a participant showed no
awareness for a particular incentive, but stated a high level of value. In
other words, program participants are already taking advantage of
incentives that suit their projects.
18
“We find the low
hanging fruit from the
program and present
that to the client.”
– Architect

“We use these
incentives to evaluate
increases in efficiency
from equipment. If
we can get a bump in
rating and cover that
spread in cost, then
we’ll use that as a
tool to encourage the
owner to invest the
capital cost. We use
the program as an
educational tool for
customers.”
– Architect

Evaluation of Sprinkler Irrigation System Components in
Southern Idaho

Final report for tasks detailed in STATEMENT OF WORK # 5

March 5, 2013

Prepared by:

Dr. Howard Neibling, P.E.
Biological and Agricultural Engineering Department
University of Idaho

II. ABSTRACT
Irrigation system leaks and overwatering due to worn nozzles or other worn system components represent
losses of water and unnecessary energy consumption for pressurized irrigation systems. In the fall of
2005, Idaho Power Company (IPC) created the Irrigation Efficiency Rewards program Menu Option
which provides a financial incentive to irrigators to upgrade and replace worn system components on
various types of pressurized irrigation systems. The Menu Option identifies 11 different measures that
provide water and energy savings to both the irrigator and the utility if worn components are replaced.
Since its inception, the Irrigation Efficiency Rewards program has paid over $6.1 million dollars on over
5,300 component replacement projects, resulting in over 57 million Mega-watt hours (MWh’s) of
estimated energy savings. Idaho Power Company is interested in the excess electrical costs due to worn
equipment and promotes agricultural irrigation efficiency. The large number of irrigation efficiency
projects suggests the need for further research and information to substantiate the energy savings
associated with each measure. Actual field measurements of water losses, determination of the number of
components tested requiring replacement or repair on various systems, and estimates of yield
improvement and energy reduction resulting from component repair or replacement are needed.
Therefore, this project proposal was developed to determine water and energy savings that can be
achieved by replacing or repairing pressurized irrigation equipment. Systems evaluated were located in
the King Hill to Burley area in Idaho Power Service territory. Field measurements of water losses related
to each listed item were performed. Energy savings due to each item were calculated based on the head
and flow rate of each system tested. Types of systems evaluated were hand line, wheel line, and center
pivot.
Excess water and power usage due to leaks varied considerably based on individual farmer attention to
maintenance, with excess of 16% on standard wheel line, 12% on Thunderbird® wheel line, and 36% on
hand lines. This translated to additional 203, 144 and 381 kWh/ac energy usages for standard wheel line,
Thunderbird® wheel lines and hand lines, respectively when individual system characteristics were
considered.
Based on study results, set system nozzles must be worn to an excess flow level of at least 10-15% before
farmers see the need for system repair. Because some systems tested were nearly new, the actual
threshold for needed repair may be even higher. Incentive programs to encourage replacement or repair
of worn or damaged parts can encourage repair and therefore save water and energy. Measured levels of
excess flow from worn nozzles were 14, 11 and 16%, with excess energy use required of 148, 156 and
148 kWh/ac for standard wheel line, Thunderbird® wheel lines and hand lines, respectively. This is a
lower rate than observed in studies where average excess flow from 9 lines tested was 119% of design
(Larsen, et al 1981).
Refurbished set-move systems had minimal leaks and excellent water application uniformity. In this
study and in a 2007 study (Hill, et al., 2007) system performance was related more to maintenance than
system age.
Average area-weighted Coefficient of Uniformity (CU) was 83% for both high and low-pressure pivots.
CU ranged from 78 to 93 on the high pressure machines and from 69 to 94 on low pressure machines. To
put these numbers in perspective, a study on irrigation uniformity stated that “new pressure-regulated
low-pressure center pivots and linears [e.g. linear-move irrigation systems]were capable of achieving
CU’s of 90-95%, and that “a CU value of 85% is generally considered to be the minimum value below
which a system needs updating or maintenance” (King, et al 2000). Using this threshold, 75% of the
high pressure machines and 60% of the low pressure machines tested needed sprinkler package
replacement or maintenance.
One of the additional energy and excess water costs of low system pressure resulting from leaks, worn
nozzles or other system problems relates to the impact of irrigation uniformity on crop appearance and
subsequent irrigation management. For example, if uniformity is poor (leading to poor crop appearance
on portions of the field), many growers will tend to apply more irrigation to the entire field to assure
adequate water on the poor-appearance areas. This is true in both center pivot and set systems. The result
is more water use and energy consumption. In this sense, improving application uniformity generally
results in a significant reduction in energy consumption. Because improving system uniformity reduces
the degree of over and under-watering, crop yield will be higher on a more uniform system because the
degree of under watering is less (see Table 15).

III. TABLE OF CONTENTS

Contents
IV. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................. 6
V. MATERIALS AND METHODS ............................................................................................................. 9
Materials ................................................................................................................................................... 9
Methods .................................................................................................................................................... 9
Figure 2. Pitot tube and pressure gage for measuring pressure at nozzle discharge. ............................. 12
Figure 3. Equipment for measuring discharge from an impact sprinkler ............................................... 13
Figure 4. Catch can arrangement under a center pivot ........................................................................... 13
Figure 5. Elevating a section of line to measure a gasket leak. ............................................................. 14
Figure 6. Measuring nozzle diameter. .................................................................................................... 14
Figure 7. Measuring brass nozzle discharge with hose, stopwatch and known-volume container. ....... 15
Figure 8. Measuring Nelson R2000 nozzle discharge with hose, stopwatch and known-volume
container .................................................................................................................................................. 16
Figure 9. Measuring nozzle discharge from a high-pressure pivot lateral. ............................................ 17
Figure 10. Catch can arrangement under a wheel line. .......................................................................... 17
VI. RESULTS ............................................................................................................................................. 18
Leaks ....................................................................................................................................................... 18
Worn nozzles .......................................................................................................................................... 19
Total excess water and energy ................................................................................................................ 19
Uniformity............................................................................................................................................... 19
Figure 11. Percent of measured set-system leaks less than a given leak size category.......................... 21
Figure 12. Nozzle flow rate and variation along wheel line WL15 (last maintenance 15-20 years ago)
and WL 16 (nearly new R2000 sprinkler heads) compared to design rates. ........................................... 22
Figure 13. Irrigation depth variation along a low pressure pivot with the application package last
replaced in 2003. ..................................................................................................................................... 23
Figure 14. Irrigation depth variation along two low-pressure center pivots showing large variability
along the entire lateral (CU=74) and small variation along most of the lateral but large at the outer end
(CU=84). ................................................................................................................................................. 23
Figure 15. Irrigation depth variation along two low-pressure center pivots showing relatively low
variability along the entire lateral (CU=92) and small variation along most of the lateral but large at the
outer end (CU=70). ................................................................................................................................. 24
Figure 16. Percent of the field receiving less than a given irrigation depth. .......................................... 24
Table 1. Field data collection sheet for the wheel line having many leaks and worn nozzles. .............. 25
Table 2. Summary statistics for set system leaks. .................................................................................. 26
Table 3. Summary statistics for standard wheel line leaks. ................................................................... 27
Table 4. Summary statistics for Thunderbird® wheel line leaks. .......................................................... 27
Table 5. Summary statistics for hand line leaks. .................................................................................... 28
Table 6. Summary table for types of Standard wheel line leaks. ........................................................... 28
Table 7. Summary table for types of Thunderbird® wheel line leaks. .................................................. 28
Table 8. Summary table for types of hand line leaks. ............................................................................ 29
Table 9. Summary statistics for center pivot system leaks. ................................................................... 29
Table 10. Summary statistics for set system incorrect nozzle size and excess flow due to worn nozzles.
................................................................................................................................................................ 31
Table 11. Summary statistics for standard wheel line worn nozzles. .................................................... 31
Table 12. Summary statistics for Thunderbird® wheel line worn nozzles. ........................................... 32
Table 13. Summary statistics for hand line worn nozzles. ..................................................................... 32
Table 14. Summary statistics for center pivot uniformity. ..................................................................... 32
Table 15. Estimated crop yield reduction in low quarter of the center pivot irrigated fields. ................ 34
VII. DISCUSSION ..................................................................................................................................... 34
Table D1 (also Table 2 above). Summary statistics for set system leaks. ............................................. 36
Table D2 (also Table 10 above). Summary statistics for set system incorrect nozzle size and excess
flow due to worn nozzles. ....................................................................................................................... 36
Figure D1. Area-weighted CU for high and low-pressure pivots larger than one span length. ............. 37
Figure D2. Irrigation depth measured by catch containers for low-pressure pivots #17 and 18. CU’s
were 92 and 70, respectively. .................................................................................................................. 37
Figure D3. Measured water application pattern under the same brass impact sprinkler at 30, 40 and 50
psi pressure. Sprinkler spacing is 40 x 50 feet with heads on each corner. Christiansen’s CU is 56%,
61% and 78%, respectively for the 30, 40 and 50 psi tests. (W.H. Neibling, unpublished data)............ 38
VIII. CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................................................ 39
IX. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ................................................................................................................. 39
Appendix A: Data for systems discussed. All leak, worn nozzle and uniformity data collected may be
found on the accompanying CD in the file ”Final leak and worn nozzle data.xls”. ................................... 40
Appendix B: Statement of Work #5 ........................................................................................................... 41

IV. INTRODUCTION
Energy input is required to pressurize water for sprinkler irrigation. In Idaho, over 90% of sprinkler
system pumping plants are powered by electrical energy. Therefore, irrigation and system maintenance
practices that reduce the volume of water pumped, or reduce the system operating pressure required for
uniform water application can reduce electrical energy input.
Proper irrigation system maintenance benefits both the farmer and electric utilities that supply power to
pressurized systems. Farmer benefits include using water most effectively for crop production and
reducing production costs by minimizing the electrical energy required for maximum crop yield and
quality. The electric utility benefits by minimizing power generation and electrical power distribution
capacity needed for agricultural irrigation.
A number of studies have been performed over the years to help quantify the need for additional
irrigation system maintenance. Larsen and Longley (1981) conducted a nozzle wear survey in 1977-78
on sprinkler systems using both canal and well water sources. They found that 77% of nozzles on
systems using canal water were worn, and 52% of systems using well water were worn. On surface water
systems, 40% of the nozzles were badly worn and 14% of the nozzles on well water systems were badly
worn. Badly worn nozzles were defined as those where discharge was increased at least 7% relative to a
new nozzle. Measured vs. design flow was compared on 9 laterals. Additionally, other leaks were visible
on some but not all of the laterals tested. These individual leaks, primarily due to worn gaskets, were
measured. Percent of design flow on these nine laterals ranged from 99 to 146%. All of the systems
tested were set systems. e.g., no center pivots were tested.
For best crop production, it is not sufficient to just apply the correct amount of water at the correct time.
The water must also be distributed as uniformly as possible by the irrigation system. Otherwise, some
areas of the field will be under-irrigated with resulting crop yield and quality reduction, while other areas
are over-irrigated which can also lead to reduced yield or quality due to nutrient leaching and increased
disease. Depending on the level of system uniformity, the area of the field that is irrigated properly can
range from less than ¼ to about ¾ of the total irrigated field area (King et al., 2000).
Reduced system uniformity can increase energy required in ways beyond the direct cost of water and
energy lost to leaks and worn components. Most farmers and agricultural consultants manage irrigation
to maximize field area that is adequately irrigated. In practice, this generally means applying more water
per irrigation so that the under-irrigated areas are more adequately irrigated. The result is that more of the
field area is now over-watered, but overwatering does not show the immediate symptoms shown by
under-watering (crop wilting, poor color etc.). Eventually, the over-watered areas may show symptoms
of nutrient leaching or disease, but these generally occur much closer to harvest.
King et al., 2000, discussed a number of factors that influence uniformity of water application on set and
continuous move sprinkler systems and the impact of over or under-irrigation on potato yield and quality.
For example, the average reduction in tuber yield (average of 45 fields) due to a 3-5 inch water deficit
was 60 hundredweight (cwt), while a 3-5 inch over irrigation reduced yield by 42 cwt. The resulting
reduction in total yield and the yield of the more desirable US#1 grade potatoes as system uniformity
decreased from CU=90% to CU=78% reduced crop value by $144/acre (1995 contract pricing).
Crop yield response of additional crops grown in southern Idaho to water stress is described by
Doorenbos et al. (1979), with crop yield and quality depending on the crop, and the timing and degree of
crop water stress. Hill et al., 1984 showed a linear relationship between alfalfa yield and
Evapotranspiration (ET) of 648 lbs. alfalfa per inch ET. Another value traditionally used at Kimberly is 1
inch gives 400 lbs. alfalfa (510 lbs. before first cutting) (Dr. J.L. Wright, personal communication). The
seasonal relationship between percent yield reduction and percent ET deficit is about 1:1 for winter wheat
and about 1.15:1 for spring wheat Doorenbos et al., 1979)
Hill et al., 2007, evaluated the system performance of a number of wheel line systems in the Uintah Basin
of Utah. This equipment was all relatively old, with system ages ranging from 12-22 years. Several of the
study conclusions are relevant here:

 “Interviews indicated that farmers expect most wheelmove systems to last about 25 years.
 The average wheelmove age was 15.2 years and farmers expected an average of 11 years of additional use.”
 Inspections also supported a 25 year or more lifespan of wheelmoves. The technician’s average rating was 4.4 on the scale of 1 (new) and 10 (worn out).
 Most wheelmoves, when replaced, will be replaced with improved wheelmove systems or center pivots.
 Some wheelmove systems are in a poor state of repair.
 Attention to maintenance by the operator may have more to do with condition than age or
exposure to livestock. Condition was not correlated to age and not highly correlated to livestock exposure. There were older systems in good condition and new systems in poor condition. Also, there were systems with no livestock exposure that were in poor condition and systems with
livestock exposure in good condition. However, if a system was not well maintained, the presence of livestock in the field seemed to increase the apparent damage to the wheelmove.
 The water distribution uniformity (CU or DU) could be improved on many wheelmoves by
increasing uniformity of nozzles [e.g.of nozzle diameter and discharge] . This would also help reduce associated deep percolation.”
Measurements in that study indicated that although the systems were relatively old, most of the heads had been replaced while replacement of gaskets and riser screws was less common.
One method of encouraging timely and needed system maintenance is the use of financial incentives by
utilities. Idaho Power Company currently provides cost share funding to irrigators for replacement of
worn or malfunctioning sprinkler irrigation components as a way to increase system efficiency and
uniformity. This results in less electrical input required to pump the same volume of water at the design
pressure. Since its inception, the Irrigation Efficiency Rewards program has paid over $6.1 million
dollars on over 5,300 component replacement projects, resulting in over 57 million Mega-watt hours
(MWh’s) of estimated energy savings. However, actual field data on measured system efficiency, the
number of systems tested requiring replacement or repair of various system components, and the actual
improvement in efficiency resulting from component repair or replacement is needed to substantiate
energy savings.
Therefore, the objectives of this study were:
 Systems should be identified and tested to collect data associated with all Idaho Power menu
items (listed in SOW #5 and in appendix A)
 On specific irrigation systems:
o Conduct water application uniformity tests,
o Determine the degree of wear for set system nozzles e.g. amount of over-application and
additional energy usage due to worn nozzles),
o Determine the degree of wear on set system sprinkler heads,
o Determine the number and size of leaks on set system mainlines and laterals,
o Determine approximate age of pressure regulators on center pivots and the degree to
which they are malfunctioning,
o Determine performance of other system components as identified during the project.
 Estimate energy savings resulting from replacement or repair of system components,

References
ASAE. 1999. Test procedure for determining the uniformity of water distribution of center pivot and lateral move irrigation machines equipped with spray or sprinkler nozzles. ANSI/ASAE 5436.1. American Society of Agricultural Engineers, St. Joseph, MI.
Doorenbos, J. and A.H. Kassam; with C.I.M. Bentvelsen…1979. Yield response to water. Irrigation and
Drainage Paper 33. Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations, Rome. 193pp.
King, B.A., J.C. Stark and D.C. Kincaid. 2000. Irrigation Uniformity. University of Idaho Extension Bulletin 824. 12pp.
Hill, R.W., E.B. Godfrey, B. Kitchen, and T. Cooper. 2007. An evaluation of wheelmove irrigation
systems nearing the end of practice life in the Uintah Basin of Utah. 54pp.
Hill, R.W., R.J. Hanks and J.L. Wright. 1984. Crop yield models adapted to irrigation scheduling
programs. Final report. Res Rep. 99. Utah Agric. Expt. Sta., Logan.
Larsen, D.C. and T.S. Longley. 1981. Nozzle Management and Leak Prevention for Sprinkler Irrigators.
University of Idaho CIS 569. 4pp.
V. MATERIALS AND METHODS:

Materials
No off-the-shelf equipment was available for measuring leaks from irrigation system components so it
was necessary to design, test and modify prototypes for the study. Equipment for testing wheel line leaks
is shown in Figure 1.
A pitot tube / pressure gage assembly was used to measure water pressure at the nozzle discharge point
(Figure 2). This equipment was purchased from a local irrigation equipment dealer and is typical of that
used in the industry.
A test assembly (Figure 3) was developed to catch water from individual nozzles to determine the impact
of different nozzle size or degree of wear on variability and amount of water applied. This equipment
could be used for either brass nozzles or for Nelson R20001 heads.
Irrigation water application uniformity was used as the basis for determining the condition of center pivot
water application equipment. Catch containers, designed and manufactured for this specific task were
obtained from Texas A&M University. These containers are funnel-shaped and marked with depth
graduations to facilitate quick reading and are supported by custom ring-shaped supports which facilitate
easy installation and leveling (Figure 4).
Methods

System selection: Most of the systems tested were located by UI personnel based on knowledge of the
landowner or farmer, or by follow-up contact to obtain owner permission to evaluate systems identified as
accessible or having specific issues of interest as they traveled through Southern Idaho. A few systems
were selected based on suggestions from Idaho Power Agricultural Representatives or from a list of
irrigators that had previously participated in the Idaho Power Irrigation Efficiency program’s Menu
Option. System selection was accomplished with the purpose of getting a variation in age and condition
of equipment. The systems selected were not intended to be used for determining the potential for worn
equipment on irrigation systems throughout Southern Idaho, but to determine the number of worn
components on each individual system tested. Selecting systems using these criteria was affected by the
number of projects that had been previously upgraded by participating in Idaho Power’s Irrigation
Efficiency rewards program. System age ranged from new in 2012 to 20+ years old. Several wheel lines
sold to a grower as reconditioned were also tested. Systems selected also had to be somewhat accessible
and have the crop short enough for uniformity testing at some point when water was available.
Set System Leak Measurements: During leak measurements, adjacent sprinkler rotation was stopped in
a position away from the test area to prevent collection of sprinkler-applied water in the catch containers.
In some cases, flow to the line was stopped while equipment was put in place by closing the valve at the
mainline riser, then starting flow again after equipment was in place. Water flow was allowed to
equilibrate before measurements began. In many cases, diversion shields were hand-held so it was not
necessary to stop flow to the line.
Wheel Lines: Leaks in wheel line systems were found in the leveling seal, the sprinkler head seal, at the
joint between adjacent sections, from pipe punctures, split pipe or split welds, and from the drain valves
during operation. Additionally, leaks were measured at the connection joints in Thunderbird® lines.
1 Product names are given for reader benefit and do not imply endorsement by the University of Idaho.
Most leaks were measured by isolating water from the leak and collecting it during a specified time
interval using some modification of equipment shown in Figure 1. Other spray-type leaks were measured
using a site-specific arrangement of waterproof tarp, hose clamps, and other small rigid water diversion
shields to collect water from the leak and direct it into a container for measurement. The test time period,
leak volume, and location were all recorded after the test run.
Hand Lines: Leaks from punctures, leaky gaskets and sprinkler heads were measured like those for wheel
lines. Gasket or other leaks in the lateral or in mainlines were measured by lifting the pipe off the ground
to allow diverted water to be collected (Figure 5).
Nozzle Wear Measurements: The majority of nozzles tested on set move systems were straight-bore
brass nozzles. Several lines had Nelson R2000 Windfighters, and a few flow control nozzles were
encountered. Initial brass nozzle diameter was determined from a size stamp on the side of the nozzle
whenever possible. In cases where the label was not present, a set of new drill bits with a 1/64th inch size
interval (Figure 6) was used to determine the largest bit diameter that could be inserted into the nozzle.
This size was recorded for each nozzle tested. The stamped size, or if unavailable, this size was used
along with measured nozzle pressure to determine nozzle design flow rate.
Initial diameter for the R2000 nozzles was determined by color code. The sizes encountered were red
(1/8”), gold (9/64”) and brown (5/32”). Nozzle flow based on diameter and pressure was obtained from
manufacturer-supplied tables in their printed literature.
Actual flow rate was measured by diverting flow into a hose and calibrated bucket for a timed interval.
Care was taken to assure that all water from the nozzle was intercepted and diverted by the hose. This is
shown in Figure 7 for a brass nozzle and Figure 8 for an R2000. Percent nozzle wear was then
determined by calculation as the percent of water applied in excess of that for a new nozzle of the same
diameter (e.g. 100*(actual – new)/new flow rates). Actual flow rate from high pressure pivot nozzles was
measured as shown in Figure 9.
Nozzle Pressure Measurements: Nozzle pressure was measured using a standard pitot tube connected
to an oil-filled pressure gage. During system operation, the pitot tube was inserted in the flow to the edge
of the nozzle and the pressure determined.

Catch can measurements: Catch containers of diameter and spacing consistent with ASABE Standard
ANSIIASAE S436.1 JUN1996 (R2007) were placed in the path of a center pivot or at two line locations
around set systems. Among other requirements, this standard specifies that testing should only be done
when wind velocity is less than 5 mph. Wind speed was measured in the field at approximately 2-m
height using a hand-held wind velocity meter manufactured by a Dwyer wind meter which is commonly
used to determine appropriate conditions for applying agricultural chemicals by spraying. As indicated by
the standard, procedures unique for different sprinkler systems were:

Set system: Catch funnels were placed at 10-foot intervals in 2 lines parallel to the system lateral (Figure
10). Locations were at the lateral and 20 ft offset in one direction from the lateral. The funnels were
placed before the line was started. It was run until one or two -catch funnels were nearly filled.. The line
was then shut down for measurement and recording.

Center Pivot System Leak Measurements:

Center pivot: Catch funnels were set at 10-foot intervals along the entire length of the lateral as shown in
Figure 4. Cans were set in a line sufficiently ahead of the lateral to allow for the complete set of funnels
to be placed before the lateral reached the line. After the lateral passed over the funnels, water collected
in each was read and recorded.

References:
ASABE Standard ANSIIASAE S436.1 JUN1996 (R2007) Test Procedure for Determining the
Uniformity of Water Distribution of Center Pivot and Lateral Move Irrigation Machines Equipped with
Spray or Sprinkler Nozzles.
King, B.A., J.C. Stark and D.C. Kincaid. Irrigation Uniformity. University of Idaho Extension Bulletin
824. 12pp.
Hill, R.W., E.B. Godfrey, B. Kitchen, and T. Cooper. 2007. An evaluation of wheelmove irrigation
systems nearing the end of practice life in the Uintah Basin of Utah. 54pp.
Larsen, D.C. and T.S. Longley. 1981. Nozzle Management and Leak Prevention for Sprinkler Irrigators.
University of Idaho CIS 569. 4pp.

Figure 1. Equipment for measuring leaks in wheel line punctures, gaskets and drain valves.

Figure 2. Pitot tube and pressure gage for measuring pressure at nozzle discharge.

Figure 3. Equipment for measuring discharge from an impact sprinkler with a brass nozzle
using a hose, stopwatch and known-volume container. Use of personal protective equipment is
also shown.

Figure 4. Catch can arrangement under a center pivot. Catch containers are at a 10-foot
spacing.

Figure 5. Elevating a section of line to measure a gasket leak.

Figure 6. Measuring nozzle diameter.

Figure 7. Measuring brass nozzle discharge with hose, stopwatch and known-volume
container.

Figure 8. Measuring Nelson R2000 nozzle discharge with hose, stopwatch and known-
volume container.

Figure 9. Measuring nozzle discharge from a high-pressure pivot lateral.

Figure 10. Catch can arrangement under a wheel line. Catch containers within each line are
at a 10-foot spacing. Lines of containers are 20 feet apart.

VI. RESULTS

Leaks
Leaks were present and measured in a number of set and center pivot systems. On wheel lines, leaks
ranged from relatively few gpm leaks up to one system that had over 45 gpm of leaks and one missing
nozzle that was discharging 20.4 gpm. For the purpose of this study, the minimum size for a reportable leak was 0.1 gpm. This has some practical basis in that it is the smallest leak that can be reliably and
repeatedly detectable in the field. The field sheet for this system is shown in Table 1. It is included to show the type of data collected, the size and number of leaks encountered, the variation in nozzle sizes present and degree of nozzle wear.

Set systems: An overview of leak characteristics for set systems is shown in Table 2. Summary statistics for each line tested are given in Tables 3, 4, and 5. Summary statistics for each type of leak are given in
Tables 6, 7, and 8. The percentage of leaks in sprinkler positioner, bearing or riser elbows is nearly the
same for standard (15%) or Thunderbird® (17%) wheel lines, and is about the same as the percentage of sprinkler bearing or mounting leaks (17%) in hand lines tested. Thunderbird® lines had more leaks per
line, but the leaks were smaller (Figure 11 and Tables 3, 4, 6, and 7). As a result, the average leak size
and leaks as a percentage of system design flow were larger for the standard wheel lines, compared to the Thunderbird® lines. One observation regarding the larger number of leaks in Thunderbird® lines was
that the weight of water in the lines applied torque to the wheel gasket assembly resulting in frequent
small leaks. Lateral leaks were reported under categories of “puncture”, “split weld”, “split pipe”, “riser leak” and “riser hose” leaks in Tables 6, 7, and 8. Several of the leaks were quite large, but the majority
were small, giving an average leak size of 1.73 gpm for standard wheel line and 0.36 gpm for Thunderbird® lines.
Additional pumping plant energy consumption due to leaks for each system on a per-acre basis was calculated using measured leak flow, system operating pressure and lift, and the area served by that hand or wheel line during all the moves required for one irrigation cycle. An annual use of 2000 hours was
assumed. This is a reasonable average for the cropping rotations most used in Southern Idaho. These values are summarized in Table 2 and shown for each line tested in Tables 3-5. Leaks and associated power consumption were less for Thunderbird® lines (144 kWh/ac) than for standard wheel lines (203
kWh/ac) or hand lines (381 kWh/ac).
Center pivot systems: Summary leak statistics are shown in Table 9. Two of the four high-pressure
systems and 10 of the 25 center pivot systems tested had leaks >0.1gpm. Measured leaks were all relatively small and were therefore a small portion of the total system flow (2.4% for high pressure
systems and 1.4% for low pressure systems). To provide some perspective, leaks from wheel lines
averaged about 14% of system flow and hand lines, about 36% (Table 2).
All the leaks on one high-pressure system were from sprinkler bearings, and all leaks on the other system (3) were from tower boots. All four systems were over 20 years old with no application package updates since initial installation. As a result, even the tower boots that were not leaking were noticeably
weathered. Energy use due to leaks averaged 19 kWh/ac for the two systems with leaks. The majority of the leaks on the low pressure systems were due to drain valve (12 of 32 or 38%) or tower
boot leaks (10 of 32 or 31%). Three of the remaining 10 leaks were the largest: a missing nozzle (7gpm), a booster pump gasket leak (8.1 gpm) and a pipe flange gasket leak (6.9 gpm). Only one leaking pivot boot was noted in the systems tested. This leak was minor, at about 0.5 gpm. Excess energy use for the
systems with leaks averaged 10.6 kWh/ac.

Worn nozzles
Set systems: Degree of nozzle wear was determined by comparing measured nozzle discharge to
tabulated discharge values at the same pressure from a new nozzle. Additional pumping plant energy
consumption due to worn nozzles for each system on a per-acre basis was calculated using measured excess nozzle flow, system operating pressure and lift, and the area served by that hand or wheel line
during all the moves required for one irrigation cycle. An annual use of 2000 hours was assumed. This is
a reasonable average for the cropping rotations most used in Southern Idaho. These values are summarized in Table 10 and shown for each line tested in Tables 11-13.

Excess water applied due to incorrect sized or worn nozzles was remarkably similar for all three types of set systems studied. Line discharge ranged from 111% of design for Thunderbird® lines to 114% for
standard wheel lines to 116% of design for hand lines. Excess energy consumption due to worn nozzles averaged 151 kWh/ac for the three types of lines.

Total excess water and energy

Total excess water applied by set systems due to leaks and worn nozzles (average of all lines tested) was
30.0%, 22.7%, and 51.1% of the design capacity for standard wheel line, Thunderbird® wheel line and
hand lines, respectively. Total excess energy consumption for these same systems was 351kWh/ac,
300kWh/ac, and 529kWh/ac for the standard wheel line, Thunderbird® wheel line and hand lines,
respectively. At $0.05/kWh energy cost, this would cost the farmer and additional $18/ac, $15/ac or
$26/ac annually for standard, Thunderbird® and hand line operation.
Uniformity
Measurement of nozzle discharge in set systems was used as an indicator of uniformity. Two extremes of performance are shown in Figure 12. The top graph shows nozzle discharge along a standard wheel line
that had received little or no maintenance for 15-20 years. Most nozzles were discharging more than design flow and also showed considerable variability. Total line flow was 134% of design. The bottom
graph shows nozzle discharge from a standard wheel line with 2-month old Nelson R2000 sprinkler heads
with 9/64” nozzle size. Design and actual flow are very close, with high uniformity. This graph clearly indicates the potential for water and energy savings by replacing worn or damaged system components.

Water application uniformity under center pivots was determined using the catch containers shown in Figure 3. Catch data were analyzed in several ways. Application rate in inches along the pivot was
plotted in Figure 13 which shows a range of depths along the entire line, with values significantly larger
and smaller than the mean. No visible reasons were apparent for the scatter in the data (drops off vertical, odd sprinkler pattern, etc.). Measured pivot application patterns illustrating different types of variability
are shown in Figures 14 and 15.
An alternative method of examining water application uniformity is shown in Figure 14, where the
percentage of field area receiving less than (or more than) a given irrigation depth is shown. This type of
analysis shows the amount and degree of under and over-watering. It can be used to determine the potential for yield reduction from under or over-watering. For example, 25% of the field receives less
than 0.5 inches of water (left vertical arrow intersecting irrig depth curve) and 25% of the field area receives 0.7 inches or more (right vertical arrow intersecting irrig curve). The average value of the low quarter is 0.44 inches and the average value of the high quarter is 0.73 inches. If the farmer irrigates to
meet the needs of the low quarter, this curve indicates that an additional 0.58-0.44 or 0.14 inches excess water will be applied during each irrigation. This also shows that 25% of the field will receive 0.73-0.58
+0.14, or 0.29 inches of excess water per irrigation. Therefore, if the field is irrigated based on crop
appearance of the low quarter (a relatively common practice in southern Idaho), ¼ of the field will be properly irrigated, ½ will be over-irrigated by 0.14 inches and ¼ will be over irrigated by 0.29 inches
during each irrigation. The number of additional irrigations required and the associated increased energy
costs are shown in Table 14.
A number of other statistics, calculated from the catch data, are shown in Table 14 for several of the
pivots tested. The traditional Christiansen coefficient of uniformity assumes equal areas associated with
each catch container. With a center pivot, the area described by each container is a circular band, with
width equal to the nozzle drop spacing. This means the area described by each container gets larger when
moving toward the outer end of the machine. The Heermann and Hein version of CU described in the
ASAE standard takes this into account, using an area-weighted CU. Several types of water application
variability were observed in the catch container data. Some pivots had a high degree of variability along
the entire lateral length (Figure 14, LP7), while others had relatively low variability along most of the
lateral but an area of higher variability near the outer end (Figure 14, LP4 and Figure 15, LP18). Still
others had relatively low variability along the entire length with periodic low values possibly due to
nozzle or pressure regulator problems (Figure 15, LP17). Average area-weighted CU was 83% for both
high and low-pressure pivots. CU ranged from 78 to 93 on the high pressure machines and from 69 to 94
on low pressure machines. To put these numbers in perspective, King et al., stated that “new pressure-
regulated low-pressure center pivots and linears were capable of achieving CU’s of 90-95%, and that “a
CU value of 85% is generally considered to be the minimum value below which a system needs updating
or maintenance”. Using this threshold, 75% of the high pressure machines and 60% of the low pressure
machines needed updating or maintenance.

Figure 11. Percent of measured set-system leaks less than a given leak size category.

0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Pe
r
c
e
n
t

o
f

l
e
a
k
s

l
e
s
s

t
h
a
n

g
i
v
e
n

s
i
z
e

Leak size, gpm
Standard WL
Tbird WL
Hand line

Figure 12. Nozzle flow rate and variation along wheel line WL15 (last maintenance 15-20
years ago) and WL 16 (nearly new R2000 sprinkler heads) compared to design rates.

0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
No
z
z
l
e

f
l
o
w
,

g
p
m

Nozzle number
WL15 wheel line: 9/64 nozzle, 32 psi
actual flow no-wear flow
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
No
z
z
l
e

f
l
o
w
,

g
p
m

Nozzle number
2-month old R2000 windfighter
actual flow no-wear flow

Figure 13. Irrigation depth variation along a low pressure pivot with the application
package last replaced in 2003. The Heermann and Hein CU is 82% and the area-weighted
mean is 0.58 inches.

Figure 14. Irrigation depth variation along two low-pressure center pivots showing large
variability along the entire lateral (CU=74) and small variation along most of the lateral but
large at the outer end (CU=84).

0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
Ir
r
i
g
a
t
i
o
n

d
e
p
t
h
,

i
n
c
h
e
s

Distance from pivot point, feet
2003 low pressure pack (LP19)
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
0 200 400 600 800 1000
Ir
r
i
g
a
t
i
o
n

d
e
p
t
h
,

i
n
c
h
e
s

Distance from pivot point, feet
LP4 (CU=84) LP7 (CU=74)

Figure 15. Irrigation depth variation along two low-pressure center pivots showing
relatively low variability along the entire lateral (CU=92) and small variation along most of
the lateral but large at the outer end (CU=70).

Figure 16. Percent of the field receiving less than a given irrigation depth.
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
Ir
r
i
g
a
t
i
o
n

d
e
p
t
h
,

i
n
c
h
e
s

Distance from pivot point, feet
LP17 CU=92 LP18 CU=70
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
0 20 40 60 80 100
Me
a
s
u
r
e
d

i
r
r
i
g
a
t
i
o
n

d
e
p
t
h
,

i
n
c
h
e
s

% of Field area receiving less than given irrigation depth
2003 low pressure pack (LP19)
irrig depth
mean 0.58 in
low 1/4 0.44 in
high 1/4 0.73 in 0.5 0.7
Table 1. Field data collection sheet for the wheel line having many leaks and worn
nozzles. Note the 20.4 gpm leak at head #33 where the nozzle was missing.

Date: _7/5/12_ Field ID: _Jessie S long wheel line__ Lat: 42°38'4.5"N ____Lon: 114°29'26"W
Start PSI_34 End PSI 30 Line design flow 33*3.2 = 106 gpm

Riser or
Pipe #
Leaks
gpm
Leak
Type
Nozzle
Flow
Rate
Gal/30s
nozzle
flow
rate
gpm
Nozzle
Size
inches
% over
design
flow
Sprinkler
Type
Picture
#
Other
info
1 2.5 5 9/64 56.25 B
2 1.3 B 2 4 9/64 25 B
3 DV 9/64 775
3 0.1 SP 2.2 4.4 9/64 37.5 B 773
4 1.9 3.8 9/64 18.75 B
5 0.3 DV 2.1 4.2 9/64 31.25 B 772
6 1.5 3 1/8 -6.25 B Stuck
7 1.5 3 1/8 -6.25 B
8 2 4 9/64 25 B
9 1 DV 2.1 4.2 9/64 31.25 B 771
10 1.5 DV 2 4 9/64 25 B 770
0.5 B
11 0.2 B 2.35 4.7 9/64
5/32 46.875 B 766
12 2.3 4.6 9/64
5/32 43.75 B
13 2 4 9/64 25 B
14 0.6 DV 2.3 4.6 9/64
5/32 43.75 B 765 Stuck
0.25 B
15 0.2 B 3 6 5/32
11/64 87.5 B
1.3 DV 763
3.2 P 764
16 1.7 3.4 9/64 6.25 B
17 1.8 DV 3.6 7.2 9/64
5/32 125 B
18 18 DV 2.5 5 9/64
9/32 56.25 B 760 Stuck
19 0.5 G 2.6 5.2 5/32 62.5 B 758
20 2.7 5.4 9/64 68.75 B
21 0.1 B 2.2 4.4 9/64 37.5 B 757
22 0.6 DV 1.9 3.8 9/64 18.75 B 756
4 RE 9/64 755
23 1.9 3.8 9/64 18.75 B
24 2 4 9/64 25 B
25 1 DV 2.3 4.6 5/32 43.75 B 754
26 2 4 9/64 25 B
27 2 DV 1.8 3.6 9/64 12.5 B 753
28 1.9 3.8 9/64 18.75 B
29 5 DV 2 4 9/64 25 B 752 Bent RE
30 2 4 9/64 25 B
31 1.9 3.8 9/64 18.75 B
32 2 4 9/64 25 B
33 20.4 B 751 No
nozzle

[DV]=Drain Valve [G]=Gasket [GF]=Gear Flange [R]=Rotator Sprinkler/Nelson [B]=Bird Impact Sprinkler
[P]=Puncture [W]=Split Weld [S]=Split [RL]=Riser Leak [H]=Hose [SP]=Sprinkler Positioner [RE]=Riser Elbow
leaks w/o #33

46.45 gpm
all leaks

66.85 gpm
flow due to nozzle wear 35.1 gpm
total excess water pumped 101.95 gpm
# wrong size nozzles 5

Table 2. Summary statistics for set system leaks.

Number of leaks > 0.1 gpm and
percent of total tested Average per line:
Type of
System Number
of
heads/
drain
valves
tested
Sprinkler
positioner,
bearing or
riser
elbow
Drain
valve Gaskets
Excess
water
applied,
%
Excess
annual
energy
use,
kWh/ac
(assumes
2000h)
Standard
wheel line 504 76 (15%) 29
(5.7%) 38 (7.5%) 16.3 203
Thunderbird®
wheel line 346 60 (17%) 9 (2.6%) 120 of 692
(17%) 11.6 144
Hand line 72 12 (17%) NA 6 (8.3%) 35.6 381
Average 21.2 243

Table 3. Summary statistics for standard wheel line leaks.

System
ID# Years since
maintenance
#
heads
#
leaks
Total
leaks,
gpm
% of
system
flow
Extra annual kWh
used per acre served
by line (assumes
2000h)
WL1 33 6 12.3 9.44 112.46
WL2 14 13 62 103 1336.16
WL3 32 3 0.9 0.74 8.49
WL4 37 2 9.4 6.43 76.65
WL5 26 11 9.3 7.02 107.92
WL6 25 10 19.7 15.55 237.75
WL7 Refurbished
2012
28 2 3.4 2.19
36.64
WL8 15-20 33 11 28.3 19.11 258.74
WL9 15-20 32 12 6.3 6.63 59.40
WL10 33 4 1.2 0.92 10.97
WL11 As needed 32 5 2.9 2.17 27.34
WL12 As needed 32 10 2.75 2.29 25.93
WL13 20+ 48 26 9.55 5.41 60.03
WL14 20+ 34 22 50.8 32.35 450.80
WL15 15-20 33 22 46.45 46.89 424.69
WL16 15-20 32 6 1.7 1.35 16.03
Average 10 16.7 16.34 203.12

Table 4. Summary statistics for Thunderbird® wheel line leaks.

System
ID# Years since
maintenance
#
heads
#
leaks
Total
leaks,
gpm
% of
system
flow
Extra annual kWh
used per acre served
by line (assumes
2000h)
TB1 32 12 2.8 2.04 26.40
TB2 15 20 11.95 19.08 240.37
TB3 Replace as
needed
30 12 2.85 2.61
28.66
TB4 Replace as
needed
29 18 20.85 16.24
216.92
TB5 5 30 16 27.45 22.05 276.07
TB6 5 30 6 2.12 1.67 21.32
TB7 32 12 4.9 3.46 46.20
TB8 5 30 12 16.6 12.73 166.95
TB9 2 21 23 19.95 22.21 286.63
TB10 2 32 31 18.6 16.05 175.37
TB11 2 32 19 14.95 12.28 140.96
TB12 2 32 25 11.95 8.99 112.67
Average 17 12.9 11.6 144.88

Table 5. Summary statistics for hand line leaks.

System
ID# Years since
maintenance
#
heads
#
leaks
Total
leaks,
gpm
% of
system
flow
Extra annual kWh
used per acre served
by line (assumes
2000h)
Line 1 33 9 41.3 34.4 377.60
Line 2 6 8 18.3 84.7 920.23
Line 3 6 2 10 50.5 502.86
Line 4 16 3 1.9 3.6 35.83
Line 5 9 2 2.1 4.7 70.40
Average 4.8 14.7 35.6 381.38

Table 6. Summary table for types of Standard wheel line leaks.

Leak type Number Maximum
gpm
Minimum
gpm
Average
gpm
Standard
deviation, gpm
Drain valve 29 18 0.2 3.26 4.7
Gasket 37 10 0.1 1.79 2.47
Gear flange 2 7 0.2 3.6
Sprinkler
bearing
27 1.6 0.1 0.46 0.43
Nelson
rotator
3 0.4 0.2 0.3 0.1
Puncture 9 14.4 0.1 3.24 4.3
Split weld
Split pipe 11 0.7 0.1 0.33 0.21
Riser leak 1 3.9
Hose 2 2.4 0.5 1.5
Sprinkler
positioner
37 25 0.1 0.92 4.08
Riser elbow 1 4

Table 7. Summary table for types of Thunderbird® wheel line leaks.

Leak type Number Maximum
gpm
Minimum
gpm
Average
gpm
Standard
deviation, gpm
Drain valve 9 0.7 0.1 0.37 0.23
Gasket 121 11.6 0.1 1.07 1.5
Gear flange 1 0.7
Sprinkler
bearing
19 2.3 0.1 0.37 0.51
Nelson
rotator
0 0 0 0 0
Puncture 1 0.4
Split weld
Split pipe 7 0.7 0.1 0.35 0.2
Riser leak 0 0 0 0 0
Hose 0 0 0 0 0
Sprinkler
positioner
36 0.7 0.1 0.21 0.16

Table 8. Summary table for types of hand line leaks.

Leak type Number Maximum
gpm
Minimum
gpm
Average
gpm
Standard
deviation, gpm
Drain valve NA NA NA NA NA
Gasket 6 21 0.2 5.8 8.0
Gear flange NA NA NA NA NA
Sprinkler
bearing
0 0 0 0 0
Nelson
rotator
0 0 0 0 0
Puncture 4 2 0.8 1.45. 0.64
Split weld 0 0 0 0 0
Split pipe 2 0.5 0.1 0.3
Riser leak 4 6.4 0.55 2.94 2.65
Hose
Sprinkler
positioner
NA NA NA NA NA
Riser saddle 3 6 0.2 3.2

Table 9. Summary statistics for center pivot system leaks.

System
ID#
System
age,
years
Years
since
mainten-
ance
Total
leaks
Number and
type of leaks
Total
leaks for
type, gpm
Total
system
leaks,
gpm
Excess
water
applied,
%
Excess
annual
energy
use,
kWh/ac
(assumes
2000h)
HP1 20+ 20+ 0 0.00 0.00
HP2 20+ 20+ 3 3 Tower boot 1.75 1.75 1.44 11.20
HP3 20+ 20+ 8 8 sprinkler
bearing 4.1 4.1 3.38 26.24
HP4 20 20 0 0.00
Avg. 2.41 18.72

LP1 5 5 0 0.00
LP2 3 3 0 0.00
LP3 20+ 20+ 5
2 Tower boot 1.8
9.35 1.53 11.87 2 Drain valve 0.55
1 missing
nozzle 7.0
LP4 15 4-6 1 Booster pump 8.1 8.1 4.77 37.00
LP5 30-35 4-6 5 3 Tower boot 1.55 4.95 2.55 19.79 2 Drain valve 3.4
LP6 15 4-6 0 0.00 0.00
LP7 16-20 4-6 3 2 Drain valve 0.5 0.6 0.22 1.73 1 Tower boot 0.1
LP8 40 4-6 3 1 Pivot boot 0.5 1.0 1.37 10.64
2 pipe leaks 0.5
LP9 21 4-6 1 1 Drain valve 2.4 2.4 0.51 3.92
LP10 20 20 3 3 Drain valve 0.7 0.7 0.11 0.89
LP11 used 0 0 0.00
LP12 used 0 0 0.00
LP13 0 0 0 0.00
LP14 13 13 0 0.00
LP15 13 13 3
2 pivot riser
gasket leaks 0.4 0.4 0.20 1.53
1 gooseneck 0.5 0.5
LP16 5 5 7
4 Tower boot 3.6
10.7 1.24 9.58 2 Drain valve 0.2
1 pipe flange 6.9
LP17 13 13 0 0.00 0.00
LP18 11 11 1 Hose off fitting 1.9 1.9 1.12 8.68
LP19 9 9 0 0.00
LP20 13 13 0 0.00
LP21 11 11 0 0.00
LP22 11 11 0 0.00
LP23 11 11 0 0.00
LP24 11 11 0 0.00
LP25 13 13 0 0.00
Avg. 1.36 10.56

Table 10. Summary statistics for set system incorrect nozzle size and excess flow due to
worn nozzles.

Table 11. Summary statistics for standard wheel line worn nozzles.

System
ID# Low /high
Flow
Mean
excess
flow,
gpm
Std
Dev of
excess
flow
Total
Excess
Flow,
gpm
Excess
flow, % of
system
flow
Extra kWh/ac served
by line due to worn
nozzles
(assumes 2000h)
WL1 -0.32/1.02 0.41 0.36 13.45 10.32 122.97
WL2 NT NT NT NT NT NT
WL3 -0.17/1.19 0.24 0.19 7.60 6.25 71.66
WL4 -0.75/0.35 0.05 0.22 1.90 1.37 15.49
WL5 -0.85/1.15 0.32 0.55 8.30 6.26 96.32
WL6 -0.36/1.80 0.63 0.43 15.75 14.48 190.08
WL7 0.1/0.5 0.26 0.14 6.90 5.48 74.35
WL8 0/1.75 0.3 0.36 10.02 7.47 91.61
WL9 -0.26/5.0 1.36 0.80 43.55 47.99 410.61
WL10 -0.75/3.06 0.52 0.56 17.13 13.56 156.62
WL11 -0.45/0.95 0.48 0.23 15.30 11.45 144.26
WL12 -035/2.02 0.94 0.47 30.18 25.17 284.55
WL13 -0.20/1.90 0.41 0.38 19.10 12.48 120.06
WL14 -1.19/320 0.44 0.83 14.43 9.19 128.05
WL15 0.21/4.01 1.07 0.73 33.25 33.57 304.00
WL16 -0.42/0.27 0.04 0.12 1.32 1.04 12.45
Average 0.49 0.44 15.82 13.60 148.21

Type of
System Number of
heads/drain
valves tested
Number
and
percent of
incorrectly
sized
nozzles
Average per-line
excess water
applied due to
wrong size or
worn nozzles
%
Average excess
energy use,
kWh/ac
(assumes 2000h)
Standard
wheel line 504 55 (11%) 13.6 148
Thunderbird®
wheel line 346 11 (3.2%) 11.1 156
Hand line 72 21 (29%) 15.5 148
Average 13.4 151.0
Table 12. Summary statistics for Thunderbird® wheel line worn nozzles.

System
ID# Low /high
Flow
Mean
excess
flow,
gpm
Std.
Dev of
excess
flow
Total
Excess
Flow,
gpm
Excess
flow, % of
system
flow
Extra kWh/ac served
by line due to worn
nozzles
(assumes 2000h)
TB1 0.15/1.07 0.49 0.23 15.74 10.28 148.41
TB2 0.11/1.56 0.49 0.40 7.38 10.54 148.44
TB3 0.85/1.65 1.44 0.12 43.09 28.88 433.36
TB4 0.02/0.51 0.29 0.138 8.37 6.23 87.08
TB5 -0.09/0.73 0.34 1.81 10.23 7.59 102.88
TB6 -0.23/1.02 0.36 0.29 10.44 7.82 105.00
TB7 -0.19/2.10 0.83 0.32 25.85 15.67 243.73
TB8 -0.32/0.78 0.37 0.27 11.00 7.78 110.63
TB9 0.25/0.61 0.42 0.11 8.35 8.60 119.97
TB10 0.13/1.95 0.37 0.37 12.15 9.54 114.56
TB11 -0.38/2.20 0.60 0.42 19.14 13.68 180.46
TB12 -0.12/1.18 0.28 0.28 8.97 6.32 84.57
Average 0.52 0.40 15.06 11.08 156.59

Table 13. Summary statistics for hand line worn nozzles.

System
ID# Low /high
Flow
Mean
excess
flow,
gpm
Std.
Dev of
excess
flow
Total
Excess
Flow,
gpm
Excess
flow, % of
system
flow
Extra kWh used per
acre served by line
(assumes 2000h)
due to worn nozzles
Line 1 -0.41/2.25 0.39 0.59 14.10 12.51 128.91
Line 2 -0.18/0.85 0.30 0.41 2.39 11.57 120.18
Line 3 -0.10/1.81 0.81 0.66 4.84 26.08 243.38
Line 4 -0.50/2.01 0.31 0.59 5.32 11.82 100.32
Average 0.45 0.56 6.66 15.49 148.20

Table 14. Summary statistics for center pivot uniformity.

System
ID# Years
since
mainten
ance
Application
package
#
cans
Pivot
CU
%
Mean
application
rate, inches
Extra
passes
required
to erase
LQ
deficit2

Extra
hours
above
good
system

Extra
kWh/ac
above
good
system

HP1 20+ impact 22 78 0.99 8 396 154
HP2 20+ impact 49 80 0.85 5 136 53
HP3 20+ impact 39 81 1.26 5 202 78
HP4 20 impact 120 93 0.48 6 115 45
2 A “good” system (CU=93-94) requires 3 extra passes.
Avg. 83 0.90

LP1 5 15psi
wobbler
60 79 0.55 15 528 205
LP2 3 15 psi Iwob 88 84 0.53 11 339 132
LP3 20+ 20 psi
rotator
108 83 0.68 11 435 169
LP4 4-6 20 psi
rotator
58 84 0.59 13 472 183
LP5 4-6 20 psi
rotator
62 84 0.68 8 272 106
LP6 4-6 30 psi
rotator
45 82 0.52 18 624 242
LP7 4-6 30 psi
rotator
72 75 0.75 17 840 326
LP8 4-6 30 psi
rotator
38 80 0.65 13 520 202
LP9 4-6 97 93 0.71 3 0 0
LP10 20 20 110 85 0.84 8 336 130
LP11 3 15 47 89 0.85 6 204 79
LP12 3 15 61 91 0.48 9 230 89
LP13 New
2012
15psi
40”high
166 69 0.64 19 819 318
LP14 13 20 psi 12 94 0.68 3 0 0
LP15 13 30 psi 95 85 0.42 15 403 156
LP16 5 Tested for leaks only
LP17 13 20 114 92 0.60 8 240 93
LP18 11 20 58 70 0.48 17 538 209
LP19 13 15 128 82 0.58 11 371 144
LP20 13 15 122 84 0.64 13 512 199
LP21 11 30 55 81 0.53 13 424 164
LP22 11 20 61 87 0.37 14 326 126
LP23 11 20 41 93 0.63 4 50 20
LP24 11 20 43 85 0.64 9 307 119
LP25 11 20 109 77 0.44 18 528 205
Avg. 13 77 83 0.60 157

Table 15. Estimated crop yield reduction in low quarter of the center pivot irrigated fields.

CU
range
Percent
of
tested
systems
in CU
range
Deficit in
LQ area
after
applying
28 inches
irrigation,
inches

ET
deficit,
%3
Spring
wheat
yield
reduction,
%
Alfalfa
yield
reduction,
T/ac
Sugar
beet
sugar
yield
reduction,
%
Potato
tuber yield
reduction,
%
70-79 25 9.2 33 38 1.8 25 38
80-85 36 7.0 25 29 1.4 16 28
85-89 18 5.8 21 24 1.2 12 23
90-94 21 3.0 11 13 0.6 5 12

VII. DISCUSSION
Excess water and power usage due to leaks varied considerably based on individual farmer attention to
maintenance, with excess of 16% on standard wheel line, 12% on Thunderbird® wheel line, and 36% on
hand lines. This translated to an additional 203, 144 and 381 kWh/ac energy use for standard wheel line,
Thunderbird® wheel lines and hand lines, respectively when individual system characteristics were
considered (Table D1).
Based on study results, set system nozzles must be worn to an excess flow level of at least 10-15% before
farmers see the need for system repair. Because some systems tested were nearly new, the actual
threshold for needed repair may be even higher. Incentive programs to encourage replacement or repair
of worn or damaged parts can encourage repair and therefore save water and energy. Measured levels of
excess flow from worn nozzles were 14, 11 and 16%, with excess energy use required of 148, 156 and
148 kWh/ac for standard wheel line, Thunderbird® wheel lines and hand lines, respectively (Table D2).
This is a lower rate than observed in studies where average excess flow from 9 lines tested was 119% of
design (Larsen, et al 1981).
Refurbished set-move systems had minimal leaks and excellent water application uniformity. In this
study and in a 2007 study (Hill, et al., 2007), system performance was related more to maintenance than
system age.
One of the additional energy and excess water costs of low system pressure resulting from leaks, worn nozzles or other system problems is that most growers irrigate to give good crop appearance on the
majority of each field. If uniformity is poor, most growers tend to over-irrigate some areas to assure
adequate water on the majority of the field. This is true in both center pivot and set systems. The result is more water use and energy consumption. In this sense, improving application uniformity generally
results in a significant reduction in energy consumption. In addition, improving system uniformity
reduces the degree of over and under-watering. Crop yield and quality will be higher on a more uniform system because the degree of under/over watering is less (see Table 15).
Additional non-energy benefits for insect and disease control can be related to reduction of excess irrigation. For example, incidence and severity of a number of potato, sugar beet, cereal and forage
diseases can be reduced by minimizing over-irrigation (Dr. Oliver Neher, University of Idaho, Kimberly,
3 Assumes no soil water storage
Plant Pathologist, personal communication). Insect pest response to excess irrigation is less defined, with crops more susceptible to insect damage from some pests under water-stress conditions and from others
under excess water conditions (Dr. Erik Wenninger, University of Idaho, Kimberly, Entomologist,
personal communication). Area-weighted CU values for pivots larger than one span relative to years since replacement of the pivot
package are summarized in Figure D1. When considering only data for low pressure pivots, the trend in CU is somewhat downward with age of pivot sprinkler package. However, when examining catch
container data for relatively new systems that had low CU values, a pattern similar to that shown in
Figure D2 was present. Notice that the majority of the system length for LP 18 (CU = 70%) was quite uniform, visually appearing about as uniform as LP17 (CU = 92%). Although the measured high and low
catch data at the outer end of LP18 were a relatively small part of the system length, they occurred at the
outer end where each represented a larger area than a can positioned closer to the pivot point. Therefore, this relatively short length of poor uniformity reduced the area-weighted CU considerably. If CU data for
systems like LP18 were plotted based on the CU representative of the majority of system length, several CU values for relatively new systems would plot higher and reduce data scatter. Catch data for LP18 indicate that a problem is present, but that it is primarily an issue on the last span. In this case, correction
of problems on just the last span would bring system performance up to a CU in the low 90’s as shown by the arrow in Figure D2.
Water application uniformity from a given nozzle depends on system operating pressure (Figure D3). In set systems, the uniformity of flow from nozzle to nozzle may be very good, nozzles may not be worn and leaks may be minimal, but if the system pressure is too low for best uniformity, the grower will probably
over-irrigate to provide at least adequate water to most of the field. The result is excess water and energy use, and increased potential for crop disease and nutrient leaching.
A reconditioned wheel line system had minimal leaks and excellent uniformity, while a similar system purchased “as is” at the same time had significant losses due to leaks and worn nozzles. Systems tested
with new sprinkler packages had high uniformity and water application very near target levels indicating
that proper maintenance does indeed return older systems to nearly new levels of performance.
Initially, it was assumed that systems irrigating higher value crops like sugar beets would have fewer
leaks and worn nozzles than systems irrigating pasture. However, in looking at the data, this is not the case. Several growers (WL11, WL12, TB3, TB4), specifically indicated that they replaced nozzles on an
“as needed” basis. When examining the irrigation systems maintained in this fashion, the threshold to visually see the need to replace worn nozzles is at least 10-15% excess water use. (Table 10). It is easier to identify leaks (5.6% loss on above four systems) than worn nozzles (17.9% loss on the same four
systems). Therefore, encouraging irrigators to examine systems more closely for needed repairs will help bring about energy-saving repairs that would not otherwise occur.
The maintenance level and frequency of irrigation system component repair and replacement depends on grower ability to finance the improvements and on the value of the crop. Irrigation equipment manufactures suggest the average operation of components such as sprinkler heads, low pressure pivot
regulators, and nozzles are limited to approximately 10,000 hours. In Idaho, that averages out to five irrigation seasons or five years under normal operation. This may be more or less dependent upon region, water quality, and environmental conditions. This study suggests that components, when worn or
malfunctioning represent significant increases in energy consumption and yield loss due to overwatering.
Table D1 (also Table 2 above). Summary statistics for set system leaks.

Number of leaks > 0.1 gpm and
percent of total tested Average per line:
Type of
System Number
of
heads/
drain
valves
tested
Sprinkler
positioner,
bearing or
riser
elbow
Drain
valve Gaskets
Excess
water
applied,
%
Excess
annual
energy
use,
kWh/ac
(assumes
2000h)
Standard
wheel line 504 76 (15%) 29
(5.7%) 38 (7.5%) 16.3 203
Thunderbird®
wheel line 346 60 (17%) 9 (2.6%) 120 of 692
(17%) 11.6 144
Hand line 72 12 (17%) NA 6 (8.3%) 35.6 381
Average 21.2 243

Table D2 (also Table 10 above). Summary statistics for set system incorrect nozzle size and
excess flow due to worn nozzles.

Type of
System Number of
heads/drain
valves tested
Number
and
percent of
incorrectly
sized
nozzles
Average per-line
excess water
applied due to
wrong size or
worn nozzles
%
Average excess
energy use,
kWh/ac
(assumes 2000h)
Standard
wheel line 504 55 (11%) 13.6 148
Thunderbird®
wheel line 346 11 (3.2%) 11.1 156
Hand line 72 21 (29%) 15.5 148
Average 13.4 151.0

Figure D1. Area-weighted CU for high and low-pressure pivots larger than one span length.

Figure D2. Irrigation depth measured by catch containers for low-pressure pivots #17 and
18. CU’s were 92 and 70, respectively.

50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
100
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Ar
e
a
-we
i
g
h
t
e
d

C
U
,

%

Years since sprinkler package replacement
low pressure
high pressure
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
Ir
r
i
g
a
t
i
o
n

d
e
p
t
h
,

i
n
c
h
e
s

Distance from pivot point, feet
LP17 CU=92 LP18 CU=70

Figure D3. Measured water application pattern under the same brass impact sprinkler at 30,
40 and 50 psi pressure. Sprinkler spacing is 40 x 50 feet with heads on each corner.
Christiansen’s CU is 56%, 61% and 78%, respectively for the 30, 40 and 50 psi tests. (W.H. Neibling,
unpublished data).

0
30 0 30 60 90 120 150
0 10 20 30 40 50
Wa
t
e
r

c
o
l
l
e
c
t
e
d
,

m
l

distance, feet
Impact sprinkler 7a, 30 psi, <2mph
wind
120-150
90-120
60-90
30-60
0-30
0
30 0 30 60 90 120 150
0 10 20 30 40 50 Wa
t
e
r

c
o
l
l
e
c
t
e
d
,

m
l

distance, feet
Impact sprinkler 7a, 40 psi, <2mph
wind
120-150
90-120
60-90
30-60
0-30
0
20
40
0
30
60
90
120
150
0 10 20 30 40 50
wa
t
e
r

c
o
l
l
e
c
t
e
d
,

m
l

feet
Impact sprinkler 7a, 50 psi, <2mph wind
120-150
90-120
60-90
30-60
0-30
40
40

VIII. CONCLUSIONS
Based on field measurements of set and center pivot systems in South-central Idaho:
 Some level of leaks was present on every lateral tested. The average number of sprinkler head, positioned, or riser elbows needing replacement was 16%, drain valves 4.2%, gaskets 11%, and nozzles 14.4% of the total number tested.
 Total leak loss was large on some systems (3 of 16 standard wheel lines tested had total leaks greater than 30% of lateral design capacity)
 Potential to save water and energy by replacing or repairing key components is significant, with 25% of the standard wheel lines tested having leak loss >15%.
 Water loss due to leaks was greater for Standard wheel lines than for Thunderbird® lines (16 vs. 12% of lateral design capacity).
 Thunderbird® laterals had more but smaller leaks, with a significant number present at the wheel gaskets.
 Standard wheel lines that were reconditioned in 2012 performed like new lines with minimal
leaks and good uniformity.
 System age was not a good predictor of the number of lateral leaks in set systems. This is
consistent with previous findings in Utah, where degree and timing of maintenance was more important.
 Age of application package was a relatively good predictor of application uniformity on center pivots. Catch can measurements provide further data to more accurately determine CU and
component condition. Based on uniformity testing and a threshold of CU = 85%, 75% of high
pressure systems and 60% of Low pressure systems tested required updating or maintenance. Resulting improvement in uniformity will result in less water application and power
consumption.
 If growers use crop appearance of the field area receiving the lowest quarter of irrigation to
determine when and how much to irrigate, the average additional pivot passes would be 9 with an
additional energy use per acre of 157 kWh/ac, relative to a pivot with CU=93 to 94 (relatively new and good condition).
 Proper installation of a well-designed new center pivot water application package can improve the CU from <85% to about 93-94%. This degree of uniformity improvement can significantly reduce the crop yield penalty due to under-irrigation and resulting crop water stress on the lowest
quarter of the field area. It will also reduce over-watering and the resulting higher crop disease and nutrient leaching potential.
 Continual system maintenance assures a level of improved performance that saves significant water and electric energy. This research indicates that there are still irrigation systems needing repair and replacement at a level that would prove a benefit to irrigators in better yield and
quality, reduced labor costs, and a reduction in costs associated with energy use.
IX. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Financial support for this study was provided by Idaho Power and was greatly appreciated. Joseph Tilley
was responsible for organizing and conducting the field measurements with assistance from Derek
Kluchesky. Without the hard work and attention to detail of these two young men, this study would not
have been possible. Quentin Nesbitt and Dennis Merrick with Idaho Power were instrumental in planning
the study. The many hours they spent on proofing and reviewing this document and the reviews by other
Idaho Power personnel made this report a stronger document.
Appendix A: Data for systems discussed. All leak, worn nozzle and uniformity data collected may
be found on the accompanying CD in the file ”Final leak and worn nozzle data.xls”.

Appendix B: Statement of Work #5

APPROVALS (IPC USE ONLY)
Contracting: SM IPC CM No.: 3094
Legal: N/A (or N/A) IPC PassPort Number: 113550
Risk: N/A (or N/A)

STATEMENT OF WORK # 5
This Statement of Work (“SOW”) is entered into the last date signed below (“Effective Date”) by and
between IDAHO POWER COMPANY (“IPC”) and The Regents of the University of Idaho (“Contractor”). The terms and conditions of the Professional Services Agreement (“Agreement”) dated
March 2 2010, by and between the parties is incorporated by this reference. Terms used in this SOW will
have the same meaning as in the Agreement, unless otherwise indicated.
Name(s) of IPC Contact(s) for SOW (include phone number(s))
Dennis Merrick 208-388-2379 or Quentin Nesbitt 208-388-2519
Time for Performance of Services
Start Date
December 16, 2011 Guaranteed Completion Date
December 1, 2013
Business Objective(s) of the Services
To provide Idaho Power with a publishable research paper qualifying water savings and corresponding energy savings from measures associated with Idaho power’s Irrigation Efficiency program Menu option. Irrigation
system leaks and overwatering due to worn nozzles or other worn system components represent losses of water and unnecessary energy consumption for system pressurization. Actual field measurements of water losses,
determination of the number of components requiring replacement or repair on various systems, and estimates of yield improvement and energy reduction resulting from component repair or replacement are needed to
determine future program viability.
Contractor shall provide data measuring volumetric water losses associated with various worn and leaking
irrigation system components. Contractor shall also provide data indicating the ratio of worn to non-worn components on each measured system for each of the eleven measures of the Irrigation Efficiency Menu option.
Data shall be used to calculate the energy (kW and kWh) and non-energy (yield and labor benefits) impacts benefiting Idaho Power Company and customers on a per year basis.
Scope of Services
IPC’s Responsibilities
Idaho Power Company will provide Contractor with access to six Idaho Power Agricultural Representatives located throughout IPC’s service territory to assist in identifying irrigation systems to be utilized in the project.
At the contractor request provide data as to whether a system identified has participated in Idaho Power’s Menu program, and the specifics of the participation.
Contractor’s Responsibilities
Contractor shall recruit and contact agricultural producers to participate in the research project. Irrigation
components and systems measured in the project do not necessarily have to receive electric service from Idaho Power Company.
Contractor shall design and develop equipment that will effectively measure water use efficiency gains associated with worn: 1) set system nozzles (regular and flow control), sprinkler heads, wheel-line levelers, gaskets (hand-line,
wheel-line, main-line, valve openers, riser caps, wheel-line drains), pipe or mainline, center hubs for Thunderbird®® brand wheel-lines, 2) low pressure center pivot or linear system nozzles, pressure regulators, low
pressure sprinkler heads, and center pivot base boot gaskets.
Contractor shall identify specific irrigation systems to test. The total number, distribution and types of systems
tested will be sufficiently large to develop a statistically valid research of irrigation system component replacement /
repair needs.
 On specific irrigation systems:
o Determine ratio of worn and non-worn components on individual systems for each measure as
defined on IPC’s Irrigation Efficiency Menu Incentive Application.
o Conduct water application uniformity tests.
o Determine the degree of wear for set- system flow control, brass or plastic nozzles, various
sprinkler heads, and wheel-line levelers (e.g. measured volume amounts of over-application).
o Determine the degree of wear on set-system mainline, hand-line, or wheel-move gaskets, drains,
and valves (e.g. measured volume amounts of leaks).
o Determine the number and volume of leaks on set-system mainlines hand-line, or wheel-move
requiring cut and pipe press or weld repairs.
o Determine the volume of leaks associated with worn center wheel hubs on Thunderbird®® brand
wheel move systems.
o Determine approximate age of pressure regulators, low-pressure sprinkler heads, goosenecks and
drop hoses on center pivots, and the degree to which they are malfunctioning, (e.g. measured
volume amounts of over- or under- application due to worn components).
o Determine the volume of leaks associated with the center pivot base boot gasket,
o Determine performance of other system components as identified during the project.
o Summarize the information by geographic area for each system component tested.
Contractor shall calculate the additional annual energy usage associated with each specific class of worn
components.
Contractor will also estimate yield and potential labor or other benefits resulting from the replacement or repair of
worn components.
Contractor shall provide monthly updates and a comprehensive final report prior to December 1, 2013 to include a
technical review of research and data calculations, detail the average and aggregate energy impacts, and summarize
the results of the measurements. This report will include conclusions, recommendations, and any deficiencies that
should be addressed by Idaho Power Company.
Deliverables/Milestones
Contractor shall provide monthly updates and a preliminary final research paper by November 1, 2013 to include a
technical review of research and data calculations, detail the average and aggregate energy impacts, and summarize
the results of the measurements.

Contractor Personnel
Howard Neibling- Extension Irrigation Specialist, Major Professor, Advisor- 208-308-5192

Compensation
Contractor shall submit monthly invoices to Idaho Power for costs associated with the research project. Total project compensation shall not exceed $45,000

Contractor’s price includes all applicable taxes and costs, including, but not limited to, overhead and markup.
Contractor shall be responsible for remittance of all federal, state and local taxes applicable to any compensation or
payments paid to Contractor under this SOW.
Additional Terms
N/A
Insurance Modifications
N/A
Exhibits
The following Exhibits are attached to this SOW and are incorporated herein by reference:
Exhibit A- Idaho Power Irrigation Efficiency Menu Incentive Application which includes components by measure.

AGREED AND ACCEPTED as of the Effective Date hereof.

CONTRACTOR IDAHO POWER COMPANY
THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF IDAHO

Signature Signature

Printed Name of Signor Printed Name of Signor

Title of Signor Title of Signor

Date Date

Idaho Power Company Supplement 2: Evaluation
Demand-Side Management 2012 Annual Report Page 179
EVALUATIONS
Process Evaluations
Table 3. 2012 Process Evaluations
Program Sector Analysis Performed by Study Manager Study/Evaluation Type
A/C Cool Credit Program Process Evaluation Residential PECI Idaho Power Process

Supplement 2: Evaluation Idaho Power Company
Page 180 Demand-Side Management 2012 Annual Report
This page left blank intentionally.

Demand Response

A/C Cool Credit Program
Process Evaluation
Idaho Power Company | November 2012

2

Intentionally left blank

3

Contents
Executive Summary .................................................................................................................................................... 5
Program Description ...............................................................................................................................................8
Process Evaluation Objectives and Approach ........................................................................................................... 8
Program Comparisons ........................................................................................................................................9
Program Operations and Process Findings ............................................................................................................. 10
Overall Program Processes ................................................................................................................................. 11
Program Assumptions .......................................................................................................................................... 16
Internal Team Communications ........................................................................................................................... 17
Marketing and Customer Outreach ...................................................................................................................... 18
Enrollment Targeting ........................................................................................................................................ 20
Prepared Marketing Material ............................................................................................................................ 21
Existing Participant Communications ............................................................................................................... 23
Data System and Reporting ................................................................................................................................. 24
Equipment, Installation and Operation ................................................................................................................. 26
Equipment ........................................................................................................................................................ 26
Equipment Availability ...................................................................................................................................... 27
Installation ........................................................................................................................................................ 27
Dispatch Process.............................................................................................................................................. 28
Cancelling Events ............................................................................................................................................. 30
Customer Incentives ............................................................................................................................................ 30
Customer Support and Opt Outs ......................................................................................................................... 32
Customer Support ............................................................................................................................................ 32
Opting Out ........................................................................................................................................................ 32
Key Observations and Recommendations ............................................................................................................... 35
Appendix A: List of Reviewed Materials ................................................................................................................... 41
Appendix B: Interview Guide .................................................................................................................................... 42
Appendix C: A/C Cycling Load Curtailment Programs ............................................................................................. 46
Appendix D: Readiness Plan .................................................................................................................................... 47

4

5

Executive Summary
This process evaluation has been conducted as part of Idaho Power’s program evaluation schedule. The A/C
Cool Credit program is part of a portfolio that provides Idaho Power options for controlling costs and maintaining a
reliable system for customers. The program was designed to narrow a gap between forecasted supply and
demand for electricity in Idaho and Oregon. This voluntary program cycles residential air conditioners or heat
pumps during summer months to reduce peak loads. The primary objectives of the evaluation were to:
 Document and evaluate the current program processes
 Identify best practices and gaps
 Make recommendations for improvements where applicable
PECI completed a number of tasks to accomplish the evaluation objectives. Specific activities included a review of
the program materials, interviewing key Idaho Power and contractor staff, review of participant feedback and
secondary research on other A/C cycling programs.
In the course of the process evaluation, several themes emerged across multiple areas of the program. The
program has strengths that should be leveraged and enhanced to improve overall program performance as well
as areas where the program has limitations that should be addressed.
Program recognition and participant satisfaction:
In the ten years since its inception, Idaho Power Company’s A/C Cool Credit program has become the most
widely used and easily recognized DSM program operated by the utility. High consumer name recognition is
important for the program. The program has consistently held high participant satisfaction. In a 2011 survey, 75%
of respondents indicated they were very satisfied with the program. High satisfaction rates are supported by low
churn, with only 1-2% of participants requesting removal from the program because of dissatisfaction.
Consistent and successful installation vendor:
Honeywell has been a successful partner in delivering the program. They appear to be managing customer
contacts and equipment installation well. It is rare for customer complaints to be escalated to the Program
Specialist, suggesting the Honeywell call center is effectively addressing customer issues.
Strengths that should be leveraged further:
Improved communication is a theme that touches several areas of this evaluation. One example of successful
communication is already utilized in the program. The weekly curtailment meetings utilized during the summers by
Idaho Power staff are viewed as worthwhile by attendees. This cross function communication should serve as a
model for engaging all the internal stakeholders throughout the year. All stakeholders interviewed have a clear
understanding of their role in delivering the program. Idaho Power staff and subcontractor staff were consistent in
their descriptions of general program processes and goals, indicating that the program operation has been
communicated to all parties involved. However, the stakeholders also expressed a desire to have a more holistic
view of the interconnectedness of roles.
Increasing customer enrollments and minimizing losses:
As the program continues to grow in participation, its enrollment has slowed pace as administrators try to reach
their goal of 40,000 enrollees. Staff were concerned at the increasing difficulty in enrolling and retaining
participants and questioned if it was due to market saturation. Compared to other programs across the country,
the program is mature, but does not appear to be saturated. Idaho Power should work both sides of the equation
to enroll more customers and to reduce program turn-over. Program marketing has continued to rely upon a
persistent strategy of direct mailing to a customized distribution list of Idaho Power customers. The program’s
best opportunity for capturing participation from new participants is to utilize better-coordinated marketing
campaigns and targeted messaging.
Conversely, there should be an improved focus on retention within the program, reducing the need to obtain new
customers. For example, when a customer requests to be removed from the program, there is no articulated

6

retention strategy executed by either Honeywell or Idaho Power to retain their enrollment or obtain information in
the form of an exit interview. A strategy should be developed to keep these customers in the program, or collect
valuable information that could feed future program offerings. In addition, formalizing the process for current
participants who move within Idaho Power’s service territory would reduce churn and lower marketing costs.
Idaho Power’s greatest amount of turnover is due to participants who move to another residence. The program
has a process for reaching out to new home owners who purchase homes with existing curtailment equipment but
does not have a process for automatically following the existing customers who move to a new address within the
Idaho Power service territory.
Opportunity for enhanced program metrics and reporting:
The program has high level performance metrics such as enrollments, megawatts controlled and customer
satisfaction, but there is a lack of program metrics for individual processes to gauge performance and find
opportunities for improvements. Program staff should create key performance indicators to track performance and
trends throughout the curtailment season.
Introduction of error through manual processes:
Many of the processes in the program are automated; however several manual processes in the program
introduce the opportunity for error. In terms of program operations, there are critical steps within the program that
have shown to be susceptible to error. This has been apparent during the enrollment of Time of Day (TOD)
customers, as well as the billing tables that drive billing cycles in the Customer Information System (CIS). This
susceptibility should be minimized by reducing manual processes, utilizing checklists for annual tasks and
developing metrics and reports for tracking and improving process performance. The program has operated
successfully in prior years due to the continuity in program knowledge from the Program Specialist and the
diligence of the internal stakeholders who have impact on the program operation. Stakeholders to the program
include all of the staff at Idaho Power who have roles in delivering a portion of the program. Documenting and
institutionalizing this knowledge is essential in the event these staff members were to leave Idaho Power.
Improved communication and tighter coordination:
The team members delivering the A/C Cool Credit program are individually competent and diligent regarding their
individual areas of expertise. However, they do not operate as a coordinated unit. For example, the promotion of
the program is disjointed due to ongoing transitions within the marketing staff at Idaho Power. There are
opportunities to reach new customers through a more strategic and unified approach from program management
and the marketing team through a diversified outreach approach. Previously, this coordinated effort has been
difficult due to unclear delineations in marketing roles and responsibilities. A more carefully managed partnership
between marketing and program management should help resolve this.
In terms of program operations, there seems to be a lack of accountability within the team. The technical teams
responsible for dispatch scheduling and equipment operations are looking to program management for direction
and decision-making while the management is simultaneously relying upon the technical team for knowledge and
guidance on the equipment and technical components. This was evidenced in the transition to DRU devices,
which were purchased with the assumption they would operate similarly to the LCTs. The manufacturer stated
they worked the same, however the algorithm in the DRU did not produce the same results and required
additional programming. Detailed conversations between the program team and the technical team could have
determined this prior to installation.
Idaho Power has built a dependence on contractor labor for the operation of the program. This is not unusual for a
program of this nature. However, the contractor is responsible for the customer interface of the program. It is key
for Idaho Power to be closely connected to these interactions as they impact the performance of the program.
Additionally, several elements of the program design and operation (program marketing and curtailment
duration/timing) appeared to accommodate the contractor rather than meeting Idaho Power’s business needs.

7

Introduction
Prior to the inception of the A/C Cool Credit program, planners were forecasting a gap between the supply and
demand in electricity for Idaho Power’s territory. The A/C Cool Credit program was designed to narrow this gap
and possibly avoid or delay the building of additional peaking generation. This program is part of a portfolio that
provides Idaho Power options for controlling costs and maintaining a reliable system for customers. This voluntary
program cycles residential air conditioners or heat pumps during summer months to reduce peak loads. Since its
inception, the A/C Cool Credit program has become the most widely used and easily recognized DSM program
operated by the utility. It has increased in participation every year, growing to just over 37,700 participants in
2011, and has provided significant demand reduction, as shown in Figure 1. The program has also maintained
high customer satisfaction.

Figure 1. A/C Cool Credit Program Growth1
NOTE: 2011 verified demand reduction reflects only Boise Metro Area participants due to communication issues discovered during the evaluation.
 Indicates Third Party Verification Was Conducted
The participant and demand reduction figures shown in Figure 1 were obtained from Idaho Power’s DSM Annual
Reports. Despite continued growth in program participation, enrollment has slowed pace and fallen short of the
program goal of 40,000 enrollees. There are concerns that it is becoming increasingly difficult to enroll and retain
participants due to market saturation. In addition, as the program continues to grow and as more internal
stakeholders become involved, the program is under greater scrutiny from internal and external audiences.
To address these concerns and ensure the A/C Cool Credit program is operating efficiently and effectively, Idaho
Power contracted with PECI to conduct a comprehensive process evaluation of existing program processes and
provide a forward looking analysis of the A/C Cool Credit program. Process evaluations look at the processes in
place at the time of the evaluation, and therefore are a snapshot in time.

1Idaho Power Company Demand-Side Management 2011 Annual Report, March 15, 2012, Appendix 4.
0.5 3.1 6.3
12
26
39 39
24
204 420 2,369
5,369
13,692
20,195
30,391 30,803
37,728
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
35000
40000
Pa
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
n
t
s
De
m
a
n
d

R
e
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

(
M
W
)

Demand Reduction (MW)
Number of Participants
   

8

The first task conducted for this process evaluation was the completion of a Readiness Plan. The document was
developed to aid staff in preparing for research that was conducted during the 2012 program year. The readiness
plan detailed tasks and made recommendations for processes that should be completed prior to the research, but
could be used to prepare for all curtailment seasons. The plan was developed prior to conducting the evaluation
interviews. The recommendations from the plan are included in the relevant recommendation sections of this
report for completeness. Idaho Power is considering, or has already implemented many of the recommendations
included in this plan.
The evaluation includes a comparison of Idaho Power’s current processes with industry best practices from
similar existing residential load control (LC) and Demand Response (DR) programs offered by other utilities. In
addition, program operations and processes are examined in detail, including:
 Overall program processes,
 Program assumptions,
 Internal team communications,
 Marketing and customer outreach,
 Data systems and reporting,
 Equipment installation and operation,
 Load curtailment processes,
 Customer incentives, and
 Customer and program support.
This report provides Idaho Power with the process evaluation findings including key observations and
recommendations for process improvements. Program impacts and research results are provided in a separate
report.
Program Description
Idaho Power has a robust portfolio of energy efficiency and demand response programs to address the increasing
energy demands of a growing population. Increasing use of Heating, Ventilating and Air Conditioning (HVAC)
systems during the summer months places a significant burden on Idaho Power’s power supply, power contracts,
and transmission and distribution departments.
The A/C Cool Credit program addresses the growing residential HVAC demand by enrolling customers who agree to
have their A/C system curtailed in times of demand stress. The program operates from June 1 through August 31,
and offers a monthly bill credit to participants of $7 during the months of July, August and September. The program’s
function is to shift some HVAC demand off of the peak hours by implementing various load reduction curtailment
strategies. These curtailments limit the time each HVAC unit may operate within a three-hour curtailment period.
Curtailments are limited to non-holiday weekdays and cannot exceed 40 hours per month and 120 hours a season
(excluding operation during system emergencies). Based on reported numbers, the program continued to achieve
consistent demand reduction with the exception of 2011. Customer satisfaction ratings have consistently remained
high.

Process Evaluation Objectives and Approach
The primary objectives of the evaluation were to:
 Document and evaluate the current program processes
 Identify best practices and gaps
 Make recommendations for improvements where applicable

9

PECI completed a number of tasks to accomplish the evaluation objectives. Specific data collection and program
review activities are outlined below.
Review Program Materials
PECI reviewed program documentation, previous evaluations, forms, customer communications, reports, and
marketing materials to document the key processes as well as provide program feedback to Idaho Power. The list
of materials reviewed can be found in Appendix A: List of Reviewed MaterialsError! Reference source not
found..
Staff Interviews
PECI conducted staff interviews with key Idaho Power and contractor staff in July and August of 2012. In total, 16
staff provided input in 30-60 minute interview sessions, some conducted via teleconference and some conducted
in person. Table 1 summarizes the interviews which were targeted and completed. Staff interviews included the
Idaho Power program staff, marketing staff, generation supply and dispatch, as well as third-party contractors.
Questions were formulated to determine general program awareness, customer behavior and decision-making,
and other findings that would be beneficial regarding future program design and implementation. PECI developed
an interview guide to facilitate the interviews (see Appendix B: Interview GuideAppendix B: Interview Guide).
Interview questions were tailored to the interviewee’s particular area of responsibility.
Table 1. Staff Interviews Targeted and Completed
Staff Type Targeted Completed
Idaho Power Program Staff (all departments) 11 11
Contractors 6 5
Total 17 16

Review of Participant Feedback
In 2011, Idaho Power contracted with a third-party firm to conduct a survey of A/C Cool Credit customers. The
survey collected feedback from customers regarding incentives and program satisfaction. PECI reviewed the
results from this participant survey. The review focused on cross-referencing participant feedback to confirm other
process findings as well as identify any additional relevant feedback or gaps from participants. Additionally, a
sampling of the Idaho Power customer service center logs was reviewed for the evaluation.
Secondary Research on A/C Cycling Programs
The evaluation team also conducted high level research on similar utility load reduction programs. Other
programs were identified through PECI staff’s knowledge and through program staff input on programs that
operate in other states. PECI conducted secondary research by reviewing other utility’s website information and
by contacting select utilities to obtain information on comparable programs.

Program Comparisons
PECI staff researched other utility-operated A/C cycling load curtailment programs to better understand opportunities available for the A/C Cool Credit program. PECI identified several programs operating throughout the U.S. The full list can be found in Appendix C: A/C Cycling Load Curtailment ProgramsAppendix C: A/C
Cycling Load Curtailment Programs. From this list, PECI selected three A/C Cycling programs to examine in detail because they appear to be well run programs and they shared at least one characteristic in common with the A/C
Cool Credit program such as size of program (overall enrollment), season of operation, or incentive structure. We

10

examined their approach to operation, as well as incentives and functionality as a way to draw examples of industry best practices to share with Idaho Power.
PECI obtained details regarding these programs through information available online, and through direct contact with the utilities via email correspondence and phone conversations. Although these programs vary slightly in
enrollment size and utility service territory, strong similarities exist in program design and structure. Table 2Table 2 compares several features of the load control programs offered by other utilities.

Table 2. Summary of Dispatch Load Curtailment Programs

Interestingly, this comparison has shown that Idaho Power offers a more generous ongoing incentive than these
other similar A/C cycling programs. Other programs offer either a $5 monthly incentive for participation or $1 per
curtailment, as compared to the $7/month offered through A/C Cool Credit. Vectren Energy offers an additional $2
for the enrollment of an electric water heater, which is a required component of their program.
Another unique feature is ComEd’s optional incentive of $10 for those that enroll in 100% cycling. This option has
the potential to bring greater improvements in cost effectiveness for the program; however, it would also add a
higher degree of complexity for the operation of the program to run a dual-cycling program.
Additionally, NV Energy’s Cool Share program revised their incentive structure to improve cost-effectiveness,
changing from a monthly payment to per-curtailment payment. Cool Share now pays $1 per curtailment to its
50,000 participants and ran 11 curtailments during the 2011 season. The thermostat, which is also the enabling
technology, is viewed by the participants as having value, although it is a one-time cost to NV Energy. The net
result of this change in incentive structure was a reduction in their incentive costs by approximately half. This
option provides greater flexibility to customers for opting out of a single curtailment event without forfeiting their
entire monthly credit.

Program Operations and Process Findings
This section provides information on the various program processes for the A/C Cool Credit program. In this
section, we first provide an overview of the 2011 program process, second, we include an in-depth discussion of
the different program activities and third, we present our findings on the topic. Our findings are based on a review
of materials and process interviews, as well as concurrent impact research being conducted this year, drawing
Utility Program
Brand
Program Size
(Participants)
Times of
Operation Cycling Device Incentive
(2012)
NV Energy Cool Share 50,000 Up to 2 hrs. Weekdays, 3:30-6:30pm
DCU or thermostat set point increased 4°
Radio communication/ Pager
Free t-stat, $1 per curtailment after first 4
Vectren Summer Cycler 30,000 Typically between 12-5pm Varied Radio communication/ Pager
$5 per A/C unit; $2 per electric water heater per mo.
ComEd
Smart Ideas Central A/C Cycling
63,000
Weekdays, 11am to 8pm. Up to15 mins. every 30.
50%; 15 mins. every half hour Radio communication/ Pager
$5/mo. ($20/season)
Up to one continuous 3-hr period
100%; up to one continuous 3-hour period
$10/mo. ($40/season)
Idaho Power A/C Cool Credit 38,000 Weekdays, 4-7pm, June-Aug
Varied. Typically 50 =-60%; 15 mins. every half hour
PLC/ Pager $7/month; July-Sept.

11

attention to some of the program’s processes. Where appropriate, process changes implemented in 2012 have
been included in the review.
Overall Program Processes
A/C Cool Credit program activities occur throughout the year. Figure 2 provides an overview of the 2011 program
implementation with key activities and events highlighted. In 2011, two concentrated marketing efforts occurred
along with less intense marketing mailings to facilitate year round enrollment and switch installation. The third
party contractor performed fewer installations in the summer curtailment months because fewer enrollments occur
in the summer and the contractor is also responding to curtailment related calls.
Figure 2. 2011 Timeline of Program Events

Figure 3 shows the recommended timeline of events for 2013. Only slight modifications have been made for this
timeline. Marketing still occurs in two concentrated efforts with less intense marketing mailings to facilitate year
round enrollment and installation. Changes include a two way communication test to ensure a high percentage of
switches are communicating properly. Stakeholder meetings are added to the timeline to facilitate cross function
communication and facilitation of the program. The Program Specialist may choose to reduce the number of
stakeholder meetings if three are not necessary. The basis of these additions is discussed in this report.
Figure 3. 2013 Recommended Timeline of Program Events

Marketing and Program Outreach (concentrated efforts)
Marketing Mailings
Enrollment
Switch Installation
Program Readiness and System Checks
Remediate Any Issues Identified in Readiness Checks
Curtailment Season
Weekly Curtailment Decision Meetings ss ss ss ss ss ss
Bill Credit Paid ($7 the following month)
Program Evaluation
Program Planning
DecJanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNov
Marketing and Program Outreach (concentrated efforts)
Marketing Mailings
Enrollment
Switch Installation
Program Readiness and System Checks 
Remediate any issues identified in readiness checks
Curtailment Season
Weekly Curtailment Decision Meetings ss ss ss ss ss ss
Bill Credit Paid ($7 the following month)
Program Evaluation
Internal Stakeholder Meetings u u u
Program Planning
Conduct sw itch tests to ensure they are communicating w ith system. Follow up as needed.
Nov DecJunJulAugSepOctJanFebMarAprMay

12

The process flow chart found in Figure 4 was developed based on interviews with all internal stakeholders.
Information was gathered from the multiple functions within Idaho Power that support the program including (but
not limited to) marketing staff, billing staff, the program team and the metering staff. It shows the customer
experience beginning with the receipt of marketing materials through leaving the program. All of the various
activities will be discussed in the remaining sections of this report.

13

Figure 4. Customer Acquisition and Lifecycle

Yes
No
Customer receives marketing piece in the mail
Join Program?
Yes
No
Customer remains in eligible pool for future marketing efforts.
Customer enrolls by phone
Customer enrolls by reply mail
Customer enrolls by Web
Customer chooses method
Honeywell receives customer information (all channels)
IPC receives duplicate email from Web form
Is appt required?Schedule install
Customer placed on list to be installed at earliest possible time
Is installation possible? (e.g. Turn down?)
Device Installed
on customer A/C Unit
Customer notified of deficiencies. No installation.
Customer data uploaded daily to IPC (2 files)
Device data uploaded daily to IPC customer information system•File uploaded to associate switch to
service point.
(Device file)
•Creates contract rider to initiate credit (billing system file)
File of customer information sent daily to the TNS to “search in”
device. Switch
shows up in AMI
system.
Customer is ready to participate in curtailments.
Customer requests removal
Customer remains in program as long as they desire
Honeywell receives request and discusses options with customer
Customer is opted out of curtailment and Honeywell schedules removal
Customer still desires removal of device
IPC must go through a manual process if device can not be removed
immediately to assure
customer is not curtailed
further
Device removed
Customer is removed from future mailings
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
Deficiencies addressed?
Yes
No
Customer Acquisition
START
Customer Acquisition and Lifecycle
Customer Lifecycle END
Program Specialist maintains list of turndowns and removals
and manually screens
mailing lists for these
customers

14

Findings
 As the A/C Cool Credit program has steadily grown over the last seven years, the number of key staff
involved in the program and interested stakeholders have also increased. Many of the functions the Program Specialist did alone at the beginning of the program now require a team. For example, in the
initial years of operation, the Program Specialist performed customer communications and recruitment tasks in consultation with Corporate Communications marketing staff. Now the primary responsibilities for
these functions have moved to the corporate communications staff. Along the same lines, in the past, the decision to execute curtailments was made by the Program Specialist and implemented by dispatch; now
the generation organization, with input from multiple parties, is responsible for curtailment execution decisions. And as old equipment is phased out and new, more advanced equipment takes its place, staff
implementing Idaho Power’s AMI system is now integrated into the program. Due to the growth in program support staff and complexity, the program was in need of a formalized “Readiness Plan” to
ensure those involved in program operation had a clear idea of roles and responsibilities, tasks and general timeline, and program expectations. This Readiness Plan was developed as the first task of this
process evaluation for use in the 2012 season. The plan can be found in Appendix D: Readiness Plan. Beginning in 2013, Idaho Power intends to utilize the plan and implement many of the suggestions on an
ongoing basis.
 Idaho Power utilizes a third party (Honeywell) to provide most of the customer interface for the A/C Cool
Credit program. Idaho Power has a knowledgeable and reliable vendor contracted to implement this program. Their experience and knowledge are valuable to continued program success. Honeywell
supports the program by providing a call center where customers can sign up for the program or can talk to a technician if they are experiencing an issue during a curtailment. Honeywell also installs, replaces,
and removes switches from customer sites. This is not an unusual arrangement for this type of program. However, depending on a single contractor for the operation of the program increases Idaho Power’s
vulnerability if relationships deteriorate or if the company decided to no longer provide certain services. The current relationship with Honeywell is strong and the immediate risks associated with a single vendor
relationship are low.
 Some program staff indicated that certain program decisions cater to the vendor contract. The vendor contract was initially written to address an earlier system peak. As the peak has moved later in the day,
the program is not able to curtail during the last hour of the system peak because the vendor’s contract does not include phone coverage for the hour after curtailments end. Idaho Power may want to revisit the
vendor contract terms to address the later peak.
 Idaho Power staff and subcontractor were consistent in their high level descriptions of program processes, indicating that the program has thoroughly communicated program operation to all parties
involved. Staff also fully understood their role in delivering the program and communicated the desire to
have a better understanding of the linkage between roles.
 A/C Cool Credit staff evaluates program performance via several meaningful metrics. Current metrics appear to be high level and include satisfaction surveys, number of participants, and the total number of
MW reduced during curtailments. Over the life of the program, thus far, the program has maintained high customer satisfaction. After the 2011 curtailment season, 525 customer surveys were conducted.2
 75% of surveyed customers were satisfied with the number of times their A/C unit was curtailed
during the 2011 season (and most were not aware of all of the curtailment events).
 Overall program satisfaction was high, with 75% of respondents saying they were very satisfied
with the program. Just over two-thirds said they were very likely to recommend the program to others.

2 “Idaho Power A/C Cool Credit Survey Results.” ADM Associates, September 29, 2011

15

It should be noted that in 2011, some of these customers were not being curtailed due to communication issues3.
 Idaho Power made a sampling of 2012 customer service call logs from the curtailment season available for the evaluation. Only calls related to the A/C Cool Credit program were supplied. While it is not unusual for a portion of customers to be calling in with complaints or concerns for this type of program, the calls
were reviewed to identify any systemic issues. Generally the topics of the calls were easily addressed by customer service staff. Only one area for improvement was found. Three of the calls received in July were
made by customers that claimed to be a second or third attempt to be removed from the program and their earlier attempts had gone unaddressed. Investigation revealed that the customers didn’t fully
understand that they had indeed been removed from the program and were not being curtailed even though the device had not yet been removed. The program processes in place were operating
successfully. The customer’s request to be removed from the program was executed immediately. However, the customers did not understand the separation between being removed from the program
(i.e. not being curtailed) and the physical removal of the device from their home. The communication with the customer could have been improved. Considering the nature of curtailment programs, this a minor
improvement. In general the customer service aspect of the program appears to be strong.
These logs should be reviewed during the curtailment season as they contain a wealth of information on
the customer experience with the program and should provide insight into areas for improvement.

Recommendations
 Idaho Power should make operational decisions that benefit the program and maximize program goals
and work with third party contractors to ensure that this happens. These goals should be addressed in future requests for proposals as well as in contract language so that Idaho Power has more flexibility to
govern program operations.
 Develop further metrics (key performance indicators) to help Idaho Power identify and measure improvements in the program. For example, tracking and trending the number of calls received by
Honeywell and Idaho Power’s call centers on curtailment days will help the Program Specialist estimate customer fatigue from curtailments. Tracking and trending response time to trouble calls could be used as
a performance goal for Honeywell. There is a wide variety of possible metrics but metrics should focus on areas of importance to Idaho Power.
 The metrics and any trends should be reported in an end of year summary report. These should then be used to track performance across years.
 Idaho Power should utilize customer call center log (complaint logs) as a source of information for
improving the customer experience. It is important not to overreact to single complaints, but keeping abreast of customer complaints, particularly during curtailment months, will help the Program Specialist
identify trends and communication gaps. The report should be directly sent to the Program Specialist when possible.

The following are overall process recommendations from Task 1: Readiness Plan:
 Key program policies should be reviewed annually in advance of the curtailment season, including
Honeywell’s escalation policies, any contract limitations, on-site customer procedures, and customer communication procedures.
 Prior to each curtailment season, dispatch criteria and limitations should be reviewed with key program
stakeholders, as criteria for curtailments may change year to year as Idaho Power’s resources change. This is especially important because of the collaborative nature for determining the need for curtailments.

3 “A/C Cool Credit Program Impact Evaluation,” PECI February 2012

16

The curtailment policy should articulate the desired circumstances (criteria) for curtailments as well as limitations stated in the tariff.
 Documents should be updated annually to reflect any regulatory or operational changes that impact the program. For example, as Idaho Power migrates from paging switches to PLCs, policies and procedures specific to the paging devices should be updated.

Program Assumptions
The process evaluation included a review of the impact analysis methodology, with a focus on the load reduction
calculations. Several impact evaluations were reviewed from 2003, 2004, 2006, 2008 and 2011. The 2008 and
2011 demand reduction analyses used a baseline-day methodology which compared the demand during the
event day to the demand of similar baseline days. The load reduction achieved during load curtailments was
calculated by comparing the average load from each event day against the average load developed from non-
curtailment days selected for the baseline. This approach utilizes the average load data from the previous ten
non-weekend, non-curtailment days. Baseline kW was calculated as the average of the three days with the
greatest demand from these previous ten non-curtailment days, as ranked by the highest hourly demand
occurring during the curtailment timeframe.
In both the 2011 and the 2008 evaluations, demand was determined by monitoring the compressors. Installed
loggers continually monitored the signal of a split core current transformer (CT) clamped around the electrical
supply wire to the A/C compressor unit. The compressor run-time data was converted to power demand values by
applying kW values taken from instantaneous power readings during the installation of the loggers for each A/C
compressor. The kW values were adjusted to account for the difference between the outside air (OSA)
temperatures at the time of the reading compared to the OSA temperature during the events. This adjustment
accounts for the greater demand expected at the compressor during a high-temperature operation when events
occur versus the lower compressor demand measured during device installations which typically occurred on
considerably cooler days.
The 2008 evaluation noted data inconsistencies which likely underestimated the demand reduction. Because the
results were inconclusive, they were not used for program reporting in Idaho Power’s Demand-Side Management
2008 Annual Report. Idaho Power conducted a new impact evaluation in 2011. This evaluation revealed two
types of communication failures which resulted in a high non-contribution rate. The modest demand reduction
achieved by the program was due in large part to this high non-contribution rate. These results were used for the
corresponding DSM Annual Report.
The 2003, 2004 and 2006 impact evaluations were conducted using a modeling methodology. While the model
itself is proprietary, the evaluation reports detail the data collected and utilized.
Table 3 below shows the listed data sources used in estimating the demand reduction values.

17

Table 3. Data Sources for Modeled Demand Reduction
2006 report: 2004 Report: 2003 report
 Interval whole-house metering data (using load research
meters).
 End-use (Air Conditioner) demand meter data.
 Air Conditioner run time information from loggers.
 Records of cycling dates,
intervals, and duration.
 Interval whole-house metering data (from load research meters)
for 174 participating household.
 End-use (Air Conditioner) demand meter data for 34 participants.
 Data from Air Conditioner run-
time loggers for 76 customers.
 Hourly temperature and humidity data spanning the entire summer.
 Records of cycling dates, intervals, and duration.
 Hourly internal home temperature
readings downloaded from participants’ thermostats.
 Five-minute interval metering data for every participating
household.
 Hourly temperature and humidity data spanning the entire summer.
 Records of cycling dates,
intervals, and duration.
 Hourly internal home temperature readings downloaded from participants’
thermostats.

Findings
 The methodology utilized in 2008 and 2011 meet guidelines for the International Performance
Measurement and Verification Protocol (IPMVP) Option A, which allows for measurement of key parameters.
 Results from the 2008 impact evaluation were not used for reporting because data issues likely understated the results.

Recommendations
 Evaluation methodologies should be transparent and repeatable as a general practice. This will allow for
easier comparison across years.
 Non-contribution rates should be minimized. Pre-season “ping” testing, as discussed in the dispatch section below, is a step that is now being utilized to help identify and rectify non-contribution issues.

Internal Team Communications
The internal team of stakeholders refers to all Idaho Power staff and contractors that deliver the A/C Cool Credit
program to customers. Most communication between team members happens in a one to one manner, generally
between the Program Specialist and other team members. The only forum identified where multiple team
members are present is in the Thursday meeting to discuss curtailments. It was noted in more than one interview
that the team does not meet as a group, and the first time the team did meet as a whole group was this program
year to discuss planned research for the program. Interviewed staff reported this meeting as very productive and
helpful for understanding the full scope of the program.
The document of record for the program, and a key repository for program knowledge, is the program handbook.
A copy of the handbook was reviewed for this evaluation. The document is comprehensive and covers the

18

multiple aspects of the program. Some sections of this document had been updated in May 2012. Other sections
appeared to have not been updated for several years. Some sections had notes to bring attention to what
information still needed to be updated or added. There is no way for the reader to ascertain what information is
actually current since not all the information will change year to year.
Findings
 Key staff involved in delivering this program had never met as a single group until the beginning of this year.
 There is no end of year wrap up internally to discuss the curtailment season performance and operations and to make recommendations for the next year.
 The program handbook is comprehensive and contains information on the multiple aspects of the
program, but it is difficult to tell if all key sections are updated for the program year because of references to multiple years.
Recommendations
 All stakeholders in the program should meet as a group three times a year. Once immediately after the curtailment season to assess any needed improvements in the program design or delivery and make a
plan for implementing any needed change; once in January to assess progress and once in April or May prior to curtailment season.
 Revisit and update program documentation frequently. Program documentation should capture as much institutional knowledge as possible. While this will never fully replace the knowledge of staff, it can be
useful in the event of long or unforeseen staff absences (e.g. illness or injury).
 As program processes are documented either in the handbook or in policy, Idaho Power should institute and enforce revision controls so it is clear to stakeholders where the most current program information is
located and there are not multiple copies of documents stored in different locations. There is evidence this is already happening, but it is inconsistently documented.
 If information in the handbook is intended to be historical or is updated very infrequently, create a historical section or have a notation for those sections showing they have been reviewed.

The following are internal communication recommendations from Task 1 - Readiness Plan:
 A Frequently Asked Questions list should be up-to-date and distributed internally prior to curtailment
season. [NOTE: interviews conducted after this recommendation was made indicate this is done via the internal website]
 Program information on the internal website should be updated prior to the curtailment season.
 The Quick Reference Guide, included on the company intranet (Spillway), is mainly used by the Customer Service Center. The guide should be reviewed and all program changes should be reflected so
Idaho Power staff has current program information.
 Prior to the curtailment season, the Program Specialist should communicate the program processes, timeline, and activities to key internal stakeholders. This communication should reiterate stakeholder role
and expectations prior to and during a curtailment.

Marketing and Customer Outreach
The A/C Cool Credit program has traditionally been marketed via direct mail throughout the year with two distinct
marketing efforts. During the concentrated effort, multiple groups of mailings are sent several weeks apart so that
enrollments don’t outpace device installation capacity. One of the two distinct marketing efforts occurs in the
spring to enroll and install as many participants as possible before the summer curtailment season. The second

19

occurs during the fall-winter timeframe in an attempt to move installations into other months, smoothing workflow
for the installation contractor. In most years, mailings are also sent in smaller batches in late spring to early
summer.4 The effectiveness of each direct mail campaign is tracked individually with quantities mailed, number of
enrollments, and number of actual installs. The results are presented in a simple Excel document sent to
marketing and the Program Specialist on a weekly basis.
During the interviews, staff indicated they also attend a number of community events such as county fairs where
program materials are made available to Idaho Power customers. The A/C Cool Credit program is not promoted
at every event that Idaho Power staff attends.
Prior to 2012, program staff determined the marketing strategy and had the responsibility to coordinate efforts
with other Program Specialists at Idaho Power. In 2012, organizational changes within the company have moved
the marketing activities to the corporate communications function. This transition was in progress during the
process evaluation interviews.
As program participation has continued to grow, the rate of enrollment has slowed. Some Idaho Power staff has
voiced concern that the program may be nearing or have already reached the saturation point. PECI staff
researched this possibility. E-Source recently published a research report showing that the average participation
rates for similar residential load control programs of 24 mature utility programs surveyed is 13.35 percent of total
customers. Data supplied by Idaho Power for this E-source report indicates a penetration rate of 9.4% for the A/C
Cool Credit program. Participation rates for utilities in the study ranged from 1.7% of total customers to 48% of
total customers. However, the 2012 Marketing Plan for A/C Cool Credit estimated the saturation rate of eligible
customers at 14.3% which takes into account that many of Idaho Power’s customers are in climates where A/C is
not prevalent.
Findings
 The change in marketing responsibility has potential to impact the program both positively and negatively.
Tighter coordination among all company marketing efforts will improve overall customer perceptions of the company, which should improve uptake among all programs. In addition, a dedicated marketing staff can lead to more focused efforts, message continuity and increased response rates to marketing efforts. Of concern is the disconnect between the Program Specialist goals for enrollment and the staff executing
strategy to achieve those goals. The marketing team does acknowledge the program goals, but to date are not held accountable for meeting those goals.
 There is not a clear chain of communication between the marketing staff and the Program Specialist. The change in responsibility for marketing has introduced ambiguity of roles and therefore reduced
accountability.
 The customer communication pieces are designed at the direction of the Program Specialist with assistance from design staff; however there is not an articulated strategy for all the customer
communication and marketing pieces. A more targeted communication strategy has the potential for increasing customer satisfaction and should improve response rates to mailings. Program staff utilizes
filters to refine the lists used for messaging, (discussed in next section). However, the marketing messaging and value proposition to customers should be targeted as well.
 Honeywell tracks several elements of program performance and reports the results to Idaho Power in a
spreadsheet. Marketing staff has not found these metrics to be presented in a useful or actionable way.

4 Only one mailing was sent prior to the summer curtailment season in 2012, all remaining mailings were held until the
identified territory with paging switches could be changed to the Aclara PLC devices. Idaho Power also has a website with program information.
5 “Hot or Not? DLC Program Benchmarking” Jonathan Nelson & Rachel Reiss Buckley, August 16, 2012. Used with
permission, © E Source Companies LLC, Boulder CO

20

 With little change in the marketing strategies employed over the years, staff may have missed marketing
opportunities and more targeted marketing approaches.
 While the program is reaching maturity, it still has at or below the participation rates as compared to
similar average “mature” programs.
Recommendations
 Clearly define roles, responsibilities and accountability to increase collaboration between the marketing
staff and program staff. For example, the marketing staff maintains a marketing activity calendar and as of 2012, oversees the overall marketing budget. This should be transparent to the Program Specialist,
marketing staff, and the installation contractor.
 The Program Specialist should facilitate a discussion between Honeywell and the marketing staff to understand the reported data or determine appropriate metrics for measuring response rates to marketing
campaigns. Data currently tracked by Honeywell should be presented in a useful format for the marketing staff.
 Using details such as region and customer characteristics in conjunction with enrollment results would help identify areas for marketing improvements.
 Refine marketing by testing messages and value propositions sent to customers. Utilize response rate
metrics and demographic data to validate messaging.
 Explore different enrollment channels such as localized marketing in areas with new construction as new homes usually have A/C and utilize associated trade ally and builder networks to promote program.
Enrollment Targeting
Idaho Power enrolls participants and installs equipment year round. The primary channel for outreach is direct
mail. However, Idaho Power customers have multiple options for actually signing up for the program. These are
discussed in detail in the following section. The program has had good recruitment results for many years.
However, participation appears to be slowing based on the year over year increase in participants.
Program staff has made efforts to better target the direct mail. Prior to last year, the criteria for the mailing lists
included targeting owner occupied homes (with no known landlord) with a minimum summer monthly energy
usage over five hundred kilowatt hours, which is designed to target customers with an air conditioner. In addition,
the list was screened to exclude unqualified accounts such as those managed by third parties (rentals), and
remove accounts associated with wells, outbuildings or religious facilities. Also, customers had to be located in
one of the targeted counties and could not already be participating in the program. In 2011, an additional filter was
added that compared energy usage. Only homes that used 15 percent more energy in July compared to their
April usage would receive mailings.
Each time a mailing is sent out, the list is pulled from the CIS. Unfortunately, this occurs outside the marketing group’s process and therefore mailings are not as well coordinated with those of other programs. In previous
years as more programs were initiating mailings at the same time, the Program Specialists coordinated their mailings between themselves. The Program Specialist maintains a list of customers who have opted out of the
program or for other reasons should not receive marketing materials for this program. The list is keyed off of the person ID number of the account holder, and these customers, even if they move, will not receive marketing
materials as long as the account remains under the same name. A query is run to remove customers who have multiple accounts to prevent them from receiving multiple solicitations.
The program and marketing staff at Idaho Power have utilized the Nielsen PRIZM (Claritas) data to generate
market segment profiles for their marketing campaigns. However, the A/C Cool Credit program uses a list pulled
separately from the customer database using the criteria described above. A/C Cool Credit staff has previously
tried using the Claritas system but found its segmentation to be less useful because it is cumbersome and did not
generate a useful segmentation based upon the desired usage criteria.

21

Findings
 The program does not have very sophisticated tools to more precisely target the direct mail marketing pieces although utilizing the filters has improved the targeting for the A/C Cool Credit mailings.
 Program staff report that difficulties in managing mailing lists are a systemic issue within the organization.
 The A/C Cool Credit program utilizes an IT contractor’s automated process to pull marketing lists, instead
of requesting the list from the internal corporate marketing team.Part of the current process is manual which can introduce error. Automated screening efforts rely on lists maintained in Excel outside of the
CIS.
Recommendations
 Idaho Power should leverage the information gathered (or that can be gathered) by its installation vendor
to better understand the customers in the program and target customers with more effectiveness. For example, determine if marketing pieces are more effective in one area verses another which could
indicate the message was more successful with a particular neighborhood. Demographic data can be collected and later correlated with successful enrollments.
 Marketing lists should be pulled within the process established by corporate communications to ensure the close coordination of all DSM program marketing. Additionally, corporate communications staff should
be responsive to the needs of the program and deliver timely and high quality information to discourage lists being created outside the established process.
Prepared Marketing Material
Currently, the A/C Cool Credit recruitment and communication efforts rely primarily on printed, mailed material.
Communication to program participants is distributed in mid-May prior to the curtailment season. Idaho Power
also sends customers program information via bill stuffer in March or April. While this information is not directly
targeted at enrolled customers, it does serve as a reminder of the program.
Primary recruitment efforts take place in spring and early summer. These campaigns are conducted via direct
mail. There is also an offseason campaign conducted just before the holidays with an additional incentive for
customer enrollment. This fall marketing campaign is tied to the holiday season and enables the participant to
either receive a gift card worth $20 or donate the same amount to the local food bank. A significant majority, sixty-
nine percent, chose to receive the gift card; thirty-one percent chose to contribute the $20 to the food bank.
Idaho Power marketed the program last year using bill stuffers and direct mail letters with return post cards.
Occasionally, program staff will attend community functions to answer questions regarding the program but this is
not a primary marketing channel to subscribe customers into the program.
Once a mailing list is obtained and cleaned as described in the previous section, the Program Specialist delivers
the list and mailer to a direct mail processor to be sent to customers. It is Idaho Power’s intent for customers to
receive no more than two pieces of mail from the company in a given month. Ideally, the customer will receive a
bill and only one direct mail marketing piece; which could promote any of Idaho Power’s programs. The number of
targeted customers is calculated based on direct mail response rates. For example, if the mailing is designed to
return 1000 enrolled customers and the expected response rate is 2%, then the mailing will be sent to 50,000
customers.
The direct mail piece is designed with a tear off card, which the customer can fill in and return to Idaho Power to
enroll in the program. The cards are received by Idaho Power and sent directly to Honeywell for further action.
When marketing is delivered as a bill stuffer, the completed application is returned with the customer’s monthly
bill. These applications are collected in billing, and then delivered to the Program Specialist who delivers them to
Honeywell for follow-up and switch installation.

22

Idaho Power has also produced additional collateral material for the A/C Cool Credit Program. Other prepared
customer materials include the program website and the program brochure. The program brochure is available on
the website, but does not appear to have been updated since 2008 (copyright date on PDF). The program
information available on the website is comprehensive and allows a participant to review the program details as
well as sign up for the program.
Findings
 Information available on the website is comprehensive but inconsistent. The content covers the right information, but the information should be carefully reviewed for accuracy. For example, the brochure states curtailments will typically be 4 hours where the A/C Cool Credit Program FAQ’s state the
curtailments will typically be 3 hours.
 The description of curtailments in marketing materials states “the Cool Switch will cycle your A/C about 50
percent of the time. For instance, off for 15 minutes, then on for 15 minutes,” has set a customer expectation that limits Idaho Power’s program operation. The most recent impact evaluation shows the
natural duty cycle of the Boise Area air conditioners is approximately 43% at the 95 degree temperature range. This expectation, as opposed to tariff constraints, could hinder Idaho Power if it desires to change
the cycling strategy to improve program effectiveness.
 It is expected enrollment growth would decline as more customers became participants; however, there is some evidence that direct mail marketing is becoming a stale channel for this program based on the
percent of program growth year over year as shown in Table 4.

Table 4. Year over Year Growth of Program6
Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Enrollment 204 420 2,369 5,369 13,692 20,195 30,391 30,803 37,728
% YOY Growth N/A 106% 464% 127% 155% 47% 50% 1% 22%

Recommendations
 Direct mail should remain a marketing channel for the program; however, additional marketing strategies as well as tailored messages should be tested. Alternative marketing strategies should include targeted
advertising, social media, or referral campaigns. Data gathered by the installation vendor can supply demographic data that can inform tailored messages or identify alternate marketing channels.
 The program should effectively mine data collected for the program to refine marketing efforts. There is a
wealth of data that can be collected by Honeywell and Idaho Power both during the sign-up process as well as when customers call with complaints. The data could include demographic data such as age,
marital status, number of children, number of occupants in home, occupation, etc. This data would not need to be tied to individual records, but rather gathered in aggregate and then compared against the
messaging used in the marketing effort to draw correlations between messaging and the resulting enrollments. This would be similar to how Idaho Power uses purchased marketing data.
 As the program grows and changes, the web content and on-line form should be updated to reflect these
changes including updates to the program and cycling strategy.

6 Idaho Power Company Demand-Side Management 2011 Annual Report, March 15, 2012, Appendix 4

23

Existing Participant Communications
Currently, program participants receive one dedicated piece of communication from the program in the form of a
newsletter. The most recent newsletter was reviewed for this evaluation. The stated intent of the newsletter,
based on staff interviews, is to remind customers they are participants in the program and refresh expectations of
participation. The newsletter is full of useful energy saving information and has some space devoted specifically
to the A/C Cool Credit Program. Utility customers often confuse saving energy (kWh) and reducing demand (kW)
when participating in load control programs. In a recent pilot program in Texas, the utility conducted a survey of
participants and the open ended responses indicated satisfaction with the program because they believed they
were saving energy and money by participating in the program. In the customer survey conducted for Idaho
Power by ADM in 2011, of the 397 respondents to the open ended question asking why they are satisfied with the
program, 70 or 18% sited saving energy. The program is also referenced in other DSM marketing materials such
as the Free Standing Insert, Green Power Newsletter, and other customer communication channels including
Customer Connection. Customers receive a bill message in June reminding them the bill credit for their
participation in the program will begin in July.
Findings
 The newsletter is very energy efficiency focused. There is already a misconception that load control
programs save energy. The logic of cross marketing programs and creating a newsletter that delivers additional benefits is sound; however the intended message is lost in the noise. Of the six total pages
designed, four are devoted to energy efficiency centric communication, only one page is devoted to the A/C Cool Credit program, and there is never an explicit message that the recipient is currently enrolled in
the program.
 The customer survey in 2011 revealed that some customers find the language somewhat hard to understand and that they would like the questions to be phrased in simpler language. Some didn’t
understand questions about cycling, an important aspect of the program. This implies that customers would also find some of the newsletter and other customer communication language to be confusing and
complex.
 A single annual communication to participants is insufficient to keep the program fresh in the minds of participants. Additionally, program specific information is buried in this single piece and not useful to
participants.
 All of the existing literature indicates that Idaho Power cycles at approximately 50% which may or may not
be true in the future.
Recommendations
 The program should consider adding a thank you focused communication piece to participants at the end
of the program year as a way to reinforce to participants the value they are providing to the Idaho Power system through participating in this program. This may also help retain customers and improve program
satisfaction.
 These communications should not be included in the limitations Idaho Power has for customer outreach. Rarely do appreciation communications add to customer fatigue.
 On bill messaging should be continued as one of many communication tools.
 Idaho Power should leverage the enrollment and opt-out data collected and reported by Honeywell. Working closely with Honeywell, Idaho Power could leverage current reporting and mine the existing data
to extract program insights such as marketing effort effectiveness as well as customer perceptions. Actively collect data on the customers who leave or opt-out to learn if there are characteristics that may
predispose a customer to leaving the program.
 Customers expressed an interest in understanding what is meant by cycling, and how it operates. In
addition, they would like to see a graph showing program results and publish the number of events and

24

times customers were cycled.7 This kind of information, including previous-year program DR contributions, should be summarized in the newsletter, or in post-season thank-you pieces.
Data System and Reporting
The data flows for the A/C Cool Credit program are mostly automated and are initiated when the customer
decides to sign up for the program.
When a customer decides to sign up for the program, they have three options to enroll. They can fill out a return
postcard, they can call a toll free phone number or they can sign up via the IPC website. All three of these venues
direct customer enrollment information to Idaho Power’s installation vendor, Honeywell.
If a customer signs up via return postcard, the cards are received by Idaho Power and sent directly to Honeywell.
Applications returned with the customer’s monthly bill are sent to the Program Specialist who then forwards them
to Honeywell. Telephone or Web-based enrollments are forwarded directly to Honeywell.
Each night via a secure FTP process, Honeywell sends Idaho Power two data files with newly installed customers
for integration into their system. The upload ties a specific switch to a service point. This triggers an automated
process to create a contract rider. It is the contract rider that initiates the bill credits for the curtailment season and
it remains in place as long as the customer remains in the program. If this process fails, the contract riders are
added manually by the programs group.
During the curtailment months, the billing system pulls the contract riders for review prior to sending out the
customer bills. If the customer has opted to leave the program, their bill credit is prorated for the time they
participated for the current month.
A file is sent daily from the CIS to the TNS system. This triggers the “search-in” of the devices into the AMI
system. “Searching in” develops the communication pathway over the power lines from the device to the main
system. Each device and communication pathway is unique. If the pathway of power to the home changes, for
example, if a substation is down for maintenance, the communication pathway will no longer work and another
path is developed. Occasionally, errors will occur where the same device is assigned to two separate service
points. At that time, a manual process must occur to trace down the error and individually “search in” the device.
Idaho Power is currently transitioning to a new CIS, which may change many of the developed processes.
Figure 5 shows the Idaho Power-created data flow diagram, which is intended to document how data is
transferred between the four databases utilized in the program. Most of the processes developed for the program
are automated; however there are several instances where manual processes have been developed. One such
example exists for the customers who have indicated they do not want to receive program materials; a manual list
is maintained to scrub the customer marketing lists. Another such manual process exists for customers who are
participants in the A/C Cool Credit program and have chosen to move to the Time of Day rate which is further
discussed in the customer incentives section.

7 Idaho Power A/C Cool Credit Survey Results, September 29, 2011

25

Figure 5. Data Systems and Processes

26

Findings
 During the interviews, it became increasingly clear that the linkage between data systems is critical to program success. The function of moving data between the CIS and the TNS plays a key role in ensuring
program enrollments are translated into kW reduction during curtailments.
 The data flows appear to be working well, however there are no checks or metrics to verify the processes.
Staff reported that “occasionally” the automated processes have a “glitch” at which point manual processes take over. For example, when Honeywell sends the nightly file to Idaho Power to tie a specific
switch to a service point and add the contract rider, sometimes the process fails for a few customers and the contract riders must be manually entered. Currently there are no metrics for the frequency of these
errors, nor root cause analysis as to the reason.
 The migration to a new CIS creates opportunities for Idaho Power to improve on the data flows as well as avoid some of the manual processes.
Recommendations
 Idaho Power should develop reports and metrics to assess the efficacy of the automated processes as well as find improvements.
 As the new CIS migration occurs, the Program Specialist should advocate for changes that will improve both automated and manual processes developed for the program.

Equipment, Installation and Operation
Once customers enroll in the program, Idaho Power’s installation vendor installs the switch near the participant’s
air conditioner(s). Once installed and searched in, the dispatchers at Idaho Power can activate the devices during
curtailment sessions.
Equipment
Idaho Power currently utilizes four types of load control switches in the A/C Cool Credit program. Two of the
devices operate with a power line carrier (PLC) signal and two operate utilizing a paging signal. With vendor
reductions in the paging coverage, Idaho Power is replacing all their paging activated devices with PLC activated
devices. The exception to this is the Mountain Home Air Force Base which is metered centrally and there is
currently no communication infrastructure for the PLC devices. For these reasons, Idaho Power has decided to
invest in the necessary paging equipment to serve the area. The two PLC devices are manufactured by Aclara
(formerly TWACS and DCSI) and are the Load Control Transponder (LCT) and the Demand Response Unit
(DRU). The LCT is an older load control technology and while it continues to work, it is no longer manufactured.
The DRU is a newer technology which includes built-in programming employing an adaptive control algorithm to
incorporate the duty cycle of the air conditioner to provide optional adaptive control.
As the program has matured, Idaho Power has begun purchasing and using the newer equipment for the
program. Metering staff indicated that the devices have needed some of the settings changed from the factory settings. Changing the programming in the device is accomplished using the two-way communication of the
power line carrier AMI system. Communication with the devices takes time and must be done at times when the communication pathway is not being used for other purposes such as obtaining meter read data. Successfully
reprogramming devices can take several weeks.
Findings
 The equipment used to cycle air conditioners, specifically the options for calculating cycle times, both the
smart algorithm and the “capping” option, are not well understood by Idaho Power staff or participants. The old descriptions that addressed 50% cycling as running for 15 minutes, then turning off for 15
minutes, are not accurate for describing the impact of the algorithm, which is based on individual customer usage patterns.

27

 There was some concern in the interviews that new equipment programming didn’t address all
operational considerations. The equipment manufacturer discontinued the model Idaho Power had been using so the Program Specialist had to obtain the newer model.
Recommendations
 Closer coordination among all functions when purchasing load control equipment can assure all
stakeholders the appropriate operational factors are considered, and offer stakeholders an opportunity to discuss assumptions. Greater internal coordination at Idaho Power is needed to discuss the equipment
operation and performance.
 The switch algorithm/capping is complex and not well understood by Idaho Power staff, and had not been well communicated by the vendor. The Program Specialist should work with the vendor to document how
the device works under various operating conditions.
 Technical staff reprogramming the switches should work closely with the Program Specialist and the equipment manufacturer to specify the programming currently used and have new devices programmed
that way from the factory (if possible).
Equipment Availability
Because of the decision to replace the paging units with PLC units, Idaho Power experienced difficulties getting a
sufficient number of devices in inventory prior to the spring marketing push. Aclara’s lead time for ordering is
approximately 12-16 weeks. These devices were not in the order stream and Aclara worked to move all available
inventory to Idaho Power for this project.
Installation
Honeywell is currently Idaho Power’s sole installation vendor and has been so since the program inception.
Honeywell staff wears Idaho Power logo shirts, attach magnetic logo signage to vehicles and display Idaho Power
identification when installing load control devices. Upon arrival, they identify themselves to let the program
participant know who they are and why they are there, even when an appointment was not necessary. The A/C
unit is inspected to assess its working condition before installation. The installation of the device itself takes
approximately ten to twenty minutes. The A/C unit is checked again to ensure it is operational prior to the
technician leaving the home. The technician cleans up the area “leaving it like we found it.” Lastly, a door hanger
is left to notify the customer that the work has been completed. The information is left even if the customer was
home at the time of installation so in the event they have questions, they will have the toll free number.
Findings
 The installation process is well done. Honeywell’s long time experience with the program makes this a smooth process both for the customer and Idaho Power.
Recommendations
 Any program changes should protect the smooth operation of the installation process.

Equipment Quality Assurance (QA)
Honeywell currently conducts QA on installed paging switches on an ongoing basis. However, the PLC devices
can only be visually assessed for catastrophic failures. The PLC devices can be easily tested through the AMI
system on a rudimentary basis to confirm communication to the device. Prior to this year, rudimentary checks
were not performed. In preparation for the research being conducted, Idaho Power “pinged” the PLC devices and
only had an 86% response rate after three attempts. This means 14% of the devices were not receiving
communication. Staff targeted the non-responding devices and repeated the “search in” function to re-establish a
communication path. This process improved the communication response rate to 94% in a single attempt.
Subsequent attempts returned marginally improved rates of 97%. At no time does the system return 100%

28

communication. It is worth noting this communication is two-way and just an indication of what performance
during a curtailment event would be. Curtailment signals are one way and have higher success rates than the two
way communication efforts.
As devices are “searched in”, as described in the Data Systems and Reporting section, the communication path is
set. If the path changes, the communication with the device is lost. Devices not responding because of
communication failure increase the percentage of program participants who do not contribute to load reduction
during events. One of the recommendations from the impact evaluation conducted in 2011 indicated Idaho Power
should evaluate the program design to identify ways to minimize the number of non-contributing participants.
Assuring communication with the devices will improve program performance.
Findings
 The communication pathways established at the time the device is installed is not always the same as
during the curtailment season. This can be due to a variety of reasons such as substation repairs or other changes to the physical system.
 As substations are shut down for maintenance, the signals for curtailments are re-routed via a temporary route. Once substations are back up and running, the original route should be refreshed prior to
curtailments.

Recommendations
 Prior to curtailment season, all PLC devices should be “pinged” to confirm they are active and receiving signals. This does not confirm they are taking appropriate action, however it is a good indication of device
efficacy.
 Any non-responding devices should be “searched in” again to re-establish communication with the system.
 Finally, any remaining devices not communicating should be placed on a priority list for Honeywell to investigate.

Dispatch Process
When the curtailment season begins in June, a team including representatives from the program, dispatch,
generation supply, and load forecasting meet every Thursday to review the weather, generation availability and
load forecast for the following week. The team discusses whether curtailment events would be needed and on
which days they would likely call them. The decision to call events is influenced by expected interplay between
weather, demand, market prices, and available generation resources which requires the team to balance the
interests of the various internal stakeholders. Staff reported that these decision meetings have recently become
higher profile. Program participants receive an incentive whether or not Idaho Power curtails their air conditioners.
This is essentially a sunk cost and can create pressure to curtail customers simply because it is already “paid for.”
This was identified as a source of debate during the decision making meetings. This is amplified by the changing
emphasis on the program over the years.
Figure 6 details the A/C Cool Credit process for calling load curtailment events.

29

Figure 6. Single Load Curtailment Event Process

Idaho Power staff follows written protocols when calling curtailments. The application is computer based. The
operator selects the strategy name and then activates the program for the day.

Findings
 Like the other load reduction programs Idaho Power employs, the program function has evolved over
time. The diverse internal stakeholders are not clearly aligned on the objectives of this program.
 The consensus seems to be that weekly Thursday meetings are valuable and help set the agenda for the week, even if the decision changes.
 There is some concern that having to make decisions 24 hours in advance is a limitation. There are times when system operators would like to be able to make a same-day call of an event similar to the Flex Peak
program, but the contract with Honeywell doesn’t allow this and requires 24 hour notification.
 The only post event metric for tracking performance results used by Idaho Power is load drop measured by AMI and system data. Other key performance metrics are not used.

Weekly Meeting to forecast event
Week Prior to Event
No
Yes
No
•Power Supply & Dispatchers make final decision 24 hrs before•IPC schedules the dispatch event in the TNS system
End of Event
•Event ends
Yes
No
Curtailment proceeds. IPC staff rotate “on call” for events. Honeywell staffs phones and has technician available to make emergency visits if necessary
Criteria examined to make decision:
•Criteria discussed at meeting•Weather•Projected load•Available generation resources•Market prices
After end of event
•Check in with Honeywell on event issues (if any)
•Check with IPC staff on call during event for issues (if any)•Review the load profile to see load performance
Call Event?
Plan to call an Event?
24 Hours Prior to Planned Event Day of Planned Event
Notifications
•Honeywell Notified•Email sent to IPC notification list.
Continue with Planned Event?
Event Occurs
24 hours before event
After the Event
No Event No notification necessary
Stop Event
•Cancel event in TNS system
Event can be ended at any time
Yes
No Event No notification necessary
Stop Event

30

Recommendations
 Idaho Power should work with the internal stakeholders of the program to clarify program objectives and create a shared understanding of how to operate the program.
 While it is not recommended that Idaho Power move to a pay for performance model in the residential program, customer goodwill should be viewed as a consumable resource.
 Have clearly defined roles for attendees of the weekly discussions for curtailments so that
misunderstandings are avoided.

The following are dispatch process recommendations from the readiness plan:
 Review the TNS programming to ensure it is applicable to the curtailment criteria for the current year. Reprogram the TNS system as necessary.
 It is recommended that at least one live event is conducted annually, even at mild temperatures for a short period of time soon after June 1. Currently, the Idaho Power tariff does not allow for curtailments
prior to June 1. The purpose of this test event is to verify all the processes and procedures were followed; verify the switches received the signal (Idaho Power test switches), and identify system load drop if
possible.
 Develop metrics for post event evaluation. Multiple metrics are encouraged. Some possible metrics include, MW shed each hour calculated using system data, customer calls, response time for trouble
calls, etc.

Cancelling Events
Idaho Power can cancel events prior to or during a curtailment. The decision to cancel can be made for a variety
of reasons. However, because of federal regulations, only a trained dispatcher can go into the system to cancel. If
an event is canceled prior to the start, notification is sent to key stakeholders including Honeywell and program
staff.
The procedure for canceling events is similar to scheduling events. The operator accesses the same computer
based application used when scheduling events and selects cancel. The event is immediately canceled.

Customer Incentives
The A/C Cool Credit program pays a fixed incentive for program participation. Customers who sign up during the
fall and winter marketing campaigns also can receive a gift card or donate the gift amount to their local food bank.
The monthly incentives show up as bill credits applied to the customer bill after a month of participation. The
customer will receive credit in the first month the switch is installed if it is installed prior to the 20th of the month.
For example, after participating in the program during the month of June, the credit appears on a customer bill in
July. Idaho Power has 21 billing cycles each month, meaning it is sending out bills to a portion of its customers
nearly every day. This year, the Billing Specialist looking at the data for the 21st cycle in June noticed that the A/C
Cool Credit bill credit was being applied to customers in the wrong period. The error occurred because of a
change that was made in the meter reading schedules. Institutional knowledge is beneficial to the program and
when staff understands the connections between functions, the program becomes less susceptible to systematic
errors.
Each evening, Honeywell sends a data file to Idaho Power via secure transfer with all the customers who have
had devices installed or removed on that day and the relevant data for the billing system. The file is uploaded into
the CIS, meaning the new data is added to the relevant customer records in an automated process. This triggers
a contract rider to be attached to the customer’s billing information. It is the contract rider that contains the

31

information for receiving the credit during the curtailment season. If the customer had the switch removed, the
automated process expires the contract rider so the customer no longer receives the bill credit. The automated
process occasionally fails which triggers an error notification and the contract rider is added or expired manually
by a select group of Idaho Power customer service representatives. This manual process takes about five
minutes. The request is added to the group’s workflow and they have up to three days to finish the task.
As of the 2012 program year, Idaho Power has customers that are eligible for both the Time of Day (TOD) rate as
well as the A/C Cool Credit program. When a customer migrates to the TOD rate, their service at the general rate
is terminated and then reinstated with the new TOD rate. This effectively terminates all contract riders associated
with the customer on their old rate and the contract rider for the A/C Cool Credit program must be manually added
back to the account. The process for adding customers to this program during the curtailment season is found in
Figure 7. In 2012, the number of customers handled in this manual process ranged from 1 to 31 on any given day.
Between July 20 and September 10, 2012, an average of 9.5 customer accounts per day were handled via this
manual process.
The current process is manual as a result of the existing CIS. The opportunity to automate this process may occur
in 2013 when the CIS replacement project is complete.

Figure 7. Manual Process for Time of Day Rate Customers
Findings
 The program and its operation are well understood by the staff interviewed in the billing department which helps to prevent mistakes.
 Manual processes introduce risk into programs. The manual process adopted for Time of Day rate
customers currently works, yet like any manual process, is prone to error, and as more people opt for this rate, this could become too cumbersome for the program to manage.
Send notification
(tickler) to project
specialist
Turn on Rate 5
Turn off Rate 1
Automatically expires A/C Cool Credit contract
rider
Add a note to the account that this
is also an A/C Cool Credit
Customer
Review Customer information to
make sure they qualify for rate
Notification sent
to Honeywell of the change so the expiration of
the contract rider does not
trigger removal of device
Notification sent
back to billing so they can
manually check customer bill to make sure
billing credit appropriately
applied to bill.
Manually add
contract rider to customer
account.

32

Recommendations
 A more automated process should be enacted to allow for customers to participate in the TOD and A/C Cool Credit or other rate structures that may be developed in the future.
 Even with automated processes, and especially with manual processes, the Program Specialist should
review reports post season to verify the correct incentives were paid to program participants. The results of the review should be included in the post season report.
 Prior to the curtailment season, the rider program dates should be validated against the read and billing
schedules. The Program Specialist does not directly have access to these tables, however they should ensure staff with access completes this prior to June.
Customer Support and Opt Outs
Customer Support
While Idaho Power markets this program, Honeywell currently provides the customer interface. Honeywell staff
answers the toll free number customers are directed to call, install the devices, and troubleshoot customer issues
during curtailments. If a customer desires to leave the program, Honeywell removes the load control switch.
Honeywell has served in this role since the beginning of the program. Their staff is very much a part of Idaho
Power’s team to deliver the program as discussed in previous sections of this report.
Opting Out
Per the tariff, a customer can pre-empt curtailments prior to dispatch on a particular day by notifying Honeywell
before 4 p.m. the day before. In practice, a customer can be opted out at any point prior to, or during a dispatch
event. Customers can request this once per month during the curtailment season.
When leaving the program, customers call the toll free number and Honeywell schedules the removal of devices.
If they are requesting to be removed from the program during a curtailment, they will also be opted out of the
event. During interviews, Idaho Power staff expressed concerns over the removal process in terms of retention
efforts. The removal requests from customers are directed first to Honeywell. The current process does not allow
Honeywell to directly access the system to opt customers out of curtailment events. Honeywell notifies Idaho
Power staff to opt the customer out of the event. Then the Honeywell staff schedules the removal of the device.
By directing these customers to Honeywell, the concern is that little effort is made to assuage their dissatisfaction
and retain their participation. When interviewing Honeywell personnel, there does not appear to be a retention
strategy communicated by Idaho Power to the contractor. Honeywell indicated they will remove devices “no
questions asked.” However, during the discussion, they elaborated that they first try to understand the customer
issues to try to keep them in the program. If possible, they troubleshoot the issue, and then will remove the device
if that is what the customer wants. If the customer volunteers information Honeywell will document the reason.
However, no attempt is made to perform an exit survey for collecting customer analytic information which could be
used to improve program offerings.
Table 5 below shows reported churn for the program, both total churn of the program (moves etc.) and customers
estimated leaving the program because they are dissatisfied with their participation in the program.

33

Table 5. A/C Cool Credit Program Churn
Year
Total Ended (not
including TOD Rate)
Moved (not
including TOD Rate)
Appear
Unhappy (Total Ended
minus moved) Total Participants Total % Churn
%
Dissatisfied Churn *
2012 YTD 3577 2703 874 35400 10.10% 2.32%
2011 4048 3596 452 37728 10.70% 1.30%
2010 3644 3258 386 34640 10.50% 1.20%
2009 3141 2672 469 32151 9.80% 2.00%
2008 2688 1514 1174 23505 11.40% 8.57%
2007 1117 627 490 13692 8.20% 9.13%
2006 388 226 162 5369 7.20% 3.00%
* calculated as the number of customers that appear dissatisfied, divided by the previous year total
participants.

Findings
 Program churn from dissatisfied customers is fairly small (2.3%) however the churn from customers moving to different homes is much greater.
 Idaho Power is removed from a very important portion of the customer interface of a high touch program.
This is not unusual for this type of program implementation; however it creates the need to gather information to stay close to the customer experience.
 Idaho Power does not have a current articulated strategy to keep customers in the program. In the past,
the strategy for retaining dissatisfied customers that included offering them a lower cycling rate. This option was abandoned in 2012 since it did not improve retention rates, and lower cycling rates don’t
provide enough demand reduction.
 Currently, Honeywell will talk to customers wanting to leave the program and are often successful in
retaining them in the program, but this information does not appear to be collected in a structured way so that it can be used by the Program Specialist.
 The information Honeywell gathers (or could gather) could be utilized by the entire program team. For
example, customer complaint information during curtailments could inform the program on the curtailment strategies being utilized. In addition, every customer interaction is an opportunity to learn more about
what makes the program effective or how to improve the customer experience.

Recommendations
 Idaho Power should seek closer alignment of Honeywell staff with the entire A/C Cool Credit team.
 Develop retention strategy and talking points to use with both the Idaho Power call center and
Honeywell’s team. Idaho Power should experiment with creative options to keep customers enrolled. For example, if system programming would allow, Idaho Power or Honeywell could offer an “automatic opt
out” of the next curtailment event or provide a small perk to help make up for inconveniences such as a coffee card or other convenience to the customer (as allowed by IPC policy and regulation).
 Honeywell is not allowed to directly access the AMI system to opt customers from events or the program
for valid security reasons, however if an interface could be developed allowing them access without security risks, it would increase speed in addressing customer concerns.

34

 Idaho Power should formalize a comprehensive move strategy. Idaho Power does have Honeywell
contact the new occupants of a home with existing equipment. When a customer who participates in the program calls to move power service to a new address within Idaho Power service territory, the
enrollment should follow automatically unless specifically requested otherwise by the participant.
 Idaho Power should explore ways to utilize data gathered by Honeywell, and/or request additional data to
be gathered to inform program activities. As stated above, content of customer calls should be used to inform program operational decisions and demographic information about customers should be gathered
during installation informing marketing of likely participant characteristics.

35

Key Observations and Recommendations
The A/C Cool Credit program has some strengths and limitations. In several instances, a program strength could
be leveraged further to make program processes better.
Program Strengths:
 In the ten years since its inception, Idaho Power Company’s A/C Cool Credit program has become the most widely used and easily recognized program operated by the utility. High brand name recognition is
important for the program, and can be helpful in promoting all DSM programs.
 The A/C Cool Credit program has consistently held high user satisfaction. In a 2011 survey, 75% of
respondents indicated they were very satisfied with the program. High satisfaction rates are supported by low churn, with only 1-2% of participants requesting removal from the program because of dissatisfaction.
 While concerns were raised about enrollments slowing, the Program staff has continued to increase
customer enrollment since its inception. Current enrollment numbers are very close to the program goal of 40,000 participants.
 Honeywell has been a successful partner in delivering the program. They appear to be managing customer contacts and customer installation well. It is rare for customer complaints to be escalated to the
Program Specialist, suggesting the Honeywell call center is effectively addressing customer issues.
 The program has the ability to reduce load for Idaho Power. The program has successfully met the program goal to help narrow a forecasted gap between power supply and demand in Idaho Power
territory.

Strengths that should be leveraged further:
 Improved communication is a theme that touches several areas of this evaluation. Successful communication is already utilized in the program. The weekly curtailment meetings utilized during the
summers are viewed as worthwhile by attendees. This cross function communication should serve as a model for engaging all the internal stakeholders throughout the year.
 All stakeholders have a clear understanding of their role in delivering the program. Idaho Power staff and subcontractor staff were consistent in their descriptions of program processes, indicating that the program
has thoroughly communicated program operation to all parties involved. However the stakeholders have expressed a desire to have a more holistic view of the interconnectedness of the roles. (e.g. stakeholder
meeting 3x year).
 Program staff currently measure program performance via high level metrics. The program would benefit from additional metrics in the form of key performance indicators which will allow program performance
tracking and trending.

There are also some areas where improvements may help Idaho Power’s program delivery in future years.
Increasing customer enrollments and minimizing losses
Program marketing has continued to rely upon a persistent strategy of direct mailing to a customized distribution
list of Idaho Power customers. The program’s best opportunity for capturing participation from new participants is
to utilize better-coordinated marketing campaigns and targeted messaging.
Conversely, there needs to be an improved focus on retention within the program, reducing the need to obtain
new customers.

36

Recommendations
 Clearly define roles, responsibilities and accountability to increase collaboration between the Marketing Specialist/marketing staff and program staff. For example, the marketing staff maintains a marketing
activity calendar and as of 2012, oversees the overall marketing budget. This should be transparent to the Program Specialist, marketing staff, and even the installation contractor.
 Work with the marketing staff to determine appropriate metrics for measuring response rates to marketing campaigns, using details such as region and customer characteristics would help identify areas for
marketing improvements. Data currently tracked by Honeywell should be presented appropriately to be actionable by the marketing staff.
 Refine marketing efforts by testing messages and value propositions sent to customers. Utilize response
rate metrics and demographic data to validate messaging.
 Explore different enrollment channels such as localized marketing in areas with new construction as new homes usually have A/C and utilize trade ally and builder networks to promote program.
 Idaho Power should leverage the information gathered (or that can be gathered) by its installation vendor to better understand the customers in the program and target consumers with more effectiveness. For
example, determining if marketing pieces are more effective in one area versus another which would indicate the message was more successful with a particular neighborhood. Demographic data should be
collected and later correlated with successful enrollments.
 Marketing lists should be pulled within the process established by corporate communications to ensure the close coordination of all DSM program marketing. Additionally, corporate communications staff
should be responsive to the needs of the program and deliver timely and high quality information to discourage lists being created outside the established process.
 Direct mail should remain a marketing channel for the program, however, additional marketing strategies as well as tailored messages should be tested. Alternative marketing strategies should include targeted advertising, social media, or referral campaigns. Data gathered by the installation vendor should supply
demographic data that would inform tailored messages or identify alternate marketing channels.
 The program should effectively mine data collected for the program to refine marketing efforts. There is a
wealth of data that should be collected by Honeywell and Idaho Power both during the sign-up process as well as when customers call with complaints. The data should include demographic data such as age,
marital status, number of children, number of occupants in home, occupation etc. This data can be compared against the messaging used in the marketing effort to draw correlations between messaging
and the resulting enrollments.
 Develop retention strategy and script to use with both the Idaho Power call center and Honeywell’s team. Idaho Power should experiment with creative options to keep customers enrolled. For example, if system
programming allows it, Idaho Power or Honeywell could offer an “automatic opt out” of the next curtailment event or provide a small perk to help make up for inconveniences such as a coffee card or
other convenience to the customer (as allowed by regulation).
 Idaho Power should formalize a comprehensive move strategy. Idaho Power does have Honeywell
contact the new occupants of a home with existing equipment. When a customer who participates in the program calls to move power service to a new address within Idaho Power service territory, the enrollment should follow automatically unless specifically requested otherwise by the participant.

37

Opportunity for enhanced program metrics and reporting.
The program has high level performance metrics such as enrollments, megawatts controlled and customer
satisfaction, but there is a lack of program metrics for individual processes to gauge performance and find
opportunities for improvements. Program staff should create key performance indicators to track performance and
trends throughout the curtailment season.
Recommendations
 Developing further metrics (key performance indicators) would help Idaho Power identify and measure improvements in the program. For example, tracking and trending the number of calls received by Honeywell and Idaho Power’s call centers on curtailment days will help the Program Specialist estimate
customer fatigue from curtailments. Tracking and trending response time to trouble calls should be used as a performance goal for Honeywell. There is a wide variety of possible metrics but metrics should focus
on areas of importance to Idaho Power.
 The metrics and any trends should be reported in an end of year summary report. These should then be
used to track performance across years.
 Idaho Power should utilize customer call center log (complaint logs) as a source of information for improving the customer experience. It is important not to overreact to single complaints, but keeping
abreast of customer complaints, particularly during curtailment months, will help the Program Specialist identify trends and communication gaps.
 Idaho Power should develop reports and metrics to assess the efficacy of the automated processes as
well as find improvements.
 Develop metrics for post event evaluation. Multiple metrics are encouraged. Some possible metrics
include, MW shed each hour calculated using system data, customer calls, response time for trouble calls, etc.
 Idaho Power should explore ways to utilize data gathered by Honeywell, and/or request additional data to
be gathered to inform program activities. As stated above, content of customer calls should be used to inform program operational decisions or demographic information about customers and should be
gathered during installation informing marketing of likely participant characteristics.

Operational and system efficacy
Idaho Power conducted an impact evaluation that revealed communication failures which impacted the final
demand reduction. There are several steps Idaho Power should take to improve the program from an operational
and system reliability perspective.
Recommendations
 Non-contribution rates should be minimized. Pre-season “ping” testing, as discussed in the dispatch section, below, is a step that is now being utilized to help identify and rectify non-contribution issues.
 The switch algorithm/capping is complex and not well understood by Idaho Power staff. The Program Specialist should work with the vendor to document how the device works under various operating
conditions.
 Technical staff reprogramming the switches should work closely with the Program Specialist and the equipment manufacturer to specify the programming currently used and have new devices programmed
appropriately from the factory (if possible).
 Greater internal coordination at Idaho Power is needed to discuss the equipment operation and
performance when purchasing load control equipment.
 Idaho Power should make operational decisions that benefit the program and maximize program goals and work with third party contractors to ensure that this happens. These goals should be addressed in

38

future requests for proposals, as well as in contract language, so that Idaho Power has more flexibility to govern program operations.
 Prior to curtailment season, all PLC devices should be “pinged” to confirm they are active and receiving signals. This does not confirm they are taking appropriate action, however it is a good indication of device efficacy. Any non-responding devices should be “searched in” again to re-establish communication with
the system. Finally, any remaining devices not communicating should be placed on a priority list for Honeywell to investigate.
 Review the TNS programming to ensure it is applicable to the curtailment criteria for the current year. Reprogram the TNS system as necessary.
 It is recommended that at least one live event is conducted annually, even at mild temperatures for a
short period of time soon after June 1. Currently, the Idaho Power tariff does not allow for curtailments prior to June 1. The purpose of this test event is to verify all the processes and procedures were followed;
verify the switches received the signal (Idaho Power test switches), and identify system load drop if possible.

Introduction of error through manual processes.
Many of the processes in the program are automated; however manual processes in the program introduce the
opportunity for error. This susceptibility can be minimized by reducing manual processes, utilizing checklists for
annual tasks and developing metrics and reports for tracking and improving process performance.
Recommendations
 Even with automated processes, and especially with manual processes, the Program Specialist should review after the fact reports post season to verify the correct incentives were paid to program participants. The results of the review should be included in the post season report.
 Prior to the curtailment season, the rider program dates should be validated against the read and billing schedules. The Program Specialist should insure staff with access complete this prior to June.
 A more automated process should be enacted to allow for customers to participate in the TOD and A/C
Cool Credit or other rate structures that may be developed in the future.
 As the new CIS migration occurs, the Program Specialist should advocate for changes that will improve
both automated and manual processes developed for the program.

Improved communication and tighter coordination.
The team members delivering the A/C Cool Credit program are individually competent and diligent regarding their
individual areas of expertise. However, they would all benefit from more frequent or ongoing coordination of
duties.
Recommendations
 Key program policies should be reviewed annually in advance of the curtailment season, including Honeywell’s escalation policies, any contract limitations, on-site customer procedures, and customer
communication procedures.
 Prior to each curtailment season, dispatch criteria and limitations should be reviewed with key program stakeholders, as criteria for curtailments may change year to year as Idaho Power’s resources change.
This is especially important because of the collaborative nature for determining the need for curtailments. The curtailment policy should articulate the desired circumstances (criteria) for curtailments as well as
limitations stated in the tariff.

39

 Documents should be updated annually to reflect any regulatory or operational changes that impact the
program. For example, as Idaho Power migrates from paging switches to PLCs, policies and procedures specific to the paging devices should be updated.
 All stakeholders in the program should meet as a group three times a year. Once immediately after the curtailment season to assess any needed improvements in the program design or delivery and make a
plan for implementing any needed change; again in January to assess progress and finally in April or May prior to curtailment season.
 Revisit and update program documentation frequently. Program documentation should capture as much
institutional knowledge as possible. While this will never fully replace the knowledge of staff, it would be useful in the event of long or unforeseen staff absences (e.g. illness or injury).
 As program processes are documented either in the handbook or in policy, Idaho Power should institute
and enforce revision controls so it is clear to stakeholders where the most current program information is located and there are not multiple copies of documents stored in different locations. There is evidence
this is already happening, but it is inconsistently documented.
 If information in the handbook is intended to be historical or is updated very infrequently, create a
historical section or have a notation for those sections showing they have been reviewed.
 A Frequently Asked Questions list should be up-to-date and distributed internally prior to curtailment season. [NOTE: interviews conducted after this recommendation was made indicate this is done via the
internal website.]
 Program information on the internal website should be updated prior to the curtailment season.
 The Quick Reference Guide, included on the company intranet (Spillway), is mainly used by the
Customer Service Center. The guide should be reviewed and all program changes should be reflected so Idaho Power staff has current program information.
 Prior to the curtailment season, the Program Specialist should communicate the program processes,
timeline, and activities to key internal stakeholders. This communication should reiterate stakeholder role and expectations during a curtailment.
 As the program grows and changes, the web content and online form should be updated to reflect these changes including updates to the program.
 Idaho Power should work with the internal stakeholders of the program to clarify program objectives and
create a shared understanding of how to operate the program.
 While it is not recommended that Idaho Power move to a pay for performance model in the residential program, customer goodwill should be viewed as a consumable resource.
 Have clearly defined roles for attendees of the weekly discussions for curtailments so that misunderstandings are avoided.
 Idaho Power should seek closer alignment of Honeywell staff with the entire A/C Cool Credit Team.
 The program should consider adding a thank you focused communication piece to participants at the end
of the program year as a way to reinforce to participants the value they are providing to the Idaho Power system through participating in this program. This may also help retain customers and improve program
satisfaction. These communications should not be included in the limitations Idaho Power has for customer outreach. Rarely do appreciation communications add to customer fatigue.
 Idaho Power should leverage the enrollment and opt-out data collected and reported by Honeywell. Working closely with Honeywell, Idaho Power should leverage current reporting and mine the existing
data to extract program insights such as marketing effort effectiveness as well as customer perceptions. Actively collect data on the customers who leave or opt-out to learn if there are characteristics that may
predispose a customer to leaving the program.
 Customers expressed an interest in understanding what is meant by cycling, and how it operates. In addition, they would like to see a graph to showing savings. Idaho power should publish the number of

40

events and times customers were cycled.8 This kind of information, including previous-year program DR contributions, should be summarized in the newsletter, or in post-season thank-you pieces.

8 Idaho Power A/C Cool Credit Survey Results, September 29, 2011

41

Appendix A: List of Reviewed Materials

1. 2002 IPUC No 26 Tariff 101, A/C Cycling Tariff IPC
2. 2002 IPC Tariff Schedule 81 Application IPC
3. 2003 Load Reduction Analysis Summit Blue Consulting
4. 2003 A/C Cool Credit Year-end Report IPC
5. 2004 Load Reduction Analysis Summit Blue Consulting
6. 2004 A/C Cool Credit Year-end Report IPC
7. 2005 Demand-Side Management Annual Report Appendix B IPC
8. 2006 Load Reduction Analysis Summit Blue Consulting
9. 2006 IPC Demand-Side Management Annual Report IPC
10. IPC A/C Data Flow Model (2007) IPC
11. 2007 IPC Demand-Side Management Report IPC
12. 2008 Demand-Side Management Annual Report Appendix B IPC
13. 2009 Idaho Power A/C Cool Credit Demand Response Analysis
Report
Paragon Consulting
14. 2010 Demand-Side Management Annual Report Appendix B IPC
15. 2011 Demand-Side Management Annual Report IPC
16. 2012 A/C Cool Credit Spring Newsletter IPC
17. A/C Cool Credit Marketing Mailer IPC
18. 2012 General Dispatch Instruction IPC (reprinted for PECI)
19. 2011 Seasonal Readiness Report IPC
20. 2012 A/C Cool Credit Customer Report ppt IPC
21. A/C Cool Credit Program Handbook 9/20/2012
22. 2011 Idaho Power A/C Cool Credit Customer Survey Results ADM Associates, Inc.
23. Incident Report - Customer Reimbursement Receipt 2012 5/1/2012
24. E Source Focus Report EDRP-F-41 “Hot or Not? DLC Program
Benchmarking
E Source (with
permission)

42

Appendix B: Interview Guide

43

Staff Interview Questions
Process Evaluation – Cool Cash Program
May 21, 2012
Introduction
1. What is your title?
2. Can you briefly describe your role or relationship with the Cool Cash Program?

Program Management and Communications
1. [IF A CORE TEAM MEMBER] How often does the team meet?
2. [IF A CORE TEAM MEMBER] How do you get information to the rest of IPC that is impacted by the
program?
a. Do you generally get traction with other groups?
3. [IF A CORE TEAM MEMBER] Have you ever experienced issues with internal communication? If so,
what were they? How were they resolved?
4. [IF NOT A CORE TEAM MEMBER] How often to you communicate with the program manager and or
team? Is this by emails, meetings, phone calls, etc.?
a. Does this approach work well for you? Any suggested changes?
5. How does the program manager or A/C Cool Credit staff communicate with you (email, phone, etc.)?
Does this work for you? Any suggestions around communication?
6. Program expectations – what are expected or tolerable churn rate?
Customer Service and Marketing
1. Do you speak directly with customers/participants? If so, when do customers contact you?
2. When speaking with customers, what kind of feedback, questions or issues have you received regarding
the A/C Cool Credit Program? a. If there were issues, how did you resolve the issues?
3. If you don’t have an answer to a customers’ question, how is that typically handled or addresses?
4. In your experience, with which program aspects are customers most interested or satisfied?
5. What marketing and enrollment activities are you involved with? How are customers enrolled?

6. How do you target the marketing??
7. What are the main channels of communicating with participants? What types of messages/information
does the program convey?
8. Any plans to change the way the program notifies them about the program or spread the word?
9. Do you feel participants understand the A/C Cool Credit program? What have been the strongest selling points?

10. What is the process for enrolling someone new into the program?

a. Are there any screening questions asked? b. Do they need to schedule an apt?

44

11. Process for when customers opt out of program (retention strategy)
Customer Site Visits and Equipment Installation
12. Do you ever go on customer site visits?
a. When someone is doing program work at the site do you have specific communication or site visit
requirements? b. Do you accompany the equipment installer to the site when they are installing or uninstalling a
load control device?
13. INSTALLER QUESTION: How does the equipment installation process work? What is the standard routine?
14. INSTALLER QUESTION: How long does an installation take at each site?
15. INSTALLER QUESTION: How often do you go out in the field to check or troubleshoot existing devices?
a. How do you check devices?
b. If there are technical issues, what are they typically? Are they easy to diagnose? c. How often do devices fail?
16. INSTALLER QUESTION: How often do you respond to customer issues
17. Do you track trends with customer issues? What is your method? 18. INSTALLER QUESTION: Have you ever run into any issues with customers while scheduling or
performing site visits? If so, what issues? How were they resolved?
19. INSTALLER QUESTION: Are you satisfied with the way the site visit work is conducted for the A/C Cool Credit program?
a. Any suggested improvements?
Curtailment Events 20. When you are notified of an event, what special actions do you take, if any?
21. If a customer wanted to know about events, could they? If yes, how? If no, can they get the information
indirectly?
22. Other than Honeywell, are any other outside parties notified of the curtailment events (e.g. HVAC contractors)?
23. How does the decision to call an event work? (i.e. Walk us through the process)
a. Does this process work in your opinion? Do you have any suggested improvements?

24. What happens on the day of an event to trigger a curtailment event?
25. At the end of the event, what is the sequence of events to end the curtailment?
26. What happens at the end of the curtailment season? Is there any follow up with participants?
27. [For System Operators] Are you able to detect a decrease in load when the events are called? Is the
program a reliable source of load reduction?
Process Changes

45

28. What are the steps that must be taken when a process change occurs? For example when the changes were made for this summer’s research?
29. What went well? 30. What could have gone better?
31. What changes to this process would be difficult for you to implement? (Based upon the recommendations
of the Evaluations)
Wrap Up (Ask of All Interviewees)
32. What would you say are the program’s strongest points?
33. What are its weakest points?
34. Other than what we’ve discussed above, what would you change about the program?

46

Appendix C: A/C Cycling Load Curtailment Programs

Utility Program Brand
Baltimore Gas & Electric Peak Rewards™ A/C Program
City of Loveland Partnering with Power
Dairyland Cooperatives The Load Management Program
Detroit Edison Interruptible Air Conditioner Program
Duke Energy Power Manager
Exelon (ComEd) Smart Ideas Central Air Conditioner Cycling
Florida Power & Light Residential On Call®
Great River Energy (GT) Power Nap
Hydro One Peak Saver (formerly Smart Start)
Louisville Gas & Electric Demand Conservation
NV Energy Cool Share
PacifiCorp (Rocky Mountain Power) Cool Keeper
Pacific Gas & Electric Smart A/C
Potomac Electric Power (PEPCO) Pepco Energy Wise Rewards™
Public Service of New Mexico PNM Power Saver
San Diego Gas & Electric Summer Saver Program
Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD) Peak Corps
Southern Indiana Gas & Electric (Vectren) Summer Cycler
Xcel Energy (Colorado) Saver’s Switch

47

Appendix D: Readiness Plan

48

A/C Cool Credit Program Summer Readiness Plan
Background
The A/C Cool Credit Program Summer Readiness Plan outlines specific activities the program team should
implement prior to June 1 every year to ensure the program is prepared for the curtailment season. The
Readiness Plan provides guidance on specific activities. In addition to regular program operations, there are
several specific activities that must be performed in order to be implemented during the period from March 1 to
June 1, and these activities cover several categories:
 Policy and Procedure Review
 Customer Support
 Customer Communications
 Customer Billing/Incentives
 Curtailment Event Internal Notifications
 Dispatch Readiness
 Readiness Communication
Policy and Procedure Review
Task: Review all customer support processes and policies, make and approve changes if necessary:
 IPC Customer Service Policy
 IPC Escalation Policy (if separate from customer service policy)
 Contractor Customer Service Policies
 Emergency Procedures (health and safety)
 Dispatch Criteria and Limitations Policy

Prior to conducting refresher training for staff, the program manager should review all written documentation for
processes and policies and update them to reflect any regulatory or operational changes that impacted the
program in the past year. For example, as IPC migrates from paging switches to PLCs, policies and procedures
specific to the paging devices should be updated. This foundational review provides the framework for several of
the remaining activities in the readiness plan.
IPC should also review and update policies critical to customer service and system operation including:
 Customer Service Policies and Issue Escalation Policy. IPC should review their own policies, and
since Honeywell handles many of these issues, Honeywell’s escalation policies should be included in the
review with any contract limitations in place. This includes review of on-site customer procedures and communications as well as telephone contacts.

 Emergency Procedures. Emergency procedures are those procedures in place when a customer has a health or safety issue during a curtailment. If these are not part of the existing escalation procedures, they
should be reviewed and updated.
 Dispatch Criteria and Limitations Policy. Review of dispatch criteria and limitations are important
because of the collaborative nature for determining if curtailments are needed. The policy should articulate the desired circumstances (criteria) for curtailments as well as limitations stated in the tariff.
Criteria for curtailments may change year to year as IPCs resources change.

49

Customer Support
Tasks: Review Customer support training and materials.
 Field support processes and staff in place and trained (Honeywell)
 IPC call center staff trained on program
 Honeywell call center staff up-to-date and trained on program
 Program Frequently Asked Questions list up-to-date and distributed internally
 Internal website updated

Review Field Support Process and Training: Honeywell Utility Solutions is the A/C Cool Credit contractor used
for installations, removals and servicing of the switches. Honeywell also has Customer Service Representatives
(CSRs) available for handling incoming calls and scheduling appointments. The program manager shall provide
updated training materials to the managers of both the IPC and Honeywell. CSRs should receive refresher
training to be knowledgeable regarding program details, direct phone transfer capability, and notifications of all
cycling events.
Update FAQ and Internal website: The Quick Reference Guide, on the company intranet (Spillway) is mainly
used by the Customer Service Center. The guide should be reviewed and all program changes should be
reflected so IPC staff has current program information.
Customer Communications
Task: Update and Execute communications for customers and external stakeholders.
 Customer newsletter is mailed
 Program materials are reviewed and updated
 External website updated
 Any social media tie-ins are current

Customer Newsletter / Program Reminder: The A/C Cool Credit program operates only during the summer
months. As such, customers participating in the program need to be reminded of their program enrollment as well
as what to expect during curtailments. The program manager should prepare customer communications earlier in
the year to accommodate internal review timelines, and the communications should be delivered to the customers
in May.
Review and Update Program Materials: It is at this time the program manager should make sure all program
materials and externally available resources (such as websites or brochures) are up to date. This web content will
be reviewed and update as needed. As the program expands its area of operation, the web content and on-line
form require updating to reflect these changes. www.idahopower.com/accoolcredit

Customer Billing/Incentive Payments
Task: Verify customer incentives are correctly computing and applied to customer billing in appropriate months.
 Verify automated process is working properly by conducting a random audit of A/C cool credit customers’ accounts.
 For customers who are participating in the TOD rate, verify manual process has been completed.

Verify Automated Processes: Customer billing and incentive payments are a key part of the program
motivation. The process for attaching contract riders to the service accounts is an automated process and works

50

very well. Even so, the program manager should check the process is in place and functioning every year to
ensure incentives will be credited accurately and on time. The program manager should verify for a randomly
selected group of customers that the contract rider is attached to their account and the customers are receiving
the correct incentive. The program manager could select a small random sample (for example a random sample
of 11 will result in an 80 percent confidence level at 20 percent precision. A larger sample would only need to be
selected if issues are discovered.
Verify Manual Processes: IPC currently has customers that are eligible for both a time of use rate as well as the
A/C Cool Credit program. The credit for the A/C Cool Credit program is delivered via a contract rider. When a
customer migrates to the TOD rate, their service at the general rate is terminated and then reinstated with the
new TOD rate. This effectively terminates all contract riders associated with the customer on their old rate and the
contract rider for the A/C cool credit program must be manually added back to the account. Currently, this manual
process has been applied to only 15 customers. All 15 customers’ files should be reviewed to assure the process
has been completed correctly.
Curtailment Event Internal Notification
Task: Ensure smooth internal communication and coordination during events.
 Internal curtailment notification distribution list should be updated; the list should include IPC, Honeywell and M&V contractor staff (in evaluation years)
 Notification email template drafted/updated
 Train staff in internal notification process

Event Notification Process and Stakeholder Identification: Prior to curtailment season, the program manager
should communicate the program processes, timeline, and activities to key internal stakeholders. The
communication should reiterate their role and expectations during a curtailment. If internal staff has questions
regarding their role or expectations, they should contact the program manager prior to curtailments. The
distribution list should reflect any staffing changes that may have occurred during the “off” season.
Once a curtailment period is determined, the process for initiating the notification is separate from the event
scheduling process. The program manager should provide training materials for all staff responsible for the
notification.

Dispatch Readiness
Activities include:
 Update authorized dispatch list if needed
 Dispatch staff receives training on dispatch system
 Distribute written curtailment policy and limitations to all decision contributors
 Enable Cold Load Pickup
 Review system programming
 Asset test – ping all PLC devices for response
 System Test – Test curtailment early in season to test all processes

Dispatch Readiness is one of the most important activities during this timeframe. At IPC, the process for
determining the necessity of a curtailment and the implementation of the commands are split between two groups.
In addition, input is given by multiple organizations prior to determining a curtailment. All involved parties should
have an adequate understanding of the dispatch criteria and limitations.
Update Written Curtailment Policy and Limitations: With a highly collaborative process for determining
curtailments, a clear understanding of company policy and limitations will ensure a smooth process. The written

51

policy and limitations should be reviewed by the program manager and internal stakeholders and updated as
necessary.
Dispatch System Check: Review the TNS programming to ensure it is applicable to the curtailment criteria for
the current year. Reprogram the TNS system as necessary. For the 2012 year, this includes the addition of
several curtailment strategies as well as reprogramming the curtailment commands so the adaptive algorithm can
be tested. Enable cold load pickup.
Dispatch Staff Identification and Training: Identify authorized dispatch staff for communication and training
purposes. All dispatch staff should receive training on system either as a refresher for staff with prior experience
executing curtailments for new staff. This is key in years where the dispatch procedures change.
Asset Test: Honeywell currently conducts QA on installed switches on an ongoing basis. However, the PLC
devices can be tested on a rudimentary basis. Prior to curtailment season, all PLC devices should be “pinged” to
confirm they are active and receiving signals. This does not confirm they are taking appropriate action, however it
is a good indication of device efficacy. Any non-responding devices should be placed on a priority list for
Honeywell to visit.
Dispatch System Test. It is recommended that at least one live event is conducted, even at mild temperatures
for a short period of time shortly after June 1. Currently the IPC tariff does not allow for curtailments prior to June
1. The purpose of this test event is to verify all the processes and procedures were followed, verify the switches
received the signal (IPC test switches), and identify system load drop if possible.
Readiness Communication
The completion and outcomes of the activities contained in this readiness plan should be communicated to
management as a part of the seasonal readiness report. At a minimum, a completed readiness checklist should be attached to the report.

52

Readiness Checklist:
Process or Task Completed? Notes
IPC customer service policy 
IPC escalation policy (if separate from customer
service policy)

Contractor customer service policies 
Emergency procedures (health and safety) 
Dispatch criteria and limitations Policy 
Field support processes and staff in place and trained
(Honeywell)

IPC call center staff trained on program 
Honeywell call center staff up-to-date and trained on
program

Program Frequently Asked Questions list up-to-date
and distributed internally

Internal website updated 
Customer newsletter is mailed 
Program materials are reviewed and updated 
External website updated 
Any social media tie-ins are current 
Verify automated process is working properly by
conducting a random audit of A/C cool credit
customer accounts.

For customers who are participating in the TOD rate,
verify manual process has been completed.

Internal curtailment notification distribution list
updated, includes IPC, Honeywell and M&V contractor
staff (in evaluation years)

Notification email template drafted/updated 
Train staff in internal notification process 
Update authorized dispatch list if needed 
Dispatch staff receives training on dispatch system. 
Distribute written curtailment policy and limitations to
all decision contributors

Enable cold load pickup 
Review system programming 
Asset test – ping all PLC devices for response 
System Test – Test curtailment early in season to test
all processes


Idaho Power Company Supplement 2: Evaluation
Demand-Side Management 2012 Annual Report Page 233
Impact Evaluations
Table 4. 2012 Impact Evaluations
Program Sector Analysis Performed by Study Manager Study/Evaluation Type
Heating & Cooling Efficiency Program Impact Evaluation Residential PECI Idaho Power Impact
See ya later, refrigerator® Program Impact Evaluation Residential ADM, Associates Idaho Power Impact
Boise City Audit Pilot Impact Evaluation Residential Idaho Design Lab Idaho Power Impact
Weatherization Programs Impact Evaluation Residential D&R International Idaho Power Impact
Building Efficiency Program Impact Evaluation Commercial/Industrial ADM, Associates Idaho Power Impact
Easy Upgrades Program Impact Evaluation Commercial/Industrial ADM, Associates Idaho Power Impact

Supplement 2: Evaluation Idaho Power Company
Page 234 Demand-Side Management 2012 Annual Report
This page left blank intentionally.

2011 Heating & Cooling Efficiency
Program Impact Evaluation
January 11, 2012
Idaho Power Company

1221 W Idaho St.
Boise, ID 83702

This page left blank.

Prepared by:
John Walczyk
Cameron Ramey
Andrew Eiden

Cadmus

Table of Contents
Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................... 1
Summary of Key Findings ...................................................................................................................... 1
Summary of Recommendations ............................................................................................................ 2
Program Description ................................................................................................................................. 3
Incentives .............................................................................................................................................. 3
Eligibility Requirements ........................................................................................................................ 4
Program Participation ............................................................................................................................... 5
Impact Evaluation ..................................................................................................................................... 7
Methodology ......................................................................................................................................... 7
Evaluated Gross Savings ...................................................................................................................... 16
Appendix A: Site Visit Recruitment Script ............................................................................................... 20
Appendix B: Meter Retrieval Script ......................................................................................................... 21
Appendix C: Contractor Interview Guide ................................................................................................ 22
Appendix D: Site-Specific Verification Findings ...................................................................................... 23

Idaho Power Company 2011 H&CE Program Impact Evaluation / January 11, 2013 1
Executive Summary
Idaho Power Company (IPC) contracted with the Cadmus Group, Inc. (Cadmus) to conduct an impact
evaluation of its Heating & Cooling Efficiency (H&CE) Program in Idaho for the 2011 program year.1 For
this impact evaluation, Cadmus used verification site visits, engineering review, and contractor
interviews to validate the program’s reported gross demand (kW) and energy savings (kWh).
The information we evaluated consisted of:
 Site visit data (equipment installation verification and Manual J equipment sizing inputs) from 42
participating households and a total of 44 heat pumps;
 Inside air temperature meter data from 42 participating households;
 Heat pump usage (run-time) data from 42 households; and
 Interviews with five participant HVAC equipment dealers.
With the H&CE Program, which is implemented internally, IPC seeks to decrease electricity (kWh and
kW) usage by providing incentives to participating customers and contractors for the purchase and best-
practice sizing and installation of air- and ground-source heat pumps and evaporative cooling
equipment.
Summary of Key Findings
Cadmus reported the kWh savings achieved through the program using a realization rate, which is the
ratio of ex post (evaluated participant or project) to ex ante (reported by participant or project) savings.
We found that:
1. Tracked data was complete and accurate
2. Energy-savings estimates were reasonable but required refining
3. The majority of heat pumps were installed in compliance with Performance Tested Comfort
System (PTCS) commissioning, controls, and sizing (CC&S) standards
4. No Btu savings were verified because the baseline assumes that participants intended to
convert to all electric heating and cooling
The final verified savings are provided in Table ES1.
Table ES1. Verified Program Savings
H&CE Program
No. of Measures
Reported
Demand Savings
(kW)
Ex Post Verified
Savings (kWh)
Ex Ante Reported
Savings (kWh)
Program Energy
Realization Rate
130 49.96 686,689 733,405 0.94

1 Three evaporative cooling equipment measures were incented through the 2011 H&CE Program. These
measures are not included in this evaluation.

Idaho Power Company 2011 H&CE Program Impact Evaluation / January 11, 2013 2
Summary of Recommendations
Our following recommendations aim to help IPC increase participation in future program years and to
continuously improve the accuracy of savings estimates.
1. Continue to record the same types of tracking data for each project. The collected data is used
to estimate savings via the method provided by the Regional Technical Forum (RTF) for heat
pumps. Because of the wealth of data, we were able to use the most accurate RTF savings
estimates for each project, rather than having to use RTF deemed savings values that are
weighted by the size of a typical home in the Northwest. Furthermore, the RTF savings estimates
are intended for either 8.5 or 9.0 heating seasonal performance factor (HSPF) systems only.
2. Adopt ex post savings for all measures. In support of this evaluation, Cadmus verified the
installation and proper sizing of 44 participating heat pumps. This sample yields statistically
significant results with 90% confidence and ±8% precision. By combining information obtained
through the metering study with the contractor-reported data, Cadmus was able to determine
an accurate assessment of which heat pump installations were in accordance with RTF
standards.
3. Perform a saturation study of electric resistance heat and heat pumps. For this evaluation, we
assumed that the participants intended to convert to all-electric heating and cooling. Two main
scenarios are possible:
a. The incentive prompted the participant to have a heat pump installed, which resulted in
increased electric energy consumption (negative electric heating savings) but decreased oil
or propane use.
b. The participant intended to switch from fossil fuel to all electric heat and would have either
had a heat pump or electric resistance strip heat installed. If they intended to install a heat
pump, the baseline energy consumption used to estimate savings would be significantly
different from the baseline energy consumption of electric resistance heat.
4. Consider promoting financing options, especially for customers with electric resistance strip
heat. The highest savings potential for this program is for IPC customers with electric resistance
heat and central air conditioning. IPC could market the cost-effectiveness of converting to a heat
pump system, then offer on-bill financing to make this conversion attractive to customers.

Idaho Power Company 2011 H&CE Program Impact Evaluation / January 11, 2013 3
Program Description
In September 2007 and August 2008, IPC began incenting installations of air- and ground-source heat
pumps and evaporative cooling equipment through the H&CE Program in its Idaho and Oregon service
territories, respectively. IPC offers incentives for new residential heating and cooling equipment
installations and makes annual modifications to measures, efficiency requirements, and incentive levels
to reflect changing market conditions. In 2011, IPC incented the following installations through the
program:
 Replacing an existing air-source heat pump with a new air-source heat pump with a HSPF of 8.2
or greater;
 Replacing an existing electric, oil, or propane heating system with a new air-source heat pump
with a HSPF of 8.2 or greater. To be eligible, homes with oil or propane heating systems must
have been located in an area where natural gas was not available;
 Installing an air-source heat pump with a HSPF of 8.2 or greater in a new home;
 Replacing an existing air-source heat pump with a new open-loop water-source heat pump with
a 3.5 coefficient of performance (COP) or greater;
 Replacing an existing electric, oil, or propane heating system with a new open-loop water-
source heat pump with a 3.5 COP or greater. To be eligible, homes with oil or propane heating
systems must have been located in an area where natural gas was not available;
 Installing an open-loop water-source heat pump with a 3.5 COP or greater in a new home; and
 Installing an evaporative cooler.
To be eligible for a program incentive, the appropriate equipment must have been installed by a
participating contractor with the exception of evaporative coolers. IPC maintains a list of participating
contractors on the program Website, which includes a search tool to help customers identify a
participating contractor that serves their area. IPC provides additional training for participating
contractors on program expectations, requirements, and technical skills.
IPC requires the participating contractors to size eligible equipment using the IPC H&CE Program Heat
Pump Sizing Worksheet or Manual J or equivalent calculations. The calculations use site-specific
information—such as occupancy, windows, and building orientation—to determine the correct size of
equipment. Additionally, IPC requires the contractors to install equipment in a manner that adheres to
best practice installation standards, which includes adjusting the refrigerant charge and airflow of the
system. Contractors must document both of these steps as a required component of the application
package. IPC provides contractor incentive payments for the correct installation of eligible air- and open
loop water-source heat pumps.
Incentives
Table 2 shows the baseline conditions, minimum efficiency values of the new equipment, and incentive
amounts for each H&CE Program measure offered in 2011.

Idaho Power Company 2011 H&CE Program Impact Evaluation / January 11, 2013 4
Table 2. 2011 H&CE Program Incentives
Existing System New System
New System
Minimum
Efficiency
Customer
Incentive
Contractor
Incentive
Air-source Heat Pump for Existing Homes
Air-source Heat Pump
Air-source Heat
Pump
8.2 HSPF $200 $150
Air-source Heat Pump 8.5 HSPF $250 $150
Electric Forced Air Furnace 8.2 HSPF $300 $150
Electric Forced Air Furnace 8.5 HSPF $400 $150
Oil Forced Air Furnace 8.2 HSPF $300 $150
Oil Forced Air Furnace 8.5 HSPF $400 $150
Propane Forced Air Furnace 8.2 HSPF $300 $150
Propane Forced Air Furnace 8.5 HSPF $400 $150
Air-source Heat Pump for New Home Construction
N/A Air-source Heat
Pump 8.2 HSPF $300 $150
N/A Air-source Heat
Pump 8.5 HSPF $400 $150
Open Loop Water-source Heat Pump for Existing Homes
Air-source Heat Pump Open Loop
Water-source
Heat Pump
3.5 COP $500 $150
Electric Forced Air Furnace 3.5 COP $1,000 $150
Oil Forced Air Furnace 3.5 COP $1,000 $150
Propane Forced Air Furnace 3.5 COP $1,000 $150
Open Loop Water-source Heat Pump for New Home Construction
N/A
Open Loop
Water-source
Heat Pump
3.5 COP $1,000 $0
Evaporative Cooler
Any Existing Equipment Evaporative
Cooler - $150 $0

Eligibility Requirements
To be eligible for the program, customers must meet the following criteria:
 Residential IPC customer, builder of new construction homes, or property owner/manager
whose property (where incented equipment will be installed) is located within IPC’s service area.
 Purchased and had eligible equipment installed on or after January 1, 2009.
 Equipment installation was completed by a participating contractor who was trained by IPC and
signed an HVAC Contractor Participation Agreement with IPC (for all incentives except
evaporative coolers).

Idaho Power Company 2011 H&CE Program Impact Evaluation / January 11, 2013 5
Program Participation
As shown in Figure 1, the overwhelming majority of measures incented in 2011 were air-source heat
pumps (n=103, followed by open-loop water-source heat pumps (n=24), and evaporative coolers (n=3).
Figure 1. 2011 H&CE Program Participation by Installation Date

Program participation in 2011 was lower than in previous years. This likely reflects a reduction in the
amount of the federal tax credit, which was reduced from $1,500 in 2010 to $300 in 2011, and then was
completely eliminated in 2012. Figure 2 shows IPC’s participation and energy savings from 2008 through
2011.
Figure 2. Annual Reported H&CE Program Participation and Energy Savings (2008-2011)

0
4
8
12
16
20
Pr
e
-
2
0
1
0
Se
p
Oc
t
No
v
De
c
Ja
n
Fe
b
Ma
r
Ap
r
Ma
y
Ju
n
Ju
l
Au
g
Se
p
Oc
t
No
v
De
c
2010 2011
Nu
m
b
e
r

o
f

I
n
c
e
n
t
e
d

U
n
i
t
s
Air-Source Heat Pumps (103)Ground-Source Heat Pumps (24)Evaporative Coolers (3)
0
200,000
400,000
600,000
800,000
1,000,000
1,200,000
1,400,000
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
2008 2009 2010 2011
En
e
r
g
y

S
a
v
i
n
g
s

(
k
W
h
)
Pa
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
t
i
o
n

(
I
n
c
e
n
t
e
d

U
n
i
t
s
)
Participation Energy Savings

Idaho Power Company 2011 H&CE Program Impact Evaluation / January 11, 2013 6
Noting the decline in H&CE Program participation, Cadmus investigated similar programs offered by two
other large utilities in Idaho—Rocky Mountain Power and Avista Corp.—to understand if these utilities
experienced a similar decline in participation. Figure 3 shows that participation in these other similar
programs increased from 2009 to 2010, but then sharply decreased in 2011. In their annual planning
documents, both utilities noted this trend and attributed it to the expiration of federal tax credits.
Figure 3. Rocky Mountain Power and Avista Corp. Heat Pump Program Participation

0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
140%
2009 2010 2011
Avista (WA and ID)Rocky Mountain Power (ID)

Idaho Power Company 2011 H&CE Program Impact Evaluation / January 11, 2013 7
Impact Evaluation
Methodology
Cadmus conducted a database review, engineering review, on-site equipment verification, and on-site
heat pump run-time meter installations to assess savings impacts.
Database and Engineering Review
Cadmus reviewed program rebate applications and performed an engineering review of the reported
heat pump commissioning diagnostic values for the census of heat pump measure installations. The
purpose of our review was two-fold:
1. To assess the inputs used for selecting the appropriate RTF2 deemed savings values. These
included:
a. Address (to determine the heating and cooling zone location)
b. New equipment type and size
c. New equipment efficiency rating through the Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration
Institute (AHRI)
d. Existing heating and cooling equipment types
e. Type of home (manufactured or single family)
f. Square footage of conditioned space
2. To assess the reasonableness of reported values with respect to:
a. Target sub-cooling temperature
b. Measured sub-cooling temperature
c. Supply and return temperatures
d. Measured cubic-feet per minute of supply air
Site Visit Sampling
Cadmus conducted site metering visits at a statistically significant sample of program homes, based on
90% confidence and 10% precision. IPC provided Cadmus with the final 2011 database extracts from
which to sample. Cadmus then randomly selected 42 heat pump participants for on-site verification and
metering. Two homes had two heat pumps installed so a total of 44 meters were placed.
Participant Recruitment
IPC sent letters to a census of heat pump measure installation participants. Cadmus then called these
customers to explain the study and schedule a time for meter installation with those customers who
were willing to participate. We provided each participant with a $25 Visa gift card when we installed
metering equipment, and gave them a second $25 Visa gift card when they mailed back the metering
equipment.

2 North West Regional Technical Forum

Idaho Power Company 2011 H&CE Program Impact Evaluation / January 11, 2013 8
On-Site Equipment Verification
Cadmus used the metering site visits to verify measure installations and interview homeowners to verify
the equipment that was replaced. This verification provided at least 90% confidence and 10% precision
of on-site measure installations and baseline equipment information.
Heat Pump Run-time Metering
Cadmus installed heat pump run-time meters on the outdoor condenser. The run-time meters we used
were Onset UX90-004 Motor On/Off data loggers, which record motor on and off conditions by sensing
an alternating current magnetic field. These motor loggers are not normally weather-proof, so Cadmus
placed them in weather-proof heat-sealed plastic bags and put them either on top of the condenser or
on the conduit to the condenser (see Figure 4 and Figure 5).
Figure 4. Motor Logger on Condenser

Figure 5. Motor Logger on Electric Conduit to Condenser

Cadmus engineers also installed indoor Onset U10-003 temperature loggers on top of or near the
thermostats (see Figure 6). We set these loggers to record the indoor temperature at five-minute
intervals.

Idaho Power Company 2011 H&CE Program Impact Evaluation / January 11, 2013 9
Figure 6. Temperature Logger

Cadmus determined that approximately 25% of the homes we visited had an additional heat source,
such as a wood pellet stove (see Figure 7). For these homes, Cadmus placed a second Onset U10-003
temperature logger near the additional heat source to measure its run-time and usage. Our intention
was to monitor these additional heat sources to help explain unexpected heat pump run-time data.
Figure 7. Temperature Logger Installed Near Additional Heat Source

Sources for Heat Pump Upgrade and Conversion Savings Estimates
To estimate savings for conversion from electric resistance heat to a heat pump, IPC used savings
estimates from the RTF file: RTF - Res_SFHeatPumpsFY10v2_3.3
To estimate savings from heat pump upgrades, IPC used the Ecotope Dec 2009 Heat Pump Sizing
Specifications and Heat Pump Measures Savings Estimate study, which provides energy savings for

3 Source: http://rtf.nwcouncil.org/measures/measure.asp?id=128

Idaho Power Company 2011 H&CE Program Impact Evaluation / January 11, 2013 10
installing a high-efficiency heat pump based on a federal minimum efficiency heat pump.4 This study
found that a heat pump upgrade from 7.7 HSPF 8.5 HSPF provides savings of 2,216 kWh per year.
The RTF provides deemed savings estimates for heat pump upgrades based on a system baseline of 8.5
HSPF, SEER 13. IPC’s heat pump upgrade savings (2,216 kWh) are significantly higher than the deemed
savings provided by the RTF (over 10 times higher, see Table 3).

Table 3. RTF Deemed Savings Estimates for Heat Pump Upgrades
Sector Category Subcategory Procost Measure Name
Annual
Savings
@ Site
(kWh/yr)
Annual
Savings @
Generator
Busbar
(kWh/yr)
Residential HVAC HVAC System
upgrade
Existing Single Family Home HVAC
Upgrade ·Heat Pump Upgrade to
9.0 HSPF/14 SEER· Heating Zone 1
169 184
Residential HVAC HVAC System
Upgrade
Existing Single Family Home HVAC
Upgrade· Heat Pump Upgrade to
9.0 HSPF/14 SEER· Heating Zone 2
183 200
Residential HVAC HVAC System
Upgrade
Existing Single Family Home HVAC
Upgrade ·Heat Pump Upgrade to
9.0 HSPF/14 SEER· Heating Zone 3
190 207
Source: http://rtf.nwcouncil.org/measures/measure.asp?id=130
File: ResHeatingCoolingHeatPumpsUpgradeSF_v2_7.xls

The RTF uses savings that were calculated from Ecotope SEEM models,5 which estimate the energy
consumption and savings for an average-size single family or manufactured home. The RTF provides
SEEM model outputs for various home sizes in nine different weather zones.6 For example, the RTF
makes the following assumptions of manufactured homes:
 25% of homes are 924 square feet
 40% of homes are 1,568 square feet
 35% of homes are 2,352 square feet
Cadmus used the percentages of home sizes to adjust the SEEM model outputs by weighting the energy
savings for each home size.

4 The federal minimum efficiency is 7.7 HSPF, 13 SEER.
5 http://www.ecotope.com/ssrmar.html
6 The RTF outlines details for three heating zones and three cooling zones, for nine total combinations of
heating and cooling zones.

Idaho Power Company 2011 H&CE Program Impact Evaluation / January 11, 2013 11
Heat Pump Upgrade and Conversion Savings Estimate Methodology
Cadmus did not use the RTF’s simplified deemed savings values because the percentages of homes with
certain square-footage characteristics were not substantiated by research in IPC’s service territory. IPC
tracked the actual square footage of participating homes, which Cadmus used to more accurately
estimate savings. We used the current SEEM model energy-savings estimates published by the RTF7 to
estimate the energy savings for each home. Cadmus used IPC’s tracking data to select the best SEEM
model energy-savings estimate. This tracked data included:
 Measure location (with different combinations of heating and cooling types)
 Type of home (manufactured or single family)
 Type of measure (e.g., conversion from electric resistance heat, upgrade to high-efficiency
equipment)
 Whether the system was installed in compliance with PTCS CC&S standards (described in next
section)
To determine the appropriate heating zone to use for calculating savings at each participating home,
Cadmus located the applicable heating and cooling zones (an example is provided in Figure 8). The
program participants were in 16 different counties. The heating and cooling weather zones for each
county are provided in Table 4. All possible weather zones combinations for program participants are
included in this table.

7 ExistingResidentialManufacturedHome_SEEM94Runs_03a.xls &
ExistingResidentialSingleFamily_SEEMRuns_v04.xls

Idaho Power Company 2011 H&CE Program Impact Evaluation / January 11, 2013 12
Figure 8. Idaho Cooling Weather Zone Map

Figure 9. Idaho Heating Weather Zone Map

Source: http://www.nwcouncil.org/energy/rtf/zones/zonemapsx.htm

Table 4. Weather Zones by County
County Heating Zone Cooling Zone
Ada 1 3
Bannock 2 2
Bingham 2 2
Boise 3 1
Canyon 1 3
Elmore 2 3
Gem 1 3
Gooding 2 3
Jerome 2 3
Lemhi 2 2
Lincoln 2 3
Malheur (Oregon) 1 3
Owyhee 1 3
Payette 1 3
Twin Falls 2 2
Washington 2 2

To maintain consistent savings calculations between measures, Cadmus used RTF SEEM model energy
savings for heat pump upgrades and conversion measures. Figure 10 shows an example of a direct
output from the SEEM model that Cadmus used to estimate savings values for IPC heat pump measures.
In this example, a 1,344 square-foot home with an electric forced air furnace (FAF) in Boise, Idaho uses
7,465 kWh of energy per year. Likewise, a 9.0 HSPF heat pump in the same size home uses 5,548 kWh of

Idaho Power Company 2011 H&CE Program Impact Evaluation / January 11, 2013 13
energy per year. A conversion from a FAF to a 9.0 HSPF heat pump in a home of that size saves 1,917
kWh of energy per year (the difference between 7,465 and 5,548). To estimate savings, Cadmus used
information tracked by IPC including the home square footage, the heating and cooling zones shown in
Table 4 based on the county of each measure installation, and the AHRI-rated efficiency of the measure.
Figure 10. SEEM Model Outputs of Unit Energy Consumption
for Various Home Sizes in Boise, Idaho
Heating
Sq Ft:

1,344

1,344

2,200

2,200
Efficiency
HSPF/SEER
Boise Boise Boise Boise
faf faf faf faf
8.5/13

7,465

5,623

14,287

9,535
9.0/14

7,465

5,548

14,287

9,367
8.2/13

7,465

5,672

14,287

9,645
7.7/13

7,465

5,825

14,287

9,944
Source: http://rtf.nwcouncil.org/measures/support/Default.asp
File: ExistingResidentialSingleFamily_SEEMRuns_v04

Savings Analysis Methodology – Verification of Commissioning, Controls, and Sizing
IPC requires that contractors perform the PTCS CC&S for every measure installation. For this reason, the
H&CE Program claims savings in addition to those from heat pump upgrades and conversions. To
evaluate whether a system was commissioned correctly, Cadmus verified proper sizing using the
following multiple research activities:
 Reviewing tracking data, namely refrigerant diagnostic data
 Reviewing heat pump condenser run-time
 Calculating Manual J heating loads

Idaho Power Company 2011 H&CE Program Impact Evaluation / January 11, 2013 14
When a heat pump is sized according to the PTCS CC&S standards, it will provide sufficient heating
capacity at the balance point specified by the standard: 30° Fahrenheit. Cadmus reviewed the heat
pump run-times versus outdoor temperature. We determined the outdoor temperature using data from
the nearest weather station. We reviewed each dataset manually, as numerous conditions could cause
unexpectedly low run-times at a given temperature. As shown in Figure 11, the coincidence factor is
45% at approximately 30° Fahrenheit. A properly sized system should have a higher coincidence factor
at 30° Fahrenheit, but there are other factors to consider (discussed below).
Figure 11. Heat Pump Coincidence Factor Versus Outdoor Temperature for Site #3

The system does not run continuously in several situations that include the following:
 When it is 30° Fahrenheit outside, but sunny and with significant solar gains which heat the
home and reduce heating capacity needed from the heat pump
 When the thermostat setpoint is changed (reduced)
 When backup heat, such as a wood pellet stove, is used to supplement the heat pump
Cadmus kept these and many other possibilities in mind when reviewing the heat pump meter data. We
verified the units’ proper sizing for the following conditions:
 The indoor temperature was constant
 The outdoor temperature was relatively stable from hour to hour (±5° Fahrenheit)
 There was no backup heat source affecting the heat load requirements
 The likelihood of solar gain was minimal (e.g., when it is dark outside)

Idaho Power Company 2011 H&CE Program Impact Evaluation / January 11, 2013 15
When the above conditions were met, Cadmus used the coincidence factor during that time period to
review the run-time of the heat pump and assess whether the system was properly sized. Cadmus found
that the heat pump at site #3 (example in Figure 11) actually ran approximately 75% of the time when
the above conditions were met and conclude the system is properly sized.
For the meter datasets that did not meet the conditions listed above with reasonable certainty, Cadmus
referred to Manual J load calculations to assess whether the system was properly sized.
Measure Baseline
Our review of IPC’s reported energy savings indicates RTF algorithms were applied assuming a baseline
of electric resistance space heating technology for all participants who converted from oil or propane
heat systems to a high efficiency heat pump. This evaluation uses the same assumption. That is to say,
absent the program, all program participants would have installed electric resistance space heating
instead of the incented heat pump. Electric resistance space heating is a comparatively inefficient
heating technology. Assuming an electric resistance furnace would have been installed results in higher
per-unit reported energy savings than the assumption that a standard-efficiency heat pump would have
been installed.
A review of recent market saturation studies conducted by electric utilities in Idaho indicates this
assumption may not always be appropriate. Indicated in Table 5, both electric resistance space heating
and heat pumps are prevalent in Idaho.
Table 5. Residential Electric Resistance Space Heating Saturations
Baseline Technology Type Avista (ID)* IPC**
Residential Electric Resistance Space Heating
Saturation 25.0% 15.1%
Residential Heat Pump Heating Saturation 15.4% 12.2%
* 2011 IRP Appendix
** 2009 IPC DSM Potential Study vol II. ER includes electric FAF and baseboard heat estimate for 2011
We suggest using up-to-date market saturation studies in IPC territory to estimate a weighted baseline
UEC estimate which assumes either an electric resistance heating system or a standard-efficiency heat
pump could have replaced an oil or propane furnace.
Contractor Interviews
Cadmus interviewed several contractors about their experiences with the H&CE Program, all of whom
were company owners. We designed the interview questions to identify the following information:
 Whether they were installing high-efficiency systems outside of the program, and if so, why.
 The number of standard efficiency systems they installed compared to high-efficiency (program-
qualifying) systems.

Idaho Power Company 2011 H&CE Program Impact Evaluation / January 11, 2013 16
 The importance of the rebate to customers.
 Issues with the program process.
The majority of the contractors we interviewed did not have any major issues or suggestions for changes
to the program process. In other evaluations of similar programs, contractors have told Cadmus that the
amount of additional work necessary to qualify for an incentive is often prohibitive. The contractors we
spoke with about the H&CE Program seemed to understand the importance and relevance of the
information gathered and accepted the additional time requirements for collecting this information and
performing the HVAC diagnostic tests.
According to contractors, the main reason they would install a high-efficiency system but not receive an
incentive is because the system did not pass the airflow test. If the ductwork does not allow sufficient
airflow, there is little an installer can change without making major system modifications, and
homeowners are generally not able or willing to accept the costs for those modifications.
Additional Noteworthy Topics
Several contractors mentioned that they do not think the auxiliary heat lock-out requirement is saving
energy, because if the heat pump is sized correctly it will not require auxiliary heat under normal
operation.
One contractor said the greatest deterrent for program participation is the high cost of high-efficiency
systems. He offered his idea of a solution in which IPC would fund a financing program. Cadmus has
worked with other utilities that offer on-bill financing, and these programs have experienced relatively
high levels of participation.
Several contractors mentioned the paperwork is burdensome but they understand why it is necessary.
They mentioned the application form and the worksheet have some duplicate entries (homeowner
information, etc.) and reduction of duplicate entries would be helpful.
Several contractors mentioned that a focus group with participating and non-participating contractors
would be very beneficial for IPC.
Evaluated Gross Savings
Cadmus reported the kWh savings achieved by the program using a measure verification rate
determined through site visit verification, engineering review, and meter data analysis to estimate
savings for the entire program. Table 6 shows the participation by measure and the total measure
savings. Table 6 also compares the verified savings to the total possible savings for the measures
verified. The total verified savings are slightly less than the total possible savings because meter data
showed several systems were not sized correctly. If meter data or Manual J calculations confirmed a
system was not properly sized, CC&S savings were reduced to 0 kWh. In total, Cadmus found 5 of the 44
HVAC systems were not properly sized and adjusted savings for these measures accordingly. Note these
measures still received savings from the installation of high efficiency equipment. In each case, the
equipment efficiency was verified by recording nameplate information of the system components.

Idaho Power Company 2011 H&CE Program Impact Evaluation / January 11, 2013 17
Table 6. Ex Post kWh Savings by Measure
Measure (N)
Total
(N)
Verified
Verified
Savings
Possible
Savings
Total Savings
for Measure
Air-source Heat Pump to Air-source Heat
Pump: 8.5 HSPF 47 16 35,737 38,041 120,981
Air-source Heat Pump to Open-loop
Water-source Heat Pump: 3.5 COP 2 0 6,215
Electric Heating System to Open-loop
Water-source Heat Pump: 3.5 COP 12 3 31,753 31,753 127,012
Electric Heating System to Air-source
Heat Pump: 8.5 HSPF 32 14 101,666 104,854 242,136
Open-loop Water-source Heat Pump:
3.5 COP 4 1 5,526 5,526 16,628
Oil/Propane Heating System to Open-
loop Water-source Heat Pump: 3.5 COP 6 3 9,386 9,386 18,645
Oil/Propane Heating System to Air-
source Heat Pump: 8.5 HSPF 24 7 46,668 48,972 176,130
Evaporative Cooler 3 0 4,179
Total 130 44 230,736 238,532 709,890
*Although several GSHPs were verified, no CC&S savings are claimed because the RTF does not provide savings for
GSHP CC&S and the evaluation assumes GSHP installers install systems to a higher standard.

Cadmus applied the measure verification rate we determined through site visit verification, engineering
review, and meter data analysis to the entire population of measure savings to estimate savings for the
entire program (Table 7). We report a realization rate, which is the ratio of ex post (evaluated
participant or project) to ex ante (reported by participant or project by IPC) savings.

Table 7. Total Program Savings
H&CE Program
No. of Measures
Reported
Measure
Verification Rate
Ex Post Verified
Savings (kWh)
Ex Ante Reported
Savings (kWh)
Program
Realization Rate
130 0.97 686,689 733,405 0.94

The on-site verifications and analysis of meter data had little impact (3.3% reduction) on savings
estimates, because through these activities Cadmus determined that the systems were always installed
as reported and almost always sized correctly and operating as expected. The main reason the
realization rate was less than 100% was because IPC’s reported savings from RTF deemed values for
heat pump conversions, while the energy-savings estimates for heat pump upgrades were from an
Ecotope study. For this evaluation, Cadmus used energy-savings estimates from SEEM models used by
the RTF that more appropriately estimated the energy consumption and savings for each metered
participant based on the details of the system and the home.

Idaho Power Company 2011 H&CE Program Impact Evaluation / January 11, 2013 18
Table 8 shows evaluated demand savings. Cadmus used the standard engineering algorithm to estimate
savings:

Heat pumps are sized for heating load, which is generally greater than cooling load. The coincidence
factor (CF) was calculated from the ratio of contractors load calculations estimating heating and cooling
BTUs:

The CF limit was set to 100%. The average CF of all heat pumps installed was 70%. The total demand
savings evaluated is 49.96 kW.
Table 8. Demand Savings
Measure (N)
Total
Demand
Savings (kW)
Air-source Heat Pump to Air-source Heat Pump: 8.5
HSPF 47 14.05
Air-source Heat Pump to Open-loop Water-source Heat
Pump: 3.5 COP 2 1.0
Electric Heating System to Open-loop Water-source
Heat Pump: 3.5 COP 12 5.17
Electric Heating System to Air-source Heat Pump: 8.5
HSPF 32 9.39
Open-loop Water-source Heat Pump: 3.5 COP 4 2.35
Oil/Propane Heating System to Open-loop Water-source
Heat Pump: 3.5 COP 6 3.10
Oil/Propane Heating System to Air-source Heat Pump:
8.5 HSPF 24 7.51
Evaporative Cooler 3 7.38
Total 130 49.96

Statistical Significance
Cadmus determined a realization rate for each heat pump metering participant. The realization rate is
defined as the total verified savings divided by the total possible savings. With a 0.89 coefficient of
variation, we verified savings for the sample of site visits with an estimated realization rate precision of
±2.7% (Table 9) at the 90% confidence interval.
Table 9. Precision of Total Sample
Mean (% of measure RR) n Precision at 90% Confidence
97% 44 ±2.7%

Idaho Power Company 2011 H&CE Program Impact Evaluation / January 11, 2013 19
Bias
The potential sources of uncertainty associated with estimating the impacts of the HVAC programs
include sample self-selection bias and operational use bias. Cadmus kept these issues in mind
throughout the evaluation process, and followed methods to reduce the uncertainty arising from these
sources, thereby improving the validity and reliability of study findings. These methods are outlined
below:
 Self-selection bias. Cadmus determined all of the sites used in the meter study from individual
homeowners volunteering to participate. Therefore, the results are subject to a self-selection
bias. This bias asserts itself when the people who agree to participate in a study are different
than those who refuse to participate in a way that is correlated with the study findings. Given
the difficulty of recruiting participants for this type of study and the typically low response rate
to a random selection of customers, the study was open to this type of bias. This is inherently a
difficult type of bias to control. We offered incentives ($50 total in two $25 Visa gift cards) to
study participants to increase their willingness to contribute. We achieved greater than a 33%
response rate, and assumed that study participants will operate their heat pump the same as
non-participants. Cadmus also conducted a detailed review of each meter dataset to eliminate
the variability in system operation from homeowners changing their thermostat unexpectedly
or using a secondary heat source.
 Participant operational use bias (Hawthorne Effect). This bias is from participants changing
their behavior as a result of the study. In this case, participants with this bias would utilize their
heat pump differently during the study than they normally would have, as a result of the study.
In social psychology literature, this bias is known as the Hawthorne Effect. Cadmus corrected for
this bias by instructing all study participants to not change their equipment use habits as a result
of being in the study. We expect that compliance with this instruction was reasonably high,
especially since any minor initial changes in behavior would tend to fade over the time the
meters were in place.

Idaho Power Company 2011 H&CE Program Impact Evaluation / January 11, 2013 20
Appendix A: Site Visit Recruitment Script
Protocol for Site Visit Scheduling for IPC
Please make sure to use a professional tone and language. Some customers that you will be calling will
have received and read an introductory email from IPC explaining the study. Others will be unaware of
our need to conduct a site visit.
When speaking to the participants, please follow the language in the script below. Do not ask whether
they would like to do a site visit or whether they agree to do a site visit, simply follow the script to
suggest the time and day that you have open and adjust if another time would work better for them. IPC
Site Visit Scheduling Script
Hi, my name is ____________ from The Cadmus Group. I am calling on behalf of Idaho Power about
the heat pump that you received a rebate for. As you may know, Idaho Power is required to evaluate
their energy efficiency programs. Idaho Power hired my company to inspect the installation of a random
sample of heat pumps installed and to verify energy savings from the Heating and Cooling Efficiency
Program. As part of our work, we are visiting homes to verify that the heat pump is installed, sized, and
controlled correctly. An inspection will probably take half hour to an hour and to compensate you for
your time, we will give you two $25 Visa gift cards. You will receive the first when we visit and the
second after you return two small meters that monitor temperature and heat pump run time. We will
provide you with a pre-paid envelope to ship the meters back. We have technicians in the field on
_______________ and _________. If you’re willing to participate is there a time on either of those days
that you would prefer for our technicians to come to your site?
If yes
Great, thank you. Here’s what you can expect during the site visit. A Cadmus Group employee wearing
an ID badge will place a run time meter on the heat pump and a temperature meter on or near your
thermostat. He will also perform an inspection to verify the heat pump is sized, controlled and installed
correctly.
Can I confirm the address and name of the person that the auditors should ask for on arrival?
If they are not available is there anyone else the auditor should ask for?
Thank you for your time and willingness to participate in this important study!
If no
OK, thank you very much for your time. We’re glad you participated in Idaho Power’s Heating and
Cooling rebate program!

Idaho Power Company 2011 H&CE Program Impact Evaluation / January 11, 2013 21
Appendix B: Meter Retrieval Script
Protocol for Site Visit Scheduling for IPC
Please make sure to use a professional tone and language. Some customers that you will be calling will
have received and read an introductory email from IPC explaining the study. Others will be unaware of
our need to conduct a site visit.
When speaking to the participants, please follow the language in the script below. Do not ask whether
they would like to do a site visit or whether they agree to do a site visit, simply follow the script to
suggest the time and day that you have open and adjust if another time would work better for them.
IPC Meter Retrieval Script
Hi, my name is ____________ from The Cadmus Group. I am calling to follow up on your participation
in Idaho Powers’ Heating and Cooling Efficiency Program evaluation. We have reached the end of our
study period and now we would like you to send us the meters back via Fed Ex. As a token of our
gratitude for participating, we will send you another $25 Visa Gift Card once we receive the envelope
with the meters in them.
You should have received a pre-paid and pre-addressed envelope from the field staff. Do you still have
this envelope? [If yes, proceed. If no, give them further instruction on how to package and mail the
meters.] Great, now all you need to do is insert the meters in the envelope and seal it. Then drop it off
at your nearest Fed Ex shipping location.
If problem locating meters
See the notes in the spreadsheet for site-specific information about where the meters were installed
and any other relevant information.
If question about shipping costs
The envelope that was provided to you was pre-paid and pre-addressed, and so you only need to seal
the meters inside and drop it off at the nearest Fed Ex Shipping location.
If lost envelope
The meters will probably fit in a medium sized padded envelope from Fed Ex. We can reimburse you for
the postage (on top of the $25 gift card) if you include a receipt in the envelope. Mail to:
100 Fifth Avenue, Suite 100
Waltham, MA 02451

Idaho Power Company 2011 H&CE Program Impact Evaluation / January 11, 2013 22
Appendix C: Contractor Interview Guide
 How many technicians work at your company?
 How many of those technicians are NATE certified?
 Can you estimate the total number of HP units you sold in 2011 and 2012?
 In what percentage of your residential equipment installations do you currently recommend
program qualifying levels of equipment efficiency?
 What percentage of the HP units you sold in 2011 and 2012 were rated HSPF 8.5 or greater?
 What do you think the percentage of these sales would have been rated HSPF 8.5 or greater if
there had not been any incentive available? (same question if they install GSHP)
 How important are the Idaho Power rebates to your customers when they decide to have new
equipment installed?
 How actively do you promote the Idaho Power rebate program and program incentives to your
customers?
 What percentage of your Heat Pump sales in 2011 and 2012 would you estimate complied with
the equipment sizing requirements of the Idaho Power program?
 How often do you perform full Manual J calculations for a heat pump installation?
 Are there ever times when it does not make sense to follow manual J, or when you install a
different size than indicated by the manual J calculation?
 Have you encountered difficulty completing the Idaho Power forms and providing the necessary
information?
 Is there high-efficiency equipment that is not currently eligible for rebates that you think Idaho
Power should consider?
 Is there anything else you’d like to add about the program?

Idaho Power Company 2011 H&CE Program Impact Evaluation / January 11, 2013 23
Appendix D: Site-Specific Verification Findings

Table 10. Verified Energy Savings by Site
Measure Description Equipment
Savings CC&S Savings
Air-Source Heat Pump: 8.2 HSPF 355 1,152
Air-Source Heat Pump to Air-Source Heat Pump: 8.5 HSPF 648 2,036
Air-Source Heat Pump to Air-Source Heat Pump: 8.5 HSPF 648 2,036
Electric Heating System to Air-Source Heat Pump: 8.5 HSPF 6,146 2,036
Oil/Propane Heating System to Air-Source Heat Pump: 8.5 HSPF 6,146 2,036
Electric Heating System to Air-Source Heat Pump: 8.5 HSPF 5,352 1,152
Electric Heating System to Air-Source Heat Pump: 8.5 HSPF 12,292 4,072
Oil/Propane Heating System to Air-Source Heat Pump: 8.5 HSPF 5,471 1,152
Air-Source Heat Pump to Air-Source Heat Pump: 8.5 HSPF 888 2,036
Air-Source Heat Pump to Air-Source Heat Pump: 8.5 HSPF 646 1,152
Electric Heating System to Air-Source Heat Pump: 8.5 HSPF 5,653 1,152
Oil/Propane Heating System to Air-Source Heat Pump: 8.5 HSPF 5,284 1,152
Electric Heating System to Air-Source Heat Pump: 8.5 HSPF 5,284 1,152
Electric Heating System to Air-Source Heat Pump: 8.5 HSPF 5,653 1,152
Electric Heating System to Air-Source Heat Pump: 8.5 HSPF 5,284 1,152
Oil/Propane Heating System to Air-Source Heat Pump: 8.5 HSPF 5,539 0
Electric Heating System to Air-Source Heat Pump: 8.5 HSPF 6,146 2,036
Air-Source Heat Pump to Air-Source Heat Pump: 8.5 HSPF 802 2,036
Electric Heating System to Air-Source Heat Pump: 8.5 HSPF 6,277 0
Oil/Propane Heating System to Air-Source Heat Pump: 8.5 HSPF 5,954 2,036
Air-Source Heat Pump to Air-Source Heat Pump: 8.5 HSPF 956 2,036
Oil/Propane Heating System to Air-Source Heat Pump: 8.5 HSPF 5,539 1,152
Air-Source Heat Pump to Air-Source Heat Pump: 8.5 HSPF 1,089 1,152
Open Loop Water Source Heat Pump: 3.5 COP 5,526 N/A
Electric Heating System to Air-Source Heat Pump: 8.5 HSPF 5,653 1,152
Oil/Propane Heating System to Open Loop Water Source Heat Pump: 3.5 COP 3,171 N/A
Air-Source Heat Pump to Air-Source Heat Pump: 8.5 HSPF 1,202 1,152
Electric Heating System to Open Loop Water Source Heat Pump: 3.5 COP 10,532 N/A
Air-Source Heat Pump to Air-Source Heat Pump: 8.5 HSPF 609 2,036
Electric Heating System to Air-Source Heat Pump: 8.5 HSPF 6,332 2,694
Electric Heating System to Air-Source Heat Pump: 8.5 HSPF 6,267 2,036

Idaho Power Company 2011 H&CE Program Impact Evaluation / January 11, 2013 24
Oil/Propane Heating System to Air-Source Heat Pump: 8.5 HSPF 5,206 0
Air-Source Heat Pump to Air-Source Heat Pump: 8.5 HSPF 1,803 0
Air-Source Heat Pump to Air-Source Heat Pump: 8.5 HSPF 833 1,152
Air-Source Heat Pump to Air-Source Heat Pump: 8.5 HSPF 802 2,036
Oil/Propane Heating System to Open Loop Water Source Heat Pump: 3.5 COP 3,171 N/A
Electric Heating System to Open Loop Water Source Heat Pump: 3.5 COP 10,689 N/A
Oil/Propane Heating System to Open Loop Water Source Heat Pump: 3.5 COP 3,044 N/A
Electric Heating System to Air-Source Heat Pump: 8.5 HSPF 5,539 0
Air-Source Heat Pump to Air-Source Heat Pump: 8.5 HSPF 609 2,036
Air-Source Heat Pump to Air-Source Heat Pump: 8.5 HSPF 646 1,152
Electric Heating System to Open Loop Water Source Heat Pump: 3.5 COP 10,532 N/A

See ya later, refrigerator® program
Impact Evaluation
2011 Program Cycle

Prepared for:

Prepared by:

ADM Associates, Inc.
3239 Ramos Circle
Sacramento, CA 95827
916.363.8383

i
Table of Contents

1. Executive Summary ............................................................................................................. 1-1
2. Program Description ............................................................................................................ 2-1
3. Evaluation Methodologies ................................................................................................... 3-1
4. Evaluation Findings ............................................................................................................. 4-1
5. Conclusions and Recommendations .................................................................................... 5-1
Appendix A: Participant Survey Instrument ............................................................................ A-1

ii
List of Tables
Table 1-1 Ex Post 2011 Program Impact Summary.................................................................. 1-2
Table 1-2: Comparison of Ex Ante and Ex Post Savings .......................................................... 1-2
Table 3-1: Appliances Recycled during 2011 ............................................................................ 3-2
Table 3-2: Telephone Surveys for Residential Appliance Recycling Program ........................... 3-3
Table 3-3: Gross UES by Appliance Type ................................................................................ 3-4
Table 4-1: Verification Rates by Appliance Type ..................................................................... 4-2
Table 4-2. Recycled Appliances Verified to be in Working Condition ...................................... 4-2
Table 4-3: Ex Post Gross and Net Energy and Demand Impact Summary ............................... 4-4
Table 4-4: Average At-Manufacture kWh Estimates ............................................................... 4-5
Table 4-5: Partial Use Adjustment Factor Estimation ..............................................................4-7
Table 4-6. DOE to In Situ Adjustment Factors ........................................................................ 4-8
Table 4-7 Net Carbon Reductions for the 2011 See ya later, refrigerator® program ............... 4-9
Table 5-1: Summary of Ex Post Program Impacts .................................................................... 5-1

Executive Summary 1-1
1. Executive Summary
This report presents the results of an evaluation of the See ya later, refrigerator® program
implemented between January, 2011 and December, 2011 (2011 program year) by Idaho Power
Company (IPC). This program offers residential customers in the IPC service territory rebates
for the recycling of working refrigerators and freezers. The goal of the program is to
permanently remove old appliances which are generally inefficient from the utility’s electric
system. Units removed from customers’ homes cannot enter the used appliance market, which
in the absence of this program would be a likely alternate outcome.
A total of 3,220 households in the IPC service territory received appliance collection and
recycling services through the See ya later, refrigerator® program during the 2011 program
year. Program design allows for an individual household to recycle up to two units per year.
According to the 2011 program year tracking data, a total of 2,764 refrigerators and 685
freezers were collected and recycled through the program.
ADM Associates, Inc. (ADM) calculated ex post gross and net annual electric savings and peak
demand reductions using unit energy savings (UES) estimates outlined in the Northwest Power
and Conservation Council Regional Technical Forum’s (RTF) current measure workbook for
residential refrigerator/freezer decommissioning1. A sample of participants who recycled
appliances during the 2011 program year were surveyed to verify participation and whether or
not the collected appliance was in working condition at the time of pick-up. The survey results
were used to develop separate verification rates for refrigerators and freezers. These
verification rates were then multiplied by the number of units claimed recycled in the program
tracking data to estimate the number of program eligible units removed from service during
2011. Finally, the number of program eligible units were multiplied by the RTF’s deemed
savings estimates for refrigerators and freezers to determine ex post program impacts. This
approach is consistent with the protocols outlined in the RTF Operative Guidelines2 which
states that evaluation of the savings resulting from the delivery of active RTF-approved
measures requires verifying the correct number of units delivered, and applying the correct
RTF-approved unit energy savings (UES) value to each delivered unit.
1.1 Program Impacts
Ex post verified net energy savings resulting from the program were 1,646,762 kWh annually (a
realization rate of 95 percent). Ex post verified net peak demand reductions were 335 kW. Table
1-1 shows gross and net program impacts by appliance type.

1 http://www.nwcouncil.org/energy/rtf/measures/res/FrigRecycle_FY10v2_3.xls
2 RTF Operative Guidelines – Release 6-1-2011
http://www.nwcouncil.org/energy/rtf/subcommittees/deemed/Guidelines%20for%20RTF%20Savings%20Estim
ation%20Methods%20(Release%206-1-11).pdf
See ya later, refrigerator® Program
Impact Evaluation Final October 2012
Executive Summary 1-2
Table 1-1 Ex Post 2011 Program Impact Summary3
Appliance Type
Verified
Appliances
Recycled
Per-Unit
Annual
Savings
(kWh)
Annual
Savings
(kWh)
Per-Unit
Peak
Demand
Savings
(kW)
Peak Demand
Savings (kW)
Gross Impacts
Refrigerators 2,603 844 2,197,153 .16 419
Freezers 676 814 550,428 .21 140
Total 3,279 - 2,748,153 - 559
Net Impacts
Refrigerators 2,603 482 1,254,646 0.09 239
Freezers 676 555 375,180 0.14 95
Total 3,279 - 1,629,826 - 335
The estimates of kWh savings and peak kW reductions developed through this evaluation are
compared to ex ante estimates in Table 1-2 at the program level.
Table 1-2: Comparison of Ex Ante and Ex Post Savings
Metric Ex Ante Reported
Values
Ex Post Evaluation
Results
Realization Rates (Ex
Post / Ex Ante)
Appliances Recycled 3,449 3,279 95%
Gross kWh Savings - 2,748,153 -
Gross Peak kW Reduction - 559 -
Net kWh Savings 1,712,423 1,629,826 95%
Net kW Reductions - 335 -
In addition to estimating gross and net program impacts, ADM also developed IPC program-
specific parameters used in the RTF UES calculation methodology. In general, the estimated
parameters were in-line with the assumptions used by the RTF suggesting that the RTF-
approved UES values are applicable to the IPC program.
1.2 Recommendations
Overall, the program appears to be running very smoothly. The responses to the participant
survey indicate that the JACO screening process is effectively preventing ineligible units from
entering the program. Additionally, the current RTF-approved UES values were correctly
applied as ex ante estimates of program impact and the parameters supporting those values
appear applicable to the IPC program based on the results of this evaluation. The only

3 Note – The totals in the various tables throughout this report may not correspond exactly to the summation of
individual values listed due to rounding.
See ya later, refrigerator® Program
Impact Evaluation Final October 2012
Executive Summary 1-3
recommendation the evaluation team currently has pertaining to the estimation of future
program impacts is as follows:
Actively monitor the RTF UES measures list for updates to the refrigerator and freezer
decommissioning deemed savings values. The RTF currently lists the status of the appliance
decommissioning measures as “under review.” While the measures remain under review, they
are still considered RTF-approved, but are subject to change as updates to the estimation
procedures and/or data sources are made.

Program Description 2-1
2. Program Description
Idaho Power’s See ya later, refrigerator® program is designed to help customers reduce their
energy consumption by removing refrigerators and freezers from their homes to recycle them.
Idaho Power benefits because the old appliances, which are generally more inefficient, are
permanently removed from the system and avoid entrance to the secondary appliance market.
The program also creates positive external effects as the recycling process promotes safe
disposal of environmentally harmful materials.
The goal of the program is to reduce the number of old, inefficient refrigerators and freezers
that customers have moved to their garages or other locations such as basements and patios.
Many areas in which spare units are placed are not space conditioned and most refrigerators
used in that environment operate under a heavy thermal load during the summer. This is
exacerbated by the fact that the units are usually quite old and inefficient. Previous studies by
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Department of Energy (DOE) and other
utilities have determined that removing these appliances, and properly recycling them,
performs an energy saving service.4
IPC contracts with JACO, Inc. (JACO) to implement the program. The program is configured as
a turnkey, stand-alone energy efficiency initiative. The program targets existing multi and
single family households, renters and homeowners who have old, inefficient refrigerators and
freezers. Marketing for the program consists of newspaper ads, bill stuffers, Customer
Connection articles, website content, and community events. To be eligible for the program,
units to be recycled must be in working condition at the time of pick-up. The customer receives
pick-up and removal service in addition to a $30 rebate per recycled refrigerator or freezer.
Removing old, inefficient refrigerators and freezers prevents them from being resold or
transferred to another IPC customer. The program provides annual electric energy savings for
the remaining life of the unit by permanently removing the unit from service. As an added
environmental benefit, 95% of the materials from these units are able to be recycled (metals,
plastic, glass, oil, etc.) and disposed of in an environmentally responsible manner, thus
preventing the materials from reaching landfills and contaminating the environment.

4 EPA information available at: http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/disposal/household.html

Evaluation Methodologies 3-1

3. Evaluation Methodologies
This chapter provides a description of the methodologies used by ADM in evaluating the
impacts of the 2011 See ya later, refrigerator® program. Annual gross and net energy savings
(kWh) and peak demand reductions (kW) were assessed using the protocols for the impact
evaluation of Active Unit Energy Savings (UES) Measures as described by the RTF Operative
Guidelines.5 These protocols require two steps:
 Verifying the numbers of refrigerators and freezers recycled through the program during
2011 that were operational at the time of pick-up.
 Applying the correct RTF-approved UES value to each verified unit.
In addition to providing verified ex post estimates of program impacts, ADM also used
information contained in the program tracking data maintained by JACO as well as primary
data collected through the participant survey to provide program-specific estimates of certain
parameters used in the RTF UES calculations for comparison purposes. The specific
parameters estimated were:
 Average at-manufacture kWh for refrigerators and freezers recycled through the program;
 Percentage of units replaced;
 Part-use adjustment factor; and,
 In situ adjustment factor.
The following sections detail the methods used for each specific evaluation component.
3.1 Verification of Units Recycled
A first aspect of conducting measurements of program activity is to verify the number of
refrigerators and freezers collected and recycled. ADM took two steps in the verification effort:
 Validating program tracking data provided by JACO by checking for duplicate or erroneous
entries;
 Conducting verification surveys with a statistically valid sample of program participants.
The focus of these verification surveys was to verify that customers listed in the program
tracking database did indeed participate during 2011. Additionally, survey respondents
were asked a series of questions to verify the working condition of their recycled
appliances; it is a program requirement that collected units be in working condition at the
time of pick-up.

5 RTF Operative Guidelines – Release 6-1-2011
http://www.nwcouncil.org/energy/rtf/subcommittees/deemed/Guidelines%20for%20RTF%20Savings%20Estim
ation%20Methods%20(Release%206-1-11).pdf
See ya later, refrigerator® Program
Impact Evaluation Final October 2012
Evaluation Methodologies 3-2
As the first step toward verification, the program tracking system was reviewed for accuracy
focusing on identification of any potential duplicate entries or data entry errors. The numbers
of refrigerators and freezers reported in the program tracking data that were recycled during
2011 are shown in Table 3-1.
Table 3-1: Appliances Recycled during 2011
Utility
Number of
Refrigerators
Collected
Number of
Freezers
Collected
Idaho Power 2,764 685
After completing the tracking system review, telephone interviews were conducted with a
sample of program participants to verify participation and obtain information with which to
determine the percentage of units that were still operable when picked up by the recycler. A
random sample was selected such that verification rates estimated at the 90 percent
confidence level with 10 percent relative precision (90/10) would be achieved for each of the
two appliance types.
For the calculation of sample size, a coefficient of variation of 0.5 was assumed.6 On this
assumption, a minimum sample size consisting of 68 participants who recycled refrigerators
and 68 participants who recycled freezers was required, as shown in Equation 3-1:
Equation 3-1: Minimum Sample Size Formula for 90 Percent Confidence Level

Where:
n0 = minimum sample size
Z = Z-statistic value (1.645 for the 90% confidence level)
CV = Coefficient of Variation (assumed to be 0.5)
RP = Relative Precision (0.10)
ADM conducted phone surveys with a total of 165 program participants in the IPC service
territory. Table 3-2 below presents the total surveys conducted by appliance type recycled.
6 The coefficient of variation, cv(y), is a measure of variation for the variable to be estimated. Its value
depends on the mean and standard deviation of the distribution of values for the variable (i.e., cv(y) =
sd(y)/mean(y)). Essentially, cv is a metric of how wide the distribution of values for the variable of
interest is. As set out in the Model Energy Efficiency Program Impact Evaluation Guide:
“Until the actual mean and standard deviation of the population can be estimated from
actual samples, 0.5 is often accepted as an initial estimate for cv. The more homogenous the population, the smaller the cv.”
See ya later, refrigerator® Program
Impact Evaluation Final October 2012
Evaluation Methodologies 3-3
Table 3-2: Telephone Surveys for Residential Appliance Recycling Program
Participant Type Minimum Sample Size
(90/10) Achieved Sample Size
Participant that recycled a
refrigerator 68 86
Participant that recycled a
freezer 68 79
Total 136 165
The questionnaire that was the instrument for the telephone surveys is provided in Appendix
A. Surveys with program participants were conducted by Research America, an experienced
survey firm, with ADM performing quality control for survey programming and call script
adherence.
3.2 Calculating Verified Ex Post Energy (kWh) and Peak Demand (kW) Impacts
Ex ante energy savings for the 2011 See ya later, refrigerator® program as claimed in IPC’s
Demand-Side Management 2011 Annual Report7 were 1,712,423 kWh annually. This figure is
based on the RTF-approved UES values of 482 kWh per recycled refrigerator and 555 kWh per
recycled freezer. These savings values are consistent with the savings outlined in the 2011
program tracking data provided to ADM.
The RTF-approved UES values for refrigerators and freezers include assumed NTGRs, and as
such the ex ante annual kWh savings claims presented by IPC represent net savings. Gross
savings represent the change in energy consumption that results directly from program-
promoted actions taken by program participants regardless of the extent or nature of program
influence on their actions. Appliance recycling programs promote the permanent removal of
old, inefficient appliances from the electric grid. Each unit collected and recycled represents a
gross savings, regardless of whether the removal from the electric grid was actually induced by
the program offering. Net savings, which refer to the portion of gross savings that is directly
attributable to the program, are generally calculated based on the estimated percentage of
units that would have been removed from the electric grid even in the absence of the program.
The RTF-approved UES values assume NTGRs of 57% for refrigerators and 68% for freezers.
These NTGRs were estimated by the RTF as an average of several previous impact evaluations’
findings.
For the purpose of presenting both gross and net savings estimates in this report, ADM
determined the implied RTF-approved gross savings per appliance recycled by dividing the
RTF-approved net UES values by the assumed NTGRs. These calculations are shown below in
Table 3-3.

7 http://www.idahopower.com/AboutUs/RatesRegulatory/Reports/reportPDF.cfm?report=55
See ya later, refrigerator® Program
Impact Evaluation Final October 2012
Evaluation Methodologies 3-4
Table 3-3: Gross UES by Appliance Type
Appliance
Type
RTF-approved Net
UES
RTF Assumed
NTGR Gross UES
Refrigerator 482 ÷ 57.1% = 844
Freezer 555 68.2% 814
Verified ex post gross savings were calculated as the product of the appliance type specific
verification rates - derived from the participant telephone survey results - and the per unit
gross UES values shown in Table 3-3. Similarly, ex post net savings were calculated as the
product of the verification rates and the RTF-approved net UES values.
IPC did not report peak demand (kW) reductions resulting from the 2011 See ya later,
refrigerator® program in their Demand-Side Management 2011 Annual Report.8 Similarly, the
program tracking data provided to ADM did not list peak demand reduction estimates. For the
purpose of presenting peak demand reduction estimates in this report, ADM used the per-unit
distribution peak load reduction values presented in the RTF measure workbook for residential
refrigerator and freezer decommissioning.9 Specifically, a net peak demand reduction of 0.09
kW per refrigerator and 0.14 kW per freezer were used. Gross peak demand reductions per-unit
(0.16 kW per refrigerator and 0.21 kW per freezer) were calculated in a manner similar to the
gross UES values shown in Table 3-3.
The calculation of program-level ex post gross and net annual kWh savings and peak demand
reductions can be summarized as shown in Equation 3-2.
Equation 3-2: Program-level Savings Calculation

Where:
Verification Ratei = Verification rate for appliance type i
Deemed Savingsij = RTF deemed energy/demand savings value for unit j of appliance type i
3.3 Review of Specific RTF UES Calculation Parameters
ADM used data collected from the participant telephone survey and program tracking system
to develop See ya later, refrigerator® program-specific parameters used in the RTF UES
calculation methodology. This procedure allows for a review of how closely the units recycled
through IPC’s 2011 program match the assumptions supporting the RTF-approved UES values.

8 Ibid.
9 http://www.nwcouncil.org/energy/rtf/measures/res/FrigRecycle_FY10v2_3.xls
See ya later, refrigerator® Program
Impact Evaluation Final October 2012
Evaluation Methodologies 3-5
The specific parameters that were developed and reviewed in comparison to the RTF
assumptions are listed below:
 Average at-manufacture kWh for refrigerators and freezers recycled through the program;
 Percentage of units replaced;
 Part-use factor; and,
 In situ adjustment factor.
Average at-manufacture kWh usage values for refrigerators and freezers recycled through the
program were determined by using unit model numbers provided in the tracking database
along with at-manufacture energy usage data maintained by the Weatherization Assistance
Program Technical Assistance Center (WAPTAC)10 and by Kouba-Cavallo Associates, Inc.11 For
units that could not easily be identified using these databases, shipment-weighted average
energy usage data as reported by the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM)
by model year were applied.12 These kWh usage values represent estimates developed through
the Department of Energy (DOE) testing methodology at the time the specific
refrigerator/freezer model was manufactured.13
The percentage of units replaced, part-use factor and in-situ adjustment factor were all
estimated using results from the participant survey. Two parameters in the RTF calculation
methodology that were not within the scope of this evaluation were the appliance
performance-degradation factor and the NTGRs.
3.4 Estimating Non-Energy Impacts
The only non-energy impact ADM assessed pertains to carbon emissions. Standardized
emission factors obtained from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Emissions and
Generation Resource Integrated Database (eGRID2012) were used to estimate carbon offsets
resulting from the savings achieved through program promoted actions.14

10 http://www.waptac.org/Refrigerator-Guide/Energy-Use-Data.aspx
11 http://www.kouba-cavallo.com/refmods.htm
12 AHAM data as reported by the RTF in the refrigerator and freezer decommissioning measure workbook were
used. The actual AHAM data is available from 1972 through 2009. For years prior to 1972, the same data
extrapolation used by the RTF was used for this evaluation.
13 Information regarding the DOE testing procedure can be found at:
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/residential/refrigerators_freezers.html
14 CO2 emissions reductions were calculated using a factor of 7.02x10-4 .
Ref: http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/documents/egridzips/eGRID2012V1_0_year09_GHGOutputrates.pdf

Evaluation Findings 4-1
4. Evaluation Findings
The focus of this evaluation was to verify the number of refrigerators and freezers recycled
through the program in 2011 and apply the correct RTF-approved UES values. Program
tracking data along with primary data obtained through a participant telephone survey was
analyzed as described in Chapter 3 in pursuit of these goals. Separate verification rates for
refrigerators and freezers were estimated based on the results of a telephone survey of a
sample of program participants. These estimated verification rates were then applied to the
population of appliances claimed recycled in 2011. RTF-approved UES values for each
appliance type were then applied to each verified unit recycled. Finally, in addition to
estimating program impacts, certain parameters to the RTF savings calculation methodology
were assessed using relevant program data for the purpose of reviewing the applicability of the
RTF UES savings values to IPC's 2011 program. The findings from this evaluation effort are
detailed in this chapter.
4.1 Verification of Units Recycled
As a first step toward estimating program level kWh and kW impacts, ADM reviewed program
tracking data provided by JACO for accuracy. No duplicate entries were discovered. However,
ADM did find three instances where program participants were able to recycle three appliances
in a single program year. While this does not affect the program impacts estimated in this
evaluation, it is worth noting as program design specifies that only two appliances per
household per calendar year are eligible for recycling. The reason for the limit per-household is
to avoid excessive program free-ridership. After consulting with IPC staff, ADM determined
that for these particular instances the “spirit” of the per-household limit was still followed (e.g.
one was a multi-unit property with one account number, another was a farm with five account
numbers but only one that was residential).
After reviewing the program tracking data for accuracy, ADM administered a telephone survey
with a sample of program participants to verify program participation and working condition of
recycled appliances. All of the respondents who completed the participant survey verified that
they had in fact participated in the program during 2011. However, a small number of
participants indicated that their appliances were not in working condition at the time of pick-
up (five refrigerators and one freezer). In order for participating appliances to accrue gross
energy savings by being taken out of service, the units must be in working condition at the
time of pick-up (the idea being that any operational units could potentially be plugged back in
or sold/transferred to a different utility customer for continued use). Respondents who
indicated that their unit was non-operational were asked a follow up question to ensure that
the unit didn't simply have a cosmetic or similarly trivial defect while still being able to run and
produce cold air. Based on these results, the verification rates shown in Table 4-1 for each
appliance were determined:
See ya later, refrigerator® Program
Impact Evaluation Final October 2012
Evaluation Findings 4-2

Table 4-1: Verification Rates by Appliance Type
Utility Appliance Type
Refrigerator Freezer
Idaho
Power 94.2% 98.7%
Based on these verification rates, Table 4-2 reports the numbers of refrigerators and freezers
recycled through the program during 2011 that were verified as being in working condition
when recycled and therefore program-eligible.
Table 4-2. Recycled Appliances Verified to be in Working Condition
Unit Type
Quantity
Reported as
Recycled
Verification
Rate
Quantity of
Recycled Units
Verified as Program
Eligible
Refrigerator 2,764 94.2% 2,603
Freezer 685 98.7% 676
4.2 Gross and Net Annual Energy and Demand Impacts
Gross and net annual energy savings were calculated as described in chapter three of this
report. Specifically, ex post savings were calculated as the product of the number of verified
program-eligible units recycled in 2011 and RTF stipulated per-unit savings values for
refrigerator and freezer decommissioning.
A total of 2,603 program-eligible refrigerators were verified to be recycled through the
program in 2011 as shown in Table 4-2. Annual energy savings (kWh) per decommissioned
refrigerator as stipulated by the RTF are 844 kWh (gross) and 482 kWh (net). Using these
stipulated savings values, ex post annual energy savings resulting from recycled refrigerators in
2011 were calculated as shown in Equation 4-1 below.
Equation 4-1 and Equation 4-2: Ex Post Gross and Net Annual kWh Savings for Recycled
Refrigerators

Similarly, a total of 676 program-eligible freezers were verified recycled through the program
in 2011. Annual energy savings (kWh) per decommissioned freezer as stipulated by the RTF are
814 kWh (gross) and 555 kWh (net). Ex Post annual energy savings for recycled freezers in 2011
were calculated as shown in Equation 4-3 below.
Equation 4-3 and Equation 4-4: Ex Post Gross and Net Annual kWh Savings for Recycled Freezers
See ya later, refrigerator® Program
Impact Evaluation Final October 2012
Evaluation Findings 4-3

Peak demand reductions (kW) were not reported in IPC's Demand-Side Management 2011
Annual Report.15 For the purposes of this evaluation peak demand reductions were estimated
using the per-unit distribution peak load reduction values presented in the RTF measure
workbook for residential refrigerator and freezer decommissioning.16 For decommissioned
refrigerators, the RTF stipulated per-unit peak demand reductions are 0.16 kW (gross) and 0.09
kW (net). Using these stipulated values, ex post peak demand reductions for refrigerators
recycled in 2011 were calculated as shown in Equation 4-5.
Equation 4-5 and Equation 4-6: Ex Post Gross and Net Peak kW Savings for Recycled
Refrigerators

For decommissioned freezers, the RTF stipulated per-unit peak demand reductions are 0.21
kW (gross) and 0.14 kW (net). Using these stipulated values, ex post peak demand reductions
for freezers recycled in 2011 were calculated as shown in Equation 4-7.
Equation 4-7 and Equation 4-8: Ex Post Gross and Net Peak kW Savings for Recycled Freezers

These ex post verified annual kWh savings and peak kW reductions are summarized in Table
4-3 below.

15 http://www.idahopower.com/AboutUs/RatesRegulatory/Reports/reportPDF.cfm?report=55
16 http://www.nwcouncil.org/energy/rtf/measures/res/FrigRecycle_FY10v2_3.xls
See ya later, refrigerator® Program
Impact Evaluation Final October 2012
Evaluation Findings 4-4

Table 4-3: Ex Post Gross and Net Energy and Demand Impact Summary
Appliance Type
Verified
Appliances
Recycled
Per-Unit
Annual
Savings
(kWh)
Annual
Savings
(kWh)
Per-Unit
Peak
Demand
Savings
(kW)
Peak Demand
Savings (kW)
Gross Impacts
Refrigerators 2,603 844 2,197,153 .16 419
Freezers 676 814 550,428 .21 140
Total 3,279 - 2,748,153 - 559
Net Impacts
Refrigerators 2,603 482 1,254,646 0.09 239
Freezers 676 555 375,180 0.14 95
Total 3,279 - 1,629,826 - 335
4.3 Specific RTF UES Calculation Parameters
ADM used information contained in the program tracking data to estimate four specific
parameters used in the RTF savings calculation methodology for the purpose of assessing how
closely the appliances recycled through the See ya later, refrigerator® program in 2011 match
the assumptions behind the RTF-approved UES values. This section details the findings for
each specific parameter estimated.
4.3.1Average DOE At-Manufacture kWh

The RTF-approved UES estimates for refrigerator and freezer decommissioning assume an
average DOE at-manufacture energy usage of 1,078 kWh annually for refrigerators and 988
kWh annually for freezers. This assumption is based on applying AHAM sales-weighted
average kWh usage estimates by vintage to data for over 30,000 refrigerators and freezers
collected by JACO in the Northwest.
To estimate this parameter for appliances recycled through the See ya later, refrigerator®
Program in 2011, ADM performed a look-up using unit model numbers provided in the tracking
database along with at-manufacture energy usage data maintained by the Weatherization
Assistance Program Technical Assistance Center (WAPTAC)17 and by Kouba-Cavallo
Associates, Inc.18 Overall, ADM was able to match 51% of all refrigerator model numbers listed
in the program tracking data using both of the databases mentioned above; only 12% of the
freezer model numbers were matched. For units that were not easily matched in these
databases, the same AHAM shipment-weighted energy usage data by model year used by the
RTF was assumed.

17 http://www.waptac.org/Refrigerator-Guide/Energy-Use-Data.aspx
18 http://www.kouba-cavallo.com/refmods.htm
See ya later, refrigerator® Program
Impact Evaluation Final October 2012
Evaluation Findings 4-5

The results of this model number look-up exercise are shown in Table 4-4 alongside the RTF
assumptions. The estimates for refrigerators and freezers are both within 1% of the RTF
assumptions. This suggests average vintage and therefore average at-manufacture kWh usage
are very similar to those assumed by the RTF.19
Table 4-4: Average At-Manufacture kWh Estimates
Appliance Type Estimate for 2011 IPC Program
RTF
Estimate
Percentage
Difference
Refrigerators 1,071 1,078 -0.61%
Freezers 989 988 0.12%
4.3.2Percentage of Units Replaced
The RTF-approved UES values for refrigerator and freezer decommissioning also depend on an
assumption regarding the percentage of appliances that are replaced by another unit post-
recycling. This replacement percentage is assumed by the RTF to be 50% for refrigerators and
freezers. It is important to note that this 50% replacement rate not only applies to program
participants who replace their appliances, but also for the "former" potential owners'
"replacement" rate. In other words, for those units that would have been sold or transferred to
other utility customers in the absence of the program, 50% of those "former" potential owners
have since purchased a different unit.
The percentage of units replaced for the 2011 See ya later, refrigerator® program as estimated
through the participant survey was 77% for refrigerators and 59% for freezers. While these
estimates are higher than the RTF assumptions, they do not take into account the replacement
rates for "former" potential owners. It is reasonable to believe that the replacement rates for
that demographic is lower than that of program participants (especially if the participant is
replacing a primary refrigerator). For example, a "former" potential owner may have taken a
participant's unwanted refrigerator and used it as a spare in their garage in the absence of the
program, but decided not to purchase a secondary unit once the participant's unit was not
available for free.
4.3.3 Part Use Adjustment Factor
The RTF-approved UES values include an adjustment factor for refrigerators and freezers that
are not in use year-around. This adjustment factor is a theoretical estimate of the "former"
potential non-use and partial-use of recycled refrigerators and freezers had they not been
collected through the program. The idea is that some percentage of refrigerators, had they not

19 The application of the AHAM sales-weighted data would tend to bring the estimates in line with the RTF
assumptions, assuming the same distribution of appliance vintages. However, even before applying the AHAM
data, the average at-manufacture energy usage for the 51% of refrigerators that were easily matched to their
appropriate values was within 5% of the RTF assumption.
See ya later, refrigerator® Program
Impact Evaluation Final October 2012
Evaluation Findings 4-6

been collected, might have been used in the future, but perhaps not all 12 months of the year.
Because a direct measurement of this variable is impossible to obtain, it is generally estimated
based on participants’ survey responses regarding use during the year prior to participation.
The estimate does not imply that because one particular unit was not used during the previous
year that the same unit will not be used in the future. Rather, it estimates the percentage of
non-use and partial use that the recycled units as a whole would have had in the future, based
on prior year information.
This part use adjustment factor has been estimated in a number of previous impact
evaluations, and the RTF's assumption (0.91) is simply the average of estimates for three
California service territories as reported in a 2010 evaluation of the California Statewide
Appliance Recycling Program.20
ADM estimated separate part use adjustment factors for refrigerators and freezers recycled
through the IPC program in 2011 based on three categories into which recycled appliances fall:
1. Some units that were recycled were reported as not being used at all for the year prior to
being sent for recycling. The use factor for such units therefore would zero.
2. Other units were being used, but for only part of the year. For these units, the use factor is
calculated by dividing the number of months in the past year that the unit had been
plugged in and running by the number of months in the year (i.e., 12). Based on data
collected through the survey of participants, the average number of months in use for a
refrigerator that was being partly used was 6.6 months, implying a use factor of 0.546 (i.e.,
6.6/12). For freezers in this category, the use factor was calculated to be 0.481, reflecting
an average of 5.8 months in use for freezers being partly used.
3. Units used all of the time have a use factor of one (1.0).
The overall use factor and the corresponding overall Unit Energy Savings (UES) are calculated
as a weighted average across the three categories, where the weights are determined by the
percentages of units falling into the three categories. Table 4-5 shows the calculation of the
overall UES for refrigerators and freezers when partial use is taken into account.

20 Cadmus et al. (2010). Residential Retrofit High Impact Measure Evaluation Report.. February 8th, 2010.
See ya later, refrigerator® Program
Impact Evaluation Final October 2012
Evaluation Findings 4-7

Table 4-5: Partial Use Adjustment Factor Estimation
Operating Status of Unit
Percentage of
Recycled Units in Category Use Factor
Calculation
of UES
to Adjust
for Part Use
Refrigerators
Not running 8.14% 0 0
Running part time 11.63% 0.546 303
Running all time 80.23% 1 555
Weighted Average UES for Refrigerators 481
Freezers
Not running 10.13% 0 0
Running part time 11.39% 0.481 308
Running all time 78.48% 1 640
Weighted Average UES for Freezers 536
Based on the results shown in Table 4-5, ADM's estimated part use adjustment factors for
appliances recycled through the 2011 See ya later, refrigerator® program are 0.87 for
refrigerators (i.e., 481/555) and 0.84 for freezers (i.e., 536/640). While these values are slightly
lower than the RTF assumptions, they are within the survey's margin-of-error and do not
represent a statistically significant difference. That said, it is reasonable to assume that
freezers and secondary refrigerators might be in operation slightly less often in the IPC service
territory than in the three California service territories from which the RTF assumptions
originate due to a generally colder climate.
4.3.4 In Situ Adjustment Factor
The RTF UES calculation includes an adjustment factor accounting for the fact that
refrigerators and freezers tend to perform differently in situ than they do under the DOE
testing conditions. This issue was addressed in the same California evaluation that was
referenced for part-use estimates.21 As part of that evaluation, Cadmus developed different in
situ adjustment factors depending on whether the appliance is located in a cool or hot climate
zone, whether the unit is a primary or secondary appliance, and the number of people in the
household where the unit is used. These adjustment factors are shown in Table 4-6.
21 Ibid.
See ya later, refrigerator® Program
Impact Evaluation Final October 2012
Evaluation Findings 4-8

Table 4-6. DOE to In Situ Adjustment Factors22
Primary Household Size Climate Zone % In Situ
Delta23
Yes 1-2 Cool -30.8%
Warm -19.2%
3+ Cool -16.0%
Warm -6.4%
No 1-2 Cool -21.3%
Warm -15.8%
3+ Cool -6.8%
Warm 1.3%
The in situ adjustment factor used by the RTF (-18.7%) is simply the average of the 4 “cool”
climate zone estimates presented in Table 4-6. To produce an estimate more specific to the
particular group of appliances recycled through the IPC 2011 program, ADM used the same
table of in situ adjustment factors along with program-specific estimates of the
primary/secondary split and household size. IPC service territory was assumed to be a “cool”
climate zone, as in the RTF estimates.
These survey responses indicated that 43.0% of refrigerators collected in 2011 were primary
appliances, while the other 57.0% were secondary appliances. All freezers were assumed to be
secondary appliances. Similarly, the survey responses indicated that estimates of household
size were developed using data from the 2008-2010 American Community Survey for Indiana
residents. Based on this data, it was determined that 54.5% of program participating
households have one or two occupants, while 45.5% have three or more occupants. Using this
information to weight the “% In Situ Delta” results in adjustment factors of:
Refrigerators: [(0.545 * -0.308 + 0.454 * -0.16) * 0.43] + [(0.545 * -0.213 + 0. 454 * -0.068) * 0.57]
= -18.7%
Freezers: (0.545 * -0.213 + 0.454 * -0.068) = -14.7%
The estimated in situ adjustment factor for refrigerators recycled through IPC’s 2011 program
is within 0.05% of the RTF assumption. The adjustment factor for freezers, which as secondary
appliances are more generally located in unconditioned spaces such as garages, is estimated to
be approximately 4% lower than the RTF assumed value. Considering that refrigerators make
up the majority of program participation, it is reasonable to say that the RTF assumptions
regarding in situ adjustment factors represent the See ya later, refrigerator® appliances from
2011 fairly well.
22 Cadmus et al. (2010). Residential Retrofit High Impact Measure Evaluation Report.. February 8th, 2010.
23 A negative in situ delta represents an in situ UEC that is lower than the DOE UEC.
See ya later, refrigerator® Program
Impact Evaluation Final October 2012
Evaluation Findings 4-9

4.4 Non-Energy Impacts
The only non-energy impact ADM assessed was net carbon emission offsets. Standardized
emission factors obtained from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Emissions and
Generation Resource Integrated Database (eGRID2012) were used to estimate carbon offsets
resulting from the savings achieved through program promoted actions.24 The carbon
reduction estimates are reported in Table 4-7.
Table 4-7 Net Carbon Reductions for the 2011 See ya later, refrigerator® program
Appliance Type Ex Post Verified Net
kWh Savings
CO2 Emissions
Reduction (Tons)
Refrigerators 1,254,646 881.1
Freezers 375,180 263.5
Total 1,629,826 1,144.6

24 CO2 emissions reductions were calculated using a factor of 7.02x10-4 .
Ref: http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/documents/egridzips/eGRID2012V1_0_year09_GHGOutputrates.pdf

Conclusions and Recommendations 5-1
5. Conclusions and Recommendations

This chapter reports the conclusions and recommendations resulting from the impact
evaluation of the 2011 See ya later, refrigerator® program.
5.1 Program Impacts
According to program tracking data, a total of 3,220 households in the IPC territory
representing 2,764 refrigerators and 685 freezers received appliance recycling services
through the See ya later, refrigerator® program in 2011. ADM calculated ex post gross and net
annual electric savings and peak demand reductions for the program using unit energy
savings (UES) estimates outlined in the RTF’s current measure workbook for residential
refrigerator/freezer decommissioning25.
Estimated annual net electric impacts were 1,629,826 kWh saved annually, representing a
realization rate of 95 percent. A summary of all ex post gross and net program impacts
estimated by ADM is shown in Table 5-1.
Table 5-1: Summary of Ex Post Program Impacts
Appliance Type
Verified
Appliances
Recycled
Annual
Savings
(kWh)
Peak
Demand
Savings
(kW)
CO2
Emissions
Reductions
(Tons)
Gross Impacts
Refrigerators 2,603 2,197,153 419 1,543.4
Freezers 676 550,428 140 386.6
Total 3,279 2,748,153 559 1,930.0
Net Impacts
Refrigerators 2,603 1,254,646 239 881.1
Freezers 676 375,180 95 263.5
Total 3,279 1,629,826 335 1,144.6
In addition to estimating gross and net program impacts, ADM also developed IPC program-
specific parameters used in the RTF UES calculation methodology. In general, the estimated
parameters were in-line with the assumptions used by the RTF suggesting that the RTF-
approved UES values are applicable to the IPC program.
5.2 Recommendations
Overall, the program appears to be running very smoothly. The responses to the participant
survey indicate that the JACO screening process is for the most part preventing ineligible units
from entering the program. Additionally, the current RTF-approved UES values were correctly

25 http://www.nwcouncil.org/energy/rtf/measures/res/FrigRecycle_FY10v2_3.xls
See ya later, refrigerator® Program
Impact Evaluation Final October 2012
Conclusions and Recommendations 5-2

applied as ex ante estimates of program impact and the parameters supporting those values
appear applicable to the IPC program. The only recommendation the evaluation team
currently has pertaining to the estimation of future program impacts is as follows:
Actively monitor the RTF UES measures list for updates to the refrigerator and freezer
decommissioning deemed savings values. The RTF currently lists the status of the appliance
decommissioning measures as “under review.” While the measures remain under review, they
are still considered RTF-approved, but are subject to change as updates to the estimation
procedures and/or data sources are made.

Appendix A: Participant Survey Instrument A-1
Appendix A: Participant Survey Instrument
Idaho Power Company (IPC)
See ya later, refrigerator® program
Participant Survey Questionnaire

Interviewer: _____________________ Date of Interview:
_____/_____/_____
Respondent: ____________________ Address: ________________________

“Hello, my name is ___________. I am with Research America, an independent research firm
and I am calling on behalf of Idaho Power. Our records indicate that you participated in the
See ya later, refrigerator® Program in 2011 by having an appliance picked-up for recycling.
Our company has been hired by Idaho Power to conduct an evaluation of the program and we
would like to ask you a few questions about the appliance you recycled and your experience
with the program. The interview will take approximately 10 minutes. May I ask you a few
questions?”
IF REFUSAL: THANK AND TERMINATE
1. Do you recall having your refrigerator or freezer picked up for recycling during 2011?
a. Yes
b. No (record answer, thank the respondent, and terminate the interview)
2. What type of unit was picked up? (Use the response for this question as the [EQUIPMENT
TYPE] referenced throughout survey)
a. Refrigerator
b. Freezer
c. Refrigerator and Freezer
3. When was the old [EQUIPMENT TYPE] picked up?
_______________ (month and year)

See ya later, refrigerator® Program
Impact Evaluation Final October 2012
Appendix A: Participant Survey Instrument A-2

4. Was the old [EQUIPMENT TYPE] still in working condition when it was picked up (by
working condition we mean did the unit turn on and produce cold air)?

a. Yes (Skip 4a)
b. No

4a. What was wrong with the unit? (DO NOT READ. PROMPT IF NECESSARY; If
respondent is unsure, ask “Would it turn on and produce cold air?”)
a. Wouldn’t turn on
b. Wouldn’t keep food cold ENOUGH
c. Wouldn’t get cold at all
d. Cosmetic issue
e. Too loud
f. Don’t know, but would produce cold air
g. Don’t’ know, but would NOT produce cold air
h. Other (record)
5. Was the [EQUIPMENT TYPE] your primary or secondary (spare/auxillary) unit at the time of
collection?
a. Primary
b. Secondary
c. Other__________

6. During the year prior to deciding to recycle your [EQUIPMENT TYPE], was the unit still
being used?
a. Yes, all of the time
b. Yes, some of the time
c. No
6b. If “Some of the time” – How many months during the year prior to recycling your
[EQUIPMENT TYPE] was the unit in use?
______________months
7. Did you replace the old [EQUIPMENT TYPE] with a new or a used unit?
a. Yes
b. No
c. Don’t know
d. Refused
See ya later, refrigerator® Program
Impact Evaluation Final October 2012
Appendix A: Participant Survey Instrument A-3

8. Was the new unit larger, smaller, or approximately the same size as the old unit?
a. Same Size
b. Smaller
c. Larger
d. Don’t know
9. How old was your old [EQUIPMENT TYPE] at the time you recycled it?
__________ Years Old
10. At the time of collection, where in the house was the unit set up? (Prompt only if necessary)
a. Kitchen
b. Den/Lounge
c. Garage
d. Basement
e. Other (record)
11. How many people are there in your household?
__________ Record Number
12. Do you have any specific comments or suggestions about how to improve the See ya later,
refrigerator® program?
a. Yes (record)
b. No
Thanks for your help!
Idaho Power will use your input to improve its energy efficiency programs for its residential
customers.

BOISE CITY RESIDENTIAL AUDITS
ENERGY AND COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS
TECHNICAL REPORT

Prepared For:
Idaho Power Company

Authors:
Brad Acker, PE Carlos Duarte

Date
August 27, 2012
Report No. 20120101-01

This page left intentionally blank.

Prepared By: University of Idaho, Integrated Design Lab | Boise
306 S 6th St. Boise, ID 83702 USA
www.uidaho.edu/idl

IDL Director: Kevin Van Den Wymelenberg

Authors: Brad Acker Carlos Duarte

Prepared For:
Idaho Power Company
Contract Number: General Service Agreement, SOW #6

DISCLAIMER While the recommendations in this report have been reviewed
for technical accuracy and are believed to be reasonably
accurate, the findings are estimates and actual results may vary.
As a result, University of Idaho, Integrated Design Lab is not liable if projected estimated savings or economics are not actually achieved. All savings and cost estimates in the report
are for informational purposes, and are not to be construed as
design documents or as guarantees.
The owner shall independently evaluate any advice or direction provided in this report. In no event will University of Idaho,
Integrated Design Lab be liable for the failure of the customer to
achieve a specified amount of energy savings, the operation of
customer’s facilities, or any incidental or consequential damages
of any kind in connection with this report or the installation of recommended measures.

Please cite this report as follows: Acker, B., Duarte, C., 2012.
Boise City Residential Audits, Energy and Cost Effective
Analysis; Technical Report 20120101-01, Integrated Design
Lab, University of Idaho, Boise, ID.

This page left intentionally blank.

Table of Contents
1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 2
2. Background on Cost Effectiveness Analysis ........................................................................................ 3
3. Methods................................................................................................................................................. 4
4. Validation of Energy Savings-Direct Installed Measures ..................................................................... 7
4.1. Electric Only Homes, Energy Savings - Direct Install Measures ............................................. 9
5. Energy Savings- Additional Installed Measures ................................................................................. 10
5.1. Sample Homes with Verified Savings .................................................................................... 15
6. Program Cost Effectiveness ................................................................................................................ 15
7. Conclusion .......................................................................................................................................... 18
8. References ........................................................................................................................................... 20
9. Appendices .......................................................................................................................................... 22
9.1. Appendix A- Work Plan ......................................................................................................... 22

Integrated Design Lab| Boise 2
Boise City Residential Audit- Energy and Cost Effectiveness (Report #20120101-01)

1. Introduction
The City of Boise received an Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant (EECBG)
from the United States Department of Energy (DOE) as part of the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009 and has contracted with Idaho Power Company (IPC) to
provide energy audits and installation of low cost energy efficiency measures at 650 homes
located in the City of Boise. Audits took place from late 2010 until the summer of 2011. These
energy audits identified additional energy efficiency measures that were recommended for future
consideration. Residents were also provided with information regarding assistance with
implementation of these additional measures.
Five auditors were hired to perform the home audits and install the low cost energy efficient
measures (direct install measures). After the auditors turned in completed audit forms, IPC staff
produced a report for the homeowner which identified potential energy savings opportunities.
The home audits included a blower door test, visual inspection of the crawl space and attic,
health and safety inspection, and gathering data on each home and how it uses energy. The direct
install measures included up to 20 compact fluorescent light bulbs (CFLs), one water heater
blanket, hot water pipe insulation, mastic sealing around the furnace unit, and one low-flow
showerhead. The reports included results of the audit, actions taken on site, and
recommendations for improving the energy efficiency and comfort of the home. The audit report
also included information on available energy efficiency incentive or rebate programs provided
by IPC and others, including the City of Boise Home Improvement Loan Program, which may
assist with paying for the larger identified energy efficiency needs.
In an effort to validate savings associated with this project and determine cost effectiveness
of implementation of a similar program offered to IPC’s larger residential customer population,
Integrated Design Lab| Boise 3
Boise City Residential Audit- Energy and Cost Effectiveness (Report #20120101-01)

IPC has contracted with the University of Idaho, Integrated Design Lab, to provide an impact
evaluation and this final report of evaluation findings.
2. Background on Cost Effectiveness Analysis
While a complete explanation of cost effectiveness analysis is out of the scope of this
document, a summary of the major terms is provided. The reader can find more detailed
documentation listed in the References section.
The California Standard Practice Model was used as a guideline for the calculations in
addition to other IPC documents, such as the 2010 DSM IPC Annual Report, and Supplement 1-
Cost Effectiveness. The cost effectiveness analysis methods which were used in this analysis are
among the set of standard methods used in this industry and include the Utility Cost Test (UCT),
Total Resource Cost Test (TRCT), Ratepayer Impact Measure Test (RIMT), and Participant Cost
Test (PCT). All tests weigh monetized benefits against costs. These monetized amounts are
presented as Net Present Value (NPV) evaluated over the lifespan of the measure. The benefits
and costs differ for each test based on the perspective of the test. The definitions below are taken
from the California Standard Practice Manual. Utility specific inputs for the analysis have been
provided by IPC staff.
The Participants Cost Test (PCT) is the measure of the quantifiable benefits
and costs to the customer due to participation in a program. Since many
customers do not base their decision to participate in a program entirely on
quantifiable variables, this test cannot be a complete measure of the benefits
and costs of a program to a customer. The Ratepayer Impact Measure Test (RIMT) test measures what happens to
customer bills or rates due to changes in utility revenues and operating costs
caused by the program. Rates will go down if the change in revenues from the
program is greater than the change in utility costs. Conversely, rates or bills will go up if revenues collected after program implementation is less than the total costs incurred by the utility in implementing the program. This test
Integrated Design Lab| Boise 4
Boise City Residential Audit- Energy and Cost Effectiveness (Report #20120101-01)

indicates the direction and magnitude of the expected change in customer bills
or rate levels.
The Total Resource Cost Test (TRCT) measures the net costs of a demand-
side management program as a resource option based on the total costs of the
program, including both the participants' and the utility's costs.
The Utility Cost Test (UCT) measures the net costs of a demand-side
management program as a resource option based on the costs incurred by the
program administrator (including incentive costs) and excluding any net costs
incurred by the participant. The benefits are similar to the TRCT benefits.
Costs are defined more narrowly.
Also taken from the California Standard Practice Manual are typical costs and
benefits associated with energy efficiency programs and are shown in Table 1
below.

Table 1. Cost Effectiveness, costs and benefits
Test Benefit Cost
PCT Reduction in utility bills incentives, tax credits Equipment, material, installation (all out of pocket costs)
RIMT Avoided supply cost (transmission, distribution, generation, capacity) Program costs for all parties involved Incentives paid
TRCT Reduction in utility bills
incentives, tax credits Avoided supply cost (transmission,
distribution, generation, capacity)
Equipment, material, installation (all out
of pocket costs) Program costs
Incentives paid
UCT Avoided supply cost (transmission,
distribution, generation, capacity)
Program costs- utility only
Incentives paid

3. Methods
This evaluation is broken up into three main parts; Section Four, validation of energy savings
from direct installed measures, Section Five, determination and validation of energy savings
from additional installed measures post audit, and Section Six, cost effectiveness analysis of a
similar program if offered to all IPC residential customers. Energy savings for the direct install
measures are reported based on energy savings values provided by the Northwest Power
Integrated Design Lab| Boise 5
Boise City Residential Audit- Energy and Cost Effectiveness (Report #20120101-01)

Conservation Council’s Regional Technical Forum (RTF) and from Washington State
University, Energy Experts Program. Savings values are given in kWh/yr savings for electric
fuel. Gas savings will be given in Therms and reported separately from electric savings. All 650
sites are computed for savings. Table 2 below lists the direct installed measures and the source of
savings estimates. It should be noted that while mastic sealing at the blower door is a worthwhile
activity as it reduces air leakage at the area of highest pressure in the ducting system, the RTF
only provides average savings estimates for sealing of the entire duct system. These approved
estimates are 1244 kWh/yr (average heating system). Estimated savings numbers are provided to
demonstrate savings potential but are not included in the cost effectiveness analysis. Some
savings scenarios for the duct sealing measure will be presented in the conclusion section.
Table 2. Direct Installed Measures- Savings Source
Direct
Installed
Measures
Source
Mastic Sealing
1RTF-ResSFDuctSealing_v2_3 Row 8
CFL Light bulb RTF- ResCLFLighting_2_1; Measure Table Row 31
Water Heater
Blanket
http://energyexperts.org/EnergySolutionsDatabase/ResourceDetail.aspx?id=1
243
Pipe Insulation RTF ResDHWpipewrapFY07v1_0; Measure Table Row 4
Low Flow
Showerhead
RTF ResShowerheads_v2_1; Measure Table Row 40

1 Mastic sealing savings presented are estimated based on 20% of full duct sealing quantities. These values are not included in cost effective analysis.
Integrated Design Lab| Boise 6
Boise City Residential Audit- Energy and Cost Effectiveness (Report #20120101-01)

As part of the audit process, homeowners were given a report that outlined specifics about
their home and areas in which improvements could be made. Energy efficiency measures that
were recommended during the audit and were installed by homeowners after the audit process
are being called ‘additional measures.’ Savings from additional measures will be reported in
Section 5. Savings from additional measures are reported at 80% confidence and ±10%
precision. This is slightly better than the industry standard of 80/20. Additional measures were
verified via phone, e-mail interviews, and home visits. A total of 38 sites were verified for
additional measures, 12 (32%) were physically visited and 26 (68%) were verified by phone or e-
mail interviews with the home owners. RTF savings data were used as the primary sources. In
some cases, research from the Western Area Power Administration, conducted by the University
of Washington, Energy Experts program and the American Council for an Energy Efficient
Economy (ACEEE) were used. In addition, the IPC incentive database was cross-referenced to
gain information on the installed measures and to feed into cost effectiveness calculations.
Similar to the onsite installed measures, additional measures will have electric and gas savings
numbers reported. If direct gas savings numbers could not be found, electric savings were used
and adjusted for appliance efficiency. The sample was generated by placing the list of 650
participants, provided by IPC, in a random order via a random number generator. Participants
were called based upon this generated order.
The project work plan outlines additional details on the methods and equations used to arrive
at the confidence/precision levels. This can be found in Appendix A- Work Plan.
Integrated Design Lab| Boise 7
Boise City Residential Audit- Energy and Cost Effectiveness (Report #20120101-01)

4. Validation of Energy Savings-Direct Installed Measures
Direct installed measures are items that were installed at no additional cost to the homeowner
at the time of the home energy audit. Table 3 below lists the measures, installation frequency,
saving values per occurrence, and the total program savings from the direct installed measures.
Total savings for direct install measures were 200,307 kWh/yr of electric savings and 1983
Therms of gas savings. The average home had 308 kWh/yr of electric savings and 3 Therms of
gas savings. Based on the average IPC residential customer annual electricity use of 12,600
kWh/yr, this represents a 2.4% reduction in annual electricity consumption. The International
Performance Measurement and Verification Protocol (IPMVP) states that savings should exceed
10% (1,260 kWh/yr) of baseline usage to confidently discriminate savings from baseline data
(IPMVP). Although the original work plan called for the use of utility billing data for calibration
of results, preliminary savings estimates indicated that savings were not large enough to
accurately differentiate from historical billing data.
Estimated annual savings for direct installed measures are shown in Table 3 below:

Integrated Design Lab| Boise 8
Boise City Residential Audit- Energy and Cost Effectiveness (Report #20120101-01)

Table 3. Direct Installed Measures, Occurrences and Savings, All Homes
Direct Installed
Measures
Occurrences
(homes)
Savings per
Occurrence
(kWh/yr)
Total Electric
Savings
(kWh/yr)
Total Gas
Savings
(Therms/yr)
Mastic Sealing 268 (268) 2492 8715 15663
CFL Light bulb 7,161 (610) 23 164,703 N/A
Water Heater Blanket 156 (156) 96 3,072 252
Pipe Insulation 288 (248) 20 1,620 89
Low Flow
Showerhead 295 (294) 368 30,912 1,642
Totals4 200,307 1,983
Percent of estimated savings are shown in Figure 1 below:

2 Savings value based on 20% of full duct sealing value. 3 Electric savings applied to 80% flue gas efficiency. 4 Mastic sealing estimates not included in total deemed savings.
Integrated Design Lab| Boise 9
Boise City Residential Audit- Energy and Cost Effectiveness (Report #20120101-01)

Figure 1 Percent Energy Savings by Measure

4.1. Electric Only Homes, Energy Savings - Direct Install Measures
This section will look only at homes with electric heat and electric water heaters. Of the 650
homes in the study, 92 homes were all electric and 90 homes (14% of total program) had savings
from direct installed measures. The total electric savings was 35,496 kWh/yr. For this subset of
92 homes, the electric only savings per house is 385 kWh/yr.
Estimated savings from electric only homes are shown in Table 4 below:

Lighting Energy
Savings 56%
Pipe Insulation
Energy Saving
2%
Water heater
Blanket Energy Savings
5%
Showerhead
Energy Savings 37%
*Total Project Energy Savings by Measure
*Includes one measure
not deemed by the RTF
(Water Heater Blanket
energy savings)
Integrated Design Lab| Boise 10
Boise City Residential Audit- Energy and Cost Effectiveness (Report #20120101-01)

Table 4 Electric Only Homes, Energy Savings
Direct Installed
Measures
Occurrences
(homes)
Savings per
Occurrence
(kWh)
Total Electric
Savings
(kWh/yr)
Mastic Sealing 35 (35) 2495 8715
CFL Light bulb 904 (87) 23 20,792
Water Heater Blanket 20 (17) 96 1,920
Pipe Insulation 32 (28) 20 640
Low Flow
Showerhead
33 (33)

368 12,144
Totals6 35,496

5. Energy Savings- Additional Installed Measures
The audit reports included suggestions for additional energy savings measures homeowners
could do themselves or have professionally installed. Although a majority of participants
installed additional measures, a low number of these participants were willing to allow a site visit
for installation verification. It is believed that the inconvenience of being home on a work day,
during business hours, was a driving factor in participant reluctance. This precipitated the need to
establish two approaches. The first approach was to calculate savings from homes that were
visited by research staff to verify installed measures. The second approach used phone and/or e-
mail interviews to gather information needed to make saving calculations. In both cases, the IPC

5 Savings based on 20% of full duct sealing value
6 Mastic sealing estimates not included in total deemed savings.
Integrated Design Lab| Boise 11
Boise City Residential Audit- Energy and Cost Effectiveness (Report #20120101-01)

incentive database was cross-referenced to provide data on insulation R-values, ENERGY
STAR® appliances and refrigerator recycling. The data gathered from the two approaches were
combined to determine energy savings and cost effectiveness.
Homeowners were called according to the random list generated. Of the 93 homeowners
contacted via phone or e-mail, 56 replied ‘yes’ to the question, “did you install additional energy
savings measures as a result of the home energy audit you received?” Thus, 60% of the people
contacted did install additional measures, and relates to the population of 650 audited homes at a
confidence level of 90% with ±10% precision. This statistic agrees well with a similar survey of
people who had undertaken a home energy audit in Seattle, Washington during 2010 where
homeowners were surveyed within one year of receiving an energy audit and 57% of the people
had installed additional recommended measures (Ingle et. al, 2012). This study goes on to find
that 44% of the people who installed additional measures did so to save energy or resources
while 28% of the people sited improved comfort as the main driving factor (Ingle et al. 2012).
This finding could inform IPC program designers with regard to non-energy benefits of a
potential future program.
Of the 56 participants who installed additional measures, only 13 (23%) said they would
allow a site visit to verify the items installed. Twelve site visits were performed and one
appointment was not kept and was not able to be rescheduled. In the original work plan, a
confidence/ precision level of 90/15 was desired from site visit verified savings. At the response
rate of 60% of homeowners installing additional measures, 202 participants would have been
required to achieve the number of site visits to achieve a 90/15 confidence interval. This level
was determined to be cost prohibitive and the work plan was modified. This final analysis
contained 12 homes with site visits and 26 with phone or e-mail interviews. When combined,
Integrated Design Lab| Boise 12
Boise City Residential Audit- Energy and Cost Effectiveness (Report #20120101-01)

this related to an 80/10 confidence interval, which is above the established industry standard of
80/20 for confidence and precision.
Table 5 below shows all the additional measures that were reported, along with the source
used to determine savings. Table 6 below shows the number of occurrences of these measures
and the resulting energy savings, respectively.
Integrated Design Lab| Boise 13
Boise City Residential Audit- Energy and Cost Effectiveness (Report #20120101-01)

Table 5. Additional Measures- Saving Source
Additional Installed
Measures
Source
CFL Light Bulb RTF- ResCLFLighting_2_1; Measure Table Row 31
Low Flow
Showerhead RTF-ResShowerheads_v2_1; Measure Table Row 40
Duct Sealing RTF -ResSFDuctSealing_v2_3; Measure Table Row 8
Energy Star
Refrigerator RTF-ResRefrigerator_V2_1; Measure Table Row 14
Energy Star Freezer RTF-ResFreezer_V2_1; Measure Table Row 12
Energy Star Washer RTF-ResClothesWashwer_V2_1; Measure Table Row 9
Energy Star Dishwasher RTF-ResDishwasher_V2_1; Measure Table Row 13
Refrigerator Decommissioning RTF-ResFridgeFreezeDecommissioning_V2.4; Measure Sheet Row 9
New Windows RTF-ResSFWx_v2_4; Measure Sheet Row 24
Attic Insulation RTF-ResSFWx_v2_4; Measure Sheet Row 8-20 Need to match
insulation levels
Floor Insulation RTF-ResSFWx_v2_4; Measure Sheet Row 9
New Furnace ACEEE Report AO33, http://www.env.state.ma.us/dpu/docs/gas/08-
120/31109ngnara12.pdf
New Water Heater http://energyexperts.org/EnergySolutionsDatabase/ResourceDetail.aspx?i
d=1243
New Heat Pump RTF- sfhp_conversions with existing central AC row 8

Integrated Design Lab| Boise 14
Boise City Residential Audit- Energy and Cost Effectiveness (Report #20120101-01)

Table 6. Additional Measures- Occurrences and Savings
Additional
Installed Measures
Occurrences (ea) Savings per
Occurrence
(kWh/yr)
Total Energy
Savings
(kWh/yr)
Site Verified
(homes)
Phone/E-mail
Verified
(homes)
CFL Light Bulb 94 (6) 149 (9) 23 5846
Low Flow
Showerhead 1 (1) 3 (2) 368 1840
Duct Sealing 4 (4) 2 (2) 1244 7464
Energy Star Refrigerator 2 (2) 2 (2) 44 176
Energy Star Freezer 0 (0) 1 (1) 42 35
Energy Star
Dishwasher 0 (0) 1 (1) 28 28
Refrigerator
Decommissioning 1 (1) 4 (4) 482 2410
New Windows 2 (2) 19 (5) 11.53 347
Attic or Floor
Insulation 5 (5) 9 (9)
0.14-2.24 (per
SF) R-value
match needed
9,465
New Furnace 1 (1) 1 (1) 810 (Fan
Savings) 1620
New Water Heater 0 (0) 2 (2) 96 192
New Heat Pump 0 (0) 1 (2) 4154 4154
Total 33,577

Integrated Design Lab| Boise 15
Boise City Residential Audit- Energy and Cost Effectiveness (Report #20120101-01)

5.1. Sample Homes with Verified Savings
Verification of installed measures was performed on 38 homes. Site visits were performed
on 12 (32%) of the homes and phone or e-mail interviews were conducted on 26 (68%) of the
homes. All verification took place in May, June and July, 2012. Savings reported are associated
with an 80% confidence and ±10% precision. Table 7 illustrates the total energy savings
attributed to additional measures installed.
Table 7. Additional Measure Energy Savings
Electric Savings from Sample 19,178 kWh/yr (504 kWh/yr per house)
Gas Savings from Sample 414 Therms/yr (11 Therms/yr per house)
Electric Savings Extrapolated to the Population 384,740 kWh/yr
Gas Savings Extrapolated to the Population 10,140 Therms/yr
From the sample of 38 homes, 8 were all electric, meaning they had electric water
heating and heating systems. Savings from these homes were 4690 kWh/yr which equates to 586
kWh/yr in electricity savings per home.
6. Program Cost Effectiveness
Program cost effectiveness was performed according to industry standards. IPC was
consulted as much as possible so inputs consistent with IPC practice could be used. The primary
goal of this cost effectiveness study was not to evaluate the program which took place, rather, it
was to evaluate a potential program IPC may engage in, in the future. As such, specific numbers
may change as details of a possible program evolve. The goal of this evaluation was to provide
Integrated Design Lab| Boise 16
Boise City Residential Audit- Energy and Cost Effectiveness (Report #20120101-01)

all possible input from an energy savings perspective so better informed decisions could be made
on any such future program.
Each installed measure had a different measure life in which it would contribute energy
savings to the homeowner. Therefore, a weighted average life was calculated based on the
amount of energy savings it contributed to the program. Because the measure lives of direct
installed measures are much shorter than that of the additional measures, two distinct life periods
consisting of direct installs and additional measures were calculated in order to estimate a
cumulative net present value of the total energy saved. Table 8 summarizes the results of the
Utility Cost Test, Total Resource Cost Test, Ratepayer Impact Measure Test, and Participant
Cost Test results for all homes regardless of fuel mix. The values were based on current energy
rates and forecasted avoided costs provided by IPC.
In general, programs are determined to be cost effective when the cost/benefit ratio reaches
1.0. This means that the program benefits are at least equal to program costs. The TRC test was
calculated at 0.69. The PCT evaluated at the much higher benefit to cost ratio of 3.37. The UCT
was 0.66.
Cost effectiveness results are shown in Table 8 below:
Integrated Design Lab| Boise 17
Boise City Residential Audit- Energy and Cost Effectiveness (Report #20120101-01)

Table 8. Cost effectiveness of all homes

Electric-only homes were also evaluated separately to determine cost effectiveness. In
this analysis, the fixed cost of program administration was reduced according to the percentage
of all electric homes in the study. Since 14 percent of the program participants had all-electric
homes, 14 percent of total costs were used for this analysis. The results of this analysis is more
attractive with the UCT, TRC and PCT all being above 1.0. The results are seen below in Table 9
below:
Integrated Design Lab| Boise 18
Boise City Residential Audit- Energy and Cost Effectiveness (Report #20120101-01)

Table 9. Cost effectiveness, electric only homes

7. Conclusion
This evaluation shows that many homes can benefit from basic energy efficiency measures as
98% of the homes had at least one direct install done. In addition, when people are given
information to act on (which took the form of the home energy audit) they will (60%) install
additional energy saving measures after the audit process. A future program could benefit from
providing all measures that have reliably documented energy savings. In this case, savings from
mastic sealing cannot be formally used in cost effective analysis as presented above but some
different scenarios can be evaluated. RTF documented savings from full duct sealing (blower
area and all ductwork) is 1244 kWh/yr for an average heating and cooling system. In the sections
above, savings potential for furnace area mastic sealing was presented at 20% (249 kWh/yr), this
Integrated Design Lab| Boise 19
Boise City Residential Audit- Energy and Cost Effectiveness (Report #20120101-01)

value along with a 50% (622 kWh/yr) savings value is presented below in Table 10. These
effectiveness numbers are for all homes, gas and electric. Mastic sealing as performed savings
values are associated with existing program cost. Full duct sealing would have additional costs.
The RTF lists full duct sealing at a median cost of $538. Energy saving values with these cost
scenarios is also presented in Table 10 below:
Table 10 Duct Sealing Scenarios
Full Duct Sealing Mastic Sealing as Performed
Test Utility Pays
100%
Utility/Participant
50/50 Split
Participant
Pays 100%
20%
Savings
50%
Savings
UCT 0.65 0.78 0.98 0.72 0.82
TRCT 0.72 0.84 1.02 0.75 0.85
RIMT 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.61 0.62
PCT 4.99 2.71 1.86 3.69 4.18

The results reported indicate positive cost/benefit ratios for electric-only homes and negative
ratios for the full sample of electric and gas homes. Incorporating quantifiable non-energy
benefits into the benefit side of the equation would improve the ratio for combined fuel homes.
Many items in the design and implementation of a future program could be changed to improve
cost-effectiveness. Energy savings of specific measures and frequency of occurrences could be
analyzed to provide only the most effective measures. Administration costs could be compared
from what occurred in this study (as a baseline) to what might be required in future studies and
the program could be expanded to spread fixed costs over a larger population base. Future
programs may also consider alternative, less costly delivery mechanisms of the home audits.
Integrated Design Lab| Boise 20
Boise City Residential Audit- Energy and Cost Effectiveness (Report #20120101-01)

Traditional cost effectiveness as presented above does not place high value on non-energy
benefits or consumer education. The recent study in Seattle of 268 homes which received energy
audits (Ingle, et al 2012), pointed out that a large behavioral aspect may be missing from
traditional energy audits. Homeowners wanted to know more about how their behaviors affected
the energy use in their home as much as they wanted to know about efficiency of static pieces of
equipment. In many ways, a home energy audit is just as much about educational opportunity as
it is about an saving initial energy for home owners. In addition, a ripple effect can exist in which
participants share information with friends and neighbors about energy savings opportunities.
Existing home energy audits take a very “asset” related approach to energy efficiency which is
typical in commercial energy efficiency programs. Homes are much more individualistic in their
use patterns and end load devices.
8. References
Anon. 2008. Understanding Cost-Effectiveness of Energy Efficiency Programs: Best Practices,
Technical Methods, and Emerging Issues for Policy-Makers. National Action Plan for Energy
Efficiency.
———. 2011a. Appendix C - Technical Appendix: For the 2011 Integrated Resource Plan. Idaho
Power Company.
———. 2011b. Demand-Side Management 2010 Annual Report: Supplement 1: Cost-
Effectiveness. Idaho Power Company.
———. 2001. California Standard Practice Manual: Economic Analysis of Demand Side
Programs and Projects. California Public Utilities Commission.
Fulmer, Mark, and Bruce Biewald. 1994. “Misconceptions, Mistakes and Misnomers in DSM
Cost Effectiveness Analysis.” In: Regional Policies on Cost-effectiveness of Utility Conservation May 3, 2005

Ingle, Aaron., Moezzi, Mithra., Lutzenhiser, Loren., Diamond, Richard. 2012 “How Well Do
Home Energy Audits Serve the Homeowner?” ACEEE 2012 Summer Study Proceedings
Integrated Design Lab| Boise 21
Boise City Residential Audit- Energy and Cost Effectiveness (Report #20120101-01)

Northwest Power and Conservation Council: Conservation Resource Advisory Committee. “6th
Plan Conservation Resource Cost-Effectiveness.”
Northwest Power Planning Council. 2009. “Cost-Effectiveness - Implication for Bonneville and
Utility Programs.”
Talbot, Jacob. 2012. Market Transformation Efforts for Water Heating Efficiency. American
Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy.

Integrated Design Lab| Boise 22
Boise City Residential Audit- Energy and Cost Effectiveness (Report #20120101-01)

9. Appendices
9.1. Appendix A- Work Plan
Work Plan
Boise City Home Audit Program Impact Evaluation
STATEMENT OF WORK # 3
For
Gary Grayson, Idaho Power Company

Program Description
The City of Boise received an Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant (EECBG) from the
United States Department of Energy (DOE) as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
(ARRA) of 2009.
Idaho Power Company (IPC) has contracted with the City of Boise to provide energy audits and
installation of low cost energy efficiency measures at 650 homes located in the City of Boise. These
energy audits identified additional energy efficiency measures that were recommended for future
consideration. Residents were also provided with information regarding assistance with implementation
of these additional measures.
The City of Boise requires a final report that includes the estimated energy impacts from the initial
installed measures as well as recommended measures installed post audit. IPC requires the data necessary
to indicate whether this type of program would be cost effective if offered to the larger residential
population within its service territory.
Response to Program Description
IDL staff has been provided with a spreadsheet (Audit_6-12-11) which outlines the 650 sites audited.
This spreadsheet will be used as the inputs for all energy estimations carried out in the Statement of Work
(SOW)tasks. All reporting will be delivered to IPC staff. IPC staff will receive monthly labor and status
reports outlining the work performed. Specific tasks and work plans can be found below.
Integrated Design Lab| Boise 23
Boise City Residential Audit- Energy and Cost Effectiveness (Report #20120101-01)

Task 1:
Contractor shall meet with IPC staff within two weeks of contract signing and present proposed
evaluation methodologies, data collection plan, analysis, report preparation and delivery, and any other
activities Contractor and IPC feel pertinent to this evaluation. An addendum to this SOW will be
developed if changes are necessary based on outcomes from this meeting. This Statement of Work will
become part of the contract and will become the basis for this evaluation.
Work Plan Task 1:
Various in person meetings (1/31/12, 2/16/12, 4/16/12) and phone/e-mail communications have informed
the development of this work plan. This work plan contains methodologies and analysis procedures which
are now being formally presented and may require additional clarification. The plan is intended to be a
working document, with changes being made as necessary. IPC staff will be notified if changes are
requested.
Task 2:
Contractor shall develop a detailed work plan based on the SOW. The work plan shall include evaluation
goals, a schedule of tasks and delivery dates, evaluation methodologies, and a sampling plan. This plan
must be approved in writing by IPC prior to Contractor beginning evaluation.
Work Plan Task 2:
This document serves as the work plan. Specific evaluation goals, schedule, methodologies and sampling
plan can be found below.
Task 3:
Contractor shall calculate energy impacts by measure, location, and entire project resulting from direct
install of energy efficiency measures (EEM) installed during initial energy audit. Spreadsheets provided
will serve as the basis for measures installed. Individual Unit Energy Savings (UES) estimates shall be
calculated using values established by the Regional Technical Forum (RTF).
Work Plan Task 3:
Integrated Design Lab| Boise 24
Boise City Residential Audit- Energy and Cost Effectiveness (Report #20120101-01)

Results for Task 3 will be reported in summary table form in the final report and a detailed spread sheet
will be provided to IPC staff. Metrics reported will include; kWh/yr savings by site from all measures,
kWh/yr savings per measure for all sites, and total savings for all sites. The calculation spread sheet will
be included for further investigation.
This task will be completed in early May, 2012.
Estimation of direct install measure savings will be based on the following sources:
Compact florescent lighting:
Regional Technical Forum worksheet: ResCFLLighting_v2_1.xlsm

Water heater wrap: Values taken from:
http://energyexperts.org/EnergySolutionsDatabase/ResourceDetail.aspx?id=1243
Based on:
The 4th Draft of the Northwest Conservation and Electric Power Plan - 1997 (Volume II Part 2,
pgs.74-77). This source could not be located. Value from Energy Experts web page is assumed
reliable.

Pipe insulation wraps:
Regional Technical Forum worksheet: ResDHWPipewrapFY07v1_0.xls
If pipe insulation is used assume one, 3’ section is installed.

Mastic:
Assume mastic was placed at the blower box. While information indicates that most air loss is at blower
boxes, no credible savings numbers could be located do attribute savings to mastic application at the
Integrated Design Lab| Boise 25
Boise City Residential Audit- Energy and Cost Effectiveness (Report #20120101-01)

blowerbox. No RTF savings estimates exist.Interviews have been performed with other researchers who
have done extensive studies of savings due to mastic sealing of duct systems. While air leakage at blower
boxes has been noted to be of concern no savings numbers specific to this have been reported. No savings
can reliably be attributed to this measure.
Low Flow Shower Heads:
Regional Technical Forum worksheet: ResDHW_LowFlowShowerheads_FY10v2_0.xls

Task 4:
Contractor shall document and record any additional post audit EEM implemented at program participant
residences along with associated energy savings and shall:
 Conduct random phone interviews and random site visits to participant homes to sufficiently
estimate savings attributed to additional EEM implemented as a result of recommendations from
the home energy audit. Number of phone interviews shall be sufficient to achieve a minimum of
90% confidence with ±15% precision. Of the homes sampled which installed additional
measures, site visits will be performed and energy savings estimated.
 Document any equipment changed or new equipment installed, including (1) descriptions, (2)
schematics, (3) performance data, and (4) other supporting information.
 Document information about the savings calculation methodology, including (1) what
methodology was used, and (2) specifications of assumptions and sources for these specifications.
 Provide a worksheet that contains the summary of the measures, as well as engineering notes on
how the energy savings calculations were established.

Work Plan Task 4:
Task 4 is scheduled to be completed by July 31, 2012.
This plan intends to answer two basic questions. The first question is; at a 90/15 level, how many people
installed additional measures in their home. Homes will be called to determine if they installed additional
Integrated Design Lab| Boise 26
Boise City Residential Audit- Energy and Cost Effectiveness (Report #20120101-01)

measures, and if so, whether they will allow a site visit to collect specific information on measures
installed. For the first question a specific sample size will not be calculated because the number of
contacts needed to answer the second part of this question will drive the sample size needed. Instead, a
minimum 90/15 level will be achieved using the number of homes which were contacted and the
percentage of people who confirmed that they did install additional measures. The following formula
provided by IPC staff will be used to determine confidence level given the number of homes contacted.

Where:
Z = Value from the standard normal distribution table and corresponds to (1 – α)/2. If your
confidence level is 90% then your Z = (1-.90)/2 = 5%. The Z value for 5% in either tail of the
standard normal distribution = 1.64.
p = Estimate proportion value for a survey question. i.e 62% said “Yes” to the survey
question.
me = margin of error. i.e I want my margin of error to be 15% (.15)
n = sample size

The second part of the question, involves the energy savings which resulted from the additional measures
installed. Two samples will be used when answering this question. A smaller sample meeting an 80%
confidence and 20% precision will result in additional energy savings as verified by field visits. A larger
sample meeting 90% confidence and 15% precision will result from additional energy savings as verified
by phone interviews, e-mail communications and if available IPC incentive applications. Two samples are
being used because during the preliminary phone interviews it was found that a very low percentage of
people who installed additional measures were not willing to have a field verified site visit. In many cases
sufficient information can be gathered from phone interviews to make savings estimations.
The number of sample sites will be determined using the following equation taken from IPMVP Vol. I,
2010, equation B-11.
Integrated Design Lab| Boise 27
Boise City Residential Audit- Energy and Cost Effectiveness (Report #20120101-01)

The Coefficient of Variation (CV) of the customer base of 0.50 will be used. This CV was calculated
based on the saving from the site installed measures. This will result in a sample size of 30 homes to
confirm via phone or e-mail and 11 homes for site visits. These two set of samples will not be mutually
exclusive. In estimating energy savings from installed measures, documented savings provided by the
RTF will be considered first. If RTF data is not available, other research may be referenced. If no reliable
savings estimations can be found, this will be noted. All calculations, sources, and assumptions will be
reported.
Data collection procedures/Comment/Questions
 Sites will be called three times. If contact cannot be made the site will be removed from the list.
E-mail will also be used to attempt contact.
 Homeowners who install energy efficiency measures, post audit, which were not specifically
recommended on the audit report, will be reported as saving the same as measures which were
specifically recommended and installed. For example, saving will be counted if a homeowner
installed new energy efficient windows, but new windows were not recommended in the final
report.
 If a homeowner has installed additional post audit EEMs and refuses to do a site visit, but will
provide information via a phone or e-mail interview, estimation will be attempted. If it is decided
the information provided is sufficient, energy savings values will be reported. If the information
is not sufficient the site will be counted as having installed additional measures but will not be
counted in estimating the savings resulting from additional measures.
 Specific energy auditors from the original study may be called to answer specific questions about
information provided in the spreadsheet (Audits_6-23-11).

Task 5:
Contractor shall analyze the data collected from previous tasks and where applicable, customer billing
data, to develop reliable estimates of energy impacts attributed to each measure, location, and entire
project.
2
22
0
*
e
cvzn
Integrated Design Lab| Boise 28
Boise City Residential Audit- Energy and Cost Effectiveness (Report #20120101-01)

Work Plan Task 5:
Task 5 will be completed by August 15, 2012.
Specific analysis methodologies have been presented in each task item. Industry standard energy savings
values will be used to estimate energy savings, largely based on RTF supplied data or from other reliable
sources as needed. Billing data will be analyzed on homes studied in Task 4 if the savings found is
believed to be greater than 10% of the average home load. As documented in IPMVP Vol. I, 2010,
“Typical savings should exceed 10% of the baseline energy if you expect to confidently discriminate the
savings from the baseline data when the reporting period is shorter than two years.” If utility data is
analyzed the baseline period will be from the audit date to two years prior. Post period will be considered
from the date of the last major EEM installed to the current most available billing date. Billing data on
homes studied in Task 4 will be provided by IPC.
Task 6:
Contractor shall determine the parameters by which a similar program would be cost effective if offered
to the larger IPC residential population.

Work Plan Task 6:
Task 6 is scheduled to be completed by August 15, 2012.
Procedures used by the RTF and the California Standard Practice Manual, 2001, will be used in
determination of cost effectiveness. IDL will use the same inputs used by IPC in similar residential
programs to determine cost-effectiveness. Inputs will be provided by IPC to IDL staff.

Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................... 1
1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 2
2. EA4.6 Review of Energy Savings Calculations .................................................................... 6
A. Savings-to-Investment Ratio ......................................................................................................... 6
B. Measure Ranking ........................................................................................................................... 6
C. Measure Interaction....................................................................................................................... 7
D. Measure Lifetime ........................................................................................................................... 7
E. EA4.6 History ................................................................................................................................. 8
F. Energy Consumption Calculation Methodology ......................................................................... 9
i. Heating Equipment Replacement and Improvements ................................................................................. 9 ii. Heating Equipment Repair ......................................................................................................................... 9
iii. Infiltration (Air Sealing) ............................................................................................................................. 9 iv. Ceiling, Wall, and Floor Insulation .......................................................................................................... 10
v. Window and Doors ................................................................................................................................... 10
G. Program Implementation ............................................................................................................ 10 i. Weather Data ............................................................................................................................................ 11 ii. Heating Equipment ................................................................................................................................... 14 iii. Infiltration Reduction (Air Sealing) .......................................................................................................... 14 iv. Attic/Ceiling Insulation ............................................................................................................................ 17
v. Wall Insulation ......................................................................................................................................... 18 vi. Floor Insulation ........................................................................................................................................ 19
vii. Windows and Doors ................................................................................................................................. 20 viii. Vents ........................................................................................................................................................ 22 ix. CFLs ......................................................................................................................................................... 22 x. Refrigerators ............................................................................................................................................. 23
xi. Water Heating Equipment ........................................................................................................................ 23 xii. Pipe Insulation ..................................................................................................................................... 24
3. Phone Survey and Field Verification .................................................................................. 25
A. Phone Survey ................................................................................................................................ 25 i. Household Characteristics ........................................................................................................................ 25
ii. Housing Characteristics ............................................................................................................................ 27 iii. Weatherization Measures ......................................................................................................................... 29
B. Field Verification ......................................................................................................................... 30
C. Results ........................................................................................................................................... 30
4. Programmatic Energy Savings ............................................................................................ 33
A. Analytical Methods ...................................................................................................................... 34
B. Results of Billing Regression Models ......................................................................................... 35
C. Realization Rates by Program and Measure Type ................................................................... 41
D. Comparisons ................................................................................................................................. 44
5. Observations ......................................................................................................................... 45
6. Recommendations ................................................................................................................. 47

1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Idaho Power Company (IPC) is completing an impact evaluation of its Weatherization
Assistance for Qualified Customers (WAQC) and Weatherization Solutions for Eligible
Customers (WSEC) programs. IPC requested program ex post electricity savings, realization
rates, ex post measure savings, and any finding or observations to enhance effectiveness of the
programs. D&R International, Ltd. teamed with Evergreen Economics to complete this impact evaluation. The evaluation was performed utilizing monthly electricity bills, EA4.6 summary
data, and EA4.6 audits. This report focuses on the programs for 2011. Participants’ homes were
evaluated in 2011 and improvements were completed by the end of the same year.

Auditors with WAQC and WSEC use the EA4.6 audit tool to calculate energy savings to select
the appropriate weatherization measures for each participant. Auditors visit each home, gather information on the home, and enter that data into EA4.6. The audit tool calculates energy savings to determine which weatherization measures should be completed, to what extent, and what the
allowable costs are for each participant.

D&R reviewed program implementation by examining the EA4.6 tool and audits completed in 2011. The EA4.6 audit tool’s calculation methodology was reviewed for all building components. Initial conditions of homes were reviewed to learn when measures are
implemented. As requested by IPC, measure costs were also gathered from the EA4.6 audits.

Regression analysis shows the energy consumption and ex post electricity savings. Table ES-1 presents the results of the regression analysis. Realization rates for the WAQC and WSEC programs, based on the results of the billing regression models, are 29% and 19%, respectively.

Table ES-1: Program Savings
Program Participants Total Ex Ante
kWh Savings
Ex Post
kWh Savings Realization
Rate Participant Total
WAQC 290 2,641,782 2,684 778,360 29%
WSEC 117 1,141,194 1,826 213,653 19%

The primary take away from the correlation analysis is that EA4.6 as implemented for these two
programs does not provide an accurate, or even useful, prediction of energy savings. The
recommendations section presents several actions IPC can take to improve the accuracy of its
energy saving estimates.

2

1. INTRODUCTION
This report presents an impact evaluation of two of Idaho Power Company’s Weatherization
programs—Weatherization Assistance for Qualified Customers and Weatherization Solutions for
Eligible Customers. IPC implements the WAQC program through five Idaho Community Action
Agencies and two agencies from Oregon. The agencies for Idaho are Aging, Weatherization, and Human Services (CCOA); Eastern Idaho Community Action Partnership (EICAP); El-Ada Community Action Partnership (El-Ada); South Central Community Action Partnership
(SCCAP); and SouthEastern Idaho Community Action Agency (SEICAA). The Oregon agencies
are Community Connection of Northeast Oregon Inc. (CCNO) and Community In Action
(CINA). The WSEC program is implemented in Idaho by three contractors: Energy Zone, LLC, Home Energy Management, and Savings Around Power (SAP).
The WAQC and WSEC programs provide funding for the installation of weatherization
measures in qualified homes. Households with incomes up to 200 percent of the federal poverty
guidelines qualify for the WAQC program. Households with incomes up to 175 percent of the
federal poverty guideline may qualify for the WSEC. Table 1 shows 2011 Weatherization program participants and ex-ante savings.

WAQC provides services to participants residing in Oregon and Idaho. Two agencies in Oregon
had 14 combined participants. WSEC provides services to participants residing in Idaho only.

Table 1-1: Program Savings

Program Participant
Location
Number of Units
Weatherized kWh Savings
Weatherization Assistance for
Qualified Customers (WAQC)
Idaho 276 2,506,810
Oregon 14 134,972
Weatherization Solutions for Eligible Customers (WSEC) Idaho 117 1,141,194

D&R and Evergreen reviewed two sets of household data for this evaluation, shown in Table 1-
2. IPC collects the summary data from the agencies and uses it for managing the program. The audit data, also collected by IPC, was reviewed extensively by D&R to gauge program implementation and the usefulness of the audit tool. The count of program participants, program
spending, and ex ante energy savings are taken from the summary data. There are four instances
where audits were not provided—one by CCOA, one by SEICCA, and two by CCNO. In one
instance, summary data showed that a participant received services while audit data did not support this; D&R included the participant in its evaluation of the program. Seven audits were not previously included in the summary data and ex ante savings; D&R did include them.

3

Table 1-2 Program Participants, by Agency
Program Agency Participants Summary
Data
Audit
Data
WAQC
CCOA 62 62 61
EICAP 3 3 3
El-Ada 119 119 119
SCCAP 47 47 47
SEICAA 45 45 44
CCNO 2 2 0
CINA 12 12 12
WSEC
Energy Zone, LLC 73 73 73
Home Energy Management 39 39 39
SAP 5 5 5

Table 1-3 shows the total weatherization measure costs IPC reimbursed agencies in 2011. IPC
provided $1.1 million for the WAQC program, and $694,000 for the WSEC program. Table 1-4
presents this data by measure category. The WAQC program spends equitably among heating equipment, insulation & air sealing, and fenestration. The WSEC program spending is highest on
insulation & air sealing and lowest on fenestration.

Table 1-3: IPC Total Measure Cost ($ thousand) for 2011, by Program
Weatherization Measure Total WAQC WSEC
Pipe Wrapping 10.5 3.4 7.1
Duct Sealing 80.5 40.0 40.6
CFLs 4.1 3.3 0.8
Water Heater 4.0 2.8 1.3
Wall Insulation 22.0 7.7 14.3
Infiltration 189.4 109.7 79.7
Ceiling Insulation 175.3 93.2 82.1
Furnace 27.8 21.7 6.1
Doors 163.4 119.7 43.7
Floor Insulation 202.3 103.6 98.7
Furnace Replacement 557.8 348.3 209.5
Windows 293.9 221.2 72.7
Furnace Tune-up
Refrigerator Replacement 1.8 0.3 1.5
Total 1,796.9 1,102.9 694.0

4

Table 1-4: IPC Total Weatherization Measure Category Cost ($ thousand) for 2011, by Program

Weatherization Category WAQC WSEC
Heating Equipment 370.0 34% 215.6 31%
Insulation & Air Sealing 356.0 32% 317.8 46%
Fenestration 340.9 31% 116.3 17%
Plug Loads 3.6 0% 2.3 0%
Water Heat 6.2 1% 8.3 1%
Non-Energy 26.3 2% 33.7 5%

Table 1-5 shows the total costs of the WAQC and WSEC programs and includes local agencies
funding from DOE. Spending for WAQC participants is $1.72 million, of which IPC spent $1.1 million. Spending for WSEC is $694,000, all of which is from IPC.

Table 1-5: Total Weatherization Program Spending ($ thousand)

Funding Source Total WAQC WSEC
Idaho Power Company 1,796.9 1,102.9 694.0
All 2,406.1 1,721.9 694.0

Table 1-6 provides the average annual energy savings per measure reported by agencies to IPC. Ex ante savings are provide to IPC when an agency submits a completed audit. The savings are
pulled from each participant’s energy audit. The weatherization measures allow for work to vary
within the measure category. For example, the windows category includes installed windows of
differing efficiencies.

5

Table 1-6: Ex Ante Annual Savings per Measure (kWh) for 2011, by Program
Weatherization Measure Total WAQC WSEC
Pipe Wrapping 99 81 124
Duct Sealing 4,435 3,349 6,467
CFLs 154 152 167
Water Heater 245 303 206
Wall Insulation 2,591 2,122 3,005
Infiltration 1,229 1,141 1,472
Ceiling Insulation 1,689 1,722 1,628
Furnace 7,841 7,841 -
Doors 1,844 1,947 1,368
Floor Insulation 1,687 1,514 2,090
Furnace Replacement 5,384 5,211 5,846
Windows 2,658 2,727 2,368
Furnace Tune-up 3,631 3,519 3,967
Refrigerator Replacement 862 539 751
Total 9,290 9,103 9,754

IPC required the following results from this impact evaluation:
 Program ex post electricity savings
 Program realization rates
 Weatherization measure ex post savings
 Findings and observations to enhance program effectiveness
IPC provided the following three sets of data for this impact evaluation:
 Summary data provided by Weatherization agencies to IPC – used to review program
implementation
 EA4.5 and EA4.6 audit data provided by Weatherization agencies to IPC – used to review the implementation of the audit tool and to review energy savings calculations and
measure costs
 Customer billing data – used to determine ex post savings

This report is organized into five sections:
 EA4.6 Review of Energy Savings Calculations
 Participant Survey and Field Verification
 Programmatic Energy Savings
 Observations
 Recommendations
The Phone Survey Questionnaire, the Field Verification Form, and the Field Verification Summary Reports are presented as appendices.

6

2. EA4.6 REVIEW OF ENERGY SAVINGS CALCULATIONS
A. Savings-to-Investment Ratio
The WAQC and WSEC programs use electronic audit tools EA4.5 and EA4.6 to determine
which improvements are appropriate for each participant. Replacement decisions are determined
by the savings-to-investment ratio (SIR), a cost-effectiveness test. An improvement is cost-
effective if its SIR is 1.0 or greater. Additionally, the package of improvements must be cost-
effective with any repair costs included in the overall SIR. By definition, repairs do not have energy savings. The programs also ensure that each home complies with Idaho’s health and
safety plan. Health and safety costs are not evaluated for cost-effectiveness; however, the
agencies have a percentage limit of their total grant for health and safety costs.

EA4.6 calculates first year energy savings using parameters the auditor enters. For both Weatherization programs, the savings are calculated as the difference between initial and final
conditions. Allowable expenditures include the cost of materials, installation, and on-site
supervisory personnel.

The SIR is a ratio of energy cost savings over the lifetime of the measures, discounted to present value, divided by the total present value of the improvement cost. The equation for the individual
SIR follows:

DOE provides the discount rate annually; for 2011, it was 3%. The measure lifetimes are reviewed and approved by DOE when reviewing states’ energy audit procedures. See the
Measure Lifetime section below for more detail about measure lifetimes.

EA4.6 uses an economic coefficient, which include the fuel price escalation, discount rate, and measure lifetime for calculating lifetime energy savings. First-year savings multiplied by the
economic coefficient yield the lifetime energy savings in EA4.6.

The equation for the overall SIR follows:

B. Measure Ranking
DOE requires measures to be ranked by SIR so that measures with the highest SIR are performed
prior to those with lower SIR. Lower-ranked measures are evaluated by including the installation

7

of the higher-ranked measures. This lowers the initial energy savings of low ranked measures.
The audit tool should evaluate measures iteratively. Measures should be included in the proposed
building as they rank by SIR. Measures that do not meet the SIR cost-effectiveness test must be
eliminated from the proposed work scope. EA4.6 does not rank measures; instead, IDWAP requires its auditors to evaluate measures
separately. The auditor enters the initial conditions of the participants’ homes and then
determines what type of work should be completed. The auditor then enters the final conditions
of the proposed measure and the associated labor and material costs. If the SIR of the measure is greater than 1.0, the measure can be installed. If the measure does not meet the cost-effectiveness requirement, the costs are zeroed and the final condition is changed to the initial condition of the
building component.

C. Measure Interaction
EA4.6 does not account for the interaction of mechanical and architectural measures in determining appropriate energy-saving measures. It should include the higher SIR measures in
its calculations of lower-ranked measures. Measure selection for the Weatherization programs
should be an iterative process. For example, if an audit tool recommends air sealing as the
highest ranked measure, this measure should be included in calculating the savings of all other
measures. This process would be repeated for each additional measure recommended by the audit tool. Without interacting measures, energy savings are overstated and measures will be
installed more frequently than allowed under DOE rules. This is especially significant for heating
equipment measures where all other measures effect heating energy consumption and thus
savings.

D. Measure Lifetime
A key component of the SIR calculation is measure lifetime. DOE requires that each installed
measure have lifetime energy savings, discounted to present value, that exceed the installation
cost. The lifetime energy savings is also the cost limit for any measure, as the installation cost
must at least equal lifetime energy savings. Table 2-1 presents measure lifetimes DOE approved in EA4.6 and those generally utilized by DOE.

8

Table 2-1: Measure Lifetime
Weatherization Measure EA4.6 DOE
Furnace Replacement 20 18
Furnace Tune-up 3 3
Heat Pump Installation 15 15
Air Sealing 15 10
Duct Insulation 20 20
Windows and Doors 15 20 / 15
Ceiling Insulation 20 20
Wall Insulation 20 20
Floor Insulation 20 20
Water Heating Equipments 10 13
Refrigerator Replacement Unknown 15
CFL Installations 7 10
Pipe Insulation Unknown 13

The lifetimes for windows, doors, ceiling insulation, wall insulation, and floor insulation from EA4.6 match what DOE uses. EA4.6’s furnace replacement lifetime is a few years longer than DOE typically allows, meaning that furnaces that were installed with very low SIRs have
overstated energy savings. EA4.6’s air sealing lifetime is 15 years, 5 years longer than DOE
uses. DOE has allowed flexibility in the air sealing lifetime, as blower door-directed air sealing
requires installation that endures along with insulation. The measure lifetime for water heating equipment is 3 years shorter than DOE allows, leading to understated energy savings. However, the annual energy savings potential of replacement water heaters is low. The CFL lifetime is 3
years shorter than DOE allows, but CFL costs are low and annual energy savings are significant
enough that installation opportunities are rarely missed.
The team cannot provide the measure lifetime of either refrigerator replacement or pipe insulation. EA4.6 requires the auditor to enter the SIR and cost for refrigerator replacement, thus
an auditor can use any lifetime. Annual energy consumption and savings for pipe insulation are
calculated by EA4.6, but D&R has been unable to determine how lifetime energy savings are
calculated for its SIR.
E. EA4.6 History
DOE granted interim approval of EA4.6 for use in Idaho’s Weatherization Assistance Program
(IDWAP) in 2010 with the requirement that IDWAP improve its audit tool in 2011. EA4.5 was
used by IDWAP prior to EA4.6. DOE granted interim approval of EA4.6 because of deficiencies
in how it evaluates heating equipment measures; it was developed to address only heating and baseload energy consumption measures, and its calculation methodology does not include
cooling energy consumption or savings. EA4.6a was subsequently improved to include heating

9

load calculations and more appropriately calculate heating equipment energy consumption and
savings. EA5 was approved by DOE in 2011 with the prior required improvements.

Two versions of audits were utilized for the WAQC and WSEC programs. Throughout this evaluation, we refer to EA4.6 and include those audits also completed in EA4.5.
F. Energy Consumption Calculation Methodology

i. Heating Equipment Replacement and Improvements
EA4.6 calculates the energy consumption of heating equipment by adding the architectural component heat loss values into the building load coefficient. It utilizes the initial and final conditions of the building envelope to calculate the initial and final building load coefficients.
This is then multiplied with the HDD and divided by the furnace efficiency to yield furnace
energy usage. Equipment efficiency is input using the Energy Auditor’s Technical Handbook,
which lists efficiencies of electric heating equipment.

EA4.5 calculates the consumption of heating equipment by using only the initial conditions of
the building envelope. This was a substantial change from EA4.5 for EA4.6

ii. Heating Equipment Repair EA4.6 tracks only measure costs, because heating repairs have no energy savings. In some cases,
a heating system repair may actually increase energy usage.

iii. Infiltration (Air Sealing) Estimates of savings from air sealing are based on infiltration measurement in the initial and
final conditions. The following equation is used to estimate consumption:

The units of each component are provided in brackets [ ]. This is the accepted methodology for
estimating heat loss in a home from infiltration.

10

iv. Ceiling, Wall, and Floor Insulation Estimates of energy loss for ceilings, walls, and floors are completed by multiplying the U-value,
surface area, and temperature difference from inside to outside. All insulation measures follow
the same basic UA∆T methodology as windows and doors. The units of each component are provided in brackets [ ]. The formula is the following:

This is an accepted methodology for estimating energy loss of walls, ceilings, and floors.

v. Window and Doors Estimates of energy loss for windows and doors are completed by multiplying the U-value,
surface area of the window or door, and temperature difference from inside to outside. The units
of each component are provided in brackets [ ]. The full formula is similar to the air sealing
equation:

This is an acceptable methodology for determining conductive heat loss of a window assembly.
EA4.6 uses the initial and final U-values and surface area to calculate energy savings.

G. Program Implementation
D&R reviewed the completed audits of weatherized units for the WAQC and WSEC programs to
determine data entry of each audit. Summary data containing ex ante energy savings and costs was provided for 407 audits. IPC provided 403 complete audits; 4 audits from the WAQC
program were not available. D&R reviewed 286 audits for WAQC and 117 for WSEC.

Cost data reviewed for this section considers only total cost. For the WAQC program, total
costs include IPC and DOE (“agency”) funds. For the WSEC program, total costs and IPC costs are the same, as no other funds are used for implementation. Implementation decisions are justified through the SIR cost-effectiveness test, which uses total costs. In the WAQC program, IPC reimbursed agencies for a majority of the costs. The WSEC
program was funded entirely by IPC.
Two versions of audits were utilized for the WAQC and WSEC programs. D&R reviewed the
audit data to determine which versions were utilized by each of the agencies. There are two
version of EA4.5, where agencies altered the version number and dates. There are seven different
version numbers of EA4.6. D&R disregarded the differing dates of the audit tools, and

11

categorized the audit versions as either EA4.5 or EA4.6. This analysis refers to EA4.6 and
includes those audits also completed in EA4.5.

Table 2-2: Audit Version
Program Agency EA4.5 EA4.6
WAQC
CCOA 34 27
EICAP 0 3
El-Ada, Inc. 7 112
SCCAP 0 47
SEICAA 22 22
CCNO 0 0
CINA 12 0
WSEC
Energy Zone, LLC 11 62
Home Energy Management 0 39
SAP 0 5

i. Weather Data D&R reviewed the weather data used in EA4.6 to find its significance in estimating energy
savings for the programs. IDWAP targets mostly space heat energy consumption reductions. The
weather data is utilized in calculating the energy savings for both building envelope and space
heating equipment measures. We compared the weather data in EA4.6 with actual data to find the variance.

EA4.6 utilizes 10-year heating degree-day (HDD) weather data to estimate annual energy
consumption for space heating. HDDs are calculated by summing the difference between the
average hourly temperature and a reference temperature, typically 65oF. A higher number indicates a colder climate. The HDD data in EA4.6 is from 2000 through 2009, and accounts for
changes in weather expectations.

Actual HDD weather data will differ from the weather data in EA4.6. When the difference
between the actual and EA4.6 weather data is negative, the audit tool is underestimating energy consumption and savings. When the difference is positive, EA4.6 is overestimating energy
consumption and savings.

D&R queried the submitted EA4.6 audits to extract the HDD values auditors entered and
gathered actual 2011 HDD weather data from Accu-Weather. Table 2-3 lists the HDD values from EA4.6 and the actual 2011 HDD for the same ZIP codes. The 833, 834, 836, and 979 ZIP codes have instances where the variance is greater than 10%. There are 31 audits with missing or
erroneous ZIP codes. Figure 2-1 is a 3-digit ZIP code map of Idaho and the portion of Oregon
where the WAQC and WSEC programs operate.

12

Table 2-3: Weather Data Comparison
First Three
Digits of ZIP
Code
Annual HDD Difference between
EA4.6 and
2011 Annual
HDD
EA4.6 2011
832 6829, 6922, 7123 7510 -9% to -5%
833 5974, 6069, 6324, 6398,
6565, 6669, 6910, 7139,
7193, 8184
6454 -7% to 27%
834 7620 6912 10%
836 2290, 5022, 5600, 5655,
5723, 5752, 5802, 5833,
5916, 5980, 6027, 6084,
7630, 8900
5988,
8484,
9308
-62% to 404%
837 5022, 5802 5622 -11% to 3%
979 7024 5707 23%

Figure 2-1: 3-Digit ZIP Code Map of Weatherization Program Participant

The 836 ZIP codes have the greatest variance, with several audits having improper HDD values
in EA4.6. The variances beyond 10% lead to significant under- and overestimation of energy

13

savings. D&R reviewed the weather data further to isolate how agencies entered weather data
into EA4.6. Table 2-4 shows the variance of EA4.6 and actual weather data for each agency.
CINA and EICAP utilized the same weather data for their respective audits and thus are listed as
having only a minimum variance. CCOA and Energy Zone have the greatest variance in their weather data. CCOA’s variance may be due to elevation differences between the weather station and physical address of the participant’s property. Multiple audits by Energy Zone were
completed with very low HDD values, similar to a warm climate. Energy Zone also submitted
one audit with an excessively high HDD that is clearly a mistake.
Table 2-4: HDD Variance of EA4.6 Above 2011 Actual Weather Data
Program Agency Min Max
WAQC
CCOA -33% 49%
Community in Action 23%
EICAP 10%
El-Ada -16% 9%
SCCAP -6% 27%
SEICA -8% -5%
WSEC
Energy Zone -62% 404%
Home Energy Management -7% 3%
SAP -9% -5%

Table 2-5 shows the instances where the HDD in EA4.6 exceeds the 2011 actual HDD, by ZIP code. Most of the ZIP codes (51 of 67) have a variance of less than 10%. Only 11 ZIP codes have instances where the EA4.6 HDD is higher than the 2011 average annual HDD leading to an
overestimation of energy savings.

Table 2-5: Count of ZIP Codes Varying Above 2011 HDD
Variance of EA4.6 Above
2011 Actual HDD
Number of
ZIP Codes
-21% and lower 2
-20% to -11% 3
-10% to 0% 40
0% to 10% 11
11% to 20% 3
21% to 30% 6
31% and higher 2

14

ii. Heating Equipment D&R reviewed audit data to determine what work was completed. Initial equipment efficiencies
were determined from the primary heating system type provided in the JOS worksheet. Final
equipment efficiencies are readily available from the EA4 and Load Calculation worksheets. Auditors enter the final equipment efficiency using the Energy Auditor’s Technical Handbook, which lists efficiencies of electric heating equipment. Participants with final efficiencies of 1.1 to
1.7 had heat pumps installed and those with a final efficiency of 1 had electric resistance heating
installed.
Table 2-6 shows the heating equipment measures installed. Almost all of the heating equipment measures include the installation of a heat pump. The Weatherization programs installed 171
heat pumps. Six participants had new electric furnaces installed as a health & safety measure; all
6 previously had electric resistance heating.
Table 2-6: Heating Equipment Measures, by Program
Measure Total WAQC WSEC
Electric Furnace – H&S 6 4 2
Electric Resistance – Heat Pump Conversion 170 124 46
Heat Pump – Heat Pump Improvement 1 1 0

iii. Infiltration Reduction (Air Sealing) Data captured from the EA4.6 audits includes the initial and final infiltration values and costs for
air sealing. Table 2-7 shows the percentage reduction from initial to final infiltration for participants. Six participants had infiltration increases, but the buildings have low initial infiltration values. Initial infiltration was reduced less than 10% for 87 participants, 62 from
WAQC and 25 from WSEC. The average infiltration reduction of all participants is 27%.

Table 2-7: Participant Count of Infiltration Reduction
Infiltration Reduction (%) Total WAQC WSEC
Less than 0 6 4 2
0 to 9.9 87 62 25
10 to 19.9 72 58 17
20 to 29.9 65 49 17
30 to 39.9 58 41 25
40 to 49.9 38 27 15
50 to 59.9 38 25 13
60 and Higher 19 20 3
Average 26.7% 26.5% 27.1%

15

Table 2-8 presents infiltration results for the WAQC and WSEC programs. The average initial
infiltration value for all participants is 1,984 CFM-50, a very low average, which indicates that
homes are already well sealed. The average final infiltration for all participants is 1,357 CFM-50,
a reduction of 32%. Table 2-8: Average Infiltration Values for the Weatherization Programs

Infiltration Value
(CFM-50) Total WAQC WSEC
Initial 1,984 2,057 1,804
Final 1,357 1,408 1,230
Percent Reduction 31.6% 31.6% 31.8%

Next, the participants were binned into 500 CFM-50 categories and counted for the initial and
final values. Figures 2-2 and 2-3 show initial and final infiltration values for both programs. Note
that for both programs, the initial curves have higher infiltration values at the right. In the final
curves, the participant count at the higher infiltration values is reduced and shifts to the left. This indicates that both programs have infiltration reductions.

Figure 2-2: Count of Participant Infiltration Values for the WAQC Program

0
25
50
75
100
125
150
0 2000 4000 6000 8000
Pr
o
g
r
a
m

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

Infiltration Value (CFM-50)
Initial
Final

16

Figure 2-3: Count of Participant Infiltration Values for the WSEC Program

Finally, the infiltration reduction costs for the Weatherization programs were calculated for each participant. Table 2-9 shows air sealing costs by the percentage of infiltration reduction, and the
average air sealing cost. The price was calculated using the following formula:

Table 2-9 Infiltration Reduction Cost per Infiltration Reduction Level, by Program
Infiltration
Reduction (%)
Infiltration Reduction Cost
($/100 CFM-50 Reduction)
Total WAQC WSEC
0-9.9 46 52 21
10-19.9 43 46 34
20-29.9 54 43 86
30-39.9 65 46 96
40-49.9 55 47 70
50-59.9 63 52 84
60+ 51 47 75
Average 53 47 69

0
25
50
75
100
125
150
0 2000 4000 6000 8000
Pr
o
g
r
a
m

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

Infiltration Value (CFM-50)
Initial
Final

17

Air sealing costs are $43-$52 per 100 CFM-50 of infiltration reduction for the WAQC program.
The WSEC air sealing costs are $21-$96 per 100 CFM-50, depending on percentage of total
infiltration reduction. Once infiltration is reduced at least 20%, air sealing costs are $70-$96 per
100 CFM-50.
iv. Attic/Ceiling Insulation EA4.6 requires auditors to enter the surface area and U-value of the existing ceiling to evaluate
the cost-effectiveness of insulating it. The auditor must also enter the final U-value of the ceiling,
as well as the associated material and labor costs for insulating it. If the attic insulation is determined not to be cost-effective, the auditor merely changes the estimated final U-value back to the initial U-value to reflect that the measure is not being installed and will not result in
savings. This practice is necessary for calculating an accurate building load coefficient and
resulting heating equipment consumption.
Table 2-10 shows the ceiling areas insulated and unaltered, listed by the initial U-value. It shows that when the initial U-value of the ceiling was greater than 0.126, the programs insulated 7,897
ft2 in the WAQC program and 4,781 ft2 in the WSEC program. When the initial U-value was
0.026 or lower, neither program added additional insulation.
Table 2-10: Insulated Ceiling and Unaltered Ceiling Area, by Initial U-Value Level (ft2)
Initial U-Value (Btu/h-ft2-oF)
WAQC WSEC
Insulated Ceiling Unaltered Ceiling Insulated Ceiling Unaltered Ceiling
0.026 and Lower - 0% 9,441 100% - 0% 14,163 100%
0.027 to 0.032 1,680 7% 23,265 93% - 0% 7,879 100%
0.033 to 0.050 22,838 45% 27,623 55% 15,002 54% 12,766 46%
0.051 to 0.091 134,896 58% 97,839 42% 58,828 83% 11,712 17%
0.092 to 0.125 5,374 86% 840 14% 5,932 75% 1,966 25%
0.126 and Higher 7,897 90% 864 10% 4,781 74% 1,644 26%
Total 172,685 52% 159,872 48% 84,543 63% 50,130 37%

Table 2-11 presents the ceiling areas and their installation cost for the Weatherization programs.
The costs and ceiling area were extracted from the same EA4.6 audits. The cost was calculated
for each participant where the ceiling insulation cost was installed using the following formula:

18

Table 2-11 Ceiling Insulation Installed, by Cost (ft2)
Ceiling Insulation Cost ($/ft2) All WAQC WSEC
0.00 to 0.25 15,022 15,022 -
0.26 to 0.35 17,133 16,209 924
0.36 to 0.45 51,372 47,647 3,725
0.46 to 0.55 68,227 51,928 16,299
0.56 to 0.65 44,972 19,250 25,722
0.66 to 0.75 33,973 15,044 18,929
0.76 and Higher 26,529 7,585 18,944
Total 257,228 172,685 84,543
Average Cost ($/ft2) 0.52 0.47 0.63
Ceiling insulation costs are $0.47 per ft2 for the WAQC program and $0.63 per ft2 for the WSEC
program.

v. Wall Insulation EA4.6 requires auditors to enter the surface area and U-value of an existing wall to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of insulating it. The auditor must also enter the final U-value of the wall and
the associated material and labor costs for insulating it. If the wall insulation is determined not to
be cost-effective, the auditor changes the estimated final U-value to the initial U-value, thus no
savings. This practice is necessary for calculating an accurate building load coefficient and resulting heating equipment consumption.
Table 2-12 shows the wall areas, insulated and unaltered, listed by the initial U-value. When the
initial U-value of walls is greater than 0.166, the programs insulated 59% of the total wall area.
Table 2-12 Insulated and Unaltered Wall Area, by Initial U-Value Level (ft2)
Initial U-Value (Btu/h-ft2-oF)
WAQC WSEC
Insulated Wall Unaltered Wall Insulated Wall Unaltered Wall
0.166 and Lower 20 0% 287,061 100% 0 0% 122,854 100%
0.167 to 0.333 6,026 66% 3,166 34% 6,171 80% 1,578 20%
0.334 and Higher 425 11% 3,380 89% 1,219 42% 1,669 58%
Total 6,471 2% 293,607 98% 7,390 6% 126,101 94%

Table 2-13 presents the wall areas and their installation costs for the Weatherization programs.
The costs and areas were extracted from the EA4.6 audits. Wall insulation costs were calculated
for each participant.

19

Table 2-13: Wall Insulation Installed, by Cost (ft2)
Wall Insulation Cost ($/ft2) Total WAQC WSEC
0.00 to 0.50 2,458 2,030 428
0.51 to 1.00 7,500 2,819 4,681
1.01 to 1.50 390 294 96
1.51 to 2.00 2,030 1,029 1,001
2.01 and Higher 1,483 299 1,184
Total 13,861 6,471 7,390
Average Cost ($/ft2) $0.96 $0.84 $1.07

Wall insulation costs are $0.84 per ft2 for the WAQC program and $1.07 per ft2 for the WSEC
program.
vi. Floor Insulation
EA4.6 requires auditors to enter the surface area and U-value of the existing floor, the final U-
value of floor, and costs for insulating it to evaluate the cost-effectiveness. If the insulation is determined not to be cost-effective, the auditor merely changes the estimated final U-value back
to the initial U-value. This is done so that the total building load is calculated and subsequently
heating equipment measures are calculated properly.

Table 2-14 shows the floor areas, insulated and unaltered, listed by the initial U-value. When the initial U-value of the floor was greater than 0.125, the programs frequently insulated the floor
area. The WAQC program insulated 58,132 ft2 and the WSEC program insulated 48,403 ft2.
When the initial U-value was 0.050 or lower, the programs did not add additional insulation.

Table 2-14: Insulated Floor and Unaltered Floor Area, by Initial U-Value Level (ft2)
Initial U-Value
(Btu/h-ft2-oF)
WAQC WSEC
Insulated
Floor
Unaltered
Floor
Insulated
Floor
Unaltered
Floor
0.050 and Lower 0 0% 33,869 100% 0 0% 19,318 100%
0.051 to 0.091 23,843 17% 113,485 83% 6,372 24% 20,011 76%
0.092 to 0.125 29,995 71% 12,230 29% 3,808 58% 2,776 42%
0.126 and Higher 58,132 72% 22,308 28% 48,403 72% 19,180 28%
Total 111,970 38% 181,892 62% 58,583 49% 61,285 51%

Table 2-15 presents the floor areas and installation costs for both Weatherization programs. The costs and areas were extracted from the EA4.6 audits. Floor insulation costs were calculated for
each participant. Table 2-15 presents the floor insulation costs and the amount installed at each
cost increment.

20

Table 2-15: Floor Insulation Installed by Cost (ft2)
Floor Insulation Cost ($/ft2) All WAQC WSEC
0.00 to 0.25 0 0 0
0.26 to 0.50 6,909 6,312 597
0.51 to 0.75 64,547 59,944 4,603
0.76 to 1.00 42,583 28,661 13,922
1.01 to 1.25 19,456 7,961 11,495
1.26 to 1.50 20,488 4,364 16,124
1.51 to 1.75 12,460 2,706 7,512
1.76 and Higher 5,034 2,946 4,330
Total 171,477 112,894 58,583
Average Cost ($/ft2) $0.94 $0.80 $1.20

Floor insulation costs are $0.80 per ft2 for the WAQC program and $1.20 per ft2 for the WSEC
program. This is a 51% cost difference between WSEC and WAQC.
vii. Windows and Doors EA4.6 requires auditors to enter the U-value of existing windows and doors to evaluate the cost-
effectiveness of installing new windows and doors. If new windows are determined not to be
cost-effective, the auditor merely changes the estimated final U-value to the existing U-value, showing no savings potential. This practice is necessary for calculating an accurate building
load coefficient and resulting heating equipment consumption.

Table 2-16 shows the window replaced, listed by the existing U-value. When the existing U-
value of a window is above 1.0, 92% of total window area is replaced; when the U-value of the existing window is below 0.99, very few windows are replaced.

Table 2-16 Windows Installed and Unchanged Windows, by Initial U-Value (ft2)
Initial Window U-Value
(Btu/h-ft2-oF)
WAQC WSEC
Windows
Installed
Unchanged
Windows
Windows
Installed
Unchanged
Windows
0.50 and Lower 54 1% 9,309 99% 0 0% 7,437 100%
0.51 to 0.75 258 2% 10,160 98% 0 0% 3,913 100%
0.76 to 1.0 151 34% 295 66% 83 41% 120 59%
1.01 to 4.0 12,311 91% 1,220 9% 3,599 98% 92 2%
Table 2-17 shows the window areas and their installation costs for both Weatherization
programs. The costs, initial U-values, final U-values, and areas were extracted from the EA4.6
audits. Window costs were calculated for each participant.

21

Table 2-17: Windows Installed, by Cost (ft2)
Final U-Value (Btu/h-ft2-oF) Window Cost ($/ft2) Total WAQC WSEC
0.30 to 0.34 0.00 to 10.00 305 270 35
10.00 to 15.00 9,387 7,947 1,440
15.00 to 20.00 4,199 2,382 1,818
20.00 to 25.00 1,209 1,139 70
25.00 and Above 512 512 0
0.35 and Higher 0.00 to 10.00 173 128 45
10.00 to 15.00 84 62 22
15.00 to 20.00 186 0 186
20.00 to 25.00 0 0 0
25.00 and Above 0 0 0
Total 16,056 12,440 3,616
Average Cost ($/ft2) $14.90 $14.72 $15.51

Table 2-18 shows the number of doors evaluated for replacement for each program, the U-value
of existing doors, and the door area replaced and unchanged. When the U-value is above 1.0,
new doors are generally installed; when the U-value of the existing door is below 0.99, very few
doors are replaced. Determining the U-value of the existing door is crucial in determining whether it can be cost-effectively replaced. Table 2-19 shows the data from EA4.6 for the
WAQC and WSEC programs.

Table 2-18 Doors Installed and Unchanged Doors, by Initial U-Value (ft2)
Initial Door U-Value
(Btu/h-ft2-oF)
WAQC WSEC
Doors Installed Unchanged
Doors
Doors Installed Unchanged
Doors
0.50 and Lower 0 0% 6,127 100% 0 0% 4,556 100%
0.51 to 1.0 20 2% 1,111 98% 20 4% 491 96%
1.01 to 4.0 6,268 99% 46 1% 1,549 94% 99 6%
Table 2-19 shows the door areas and their installation costs for the Weatherization programs.
The costs, initial U-values, final U-values, and areas were extracted from the EA4.6 audits. Door
costs were calculated for each participant.

22

Table 2-19: Doors Installed, by Cost (ft2)
U-Final Door U-Value
(Btu/h-ft2-oF)
Door Cost ($/ft2) Total WAQC WSEC
0.01 to 0.15 0.00 to 10.00 40 40 0
10.00 to 15.00 901 901 0
15.00 to 20.00 4,012 3,563 449
20.00 to 25.00 1,126 593 533
0.16 to 4.00 25.00 and Above 664 318 346
0.00 to 10.00 42 42 0
10.00 to 15.00 478 447 31
15.00 to 20.00 411 240 171
20.00 to 25.00 130 130 0
25.00 and Above 53 14 39
Total 7,857 6,288 1,569
Average Cost ($/ft2) $17.98 $17.24 $20.95

Installation costs for doors in the WAQC program are 40% less than WSEC. The costs for
installing an insulated door were just over $300 for the WAQC program and approximately $425
for the WSEC program.
viii. Vents
Ventilation is necessary for mitigating moisture problems when water vapor condenses within
the insulation. Installation of additional attic ventilation is not unusual, but it does not provide
direct energy savings. The data entry for venting, as implemented in EA4.6, is done only for tracking costs.

ix. CFLs
EA4.6 requires auditors to enter the number of CFLs to be installed in the house to evaluate cost-
effectiveness. EA4.6 calculates the SIR with an assumed savings of 39.56 kWh per CFL per year. The only factor in determining cost-effectiveness is the CFL cost.

We reviewed the number of CFLs provided for each participant. The results are presented in
Table 2-20. The WAQC most frequently provided 4 CFLs for each participant and the WSEC
most frequently provided none. Only 1,036 and 222 CFLs were installed for the WAQC and WSEC programs, which averages to 3.6 CFLs per WAQC participant and 1.9 CFLs per WSEC
participant.

23

Table 2-20: CFLs Provided to Program Participants
CFLS per Participant WAQC WSEC
0 22 64
1 1 0
2 2 0
3 46 2
4 201 48
5 3 0
6 7 0
7 0 0
8 4 3

Table 2-21 shows the installation cost of CFLs. Several agencies provide CFLs to participants
and reported no cost for the measure in EA4.6. A total of 48 CFLs were provided at zero cost to
participants. Both programs installed CFLs for less than $3.00 per lamp.
Table 2-21: Installed CFLs, by Cost

CFL Cost
($/lamp) WAQC WSEC
0.00 - 1.99 552 54% 23 10%
2.00 - 3.99 337 33% 179 81%
4.00 - 5.99 17 2% 0 0%
6.00 + 130 13% 20 9%
Total 1036 100% 222 100%
Average Cost
($/lamp) 2.65 2.61

x. Refrigerators
Only 3 refrigerators were installed across both programs. Given this extremely low installation
rate, claims about price reasonability cannot be made. It is likely, however, that this installation rate represents a significant missed opportunity for energy savings. In general, old refrigerators are cost-effective to replace, resulting in significant energy savings.

xi. Water Heating Equipment
There were no reports of savings being generated from the installation of a new water heater in
any of the audits. However, there were savings reported from adjusting the temperature of the water heater, 41 times for the WAQC program and 44 times for the WSEC program. Costs were
not found in EA4.6 for thermostat adjustments, and we assumed them to be zero.

24

xii. Pipe Insulation EA4.6 requires auditors to enter the linear feet of pipe to be insulated to evaluate the cost-
effectiveness of installing new pipe insulation. Piping is divided into conditioned and
unconditioned space. If the auditor indicates that the pipe insulation is to be installed in conditioned space, no savings is generated.
Table 2-22 shows the amount of pipe insulation installed in unconditioned areas by cost. Since
EA4.6 does not require the auditor to enter the total amount of piping in the home, it is
impossible to know how much was left uninsulated or what percentage of all piping was insulated.
A second complicating factor with pipe insulation is the lack of costing data for 63 of the 209
installations, making it difficult to make any definitive claims about pipe insulation cost.
Table 2-22: Pipe Insulation Installed, by Cost (ft)
Pipe Insulation Cost ($/ft) WAQC WSEC
0.00 - 0.99 12,250 74% 286 9%
1.00 - 1.99 4,137 25% 2,356 74%
2.00 - 2.99 136 1% 530 17%
3.00 + 26 0% 12 0%

25

3. PHONE SURVEY AND FIELD VERIFICATION
A. Phone Survey
A phone survey was conducted with a random sample of 100 program participants to gather
additional information about participants, their perceptions about the respective programs, and to
verify the installation of energy efficiency measures. Table 3-1 shows demographic information.

Table 3-1: Demographic Characteristics of Sampled Households
Characteristic WAQC WSEC Total
Number in Household 1.87 2.3 2.01
Home Owner 93% 87% 91%
Low- Income 91% 84% 89%
Income per Household $17,449 $23,537 $20,493
Income per Occupant $9,331 $10,233 $9,782
Households Surveyed 55 45 100

i. Household Characteristics
As Table 3-1 shows, WAQC program participants have, on average, smaller household sizes, lower household income and lower income per occupant than WSEC participants. The lower average income of WAQC participants than WSEC participants is consistent with the residential
customer groups IPC intends to target through these two programs.

The federal poverty guidelines are the most commonly used measure of low-income status in the United States. Table 3-2 shows the federal poverty guidelines for residents of Idaho in 2011. Determined each year by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the poverty
guideline is assumed to be the minimum amount of money a family or household needs for food,
clothing, transportation, shelter, and other basic necessities. The poverty guidelines vary by
household size. For example, a one-person household with an income of $10,890 in 2011 would be at 100 percent of the federal poverty guidelines. Each additional household member increases the income requirement by $3,820 to be classified as being at 100 percent of the federal poverty
guideline.

26

Table 3-2: Federal Poverty Guidelines
Household Size
(Persons)
100% of Poverty
Guideline
($)
200% of Poverty
Guideline
($)
1 10,890 21,780
2 14,710 29,420
3 18,530 37,060
4 22,350 44,700
5 26,170 52,340
6 29,990 59,980

Based on income information gathered through the household survey and household size
information gathered by each program, over 90 percent of WAQC participants fall below 200
percent of the federal poverty guidelines (the benchmark for low-income status), while more than 84 percent of percent of WSEC participants do so. Households are also automatically eligible for
DOE Weatherization if they receive Supplemental Security Income or Aid to Families with
Dependent Children.

Figure 3-1 depicts the distribution of the WAQC and WSEC program participants by household size. Less than 20 percent of WSEC participants live in single-person households, while more
than double that amount (more than 40 percent) of WAQC participants live in single-person
dwellings. Interestingly, WAQC participants tend to live in smaller households - while, on
average, low-income residential customers have more household members than other residential customers.

Figure 3-1: Distribution of Household Sizes

0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
1 2 3 4 5 6
Occupants per Household
WAQC WSEC

27

This is most evident when looking at households containing more than four people: nearly 10
percent of WSEC households have either five or six members, while only about 3 percent of
WAQC households have more than four residents.

ii. Housing Characteristics This section examines differences in housing characteristics between WAQC and WSEC
participants. Income has a direct and large impact on the housing choices of households, so the
team expected differences in housing characteristics between WSEC and WAQC households.
Figure 3-2 shows, WAQC households are less likely to live in single family detached homes than WSEC households (45 percent versus 55 percent) and much more likely to live in mobile or
modular homes (50 percent versus 30 percent).

Figure 3-2 Distribution of Housing Types by Program

Figure 3-3 shows nearly 65 percent of surveyed WAQC residents report that their residence is less than 1,200 square feet. Comparatively, just over 50 percent of WSEC households report
living in a residence that is less than 1,200 square feet. While 19 percent of WAQC households
report living in a home that is 1,500 square feet or larger, more than 32 percent of WSEC
households reported living in homes this size.

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
Single family detached
Mobile home
Townhouse
Condominium/flat
Duplex/triplex
Modular home
WSEC WAQC

28

Figure 3-3: Distribution of Home Size (Sq. Ft.) by Program

The age of a home is often an indicator of its level of energy efficiency, with newer homes typically more energy efficient than older homes due to changes over time in building codes related to energy use.

Figure 3-4 shows the distribution of home vintages by program. A higher percentage of WAQC
households live in older homes than WSEC households. Over 66 percent of WAQC households reportedly live in homes built in the 1970s or earlier, while only 55 percent of WSEC households live in homes built in the 1970s or earlier. However, not many participants from either program
stated that their residence was built since 2000: less than 5 percent of WSEC households and no
WAQC households. The average participant has lived in his/her house for more than 15 years,
regardless of program type.
Figure 3-4: Vintage of Home by Program

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
Less than 900
900-1,200
1,201-1,500
1,501-1,800
1,801-2,100
Greater than 2,100
Sq
u
a
r
e

F
e
e
t

WSEC WAQC
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Before
1950
1950's 1960's 1970's 1980's 1990's Since
2000
Year Home was Built
WAQC WSEC

29

iii. Weatherization Measures As shown in Table 3-3, many participants in both programs heat their home with electric forced
air furnaces, but WAQC households are more likely than WSEC households to heat their homes
with electric forced air furnaces. This could be due to the fact that WAQC homes tend to be older than those in the WSEC program, and therefore use this established method of heating.
As expected, ductless heat pumps, which are expensive, are rarely used among households in
either program. Among the primary heating sources most often cited as “Other” were wood
stoves and radiant heat.
Table 3-3: Primary Heating Source

Primary Heat Source Total WAQC WSEC
Electric Forced-Air Furnace 44% 48% 36%
Electric Heat Pump 32% 34% 28%
Electric Baseboard/Space Heater 11% 11% 10%
Ductless Heat Pump 2% 2% 0%
Other 11% 5% 26%

Table 3-4 shows the installation rates of all weatherization measures across both programs. Air sealing and attic insulation were among the most installed weatherization measures in both
programs – with 67 and 56 percent of respondents receiving all of these measures. Likewise,
CFL installation is prevalent among all participants, with 67 percent of all participants receiving
them. However, almost twice as many WAQC households (78 percent) received the CFLs as
compared to WSEC households (40 percent).
Door replacement and repairs was also more common among WAQC households. In contrast,
WSEC participants were more inclined to install wall insulation, water heater improvements,
pipe insulation and ventilation.
About 90 percent of households had weatherization measures installed, with an average of 4.2
measures installed per home. In two homes, measures that had been installed — air sealing and
floor insulation — were removed, but no reason for removing these measures was provided.

30

Table 3-4: Measure Installation Rates of the Phone Survey Group
Weatherization Measure Total WAQC WSEC
Furnace Replacement 25% 16% 36%
Furnace Repair 7% 2% 13%
Air Sealing 67% 66% 69%
Duct Sealing 29% 27% 33%
Attic Insulation 56% 53% 64%
Wall Insulation 8% 6% 14%
Floor Insulation 51% 49% 56%
Window Replacement/Repair 46% 47% 42%
Door Replacement/Repair 53% 60% 36%
Ventilation 8% 2% 22%
CFLs 67% 78% 40%
Refrigerator 1% 0% 3%
Water Heater Improvements 19% 9% 42%
Pipe Insulation 21% 15% 36%

Since the beginning of 2012, 6 percent of respondents had an increase in the number of people living in their homes and 3 percent experienced a decrease. For WSEC participants, only one
percent of the respondents experienced an increase or decrease in the number of people living in
their homes. Likewise, six percent of respondents made room additions or garage conversions
since the weatherization measures were installed; of these, only one in three added heating to the
expansion.

B. Field Verification
During the phone survey, participants were solicited to allow a visit to their home and verify the
measures installed. D&R visited participants’ homes surrounding Boise, Twin Falls, and
Pocatello in mid-November 2012. Approximately 70 participants agreed to a field verification visit, 40 visits were scheduled, and 37 were completed. This selection was based on scheduling
considerations and ensuring a variety of locations.

Each evaluation included verification that measures described in the phone survey were actually
installed, as well as brief observations regarding the workmanship of installed measures. Summaries of these field verification visits are presented in the Appendix.

C. Results
Table 3-5 shows the measure installation rates for homes visited during the field verification.
Installation rates are not related to work orders and only indicate if a measure was found to be in

31

a house when staff performed their walkthrough. Measure rates were determined using the
following formula:

A measure was verified as installed when either the measure was found in the house or the client
had indicated they had removed it.

Table 3-5: Measure Installation Rates of the Field Verification Group

Weatherization Measure Total WAQC WSEC
Furnace Replace 59% 53% 65%
Furnace Repair 8% 12% 5%
Air Sealing 57% 59% 55%
Duct Sealing 19% 18% 20%
Attic Insulation 51% 47% 55%
Wall Insulation 3% 0% 5%
Floor Insulation 24% 18% 30%
Window Replacement/Repair 38% 35% 40%
Door Replacement/Repair 51% 71% 35%
Ventilation 0% 0% 0%
CFLs 49% 71% 30%
Refrigerator 3% 0% 5%
Water Heater Improvements 3% 6% 0%
Pipe Insulation 19% 0% 35%

Based on information obtained from the field verification, D&R also analyzed the frequency of
measures that were not installed as reported in the phone survey. These rates are shown in Table
3-6. The majority of measures were installed as listed, with the exception of water heater
improvements, pipe insulation, and floor insulation. These measures were most often found not to have been installed as reported. In several instances, participants indicated in the phone survey
that floor insulation was installed, but field verification found that it had not been installed in the
home. This included homes with conditioned basements, which would not have needed floor
insulation.
Water heater improvements were difficult to determine in several instances. Typical
improvements include tank insulation, thermostat adjustment, or drainage alterations. The audits
reveal that thermostat turn-down adjustments are the only measures implemented for water
heaters; however the audits were unavailable prior to visits. D&R was looking for new water
heaters and tank insulation during the visit to verify water heater improvements.

32

Air sealing was difficult to assess in the field due restriction in accessing spaces in a participant’s
home. While the extent of air sealing performed is not always able to be determined, D&R noted
the absence of air sealing in typical locations, including around attic hatches, vertical penetrations in the ceiling, and holes in the foundation spaces. Door and window weather stripping and adjustment of windows and doors were included by D&R as part of air sealing and
was the extent of this measure in the majority of homes.

Table 3-6: Weatherization Non-Completion Rates by Program
Weatherization Measure Total WAQC WSEC
Furnace Replace 0% 0% 0%
Furnace Repair 0% 0% 0%
Air Sealing 13% 21% 0%
Duct Sealing 0% 0% 0%
Attic Insulation 0% 0% 0%
Wall Insulation 0% 5% 0%
Floor Insulation 36% 25% 50%
Window Replacement/Repair 0% 0% 0%
Door Replacement/Repair 0% 0% 0%
Ventilation 0% 0% 0%
CFLs 22% 25% 20%
Refrigerator 0% 0% 0%
Water Heater Improvements 89% 100% 0%
Pipe Insulation 11% 0% 100%

33

4. PROGRAMMATIC ENERGY SAVINGS
This section describes the methods and results of regression analyses to estimate energy savings
associated with the WAQC and WSEC programs. The team performed statistical analysis on
monthly billing data for program participants prior to installation of energy efficiency measures
(the “baseline” period) and subsequent to installation of the measures (the “post period”). A
separate billing regression model was completed for each program due to the inherent differences between participants in the WAQC and WSEC programs.

IPC provided monthly electricity consumption data (billing data) for each household that
participated in the WAQC and WSEC programs for each month from January 2009 through
September 2012 (45 months in total), although complete data were not available for all participant households. The billing data for each household were merged with local temperature
data, home size information (i.e., square footage), and a code indicating in which of the two
programs the residence participated.

Daily temperature data for January 2009 through September 2012 were obtained from the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation.1 For each day of temperature data, heating
degree-days (HDD) and cooling degree-days (CDD) were computed, using the following
formula:2
 CDD = minimum daily temperature - 65
 HDD = 65 - maximum daily temperature
The data were then aggregated to the monthly level by summing the daily CDD and HDD for
each calendar month. The billing data do not necessarily follow calendar months (i.e., billing
periods often do not extend from the first day a month to the last day of a month), nor do they include the same number of days for each billing period.3 Because of this, the temperature data, which are aggregated by calendar month, are allocated proportionately to each billing period
based on the number of billing days within each calendar month. This helps to ensure that each
billing period is appropriately matched with the actual temperatures experienced by each
household over that period. In the regression models, the CDD and HDD variables serve as controls for month-to-month and
year-over-year variations in temperature. In other words, the model accounts for differences in
monthly electricity use due to differences in seasonal temperature, differences in year-over-year
temperature, and differences in local/regional temperature. Therefore, changes in energy use caused by changes or differences in temperature are not confused with changes in energy use attributable to participation in either the WAQC or WSEC programs.

1Weather data were obtained from the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation website:
www.usbr.gov/pn/agrimet/webarcread.html.
2 65 represents the assumed ambient temperature (in degrees Fahrenheit).
3 The billing period also varies across households.

34

Energy efficiency measures were installed in participant households at different times in 2011.
Because of this, the months that constitute the baseline period and the post-period differ across
households. The statistical model accounts for these differences to ensure correct estimates of the
program impacts on energy consumption.
A. Analytical Methods
D&R developed billing regressions to estimate the existence and magnitude of change in energy
use attributable to the WAQC and WSEC programs. For this analysis, we specified the
regression models as “panel data,” or cross-sectional, time-series models.4 The panel data model is a variant of the standard ordinary least squares regression model, with the primary difference being that the panel data model exploits the two-dimensional structure of the data. This allows us
to analyze the actions of a large number of households over many months of electricity use—
including months before and after installation of the energy efficiency measures.

The billing regression models relate energy consumption to home size, outside temperature variables (HDD and CDD), and participation in the WAQC or WSEC programs. For this
analysis, each participant represents a cross-section of information and the monthly energy use
constitutes the time-series of information. Several econometric programs, such as
Limdep/Nlogit, which was used in this analysis, include models specifically designed for panel
data.
Home size, HDD, and CDD are control variables, which are critical to the model because their
individual and collective influence must be accounted for to isolate the effect of WAQC and
WSEC programs on household energy consumption. WAQC and WSEC participation are
represented in the models as indicator, or dummy, variables.
A statistically significant finding of reduced energy use in the post-period—after controlling for
changes in temperature—is assumed to be due to either the WAQC or WSEC program.
However, statistical modeling cannot demonstrate that either program caused participant
households to reduce energy consumption. Rather, statistical evidence of energy savings supports the hypothesis that the programs resulted in energy savings, and if we are confident that
no important explanatory variables are omitted from the regression models, we can reasonably
conclude that the energy savings is due to either of the two programs. The panel data models are
specified as follows:

4 That is, the data are based on a cross-section of observational units (e.g., households) observed over multiple time periods.

35

B. Results of Billing Regression Models
This section presents the results of the billing regression models estimated for the WAQC and
WSEC programs.

36

Table 4- shows summary statistics for both models. The WAQC model was estimated based on
10,278 monthly observations from 271 program participants, while the WSEC model was
estimated based on 4,189 observations from 114 households. The R-squared statistic for the
WAQC and WSEC models are 0.41 and 0.42, respectively, indicating that about 40 percent of the variation in electricity use is explained by variation in the independent variables.5 Due to the extensive and idiosyncratic variation among households with respect to energy consumption,
values of the R-squared statistic for residential billing regressions tend to range from
approximately 0.15 to 0.60, and thus the R-squared values for these two models are within the
expected range.6 Table 4-1 also shows the value of the F-statistic for each of the models. The F-statistic is a global
measure of the usefulness of a regression model. The larger the F-statistic, the greater the
explanatory power of the model and more useful the model likely is. For both the WAQC and
WSEC models, the F-statistic is highly statistically significant (p-value < 0.0001), indicating that both regression models are useful predictors of electricity consumption by program participants.

5 The value of the R-squared can range between 0 and 1. The adjusted R-squared (not reported) is similar to the R-squared statistic, but it accounts for sample size and the number of independent variables in a regression model. The R-squared and
adjusted R-squared are equal for each model.
6 Note 1: The value of the R-squared is also conditional on the model specification chosen. While nearly always reported, econometricians and statisticians generally place little emphasis on the value of the R-squared statistic.

37

Table 4-1: Summary Statistics from Panel Data Regression Models
Summary Statistic WAQC WSEC
Observations 10,278 4,186
Households* 271 114
R-Squared 0.41 0.42
F-Statistic 1,186 511
*WAQC and WSEC had 290 and 117 participating households, respectively, in 2011. Several
households were dropped from the analysis due to insufficient data for estimation.

Table 4-2 shows the estimated coefficients for the WAQC and WSEC models. The control
variables for temperature, HDD and CDD, are positive and highly significant in both models,
indicating that as the temperature rises above (drops below) the ambient temperature of 65 °F, participants increase their electricity usage to cool (heat) their homes. In Idaho’s climate, heating has a much greater impact on electricity usage. On average, in the base period, a one unit
increase in heating degree days (HDD) per month leads to about a 1.9 kWh increase in monthly
electricity use (1.86 kWh for WAQC participants, 1.932 kWh for WSEC participants), holding
all else constant. Likewise, a one unit increase in cooling degree days (CDD) per month will lead to about a 0.60 increase in kWh increase in electricity use for WAQC participants and a 0.95 kWh increase for WSEC participants, holding all else constant.

The coefficient for home size is positive and highly significant in both models. On average, each
additional square foot of home space will lead to an additional 0.31 kWh per month in electricity usage (0.318 for WAQC participants and 0.312 for WSEC participants).

Table 4-2: Regression Results from WAQC and WSEC Models

Variable WAQC WSEC
Coefficient t-stat Coefficient t-stat
Constant -510.277 -3.96* -688.700 -3.96*
CDD 0.583 4.87* 0.952 6.20*
HDD 1.858 16.95* 1.932 14.66*
Home Size 0.318 5.27* 0.312 6.74*
Post-Period -93.325 -0.86 183.219 1.23
CDD*Post-Period 0.234 2.08** -0.037 -0.22
HDD*Post-Period -0.227 -2.15** -0.411 -2.85*
* Significant at 0.01 level
** Significant at 0.05 level

The variables of key interest in each of the two models are Post-Period and the interaction
variables CDD x Post-Period and HDD x Post-Period. An interaction variable is created by

38

multiplying one variable by another. The reason for including the interaction variable is to
develop estimates of the impact of changes in temperature on energy use that are specific to the
period in which the measures are installed—the post-period. The coefficient on the Post-Period
variable is negative in the WAQC model and positive in the WSEC model, but it is not statistically significant (not different from zero) in either model.
The interaction variable, CDD x Post-Period, is positive (0.234) and statistically significant (t-
statistic = 2.08) in the WAQC model, indicating that, on average, the measures installed through
the WAQC program led to greater energy use related to cooling. This is consistent with the installation of heat pumps in homes without cooling equipment, leading to greater demand for electricity for cooling during summer months. For the WSEC program, the interaction variable,
CDD x Post-Period, is negative (-0.037), but is not statistically significant (t-statistic = -0. 22),
indicating that, on average, the measures installed through the WSEC program led to no change
in energy use related to cooling. The interaction variable, HDD x Post-Period, is negative and statistically significant for both
models. For the WAQC program, the estimated coefficient, -0.227, indicates that electricity use
decreased during the post-period by 0.227 kWh per HDD.7 For the WSEC program, the
estimated coefficient, -0.411, indicates that electricity use decreased during the post-period by 0.411 kWh per HDD.8 These results are consistent with a heating-focused climate and the installation of energy efficiency measures focused on reducing electricity demand for heating.
While the sign (i.e., negative or positive), magnitude, and statistical significance of the post-
period and interaction variables are individually interesting, it is their joint effect on energy use
that is of greatest importance here. To compute the overall impact of the installed measures on electricity use, D&R computed estimates of the marginal effect of each of the programs and estimated the joint probability distribution associated with the linear function of estimated
coefficients that compose the marginal effect. To develop estimates of the respective marginal
effect of each program, the team computed the following partial derivative for each month of the
calendar year.

7 There was an average of 817 heating degrees per month during the post-period for WAQC participants.
8 There was an average of 795 heating degrees per month during the post-period for WSEC participants.
d kWh( )
d PostPeriod( )=bPostPeriod +bCDD*PostPeriod CDDm( )+bHDD*PostPeriod HDDm( )
Where :
bPostPeriod =Coefficient on the Post-Period variable
bCDD*PostPeriod =Coefficient on the CDD * Post-Period interaction variable
bHDD*PostPeriod =Coefficient on the HDD * Post-Period interaction variable
CDDm =Mean value of CDD for month m
HDDm =Mean value of HDD for month m

39

The partial derivatives were calculated as subsequent steps to estimation of the billing regression
models using the delta method. The delta method computes the approximate standard error of the
derivative function based on a Taylor series expansion to the variance of the function of random
variables.9 Computing the standard error allows testing the hypothesis that the marginal effect of the respective programs is statistically significant (i.e., different from zero).
Table 4-3 shows the estimated electricity savings in kWh by month associated with the WAQC
program. Figure 4-1 shows the same information in MBtu. Approximate standard errors,
computed using the delta method, were used to construct the 90 percent confidence interval shown in the table. As Table 4-3 shows, energy savings are substantial for winter months and months that shoulder winter. The greatest electricity savings are in the months of January,
February, March, November, and December. Comparatively, there are no energy savings for July
or August. This is likely due to increased electricity use associated with heat pump cooling,
which offsets any savings associated with CFLs or other non-temperature-sensitive measures. The annual electricity savings associated with the WAQC program is 2,684 kWh, with a 90 percent confidence interval that ranges from 2,243 kWh to 3,124 kWh.

Table 4-3: Estimated Monthly Electricity Usage for WAQC Participants
Month
Monthly kWh
Savings
Standard
Error
Lower Bound
(90%)
Upper Bound
(90%)
Jan* 388.6 43.61 316.8 460.3
Feb* 350.1 32.53 296.6 403.6
Mar* 319.4 28.45 272.6 366.2
Apr* 277.6 26.00 234.8 320.3
May* 210.6 25.01 169.4 251.7
Jun* 106.4 26.12 63.4 149.4
Jul -0.7 26.76 -44.7 43.3
Aug 9.5 27.13 -35.1 54.1
Sep* 103.7 20.93 69.3 138.1
Oct* 253.3 24.72 212.6 294.0
Nov* 338.2 30.80 287.5 388.9
Dec* 390.6 44.37 317.6 463.6
Annual Savings* 2,684** 267.84 2,243 3,124
* Significant at 0.01 level
9 Although it is a relatively straightforward matter to calculate point estimates of elasticities, the delta method allows one to calculate the standard error associated with each elasticity estimate based on the variance-covariance matrix estimated in the billing regression.

40

** Note that the estimated annual savings is slightly different from the sum of the estimated
monthly savings. The difference occurs to the “Annual Savings” since it accounts the average of
each month's average while each month is taking its respective average.
Figure 4-1: Estimated Electricity Savings (in MBtu) by Month, WAQC

Table 4-4 shows the estimated electricity savings associated with the WSEC program by month in kWh. Figure 4-2 shows the same information in MBtu. Approximate standard errors were
used to construct the 90 percent confidence interval shown in the table. While estimates of
monthly electricity savings are lower for the WSEC program than for the WAQC program
(shown in Table 4-4Error! Reference source not found.), the 90 percent confidence intervals for actual savings overlap. As was the case for the WAQC program, savings are substantial for January, February, March, November, and December. There are no energy savings for June,
July, August, or September.10 This is likely because the program focuses on heating measures
and because some participants used the heat pump installed through the WSEC program to cool
their homes during some portion of the summer months. The annual electricity savings
associated with the WSEC program is 1,826 kWh, with a 90 percent confidence interval that ranges from 1,188 kWh to 2,464 kWh.

10 Note that the 90 percent confidence intervals for these months include 0, thus the team cannot conclude electricity savings differ from 0.
-400
-200
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
1,600
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
MB
t
u

Monthly Savings
Lower Bound (90%)
Upper Bound (90%)

41

Table 4-4: Estimated Monthly Electricity Savings for WSEC Participants
Month Monthly kWh Savings
Standard
Error Lower Bound (90%) Upper Bound (90%)
Jan* 336.6 55.41 245.5 427.8
Feb* 272.9 43.01 202.1 343.7
Mar* 231.6 39.28 166.9 296.2
Apr* 183.7 36.80 123.1 244.2
May* 108.2 36.51 48.2 168.3
Jun 8.9 38.84 -55.0 72.8
Jul -49.9 38.01 -112.4 12.7
Aug -24.9 38.33 -88.0 38.1
Sep 41.9 31.24 -9.5 93.2
Oct* 154.4 35.84 95.4 213.3
Nov* 257.6 41.22 189.7 325.4
Dec* 351.1 59.06 253.9 448.2
Annual
Savings* 1,826** 388 1,188 2,464
* Significant at 0.01 level
** Note that the estimated annual savings is slightly different from the sum of the estimated
monthly savings. The difference occurs to the “Annual Savings” since it accounts the average of
each month's average while each month is taking its respective average.

Figure 4-2: Estimated Electricity Savings (in MBtu) by Month, WSEC

-400
-200
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
1,600
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
MB
t
u

Monthly Savings
Lower Bound (90%)
Upper Bound (90%)

42

C. Realization Rates by Program and Measure Type
Realization rates were calculated for the WAQC and WSEC programs, based on the results of
the billing regression models. Computing realization rates is straightforward. D&R multiplied
the average estimated electricity savings per household by the number of households that
participated in the relevant program; this product represents the estimate of the ex post electricity savings for the program. D&R then divided the ex post savings by the estimated ex ante savings reported by IPC.

Table 4-5: Realization Rate for WAQC and WSEC Programs
Program Participants Ex Ante kWh Savings Ex Post kWh Savings Realization Rate
WAQC 290 2,641,782
Mean 778,360 29%
Lower 90% 650,470 25%
Upper 90% 905,960 34%
WSEC 117 1,141,194
Mean 213,653 19%
Lower 90% 138,899 12%
Upper 90% 288,306 25%

In addition to computing realization rate estimates for each program, D&R examined the
relationship between the ex ante energy savings per household, computed by IPC using EA4.6
software, and the ex post estimates of energy savings based on the statistical analyses of
participant billing data described above. D&R assumed that while the ex ante and ex post
estimates of savings certainly differ, they should nevertheless be related. To test this assumption, D&R computed a (Pearson) correlation coefficient for the two series of energy savings. A
correlation coefficient is a unit less measure of the linear relationship between two variables. The
value of the coefficient can range from -1.0, indicating a perfect negative linear relationship to
1.0 indicating a perfect positive linear relationship. A correlation score of 0 indicates no linear
relationship.
The correlation coefficient between the ex ante and ex post kWh savings for the WAQC program
is -0.216 and is statistically significant at the 0.05 level, indicating that there is a weak negative
linear relationship between the ex ante and ex post savings for the program. This is an
unexpected finding that indicates that as the (ex ante) estimates of energy savings computed using the EA4.6 software get larger, the actual (ex post) energy savings actually decrease. For
the WSEC program, the correlation coefficient between the ex ante and ex post kWh savings is
0.221, but is not statistically significantly different from 0, indicating there is not a linear
relationship between the ex ante savings estimates and the ex post savings estimates from the
billing regressions.

43

The primary take away from the correlation analysis is that EA4.6 —as it was implemented for
these two programs—does not provide an accurate, or even useful, prediction of energy savings.

The team examined electricity savings to determine the impact of individual measures. As Table 4-6 shows, there was substantial variation in the frequency at which measures were installed through the two programs. The most popular measures in the two programs include CFLs,
window and door measures, and insulation measures. Comparatively, only three refrigerators
were installed through the programs and only eight participants received a furnace tune-up or
modification.
Table 4-6: Installed Measures by Each Participant

Measure Total WAQC WSEC
Furnace Replace 176 129 47
Furnace Tune-Up 4 3 1
Furnace Modify 4 4 0
Air Sealing 294 215 79
Duct Sealing 112 73 39
Ceiling Insulation 231 151 80
Wall Insulation 34 17 17
Floor Insulation 200 140 60
Window Measures 227 182 45
Door Measures 230 188 42
CFL 300 252 48
Refrigerator Replacement 3 1 2
Water Heater 74 30 44
Pipe Wrapping 72 42 30
Total Measures Installed 1,961 1,427 534
Participants 404 287 117
Avg. Measures per Participant 4.9 5.0 4.6

To estimate the impacts of specific measures on energy savings, D&R developed regression models in which estimated annual energy savings was regressed on a set of indicator (“dummy”) variables representing the installation of a particular measure. The coefficient on each indicator
variable represents an estimate of the impact that the measure had on energy savings. Separate
regression models were estimated for each of the programs and only participants with at least 12
months of post-installation data were included in the modeling. It is important to note that, while
utilities want to know what the measure-level savings are in low-income EE programs, developing such estimates is difficult when the program includes a large number of measures—
as is the case with the WAQC and WSEC programs—and when all or most participating

44

households received one or more of the same measure. For example, in the WAQC program, 252
participant received CFLs and 215 participants received infiltration measures in 2011. The task is
made even more difficult when the number of program participants is relatively small, as is the
case for both of these programs. Nevertheless, regression analysis can provide useful information on the effect (either positive or negative) of higher-impact measures.
Table 4-7 shows the results of the two measure-level impact models. For the WAQC program,
coefficients on only three variables are statistically significant—floor insulation, pipe wrapping,
and furnace replacement. Of these, the coefficients on floor insulation and furnace replacement are positive, indicating that installation of these measures led to an increase in electricity use. Comparatively, the coefficients on ceiling insulation and pipe wrapping are negative, indicating
that installation of these measures led to a decrease in electricity use. For the other measures,
there is not sufficient statistical evidence to conclude that their installation led to a reduction (or
increase) in electricity use. For the WSEC program, there is statistical evidence that pipe wrapping led to electricity savings.
However, there is not sufficient statistical evidence to conclude that the other measures had an
impact on electricity use.
Table 4-7: Estimated Measure-Level Impacts of WAQC and WSEC Programs
Variable WAQC WSEC
Coefficient t-stat Coefficient t-stat
Constant -3487.09 -23.93 -3615.22 -30.30
Window Measures -30.24 -0.63 49.00 0.67
Door Measures 9.03 -0.19 -81.88 -1.16
Wall Insulation -23.13 -0.19 -56.55 -0.59
Ceiling Insulation -85.28 -1.81** 69.96 0.85
Floor Insulation 114.54 2.59* 51.22 0.63
Air Sealing 6.45 0.12 124.45 1.16
Duct Sealing 53.48 -.03 -61.34 -0.79
Water Heater 169.33 1.44 -47.95 -0.80
Pipe Wrapping -171.55 -2.43* -244.47 -2.26*
Refrigerator Replacement -11.08 -0.05 -208.87 -0.86
Furnace Tune/Modify -78.50 -0.47 59.14 0.27
CFL -60.37 -0.50 -73.94 -0.77
Furnace Replacement 110.05 2.24* 14.85 0.18
R-Square / F-statistic 0.232 2.62 0.252 2.30
* Significant at 0.05 level ** Significant at 0.10 level

45

Table 4-Table 4-7 provides important information on the impact of several key measures—
ceiling and floor insulation, pipe wrapping, and furnace replacement. For most measures,
however, the table shows that the impact on electricity use is unknown. This in itself may be important information for IPC. There is likely significant variation in housing structures and energy-use behaviors among program participants, leading to variation in the effects that many
measures have on energy use. There is also likely significant variation in the number of units
installed (for discrete measures) and/or the intensity of the energy efficiency action taken. The
result is that the simple models the team developed to attempt to isolate the impact of individual measures are unable to find statistically significant impacts for most measures. This does not mean that measures do not affect energy use, but rather that the team was unable to determine the
impact of the particular measure through regression modeling.

D. Comparisons
Other impact evaluations are available for comparison with IPC’s Weatherization Programs. Gross energy savings of other DOE Weatherization programs are listed in Table 4-8. The savings
are reported for only electric heat participants of the respective programs.

Table 4-8: Savings of Other DOE Weatherization Programs for Electric Heat Participants
State-Utility Performer of Weatherization Program Year Gross Ex Post Savings (kWh)
ID-IPC (WAQC) 2011 2,684
ID-IPD (WSEC) 2011 1,826
Idaho-PacificCorp1 2007-2009 1,972
New Hampshire2 2005 2,380
Ohio3 2003 1,473
1-Cadmus, Idaho Low-Income Weatherization Program Evaluation (2007–2009); 2-Blasnik &
Associates, 2007, New Hampshire Weatherization Program Impact Evaluation Report; and 3-
Quantec, Ohio Home Weatherization Assistance Program Impact Evaluation,

46

5. OBSERVATIONS
The WAQC program implementation in 2011 was conducted through five community action
agencies in Idaho and two community action agencies in Oregon; the WSEC program was
implemented by three contractors in Idaho. D&R provides the following observations of the
programs based on its review of audit data, its site visits, and its regression analysis:

 Heat Pump Installations Heat pumps were installed in both the WAQC and WSEC programs. The regression
analysis shows that actual energy savings occur during the heating season, and that
participants consume more electricity post-Weatherization in the cooling season.
D&R’s review of the audit data shows that approximately two-thirds of participants had
at least some air-conditioning equipment prior to services being provided. IDWAP could
provide client education to help participants use their heat pumps efficiently in the
cooling season.
During its Field Verification visits to homes to verify measures were completed, we
found that several participants had high-efficiency heat pumps installed through either the
WAQC or WSEC programs. D&R also observed standard-efficiency heat pumps
installed by the program. The audit tool does not differentiate between the efficiency of high- and standard-efficiency heat pumps.

 Infiltration
Building envelopes are generally in very good condition, with average initial infiltration values of approximately 2,000 CFM-50. Both Weatherization programs air sealed 53% of homes below 1,500 CFM-50. This is approximately the building tightness limit (BTL),
and air sealing below the BTL requires the installation of mechanical ventilation. Air
sealing costs differ significantly between the WAQC and WSEC programs, at $47 and
$69 per 100-CFM-50, respectively. Air sealing costs range from $43 to $52 per 100 CFM-50 of infiltration reduction for the
WAQC program. This indicates that the program is consistently targeting air infiltration
trouble spots and keeping the measure cost-effective. The WSEC air sealing costs range
from $21-$96 per 100 CFM-50. The WSEC does not appear to be target infiltration problem areas nor use blower door-guided air sealing, because the costs are approximately $30 per 100 CFM-50, while infiltration levels are decreasing only slightly.
Once infiltration is reduced at least 20%, air sealing costs range from $70 to $96 per 100
CFM-50.

 Ceiling Insulation Review of ceiling insulation information shows 155,000 ft2 of ceilings are below R-30.
This appears to be a significant opportunity for IPC. However, insulating mobile home
ceilings above R-19 is difficult and there are many mobile homes in the Weatherization
programs, so the opportunity may not be as great as it appears.

47

 Wall Insulation
Typically in cold climates, wall insulation proves to be cost effective if little or no insulation is present in the walls. In the case of the WAQC program, 88% of the wall area (4,889 ft2) started with a U-value above 0.334 and was left unaltered. In the WSEC
program, 38% of wall area above 0.334 was left unaltered.

Insulating walls (dense-pack) is a weatherization measure the WAQC program has performed. Dense-pack wall insulation is challenging to install, requiring great care and expertise. Nonetheless, leaving uninsulated walls is a significant missed opportunity. The
other concern is that with the reasonable costs of wall insulation, remaining uninsulated
wall area will be cost effective to insulate.

 Windows and Doors WAQC and WSEC installed significant numbers of windows and doors. Window and
door cost were 31% of WAQC total costs and 17% WSEC costs. In its review of audits,
D&R found that windows were replaced only when the initial U-value was 1.01 or
higher. According to the Energy Auditor’s Technical Handbook, U-values above 1.01 are for only single-pane windows and sliding patio doors. During Field Visits, we confirmed
that sliding glass doors were replaced.

Window installation costs in the program are approximately $15/ft2. Both the WAQC and
WSEC programs provide efficient windows at reasonable costs. Almost all of the installed windows have U-values from 0.30 to 0.34.

Review of the audit data shows 1,987 ft2 of windows and 2,280 ft2 of doors with initial
U-values above 2.0. The Handbook shows the highest U-value of windows and patio
doors as 1.13. This indicates that the audits are overestimating energy savings of windows and doors, as the initial conditions are exaggerated.

48

6. RECOMMENDATIONS
The IPC Weatherization programs are implemented through community action agencies to
service low-income households by reducing their energy burden and improving their standard of
living. As part of this evaluation, D&R team members performed field verification visits to
review the agencies’ work. The work completed by the programs was largely performed
according to program standards. The programs can be best improved by improving the current audit tool’s accuracy and subsequent program implementation. Drawing on its 16 years
providing technical assistance to DOE Weatherization programs across the country, including
IDWAP, D&R provides the following recommendations for improving the implementation of the
programs:

 Improve EA5
o The Building Load Coefficient (BLC) should be iteratively calculated by the audit
tool, including and excluding weatherization measures as their cost-effectiveness is determined. The space heating energy consumption equation should be
calculated in an equation like this:

o The distribution energy consumption is counted twice in EA4.6 and EA5 for
calculating equipment energy savings. The Component Loads worksheet contains
sections that capture duct loads. The equipment energy savings uses the BPI
Distribution Efficiency for calculating consumption and savings. EA4.6 and EA5 use both the duct loads and BPI Distribution Efficiency in calculating the equipment energy consumption. D&R recommends eliminating the Ducts 1,
Ducts 2, and Ducts 3 sections in the Load Calculation worksheet.

o EA4.6 and EA5 do not include the effects of solar heat gain for reducing heating energy consumption and increasing cooling energy consumption. Including it is paramount once energy consumption is calculated interactively between
architectural and mechanical measures.

 Evaluating Heat Pumps
o Heat pump installations are more accurately evaluated using bin weather data, but
EA4.6 and EA5’s methodology uses straight HDD. Bin weather data allows
evaluation when temperatures dictate that the equipment switch from electric

49

resistance mode to compressor mode. Bin data also accounts for the efficiency
and heat capacity drops as ambient air temperatures decreases.

o Data entry into EA4.6 requires the auditor to utilize electric heating equipment efficiencies from the Energy Auditor’s Technical Handbook. Efficiencies range from 1.1 to 1.7 and vary based upon the participant’s location, via HDD-weather
data. Rated efficiency parameters are not utilized for evaluating new equipment
installations. Heat pump heat efficiencies are rated and compared using Heating
System Performance Factor (HSPF) and range from 6.5 to 9.8 HSPF. Electric furnace efficiencies typically range from 95 to 98 Annual Fuel Utilization Efficiency (AFUE). Allowing for differentiation between high and standard
efficiency heat pumps would make for more accurate calculation of savings.

 Control Group Include a control group of non-Weatherization participants to control for the effects of
occupancy behavior on energy consumption and savings. Non-participants should be
drawn from the waiting list to compare with those in the evaluated program. For example,
IPC could determine the energy consumption of potential future Weatherization
participants.
 Simplify and Standardize Data Entry
Data entry for weatherization measures is sometimes imprecise, making it impossible to
determine what work has been completed. Adding drop-down menus and providing limit controls in the audit tool would improve accuracy and speed data entry.

 Consider Refrigerator Replacements
Refrigerator replacements are rarely completed through either program. Old refrigerators can be cost-effectively replaced if measure costs are managed. During several field
verification visits, the team found old, inefficient refrigerators. Several participants had
multiple refrigerators, including ones in carports and garages.

 Re-examine Electricity Bills of Levelized Bill Pay Participants Levelized bill payments mask energy savings accrued once services are completed. If a
customer is converted from electric resistance heating to a heat pump and enrolled in
levelized bill payment, utility cost signals are not conveyed promptly. IPC should review
participants’ bills after services so participants are not overcharged.
 Program Management An account with IPC should mean a separate and unique customer identification number
in the audit. IPC should provide agencies a structure for identifying participants
consistently by identification number.

50

Impact Evaluation
2011 Building Efficiency Program

Prepared for:

Idaho Power Company

Prepared by:

ADM Associates, Inc.

i
Table of Contents

1. ...................... Executive Summary ................................................................................... 1-1
2. ...................... Introduction and Purpose of Study .............................................................. 2-1
3. ...................... Description of Program .............................................................................. 3-1
4. ...................... Impact Evaluation Methods ........................................................................ 4-1
5. ...................... Evaluation Findings .................................................................................... 5-1
6. ...................... Summary and Discussion of Findings ........................................................... 6-1
Appendix A: M&V Results for Projects in Analysis Sample ............................................. 1
Appendix B: Derivation of A/C Unit Replacement Savings Formula ................................ 1

ii
List of Figures
Figure 1 Distribution of Project Savings in Building Efficiency Program Population ..... 4-2
Figure 2 Comparison of Ex Ante and Ex Post Savings Values .................................... 5-1

List of Tables
Table 1-1 Summary of 2011 Building Efficiency Impact Evaluation Results ................. 1-1
Table 4-1 Population Statistics Used for Developing Sampling Plan ........................... 4-1
Table 4-2 Number of Sampled Sites per Stratum (incl. Sample Weights) .................... 4-2
Table 5-1 Overview of Energy (kWh) Savings by Stratum ........................................... 5-2
Table 5-2 Overview of Demand (kW) Savings by Stratum ........................................... 5-2
Table 5-3 Overview of Gas (MBtu) Savings by Stratum ............................................... 5-2
Table 5-4 Overview of Program Realized Carbon Offsets ............................................ 5-3
Table 6-1 Ex Post Savings for the 2011 Building Efficiency Program .......................... 6-1
Table 6-2 Typical Operating Efficiencies for Building HVAC Technologies .................. 6-2

Executive Summary 1-1
1. Executive Summary
This report presents the results from an impact evaluation of the Building Efficiency
program that Idaho Power Company (IPC) offered to customers in Idaho and eastern
Oregon in 2011.
Sixty-three customers participated in the Building Efficiency program in 2011. The
evaluation results are shown in Table 1-1. The realization rate for the 2011 Building
Efficiency program is 73%. Ex Post verified energy savings totaled 8,416,213 kWh, peak
demand reduction was 6,306 kW, and the gas impacts are 7,132 MBtu.
Table 1-1 Summary of 2011 Building Efficiency Impact Evaluation Results
Ex Ante kWh
Savings
Ex Post kWh
Savings
Ex Post kW
Savings
Ex Post MBtu
Savings
Program
Realization Rate
11,514,627 8,416,213 6,306 7,132 73%
Two main factors were identified which affected Ex Post adjustments to the Ex Ante savings
estimates:
• Errors were identified in the Ex Ante prescriptive formulas used to estimates savings for
HVAC equipment and controls measures;
• Baseline definition issues were identified which redefined subsets of measures as
baseline equipment.
ADM performed a detailed review of the prescriptive formulas used to generate Ex Ante savings
estimates. In this review ADM identified two key errors in the formulas used to estimate
savings for HVAC equipment and controls measures. These errors are discussed in detail in
Section 6.1 and are estimated to contribute to approximately 40% to 45% of the Ex Post savings
adjustments.
The Building Efficiency Program does a good job at ensuring that rebated equipment
efficiencies are above that which is mandated by applicable building codes. However; it was
discovered that certain measures cannot be screened for code compliance without performing
a detailed review of project specifics due to the language in the building code and their
conditional applicability. Projects were found in which sub-sets of equipment (usually HVAC
controls) represented code minimum. In addition to these, ADM found additional sites for
which the project baseline was revised from that assumed in the Ex Ante calculations due to
equipment being used in a redundant or back-up capacity. These are discussed further in
Section 6.1 and their impacts are estimated to be approximately 45% to 50% of the Ex Post
savings adjustments.

Introduction and Purpose of Study 2-1
2. Introduction and Purpose of Study
Under contract with Idaho Power, ADM Associates, Inc. (ADM) has performed an impact
evaluation of the 2011 Building Efficiency Program that Idaho Power offers its commercial
and industrial customers in Idaho and Eastern Oregon.
The Building Efficiency program is designed to encourage the energy efficient design and
implementation of new construction projects and projects with significant additions,
remodel, or expansion. The program offers C&I customers a menu of qualified measures
and incentives for lighting, cooling, building shell, and control-efficiency options. Program
marketing is targeted toward architects, engineers, and other local design professionals.
The key objectives for this evaluation were as follows:
• Measure and verify the electric and gas energy impacts (kWh, kW, and Therms)
attributable to the 2011 Building Efficiency program.
• Provide credible and reliable program non-energy impact estimates attributed to the
Building Efficiency program for the 2011 program year.
• Estimate program realization rate.
• Report findings and observations.
• Provide recommendations that would enhance program effectiveness and the
accurate and transparent reporting of program savings.
This report describes the effort undertaken to accomplish these objectives and presents the
results of the evaluation effort. It is organized as follows.
• Chapter 3 provides a description of the Building Efficiency Program.
• Chapter 4 presents and discusses the methods used to verify energy impacts for
projects implemented through the program.
• Chapter 5 presents the estimates of verified kWh savings, kW reductions, and
Therms impacts.
• Chapter 6 summarizes the results of the evaluation effort.
• Appendix A provides the M&V results for the projects in the analysis sample.

Description of Program 3-1
3. Description of Program
The Building Efficiency program targets architects, engineers, and other design professionals
involved in construction of new buildings and construction projects with significant additions,
remodels, or expansions. Incentives are offered for lighting, cooling, building shell, HVAC and
building controls equipment which exceed energy performance requirements required by the
applicable building code.
In addition to measure incentives, Idaho Power worked directly with local architects, engineers,
and designers by sponsoring recurring lunch-and-learn training seminars and the biannual
BetterBricks® awards.
Fourteen measures were offered through this program which included:
• Interior and Exterior lighting load reduction
• Daylight photo controls and occupancy sensors (lighting)
• High-efficiency exit signs
• Premium efficiency HVAC units with an additional HVAC unit efficiency bonus
• Efficient chillers
• Air-side economizers
• Reflective roof treatment
• High-performance windows
• Energy management control systems
• Demand-controlled ventilation
• Variable-speed drives
A total of 63 customers participated in the Building Efficiency program in 2011 with an expected
(Ex Ante) energy savings of approximately 11, 514,627 kWh. Ex Ante energy savings estimates
were based on prescriptive algorithms and engineering assumptions.

Impact Evaluation Methods 4-1
4. Impact Evaluation Methods
The following activities were performed during the 2011 Building Efficiency program impact
evaluation:
• 15 sample sites were selected for on-site visits and detailed savings verification
• ADM reviewed program data, sampled project documentation, and prescriptive savings
estimates (including engineering assumptions)
• Sampled sites received on-site visits to verify installation of claimed measures and to
collect data which was used in their analysis
• Verified savings were calculated using collected data and appropriate engineering
methods (This included developing whole-building thermal building simulations for
many sites)
• Site-level savings were extrapolated to program-level savings according to the sampling
plan.
The methods used for these evaluation activities are described in this chapter.
4.1 Sampling Plan
Estimation of the gross savings achieved through projects undertaken under the Building
Efficiency Program were developed using data for a statistically valid sample of projects whose
savings were claimed during the 2011 program year. The focus of the sampling was on selecting
a sample of projects (1) that accounts for a significant portion of estimated savings and (2) that
includes projects for which savings estimates seem most uncertain. The sample was selected so
that results are representative of the population to a high degree of confidence (i.e., ±10%
precision at the 90% confidence level).
A sample frame with which to examine alternative sample designs was constructed using the
information on projects provided by Idaho Power. The design variable used in developing a
sampling plan was Ex Ante expected gross annual kWh savings. Sample strata were defined by
applying a stratification procedure to the data on Ex Ante kWh savings (based on the data
provided by IPC). The population statistics, used to develop the sampling plan, are shown in
Table 4-1.
Table 4-1 Population Statistics Used for Developing Sampling Plan
Stratum Stratum Boundaries
Number
of
Projects
Ex Ante Expected kWh Savings
Total Average Standard
Deviation
Coefficient of
Variation
1 Minimum – 60,000 30 646,506 21,550 17,030 .79
2 60,000 – 230,000 21 2,778,389 132,304 47,264 .36
3 230,000- 750,000 8 3,441,154 430,144 181,409 .42
4 750,000 - Maximum 4 4,648,578 1,162,145 421,436 .36
All 63 11,514,627 182,772 31,457 n/a

Impact Evaluation Methods 4-2
The sample frame above was used to select a sample of 15 projects for evaluation. Figure 1
below illustrates the distribution of projects according to their Ex Ante savings estimates. As
seen in the histogram, the population distribution is positively skewed and a relatively small
percentage of the projects account for the majority of the program savings.

Figure 1 Distribution of Project Savings in Building Efficiency Program Population
Because of the above discussed skew, consideration was given to the size of the projects (Ex
Ante savings estimate) and their overall contribution to program savings. Subsequently, a
“certainty” stratum was designed to capture the top savings projects and within which all
projects were selected for M&V. Table 4-2 lists the number of projects sampled within each
stratum. The sample was selected so that results are representative of the population with
±10% precision at the 90% confidence level.
Table 4-2 Number of Sampled Sites per Stratum (incl. Sample Weights)
Stratum Number of Projects Number of Sampled
Projects Stratum Weight
1 30 2 64.09
2 21 4 5.96
3 8 5 1.90
4 4 4 1.00
4.2 On-Site Data Collection
On-site visits were used to collect data which was used to 1) verify that the measure(s) were
installed and operating as described, and 2) inform Ex Post energy savings calculations. During
these visits ADM field personnel collected primary data on the measures implemented at each
evaluated project. Data that was collected on sited included equipment manufacturer
specifications, building hours of operation, building construction details, and equipment usage
patterns.

Impact Evaluation Methods 4-3
Site specific M&V plans were developed for each sampled project. These plans contained the
following:
• A description of the measure(s) implemented through the program;
• The relative savings being claimed for each measure;
• A detailed description of all on-time measurements needed by analyst staff to perform
energy savings calculations;
• Detailed descriptions of all data field staff need to collect (including pictures and specific
interview questions for site personnel);
• A detailed description of the monitoring equipment and/or EMS trending needed by
analyst staff to perform energy savings calculations;
• A brief description of the analytical approach that the analyst expects to use to determine
measure energy savings.
When allowed by the facility, field personnel took photographs at each site of important
electrical and mechanical equipment. These provided useful documentation of measure
installation and operation while also supplying a larger context of how the building and its
equipment were designed and operated.
4.3 Methods Used to Quantify Ex Post Verified Savings for Installed Measures
The data collected from on-visits were analyzed along with project documentation to
develop estimates of energy impacts for each sampled project. Ex Post verified energy
impacts were calculated according to “best practice” engineering methods (e.g. IPMVP,
ASHRAE Standard 14, etc,). The specific algorithms used to quantify energy impacts were
determined by the nature of the retrofit being evaluated and fell into one of two camps; 1)
Building Energy Simulation, and 2) Engineering Spreadsheets. Many of the measures
incentivized in the 2011 Building Efficiency program directly impacted building heating and
cooling equipment. Such measures were evaluated using building energy simulation
techniques congruent with IPMVP Option D for New Construction. Process and non-weather
sensitive measures were evaluated using engineering spreadsheet calculations and
informed by primary data collection.
ADM also reviewed the methods, assumptions used by IPC engineers to establish the Ex
Ante savings estimates for each project. This comparison was used to determine reasons for
any variance between the Ex Ante estimates and Ex Post verified savings.
Defining the baseline building (or equipment) performance is one of the most important
and difficult tasks in evaluating savings for new construction ECMs. Since new construction
ECMs do not have a physical baseline that can be measured or documented. Instead, the
baseline is defined hypothetically by an agreed-upon code or standard. Typically, baseline
performance is determined by the locally adopted building codes and, in some cases, a
more rigorous above-code baseline may better reflect the standard local construction
practices. In general, the baseline must satisfy the following criteria (IPMVP 2006):

Impact Evaluation Methods 4-4
• It must appropriately reflect how a contemporary non-participant building would be
built in the absence of the program;1
• It must be rigorously defined and with sufficient detail to prescribe baseline
conditions for each of the individual ECMs and building components being
simulated; and
• It must be developed with sufficient clarity and documentation to be repeatable.
ADM reviewed all of the project documentation and contacted pertinent building
departments to determine the applicable building code with which each sampled project
had to comply. This was then used to define the baseline systems, equipment and/or
component efficiencies used in the evaluation. Most projects in the sample population were
required to comply with the IECC2006 Building Code standards and were evaluated using
IECC2006 to define minimum energy efficiency requirements.
Building Simulations
For new construction three iterations of the simulated building were defined in order to
quantify energy savings for a given project:
• As-built physical (The building as operated and equipped at the time of ADM’s site
visit);
• As-built Typical (The building as equipped at the time of ADM’s site visit but
assuming typical operation schedules);
• Baseline Typical (The building with minimum code standard equipment assuming
typical operating schedules).
All simulation models were first calibrated using monthly utility billing history and real
observed weather data from the most appropriate local weather station (weather data was
downloaded from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). This ensured that
the resulting simulation model could be used in a predictive capacity.
The baseline simulation models were developed according to the discussion at the
beginning of this section on baselines for new construction. All Ex Post energy impacts were
simulated using TMY3 weather data to ensure that results are weather normalized.
Engineering Spreadsheets
Spreadsheet calculations relied upon engineering first principles and primary data to
determine project energy impacts. Given the complexities and differences between
projects, the methods and assumptions applied differed. However; all analyses were
congruent with industry best practices as defined by IPMVP options A and B and by ASHRAE
Guideline 14. While the evaluation relied on primary monitoring data as often as possible,
for some sites it was impractical to obtain. Therefore, some engineering assumptions were

1 Since the Building Efficiency program targets commercial new construction in particular, the contemporary non-
participant building is defined as a new facility built to the standards required by the locally adopted (and
applicable) building energy code.

Impact Evaluation Methods 4-5
levied. Projects for which ADM used engineering spreadsheet calculations included process
equipment upgrades, refrigeration equipment, lighting retrofits, and projects including
other non-weather-sensitive measures.
4.4 Estimating Program-Level Realized Savings
Program-level savings were developed by applying savings realization rates calculated for the
analysis sample to program-level data for expected savings. This procedure for estimating gross
savings for the program is an application of ratio estimation.
Given a stratified sample design, a gross realization rate (GRR) for a stratum is defined as the
ratio of the sum of the realized savings determined for the analysis sample to the sum of the Ex
Ante expected savings recorded in the tracking database for the same sample. The following
formula illustrates the calculation made for each stratum:
∑∑
∑






=
Population
i
sample
i
sample
i
Savings ExpectedSavings Expected
Savings Verified
Stratumfor Savings Verified Estimated
Verified Savingsi is an Ex Post estimate calculated for each site i in the analysis sample for the
stratum. Expected Savingsi is the Ex Ante expected savings for site i as recorded in the program
tracking database. The GRR is given by the term in brackets.
To estimate total verified savings for a program, the estimates of verified savings for the
different strata are summed. Note that this gives a realization rate at the program-level that is a
weighted average of the realization rates for the different strata, with claimed savings being the
weights.

Evaluation Findings 5-1
5. Evaluation Findings
To estimate gross kWh savings and peak kW reductions resulting from the projects in the
Building Efficiency Program, data were collected and analyzed for a sample of 15 projects. The
data collected for these sample projects were analyzed using the methods described in Chapter
4 to estimate project energy (kWh) savings and peak demand (kW) reductions and to determine
realization rates. The results from the analysis of the sample projects were then extrapolated
according to the sampling plan to estimate program-level savings and demand reductions. The
findings from this evaluation effort are detailed in this section. Project-specific M&V results for
the projects in the analysis sample are provided in Appendix A.
5.1 Ex Post Verified Gross kWh Savings
For each project in the analysis sample, there are two estimates of gross kWh savings: the Ex
Ante (expected) gross kWh savings estimate (as reported in the documentation for a project)
and the estimate of Ex Post (verified) gross savings developed through the analysis of the
sample projects. Figure 2 provides a summary comparison between the two values for the
projects in the analysis sample. Overall the correspondence is close, however there is one
outlier site for which the realization rate is much less than the population average.

Figure 2 Comparison of Ex Ante and Ex Post Savings Values
The outlier site was in the certainty stratum (Stratum 4) and therefore only had a weight of one.
Thus, while its results had a significant impact on the program savings, they were not
extrapolated onto any other sites. The site represented only itself. Further discussion of this site
and the variance between Ex Ante and Ex Post savings estimates can be found in Section 6.
Table 5-1 summarizes the Ex Ante and Ex Post energy savings (kWh) for each Stratum.
0
200,000
400,000
600,000
800,000
1,000,000
1,200,000
1,400,000
1,600,000
1,800,000
2,000,000
0 200,000 400,000 600,000 800,000 1,000,000 1,200,000
Ex

A
n
t
e

S
a
v
i
n
g
s

(
k
W
h
)
Ex Post Savings (kWh)
Correlation Between Ex Ante and Ex Post Savings

Impact Evaluation Methods 5-2
Table 5-1 Overview of Energy (kWh) Savings by Stratum
Stratum Number of
Samples
Ex Ante Expected
kWh
Ex Post Verified
kWh
Realization
Rate
1 2 646,506 483,675 75%
2 4 2,778,389 2,092,234 75%
3 5 3,441,154 3,029,483 88%
4 4 4,648,578 2,810,821 60%
Total 15 11,514,627 8,416,213 73%
5.2 Ex Post Verified Gross kW Savings
For each project in the analysis sample, an estimate of Ex Post (verified) gross kW reduction for
the project was developed through the analysis. Program-level demand savings estimates were
developed by applying the stratum specific kW reduced per MWh savings from Table 5-2 to the
stratum-level Ex Post (verified) kWh savings reported in Table 5-1. The program level kW
savings are shown by stratum in Table 5-2 below.
Table 5-2 Overview of Demand (kW) Savings by Stratum
Stratum Number of
Samples
kW Reduced per
MWh Saved
Ex Post Verified
kW
1 2 2.24 1,085
2 4 1.59 3,335
3 5 .51 1,552
4 4 .12 335
Total 15 n/a 6,306
5.3 Ex Post Verified Gross Gas Savings
For each project in the analysis sample, an estimate of Ex Post (verified) gross MBtu reduction
for the project was developed through the analysis. Program-level gas savings estimates were
developed by applying the stratum specific MBtu reduced per MWh savings from Table 5-3 to
the stratum-level Ex Post (verified) kWh savings reported in Table 5-1. The program level MBtu
savings are shown by stratum in Table 5-3 below.
Table 5-3 Overview of Gas (MBtu) Savings by Stratum
Stratum Number of
Samples
MBtu Reduced per
MWh Saved
Ex Post Verified
MBtu
1 2 9.00 4,355
2 4 -.72 -1,514
3 5 .55 1,678
4 4 .93 2,612
Total 15 n/a 7,132
5.4 Non-Energy Impacts
ADM assessed non-energy impacts and effects due to the 2011 Building Efficiency program.
These impacts pertain to carbon emissions reductions. Standardized emission factors were used

Impact Evaluation Methods 5-3
to determine carbon offsets resulting from the savings achieved by the projects incentivized
through the program. These carbon reduction estimates are reported in Table 5-4 below.2
Table 5-4 Overview of Program Realized Carbon Offsets
Stratum Ex Post Verified
kWh
Ex Post Verified
MBtu
Program Realized CO2
Emissions Reduction
(Tons)
1 483,675 4,355 429
2 1,092,234 -1,433 777
3 3,29,483 1,678 1,330
4 2,810,821 2,612 1,290
Total 8,416,213 7,132 3,826

2 CO2 emissions reductions were calculated using a factor of 4.10x10-1 Tons/MWh for the offset electrical
generation and .0053 Tons/Therm for the gas no longer being burned on site.

Ref1: http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/documents/egridzips/eGRID2012V1_0_year09_GHGOutputrates.pdf
Ref2: http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-resources/refs.html

Summary and Discussion of Findings 6-1
6. Summary and Discussion of Findings
A total of 63 customers participated in the 2011 Building Efficiency program. The Ex Post
verified energy impacts (kWh, kW, and gas MBtu) from these projects, developed during this
impact evaluation, are reported in Table 6-1.
Table 6-1 Ex Post Savings for the 2011 Building Efficiency Program
Ex Post Verified Savings
kWh
Savings
kW
Reductions
MBtu
Savings
Program
Realization Rate
8,416,213 6,306 7,132 73%
6.1 Discussion of Findings
Through the impact evaluation of the 2011 Building Efficiency program ADM identified (2) key
factors which contributed to lower realized savings as compared to the claimed.
• Ex Ante savings estimates for High Efficiency Air Conditioners, Efficient Chillers, Air-Side
economizers, EMS Building Controls, and Demand Control Ventilation (DCV) are
overestimated due to errors in the formulas.
• Several projects were identified that included equipment required by the IECC 2006
building code (with which the project had to comply) or which suffered similar baseline
definition issues.
While the two factors above do not account for all deviations between the Ex Ante and Ex Post
savings estimates, they affected the preponderance of this deviation. Therefore, they will be
discussed in more detail before any program recommendations are discussed. Another factor
which likely contributed to variance between the Ex Ante and Ex Post savings estimates was
measure stacking effect. Measure stacking effects become more influential in large packages of
interacting measures, and their impacts are typically on the order of 5%. Given the comparative
magnitude of the two factors listed above to the measure stacking effect it was concluded that
this was not a determinate factor in the program’s performance. However; in future program
cycles it may become more important to take measure stacking effects into account. Therefore,
these will be briefly discussed as well.
Formulas Used for High Efficiency Air Conditioning and Efficient Chillers
For each of the measures targeting replacement equipment (High Efficiency A/C and Complex
Cooling) the prescriptive Ex Ante savings estimates were calculated using the following formula:

 

  12 


3.412 


 1!""#$%&'( ""#)*%+*, -./0  "123

Summary and Discussion of Findings 6-2
The second to last term in this formula applies the difference in efficiency between the most
inefficient A/C unit (or chiller) that the building code will allow and the above code efficient unit
receiving an incentive. Mathematically, formula should be revised to the following:3

 

  12 


3.412 


  4 1""#$%&'( 1 ""#)*%+*, -./5  "123
The overall impact this formula error can affect on the resultant savings estimate is highly
sensitive to the two EER values being used, but can be on the order of 20 times in magnitude. It
should also be noted that the current Ex Ante formula will always predict a negative savings
value since the denominator (EERcode – EERprogram min) will always be a negative number.
Formulas Used for Air-Side economizers, Building Controls, and DCV
A formula error was found in the prescriptive algorithms applied to the HVAC controls
measures. For these measures, the Ex Ante prescriptive formulas omit a system efficiency term.
For example, Ex Ante energy savings for Air-Side Economizers are estimated with the following
formula:

 15%  

  12 


3.412 


  "123
Note that the formula is reporting the savings in kWh of cooling instead of kWh of electricity.
The current formula must be divided by the system COP in order for the calculated savings
estimates to be in units of “kWh of electricity”:

 15%  

  12 


3.412 


 189  "123
Table 6-2 compares some typical technologies and average expected efficiencies. A
refrigeration system was included at the bottom for comparison purposes.
Table 6-2 Typical Operating Efficiencies for Building HVAC Technologies
Technology EER COP kW/Ton
Split System 9.2 2.70 1.27
Package Unit 10.3 3.02 1.13
Water Source Heat-Pump 12 3.52 0.97
VFD Chiller n/a 6.10 0.56
Refrigeration System n/a 1.00 3.41
As can be seen by looking at the values of COP in Table 6-2, omitting system efficiency in the
formula consistently overestimates savings by roughly a factor of 3. Since the technologies
implemented at each project were different, this factor had a varying magnitude across sample
projects.

3 The full derivation of why this is the case can be found in Appendix B

Summary and Discussion of Findings 6-3
Note that the system efficiency in units of kW (electricity)/Tons (cooling) should not be
confused with a unit conversion factor from the imperial unit Tons of cooling to the metric unit
kilowatts of cooling.
Projects which included the measures discussed above account for approximately 85% of the
difference between the Ex Ante and Ex Post savings estimates. While for some projects the
impact of the above formula errors was tempered by other high performing measures (e.g.
lighting projects) or large differences in the Ex Ante and Ex Post hours of operation, it is
estimated that approximately 40% - 45% of the difference between the Ex Ante and Ex Post
savings are attributable to this factor.
Baseline Definition
ADM found measures at several sites which represented the minimum required equipment per
applicable code or for which the assumed baseline was incorrect. Two examples of this were:
• Incentives were offered on a large number of VFDs at one project. While the majority of
VFDs represented above code equipment, several VFDs were installed onto supply fan
motors which were individually greater than 10 horsepower. These motors were
required by code to have automated speed control and therefore represented baseline
equipment.
• Another project received incentives for various building controls - including
programmable thermostats. However, based on the systems installed, the building was
required to have in-place automated temperature set-point control for those spaces.
Therefore, the programmable thermostats represented baseline equipment.
ADM found that Idaho Power was very thorough in screening projects for equipment that is
prescriptively mandated by the locally adopted building (IECC2006) code. ADM found no
instances of equipment with efficiencies less than or equal to the minimum allowed by code.
However; some measures (for example EMS controls and VFDs) do not have minimum
allowable efficiencies. Instead, they are prescriptively mandated under specific circumstances
in which there may be some allowable exemptions. Therefore, their eligibility often must be
determined through detailed review of the project, its extenuating circumstances, and the
specific interpretation by the local building department of any turbidity in the code
requirements. These are the projects for which ADM identified equipment which represented
the minimum required by code (e.g. programmable thermostats or sub-sets of VFDs).
In addition to the code baseline adjustments described above, ADM also identified several sites
for which the Ex Ante baseline was revised for non code related reasons. For these sites it was
discovered that some of the retrofitted equipment operated as back-up (or redundancy) for the
facility’s operations. Examples of this include chilled and condensing water pumps which are
typically run in “lead-lag” configurations. Thus while both pumps would need to be upgraded
together, only one is ever running at a time. Given the nature of the prescriptive calculations,
Ex Ante savings for these projects were calculated for both pumps.

Summary and Discussion of Findings 6-4
It is estimated that the above baseline definition issues account for approximately 45% to 50%
of the Ex Post adjustments to the program savings estimates.
Interactions between measures
Most of the projects which receive incentives through the Building Efficiency Program
implement multiple measures. As measures are ‘stacked’ the savings opportunity is reduced for
each successive measure. However; the prescriptive methods used to estimate Ex Ante savings
do not account for this interaction (this is particularly true for the building controls measures).
For some process and non-weather sensitive measures this is an ok assumption. However; for
all measures affecting building envelopes, HVAC equipment, internal loads/equipment, or
equipment controls this method over predicts savings. This is due to the fact that as measures
‘stack’, they subsequently reduce baseline energy use for the next measure to save. This is
particularly applicable to Air-Side Economizer, EMS Controls, and DCV measures incentivized
though the 2011 Building Efficiency program they all target the same equipment.
6.2 Program Recommendations
On average the factors discussed in section 6.1 contributed individually to an estimated 15% to
20% reduction in site savings as only one or two would affect any one project. However, one
project in the sample was affected by all three factors in its suite of measures. This site is the
previously mentioned outlier in Figure 3 and it represents the potential magnitude of the three
factors above. ADM has prepared the following recommendations to reduce uncertainty in the
claimed savings estimates for future program cycles.
1) Revise the prescriptive formulas used to estimate savings for HVAC measures and make
prescriptive algorithms more rigorous.
Much of the uncertainty in the 2011 Building Efficiency program’s Ex Ante estimates stem from
the use of prescriptive algorithms for complicated suites of measures.4 This is particularly true
as measures stack and interact with other building systems (and each other). While it is
preferable that energy savings estimates for projects such as those targeted by the Building
Efficiency Program be quantified using whole building simulation, this is often not feasible due
to program implementation resources or customer participation. Since it is impractical to
require custom calculations or building simulation for all projects; The prescriptive algorithms
used to estimate program Ex Ante savings should be revised such that they:
• Make the formula corrections described in Section 6.1;
• Account for measure stacking when multiple measures are implemented in
single projects;

4 This is in addition to the errors in the current prescriptive formulas discussed in Section 6.1.

Summary and Discussion of Findings 6-5
• Expand the prescriptive calculations and make each one more specific regarding
the equipment and/or application for which it is applicable (e.g. different savings
estimates for VFDs installed on HVAC fans, HVAC pumps, process pumps, etc.)5
2) Perform thorough baseline analysis to determine measure applicability relative to code.
For measures such as high efficiency package units or lighting power density reductions the
code baseline is implicit in the formula used to estimate the Ex Ante savings. In such cases, if
equipment is installed that meets or is below code the savings will be less than or equal to zero.
However, certain measures (i.e. HVAC controls improvements, VFDs, programmable
thermostats, etc.) are prescriptively required depending on the specific project circumstances
and therefore cannot be screened in a formula savings calculation or on a program application.
Furthermore, to the extent that a new construction program must deal with multiple building
standards, some projects within the program may qualify for savings above code while others
do not. ADM therefore recommends the following:
• A larger number of HVAC controls and VFD projects should be selected for detailed
application review to screen for potential code or baseline issues.
• The Building Efficiency application should be updated to include specific applications for
which VFDs do not qualify for program incentives (i.e. are required by code).
It should be noted that if a project is applying for savings which was permitted through a
performance based path, it is likely that a custom savings calculation approach will be required
to determine the appropriate baseline.
3) Consider adopting a concurrent evaluation paradigm
This evaluation effort occurred post hoc – that is after the program cycle had completed. In a
Post Hoc evaluation the results are used to inform planning for the next program cycle, but are
sometimes not available until some point within a subsequent program cycle. Therefore, there
is typically a lag between when results are provided and when the programs can implement the
findings. A post hoc evaluation often ends up being a kind of final judgment on a program,
without allowing room for mid-course corrections.
With real-time evaluation, however, the various EM&V activities that occur during a program
year are used to administer the implementation of the program. Information from the EM&V
activities is used to provide real-time feedback to make real-time adjustments in program
implementation that will help ensure that program targets are met. This ensures that the
evaluation feedback occurs at the time it will be most beneficial for the program, and that there
is no lag between when evaluation results are presented and the program is able to implement
them.
An additional benefit to real-time evaluation is that Idaho Power Company staff will have the
evaluation’s resources available to them throughout the program cycle when dealing with

5 The formulas used for VFDs should be expanded on even further than the three categories listed such that the
savings estimates are also contingent upon the building type, weather zone, HVAC distribution system type, etc.

Summary and Discussion of Findings 6-6
site/measure level evaluability issues. This can be very beneficial for projects that are
sufficiently large that they are sampled with certainty. Since such projects represent only
themselves, the evaluation team can work directly with Idaho Power staff to determine savings
for such projects concurrent with the application process.

Appendix A: M&V Results for Projects in Analysis Sample A-1
Appendix A: M&V Results for Projects in Analysis Sample

The following embedded Excel file provides the M&V results for the 15 projects in the analysis
sample.
Building Efficiency
Site Results.xlsx

Appendix B: Derivation of A/C Unit Replacement Savings Formula B-1
Appendix B: Derivation of A/C Unit Replacement Savings
Formula

As described in Section 6.1, this appendix provides the derivation of the proposed correction to
the formulas used to estimate energy savings impacts for high efficiency HVAC equipment
measures.

In its basic form the equation for energy savings is shown below in Equation 1.

:
;:'(
<%:= [1]
Equation 1 can then be expanded to take the difference between the annual energy usage for
the baseline A/C unit and the as-built A/C unit.

: 4

  12 >;=?@%/  A BCCDEFGHI ( 

  12 >;=?@%/  A BCCDJKGLI5  "123
[2]
Now the formula can be simplified by combining terms in Equation 3.

: 4

  12 

  A 1""#EFGHI ( A 1""#9
I5  "123 [3]
Equation 3 is the form that is proposed in Section 6.1. However; it can alternatively be
simplified further as shown in equation 4:

: 4

  12 


A""#9
( ""# M""# M""#9
I5  "123 [4]

Impact Evaluation
2011 Easy Upgrades Program
Prepared for:

Idaho Power Company

Prepared by:

ADM Associates, Inc.

i
Table of Contents

1. ...................... Executive Summary ................................................................................... 1-1
2. ...................... Introduction and Purpose of Study .............................................................. 2-1
3. ...................... Description of Program .............................................................................. 3-1
4. ...................... Impact Evaluation Methods ........................................................................ 4-1
5. ...................... Evaluation Findings .................................................................................... 5-1
6. ...................... Summary and Discussion of Findings ........................................................... 6-1
Appendix A: M&V Results for Projects in Analysis Sample .......................................... A-1
Appendix B: Semi-Deemed Approach for VFDs from Pennsylvania TRM (2011) ........ B-1

ii
List of Figures
Figure 1 Distribution of Project Savings for Program Participants ................................ 4-2
Figure 2 Comparison of Ex Ante and Ex Post Savings for all Sampled Projects .......... 5-1
Figure 3 Comparison of Ex Ante and Ex Post Savings for Sampled Lighting Projects . 5-2
Figure 4 Comparison of Ex Ante and Ex Post Savings for Sampled Non-Lighting
Projects ........................................................................................................................ 5-2

List of Tables
Table 1-1 Summary of 2011 Easy Upgrades Impact Evaluation Results ..................... 1-1
Table 4-1 Population Statistics Used for Developing Sampling Plan ........................... 4-2
Table 4-2 Number of Sampled Sites per Stratum (incl. Sample Weights) .................... 4-3
Table 5-1 Overview of Energy (kWh) Savings by Stratum ........................................... 5-3
Table 5-2 Overview of Demand (kW) Savings by Stratum ........................................... 5-3
Table 5-3 Overview of Gas (MBtu) Savings by Stratum ............................................... 5-4
Table 5-4 Overview of Program Realized Carbon Offsets ............................................ 5-4
Table 6-1 Ex Post Savings for the 2011 Easy Upgrades Program ............................... 6-1
Table 6-2 List of Ex Ante Deemed Savings Estimates ................................................. 6-2
Table 6-3 List of Ex Ante Deemed Savings Estimates (Programmable Thermostats and
Controls) ....................................................................................................................... 6-2

Introduction and Purpose of Study 1-1
1. Executive Summary
This report presents the results from an impact evaluation of the Easy Upgrades program
that Idaho Power Company (IPC) offered to customers in Idaho and eastern Oregon in 2011.
1,732 customers participated in the Easy Upgrades program in 2011. The evaluation results
are shown in Table 1-1. The realization rate for the 2011 Easy Upgrades program is 73%. Ex
Post verified energy savings totaled 27,731,608 kWh, peak demand reduction was 8,277
kW, and the gas impacts are 405,504 MBtu.
Table 1-1 Summary of 2011 Easy Upgrades Impact Evaluation Results
Project Ex Ante kWh
Savings
Ex Post kWh
Savings
Ex Post kW
Savings
Ex Post MBtu
Savings
Program
Realization Rate
Lighting 22,179,869 22,295,543 6,215 -6,546 101%
Non-Lighting 16,543,204 5,436,066 2,062 412,050 33%
Total 38,723,073 27,731,608 8,277 405,504 72%
Table 1-1 also shows the realized savings for lighting and non-lighting measures in the program.
While the total program savings are reported with 9.3% precision (at the 90% confidence level)
it should be noted that the lighting and non-lighting results (as reviewed on their own) are not
reported with the same precision. It was clear however that there was a marked difference in
the realization rates between these two measure classifications. This difference can be
attributed to the following:
 Lighting projects preformed very well due their rigorous documentation and reliance on site
specific hours of operation.
 The realized savings for non-lighting projects were reduced due to high volatility in savings for
Variable Frequency Drive (VFD) projects.
 Realized savings for non-lighting projects were further reduced due to high volatility in savings
for projects involving HVAC controls.
Lighting Projects
Overall, lighting projects for the program performed very well with a realization rate of 101%.
This can be attributed to the program’s rigorous documentation (including lighting fixture cut-
sheets and invoices) and the use of site-specific hours of operation. Also, for the 2011 program
year, the Easy Upgrades program did not apply Heating and Cooling Interactive Factors (HCIFs).1
The sampled projects represented a mixture of gas and electrically heated facilities. This
tempered the increase in realized savings typically expected from HCIFs in gas heated facilities.
1 HCIFs increase a lighting project’s electrical energy reduction by an additional 5% to 12% due to the reduction in
the facility’s cooling load. However, such retrofits also incur a heating penalty. If the facility uses electric heating,
these factors can be less than one (meaning an overall HCIF penalty) in climate zones requiring a lot of heating.

Introduction 1-2
Non-Lighting Projects
The performance of VFD and HVAC controls (specifically programmable thermostats) measures
account for approximately 80% of the reduction in verified ex post savings relative to the ex
ante savings. This can be attributed to the volatility in the savings potential for both measures.
Savings for such measures are highly dependent upon the details surrounding each specific
installation which makes is very difficult to approximate a project’s energy savings using
deemed estimates.2
The energy savings potential for variable frequency drive measures is typically determined by 1)
the size of the motor and 2) the motor’s application. While the savings potential is particularly
volatile when VFDs are installed in process applications there is also a lot of variation in the
expected savings within HVAC applications. For example, a variable frequency drive installed on
a supply fan will impact motor energy use very differently than one installed on a cooling tower
fan.3 Furthermore, the building type (i.e. office, restaurant, primary school, etc.) will impact the
savings potential for any given VFD installation – even when installed on the same HVAC
equipment. The divergence between the ex ante and ex post savings for this measure in the
Easy Upgrades program is due to this volatility. More discussion on VFDs, along with our
recommendation, can be found in Section 6.2.
As with VFDs, energy savings are very difficult to accurately deem for programmable
thermostats. Much of this difficulty is due to the behavioral components governing their
operation. This is particularly true when defining the baseline operating conditions. Once
installed, the programmable thermostats are expected to perform systematically and their
operation can be recorded and verified through monitoring during a post-installation site visit.
However; unless specific baseline monitoring was performed, the baseline thermostat
operation cannot be verified except through interviews with facility personnel. In addition to
the baseline uncertainty, each facility has different baseline thermostat settings and patterns
due to the unique zoning, occupancy, and policies. Therefore, even when the baseline set-point
schedule is known with certainty, the savings potential for this measure varies significantly
between facilities making it very difficult to deem.
2 The use of the term deemed estimates here refers to energy savings estimates in the form of kWh per unit – where
“unit” can be in terms of horsepower, number of motors, or number of VFDs. 3 Both the absolute magnitude as well as the kWh/HP

Introduction and Purpose of Study 2-1
2. Introduction and Purpose of Study
Under contract with Idaho Power, ADM Associates, Inc. (ADM) has performed an impact
evaluation of the 2011 Easy Upgrades Program that Idaho Power offers its commercial and
industrial customers in Idaho and Eastern Oregon.
The Easy Upgrades program is designed to encourage commercial and industrial customers
to implement energy efficiency retrofits by incentivizing a large variety of measures.
The key objectives for this evaluation were as follows:
 Measure and verify the electric and gas energy impacts (kWh, kW, and Therms)
attributable to the 2011 Easy Upgrades program.
 Provide credible and reliable program non-energy impact estimates attributed to the
Easy Upgrades program for the 2011 program year.
 Estimate program realization rate.
 Report findings and observations.
 Provide recommendations that would enhance program effectiveness and the
accurate and transparent reporting of program savings.
This report describes the effort undertaken to accomplish these objectives and presents the
results of the evaluation effort. It is organized as follows.
• Chapter 3 provides a description of the Easy Upgrades Program.
• Chapter 4 presents and discusses the methods used to verify energy impacts for
projects implemented through the program.
• Chapter 5 presents the estimates of verified kWh savings, kW reductions, and
Therms impacts.
• Chapter 6 summarizes the results of the evaluation effort.
• Appendix A provides the M&V results for the projects in the analysis sample.

Description of Program 3-1
3. Description of Program
The Easy Upgrades program provides incentives for commercial and industrial customers. The
program offers a variety of energy efficiency measures including, efficient lighting technologies,
HVAC improvements, motors and drives, building envelope upgrades, plug load reductions, and
food service equipment upgrades. Customers can work with equipment suppliers, contractors,
and Idaho Power to identify energy savings opportunities. Once a project is identified the
customer must fill out a Pre-Approval application if the estimated incentive will exceed $1,000
or if the project involves variable frequency drives. This pre-approval application is then
reviewed by Idaho Power before the project is approved.
The program uses deemed per unit savings values to estimate the energy savings for each
incentivized project. A total of 1,732 customers participated in the Easy Upgrades program in
2011 with an expected (Ex Ante) energy savings of approximately 38,723,073 kWh. Ex Ante
energy savings estimates were based on prescriptive algorithms and engineering assumptions.

Impact Evaluation Methods 4-1
4. Impact Evaluation Methods
The following activities were performed during the 2011 Easy Upgrades program impact
evaluation:
 26 sample sites were selected for on-site visits and detailed savings verification
 16 sample sites were selected for engineering desk review (including customer phone
interviews) and detailed savings verification
 ADM reviewed program data, sampled project documentation, and prescriptive savings
estimates (including engineering assumptions)
 Sampled sites received on-site visits to verify installation of claimed measures and to
collect data which was used in their analysis
 Verified savings were calculated using collected data and appropriate engineering
methods (This included developing whole-building thermal building simulation models
for many sites)
 Site-level savings were extrapolated to program-level savings according to the sampling
plan.
The methods used for these evaluation activities are described in this chapter.
4.1 Sampling Plan
Estimation of the gross savings achieved through projects undertaken under the Easy Upgrades
Program were developed using data for a statistically valid sample of projects whose savings
were claimed during the 2011 program year. The focus of the sampling was on selecting a
sample of projects (1) that accounts for a significant portion of estimated savings and (2) that
includes projects for which savings estimates seem most uncertain. In addition to the above
considerations, separate strata were created for lighting and non-lighting. The sample was
selected so that results are representative of the population to a high degree of confidence
(i.e., 10% precision at the 90% confidence level).
A sample frame with which to examine alternative sample designs was constructed using the
information on projects provided by Idaho Power. The design variable used in developing a
sampling plan was ex ante expected gross annual kWh savings. Sample strata were defined by
applying a stratification procedure to the data on ex ante kWh savings (based on the data
provided by IPC). The population statistics, used to develop the sampling plan, are shown in
Table 4-1.

Impact Evaluation Methods 4-2
Table 4-1 Population Statistics Used for Developing Sampling Plan
Stratum Measure Cat. Stratum Boundaries
Number
of
Projects
Ex Ante Expected kWh Savings
Total Average Standard
Deviation
Coefficient
of
Variation
1 Lighting Minimum – 5,000 473 1,060,728 2,243 1,406 .627
2 Lighting 5,000 – 20,000 544 5,636,547 10,361 4,137 .399
3 Lighting 20,000- 50,000 240 7,401,417 30,839 8,232 .267
4 Lighting 50,000 - Maximum 98 8,081,177 82,461 32,763 .397
5 Non-Lighting Minimum – 10,000 185 739,968 4,000 2,567 .642
6 Non-Lighting 10,000 – 55,000 139 3,664,156 26,361 12,696 .482
7 Non-Lighting 55,000- 250,000 38 3,636,820 95,706 42,285 .442
8 Non-Lighting 250,000 - Maximum 15 8,502,259 566,817 235,001 .415
All: 1,732 38,723,073 22,357
The sample frame above was used to select a sample of 42 projects for evaluation. Figure 1
below illustrates the distribution of projects according to their Ex Ante savings estimates. As
seen in the histograms below, the population distribution is positively skewed for both lighting
and non-lighting sites. As such, a relatively small percentage of the projects account for the
majority of the program savings.

Figure 1 Distribution of Project Savings for Program Participants
Because of the above discussed skew, in addition to the measure category, consideration was
given to the size of the projects (Ex Ante savings estimate) and their overall contribution to
program savings. Table 4-2 lists the number of projects sampled within each stratum. The
sample was selected so that results are representative of the population with 10% precision at
the 90% confidence level.

Impact Evaluation Methods 4-3
Table 4-2 Number of Sampled Sites per Stratum (incl. Sample Weights)
Stratum Measure Category Number of Projects Number of Sampled
Projects Stratum Weight
1 Lighting 473 3 176.64
2 Lighting 544 6 100.59
3 Lighting 240 6 38.38
4 Lighting 98 8 10.20
5 Non-Lighting 185 2 85.44
6 Non-Lighting 139 4 33.45
7 Non-Lighting 38 4 7.28
8 Non-Lighting 15 9 1.65
Total: 1732 42 n/a
4.2 On-Site Data Collection
On-site visits were used to collect data which was used to 1) verify that the measure(s) were
installed and operating as described, and 2) inform Ex Post energy savings calculations. During
these visits ADM field personnel collected primary data on the measures implemented at each
evaluated project. Data that was collected on sited included equipment manufacturer
specifications, building hours of operation, building construction details, and equipment usage patterns.
Site specific M&V plans were developed for each sampled project. These plans contained the
following:
 A description of the measure(s) implemented through the program
 The relative savings being claimed for each measure
 A detailed description of all on-time measurements needed by analyst staff to perform
energy savings calculations.
 Detailed descriptions of all data field staff need to collect (including pictures and specific interview questions for site personnel).
 A detailed description of the monitoring equipment and/or EMS trending needed by
analyst staff to perform energy savings calculations
 A brief description of the analytical approach that the analyst expects to use to determine measure energy savings
When allowed by the facility, field personnel took photographs at each site of important
electrical and mechanical equipment. These provided useful documentation of measure
installation and operation while also supplying a larger context of how the building and its equipment were designed and operated.
4.3 Methods Used to Quantify Ex Post Verified Savings for Installed Measures
The data collected from on-visits were analyzed along with project documentation to
develop estimates of energy impacts for each sampled project. Ex Post verified energy
impacts were calculated according to “best practice” engineering methods. ADM also
reviewed the methods, assumptions, and engineering models used by IPC engineers to

Impact Evaluation Methods 4-4
establish the Ex Ante savings estimates for each project. This comparison was used to
determine reasons for any variance between the Ex Ante estimates and Ex Post verified
savings.
Many of the measures incentivized in the 2011 Easy Upgrades program directly impacted
building heating and cooling equipment. Such measures were evaluated using building
energy simulation modeling congruent with IPMVP Option D. Process and non-weather
sensitive measures were evaluated using engineering spreadsheet models and primary
data.
Lighting Sites
A subset of the sampled lighting sites were selected for desk review of the calculations. The
remaining sites received site visits from ADM field staff. Most of the uncertainty in lighting
retrofits is located in the total connected load of fixtures being replaced (fixture wattage
and quantity) and the hours of fixture operation. The former was verified using project
invoices and fixture cutsheets. Additional verification was performed using on-site visits to
count installed fixtures and ensure that they were installed and operating as claimed. For
desk reviewed sites, the hours of operation were verified using phone interviews. Additional
methods used to verify hours of operation were monitoring and facility interviews.
Building Simulations
At a minimum three iterations of the simulated building were modeled in order to quantify
energy savings for a given project:
 As-built physical
 As-built Typical
 Baseline Typical
All models were first calibrated using monthly utility billing history and real observed
weather data from the most appropriate local weather station (weather data was
downloaded from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). This ensured that
the resulting model could be used in a predictive capacity.
The baseline models were developed according to the pre-existing equipment as
determined by field staff and ADM engineers. The final models used to determine Ex Post
energy impacts were simulated using TMY3 weather data to ensure that results are weather
normalized.
Engineering Spreadsheets
Spreadsheet calculations relied upon engineering first principles and primary data to
determine project energy impacts. Given the complexities and differences between
projects, the methods and assumptions applied differed. However; all analyses were
congruent with industry best practices and similar to IPMVP options A and B. While the
evaluation relied on primary monitoring data as often as possible, for some sites it was
impractical to obtain. Therefore, some engineering assumptions were levied. Projects for
which ADM calculated savings using engineering spreadsheet calculations included process

Impact Evaluation Methods 4-5
equipment upgrades, refrigeration equipment, lighting retrofits, and other non-weather-
sensitive measures.
4.4 Estimating Program-Level Realized Savings
Program-level savings were developed by applying savings realization rates calculated for the
analysis sample to program-level data for expected savings. This procedure for estimating gross
savings for the program is an application of ratio estimation.
Given a stratified sample design, a gross realization rate (GRR) for a stratum is defined as the
ratio of the sum of the realized savings determined for the analysis sample to the sum of the ex
ante expected savings recorded in the tracking database for the same sample. The following
formula illustrates the calculation made for each stratum:









Population i
sample i
sample i
Savings ExpectedSavings Expected
Savings Verified
Stratumfor Savings Verified Estimated
Verified Savingsi is an ex post estimate calculated for each site i in the analysis sample for the
stratum. Expected Savingsi is the ex ante expected savings for site i as recorded in the program
tracking database. The GRR is given by the term in brackets.
To estimate total verified savings for a program, the estimates of verified savings for the
different strata are summed. Note that this gives a realization rate at the program-level that is a
weighted average of the realization rates for the different strata, with claimed savings being the
weights.

Evaluation Findings 5-1
5. Evaluation Findings
To estimate gross kWh savings and peak kW reductions resulting from the projects in the Easy
Upgrades Program, data were collected and analyzed for a sample of 43 projects. The data
collected for these sample projects were analyzed using the methods described in Chapter 4 to
estimate project energy (kWh) savings and peak demand (kW) reductions and to determine
realization rates. The results from the analysis of the sample projects were then extrapolated
according to the sampling plan to estimate program-level savings and demand reductions. The
findings from this evaluation effort are detailed in this section. Project-specific M&V results for
the projects in the analysis sample are provided in Appendix A.
5.1 Ex Post Verified Gross kWh Savings
For each project in the analysis sample, there are two estimates of gross kWh savings: the ex
ante (expected) gross kWh savings estimate (as reported in the documentation for a project)
and the estimate of ex post (verified) gross savings developed through the analysis of the
sample projects. Figure 2 provides a summary comparison between the two values for the
projects in the analysis sample. The scatter seen in the larger sites is to be expected in
programs using deemed savings estimates.

Figure 2 Comparison of Ex Ante and Ex Post Savings for all Sampled Projects
The scatter seen in Figure 2 is indicative of the uncertainty inherent in using deemed savings
estimates for complex projects. In particular, many large projects received incentives for
variable frequency drives and HVAC controls upgrades. Savings for both of these measures are
heavily influenced by site-specific details which make it very difficult to estimate savings using a
deemed approach. This is demonstrated by the differences seen between the correlation seen
for lighting projects as opposed to non-lighting projects (Figures 3 and 4).

0
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
350,000
400,000
450,000
0 200,000 400,000 600,000 800,000 1,000,000 1,200,000
Ex

P
o
s
t

S
a
v
i
n
g
s

(
k
W
h
)
Ex Ante Savings (kWh)
Correlation Between Ex Ante and Ex Post Savings
(All Projects)

Evaluation Findings 5-2

Figure 3 Comparison of Ex Ante and Ex Post Savings for Sampled Lighting Projects

Figure 4 Comparison of Ex Ante and Ex Post Savings for Sampled Non-Lighting Projects

-20,000
0
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
160,000
180,000
0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 140,000 160,000
Ex

P
o
s
t

S
a
v
i
n
g
s

(
k
W
h
)
Ex Ante Savings (kWh)
Correlation Between Ex Ante and Ex Post Savings
(Lighting Projects)
0
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
350,000
400,000
450,000
0 200,000 400,000 600,000 800,000 1,000,000 1,200,000
Ex

P
o
s
t

S
a
v
i
n
g
s

(
k
W
h
)
Ex Ante Savings (kWh)
Correlation Between Ex Ante and Ex Post Savings
(Non-Lighting Projects)

Evaluation Findings 5-3
Further discussion of the variance between Ex Ante and Ex Post savings estimates can be found
in Section 6. Table 5-1 summarizes the Ex Ante and Ex Post energy savings (kWh) for each
Stratum.
Table 5-1 Overview of Energy (kWh) Savings by Stratum
Stratum Measure
Category
Number of
Samples
Ex Ante
Expected kWh
Ex Post
Verified kWh
Realization
Rate
1 Lighting 3 1,060,728 1,175,191 111%
2 Lighting 6 5,636,547 7,157,001 127%
3 Lighting 6 7,401,417 5,927,096 80%
4 Lighting 8 8,081,177 8,036,254 99%
5 Non-Lighting 2 739,968 34,431 5%
6 Non-Lighting 4 3,664,156 1,012,280 28%
7 Non-Lighting 4 3,636,820 1,072,713 29%
8 Non-Lighting 9 8,502,259 3,316,642 39%
Total: 42 38,723,073 27,731,608 72%
5.2 Ex Post Verified Gross kW Savings
For each project in the analysis sample, an estimate of ex post (verified) gross kW reduction for
the project was developed through the analysis. Program-level demand savings estimates were
developed by applying the stratum specific kW reduced per MWh savings from Table 5-2 to the
stratum-level Ex Post (verified) kWh savings reported in Table 5-1. The program level kW
savings are shown by stratum in Table 5-2 below.
Table 5-2 Overview of Demand (kW) Savings by Stratum
Stratum Measure
Category
Number of
Samples
kW Reduced per
MWh Saved
Ex Post Verified
kW
1 Lighting 3 0.25 297
2 Lighting 6 0.23 1,647
3 Lighting 6 0.32 1,916
4 Lighting 8 0.29 2,355
5 Non-Lighting 2 0.12 4
6 Non-Lighting 4 0.15 147
7 Non-Lighting 4 1.38 1,478
8 Non-Lighting 9 0.13 433
Total: 42 n/a 8,277
5.3 Ex Post Verified Gross Gas Savings
For each project in the analysis sample, an estimate of ex post (verified) gross MBtu reduction
for the project was developed through the analysis. Program-level gas savings estimates were
developed by applying the stratum specific MBtu reduced per MWh savings from Table 5-3 to
the stratum-level Ex Post (verified) kWh savings reported in Table 5-1. The program level MBtu
savings are shown by stratum in Table 5-3 below.

Evaluation Findings 5-4

Table 5-3 Overview of Gas (MBtu) Savings by Stratum
Stratum Measure
Category
Number of
Samples
MBtu Reduced per
MWh Saved
Ex Post Verified
MBtu
1 Lighting 3 -5.56 -6,536
2 Lighting 6 0.00 0.00
3 Lighting 6 0.00 0.00
4 Lighting 8 -0.001 -11
5 Non-Lighting 2 0.00 0.00
6 Non-Lighting 4 0.12 1,171
7 Non-Lighting 4 0.31 7,887
8 Non-Lighting 9 98.65 402,992
Total: 42 n/a 405,504
5.4 Non-Energy Impacts
ADM assessed non-energy impacts and effects due to the 2011 Easy Upgrades program. These
impacts pertain to carbon emissions reductions. Standardized emission factors were used to
determine carbon offsets resulting from the savings achieved by the projects incentivized
through the program. These carbon reduction estimates are reported in Table 5-4 below.4
Table 5-4 Overview of Program Realized Carbon Offsets
Stratum
Measure
Category Ex Post Verified
kWh
Ex Post Verified
MBtu
Program Realized CO2
Emissions Reduction
(Tons)
1 Lighting 1,175,191 -6,535.71 135
2 Lighting 7,157,001 0.00 2,932
3 Lighting 5,927,096 0.00 2,428
4 Lighting 8,036,254 -10.71 3,291
5 Non-Lighting 34,431 0.00 14
6 Non-Lighting 1,012,280 1,170.61 477
7 Non-Lighting 1,072,713 7,887.18 858
8 Non-Lighting 3,316,642 402,992.30 22,740
Total: 27,731,608 405,504 32,874
4 CO2 emissions reductions were calculated using a factor of 4.10x10-1 Tons/MWh for the offset electrical
generation and .0053 Tons/Therm for the gas no longer being burned on site.
Ref1: http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/documents/egridzips/eGRID2012V1_0_year09_GHGOutputrates.pdf Ref2: http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-resources/refs.html

Summary and Discussion of Findings 6-1
6. Summary and Discussion of Findings
A total of 1732 customers participated in the 2011 Easy Upgrades program. The Ex Post verified
energy impacts (kWh, kW, and gas MBtu) from these projects, developed during this impact
evaluation, are reported in Table 6-1.
Table 6-1 Ex Post Savings for the 2011 Easy Upgrades Program
kWh Savings kW Reductions MBtu Savings Program
Realization Rate
27,731,608 8,277 402,922 72%
6.1 Discussion of Findings
Through the impact evaluation of the 2011 Easy Upgrades program ADM identified (3) key
factors which contributed to lower realized savings as compared to the claimed.
 Use of fully-deemed savings estimates for Variable Frequency Drives overestimated
savings, particularly for process applications.
 Projects receiving incentives for HVAC controls (primarily programmable thermostats)
overestimated savings due to the presence of pre-existing baseline control strategies.
 Applicant definitions of project scope for HVAC controls and some VFD projects were
inconsistent with the verified installation (e.g. controlled square footage for a
programmable thermostat, usage mode of a VFD).
A fourth factor, not listed above, which contributed to variances in project savings (both
negative and positive) were heating and cooling interactive factors. Though as an aggregate
they did contribute to increase realized savings for lighting projects, there were several
electrically heated sites which received realization rates less than 1 due to the heating penalty.
The three factors above do not account for all deviations between the Ex Ante and Ex Post
savings estimate, but they affected the preponderance of this deviation (accounting for
approximately 80% of the difference between ex ante and ex post savings in sites receiving
realization rates less than 1). Therefore, they will be discussed in more detail before any
program recommendations are discussed.
Deemed Estimates Used for Variable Frequency Drives (VFDs)
The Easy Upgrades program used three different deemed savings values for variable frequency
drive projects. The first two values were used to estimate savings for VFDs installed on fans and
pumps in HVAC applications. The third value was used to estimate savings for VFDs installed in
all other applications. These deemed estimates are listed in Table 6-2.

Summary and Discussion of Findings 6-2
Table 6-2 List of Ex Ante Deemed Savings Estimates
Measure Description Measure Unit Per Unit Savings (kWh/HP)
VFD installed on HVAC system fan Horsepower 1,078.29
VFD installed on HVAC system pump Horsepower 891.74
VFD replacing standard motor Horsepower 3,542
One check to assess the reasonability of the above savings is to calculate their implied savings
as a percentage of annual motor energy use. A 1 horsepower motor can use a maximum of
7,688 kWh annually (assuming an 85% efficiency and 8760 hours of operation). Therefore, the
minimum savings implied by Table 6-2 are 14%, 12%, and 46% of the motor’s annual energy use
respectively. However, motors in HVAC applications rarely run at their full rated output for
every hour of the year. This is also true of motors used in process applications that could
benefit by the addition of a VFD. As the motor’s annual operating hours are reduced, the
deemed estimates in Table 6-2 become a much larger percentage of the motor’s annual energy
use and overestimate savings for the measure. This overestimation is particularly true for
motors installed in process applications where the minimum savings implied by the deemed
savings estimate is 46%. Do to the high number of participants who had installed motors in
process applications this became a significant factor affecting program savings.
Controls Systems Baselines
Many of the EMS Manual Controls and Automated Controls Systems measures reviewed by
ADM were centrally controlled or web based programmable thermostats (e.g. Ecobee
Thermostats). Such thermostats provide customers with an additional convenience and level of
control with regards to building space temperatures. Ex ante energy savings for programmable
thermostat and controls systems measures were estimated using the following deemed
estimates:
Table 6-3 List of Ex Ante Deemed Savings Estimates (Programmable Thermostats and Controls)
Measure Description Measure Unit Per Unit Savings (kWh/Unit)
Set-Back Thermostats Unit 4,209.94
EMS Manual Controls ft2 1.20
Automated Controls Systems ft2 0.75
The evaluation found that many projects involving programmable thermostats or controls
systems suffered the presence of pre-existing equipment and or control strategies. For
example, several projects were found which had replaced less sophisticated pre-existing
programmable thermostats with the more sophisticated Ecobee interface. While the Ecobee
thermostats do include innovated features in the user interface, it fundamentally performs the
same function as a standard programmable thermostat. In such cases the only difference
between the pre and post scenarios was the method by which the site interfaced with the
thermostat controllers, however there were no substantive changes to the set-points or set-
back schedules. As such, the installed controls affect the energy used by the building systems
very little or not at all.

Summary and Discussion of Findings 6-3
In addition to the presence of similar baseline equipment, programmable thermostat projects
were also subject to large variances in project savings potentials due to the behavioral factors
governing baseline control strategies. Each facility had different baseline thermostat settings
and patterns due to their unique zoning, occupancy schedules, and policies.
Applicant Defined Project Scope
The scope of work for many of the HVAC controls and VFD projects (which received low
realization rates) was found to be inconsistent with what was reported by the applicant in the
program application. Examples include an application submitted as economizer repair which
was actually a reprogramming of the controls to no longer lock-out the compressor, a VFD
application in which the VFD was used solely as a ‘soft’ start and stop device, and
programmable thermostat applications where the reported “controlled square footage” was for
the entire facility instead of the specific conditioned areas receiving new set-back controls. In
each of the examples the applicant either did not fully define the project in the project
application or miss-interpreted the requested information and reported inaccurate values (e.g.
conditioned square footage).
Since the Easy Upgrades Program targets smaller commercial customers, often the individual
filling out the application forms has no technical background. This in some cases led to under
defined (or incorrect) information to be submitted in an application which could only be
identified with an in depth review of the application and its documentation.
6.2 Program Recommendations
ADM has prepared the following recommendations to reduce uncertainty in the program
claimed savings estimates for future program cycles:
1) Use partially-deemed calculations for projects involving VFDs.
The overall program realization rate of 72% is largely due to the significant variance in the
realized savings for projects involving Variable Frequency Drives (VFDs). It is difficult to estimate
energy impacts for VFDs using a fully deemed savings approach. Even when a reasonable value
is applied, there will be significant variance in the realized savings for any evaluated site (see
the scatter in Figure 2). Therefore it is recommended that energy impacts for VFD projects,
both in HVAC and process applications, should be estimated using a partially-deemed approach.
A partially-deemed approach uses a stipulated formula and tables of deemed inputs to estimate
energy savings. In addition to tables, the formula(s) may require site specific specifications as
inputs (e.g. hours of operation, equipment efficiency, part-load profile, etc.). An example of
such an approach can be found in the Pennsylvania Technical Resource Manual (TRM).5 The
cited example demonstrates a partially deemed approach for VFDs installed in specific HVAC
applications (namely on Variable Air Volume systems).
2) Increase the number of HVAC controls and Variable Frequency Drive projects which receive
thorough review of project scope and equipment applicability.
5 An excerpt from the Pennsylvania TRM is included in Appendix B which outlines the method by which energy savings for VFDs installed in certain HVAC applications are estimated.

Summary and Discussion of Findings 6-4
Much of the variance between ex ante and ex post savings estimates can be eliminated by
increasing the number of HVAC controls and VFD projects which receive detailed review of
project scope and measure applicability. It was mentioned in Section 6.1 that one of the factors
impacting the verified program energy savings was inconsistency between the project scope
defined by the applicant on application materials and the scope/nature of the project when
visited by ADM field staff.
One example of this is a project in which an economizer’s controls were re-programmed in
order to “fix” its operation. This project was submitted as an economizer repair by the
applicant. However, the unit was re-programmed to no longer ‘lock-out’ the compressor when
in economizing mode thereby allowing the compressor to turn on (when previously it would
have stayed off) to meet space loads. From the applicant’s perspective this constituted a repair
in that they were previously dissatisfied with the units operation.
Given the volume of applications that must be processed by Idaho Power staff, it is intractable
to expect that every application receive detailed engineering review and approval. Instead
samples of applications are reviewed. None of the projects in which problems of scope were
identified had been sampled for this review, and it is evident in project’s that receive this
review that Idaho Power staff appropriately flag and revise applications as necessary. Since
HVAC controls and VFD projects demonstrate a higher susceptibility to applicant confusion, It is
therefore recommended that a larger number of these projects be selected for engineering
review. In such reviews additional baseline information should be requested in the application
process which would allow Idaho Power program personnel to better identify projects which
would not see energy benefits from the installed equipment (e.g. the aforementioned
programmable thermostat projects). It would also enable program staff to reduce uncertainty
in the ex ante energy impact estimates. Such information would be measure specific, but
should fully characterize the scope of the retrofit and its affected equipment. For example; one
measure incentivized by the program is economizer repair. The potential energy impacts of this
measure are very sensitive to 1) the mode in which the economizer broke, and 2) the nature of
the repair.
4) Consider applying Interactive factors to lighting savings
As an aggregate, the evaluation’s application of heating and cooling interactive factors
increased program verified savings for lighting projects. This is largely due to the fact that most
participant facilities are gas heated and project heating penalties are realized in an increase in
MBtu of gas consumption. However, there are a number of electrically heated facilities for
which the gas penalty is larger than the cooling savings (particularly for colder climates). This
can reduce project savings by 10%-20% in some instances.
Application of heating and cooling interactive factors (HCIFs) would reduce uncertainty in
program claimed savings estimates for lighting sites.
3) Consider adopting a concurrent evaluation paradigm
This evaluation effort occurred post hoc – that is after the program cycle had completed. In a
Post Hoc evaluation the results are used to inform planning for the next program cycle, but are
sometimes not available until some point within a subsequent program cycle. Therefore, there

Summary and Discussion of Findings 6-5
is typically a lag between when results are provided and when the programs can implement the
findings. A post hoc evaluation often ends up being a kind of final judgment on a program,
without allowing room for mid-course corrections.
With real-time evaluation, however, the various EM&V activities that occur during a program
year are used to administer the implementation of the program. Information from the EM&V
activities is used to provide real-time feedback to make real-time adjustments in program
implementation that will help ensure that program targets are met. This ensures that the
evaluation feedback occurs at the time it will be most beneficial for the program, and that there
is no lag between when evaluation results are presented and the program is able to implement
them.
An additional benefit to real-time evaluation is that Idaho Power Company staff will have the
evaluation’s resources available to them throughout the program cycle when dealing with
site/measure level evaluability issues. This can be very beneficial for projects that are
sufficiently large that they are sampled with certainty. Since such projects represent only
themselves, the evaluation team can work directly with Idaho Power staff to determine savings
for such projects concurrent with the application process.

Appendix A: M&V Results A-1
Appendix A: M&V Results for Projects in Analysis Sample

The following embedded Excel file provides the M&V results for the 42 projects in the analysis
sample.
2011 Easy Upgrades
Project Results Summary.xlsx

Appendix B: M&V Results B-1
Appendix B: Semi-Deemed Approach for VFDs from
Pennsylvania TRM (2011)

6.3 Variable Frequency Drive (VFD) Improvements
The following protocol for the measurement of energy and demand savings applies to the
installation of Variable Frequency Drives (VFDs) in standard commercial building applications
shown in Table 0-2: HVAC fans, cooling tower fans, chilled water pumps, condenser water
pumps and hot water pumps. This protocol estimates savings relative to a constant volume
system as the baseline condition.
VFDs in any other application than those referenced Table 0-2 must follow a custom measure
protocol, including industrial applications. Relative to HVAC fans, the protocol applies to
conventional variable air volume (VAV) systems with terminal VAV boxes on the supply
registers. A VAV system without terminal VAV boxes is subject to various control strategies and
system configurations and must be evaluated using the custom approach. For systems in which
the baseline condition is not a constant volume system (e.g. vortex dampers), a custom measure
protocol must be used6. When changes in run hours are anticipated in conjunction with the
installation of a VFD, a custom path must also be used.
6.3.1 Algorithms
kWh = kWhbase - kWhee
kWpeak = kWbase - kWee
kWhbase = 0.746 X HP X LF/ηmotor X RHRSbase
kWhee = kWhbase X ESF
kWbase = 0.746 X HP X LF/ηmotor X CF
kWee = kWbase X DSF
6.3.2 Definitions of Terms
HP = Rated horsepower of the motor
LF = Load Factor. Ratio between the actual load and the rated load. Motor
efficiency curves typically result in motors being most efficient at
approximately 75% of the rated load. The default value is 0.75. Variable
loaded motors should use custom measure protocols.7
6 Currently, the protocol is modeled against a constant volume system. Therefore, using a baseline system that is not
a constant volume system is an inappropriate use of this protocol. Additional models are in development by the TWG in order to accommodate additional baseline systems, including vortex dampers and other non-constant
volume systems that still benefit from VFD applications, to be included in a future update of the TRM.
7 In order to use Motor Master you would need to log. This can be done for custom measure but is not allowed for stipulated measures. A standard practice and/or load shape study would be required.

Appendix B: M&V Results B-2
ηmotor = Motor efficiency at the full-rated load. For VFD installations, this can be
either an energy efficient motor or standard efficiency motor. Motor
efficiency varies with load and decreases dramatically below 50% load;
this is reflected in the ESF term of the algorithm.
RHRSbase = Annual run hours of the baseline motor
CF = Demand Coincidence Factor (See Section 1.4)
ESF = Energy Savings Factor. The energy savings factor is the percent
baseline of kWh consumption anticipated to occur as a result of the
installation of the VFD (See Table 0-2). This factor can also be computed
according to fan and pump affinity laws by modeling the flow reduction
and related efficiency factors for both the motor and VFD under different
load conditions. Hourly temperature bin data is used for this purpose.8
DSF = Demand Savings Factor. The demand savings factor is calculated by
determining the ratio of the power requirement for the baseline and the
VFD control at peak conditions (See Table 0-2). Since systems are
customarily sized to 95% of cooling conditions and the peak 100 hours
load represent a loading condition of 99%, and because VFDs are not
100% efficient, the demand savings for VFDs is relatively low for
commercial HVAC applications where system loads tracks cooling
requirements (DSF approaches 1). 9
6.3.3 Description of Calculation Method
Relative to the algorithms in section (3.4.1), kW values will be calculated for each VFD
improvement in any project (account number). Each motor and the respective variables required
to calculate the demand and energy savings for that motor will be entered into an inventory in
Excel format, the Motor & VFD Inventory Form. The inventory will also specify the location for
reference and validation. A sample of the Motor & VFD Inventory Form incorporating the
algorithms for savings calculation is included in Appendix D.
8 Based on optimum control strategies implemented tracking heating and cooling load.
9 Based on optimum control strategies implemented tracking heating and cooling load.

Appendix B: M&V Results B-3
Table 0-1: Variables for VFD Calculations
Component Type Value Source
Motor HP Variable Nameplate EDC Data Gathering
RHRS10 Variable
Based on logging and modeling EDC Data Gathering
Error! Reference source not found. See Error! Reference
source not found.
LF11 Variable Based on spot metering and nameplate EDC Data Gathering
Default 75% 1
ESF Variable See Table 0-2 See Table 0-2
DSF Variable See Table 0-2 See Table 0-2
Efficiency - ηbase Fixed Nameplate EDC Data Gathering
CF12 Fixed 74% 1

Sources:
1. California Public Utility Commission. Database for Energy Efficiency Resources 2005
10 Default Value can be used by EDC but is subject to metering and adjustment by evaluators or SWE
11 Default Value can be used by EDC but is subject to metering and adjustment by evaluators or SWE
12 Need to confirm source through TWG

Appendix B: M&V Results B-4
Table 0-2: ESF and DSF for Typical Commercial VFD Installations
Building
Type Motor Usage Group
PECO,
First Energy
Alleghany,
Duquesne PPL
ESF DSF ESF DSF ESF DSF
Office - Large
Chilled Water Pump 0.305 0.792 0.283 0.596 0.282 0.548
Heating Hot Water Pump 0.321 1.000 0.278 1.000 0.275 1.000
Condenser Water Pump 0.270 0.792 0.244 0.596 0.245 0.548
HVAC Fan 0.293 0.849 0.278 0.694 0.276 0.657
Cooling Tower Fan 0.270 0.792 0.244 0.596 0.245 0.548
Office - Small
Chilled Water Pump 0.308 0.781 0.286 0.586 0.286 0.548
Heating Hot Water Pump 0.321 1.000 0.278 1.000 0.275 1.000
Condenser Water Pump 0.273 0.781 0.246 0.586 0.248 0.548
HVAC Fan 0.295 0.841 0.279 0.686 0.278 0.657
Cooling Tower Fan 0.273 0.781 0.246 0.586 0.248 0.548
Hospitals &
Healthcare
Chilled Water Pump 0.275 0.869 0.262 0.675 0.257 0.594
Heating Hot Water Pump 0.321 1.000 0.278 1.000 0.275 1.000
Condenser Water Pump 0.231 0.869 0.211 0.750 0.206 0.594
HVAC Fan 0.276 0.907 0.261 0.758 0.260 0.694
Cooling Tower Fan 0.245 0.869 0.222 0.675 0.217 0.594
Education –
K-12
Chilled Water Pump 0.300 0.770 0.280 0.571 0.278 0.535
Heating Hot Water Pump 0.321 1.000 0.278 1.000 0.275 1.000
Condenser Water Pump 0.263 0.771 0.238 0.571 0.237 0.535
HVAC Fan 0.288 0.832 0.271 0.675 0.270 0.646
Cooling Tower Fan 0.263 0.771 0.238 0.571 0.237 0.535
Education –
College &
University
Chilled Water Pump 0.304 0.796 0.283 0.599 0.280 0.548
Heating Hot Water Pump 0.321 1.000 0.278 1.000 0.275 1.000
Condenser Water Pump 0.270 0.796 0.243 0.599 0.243 0.548
HVAC Fan 0.293 0.852 0.277 0.696 0.275 0.657
Cooling Tower Fan 0.270 0.796 0.243 0.599 0.243 0.548

Appendix B: M&V Results B-5
Building
Type Motor Usage Group
PECO,
First Energy
Alleghany,
Duquesne PPL
ESF DSF ESF DSF ESF DSF
Retail
Chilled Water Pump 0.305 0.869 0.283 0.675 0.239 0.594
Heating Hot Water Pump 0.321 1.000 0.278 1.000 0.275 1.000
Condenser Water Pump 0.271 0.869 0.244 0.675 0.239 0.594
HVAC Fan 0.295 0.907 0.278 0.758 0.276 0.694
Cooling Tower Fan 0.271 0.869 0.244 0.675 0.239 0.594
Restaurants -
Fast Food
Chilled Water Pump 0.291 0.869 0.229 0.675 0.267 0.594
Heating Hot Water Pump 0.321 1.000 0.278 1.000 0.275 1.000
Condenser Water Pump 0.253 0.869 0.273 0.675 0.224 0.594
HVAC Fan 0.282 0.907 0.266 0.758 0.264 0.694
Cooling Tower Fan 0.253 0.869 0.273 0.675 0.224 0.594
Restaurants -
Sit Down
Chilled Water Pump 0.307 0.869 0.284 0.675 0.279 0.594
Heating Hot Water Pump 0.321 1.000 0.278 1.000 0.275 1.000
Condenser Water Pump 0.272 0.869 0.246 0.675 0.241 0.594
HVAC Fan 0.295 0.907 0.278 0.758 0.277 0.694
Cooling Tower Fan 0.272 0.869 0.246 0.675 0.241 0.594
Other All As determined by worksheet

NOTE FOR TABLE 0-2
1. Back-up calculations and reference material can be found on the PA PUC website at the following address:
http://www.puc.state.pa.us/electric/xls/Act129/TRM-ESF-DSF_Worksheet.xls

Sources:
1. Motor Inventory Workbook, PA Technical Working Group

Idaho Power Company Supplement 2: Evaluation
Demand-Side Management 2012 Annual Report Page 423
Other Evaluations
Table 5. 2012 Other Evaluations
Program Sector Analysis Performed by Study Manager Study/Evaluation Type
Energy Efficiency Potential Study All EnerNOC, Inc. Idaho Power Potential
FlexPeak Management Annual Report Commercial/Industrial Idaho Power Idaho Power Annual Report
Irrigation Peak Rewards Annual Report Irrigation Idaho Power Idaho Power Annual Report

Supplement 2: Evaluation Idaho Power Company
Page 424 Demand-Side Management 2012 Annual Report
This page left blank intentionally.

IDAHO POWER ENERGY EFFICIENCY POTENTIAL STUDY

EnerNOC Utility Solutions Consulting
500 Ygnacio Valley Road
Suite 450
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
925.482.2000
www.enernoc.com

Prepared for:
Idaho Power Corporation
Presented on:
February 15, 2013

EnerNOC Utility Solutions Consulting iii

This report was prepared by
EnerNOC Utility Solutions Consulting
500 Ygnacio Valley Blvd., Suite 450
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Project Director: I. Rohmund
Project Manager: J. Borstein

EnerNOC Utility Solutions Consulting v

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Idaho Power prepares an Annual Demand Side Management (DSM) report that describes its
programs and achievements. Periodically, Idaho Power performs an EE potential study to assess
the future potential for savings through its programs and to identify refinements that will
enhance savings. As part of this well-established process, Idaho Power contracted with EnerNOC
Utility Solutions Consulting (EnerNOC) to conduct an energy efficiency potential assessment to
quantify the amount, the timing, and the cost of electric energy efficiency resources available
within the Idaho Power service territory. Key objectives for the study include:
 Provide credible and transparent estimation of the technical, economic, and achievable
energy efficiency potential by year over the next 21 years within the Idaho Power service
territory 1
 Assess potential energy savings associated with each potential area by energy efficiency
measure or bundled measure and sector
 Provide an executable dynamic model that will support the potential assessment and allow
for testing of sensitivity of all model inputs and assumptions
 Review and update load profiles by sector, program, and end use
 Develop a final report including summary data tables and graphs reporting incremental and
cumulative potential by year from 2012 through 2032
Definitions of Potential
In this study, the energy efficiency potential estimates represent gross savings developed into
three types of potential: technical potential, economic potential, and achievable potential.
Technical and economic potential are both theoretical limits to efficiency savings. Achievable
potential embodies a set of assumptions about the decisions consumers make regarding the
efficiency of the equipment they purchase, the maintenance activities they undertake, the
controls they use for energy-consuming equipment, and the elements of building construction.
These levels are described below.
Technical potential is defined as the theoretical upper limit of energy efficiency potential. It
assumes that customers adopt all feasible measures regardless of cost. At the time of equipment
failure, customers replace equipment with the most efficient option available. In new
construction, customers and developers also choose the most efficient equipment option.
Technical potential also assumes the adoption of every available other measure, where
applicable. For example, it includes installation of high-efficiency windows in all new construction
opportunities and heat pump maintenance in all existing buildings with heat pump systems. The
retrofit measures are phased in over a number of years, which is longer for higher-cost
measures.
Economic potential represents the adoption of all cost-effective energy efficiency measures.
In this analysis, the total resource cost (TRC) test, which compares lifetime energy and capacity
benefits to the incremental cost of the measure, is applied. Economic potential assumes that

1 The technical, economic, and achievable potential projections are calculated as the savings versus a hypothetical scenario in which
Idaho Power completely stops offering DSM programs in the future. Therefore, they represent total potential, not the marginal
potential compared with current programs.
Executive Summary

vi www.enernoc.com
customers purchase the most cost-effective option at the time of equipment failure and also
adopt every other cost-effective and applicable measure.
Achievable potential takes into account market maturity, customer preferences for energy-
efficient technologies, and expected program participation. Achievable potential establishes a
realistic target for the energy efficiency savings that a utility can hope to achieve through its
programs. It is determined by applying a series of annual market adoption factors to the
economic potential for each energy efficiency measure. These factors represent the ramp rates
at which technologies will penetrate the market. To develop these factors, the project team
reviewed Idaho Power’s past DSM achievements and program history over the last five year s, as
well as the Northwest Power and Conservation Council (NWPCC) ramp rates used in the Sixth
Plan. Details regarding the market adoption factors appear in Appendix F.
Analysis Approach
To perform the energy efficiency analysis, EnerNOC used a bottom-up analysis approach as
shown in Figure ES-1 and summarized below.
Figure ES-1 Overview of Analysis Approach

1. Held a meeting with Idaho Power staff to refine objectives and develop a study work plan.
2. Performed a market characterization to describe sector-level electricity use for the
residential, commercial, industrial, and irrigation sectors for the base year, 2011. This
included using utility data and secondary data from sources such as the American Community
Survey (ACS), and the Energy Information Administration (EIA).
3. Utilized Idaho Power primary market research from the Idaho Power 2010 Home Energy
Survey and secondary sources including the NWPCC and the Northwest Energy Efficiency
Alliance (NEAA) to understand how customers in the Idaho Power service territory currently
use electricity. Combining this information with the market characterization, we developed
energy market profiles that describe energy use by sector, segment, and end use for 2011.
EE measure dataUtility data
Engineering analysis
Secondary data
Market characterization
Customer participation
Program considerations
Market capacity
Statement of Work Meeting
Establish objectives
Technical and
economic potential
Achievable potential
Utility data
Customer surveys
Secondary data
Base-year energy use
by segment
Baseline projection
Draft report
Supply curves
Final report
Detailed Work Plan
End-use projection by
segment
Prototypes and
energy analysis
Program results
Secondary data
Best-practices research
Forecast data
Synthesis / analysis
Executive Summary

EnerNOC Utility Solutions Consulting vii
4. Developed a baseline electricity projection by sector, segment, and end use for 2012–2032.
This projection provides the metric against which EE savings are measured.
5. Identified and analyzed energy efficiency measures appropriate for the Idaho Power service
territory, including but not limited to measures currently covered in Idaho Power programs.
6. Estimated three levels of energy efficiency potential, Technical, Economic, and Achievable.
The baseline projection and the estimates of EE potential were develope d using EnerNOC’s
Load Management Analysis and Planning (LoadMAPTM) model.
7. Separately estimated potential for Idaho Power’s special-contract customers.
8. Developed supply curves.
The results from these steps are summarized below, with details provided in the body of the
report.
Market Characterization
Idaho Power, established in 1916, is an investor-owned electric utility that serves more than
490,000 customers within a 24,000-square-mile area in southern Idaho and eastern Oregon. To
meet its customers’ electricity demands, Idaho Power maintains a generation portfolio including
17 hydroelectric projects. The company also actively seeks cost-effective ways to encourage wise
use of electricity by providing energy efficiency programs for all customers.
Total electricity use for the residential, commercial, industrial, and irrigation sectors for Idaho
Power in 2011 was 12,869,213 MWh.2 As shown in Figure ES-2, the largest sector is residential,
accounting for 39.5%, or 5,079,293 MWh. The commercial and industrial sectors combined have
sales of 6,021,110 MWh or 46.8% of sales. Irrigation, with annual sales of 1,768,810 MWh
makes up the remaining 13.7%.
Figure ES-2 Sector-Level Electricity Use, 2011

To analyze potential at the measure level, EnerNOC made some adjustments between the
commercial and industrial sales by sector that are shown above in Figure ES-2 to better group
energy use by facility type and end uses. For example, some customers on commercial rates —
such as dairy and agricultural operations, refrigerated warehouses, small manufacturing, water

2 Energy usage as measured “at-the-meter,” i.e., does not include line losses. Excludes special-contract customers, whose potential
was characterized separately.
Residential
39.5%
Commercial
29.5%
Industrial
17.3%
Irrigation
13.7%
Executive Summary

viii www.enernoc.com
treatment, and waste water treatment — were reclassified as industrial. We did this because
energy use in these operations is more likely dominated by motor and process end uses, rather
than the HVAC, lighting, and office equipment end uses that dominate commercial buildings.
Therefore, energy-savings potential for these facilities can best be estimated by treating them as
industrial. Conversely, some customers on Idaho Power’s industrial rate such as colleges and
hospitals were reclassified as commercial. The amount of sales that were reclassified represent
less than 6% of total C&I sales.
Figure ES-3 presents the shares of residential electricity use for each housing segment used in
the analysis. The chosen threshold for the limited income segments was approximately twice the
federal poverty limit.
Figure ES-3 Residential Market Segmentation by Housing Type, 2011

Figure ES-4 shows the breakdown of annual use per household by end use for each segment and
for the residential sector as a whole. Four main end uses — space conditioning (cooling and
heating), appliances, lighting, and water heating — account for more than 80% of total use. The
remaining energy is allocated to electronics and miscellaneous.
52% 55%
6% 4% 4% 5%
24% 24%
7% 4%
7% 8%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
% of Customers % of Sales
Limited Income Mobile Home
Limited Income Multi Family
Limited Income Single Family
Mobile/MFG Home
Multi Family
Single Family
Executive Summary

EnerNOC Utility Solutions Consulting ix
Figure ES-4 Residential Intensity by End Use and Segment, 2011

Figure ES-5 shows the percentage of the 2011 commercial energy use, 3,411,788 MWh, for each
of the 12 segments analyzed.3 The three largest segments are small office, retail, and hospital
(including doctors’ office and other medical facilities) with 17.3%, 16.7%, and 10.1% of sales
respectively.
Figure ES-5 Commercial Market Segmentation by Building Type, Percentage of Sales,
2011

Figure ES-6 shows the breakdown of annual commercial electricity usage by end use for the
commercial sector as a whole. Space conditioning and lighting are the largest end uses, together
consuming approximately 66% of commercial building energy use.

3 Excludes street lighting sales of 23,879 MWh.
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
Single Family Small Multi
Family
Low-rise
Multi Family
High-rise
Multi Family
Mobile
Home
In
t
e
n
s
i
t
y

(
k
W
h
/
H
H
)
Cooling
Space Heating
Heat/Cool
Water Heating
Appliances
Interior Lighting
Exterior Lighting
Electronics
Miscellaneous
Small Office
17.3%
Large Office
6.0%
Restaurant
7.3%
Retail 16.7%
Grocery
7.2%
College 3.8%
School
7.0%
Hospital 10.1%
Lodging 4.9%
Assembly 5.9%
Warehouse
6.0%
Miscellaneous
7.7%
Executive Summary

x www.enernoc.com
Figure ES-6 Commercial Sector Energy Use by End Use, 2011

The industrial customers were segmented into four major industries plus an Other category as
shown in Figure ES-7. The Other category represents a wide-range of industry types, including
stone and concrete; lumber and wood products; paper and mill; chemicals; metals and fabricated
metal products; and rubber and plastics. Individually, however, these industries account for less
than 5% of industrial sales and thus were placed in the Other category.
Figure ES-7 Industrial Market Segmentation by Industry Type, Percentage of Sales,
2011

Cooling
18%
Heating
9%
Ventilation
8%
Water Heating
4%
Interior Lighting
28%
Exterior
Lighting
6%
Refrigeration
8%
Food
Preparation
4%
Office
Equipment
6%Miscellaneous
9%
Executive Summary

EnerNOC Utility Solutions Consulting xi
Figure ES-8 shows how the major industrial segments in the Idaho Power service territory
identified above used electricity in 2011. Motor loads dominate all segments, though process
heating and cooling are more prevalent in the manufacturing — food segment.
Figure ES-8 Industrial Energy Use by Segment and End Use, 2011

The irrigation sector accounted for 1,768,810 MWh in electricity sales in 2011. We characterized
the sector as a single segment with 18,736 irrigation service points. We then used data from
Idaho Power that classifies these service points by motor size categories as a way to characterize
energy use.
Baseline Projection
Prior to developing estimates of energy efficiency potential, a baseline end-use projection was
developed to quantify what consumption is likely to be in the future in absence of new utility
programs. The baseline projection serves as the metric against which energy efficiency potentials
are measured.
Figure ES-9 through Figure ES-11 present the baseline end-use projections for the residential,
commercial, and industrial sectors respectively. Table ES-1 and Figure ES-12 provide a summary
of the baseline projection by sector and for Idaho Power as a whole. Street lighting sales,
although not analyzed in LoadMAP, have been assumed to be flat and have been added in to
align with the total sales shown in Figure ES-2 . Electricity use across all sectors is expected to
increase by 31% between the base year 2011 and 2032, for an average annual growth rate of
1.3%.
 The industrial sector has the highest growth, with a 47% increase (1.8% annual growth rate)
over the projection horizon.
 The commercial sector has the second highest growth at 1.4% per year on average.
 The residential sector shows moderate growth of 27% over the projection period, or an
average annual growth of 1.1%. Growth is particularly slow during the first few years of the
projection, due to the relatively slow economy, as well as the phase in of the EISA lighting
standards and other new equipment standards.
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
1,600
Manufacturing -
Food
Agriculture Water and
Wastewater
Electronics Other
An
n
u
a
l

E
n
e
r
g
y

U
s
e

(
1
,
0
0
0

M
W
h
)
Cooling
Heating
Ventilation
Interior Lighting
Exterior Lighting
Motors
Process
Miscellaneous
Executive Summary

xii www.enernoc.com
Figure ES-9 Residential Baseline Projection by End Use

Figure ES-10 Commercial Baseline Projection by End Use

0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
2011 2012 2013 2015 2017 2022 2027 2032
An
n
u
a
l

U
s
e

(
1
,
0
0
0

M
W
h
)
Cooling
Space Heating
Water Heating
Interior Lighting
Exterior Lighting
Appliances
Electronics
Miscellaneous
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
4,000
4,500
5,000
2011 2012 2013 2015 2017 2022 2027 2032
An
n
u
a
l

U
s
e

(
1
,
0
0
0
0

M
W
h
)
Cooling
Heating
Ventilation
Water Heating
Interior Lighting
Exterior Lighting
Refrigeration
Food Preparation
Office Equipment
Miscellaneous
Executive Summary

EnerNOC Utility Solutions Consulting xiii
Figure ES-11 Industrial Baseline Projection by End Use

Executive Summary

xiv www.enernoc.com
Table ES-1 Baseline Projection Summary (1,000 MWh)
Sector 2011 2012 2013 2015 2017 2022 2027 2032 % Change
2011-2032
Avg. Annual
Growth
Rate
Residential 5,079 5,075 5,076 5,159 5,348 5,718 6,058 6,462 27% 1.1%
Commercial 3,412 3,448 3,506 3,625 3,738 4,053 4,282 4,531 33% 1.4%
Industrial 2,585 2,651 2,741 2,895 3,010 3,210 3,493 3,812 47% 1.8%
Irrigation 1,769 1,789 1,790 1,819 1,825 1,900 1,964 2,038 15% 0.7%
Street Lighting 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 0% 0.0%
Total 12,869 12,987 13,136 13,521 13,945 14,904 15,821 16,868 31% 1.3%

Figure ES-12 Baseline Projection Summary

-
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
16,000
18,000
An
n
u
a
l

U
s
e

(
1
,
0
0
0

M
W
h
)
Street Lighting
Irrigation
Industrial
Commercial
Residential
Executive Summary
EnerNOC Utility Solutions Consulting xv
Energy Efficiency Measures
The first step of the energy conservation measure analysis was to identify the list of all relevant
conservation measures that should be considered for the potential assessment. Sources for
selecting and characterizing measures included Idaho Power’s programs, the Northwest Power
and Conservation Council’s Regional Technical Forum (RTF) deemed measure databases,
EnerNOC’s building modeling tool BEST and EnerNOC’s measure databases from previous studies
and program work.
The measures are categorized into two types according to the LoadMAP4 taxonomy: equipment
measures and non-equipment measures:
 Equipment measures, or efficient energy-consuming pieces of equipment, save energy by
providing the same service with a lower energy requirement. An example is the replacement
of a standard efficiency refrigerator with an ENERGY STAR model. For equipment measures,
many efficiency levels are available for a specific technology that range from the baseline
unit (often determined by code or standard) up to the most efficient product commercially
available. For instance, in the case of central air conditioners, this list begins with the federal
standard SEER 13 unit and spans a broad spectrum of efficiency, with the highest efficiency
level represented by a SEER 21 unit.
 Non-equipment measures save energy by reducing the need for delivered energy but do
not involve replacement or purchase of major end-use equipment (such as a refrigerator or
air conditioner). An example would be a programmable thermostat that is pre-set to run the
air conditioner only when people are home. Non-equipment measures fall into one of the
following categories:
o Building shell (windows, insulation, roofing material)
o Equipment controls (thermostat, occupancy sensors)
o Equipment maintenance (cleaning filters, changing setpoints)
o Whole-building design (natural ventilation, passive solar lighting)
o Lighting retrofits (included as a non-equipment measure because retrofits are performed
prior to the equipment’s normal end of life)
o Displacement measures (ceiling fan to reduce use of central air conditioners)
o Commissioning and retrocommissioning
Table ES-2 summarizes the number of equipment and non-equipment measures evaluated for
each sector.
Table ES-2 Number of Measures Evaluated
Measures Evaluated Residential Commercial Industrial Irrigation
Total
Number of
Measures
Equipment Measures 1,500 3,528 1,038 88 6,154
Non-Equipment Measures 488 1,784 726 70 3,068
Total 1,988 5,312 1,764 158 9,222

4 EnerNOC’s Load Management Analysis and PlanningTM tool, which was used to perform the energy efficiency potential analysis.
Executive Summary

xvi www.enernoc.com
Energy Efficiency Potential Results
Table ES-3 and Figure ES-13 summarize the energy efficiency savings for the different levels of
potential relative to the baseline projection. Figure ES-14 displays the baseline and potential
projections.
 Achievable potential across the residential, commercial, industrial, and irrigation sectors is
594,772 MWh or 67.9 aMW in 2017 and increases to 234.4 aMW by 2032. This represents
4.3% of the baseline projection in 2017 and 12.2% in 2032. By 2032, Achievable potential of
2,053,161 MWh offsets 53% of the 3,904,245 MWh growth in the baseline projection over
the study period.
 Economic potential, which reflects the savings when all cost-effective measures are taken,
is 1,734,396 MWh or 198.0 aMW in 2017. This represents 12.4% of the baseline energy
projection. By 2032, economic potential reaches 438.3 aMW, 22.8% of the baseline energy
projection.
 Technical potential, which reflects the adoption of all energy efficiency measures
regardless of cost-effectiveness, is a theoretical upper bound on savings. In 2017, technical
potential savings are 2,849,545 MWh or 325.3 aMW, equivalent to 20.4% of the baseline
energy projection. By 2032, technical potential reaches 720.0 aMW, 37.4% of the baseline
energy projection.
Table ES-3 Summary of Energy Efficiency Potential

2012 2013 2015 2017 2022 2027 2032
Baseline Projection (MWh)12,963,424 13,135,778 13,521,442 13,944,808 14,904,276 15,821,200 16,867,669
Cumulative Savings (MWh)
Achievable Potential 128,230 213,793 410,726 594,772 1,048,684 1,570,770 2,053,161
Economic Potential 732,142 1,002,446 1,476,490 1,734,396 2,695,890 3,373,589 3,839,473
Technical Potential 1,177,752 1,587,035 2,329,976 2,849,545 4,372,407 5,545,301 6,307,377
Cumulative Savings (aMW)
Achievable Potential 14.6 24.4 46.9 67.9 119.7 179.3 234.4
Economic Potential 83.6 114.4 168.5 198.0 307.8 385.1 438.3
Technical Potential 134.4 181.2 266.0 325.3 499.1 633.0 720.0
Savings (% of Baseline)
Achievable Potential 1.0% 1.6% 3.0% 4.3% 7.0% 9.9% 12.2%
Economic Potential 5.6% 7.6% 10.9% 12.4% 18.1% 21.3% 22.8%
Technical Potential 9.1% 12.1% 17.2% 20.4% 29.3% 35.0% 37.4%
Executive Summary
EnerNOC Utility Solutions Consulting xvii
Figure ES-13 Summary of Energy Savings by Potential Case

Figure ES-14 Energy Efficiency Potential Projections

0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
2012 2013 2015 2017 2022 2027 2032
En
e
r
g
y

S
a
v
i
n
g
s

(
%

o
f

B
a
s
e
l
i
n
e

P
r
o
j
e
c
t
i
o
n
)
Achievable Potential
Economic Potential
Technical Potential
Executive Summary

xviii www.enernoc.com
Table ES-4 and Figure ES-15 summarize achievable potential by sector and year.
Table ES-4 Achievable Energy Efficiency Potential by Sector
Sector 2012 2013 2015 2017 2022 2027 2032
Achievable Cumulative Savings (MWh)
Residential 34,123 60,991 132,339 189,469 297,049 473,094 701,104
Commercial 51,289 77,323 135,839 194,418 357,246 512,268 633,771
Industrial 39,772 69,610 122,714 174,526 301,997 415,708 488,465
Irrigation 3,046 5,869 19,833 36,360 92,393 169,700 229,821
Total 128,230 213,793 410,726 594,772 1,048,684 1,570,770 2,053,161
Achievable Cumulative Savings (aMW)
Residential 3.9 7.0 15.1 21.6 33.9 54.0 80.0
Commercial 5.9 8.8 15.5 22.2 40.8 58.5 72.3
Industrial 4.5 7.9 14.0 19.9 34.5 47.5 55.8
Irrigation 0.3 0.7 2.3 4.2 10.5 19.4 26.2
Total 14.6 24.4 46.9 67.9 119.7 179.3 234.4

Figure ES-15 Achievable Energy Efficiency Potential by Sector

Figure ES-16 focuses on the residential cumulative achievable potential in 2017.
 Lighting, primarily the conversion of both interior and exterior lamps to compact fluorescent
lamps, represents 110,904 MWh or 59% of savings.
 Cooling and heating are the next highest sources of achievable potential, at 13% and 11%
respectively, due mainly to savings from duct repair /sealing and thermostats.
 Water heating, including low-flow fixtures, pipe wrap, and efficient water heaters, provide
6% of achievable potential.
-
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
2015 2017 2022 2032
Ac
h
i
e
v
a
b
l
e

Po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
Sa
v
i
n
g
s

(
1
,
0
0
0

M
W
h
)

Irrigation
Industrial
Commercial
Residential
Executive Summary
EnerNOC Utility Solutions Consulting xix
 Electronics, including efficient televisions, computers, and set top boxes, as well as devices
that reduce standby energy use, offer 6% of the potential.
 Appliances, mainly removal of second refrigerators and freezers, provide 5%.
Figure ES-16 Residential Achievable Potential by End Use in 2017 (percentage of total)

As shown in Figure ES-17 , the primary sources of commercial sector achievable savings in 2017
are as follows:
 Interior and exterior lighting, with lamps and fixtures accounting for 40% of commercial
sector achievable potential, and lighting controls and commissioning providing the remaining
6%
 HVAC — with the largest proportion due to converting ventilation systems to variable air
volume (VAV) (8%), followed by high-efficiency chillers (5%), advanced new construction
designs (3%), energy managements systems (4%), and commissioning and other controls
(4%)
 Office Equipment – servers and efficient computers (6%)
 Water heating and refrigeration provide 6% and 5% of savings

Executive Summary

xx www.enernoc.com
Figure ES-17 Commercial Achievable Potential Savings by End Use in 2017 (percentage
of total)

Figure ES-17 illustrates the end uses that contribute to achievable potential savings in 2017 for
the industrial sector, reflecting that the preponderance of savings comes from motor loads,
followed by process-related measures.
Figure ES-18 shows the achievable potential savings by end use. The specific measures providing
the greatest savings are variable frequency and variable speed drives for fans, pumps, and other
motors; fan and pump measures such as optimization and controls, compressed air measures,
and refrigeration measures.
Figure ES-18 Industrial Achievable Potential Savings by End Use in 2017 (MWh)

Cooling
8%
Heating
6%
Ventilation
3%
Interior Lighting
10%
Exterior Lighting
1%
Motors
52%
Process
20%
Miscellaneous
0%
Executive Summary
EnerNOC Utility Solutions Consulting xxi
Although the smallest of the sectors analyzed here, the irrigation sector still has significant
achievable potential of 36,360 MWh in 2017. The only end-use in the irrigation sector analysis is
motors. Because of the NEMA motor standards, all new and replacement motors will move to
premium efficiency units in the baseline case and potential savings are only available from
upgrading to still more efficient levels. These higher efficiency units do not pass the cost-
effectiveness test. Nonetheless, savings are available from the following measures:
 Scientific irrigation practices (38% of 2017 savings)
 Proper pressure or head design (21% of 2017 savings)
 Multiple configuration nozzles and nozzle replacement (15% of 2017 savings)
 Variable frequency drives (10% of 2017 savings)
 Multiple pumps to enable part-load operation (6% of 2017 savings)
The special contract customers were not analyzed within LoadMAP, but instead, potential was
assessed separately. Consideration for this analysis included EE measures and actions already
implemented, general business plans, and planned future efficiency measures. Based on this
analysis, potential for these customers was estimated at approximately 10,557 MWh annually.
Report Organization
The body of the report is organized as follows:
1. Introduction
2. Analysis Approach and Data Development
3. Market Assessment and Market Profiles
4. Baseline Projection
5. Energy Efficiency Potential

EnerNOC Utility Solutions Consulting xxiii

CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................. V
1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................... 1-1
Background ................................................................................................................... 1-1
2 ANALYSIS APPROACH DATA DEVELOPMENT ........................................................ 2-1
Introduction................................................................................................................... 2-1
LoadMAP Model ................................................................................................. 2-2
Market Characterization ...................................................................................... 2-3
Baseline Projection ............................................................................................. 2-9
Energy Efficiency Measure Analysis ..................................................................... 2-9
Energy Efficiency Potential ................................................................................ 2-13
Data Development ....................................................................................................... 2-14
Data Sources ................................................................................................... 2-14
Data Application ........................................................................................................... 2-17
Data Application for Market Characterization ...................................................... 2-17
Data Application for Market Profiles ................................................................... 2-18
Data Application for Baseline Forecast ............................................................... 2-19
Data Application for Energy Efficiency Measures ................................................ 2-22
Data Application for Cost-effectiveness Screening .............................................. 2-23
Data Application for Potentials Estimation .......................................................... 2-23
3 MARKET CHARACTERIZATION AND MARKET PROFILES ...................................... 3-1
Residential Sector .......................................................................................................... 3-2
Commercial Sector ......................................................................................................... 3-7
Industrial Sector ............................................................................................................ 3-3
Irrigation Sector ............................................................................................................. 3-6
4 BASELINE PROJECTION ........................................................................................ 4-1
Residential Sector .......................................................................................................... 4-1
Commercial Sector ......................................................................................................... 4-5
Industrial Sector ............................................................................................................ 4-7
Irrigation ....................................................................................................................... 4-9
Baseline Projection Summary ........................................................................................ 4-10
5 ENERGY EFFICIENCY POTENTIAL ......................................................................... 5-1
Residential Sector .......................................................................................................... 5-4
Residential Potential by End Use ......................................................................... 5-5
Residential Potential by Market Segment ............................................................. 5-9
Commercial Sector Potential ......................................................................................... 5-11
Commercial Potential by End Use, Technology, and Measure Type ...................... 5-12
Commercial Potential by Market Segment .......................................................... 5-17
Industrial Sector Potential............................................................................................. 5-21

xxiv www.enernoc.com
Industrial Potential by End Use, Technology, and Measure Type ......................... 5-22
Industrial Sector Potential by Market Segment ................................................... 5-24
Irrigation Sector Potential ............................................................................................. 5-25
Special-Contract Customer Potential .............................................................................. 5-27

EnerNOC Utility Solutions Consulting xxv
CONTENTS

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure ES-1 Overview of Analysis Approach ................................................................................ vi
Figure ES-2 Sector-Level Electricity Use, 2011 ........................................................................... vii
Figure ES-3 Residential Market Segmentation by Housing Type, 2011 ......................................... viii
Figure ES-4 Residential Intensity by End Use and Segment, 2011 ................................................ ix
Figure ES-5 Commercial Market Segmentation by Building Type, Percentage of Sales, 2011 .......... ix
Figure ES-6 Commercial Sector Energy Use by End Use, 2011 .................................................... x
Figure ES-7 Industrial Market Segmentation by Industry Type, Percentage of Sales, 2011.............. x
Figure ES-8 Industrial Energy Use by Segment and End Use, 2011 .............................................. xi
Figure ES-9 Residential Baseline Projection by End Use .............................................................. xii
Figure ES-10 Commercial Baseline Projection by End Use ............................................................. xii
Figure ES-11 Industrial Baseline Projection by End Use ................................................................ xiii
Figure ES-12 Baseline Projection Summary................................................................................. xiv
Figure ES-13 Summary of Energy Savings by Potential Case ........................................................ xvii
Figure ES-14 Energy Efficiency Potential Projections ................................................................... xvii
Figure ES-15 Achievable Energy Efficiency Potential by Sector .................................................... xviii
Figure ES-16 Residential Achievable Potential by End Use in 2017 (percentage of total) ................ xix
Figure ES-17 Commercial Achievable Potential Savings by End Use in 2017 (percentage of total) ... xx
Figure ES-18 Industrial Achievable Potential Savings by End Use in 2017 (MWh) ........................... xx
Figure 2-1 Overview of Analysis Approach .............................................................................. 2-1
Figure 2-2 LoadMAP Analysis Framework ................................................................................ 2-3
Figure 2-3 Approach for Measure Assessment ....................................................................... 2-10
Figure 2-4 Avoided Costs ..................................................................................................... 2-23
Figure 3-1 Sector-Level Electricity Use, 2011 .......................................................................... 3-1
Figure 3-2 Residential Market Segmentation by Housing Type, 2011 ........................................ 3-3
Figure 3-3 Residential Electricity Use by End Use and Segment (2011), All Homes .................... 3-5
Figure 3-4 Residential Intensity by End Use and Segment, 2011 .............................................. 3-5
Figure 3-5 Percentage of Residential Electricity Use by End Use and Segment (2011) ............... 3-6
Figure 3-6 Commercial Market Segmentation by Building Type, Percentage of Sales, 2011 .... 3-7
Figure 3-7 Commercial Sector Energy Use by End Use, 2011 ............................................... 3-10
Figure 3-8 Commercial Building Intensity by Segment, 2011 .................................................. 3-10
Figure 3-9 Percentage of Annual Electricity Use by End Use for Commercial Buildings ............. 3-11
Figure 3-10 Industrial Market Segmentation by Industry Type, Percentage of Sales, 2011 ....... 3-3
Figure 3-11 Industrial Sector Energy Use by End Use .............................................................. 3-5
Figure 3-12 Industrial Energy Use by Segment and End Use, 2011 ............................................ 3-5
Figure 3-13 Percentage of Annual Electricity Use by End Use for Industry Segments ................... 3-6
Figure 4-1 Residential Baseline Projection by End Use ............................................................. 4-2
Figure 4-2 Residential Baseline Projection Use per Customer by End Use .................................. 4-2
Figure 4-3 Commercial Baseline Projection by End Use ............................................................ 4-6
Figure 4-4 Industrial Baseline Electricity Projection by End Use ................................................ 4-8

xxvi www.enernoc.com
Figure 4-5 Baseline Projection Summary............................................................................... 4-10
Figure 5-1 Summary of Energy Savings by Potential Case ........................................................ 5-2
Figure 5-2 Energy Efficiency Potential Projections ................................................................... 5-2
Figure 5-3 Achievable Energy Efficiency Potential by Sector ..................................................... 5-3
Figure 5-4 Residential Energy Savings by Potential Case ......................................................... 5-5
Figure 5-5 Residential Energy Efficiency Potential Projections .................................................. 5-5
Figure 5-6 Residential Achievable Potential by End Use in 2017 (percentage of total) ................ 5-7
Figure 5-7 Commercial Energy Efficiency Potential Savings .................................................... 5-12
Figure 5-8 Commercial Energy Efficiency Potential Projections ............................................... 5-12
Figure 5-9 Commercial Achievable Potential Cumulative Savings by End Use in 2017 (percentage
of total).............................................................................................................. 5-17
Figure 5-10 Commercial Achievable Savings in 2017 by End Use and Building Type .................. 5-20
Figure 5-11 Industrial Energy Efficiency Potential Savings ....................................................... 5-21
Figure 5-12 Industrial Energy Efficiency Potential Projection .................................................... 5-22
Figure 5-13 Industrial Achievable Potential Savings by End Use in 2017 (MWh) ........................ 5-24
Figure 5-14 Industrial Achievable Potential Savings by Segment and End Use in 2017 (MWh) ... 5-25
Figure 5-15 Irrigation Energy Efficiency Potential Savings........................................................ 5-26
Figure 5-16 Irrigation Energy Efficiency Potential Projection .................................................... 5-26

EnerNOC Utility Solutions Consulting xxvii

LIST OF TABLES
Table ES-1 Baseline Projection Summary (1,000 MWh) ............................................................ xiv
Table ES-2 Number of Measures Evaluated .............................................................................. xv
Table ES-3 Summary of Energy Efficiency Potential.................................................................. xvi
Table ES-4 Achievable Energy Efficiency Potential by Sector .................................................... xviii
Table 1-1 Explanation of Abbreviations and Acronyms ............................................................ 1-3
Table 2-1 Overview of Analysis Segmentation Scheme ........................................................... 2-4
Table 2-2 Residential End Uses and Technologies .................................................................. 2-5
Table 2-3 Commercial End Uses and Technologies ................................................................. 2-8
Table 2-4 Sample Equipment Measures for Air Conditioning – Single Family Existing .............. 2-11
Table 2-5 Sample Non-Equipment Measures Affecting Cooling – Single Family Home, Existing 2-12
Table 2-6 Data Applied for the Market Profiles ..................................................................... 2-18
Table 2-7 Data Needs for the Baseline Projection and Potentials Estimation in LoadMAP ........ 2-19
Table 2-8 Residential Electric Equipment Standards ............................................................. 2-20
Table 2-9 Commercial Electric Equipment Standards ............................................................ 2-21
Table 2-10 Data Needs for the Measure Characteristics in LoadMAP ....................................... 2-22
Table 2-11 Number of Measures Evaluated ........................................................................... 2-23
Table 3-1 Sector Level Market Characterization, Base Year 2011............................................. 3-1
Table 3-2 Commercial and Industrial Sales Adjustments for LoadMAP Modeling ....................... 3-2
Table 3-3 Residential Market Segmentation by Housing Type, Base Year 2011 ........................ 3-3
Table 3-4 Residential Sector Composite Market Profile 2011 ................................................... 3-4
Table 3-5 Residential Electricity Use by End Use and Segment (kWh/cust/year, 2011) ............. 3-6
Table 3-6 Commercial Sector Market Characterization ............................................................ 3-8
Table 3-7 Commercial Sector Composite Market Profile, 2011 ................................................. 3-9
Table 3-8 Commercial Electricity Use by End Use (1,000 MWh, 2011) ..................................... 3-2
Table 3-9 Industrial Market Segmentation and Employment ................................................... 3-3
Table 3-10 Industrial Sector Composite Market Profile, 2011 .................................................... 3-4
Table 3-11 Industrial Electricity Use by End Use and Segment (1,000 MWh, 2011) .................... 3-6
Table 3-12 Irrigation Sector Market Profile, 2011 ..................................................................... 3-7
Table 4-1 Residential Baseline Projection by End Use (1,000 MWh) ......................................... 4-1
Table 4-2 Residential Baseline Projection of Use per Customer by End Use (kWh).................... 4-3
Table 4-3 Residential Baseline Forecast by End Use and Technology (MWh) ............................ 4-4
Table 4-4 Commercial Electricity Consumption by End Use (1,000 MWh) ................................. 4-5
Table 4-5 Commercial Baseline Electricity Projection by End Use and Technology (1,000 MWh) 4-7
Table 4-6 Industrial Electricity Consumption by End Use (MWh) ............................................. 4-8
Table 4-7 Irrigation Baseline Projection ................................................................................. 4-9
Table 4-8 Baseline Projection Summary (1,000 MWh) .......................................................... 4-10
Table 5-1 Summary of Energy Efficiency Potential.................................................................. 5-1
Table 5-2 Achievable Energy Efficiency Potential by Sector ..................................................... 5-3
Table 5-3 Energy Efficiency Potential for the Residential Sector .............................................. 5-4

xxviii www.enernoc.com
Table 5-4 Residential Savings by End Use and Potential Type (MWh) ...................................... 5-6
Table 5-5 Residential Achievable Potential for Equipment Measures (1,000 MWh) .................... 5-8
Table 5-6 Residential Achievable Savings for Non-equipment Measures (1,000 MWh) .............. 5-9
Table 5-7 Residential Achievable Potential by Market Segment ............................................. 5-10
Table 5-8 Residential Potential Summary by Market Segment, 2017 ...................................... 5-10
Table 5-9 Residential Achievable Potential by End Use and Market Segment, 2017 (MWh) ..... 5-11
Table 5-10 Energy Efficiency Potential for the Commercial Sector ........................................... 5-11
Table 5-11 Commercial Potential by End Use and Potential Type (MWh) ................................. 5-13
Table 5-12 Commercial Achievable Savings for Equipment Measures (1,000MWh) ................... 5-14
Table 5-13 Commercial Achievable Savings for Non-equipment Measures (1,000MWh) ............ 5-15
Table 5-14 Commercial Potential by Market Segment, 2017 ................................................... 5-17
Table 5-15 Commercial Achievable Savings in 2017 by End Use and Building Type (1,000 MWh)5-19
Table 5-16 Energy Efficiency Potential for the Industrial Sector .............................................. 5-21
Table 5-17 Industrial Potential by End Use and Potential Type (MWh) .................................... 5-23
Table 5-18 Industrial Potential by Market Segment, 2017 ....................................................... 5-24
Table 5-19 Energy Efficiency Potential for the Irrigation Sector ............................................... 5-25

EnerNOC Utility Solutions Consulting 1-1
INTRODUCTION
Background
Idaho Power has contracted with EnerNOC Utility Solutions Consulting (EnerNOC) to conduct an
energy efficiency (EE) potential assessment to quantify the amount, the timing, and the cost of
electric energy efficiency resources available within the Idaho Power service territory. Key
objectives for the study include:
 Provide credible and transparent estimation of the technical, economic, and achievable
energy efficiency potential by year over the next 21 years within the Idaho Power service
territory
 Assess potential energy savings associated with each potential area by energy efficiency
measure or bundled measure and sector
 Provide an executable dynamic model that will support the potential assessment and allow
for testing of sensitivity of all model inputs and assumptions
 Review and update load profiles by sector, program, and end-use
 Develop a final report including summary data tables and graphs reporting incremental and
cumulative potential by year from 2011 through 2032.
Report Organization
This report contains the following chapters:
1. Introduction
2. Analysis Approach and Data Development
3. Market Assessment and Market Profiles
4. Baseline Projection
5. Energy Efficiency Potential
Definitions of Potential
In this study, the energy efficiency potential estimates represent gross savings developed into
three types of potential: technical potential, economic potential, and achievable potential.
Technical and economic potential are both theoretical limits to efficiency savings. Achievable
potential embodies a set of assumptions about the decisions consumers make regarding the
efficiency of the equipment they purchase, the maintenance activities they undertake, the
controls they use for energy-consuming equipment, and the elements of building construction.
These levels are described below.
Technical potential is defined as the theoretical upper limit of energy efficiency potential. It
assumes that customers adopt all feasible measures regardless of cost. At the time of equipment
failure, customers replace equipment with the most efficient option available. In new
construction, customers and developers also choose the most efficient equipment option.
Examples of measures that make up technical potential in the residential sector include:
Technical potential also assumes the adoption of every available other measure, where
applicable. For example, it includes installation of high-efficiency windows in all new construction
opportunities and heat pump maintenance in all existing buildings with heat pump systems. The
CHAPTER 1
Introduction
1-2 www.enernoc.com
retrofit measures are phased in over a number of years, which is longer for higher-cost
measures.
Economic potential represents the adoption of all cost-effective energy efficiency measures.
In this analysis, the total resource cost (TRC) test, which compares lifetime energy and capacity
benefits to the incremental cost of the measure, is applied. Economic potential assumes that
customers purchase the most cost-effective option at the time of equipment failure and also
adopt every other cost-effective and applicable measure.
Achievable potential takes into account market maturity, customer preferences for energy-
efficient technologies, and expected program participation. Achievable potential establishes a
realistic target for the energy efficiency savings that a utility can hope to achieve through its
programs. It is determined by applying a series of annual factors to the economic potential for
each energy efficiency measure. These factors represent the ramp rates at which technologies
will penetrate the market. To develop these factors, the project team reviewed Idaho Power’s
past DSM achievements and program history over the last five year, as well as the Northwest
Power and Conservation Council (NWPCC) ramp rates used in the Sixth Plan. Details regarding
the ramp rates appear in Appendix E.
The technical, economic, and achievable potential projections are calculated as the savings
versus a hypothetical scenario in which Idaho Power completely stops offering DSM programs in
the future. Therefore, they represent total potential, not the marginal potential compared with
current programs.

Introduction
EnerNOC Utility Solutions Consulting 1-3
Abbreviations and Acronyms
Throughout the report we make reference to several abbreviations and acronyms. Table 1-1
shows the abbreviation or acronym, along with what it stands for.
Table 1-1 Explanation of Abbreviations and Acronyms
Acronym Explanation
AC Air conditioning
ACS American Community Survey
AEO Annual Energy Outlook
aMW Average megawatt; one aMW equals 8,760 MWh
B/C Ratio Benefit to Cost Ratio
BEST EnerNOC’s Building Energy Simulation Tool
C&I Commercial and Industrial
CBSA Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance Commercial Building Stock Assessment
CFL Compact Fluorescent Lamp
Cust Customer
DEEM Database of Energy Efficiency Measures
DEER Database for Energy-Efficient Resources
DSM Demand side management
EE Energy Efficiency
EIA Energy Information Administration
EISA Energy Efficiency and Security Act of 2007
EPACT Energy Policy Act of 2005
EPRI Electric Power Research Institute
EUI Energy-use Index
HH Household
HID High Intensity Discharge lighting
HPWH Heat Pump Water Heater
IRP Integrated Resource Plan
LED Light Emitting Diode lamp
LoadMAPTM EnerNOC’s Load Management Analysis and Planning tool
MAR Market Acceptance Rate
NEEA Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance
NWPCC Northwest Power and Conservation Council
POS Terminal Point-of-Sale Terminal
RTF Regional Technical Forum
RTU Roof top unit
SIC Standard Industrial Classification
Sq. ft. Square feet
TRC Total Resource Cost
UEC Unit Energy Consumption
VAV Variable Air Volume

EnerNOC Utility Solutions Consulting 2-1
ANALYSIS APPROACH DATA DEVELOPMENT
Introduction
To perform the energy efficiency analysis, EnerNOC used a bottom-up analysis approach as
shown in Figure 2-1 and summarized below.
Figure 2-1 Overview of Analysis Approach

1. Held a meeting with Idaho Power staff to refine objectives and develop a study work plan.
2. Performed a market characterization to describe sector-level electricity use for the
residential, commercial, industrial, and irrigation sectors for the base year, 2011. This
included using utility data and secondary data from sources such as the American Community
Survey (ACS), and the Energy Information Administration (EIA).
3. Utilized Idaho Power primary market research from the Idaho Power 2010 Home Energy
Survey and secondary sources including the NWPCC and the Northwest Energy Efficiency
Alliance (NEAA) to understand how customers in the Idaho Power service territory currently
use electricity. Combining this information with the market characterization, we developed
energy market profiles that describe energy use by sector, segment, and end use for 2011.
4. Developed a baseline electricity projection by sector, segment, and end use for 2011–2032.
5. Identified and analyzed energy efficiency measures appropriate for the Idaho Power service
territory, including but not limited to measures currently covered in Idaho Power programs.
EE measure dataUtility data
Engineering analysis
Secondary data
Market characterization
Customer participation
Program considerations
Market capacity
Statement of Work Meeting
Establish objectives
Technical and
economic potential
Achievable potential
Utility data
Customer surveys
Secondary data
Base-year energy use
by segment
Baseline projection
Draft report
Supply curves
Final report
Detailed Work Plan
End-use projection by
segment
Prototypes and
energy analysis
Program results
Secondary data
Best-practices research
Forecast data
Synthesis / analysis
CHAPTER 2
Analysis Approach Data Development
2-2 www.enernoc.com
6. Estimated three levels of energy efficiency potential, Technical, Economic, and Achievable.
7. Separately estimated potential for Idaho Power’s special-contract customers.
8. Developed supply curves.
The steps are described in further detail throughout the remainder of this chapter.
LoadMAP Model
We used the EnerNOC’s Load Management Analysis and Planning tool (LoadMAPTM) to develop
the baseline projection, as well as the estimates of energy efficiency potential for the residential,
commercial, industrial, and irrigation sectors. EnerNOC developed LoadMAP in 2007 and has used
it for the EPRI National Potential Study and numerous utility-specific forecasting and potential
studies. Built in Excel, the LoadMAP framework (see Figure 2-2) is both accessible and
transparent and has the following key features.
 Develops a bottom-up projection based on energy use by end use of major energy-
consuming equipment.
 Embodies the basic principles of rigorous end-use models (such as EPRI’s REEPS and
COMMEND) but in a more simplified, accessible form.
 Includes stock-accounting algorithms that treat older, less efficient appliance/equipment
stock separately from newer, more efficient equipment. Equipment is replaced according to
the measure life defined by the user.
 Balances the competing needs of simplicity and robustness by incorporating important
modeling details related to equipment saturations, efficiencies, vintage, and the like, where
market data are available, and treats end uses separately to account for varying importance
and availability of data resources.
 Uses a simple logic for appliance and equipment decisions. Isolates new construction from
existing equipment and buildings and treats purchase decisions for new construction and
existing buildings separately.
 Includes appliance and equipment models customized by end use. For example, the logic for
lighting equipment is distinct from refrigerators and freezers.
 Can accommodate various levels of segmentation. Analysis can be performed at the sector
level (e.g., total residential) or for customized segments within sectors (e.g., housing type or
income level).
Consistent with the segmentation scheme and the market profiles we describe below, the
LoadMAP model provides projections of baseline energy use by sector, segment, end use and
technology for existing and new buildings. It also provides projections of total energy use and
energy efficiency savings associated with the three types of potential.
Analysis Approach Data Development
EnerNOC Utility Solutions Consulting 2-3
Figure 2-2 LoadMAP Analysis Framework

Market Characterization
Before assessing energy efficiency potential, it is critical to develop a good understanding of
where Idaho Power is today in terms of electricity use and customer behavior. The purpose of
the market characterization is to develop market profiles that describe current electricity use in
terms of sector, customer segment, and end use. The base year for this study is 2011 because
that was the most recent year for which utility sales data were available.
Analysis Segmentation
The market assessment began by defining the market segments (building types, end uses, and
other dimensions) that are relevant for Idaho Power. The segmentation scheme employed for
this project is presented in Table 2-1.

Forecast Data
Market Profiles
Market size
Equipment saturation
Fuel shares
Technology shares
Vintage distribution
Unit energy consumption
Coincident demand
Base-year Energy
Consumption
by technology,
end use, segment,
vintage & sector
Economic Data
Customer growth
Energy prices
Exogenous factors
Elasticities
Energy-efficiency
analysis
Forecast Results
List of measures
Saturations
Adoption rates
Avoided costs
Cost-effectiveness
screening
Baseline forecast
Savings
Estimates
(Annual & peak)
Technical potential
Economic potential
Achievable potential
Customer segmentation Energy-efficiency
forecasts:Technical
Economic
Achievable
Technology Data
Efficiency optionsCodes and standards
Purchase shares
Analysis Approach Data Development
2-4 www.enernoc.com
Table 2-1 Overview of Analysis Segmentation Scheme
Market Dimension
Segmentation
Variable Dimension Example
Dimension 1 Sector Residential, commercial, industrial, irrigation
Dimension 2 Building type
Residential (Single family, Multi family, Mobile/Mfg
Home, Limited Income Single Family, Limited Income
Multi Family, and Limited Income Mobile/Mfg home)
Commercial (Offices, Restaurant, Retail, etc.)
Industrial (Manufacturing - Food, Agriculture, Water
and Wastewater, Electronics, Other industrial)
Irrigation
Dimension 4 Vintage Existing and new construction (for residential and
commercial sectors)
Dimension 5 End uses Cooling, lighting, water heat, motors, etc. (as
appropriate by sector)
Dimension 6
Appliances/end
uses and
technologies
Technologies such as lamp type, air conditioning
equipment, motors by size, etc.
Dimension 7
Equipment
efficiency levels for
new purchases
Baseline and higher-efficiency options as appropriate
for each technology

For the residential sector, the EE potential study used the following segmentation, based on
housing type. For each housing type, we also analyzed a limited income segment, defined as
approximately twice the federal poverty limit, which also correlates with the income threshold
used in Idaho Power’s Weatherization Solutions program.
 Single-family homes — single-family detached homes and duplexes, non limited income
 Multi-family homes — buildings with 3 or more units, non limited income
 Mobile/Mfg homes — mobile homes and manufactured housing, non limited income
 Limited income single-family homes — single-family detached homes and duplexes,
limited income
 Limited income multi-family homes — buildings with 3 or more units, limited income
 Limited income mobile homes — mobile homes and manufactured housing, limited
income
In addition to segmentation by housing type, we identified the set of end uses and technologies
that are appropriate for Idaho Power. These are shown in Table 2-2.

Analysis Approach Data Development
EnerNOC Utility Solutions Consulting 2-5
Table 2-2 Residential End Uses and Technologies
End Use Technology
Cooling Central Air Conditioning (CAC)
Cooling Room Air Conditioning (RAC)
Cooling Air-Source Heat Pump
Cooling Geothermal Heat Pump
Cooling Evaporative Air Conditioning
Space Heating Electric Room Heat
Space Heating Electric Furnace
Space Heating Air-Source Heat Pump
Space Heating Geothermal Heat Pump
Water Heating Water Heater <= 55 Gal
Water Heating Water Heater > 55 Gal
Interior Lighting Screw-in Lamps
Interior Lighting Linear Fluorescent Lamps
Interior Lighting Specialty
Exterior Lighting Screw-in Lamps
Appliances Clothes Washer
Appliances Clothes Dryer
Appliances Dishwasher
Appliances Refrigerator
Appliances Freezer
Appliances Second Refrigerator
Appliances Stove
Appliances Microwave
Electronics Personal Computers
Electronics Monitor
Electronics Laptops
Electronics TVs
Electronics Printer/Fax/Copier
Electronics Set-top Boxes/DVR
Electronics Devices and Gadgets
Miscellaneous Pool Pump
Miscellaneous Pool Heater
Miscellaneous Hot Tub / Spa
Miscellaneous Well Pump
Miscellaneous Furnace Fan
Miscellaneous Miscellaneous
Analysis Approach Data Development
2-6 www.enernoc.com
For the commercial sector, it is useful to think of the segments based on the unique
characteristics of the type of building. This study used the following building types:
 Small office (less than 50,000 square feet) —all types of offices
 Large office (greater than or equal to 50,000 square feet) — all types of offices including
large government facilities; data centers are also included
 Restaurant — fast-food, sit-down and cafeteria-style restaurants
 Retail — retail establishments from small boutiques to large box retailers
 Grocery — supermarkets and other grocery stores
 College — colleges, universities and technical colleges
 School — primary and secondary schools
 Hospitals — hospitals, doctors’ offices, and nursing facilities
 Lodging — hotels, motels, resorts and small inns
 Assembly – theatres, places of worship, museums, convention centers, marinas, yacht
clubs, golf clubs, recreation and fitness facilities
 Warehouse — non refrigerated storage
 Miscellaneous — all remaining building types such as fire stations, police stations,
correctional facilities, and parking garages, and cemeteries
In addition to segmentation by building type, we identified the set of end uses and technologies
that are appropriate for Idaho Power.
Analysis Approach Data Development
EnerNOC Utility Solutions Consulting 2-7
Table 2-3 lists the end uses and technologies used in this study.
The industrial sector is typically segmented by industry type. Because the industrial sector is
complex, the study isolated the largest industries in terms of their energy use for analysis and
combined the remaining industries into a single category. Four remaining major industrial
segments were identified as manufacturing food including refrigerated warehouses, agriculture,
water and wastewater; and electronics. The remaining industries were combined into the Other
category. In addition to segmentation by industry, we identified the set of end uses and
technologies that are appropriate for Idaho Power.
Idaho Power’s special-contract customers were not included in the analysis performed within
LoadMAP. Because these customers are each very large, it is more accurate to characterize their
potential individually, based on known information about these customers, than to estimate their
potential using a model. To do so, we spoke with Idaho Power staff, who in turn spoke with the
individual customers to help develop estimates of their efficiency potential. Consideration for this
analysis included EE measures and actions already implemented, general business plans, and
planned future efficiency measures.
With the segmentation scheme defined, we then performed a high-level market characterization
of electricity sales in the base year to allocate sales to each customer segment. We used various
data sources to identify the annual sales in each customer segment, as well as the number of
customers for residential segments, and the square footage or employee count for the
commercial and industrial segments. This information provided control totals (energy use and
customers counts/square footage/employee totals) for calibrating the LoadMAP model to known
data for the base-year.

Analysis Approach Data Development
2-8 www.enernoc.com
Table 2-3 Commercial End Uses and Technologies
End Use Technology
Cooling Air-Cooled Chiller
Cooling Water-Cooled Chiller
Cooling Roof Top AC
Cooling Air Source Heat Pump
Cooling Geothermal Heat Pump
Cooling Evaporative Air Conditioning
Cooling Other Cooling
Heating Air Source Heat Pump
Heating Geothermal Heat Pump
Heating Electric Room Heat
Heating Electric Furnace
Ventilation Ventilation
Water Heating Water Heating
Interior Lighting Screw-in
Interior Lighting High-Bay Fixtures
Interior Lighting Linear Fluorescent
Exterior Lighting Screw-in
Exterior Lighting HID
Exterior Lighting Linear Fluorescent
Refrigeration Walk-in Refrigerator
Refrigeration Reach-in Refrigerator
Refrigeration Glass Door Display
Refrigeration Open Display Case
Refrigeration Icemaker
Refrigeration Vending Machine
Food Preparation Oven
Food Preparation Fryer
Food Preparation Dishwasher
Food Preparation Hot Food Container
Office Equipment Desktop Computer
Office Equipment Laptop
Office Equipment Server
Office Equipment Monitor
Office Equipment Printer/Copier/Fax
Office Equipment POS Terminal
Miscellaneous Non-HVAC Motors
Miscellaneous Pool Pump
Miscellaneous Pool Heater
Miscellaneous Miscellaneous
Analysis Approach Data Development
EnerNOC Utility Solutions Consulting 2-9
Market Profiles
The next step was to develop market profiles for each sector, customer segment, end use, and
technology. A market profile includes the following elements:
Market size is a representation of the number of customers in the segment. For the residential
sector, it is number of customers. In the commercial sector, it is floor space measured in square
feet. For the industrial sector, it is number of employees. Floor space and employees are used
for the commercial and industrial sectors respectively because these metrics correlate with
increased energy use.
Saturations define the fraction of buildings with the electric technologies. (e.g., homes with
electric space heating, commercial floor space with space cooling).
UEC (unit energy consumption) or EUI (energy-use index) describes the amount of
electricity consumed in 2011 by a specific technology in buildings that have the technology. We
use UECs expressed in kWh/customer for the residential sector, and EUIs expressed in
kWh/square foot or kWh/employee for the commercial and industrial sectors respectively.
Intensity for the residential sector represents the average use for the technology across all
homes in 2011. It is computed as the product of the saturation and the UEC and is defined as
kWh/customer. For the commercial and industrial sectors, intensity, computed as the product of
the saturation and the EUI, represents the average use for the technology across all floor space
in 2011.
Usage is the annual electricity use by a technology/end use in the segment. It is the product of
the market size and intensity and is quantified in MWh.
The market assessment results and the market profiles are presented in Chapter 3.
Baseline Projection
The next step was to develop the baseline projection of annual electricity use and peak demand
for 2011 through 2032 by customer segment and end use without new utility programs or
naturally occurring efficiency. The end-use projection does include the relatively certain impacts
of codes and standards that will unfold over the study timeframe. All such mandates that were
defined as of January 2011 are included in the baseline. The baseline projection is the
foundation for the analysis of savings from future EE efforts as well as the metric against which
potential savings are measured.
Inputs to the baseline projection include:
 Current economic growth projections (i.e., customer growth, income growth), provided by
Idaho Power
 Electricity price projections, provided by Idaho Power
 Trends in fuel shares and equipment saturations, provided by Idaho Power, and where not
available, developed by the project team
 Existing and approved changes to building codes and equipment standards
 Idaho Power’s internally developed sector-level projections for electricity sales
We present the results of the baseline projection development in Chapter 4.
Energy Efficiency Measure Analysis
This section describes the framework used to assess the savings, costs, and other attributes of
energy efficiency measures. These characteristics form the basis for measure-level cost-
effectiveness analyses as well as for determining measure-level savings. For all measures,
EnerNOC assembled information to reflect equipment performance, incremental costs, and
equipment lifetimes. We used this information, along with Idaho Power’s preliminary avoided
Analysis Approach Data Development
2-10 www.enernoc.com
costs based on 2013 IRP planning assumptions, in the economic screen to determine
economically feasible measures. Figure 2-3 outlines the framework for measure analysis.
Figure 2-3 Approach for Measure Assessment

The framework for assessing savings, costs, and other attributes of energy efficiency measures
involves identifying the list of energy efficiency measures to include in the analysis, determining
their applicability to each market sector and segment, fully characterizing each measure, and
performing cost-effectiveness screening. Potential measures include the replacement of a unit
that has failed or is at the end of its useful life with an efficient unit, retrofit/early replacement of
equipment, improvements to the building envelope, the application of controls to optimize
energy use, and other actions resulting in improved energy efficiency.
We compiled a robust list of energy efficiency measures for each customer sector, drawing upon
Idaho Power’s measure database, and the Regional Technical Forum (RTF) deemed measures
databases, as well as a variety of secondary sources. This universal list of energy efficiency
measures covers all major types of end-use equipment, as well as devices and actions to reduce
energy consumption. If considered today, some of these measures would not pass the economic
screens initially, but may pass in future years as a result of lower projected equipment costs or
higher avoided costs.
The selected measures can be categorized into types, equipment measures and non-equipment
measures, according to the LoadMAP taxonomy:
 Equipment measures, or efficient energy-consuming equipment, save energy by providing
the same service with a lower energy requirement. An example is the replacement of a
standard efficiency refrigerator with an ENERGY STAR model. For equipment measures, many
efficiency levels are available for a specific technology that range from the baseline unit
(often determined by code or standard) up to the most efficient product commercially
available. For instance, in the case of central air conditioners, this list begins with the federal
standard SEER 13 unit and spans a broad spectrum of efficiency, with the highest efficiency
Economic
screen
Measure characterization
Measure
descriptions
Energy
savings Costs
Lifetime Saturation and
applicability
EnerNOC
universal
measure list
Building
simulations
EnerNOC measure data library
Idaho Power
measure data library
Regional Technical Forum
Avoided costs, discount rate, delivery losses
Idaho Power review / feedback
Inputs Process
Analysis Approach Data Development
EnerNOC Utility Solutions Consulting 2-11
level represented by a ductless mini-split system with variable refrigerant flow (at SEER
levels of 18 or greater).
 Non-equipment measures save energy by reducing the need for delivered energy but do
not involve replacement or purchase of major end-use equipment (such as a refrigerator or
air conditioner). An example would be a programmable thermostat that is pre-set to run the
air conditioner only when people are home. Non-equipment measures fall into one of the
following categories:
o Building shell (windows, insulation, roofing material)
o Equipment controls (thermostat, occupancy sensors)
o Equipment maintenance (cleaning filters, changing setpoints)
o Whole-building design (natural ventilation, passive solar lighting)
o Lighting retrofits (included as a non-equipment measure because retrofits are performed
prior to the equipment’s normal end of life)
o Displacement measures (ceiling fan to reduce use of central air conditioners)
o Commissioning and retrocommissioning
Non-equipment measures can apply to more than one end use. For example, insulation levels will
affect the energy use of cooling and space heating.
EnerNOC developed a preliminary list of energy efficiency measures that included measures in
Idaho Power’s existing measure database and the RTF deemed measure workbooks, as well as
other measures that are typically included in utility energy efficiency programs. The final list
included in the study, which reflects feedback and additions from Idaho Power, is presented in
Appendices B, C, D, and E for the residential, commercial, industrial, and irrigation sectors
respectively.
Once we assembled the list of energy efficiency measures, the project team assessed their
energy-saving characteristics. For each measure, we developed estimates of incremental cost,
service life, and other performance factors, drawing upon data from the Idaho Power measure
database, the RTF deemed measure workbooks, EnerNOC’s database of measure characteristics,
and simulation modeling. Following the measure characterization, we performed an economic
screening of each measure, which serves as the basis for developing the economic potential.
Representative Measure Data Inputs
To provide an example of the measure data, Table 2-4 and Table 2-5 present samples of the
detailed data inputs behind equipment and non-equipment measures, respectively, for the case
of residential air-source heat pumps in single-family homes. Table 2-4 displays the various
efficiency levels available as equipment measures, as well as the corresponding useful life,
energy usage, and cost estimates. The columns labeled On Market and Off Market reflect
equipment availability due to codes and standards or the entry of new products to the market.
Table 2-4 Sample Equipment Measures for Air Conditioning – Single Family Existing
Efficiency Level Useful
Life
Equipment
Cost
Energy
Usage(kWh/yr)
On
Market
Off
Market
SEER 13 20 $1,911 2,014 2011 2014
SEER 14 (ENERGY STAR) 20 $2,205 1,847 2011 2032
SEER 15 (CEE Tier 2) 20 $2,646 1,796 2011 2032
SEER 16 (CEE Tier 3) 20 $2,683 1,753 2011 2032
Ductless Mini-split System 20 $4,502 1,716 2011 2032
SEER 21 20 $4,411 1,389 2011 2032
Analysis Approach Data Development
2-12 www.enernoc.com
Table 2-5 lists some of the non-equipment measures affecting an existing single-family home
with a central air conditioner. These measures are also evaluated for cost-effectiveness based on
the lifetime benefits relative to the cost of the measure. The total savings are calculated for each
year of the model and depend on the base year saturation of the measure, the applicability and
feasibility of the measure, and the savings as a percentage of the relevant energy end uses.
Table 2-5 Sample Non-Equipment Measures Affecting Cooling – Single Family Home,
Existing
End Use Measure Saturation
in 20115
Applica-
bility
Lifetime
(years)
Measure
Installed
Cost
Energy
Savings
(%)
Cooling Insulation - Ceiling 36% 90% 20 $594 1.98%
Cooling Insulation - Ducting 0% 10% 25 $350 3.88%
Cooling Insulation - Infiltration
Control 24% 100% 12 $266 1.10%
Cooling Insulation - Radiant Barrier 5% 90% 12 $923 2.08%
Cooling Ducting - Repair and
Sealing 12% 90% 20 $375 11.43%
Cooling Windows - High
Efficiency/ENERGY STAR 61% 100% 25 $7,500 6.79%
Cooling Windows - Install Reflective
Film 5% 45% 10 $895 34.34%
Cooling Doors - Storm and Thermal 38% 100% 12 $320 0.46%
Cooling Roofs - High Reflectivity 5% 10% 15 $1,550 7.68%
Cooling Attic Fan - Installation 4% 50% 18 $116 0.58%
Cooling Attic Fan - Photovoltaic 13% 100% 19 $350 0.58%
Cooling Whole-House Fan -
Installation 8% 25% 18 $200 16.22%
Cooling Ceiling Fan - Installation 21% 100% 10 $160 10.11%
Cooling Thermostat -
Clock/Programmable 52% 85% 12 $114 7.34%
Cooling Home Energy Management
System 2% 40% 20 $600 3.65%
Cooling AC - Early Replacement 0% 80% 15 $2,895 10.00%
Cooling AC - Maint. / Tune-Up 41% 100% 4 $125 9.86%
Cooling Behavioral Feedback Tools 25% 100% 20 $430 1.00%

5 Note that saturation levels reflected for 2011 change over time as more measures are adopted.
Analysis Approach Data Development
EnerNOC Utility Solutions Consulting 2-13
Screening Measures for Cost-Effectiveness
Only measures that are cost-effective are included in economic and achievable potential.
Therefore, for each individual measure, LoadMAP performs an economic screen. This study uses
the total resource cost (TRC) test that compares the lifetime benefits (energy, peak demand, and
non-energy benefit) of each applicable measure with its installed cost, which includes material,
labor, and administration of a delivery mechanism, such as an energy efficiency program. The
lifetime benefits are calculated by multiplying the annual energy and demand savings for each
measure by all appropriate avoided costs for each year, and discounting the dollar savings to the
present value equivalent. The analysis uses each measure’s values for savings, costs, and
lifetimes that were developed as part of the measure characterization process described above.
For economic screening of measures, incentives are not included because they represent a
simple transfer from one party to another, but have no effect on the overall measure cost .
The LoadMAP model performs this screening dynamically, taking into account changing savings
and cost data over time. Thus, some measures pass the economic screen for some — but not all
— of the years in the projection.
It is important to note the following about the economic screen:
 The economic evaluation of every measure in the screen is conducted relative to a baseline
condition. For instance, in order to determine the kilowatt-hour (kWh) savings potential of a
measure, kWh consumption with the measure applied must be compared to the kWh
consumption of a baseline condition.
 The economic screening was conducted only for measures that are applicable to each
building type and vintage; thus if a measure is deemed to be irrelevant to a particular
building type and vintage, it is excluded from the respective economic screen.
 If multiple equipment measures have B/C ratios greater than or equal to 1.0, the most
efficient technology is selected by the economic screen.
 Non-energy benefits are accounted for in the LoadMAP model by means of an additional
factor for measures that have these benefits, such as clothes washers that have water-
related and/or detergent-related benefits.
Additional information on avoided costs appears later in this chapter, and detailed information on
the measure analysis is presented in Appendices B, C, D, and E for the residential, commercial,
industrial, and irrigation sectors respectively.
Energy Efficiency Potential
The approach we used for this study adheres to the approaches and conventions outlined in the
National Action Plan for Energy-Efficiency (NAPEE) Guide for Conducting Potential Studies
(November 2007). The NAPEE Guide represents the most credible and comprehensive industry
practice for specifying energy-efficiency potential. Specifically, three types of potentials were
developed as part of this study:
 Technical potential is a theoretical construct that assumes the highest efficiency measures
that are technically feasible to install are adopted by customers, regardless of cost or
customer preferences. Thus, determining the technical potential is relatively straightforward.
LoadMAP “chooses” the most efficient equipment options for each technology at the time of
equipment replacement. In addition, it installs all relevant non-equipment measures for each
technology to calculate savings. For example, for central air conditioning, as shown in Table
2-4, the most efficient option is a SEER 21. The multiple non-equipment measures shown in
Table 2-5 are then applied to the energy used by the SEER 21 system to further reduce air
conditioning energy use. LoadMAP applies the savings due to the non-equipment measures
one-by-one to avoid double counting of savings. The measures are evaluated in order of
their B/C ratio, with the measure with the highest B/C ratio applied first. Each time a
measure is applied, the baseline energy use for the end use is reduced and the percentage
savings for the next measure is applied to the revised (lower) usage.
Analysis Approach Data Development
2-14 www.enernoc.com
 Economic potential results from the purchase of the most efficient cost-effective option
available for a given equipment or non-equipment measure as determined in the cost-
effectiveness screening process described above. As with technical potential, economic
potential is a phased-in approach. Economic potential is still a hypothetical upper-boundary
of savings potential as it represents only measures that are economic but does not yet
consider customer acceptance and other factors.
 Achievable potential defines the range of savings that is very likely to occur. It accounts
for customers’ awareness of efficiency options, any barriers to customer adoption, limits to
program design, and other factors that influence the rate at which energy efficiency
measures penetrate the market.
The calculation of technical and economic potential is straightforward as described above. To
develop estimates for achievable potential, we specify market adoption rates for each measure.
For Idaho Power, the project team began with the ramp rates specified in the Sixth Plan
conservation workbooks, but modified these to match Idaho Power program history and service
territory specifics. For specific measures, we examined historic program results for the three-year
period of 2009 through 2011, as well as partial-year results for 2012. We then adjusted the 2012
achievable potential for these measures to approximately match the historical results. This
provided a starting for 2012 potential that was aligned to historic results. For future years, we
increased the potential factors to model increasing market acceptance and program
improvements. For measures not currently included in Idaho Power programs, we relied upon the
Sixth Plan ramp rates and recent EnerNOC potential studies to create market adoption rates for
Idaho Power. The market adoption rates for each measure appear in Appendix F.
Results of all the potentials analysis are presented in Chapter 5.
Data Development
This section begins with a description of the data sources used in this study, followed by a
discussion of how these sources were applied.
Data Sources
The data sources are organized into the following categories:
 Idaho Power data
 Energy efficiency measure data
 EnerNOC’s databases and analysis tools
 Other secondary data and reports
Idaho Power Data
In order to enable the project team to appropriately characterize the market, Idaho Power
provided the following information:
 Utility 2011 billing data — customers, usage, revenue
 Number of customers and electricity sales by sector (residential, commercial, industrial,
irrigation)
 Peak demand, summer and winter, by sector
 Results of the Idaho Power 2010 Home Energy Survey, a residential saturation survey
 Non-residential customer 2011 sales data including rate class, annual energy use, SIC code
 Energy forecasts, at the sector level
 Forecasts of population, customer growth, physical home size, income, and business
employment
Analysis Approach Data Development
EnerNOC Utility Solutions Consulting 2-15
 Forecasts of equipment and appliance saturations
 Price forecast
 Avoided costs forecast (peak capacity and energy)
 Discount rate
 Escalation rate
 Line loss factors
 Description of existing conservation and demand side management programs and results
from these programs
 Program administration expenses
 Recent conservation potential studies
 Idaho Power Measure Database, developed by Idaho Power, which includes data of measure
costs and savings.
Energy Efficiency Measure Data
In addition to the Idaho Power Measure Database, several additional sources of data were used
to characterize the energy efficiency measures.
 Northwest Power and Conservation Council Sixth Plan Conservation Supply Curve
Workbooks, 2010. To develop its Power Plan, the Council used workbooks with detailed
information about measures, available at
http://www.nwcouncil.org/energy/powerplan/6/supplycurves/default.htm .
 Regional Technical Forum Deemed Measures. The NWPCC Regional Technical Forum
maintains databases of deemed measure savings data, available at
http://www.nwcouncil.org/energy/rtf/measures/Default.asp .
 Database for Energy Efficient Resources (DEER). The California Energy Commission
and California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) sponsor this database, which is designed to
provide well-documented estimates of energy and peak demand savings values, measure
costs, and effective useful life (EUL) for the state of California.
 Other cost data sources
o RS Means Facilities Maintenance and Repair Cost Data
o RS Means Mechanical Construction Costs
o RS Means Building Construction Cost Data
o USGBC — LEED New Construction & Major Renovation (2008)
o RS Means Green Buildings Project Planning & Cost Estimating Second Edition (2008)
o Grainger Catalog Volume 398, (2007-2008)
o EIA Technology Forecast Updates – Residential and Commercial Building Technologies –
Reference Case, Navigant Consulting
EnerNOC Databases, Analysis Tools, and Reports
EnerNOC maintains several databases and modeling tools that we use for forecasting and
potential studies.
 Energy Market Profiles Database. Since the late 1990s, EnerNOC staff has maintained a
database of end-use profiles by sector, customer segment and region for electricity and
natural gas. The database contains market size, fuel shares/saturations, UECs/EUIs,
intensities, and total sales.
Analysis Approach Data Development
2-16 www.enernoc.com
 Building Energy Simulation Tool (BEST). BEST is a derivative of the DOE 2.2 building
simulation model, used to estimate base-year UECs and EUIs, as well as measure savings for
the HVAC-related measures.
 Database of Energy Efficiency Measures (DEEM). EnerNOC maintains a database of
energy efficiency measures for residential, commercial, and industrial segments across the
U.S. This is analogous to the DEER database developed for California. EnerNOC updates the
database on a regular basis as it conducts new energy efficiency potential studies.
 EnergyShapeTM Database. This database contains end-use load shapes for residential and
commercial segments for nine regions in the U.S. For the non-HVAC end uses, we used the
EnergyShape data to develop the peak factors that represent the fraction of annual energy
use that occurs during the peak hour. The peak factors were calibrated to available utility
data for the system peak. The final peak factors were applied to annual energy savings to
calculate the peak-demand savings from energy efficiency measures.
 Recent Studies. EnerNOC has conducted numerous studies of energy efficiency potential in
the last five years. We checked our input assumptions and analysis results against the results
from these other studies that include Avista Utilities, Seattle City Light, Inland Power and
Light, Cowlitz PUD, AmerenUE, Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, Consolidated
Edison of New York, State of New Jersey, State of New Mexico, and Tennessee Valley
Authority. In addition, we used the information about impacts of building codes and
appliance standards from a recent report for the Institute for Energy Efficiency.
Other Secondary Data and Reports
Finally, a variety of secondary data sources and reports were used for this study. The main
sources are identified below.
 U.S. Census Data:
o The American Community Survey (ACS) is an ongoing survey that provides data every
year on household characteristics. http://www.census.gov/acs/www/
o Census Bureau’s Economic Census, which is conducted every five years, collects details
on business characteristics. We used the 2007 version.
http://www.census.gov/econ/census07/
 Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance, Single-Family Residential Existing
Construction Stock Assessment, Market Research Report, E07-179 (10/2007),
http://neea.org/research/reportdetail.aspx?ID=194
 Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance, Assessment of Multifamily Building Stock in
the Pacific Northwest, Market Research Report, 05-146, August, 2005.
http://neea.org/research/reports/146.pdf
 Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance, Long-Term Northwest Residential Lighting
Tracking and Monitoring Study, Market Research Report, 11-228, August, 2011.
http://neea.org/research/reports/E11-231_Combinedv2.pdf
 Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance, Multifamily Residential New Construction
Characteristics and Practices Study, Market Research Report, 07-173, June, 2007.
http://neea.org/research/reports/07%20173.pdf
 Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance, 2009 Northwest Commercial Building Stock
Assessment (10-211), http://neea.org/research/reportdetail.aspx?ID=546.
 California Statewide Surveys. The Residential Appliance Saturation Survey (RASS) and
the Commercial End Use Survey (CEUS) are comprehensive market research studies
conducted by the California Energy Commission. These databases provide a wealth of
information on appliance use in homes and businesses. RASS is based on information from
Analysis Approach Data Development
EnerNOC Utility Solutions Consulting 2-17
almost 25,000 homes and CEUS is based on information from a stratified random sample of
almost 3,000 businesses in California.
 Annual Energy Outlook. The Annual Energy Outlook (AEO), conducted each year by the
U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), presents yearly projections and analysis of
energy topics. For this study, we used data from the 2011 AEO.
 Residential Energy Consumption Survey (RECS). The most recent version of this EIA-
administered survey is the 2009 version.
http://www.eia.gov/consumption/residential/about.cfm
 Electric Power Research Institute – Assessment of Achievable Potential from
Energy Efficiency and Demand Response Programs in the U.S., also known as the
EPRI National Potential Study (2010). In 2010, EnerNOC conducted an assessment of the
national potential for energy efficiency, with estimates derived for the four DOE regions
(including the Rocky Mountain region that includes Idaho Power).
 EPRI End-Use Forecasting Models (REEPS and COMMEND). These models provide the
elasticities we apply to electricity prices, household income, home size and heating and
cooling.
Data Application
We now discuss how the data sources described above were used for each step of the study.
Data Application for Market Characterization
To construct the high-level market characterization of electricity use and customers/floor space
for the residential, commercial, and industrial sectors, we applied 2011 weather-normalized sales
data provided by Idaho Power, Idaho Power’s 2010 Home Energy Survey, the Census ACS, the
NWPCC Sixth Plan, the NEEA CBSA, and the Annual Energy Outlook. The market characterization
for each segment used the following data:
 For the residential sector, Idaho Power estimated the numbers of customers and the average
energy use per customer for each of the six segments, based on its Home Energy Survey,
matched to billing data for surveyed customers. EnerNOC compared the resulting
segmentation with data from the American Community Survey (ACS) regarding housing types
and income and found that the Idaho Power segmentation corresponded well with the ACS
data. (See Chapter 3 for additional details.)
 To segment the commercial and industrial segments, we relied upon Idaho Power data for all
non-residential customers, including annual energy use and 4-digit SIC code. Based on the
SIC codes, EnerNOC made some adjustments between the commercial and industrial sectors
to better group energy use by facility type and predominate end uses. (See Chapter 3 for
additional details.)
 For the irrigation sector, we treated the market as a single segment.
 Special-contract customers were analyzed individually to estimate their energy efficiency
potential.

Analysis Approach Data Development
2-18 www.enernoc.com
Data Application for Market Profiles
To develop the market profiles for each segment, we used the following general approach:
1. Developed control totals for each segment. These include market size, segment-level
normalized annual electricity use, and annual intensity.
2. Used the Idaho Power 2010 Home Energy Survey, the Sixth Plan, and NEEA surveys to
incorporate information on existing appliance and equipment saturations, appliance and
equipment characteristics, building characteristics, customer behavior, operating
characteristics, and energy-efficiency actions already taken.
3. Compared and cross-checked with secondary data sources, EnerNOC’s Energy Market Profiles
Database, and other sources.
4. Ensured calibration to control totals for annual electricity sales in each segment.
5. Worked with Idaho Power staff to vet the data against their knowledge and experience.
The specific data elements for the market profiles, together with the key data sources, are
shown in Table 2-6.
Table 2-6 Data Applied for the Market Profiles
Model Inputs Description Key Sources
Market size Base-year residential dwellings and
C&I floor space
 Utility billing data
 American Community Survey
 NWPCC Sixth Plan
 NEEA Regional Surveys
 Energy Market Profiles
Annual intensity
Residential: Annual energy use
(kWh/customer)
C&I: Annual energy use (kWh/sq ft)
 Utility data
 NWPCC Sixth Plan
 NEEA CBSA
 Energy Market Profiles
 Previous studies
Appliance/equipment
saturations
Fraction of dwellings with an
appliance/technology
Percentage of C&I floor space with
equipment/technology
 Idaho Power RCCS
 NWPCC Sixth Plan
 NEEA CBSA and residential surveys
 Energy Market Profiles
UEC/EUI for each end-
use technology
UEC: Annual electricity use for a
technology in dwellings that have
the technology
EUI: Annual electricity use per
square foot for a technology in floor
space that has the technology
 NWPCC Sixth Plan and RTF data
 HVAC uses: BEST simulations
 Non HVAC uses: Engineering analysis
 Energy Market Profiles
 California RASS and CEUS
 Results from previous studies
Appliance/equipment
vintage distribution Age distribution for each technology
 NWPCC Sixth Plan and RTF data
 NEEA regional survey data
 Utility saturation surveys
 Previous studies
Efficiency options for
each technology
List of available efficiency options
and annual energy use for each
technology
 NWPCC Sixth Plan and RTF data
 DEEM
 DEER
 Annual Energy Outlook
 Previous studies
Peak factors Share of technology energy use that
occurs during the peak hour  EnergyShape database
Analysis Approach Data Development
EnerNOC Utility Solutions Consulting 2-19
Data Application for Baseline Forecast
Table 2-7 summarizes the LoadMAP model inputs required for the baseline projection. These
inputs are required for each segment within each sector, as well as for new construction and
existing dwellings/buildings.
Table 2-7 Data Needs for the Baseline Projection and Potentials Estimation in
LoadMAP
Model Inputs Description Key Sources
Customer growth
forecasts
Forecasts of residential customer
growth and of C&I employment
growth
 Data provided by Idaho
Power
Forecasts of growth
in home size Trend in new home size (sq. ft.)  Data provided by Idaho
Power
Income growth
forecasts Forecast of per capita income  Data provided by Idaho
Power
Equipment purchase
shares for baseline
forecast
For each equipment/technology,
purchase shares for each efficiency
level; specified separately for
equipment replacement (replace-
on-burnout) and new construction
 Data provided by Idaho
Power on saturation trends
 AEO shipments data
 AEO 2011 forecast
assumptions
Appliance/efficiency
standards analysis
 Idaho Power residential
survey, NEEA CBSA, and
Idaho Power DSM program
historical results
Electricity prices Forecast of average electricity
prices
 Data provided by Idaho
Power
Utilization model
parameters
Price elasticities, elasticities for
other variables (income, weather)
 EPRI’s REEPS and COMMEND
models

We developed initial baseline purchase shares based on the Energy Information Agency’s Annual
Energy Outlook report (2011). These shares were then adjusted to reflect Idaho Power’s past
DSM efforts to incorporate market transformation that has already occurred in the Idaho Power
service territory. For example, for compact fluorescent lighting, we matched the baseline
purchase shares to the existing market saturation to reflect the assumption that for sockets
already converted to CFLs, consumers will continue to purchase CFLs.
Beyond 2011, we assumed a frozen efficiency case in which the purchase shares for efficient
equipment do not change during the study period, unless equipment standards remove a
technology option from the market. Table 2-8 and Table 2-9 show the assumptions regarding
upcoming standards, based on known standards as of January 2011. This approach removes any
effects of naturally occurring conservation or effects of future energy efficiency programs that
may be embedded in the AEO forecasts. Thus the energy efficiency (EE) potential assessment’s
resulting projections of potential compared to this baseline are gross projections because
naturally occurring energy efficiency effects have been removed.

Analysis Approach Data Development
2-20 www.enernoc.com
Table 2-8 Residential Electric Equipment Standards

Today's Efficiency or Standard Assumption 1st Standard (relative to today's standard)
2nd Standard (relative to today's standard)
End Use Technology 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
Central AC
Room AC
Evaporative Central AC
Evaporative Room AC
Cooling/Heating Heat Pump
Space Heating Electric Resistance
Water Heater (<=55 gallons)
Water Heater (>55 gallons)
Screw-in/Pin Lamps
Linear Fluorescent
Refrigerator/2nd Refrigerator
Freezer
Dishwasher
Clothes Washer
Clothes Dryer
Range/Oven
Microwave
Personal Computer
Monitor
Laptop Computer
TV
Copier/Printer/Fax
DVD/VCR/Audio
Devices and Gadgets
Pool Pump
Well Pump
Furnace Fan
Conventional
Conventional
5% more efficient (EF 3.17)
Conventional
Conventional
Conventional/Energy Star
Conventional
Conventional
Conventional
Conventional
Conventional
SEER 14
EER 11.0
Conventional
Conventional
SEER 14.0/HSPF 8.0
SEER 13
EER 9.8
SEER 13.0/HSPF 7.7
Conventional (MEF 1.26 for top loader)
Conventional (EF 3.01)
Electric Resistance
EF 0.95
Heat Pump Water Heater
Advanced Incandescent - tier 2
T8
EF 0.90
EF 0.90
Incandescent Advanced Incandescent - tier 1
Miscellaneous
MEF 1.72 for top loader
Cooling
Water Heating
Lighting
Appliances
Electronics
25% more efficient
25% more efficient
14% more efficient (307 kWh/yr)
MEF 2.0 for top loader
Conventional/Energy Star
Conventional/Energy Star
NAECA Standard
NAECA Standard
Conventional (355 kWh/yr)
Analysis Approach Data Development
EnerNOC Utility Solutions Consulting 2-21
Table 2-9 Commercial Electric Equipment Standards

Today's Efficiency or Standard Assumption 1st Standard (relative to today's standard)
2nd Standard (relative to today's standard)
End Use Technology 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
Chillers
Roof Top Units
Packaged Terminal AC/HP EER 9.8
Cooling/Heating Heat Pump
Electric Resistance
Electric Furnace
Ventilation Ventilation
Screw-in/Pin Lamps
Linear Fluorescent T12
High Intensity Discharge
Water Heating Water Heater
Walk-in Refrigerator/Freezer
Reach-in Refrigerator
Glass Door Display EPACT 2005
Standard
Open Display Case EPACT 2005
Standard
Vending Machines EPACT 2005
Standard
Icemaker
Desktop Computer
Laptop Computer
Non-HVAC Motors
Commercial Laundry
Miscellaneous
Advanced Incandescent - tier 1Incandescent
T8
EISA 2007 Standard
MEF 1.6MEF 1.26
70% Efficiency62.3% Efficiency
EF 0.97
Office Equipment
Refrigeration
EPACT 2005 Standard
42% more efficient
18% more efficient
33% more efficient
2010 Standard
Conventional/Energy Star
Conventional/Energy Star
Cooling
Space Heating
Lighting
2007 ASHRAE 90.1
EER 11.0/11.2
EER 11.0
EER 11.0/COP 3.3
Advanced Incandescent - tier 2
Electric Resistance
Electric Furnace
Constant Air Volume/Variable Air Volume
Metal Halide
Analysis Approach Data Development
2-22 www.enernoc.com
Data Application for Energy Efficiency Measures
Table 2-10 details the data sources used for developing the lists of measures to include in the
analysis and for measure characterization. Table 2-11 provides the total number of measures
evaluated.
Table 2-10 Data Needs for the Measure Characteristics in LoadMAP
Model Inputs Description Key Sources
Energy Impacts
The annual reduction in consumption
attributable to each specific measure. Savings
were developed as a percentage of the
energy end use that the measure affects.
 Idaho Power measure data
 NWPCC Sixth Plan conservation
workbooks
 RTF deemed measure databases
 BEST
 EPRI National Study
 DEEM
 DEER
 Other secondary sources
Peak Demand
Impacts
Savings during the peak demand periods are
specified for each measure. These impacts
relate to the energy savings and depend on
the extent to which each measure is
coincident with the system peak.
 Idaho Power measure data
 NWPCC Sixth Plan conservation
workbooks
 RTF deemed measure databases
 BEST
 EnergyShape
Costs
Equipment Measures: Includes the full cost of
purchasing and installing the equipment on a
per-unit or per-square-foot basis for the
residential and C&I sectors, respectively
Non-equipment measures: Existing buildings
– full installed cost. New Construction - the
costs may be either the full cost of the
measure, or as appropriate, it may be the
incremental cost of upgrading from a
standard level to a higher efficiency level.
 Idaho Power measure data
 NWPCC Sixth Plan conservation
workbooks
 RTF deemed measure databases
 DEEM
 DEER
 Other secondary sources
Measure
Lifetimes
Estimates derived from the technical data
and secondary data sources that support the
measure demand and energy savings analysis
 Idaho Power measure data
 NWPCC Sixth Plan conservation
workbooks
 RTF deemed measure databases
 DEEM
 DEER
 Other secondary sources
Applicability
and Existing
Saturation
Estimate of the percentage of either
dwellings in the residential sector or square
feet in the C&I sectors where the measures is
applicable and where it is technically feasible
to implement; Estimate of the percentage of
dwellings of square feet in which the
measure is currently implemented
 Idaho Power Residential Energy Use
survey
 Idaho Power DSM program data
 NWPCC Sixth Plan conservation
workbooks
 RTF deemed measure databases
 DEEM
 DEER
 Other secondary sources
On Market and Off
Market Availability
Expressed as years for equipment measures
to reflect when the equipment technology is
available or no longer available in the market
 Appliance, building codes, and
standards analysis
Analysis Approach Data Development
EnerNOC Utility Solutions Consulting 2-23
Table 2-11 Number of Measures Evaluated
Measures Evaluated Residential Commercial Industrial Irrigation
Total
Number of
Measures
Equipment Measures 1,500 3,528 1,038 88 6,154
Non-Equipment Measures 488 1,784 726 70 3,068
Total 1,988 5,312 1,764 158 9,222

Data Application for Cost-effectiveness Screening
To perform the cost-effectiveness screening, the following information was needed:
 Preliminary avoided cost of energy and capacity provided by Idaho Power and based on 2013
IRP planning assumptions, shown in Figure 2-4
 Line losses of 10.9%, provided by Idaho Power
 Discount rate of 7%, provided by Idaho Power
 Program administration costs. Program administration costs can typically vary between 5–
20% of total program costs. For this study, we used values of 16.2% for the residential
sector, 9.3% for the commercial sector, 5.6% for the industrial sector, and 2.3% for
irrigation. These inputs were provided by Idaho Power.
Figure 2-4 Avoided Costs

Data Application for Potentials Estimation
To estimate potentials, two sets of parameters were required.
 Adoption rates for non-equipment measures. Equipment is assumed to be replaced at
the end of its useful life, but for non-equipment measures, a set of factors is required to
model the gradual implementation over time. Rather than installing all non-equipment
measures in the first year of the forecast (instantaneous potential), they are phased in
according to adoption schedules that vary based on equipment cost and measure complexity.
The adoption rates for the Idaho Power study were based on ramp rate curves specified in
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
-
10
20
30
40
50
60
Av
o
i
d
e
d

C
a
p
a
c
i
t
y

C
o
s
t
s

(
$
/
k
W
)
Av
o
i
d
e
d

E
n
e
r
g
y

C
o
s
t
,

$
/
M
W
h

Avoided Energy Cost, $/MWh
Avoided Capacity Cost ($/kW)
Analysis Approach Data Development
2-24 www.enernoc.com
the NWPCC Sixth Power Plan, but modified to reflect Idaho Power program history. These
adoption rates are used within LoadMAP to generate the technical and economic potentials.
 Market acceptance rates (MARs). These factors are applied to Economic potential to
estimate Achievable potential. These rates were developed by beginning with the Northwest
Power and Conservation Council ramp rates but then adjusting those rates to reflect Idaho
Power DSM program history.
Ramp rates and MARs are discussed in Appendix F.

EnerNOC Utility Solutions Consulting 4-1
CHAPTER 3
MARKET CHARACTERIZATION AND MARKET PROFILES
Idaho Power, established in 1916, is an investor-owned electric utility that serves more than
490,000 customers within a 24,000-square-mile area in southern Idaho and eastern Oregon. To
meet its customers’ electricity demands, Idaho Power maintains a generation portfolio including
17 hydroelectric projects. The company also actively seeks cost-effective ways to encourage wise
use of electricity by providing energy efficiency programs for all customers.
Table 3-1 provides customer counts and weather-normalized electricity use by sector in 2011,
with consumption across the four sectors totaling 12,869,213 MWh. Special-contract customers
are excluded from this total because their potential was estimated individually, rather than
through the LoadMAP analysis. The largest sector is residential, accounting for 39.5% of sales as
shown in Figure 3-1.
Table 3-1 Sector Level Market Characterization, Base Year 2011
Sector /
Rate Class
Number of
Customers
2011 Weather-Normalized
Sales (MWh)
2011 Peak Demand
(MW)
Residential 411,487 5,079,293 1,093
Commercial1 65,226 3,792,283 550
Industrial2 117 2,228,827 330
Irrigation 18,736 1,768,810 735
Total 495,566 12,869,213 2,708
1. Includes street lighting sales of 23,879 MWh, 0.7% of commercial sales.
2. Excludes special-contract customers.
Figure 3-1 Sector-Level Electricity Use, 2011

Residential
39.5%
Commercial
29.5%
Industrial
17.3%
Irrigation
13.7%
Market Characterization and Market Profiles
3-8 www.enernoc.com
To enable characterization of C&I customers, Idaho Power provided EnerNOC with 2011 sales
data including information on use, rate class, and 4-digit SIC code Based on the SIC codes,
EnerNOC made some adjustments between the commercial and industrial sector sales shown
above in Table 3-1 to better group energy use by facility type and end uses. For example, some
customers on commercial rates (EC-SG and EC-LG) — such as dairy and agricultural operations,
refrigerated warehouses, small manufacturing, water treatment, and waste water treatment —
were reclassified as industrial. We did this because energy use in these operations is more likely
dominated by motor and process end uses, rather than the HVAC, lighting, and office equipment
end uses that dominate commercial buildings. Therefore, energy-savings potential for these
facilities can best be estimated by treating them as industrial. Conversely, some customers on
Idaho Power’s industrial rate (EI-IN) such as colleges and hospitals were reclassified as
commercial. The amount of sales that were reclassified represent less than 6% of total C&I
sales. The results of these adjustments appear in Table 3-2.
Table 3-2 Commercial and Industrial Sales Adjustments for LoadMAP Modeling
Sector /
Rate Class
Original 2011 Weather-
Normalized Sales (MWh)
Adjusted 2011 Weather-
Normalized Sales (MWh)
Original % of
C&I Sales
Adjusted %
of C&I Sales
Commercial1 3,792,283 3,436,087 63.0% 57.1%
Industrial2 2,228,827 2,585,023 37.0% 42.9%
Total 6,021,110 6,021,110 100.0% 100.0%
1. Includes street lighting sales of 23,879 MWh, 0.7% of commercial sales.
2. Excludes special-contract customers.
Residential Sector
This section characterizes the residential market at a high level, and then provides a profile of how
customers in each segment use electricity by end use. Total residential electricity use in 2011 was
5,079,293 MWh. Using data from the 2010 Residential Energy Use Survey, Idaho Power divided its
customers into six segments based on housing type and income as shown in Table 3-3 and Figure
3-2. The chosen threshold for the limited income segments was approximately twice the federal
poverty limit, which also correlates with the income threshold used in Idaho Power’s Weatherization
Solutions program. The Single Family segment consumed 52% of total residential sector electricity in
2011 as a result of having the largest number of customers and relatively high intensity. The two
Mobile/Manufactured Home segments, however, have the highest intensity, because these homes are
more likely to be located in rural areas without natural gas services and thus are more likely to use
electricity for space and water heating. The values for customer counts and sales shown in Table 3-3
are referred to throughout the study as the residential sector control totals to which all base year
energy usage is calibrated in the LoadMAP model.

Market Characterization and Market Profiles
EnerNOC Utility Solutions Consulting 3-11
Table 3-3 Residential Market Segmentation by Housing Type, Base Year 2011
Segment Number of
Customers
Weather-Normalized Sales
(1,000 MWh)
Intensity
(kWh/Cust)
Single Family 213,109 2,780 13,045
Multi Family 25,142 220 8,737
Mobile/Mfg Home 17,529 273 15,553
Limited Income SF 98,633 1,222 12,390
Limited Income MF 28,022 190 6,788
Limited Income MH 29,051 395 13,585
Total 411,487 5,079 12,344

Figure 3-2 shows the size of the segments as a percentage of customers and percentage of
residential sector sales.
Figure 3-2 Residential Market Segmentation by Housing Type, 2011

As we describe in the previous chapter, the market profiles provide the foundation upon which
we develop the baseline projection. For each of the six segments defined above, we developed
market profiles that characterize electricity use in terms of sector, customer segment, end use,
and technology for the base year.
For each segment (housing type) within the residential sector, we developed two sets of market
profiles: an Average Home market profile, that represents existing homes in the Idaho Power
service area in 2011 and a similar profile for new construction. Table 3-4 provides an Average
Home market profile for the residential sector as a whole. Appendix A contains the Average
Home and New Home market profiles for the six residential segments.
52% 55%
6% 4% 4% 5%
24% 24%
7% 4%
7% 8%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
% of Customers % of Sales
Limited Income Mobile Home
Limited Income Multi Family
Limited Income Single Family
Mobile/Mfg Home
Multi Family
Single Family
Market Characterization and Market Profiles
3-8 www.enernoc.com
Table 3-4 Residential Sector Composite Market Profile 2011

Figure 3-3 shows the distribution of energy consumption by end use for all homes. Four main
end uses —space conditioning (cooling and heating), appliances, lighting, and water heating —
account for more than 80% of total use. The remaining energy is allocated to electronics
(personal computers, televisions, video game consoles, etc.) and miscellaneous. The
miscellaneous category includes pool pumps and heaters, hot tubs/spas, well pumps, furnace
fans, and various plug loads (hair dryers, power tools, coffee makers, etc.). Within the appliance
category, 47% of energy use is due to refrigerators and freezers.
UEC Intensity Usage
(kWh) (kWh/Cust) (GWh)
Cooling Central AC 64.1% 1,938 1,243 511
Cooling Room AC 11.6%296 34 14
Cooling Air-Source Heat Pump 5.2% 1,964 102 42
Cooling Geothermal Heat Pump 0.6% 1,284 8 3
Cooling Evaporative AC 3.0% 1,190 35 15
Space Heating Electric Room Heat 9.7% 6,120 594 245
Space Heating Electric Furnace 14.4% 8,998 1,299 534
Space Heating Air-Source Heat Pump 5.2% 7,269 377 155
Space Heating Geothermal Heat Pump 0.6% 4,950 30 12
Water Heating Water Heater <= 55 gal 49.8% 2,952 1,469 604
Water Heating Water Heater > 55 gal 1.8% 3,901 72 30
Interior Lighting Screw-in 100.0% 1,023 1,023 421
Interior Lighting Linear Fluorescent 100.0%131 131 54
Interior Lighting Specialty 100.0%520 520 214
Exterior Lighting Screw-in 100.0%231 231 95
Appliances Clothes Washer 95.4%111 106 44
Appliances Clothes Dryer 94.5%830 785 323
Appliances Dishwasher 82.6%424 351 144
Appliances Refrigerator 100.0%792 792 326
Appliances Freezer 69.6%630 439 180
Appliances Second Refrigerator 33.8%943 319 131
Appliances Stove 83.3%472 393 162
Appliances Microwave 100.0%136 136 56
Electronics Personal Computers 88.0%277 243 100
Electronics Monitor 88.0%55 48 20
Electronics Laptops 89.6%119 106 44
Electronics TVs 214.3%168 359 148
Electronics Printer/Fax/Copier 71.6%42 30 12
Electronics Set-top Boxes/DVR 311.6%112 349 144
Electronics Devices and Gadgets 100.0%52 52 21
Miscellaneous Pool Pump 2.5% 1,650 42 17
Miscellaneous Pool Heater 0.6% 5,479 35 14
Miscellaneous Hot Tub / Spa 1.7% 1,045 18 7
Miscellaneous Well Pump 5.5%549 30 12
Miscellaneous Furnace Fan 73.4%290 212 87
Miscellaneous Miscellaneous 100.0%331 331 136
12,344 5,079
Average Market Profiles
Total
End Use Technology Saturation
Market Characterization and Market Profiles
EnerNOC Utility Solutions Consulting 3-11
Figure 3-3 Residential Electricity Use by End Use and Segment (2011), All Homes

Figure 3-4 and Table 3-8 present the intensity by end-use (kWh/customer) for each housing
type, as well as for all homes on average.
Figure 3-4 Residential Intensity by End Use and Segment, 2011

Cooling
11%
Space Heating
19%
Water
Heating
12%Interior
Lighting
14%Exterior
Lighting
2%
Appliances
27%
Electronics
10%
Misc.
5%
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
16,000
18,000
Single Family Multi Family Mobile / Mfg LI SF LI MF LI MH/Mfg All Homes
In
t
e
n
s
i
t
y

(
k
W
h
/
C
u
s
t
/
y
r
)
Cooling
Heating
Water Heating
Interior Lighting
Exterior Lighting
Appliances
Electronics
Miscellaneous
Market Characterization and Market Profiles
3-8 www.enernoc.com
Table 3-5 Residential Electricity Use by End Use and Segment (kWh/cust/year, 2011)
End Use Single
Family
Multi
Family
Mobile/Mfg
Home
Limited
Income
Single
Family
Limited
Income
Multi
Family
Limited
Income
Mobile/Mfg
Home
All
Customers
Cooling 1,855 635 832 1,238 386 906 1,422
Space Heating 1,851 2,097 6,085 2,013 1,679 5,062 2,300
Water Heating 1,384 1,048 1,944 1,997 972 1,873 1,541
Interior Lighting 1,871 879 1,591 1,778 718 1,523 1,673
Exterior
Lighting 260 113 221 247 91 208 231
Appliances 3,597 2,666 3,309 3,427 2,074 2,687 3,319
Electronics 1,375 932 1,014 1,115 709 858 1,188
Miscellaneous 851 366 557 576 158 468 669
Total 13,045 8,737 15,553 12,390 6,788 13,585 12,344

Figure 3-5 shows the percentage of total energy use consumed by each end use for each
housing type and for the residential sector overall.
Figure 3-5 Percentage of Residential Electricity Use by End Use and Segment (2011)

0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Single Family Multi Family Mobile / Mfg LI SF LI MF LI MH/Mfg All Homes
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e

o
f

T
o
t
a
l

E
n
e
r
g
y

U
s
e
Cooling
Heating
Water Heating
Interior Lighting
Exterior Lighting
Appliances
Electronics
Miscellaneous
Market Characterization and Market Profiles
EnerNOC Utility Solutions Consulting 3-11
Commercial Sector
As discussed above, the portion of C&I sales to include within the study’s commercial sector
analysis was based on facility type, which in turn was determined based on SIC code information
available in IPC’s sales database. The resulting base year sales total for the Commercial sector
was 3,436,087 MWh. For the LoadMAP analysis, we also excluded street lighting sales, reducing
the total to 3,411,788 MWh. The SIC codes associated with customer sales were used to further
divide sales among 12 segments as indicated in Figure 3-6. The three largest segments are small
office, retail, and hospital (including doctors’ office and other medical facilities) with 17.3%,
16.7%, and 10.1% of sales respectively.
Figure 3-6 Commercial Market Segmentation by Building Type, Percentage of Sales,
2011

Next, using data from the Sixth Plan and the NEEA CBSA, the project team estimated floor space and
average intensity values for each building type, calibrating these values so that their product equaled
the annual energy sales values for each segment. Figure 3-6 shows the results, which form the
commercial sector control totals to which base year energy usage is calibrated in the LoadMAP
model. Total commercial floor space is estimated at 216 million square feet, implying an average
intensity of 15.8 kWh per square foot per year. Restaurants and groceries have the highest intensity
due to their cooking and refrigeration usage. Warehouses, schools, assembly, and miscellaneous
have the lowest intensities.

Small Office
17.3%
Large Office
6.0%
Restaurant
7.3%
Retail 16.7%
Grocery
7.2%
College 3.8%
School
7.0%
Hospital 10.1%
Lodging 4.9%
Assembly 5.9%
Warehouse
6.0%
Miscellaneous
7.7%
Market Characterization and Market Profiles
3-8 www.enernoc.com
Table 3-6 Commercial Sector Market Characterization
Building Type Segment Floor Space
(Million sq. ft.)
Intensity
(kWh/sq. ft.)
Annual Use
(MWh)
Small Office 33.250 17.7 589,767
Large Office 9.863 20.8 205,044
Restaurant 5.629 44.3 249,155
Retail 36.935 15.5 571,182
Grocery 5.186 47.4 246,068
College 9.213 14.1 130,284
School 27.921 8.6 239,464
Hospital 11.274 30.6 345,329
Lodging 10.708 15.5 166,045
Assembly 18.519 11.0 202,872
Warehouse 33.965 6.0 204,907
Miscellaneous 13.209 19.8 261,672
Total 215.672 15.8 3,411,788
Note: Excludes street lighting.

Note that the purpose of this study is not to estimate C&I floor space. For this reason, we are
not concerned with absolute square footage, but with the relative size of each segment and its
growth over time. Floor space is used to normalize energy use and develop intensity in terms of
kWh/ sq. ft.
Table 3-7 shows the market profile for the commercial sector as a whole, representing a
composite of the 12 building types. Overall, about 74% of commercial floor space is cooled.
About 29% of commercial floor space is heated using electric equipment, either some form of
resistance heating or heat pumps. Market profiles for each building type are presented in
Appendix A.
Market Characterization and Market Profiles
EnerNOC Utility Solutions Consulting 3-11
Table 3-7 Commercial Sector Composite Market Profile, 2011

EUI Intensity Usage
(kWh) (kWh/Sqft) (GWh)
Cooling Air-Cooled Chiller 9.0% 4.07 0.37 79
Cooling Water-Cooled Chiller 9.8% 4.06 0.40 86
Cooling Roof top AC 35.4% 3.54 1.25 270
Cooling Air Source Heat Pump 13.2% 3.36 0.44 96
Cooling Geothermal Heat Pump 0.2% 2.06 0.00 1
Cooling Evaporative AC 0.0% 9.00 0.00 0
Cooling Other Cooling 6.7% 2.91 0.20 42
Heating Air Source Heat Pump 13.2% 4.62 0.61 131
Heating Geothermal Heat Pump 0.2% 2.95 0.01 1
Heating Electric Room Heat 1.3% 6.20 0.08 18
Heating Electric Furnace 14.1% 6.14 0.87 187
Ventilation Ventilation 100.0% 1.26 1.26 273
Water Heating Water Heating 50.3% 1.28 0.65 139
Interior Lighting Screw-in 100.0% 1.90 1.90 410
Interior Lighting High-Bay Fixtures 100.0% 0.34 0.34 74
Interior Lighting Linear Fluorescent 100.0% 2.18 2.18 470
Exterior Lighting Screw-in 100.0% 0.21 0.21 46
Exterior Lighting HID 100.0% 0.63 0.63 136
Exterior Lighting Linear Fluorescent 100.0% 0.03 0.03 7
Refrigeration Walk-in Refrigerator 46.6% 0.93 0.43 93
Refrigeration Reach-in Refrigerator 46.6% 0.10 0.05 11
Refrigeration Glass Door Display 46.6% 1.01 0.47 101
Refrigeration Open Display Case 46.6% 0.45 0.21 46
Refrigeration Icemaker 46.6% 0.14 0.06 14
Refrigeration Vending Machine 46.6% 0.14 0.06 14
Food Preparation Oven 31.0% 0.51 0.16 34
Food Preparation Fryer 31.0% 0.74 0.23 49
Food Preparation Dishwasher 31.0% 0.84 0.26 56
Food Preparation Hot Food Container 31.0% 0.23 0.07 16
Office Equipment Desktop Computer 100.0% 0.41 0.41 88
Office Equipment Laptop 100.0% 0.06 0.06 13
Office Equipment Server 100.0% 0.25 0.25 54
Office Equipment Monitor 100.0% 0.08 0.08 16
Office Equipment Printer/Copier/Fax 100.0% 0.07 0.07 16
Office Equipment POS Terminal 46.3% 0.05 0.02 5
Misc Non-HVAC Motors 49.4% 0.42 0.21 44
Misc Pool Pump 2.9% 0.03 0.00 0
Misc Pool Heater 0.7% 0.05 0.00 0
Misc Misc 100.0% 1.29 1.29 277
Total 15.82 3,412
Average Market Profiles
End Use Technology Saturation
Market Characterization and Market Profiles
3-8 www.enernoc.com
Figure 3-7 illustrates the overall energy use by end use in the commercial sector as a whole.
Space conditioning and lighting are the largest end uses, together consuming approximately 66%
of commercial building energy use.
Figure 3-7 Commercial Sector Energy Use by End Use, 2011

Figure 3-8 illustrates how intensity varies by building type. Figure 3-9 shows the percentage of
total energy use consumed by each end use within the individual building type segments.
Figure 3-8 Commercial Building Intensity by Segment, 2011

Cooling
18%
Heating
9%
Ventilation
8%
Water Heating
4%
Interior Lighting
28%
Exterior
Lighting
6%
Refrigeration
8%
Food
Preparation
4%
Office
Equipment
6%Miscellaneous
9%
0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0
Small Office
Large Office
Restaurant
Retail
Grocery
College
School
Hospital
Lodging
Assembly
Warehouse
Miscellaneous
Intensity (kWh/sq. ft.)
Cooling
Heating
Ventilation
Water Heating
Interior Lighting
Exterior Lighting
Refrigeration
Food Preparation
Office Equipment
Miscellaneous
Market Characterization and Market Profiles
EnerNOC Utility Solutions Consulting 3-11
Figure 3-9 Percentage of Annual Electricity Use by End Use for Commercial Buildings

Observations include the following:
 Lighting remains a major end use across all building types.
 Refrigeration is a significant end use in grocery stores and restaurants.
 Office equipment has substantial use in small and large offices.
 The Miscellaneous segment has a high percentage of miscellaneous loads, indicating that this
segment includes a relatively high percentage of facilities such as cell phone towers, rail
switching equipment, and the like, that in fact are not actually buildings.
 The Miscellaneous end-use loads are also significant in hospitals due to medical equipment.

0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
%
o
f

T
o
t
a
l

A
n
n
u
a
l

E
n
e
r
g
y

U
s
e
Cooling
Heating
Ventilation
Water Heating
Interior Lighting
Exterior Lighting
Refrigeration
Food Preparation
Office Equipment
Miscellaneous

EnerNOC Utility Solutions Consulting 3-1

Table 3-8 provides additional detail by end use.

Market Characterization and Market Profiles
3-2 www.enernoc.com

Table 3-8 Commercial Electricity Use by End Use (1,000 MWh, 2011)
End Use Small
Office
Large
Office Restaurant Retail Grocery College School Hospital Lodging Assembly Ware-
house Misc. Total
Cooling 144 38 25 110 10 29 49 99 22 37 26 21 609
Heating 80 23 6 53 5 13 18 21 24 15 31 14 302
Ventilation 41 31 14 41 11 14 25 51 13 11 9 11 273
Water Heating 21 7 13 22 6 8 13 13 12 10 5 9 139
Interior Lighting 154 49 36 217 49 44 66 71 59 71 83 55 954
Exterior Lighting 35 6 11 35 6 7 18 6 8 23 18 17 189
Refrigeration 1 2 61 27 143 1 12 7 8 4 9 3 278
Food Prep. 1 3 73 17 10 3 13 22 5 5 0 2 155
Office Equip. 73 35 4 20 2 7 16 10 2 9 8 5 191
Misc 39 12 7 29 5 5 9 45 13 18 17 125 322
Total 590 205 249 571 246 130 239 345 166 203 205 262 3,412

Market Characterization and Market Profiles
EnerNOC Utility Solutions Consulting 3-3
Industrial Sector
The industrial sector accounted for 2,585,023 MWh in electricity sales in 2011. This total reflects
adjustments based on SIC code to move some customers on commercial rates into the industrial
sector and vice versa as described previously. The special-contract customers were excluded
from the LoadMAP modeling so that their potential could be estimated separately.
The industrial customers were segmented into four major industries plus an Other category as
shown in Figure 3-10 and Table 3-9. The Other category represents a wide-range of industry
types, including stone and concrete; lumber and wood products; paper and mill; chemicals;
metals and fabricated metal products; and rubber and plastics. Individually, however, these
industries account for less than 5% of industrial sales and thus were placed in the Other
category. The metric against which we normalized energy use is industrial employment.
Figure 3-10 Industrial Market Segmentation by Industry Type, Percentage of Sales,
2011

Table 3-9 Industrial Market Segmentation and Employment
Segment Number of Employees Electricity Use
(1,000 MWh)
Manufacturing — Food 13,174 1,454
Agriculture 2,769 258
Water and Wastewater 3,149 233
Electronics 12,680 188
Other 28,842 452
Total 60,613 2,585

Manufacturing
-Food
22%
Agriculture
4%
Water and
Wastewater
5%
Electronics
21%
Other
48%
Market Characterization and Market Profiles
3-4 www.enernoc.com
As with the residential and commercial sectors, the industrial market profiles characterize
electricity use in terms of end use and technology for the base year 2011. Table 3-10 shows the
composite market profiles for the industrial sector. Market profiles for the individual segments
appear in Appendix A.
Table 3-10 Industrial Sector Composite Market Profile, 2011

Figure 3-11 illustrates the overall use by end use in the industrial sector. Motors and process
loads are the largest end uses, consuming 44% and 30% of the total industrial energy use
respectively. Note that the motor end use includes a wide range of industrial equipment: pumps,
fans, blower, air compressors, and material handling and processing equipment. The process end
use includes process heating, process cooling and refrigeration, and electro-chemical processes.
EUI Intensity Usage
(kWh) (kWh/Employee) (GWh)
Cooling Air-Cooled Chiller 2.5% 5,546 139 8.4
Cooling Water-Cooled Chiller 2.5% 5,307 133 8.0
Cooling Roof top AC 6.7% 6,137 411 24.9
Cooling Air Source Heat Pump 7.5% 5,548 419 25.4
Cooling Other Cooling 2.5% 4,842 123 7.4
Heating Air Source Heat Pump 7.5% 17,582 1,327 80.4
Heating Electric Room Heat 0.9% 21,644 194 11.8
Heating Electric Furnace 8.1% 22,727 1,835 111.2
Ventilation Ventilation 100%695 695 42.1
Interior Lighting Screw-in 100%801 801 48.5
Interior Lighting High-Bay Fixtures 100%170 170 10.3
Interior Lighting Linear Fluorescent 100%2,332 2,332 141.4
Exterior Lighting Screw-in 100%1 1 0.1
Exterior Lighting HID 100%625 625 37.9
Exterior Lighting Linear Fluorescent 100%0.2 0.2 0.0
Motors Pumps 100%5,956 5,956 361.0
Motors Fans & Blowers 100%3,787 3,787 229.6
Motors Compressed Air 100%1,997 1,997 121.0
Motors Matl Handling 100%2,592 2,592 157.1
Motors Matl Processing 100%3,805 3,805 230.6
Motors Other Motors 100%600 600 36.3
Process Process Heating 100%3,028 3,028 183.6
Process Process Cooling and Refrigeration 100%8,651 8,651 524.4
Process Electro-Chemical Processes 100%199 199 12.1
Process Other Process 100%760 760 46.1
Misc Misc 100%2,068 2,068 125.4
42,648 2,585.0
Average Market Profiles
End Use Technology Saturation
Total
Market Characterization and Market Profiles
EnerNOC Utility Solutions Consulting 3-5
Figure 3-11 Industrial Sector Energy Use by End Use

Figure 3-12 presents the base year consumption by end-use and industry type. Figure 3-13
shows the percentage of total energy use consumed by each end use for the industry types.
Motor loads dominate all segments, though process heating and cooling are more prevalent in
the manufacturing — food segment.
Figure 3-12 Industrial Energy Use by Segment and End Use, 2011

0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
1,600
Manufacturing -
Food
Agriculture Water and
Wastewater
Electronics Other
An
n
u
a
l

E
n
e
r
g
y

U
s
e

(
1
,
0
0
0

M
W
h
)
Cooling
Heating
Ventilation
Interior Lighting
Exterior Lighting
Motors
Process
Miscellaneous
Market Characterization and Market Profiles
3-6 www.enernoc.com
Figure 3-13 Percentage of Annual Electricity Use by End Use for Industry Segments

Table 3-11 provides additional detail by end use.
Table 3-11 Industrial Electricity Use by End Use and Segment (1,000 MWh, 2011)
End Use Manufacturing
- Food Agriculture Water and
Wastewater Electronics Other Total
Cooling 27 6 2 12 26 74
Heating 75 16 7 33 72 203
Ventilation 16 3 1 7 15 42
Interior Lighting 84 28 8 18 62 200
Exterior Lighting 16 5 2 3 12 38
Motors 635 114 197 39 151 1,136
Process 532 80 10 60 84 766
Misc. 69 5 6 16 29 125
Total 1,454 258 233 188 452 2,585

Irrigation Sector
The irrigation sector accounted for 1,768,810 MWh in electricity sales in 2011. Because this
sector’s use is almost completely due to pump motors, the analysis was simpler than for the
other three sectors. We characterized the sector as a single segment. We then used data from
Idaho Power that classifies its 18,736 irrigation service points by 22 motor size categories as a
way to characterize energy use. For each motor size, we assumed an average starting energy
use, which corresponds to the EUI in other market profiles, and calibrated the values to match
the sector’s overall energy use. Table 3-12 shows the resulting market profile, with the intensity
in units of kWh per service point (SP).
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Manufacturing -
Food
Agriculture Water and
Wastewater
Electronics Other
%
o
f

T
o
t
a
l

A
n
n
u
a
l

E
n
e
r
g
y

U
s
e
Cooling
Heating
Ventilation
Interior Lighting
Exterior Lighting
Motors
Process
Miscellaneous
Market Characterization and Market Profiles
EnerNOC Utility Solutions Consulting 3-7
Table 3-12 Irrigation Sector Market Profile, 2011

EUI Intensity Usage
(kWh) (kWh/meter) (GWh)
Motors 5 HP 100.0% 645 645 12 0.7%
Motors 10 HP 100.0% 1,914 1,914 36 2.0%
Motors 15 HP 100.0% 1,385 1,385 26 1.5%
Motors 20 HP 100.0% 1,732 1,732 32 1.8%
Motors 25 HP 100.0% 2,031 2,031 38 2.2%
Motors 30 HP 100.0% 2,161 2,161 40 2.3%
Motors 40 HP 100.0% 3,727 3,727 70 3.9%
Motors 50 HP 100.0% 3,771 3,771 71 4.0%
Motors 60 HP 100.0% 2,905 2,905 54 3.1%
Motors 75 HP 100.0% 4,489 4,489 84 4.8%
Motors 100 HP 100.0% 6,571 6,571 123 7.0%
Motors 125 HP 100.0% 4,926 4,926 92 5.2%
Motors 150 HP 100.0% 5,781 5,781 108 6.1%
Motors 200 HP 100.0% 9,690 9,690 182 10.3%
Motors 250 HP 100.0% 6,006 6,006 113 6.4%
Motors 300 HP 100.0% 6,659 6,659 125 7.1%
Motors 350 HP 100.0% 5,507 5,507 103 5.8%
Motors 400 HP 100.0% 5,534 5,534 104 5.9%
Motors 450 HP 100.0% 3,613 3,613 68 3.8%
Motors 500 HP 100.0% 3,510 3,510 66 3.7%
Motors 600 HP 100.0% 3,799 3,799 71 4.0%
Motors > 600 HP 100.0% 8,051 8,051 151 8.5%
94,407 1,769 100% Total
% of
Total
Average Market Profiles
End Use Technology Saturation

EnerNOC Utility Solutions Consulting 4-1
CHAPTER 4
BASELINE PROJECTION
Prior to developing estimates of energy efficiency potential, a baseline end-use projection was
developed to quantify what consumption is likely to be in the future in absence of new utility
programs. The baseline projection serves as the metric against which energy-efficiency potentials
are measured.
Residential Sector
The baseline projection incorporates assumptions about economic growth, electricity prices, and
appliance/equipment standards and building codes already mandated. Table 4-1and Figure 4-1
present the baseline projection at the end-use level for the residential sector as a whole. Overall,
residential use increases from 5,079,293 MWh in 2011 to 6,408,332 MWh in 2032, a 27%
increase, or an average annual growth rate of 1.1%. Figure 4-2 presents the forecast of use per
customer. Most noticeable is that lighting use decreases significantly throughout the time period
as the lighting efficiency standards from EISA come into effect. Appliance use also decreases
over the projection period due to appliance standards. However, growth in miscellaneous end
uses and electronics keeps energy use per customer relatively flat over the projection period.
Table 4-1 Residential Baseline Projection by End Use (1,000 MWh)
End Use 2011 2012 2013 2015 2017 2022 2027 2032 %
Change
Avg.
Ann.
Growth
Rate
Cooling 585 591 599 622 657 740 826 921 57% 2.2%
Space Heating 947 958 972 1,006 1,054 1,153 1,237 1,313 39% 1.6%
Water Heating 634 632 632 638 657 694 728 761 20% 0.9%
Interior Lighting 689 695 690 647 624 611 618 668 -3% -0.1%
Exterior Lighting 95 90 85 70 62 49 42 45 -53% -3.6%
Appliances 1,366 1,323 1,291 1,245 1,216 1,159 1,147 1,175 -14% -0.7%
Electronics 489 503 515 544 586 694 807 927 90% 3.0%
Miscellaneous 275 283 292 388 493 617 653 653 137% 4.1%
Total 5,079 5,075 5,076 5,159 5,348 5,718 6,058 6,462 27% 1.1%

Baseline Projection
4-2 www.enernoc.com
Figure 4-1 Residential Baseline Projection by End Use

Figure 4-2 Residential Baseline Projection Use per Customer by End Use

0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
2011 2012 2013 2015 2017 2022 2027 2032
An
n
u
a
l

U
s
e

(
1
,
0
0
0

M
W
h
)
Cooling
Space Heating
Water Heating
Interior Lighting
Exterior Lighting
Appliances
Electronics
Miscellaneous
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
2011 2012 2013 2015 2017 2022 2027 2032
An
n
u
a
l

U
s
e

p
e
r

C
u
s
t
o
m
e
r

(
k
W
h
)
Cooling
Space Heating
Water Heating
Interior Lighting
Exterior Lighting
Appliances
Electronics
Miscellaneous
Baseline Projection
EnerNOC Utility Solutions Consulting 4-3
Table 4-3 shows the end-use projection per customer. Table 4-3 provides additional detail at the
technology level.
Table 4-2 Residential Baseline Projection of Use per Customer by End Use (kWh)
End Use 2011 2012 2013 2015 2017 2022 2027 2032 %
Change
Avg.
Ann.
Growth
Rate
Cooling 1,422 1,421 1,426 1,434 1,451 1,508 1,578 1,662 17% 0.7%
Space Heating 2,300 2,305 2,312 2,317 2,327 2,351 2,363 2,371 3% 0.1%
Water Heating 1,541 1,520 1,503 1,470 1,450 1,415 1,390 1,373 -11% -0.5%
Interior Lighting 1,673 1,671 1,642 1,490 1,377 1,246 1,181 1,207 -28% -1.6%
Exterior Lighting 231 216 201 161 137 100 81 81 -65% -5.0%
Appliances 3,319 3,183 3,071 2,869 2,684 2,363 2,190 2,121 -36% -2.1%
Electronics 1,188 1,209 1,224 1,254 1,293 1,416 1,541 1,672 41% 1.6%
Miscellaneous 669 681 695 893 1,087 1,258 1,247 1,178 76% 2.7%
Total 12,344 12,205 12,074 11,888 11,807 11,659 11,572 11,666 -5% -0.3%

Table 4-3 provides additional detail at the technology level.
Baseline Projection
4-4 www.enernoc.com
Table 4-3 Residential Baseline Forecast by End Use and Technology (MWh)

Specific observations include:
 The primary reason for the modest initial growth in the baseline projection is federal lighting
standards, which phase general service incandescent lamps out of the market over a three-
year period, causing a decline in interior screw-in lighting use by 38% and exterior lighting
use by 53% over the 20-year projection period.
 Appliances energy use also decreases, due to mandated efficiency gains, particularly in
refrigeration appliances.
 Cooling increases as population growth and higher saturation of air conditioning in new
construction overrides the effects of appliance standards.
 Space heating use remains relatively flat as increases due to population growth and larger
home size are counterbalanced by decreasing electric heating saturation and efficiency gains
in heat pumps.
 Water heating decreases due to both efficiency gains and decreased saturation of electric
water heating in new construction.
 Growth in electricity use in electronics is substantial and reflects an increase in the saturation
of electronics and the trend toward higher-powered computers and additional devices such
as electronic gaming. This increase is somewhat tempered by higher efficiency televisions.
 Growth in miscellaneous use is also substantial. This use includes various plug loads not
elsewhere classified (e.g., hair dryers, power tools, coffee makers, etc.). This end use has
End Use Technology 2011 2012 2013 2015 2017 2022 2027 2032 %
Change
Avg. Ann.
Growth
Rate
Central AC 511 516 523 542 572 642 716 796 56%2.1%
Room AC 14 14 15 15 16 18 21 24 69%2.5%
Air-Source Heat Pump 42 42 43 45 47 52 57 62 48%1.9%
Geothermal Heat Pump 3 3 3 4 4 6 7 9 198%5.2%
Evaporative AC 15 15 15 16 18 21 25 29 101%3.3%
Electric Room Heat 245 247 251 259 271 296 316 335 37%1.5%
Electric Furnace 534 541 548 566 590 640 677 708 32%1.3%
Air-Source Heat Pump 155 157 160 167 176 197 217 237 53%2.0%
Geothermal Heat Pump 12 13 13 15 16 21 27 34 174%4.8%
Water Heater > 55 Gal 30 30 30 30 30 31 32 33 11%0.5%
Water Heater <= 55 Gal 604 602 602 608 627 663 696 728 20%0.9%
Screw-in 421 407 389 336 310 265 241 261 -38% -2.3%
Linear Fluorescent 54 54 55 58 61 68 74 80 49%1.9%
Specialty 214 234 246 253 253 278 303 328 53%2.0%
Exterior Lighting Screw-in 95 90 85 70 62 49 42 45 -53% -3.6%
Clothes Washer 44 42 40 38 34 25 19 17 -60% -4.4%
Clothes Dryer 323 312 304 295 289 280 284 297 -8% -0.4%
Dishwasher 144 135 127 114 107 92 94 102 -29% -1.7%
Refrigerator 326 314 305 290 274 244 221 214 -34% -2.0%
Freezer 180 174 168 159 153 141 133 128 -29% -1.6%
Second Refrigerator 131 127 124 119 116 110 106 106 -19% -1.0%
Stove 162 164 166 172 181 199 216 231 43%1.7%
Microwave 56 57 57 59 62 68 74 79 42%1.7%
Personal Computers 100 103 105 108 113 134 155 178 77%2.7%
Monitor 20 20 21 22 23 28 32 37 85%2.9%
Laptops 44 45 46 48 52 61 71 81 86%3.0%
TVs 148 146 144 142 146 166 190 218 47%1.8%
Printer/Fax/Copier 12 13 13 13 14 17 19 22 77%2.7%
Set-top Boxes/DVR 144 154 165 187 211 259 303 349 143%4.2%
Devices and Gadgets 21 22 22 24 26 31 36 42 96%3.2%
Pool Pump 17 18 18 19 20 22 24 26 53%2.0%
Pool Heater 14 14 14 15 15 17 19 20 40%1.6%
Hot Tub / Spa 7 7 8 8 8 9 10 11 53%2.0%
Well Pump 12 13 13 13 14 16 17 18 48%1.9%
Furnace Fan 87 88 90 93 98 109 119 128 47%1.8%
Miscellaneous 136 143 150 240 337 444 464 448 229%5.7%
Total 5,079 5,075 5,076 5,159 5,348 5,718 6,058 6,462 27%1.1%
Electronics
Miscellaneous
Cooling
Space Heating
Water Heating
Interior Lighting
Appliances
Baseline Projection
EnerNOC Utility Solutions Consulting 4-5
grown consistently in the past and we incorporate future growth assumptions that are
consistent with the Annual Energy Outlook.
Commercial Sector
Electricity use in the commercial sector continues to grow during the projection horizon, as new
commercial construction increases overall square footage in the commercial sector. In addition,
existing buildings are renovated to incorporate additional amenities, such as full-scale kitchens
and work-out facilities. Consumption starts at 3,411,788 MWh in 2011 and increases to
4,531,107 MWh in 2032, an overall growth of 33% or 1.4% annually.6
Table 4-4 and Figure 4-3 present the baseline projection at the end-use level for the commercial
sector as a whole. All end uses show growth over the projection period, with the exception of
refrigeration, which is affected by the EPACT 2005 standards for refrigeration. Growth in lighting
is less than in the other end uses, due to the EISA 2007 lighting standards.
Table 4-4 Commercial Electricity Consumption by End Use (1,000 MWh)

6 Street lighting energy use is not included in the results presented in the section.
End Use 2011 2012 2013 2015 2017 2022 2027 2032 %
Change
Avg.
Growth
Rate
Cooling 609 607 608 618 621 632 635 651 7%0.3%
Heating 302 309 316 332 348 379 392 402 33%1.4%
Ventilation 273 274 276 281 285 297 302 308 13%0.6%
Water Heating 139 140 141 146 150 157 161 165 18%0.8%
Interior Lighting 954 935 924 923 896 928 946 972 2%0.1%
Exterior Lighting 189 164 155 153 156 163 167 170 -10% -0.5%
Refrigeration 278 263 252 236 225 210 210 221 -21% -1.1%
Food Preparation 155 157 160 168 175 195 214 236 53%2.0%
Office Equipment 191 192 197 209 223 259 284 307 61%2.3%
Miscellaneous 322 405 476 559 658 833 972 1,099 241%5.8%
Total 3,412 3,448 3,506 3,625 3,738 4,053 4,282 4,531 33%1.4%
Baseline Projection
4-6 www.enernoc.com
Figure 4-3 Commercial Baseline Projection by End Use

Table 4-5 presents the commercial sector projection by technology. Specific observations
include:
 Lighting energy use overall remains nearly flat, driven by the EISA lighting standards. For
linear fluorescent lighting, the effects of the EISA standards have largely already occurred
prior to the start of the projection period, because IPC lighting programs have led to the
replacement of T-12 lighting systems with more efficient T-8s. As a result, interior linear
fluorescent use grows by 16%. On the other hand, the baseline projection indicates that
EISA’s effects during 2012-2015 will be most evident for screw in lighting, causing energy
use for this technology to decrease for both interior and exterior lighting.
 Growth in the HVAC and water heating end uses is commensurate with projected growth in
floor space and employment, the two principal drivers of commercial sector consumption.
Ventilation growth is moderated by a trend toward VAV systems in new construction, while
improved efficiency standards also temper AC growth.
 Refrigeration drops substantially as new standards take effect that cover most types of
commercial refrigeration equipment.
 Food preparation, though remaining a small percentage of total usage, grows at a higher
rate than other end uses. This reflects the addition of kitchen facilities to commercial office
buildings during new construction or renovation, as well as the expansion of food service
offerings in other building types as well.
 Energy use for computers, servers, printers, and other office equipment continues to grow,
due to increased saturation of this category, even as the efficiency of individual units
increases.
 Consumption by miscellaneous equipment, which includes a wide range of plug loads, also
increases. This reflects the assumption that plug loads continue to increase in the
commercial sector as we embrace new uses of electricity.

0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
4,000
4,500
5,000
2011 2012 2013 2015 2017 2022 2027 2032
An
n
u
a
l

U
s
e

(
1
,
0
0
0
0

M
W
h
)
Cooling
Heating
Ventilation
Water Heating
Interior Lighting
Exterior Lighting
Refrigeration
Food Preparation
Office Equipment
Miscellaneous
Baseline Projection
EnerNOC Utility Solutions Consulting 4-7
Table 4-5 Commercial Baseline Electricity Projection by End Use and Technology
(1,000 MWh)

Industrial Sector
Table 4-6 and Figure 4-4 present the baseline projection at the end-use level for the industrial
sector as a whole. Overall, industrial annual energy use increases steadily from 2,585,023 MWh
in 2011 to 3,812,170 MWh in 2032, a 47.5% increase. The study projects that increasing
productivity will lead to increased energy use, beyond that driven by employment growth alone.
End Use Technology 2011 2012 2013 2015 2017 2022 2027 2032 % Change
Avg.
Growth
Rate
Air-Cooled Chiller 79 79 80 82 84 87 87 88 12%0.5%
Water-Cooled Chiller 86 87 89 92 95 100 102 105 22%0.9%
Roof top AC 270 270 271 277 280 289 292 300 11%0.5%
Air Source Heat Pump 131 127 125 122 116 108 106 107 -18% -1.0%
Geothermal Heat Pump 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 31%1.3%
Evaporative AC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0%0.0%
Other Cooling 42 42 43 43 44 47 48 49 17%0.7%
Air Source Heat Pump 96 100 104 112 122 139 147 152 59%2.2%
Geothermal Heat Pump 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 78%2.7%
Electric Room Heat 18 18 18 19 20 21 21 22 21%0.9%
Electric Furnace 187 190 193 200 205 217 222 227 21%0.9%
Ventilation Ventilation 273 274 276 281 285 297 302 308 13%0.6%
Water Heating Water Heating 139 140 141 146 150 157 161 165 18%0.8%
Screw-in 410 404 393 382 343 355 364 373 -9% -0.4%
High-Bay Fixtures 74 58 52 49 49 52 53 54 -27% -1.5%
Linear Fluorescent 470 473 479 493 504 522 530 545 16%0.7%
Screw-in 46 40 38 37 38 40 41 42 -8% -0.4%
HID 136 117 110 108 109 115 117 119 -13% -0.6%
Linear Fluorescent 7 8 8 8 8 9 9 10 30%1.2%
Walk-in Refrigerator 93 85 78 69 63 57 59 63 -33% -1.9%
Reach-in Refrigerator 11 10 9 8 8 7 8 8 -22% -1.2%
Glass Door Display 101 96 92 86 82 73 71 74 -27% -1.5%
Open Display Case 46 46 46 47 47 47 46 47 4%0.2%
Icemaker 14 13 13 14 15 16 17 18 34%1.4%
Vending Machine 14 14 13 12 11 9 9 10 -31% -1.7%
Oven 34 35 36 39 42 48 52 58 71%2.6%
Fryer 49 51 52 54 57 61 64 68 37%1.5%
Dishwasher 56 57 58 60 63 73 84 96 72%2.6%
Hot Food Container 16 15 15 14 13 13 14 15 -5% -0.2%
Desktop Computer 88 89 91 95 100 115 123 130 49%1.9%
Laptop 13 13 14 14 15 17 18 20 49%1.9%
Server 54 54 56 61 67 81 93 104 92%3.1%
Monitor 16 16 17 18 19 21 23 24 48%1.9%
Printer/Copier/Fax [phone] 25 58%2.2%
POS Terminal 5 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 9%0.4%
Non-HVAC Motors 44 46 47 51 54 60 64 66 50%1.9%
Pool Pump 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 34%1.4%
Pool Heater 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 33%1.4%
Miscellaneous 277 359 428 507 603 772 908 1,032 272%6.3%
Total 3,412 3,448 3,506 3,625 3,738 4,053 4,282 4,531 33%1.4%
Food Preparation
Office Equipment
Miscellaneous
Cooling
Heating
Interior Lighting
Exterior Lighting
Refrigeration
Baseline Projection
4-8 www.enernoc.com
Table 4-6 Industrial Electricity Consumption by End Use (MWh)

Figure 4-4 Industrial Baseline Electricity Projection by End Use

End Use 2011 2012 2013 2015 2017 2022 2027 2032 % Change
Avg.
Growth
Rate
Cooling 74 73 72 71 69 66 64 63 -14% -0.7%
Heating 203 207 208 214 216 216 217 218 7%0.3%
Ventilation 42 42 41 41 40 40 40 40 -6% -0.3%
Interior Lighting 200 190 186 187 188 193 197 200 0%0.0%
Exterior Lighting 38 32 29 28 27 27 27 27 -30% -1.7%
Motors 1,136 1,157 1,193 1,269 1,316 1,419 1,568 1,746 54%2.0%
Process 766 781 808 860 895 971 1,092 1,239 62%2.3%
Miscellaneous 125 169 204 225 259 279 288 280 123%3.8%
Total 2,585 2,651 2,741 2,895 3,010 3,210 3,493 3,812 47%1.8%
Baseline Projection
EnerNOC Utility Solutions Consulting 4-9
Irrigation
Table 4-8 presents the baseline projection for the irrigation sector. Because the number of
service points increases, irrigation annual energy use grows from 1,768,810 MWh to 2,038,167
MWh, a 15.2% increase. Use per service point decreases very slightly in the baseline case due to
the replacement of aging motors at the end of their useful lives with more efficient units as
required by standards.
Table 4-7 Irrigation Baseline Projection

2011 2012 2013 2015 2017 2022 2027 2032 % Change
Avg.
Growth
Rate
Number of Service
Points 18,736 18,877 19,018 19,304 19,595 20,341 21,115 21,919 17.0% 0.75%
Total Energy Use
(1,000 MWh)1,769 1,789 1,790 1,819 1,825 1,900 1,964 2,038 15.2% 0.67%
Use per Service Point
(kWh)94,407 94,781 94,108 94,208 93,140 93,408 93,036 92,986 -1.5% -0.07%
Baseline Projection
4-10 www.enernoc.com
Baseline Projection Summary
Table 4-8 and Figure 4-5 provide a summary of the baseline projection by sector and for Idaho Power as a whole. Street lighting sales, although
not analyzed in LoadMAP, have been assumed to be flat and have been added in to align with the total sales shown in Table 3-1. Overall, the
LoadMAP baseline projection indicates growth of 31% or 1.3% average annual growth.
Table 4-8 Baseline Projection Summary (1,000 MWh)
Sector 2011 2012 2013 2015 2017 2022 2027 2032 % Change
Avg.
Growth
Rate
Residential 5,079 5,075 5,076 5,159 5,348 5,718 6,058 6,462 27% 1.1%
Commercial 3,412 3,448 3,506 3,625 3,738 4,053 4,282 4,531 33% 1.4%
Street Lighting 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 0% 0.0%
Industrial 2,585 2,651 2,741 2,895 3,010 3,210 3,493 3,812 47% 1.8%
Irrigation 1,769 1,789 1,790 1,819 1,825 1,900 1,964 2,038 15% 0.7%
Total 12,869 12,987 13,136 13,521 13,945 14,904 15,821 16,868 31% 1.3%
Figure 4-5 Baseline Projection Summary

-
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
16,000
18,000
An
n
u
a
l

U
s
e

(
1
,
0
0
0

M
W
h
)
Street Lighting
Irrigation
Industrial
Commercial
Residential

EnerNOC Utility Solutions Consulting 5-1
CHAPTER 5
ENERGY EFFICIENCY POTENTIAL
This chapter presents the results of the potential analysis. First, the overall potential is
presented, followed by results for each sector. Table 5-1 and Figure 5-1 summarize the energy-
efficiency savings for the different levels of potential relative to the baseline forecast.
Key findings related to potentials are summarized below.
 Achievable potential across the residential, commercial, industrial, and irrigation sectors is
594,772 MWh or 67.9 aMW in 2017 and increases to 234.4 aMW by 2032. This represents
4.3% of the baseline projection in 2017 and 12.2% in 2032. By 2032, Achievable potential
offsets 53% of the growth in the baseline projection.
 Economic potential, which reflects the savings when all cost-effective measures are taken,
is 1,734,396 MWh or 198.0 aMW in 2017. This represents 12.4% of the baseline energy
projection. By 2032, economic potential reaches 438.3 aMW, 22.8% of the baseline energy
projection.
 Technical potential, which reflects the adoption of all energy efficiency measures
regardless of cost-effectiveness, is a theoretical upper bound on savings. In 2017, technical
potential savings are 2,849,545 MWh or 325.3 aMW, equivalent to 20.4% of the baseline
energy projection. By 2032, technical potential reaches 720.0 aMW, 37.4% of the baseline
energy projection.
Table 5-1 Summary of Energy Efficiency Potential

2012 2013 2015 2017 2022 2027 2032
Baseline Projection (MWh)12,963,424 13,135,778 13,521,442 13,944,808 14,904,276 15,821,200 16,867,669
Cumulative Savings (MWh)
Achievable Potential 128,230 213,793 410,726 594,772 1,048,684 1,570,770 2,053,161
Economic Potential 732,142 1,002,446 1,476,490 1,734,396 2,695,890 3,373,589 3,839,473
Technical Potential 1,177,752 1,587,035 2,329,976 2,849,545 4,372,407 5,545,301 6,307,377
Cumulative Savings (aMW)
Achievable Potential 14.6 24.4 46.9 67.9 119.7 179.3 234.4
Economic Potential 83.6 114.4 168.5 198.0 307.8 385.1 438.3
Technical Potential 134.4 181.2 266.0 325.3 499.1 633.0 720.0
Savings (% of Baseline)
Achievable Potential 1.0% 1.6% 3.0% 4.3% 7.0% 9.9% 12.2%
Economic Potential 5.6% 7.6% 10.9% 12.4% 18.1% 21.3% 22.8%
Technical Potential 9.1% 12.1% 17.2% 20.4% 29.3% 35.0% 37.4%
Energy Efficiency Potential
5-2 www.enernoc.com
Figure 5-1 Summary of Energy Savings by Potential Case

Figure 5-2 displays the energy use projections for the baseline case and the three potential
levels.
Figure 5-2 Energy Efficiency Potential Projections

0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
2012 2013 2015 2017 2022 2027 2032
En
e
r
g
y

S
a
v
i
n
g
s

(
%

o
f

B
a
s
e
l
i
n
e

P
r
o
j
e
c
t
i
o
n
)
Achievable Potential
Economic Potential
Technical Potential
Energy Efficiency Potential
EnerNOC Utility Solutions Consulting 5-3
Potential results by sector are summarized in Table 5-2 and Figure 5-3.
Table 5-2 Achievable Energy Efficiency Potential by Sector
Sector 2012 2013 2015 2017 2022 2027 2032
Achievable Cumulative Savings (MWh)
Residential 34,123 60,991 132,339 189,469 297,049 473,094 701,104
Commercial 51,289 77,323 135,839 194,418 357,246 512,268 633,771
Industrial 39,772 69,610 122,714 174,526 301,997 415,708 488,465
Irrigation 3,046 5,869 19,833 36,360 92,393 169,700 229,821
Total 128,230 213,793 410,726 594,772 1,048,684 1,570,770 2,053,161
Achievable Cumulative Savings (aMW)
Residential 3.9 7.0 15.1 21.6 33.9 54.0 80.0
Commercial 5.9 8.8 15.5 22.2 40.8 58.5 72.3
Industrial 4.5 7.9 14.0 19.9 34.5 47.5 55.8
Irrigation 0.3 0.7 2.3 4.2 10.5 19.4 26.2
Total 14.6 24.4 46.9 67.9 119.7 179.3 234.4

Figure 5-3 Achievable Energy Efficiency Potential by Sector

-
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
2015 2017 2022 2032
Ac
h
i
e
v
a
b
l
e

Po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
Sa
v
i
n
g
s

(
1
,
0
0
0

M
W
h
)

Irrigation
Industrial
Commercial
Residential
Energy Efficiency Potential
5-4 www.enernoc.com
Residential Sector
Table 5-3 presents estimates for the three types of potential for the residential sector. We note
the following:
 Achievable potential is 189,469 MWh in 2017, or approximately 21.6 aMW. This level of
potential is equivalent to 3.5% of the residential baseline projection for that year. By 2032,
the cumulative achievable projection savings are 701,104 MWh, 10.8% of the baseline
projection.
 Economic potential, which reflects the savings when all cost-effective measures are taken, is
683,391 MWh in 2017, or 12.8% of the baseline energy projection. By 2032, economic
potential reaches 1,312,872 MWh, 20.3% of the baseline energy projection.
 Technical potential in the residential sector is substantial, because measures such as LED
lamps, heat pump water heaters, and solar water heating could cut energy use dramatically.
The 2017 technical potential is 1,465,547 MWh, or 27.4% of the baseline energy projection.
By 2032, technical potential reaches 3,211,915 MWh, 49.7% of the baseline energy
projection. The relatively wide gap between technical and economic potential reflects the fact
that Idaho Power’s long-running residential energy efficiency programs have already
achieved much of the cost-effective energy efficiency. As a result, additional energy
efficiency measures are becoming relatively more costly, and many do not pass the cost-
effectiveness screen based on Idaho Power’s current avoided costs.
Table 5-3 Energy Efficiency Potential for the Residential Sector

Figure 5-4 depicts the potential energy savings estimates graphically. Figure 5-5 displays the
projections under the three types of potential along with the baseline projection.
2012 2013 2015 2017 2022 2027 2032
Baseline Projection (MWh)5,075,486 5,075,763 5,159,026 5,348,213 5,717,700 6,057,762 6,462,345
Cumulative Savings (MWh)
Achievable Potential 34,123 60,991 132,339 189,469 297,049 473,094 701,104
Economic Potential 234,862 373,144 603,800 683,391 939,103 1,148,736 1,312,872
Technical Potential 455,858 702,078 1,150,392 1,465,547 2,199,561 2,781,106 3,211,915
Cumulative Savings (aMW)
Achievable Potential 3.9 7.0 15.1 21.6 33.9 54.0 80.0
Economic Potential 26.8 42.6 68.9 78.0 107.2 131.1 149.9
Technical Potential 52.0 80.1 131.3 167.3 251.1 317.5 366.7
Savings (% of Baseline)
Achievable Potential 0.7% 1.2% 2.6% 3.5% 5.2% 7.8% 10.8%
Economic Potential 4.6% 7.4% 11.7% 12.8% 16.4% 19.0% 20.3%
Technical Potential 9.0% 13.8% 22.3% 27.4% 38.5% 45.9% 49.7%
Energy Efficiency Potential
EnerNOC Utility Solutions Consulting 5-5
Figure 5-4 Residential Energy Savings by Potential Case

Figure 5-5 Residential Energy Efficiency Potential Projections

Residential Potential by End Use
Table 5-4 provides estimates of savings for each end use and type of potential. Focusing first on
technical and economic potential, there are significant savings that are both possible and
economic in numerous end uses:
 Interior lighting offers the highest technical potential savings. The lighting standard begins
its phase-in starting in 2012, which coincides with the widespread availability in the market
place of advanced incandescent lamps that meet the minimum efficacy standard. The
baseline forecast assumes that people will install both advanced incandescent and CFLs in
screw-in lighting applications. For technical potential, LED lamps are the most efficient
option, starting in 2012, which drives the high level of technical potential. However, LED
lamps do not pass the economic screen until 2020, so CFLs are the economic choice until
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
2012 2013 2015 2017 2022 2027 2032
En
e
r
g
y

S
a
v
i
n
g
s

(
%

o
f

B
a
s
e
l
i
n
e

P
r
o
j
e
c
t
i
o
n
)
Achievable Potential
Economic Potential
Technical Potential
Energy Efficiency Potential
5-6 www.enernoc.com
then. However, because CFLs are also an efficient choice, interior lighting still provides the
highest economic potential.
 Space heating offers the second-highest technical potential, which would be achieved if all
electric furnaces were replaced with SEER 16 heat pumps (either when furnaces fail or by
installing a heat pump in lieu of a furnace during new construction) and all electric resistance
heat was converted to ductless minisplit systems. However, these conversions do not pass
the economic screen.
 Cooling offers the third-highest technical potential, which would be achieved if all air
conditioning systems were converted to the highest efficiency units (e.g., SEER 21 for central
air or ductless mini-splits for air-source heat pumps). Once again, these options are not cost-
effective, but cooling is nonetheless the second highest end-use for economic potential,
mainly due to applicable shell measures and controls.
 Appliances offer the third-largest technical potential in the near term. This reflects both the
replacement of failed white-goods appliances with the highest-efficiency option and removal
of second refrigerators in appliance recycling programs. However, once the new appliance
standards take effect in 2015, relative savings in this category diminish.
 Home electronics has technical potential reflecting the purchase of ENERGY STAR units for
all technologies. As energy use in this end-use category increases over time, so does
potential.
 Water heating also offer substantial technical potential savings opportunities, which
reflects the across the board-installation of heat pump water heaters and solar water
heating.
Table 5-4 Residential Savings by End Use and Potential Type (MWh)

End Use Case 2012 2013 2015 2017 2022 2027 2032
Achievable Potential 2,822 5,897 13,838 25,104 62,137 104,601 140,328
Economic Potential 19,443 26,118 43,701 66,955 128,233 170,148 200,816
Technical Potential 60,554 85,417 142,150 209,845 366,004 474,815 562,348
Achievable Potential 2,078 4,422 11,517 20,370 55,225 105,290 144,242
Economic Potential 17,393 22,671 38,149 55,681 113,740 161,313 196,617
Technical Potential 79,353 119,417 207,774 307,398 534,436 693,274 781,413
Achievable Potential 1,265 2,580 5,902 10,803 27,213 47,643 63,247
Economic Potential 7,053 10,188 19,392 32,590 69,967 103,925 121,768
Technical Potential 35,035 59,513 112,167 172,145 340,945 512,030 590,205
Achievable Potential 22,026 38,011 78,855 99,375 76,036 82,241 160,904
Economic Potential 128,726 213,306 329,340 310,702 302,204 320,611 349,317
Technical Potential 150,602 247,144 385,870 381,389 367,714 377,700 452,416
Achievable Potential 3,556 5,914 10,706 11,530 7,308 8,505 17,622
Economic Potential 16,932 26,766 36,134 29,616 24,980 28,079 30,349
Technical Potential 21,052 32,676 44,948 40,207 28,080 23,441 33,641
Achievable Potential 1,776 2,486 6,051 10,226 27,139 44,893 56,640
Economic Potential 19,804 25,737 45,299 59,101 92,725 104,429 108,397
Technical Potential 67,414 83,354 116,965 155,602 247,653 298,553 320,346
Achievable Potential 600 1,680 5,472 12,043 41,846 79,566 117,423
Economic Potential 25,511 48,358 91,784 128,600 206,455 258,789 303,400
Technical Potential 37,362 66,267 125,158 176,627 276,908 350,299 412,878
Achievable Potential - - - 18 145 354 699
Economic Potential - - - 146 799 1,442 2,208
Technical Potential 4,486 8,289 15,360 22,334 37,823 50,994 58,667
Achievable Potential 34,123 60,991 132,339 189,469 297,049 473,094 701,104
Economic Potential 234,862 373,144 603,800 683,391 939,103 1,148,736 1,312,872
Technical Potential 455,858 702,078 1,150,392 1,465,547 2,199,561 2,781,106 3,211,915
Total
Cooling
Space
Heating
Water
Heating
Interior
Lighting
Exterior
Lighting
Appliances
Electronics
Miscella-
neous
Energy Efficiency Potential
EnerNOC Utility Solutions Consulting 5-7
Figure 5-6 present the residential cumulative achievable potential in 2017.
 Lighting, primarily the conversion of both interior and exterior lamps to compact fluorescent
lamps, represents 110,904 MWh or 59% of savings.
 Cooling and heating are the next highest sources of achievable potential, at 13% and 11%
respectively, due mainly to savings from duct repair /sealing and thermostats.
 Water heating, including low-flow fixtures, pipe wrap, and efficient water heaters, provide
6% of achievable potential.
 Electronics, including efficient televisions, computers, and set top boxes, as well as devices
that reduce standby energy use, offer 6% of the potential.
 Appliances, mainly removal of second refrigerators and freezers, provide 5%.
Figure 5-6 Residential Achievable Potential by End Use in 2017 (percentage of total)

As described in Chapter 2, using our LoadMAP model, we develop separate estimates of potential
for equipment and non-equipment measures. Table 5-5 presents results for equipment
achievable potential at the technology level and Table 5-6 presents non-equipment measures.
Measures with zero savings did not pass the cost-effectiveness screening. Initially, the majority
of the savings come from the equipment measures, with lighting leading the way. Appliances and
electronics, mainly televisions, provide savings as well. Over time, non-equipment measures,
which are phased into the market more slowly but produce long-lasting savings (e.g., shell
measures), produce a greater share of savings. In the non-equipment category, ducting
repair/sealing, refrigerator and freezer recycling programs, thermostats, and low-flow fixtures
provide the greatest savings.
Energy Efficiency Potential
5-8 www.enernoc.com
Table 5-5 Residential Achievable Potential for Equipment Measures (1,000 MWh)

End Use Technology 2012 2013 2015 2017 2022 2027 2032
Central AC 0.047 0.148 0.344 0.346 0.357 0.381 0.383
Room AC 0.006 0.018 0.018 0.018 0.015 0.003 0.001
Air-Source Heat Pump 0.011 0.031 0.063 0.064 0.065 0.066 0.061
Geothermal Heat Pump 0.003 0.009 0.031 0.075 0.320 0.655 1.145
Evaporative AC 0.001 0.002 0.021 0.073 0.371 0.749 1.063
Electric Room Heat 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Electric Furnace 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Air-Source Heat Pump 0.040 0.122 0.259 0.261 0.266 0.270 0.253
Geothermal Heat Pump 0.013 0.039 0.136 0.328 1.255 2.416 4.115
Water Heater <= 55 Gal 0.004 0.011 0.042 0.132 0.916 2.587 4.605
Water Heater > 55 Gal 0.002 0.005 0.055 0.188 0.833 2.150 3.498
Screw-in 15.017 24.978 47.023 52.820 33.842 33.981 71.319
Linear Fluorescent 0.000 0.000 0.004 0.013 0.016 0.004 0.000
Specialty 7.009 13.033 31.828 46.542 42.178 48.256 89.585
Exterior Lighting Screw-in 3.556 5.914 10.706 11.530 7.308 8.505 17.622
Clothes Washer 0.018 0.050 0.113 0.173 0.340 0.543 0.620
Clothes Dryer 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Dishwasher 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Refrigerator 0.031 0.088 0.088 0.088 0.089 0.089 0.066
Freezer 0.045 0.127 0.127 0.128 0.129 0.129 0.130
Second Refrigerator 0.018 0.052 0.052 0.052 0.052 0.053 0.044
Stove 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Microwave 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Personal Computers 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Monitor 0.002 0.007 0.030 0.071 0.191 0.263 0.335
Laptops 0.037 0.113 0.451 0.866 2.206 2.989 3.786
TVs 0.165 0.467 1.636 3.733 16.360 29.726 41.302
Printer/Fax/Copier 0.005 0.010 0.024 0.052 0.146 0.206 0.262
Set-top Boxes/DVR 0.391 1.083 3.330 7.321 22.943 46.382 71.738
Devices and Gadgets 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Pool Pump 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.018 0.145 0.354 0.699
Pool Heater 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Hot Tub / Spa 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Well Pump 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Furnace Fan 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Total 26.420 46.305 96.382 124.892 130.343 180.757 312.630
Electronics
Miscellaneous
Cooling
Space Heating
Water Heating
Interior Lighting
Appliances
Energy Efficiency Potential
EnerNOC Utility Solutions Consulting 5-9
Table 5-6 Residential Achievable Savings for Non-equipment Measures (1,000 MWh)

Residential Potential by Market Segment
Single-family homes were slightly more than half of Idaho Power’s residential customers and
represented 55% of the sector’s energy use in 2011. Furthermore, potential as a percentage of
baseline energy use is generally higher in single family homes, which have larger saturations of
equipment beyond the basics of space heating, water heating, and appliances. Thus, single-
2012 2013 2015 2017 2022 2027 2032
- - - - - - -
- - - - - - -
0.049 0.218 1.335 3.407 8.045 12.933 18.408
- - - - 5.517 14.484 25.457
- - - - - - -
0.000 0.001 0.007 0.019 0.045 0.073 0.103
- - - - - 0.654 1.494
2.076 4.207 10.430 17.716 44.099 83.298 109.224
- - - - - - -
0.039 0.079 0.174 0.290 0.689 1.234 1.544
- - - - - - -
- - - - - - -
- - - - - - -
- - - - - - -
0.318 0.649 1.504 2.701 7.666 14.916 20.728
0.805 1.674 3.954 7.798 18.589 25.194 32.680
1.171 2.461 5.571 9.539 23.774 44.237 57.375
- - - - - - -
- - - - - - -
- - - - - - -
- - - - 0.028 0.085 0.122
0.322 0.662 1.506 2.840 6.260 8.246 10.414
- - - - - - -
0.433 0.898 2.214 4.174 8.409 10.397 12.422
0.823 1.653 3.506 6.080 16.496 31.627 41.486
0.003 0.014 0.084 0.230 0.559 0.880 1.235
- - - - - - -
- - - - - - -
Water Heater - Solar System - - - - - - -
Interior Lighting - Occupancy Sensors - - - - - - -
Exterior Lighting - Photosensor Control - - - - - - -
Exterior Lighting - Photovoltaic Installation - - - - - - -
Exterior Lighting - Timeclock Installation - - - - - - -
Refrigerator - Early Replacement - - - - - - -
Refrigerator - Maintenance - - - - - - -
Refrigerator - Remove Second Unit 1.663 2.169 3.982 6.787 18.447 33.809 44.918
Freezer - Remove Second Unit - - 1.689 2.997 8.082 10.269 10.862
Freezer - Early Replacement - - - - - - -
Freezer - Maintenance - - - - - - -
Electronics - Smart Power Strips - - - - - - -
Pool Pump - Timer - - - - - - -
Pool Heater - Solar System - - - - - - -
ENERGY STAR Home Design - - - - - - -
Attic Fan - Solar - - - - - - -
Behavioral Feedback Tools - - - - - - -
Advanced New Construction Design - - - - - - -
Energy Efficient Manufactured Home - - - - - - -
7.702 14.686 35.957 64.577 166.706 292.337 388.474
Measure
Water Heater - Low-Flow Showerheads
Water Heater - Pipe Insulation
Water Heater - Timer
Water Heater - Desuperheater
Attic Fan - Installation
Attic Fan - Photovoltaic - Installation
Whole-House Fan - Installation
Ceiling Fan - Installation
Thermostat - Clock/Programmable
Home Energy Management System
Insulation - Wall Sheathing
Ducting - Repair and Sealing
Windows - High Efficiency/ENERGY STAR
Windows - Install Reflective Film
Doors - Storm and Thermal
Total
Central AC - Early Replacement
Central AC - Maintenance and Tune-Up
Central Heat Pump - Maintenance
Room AC - Removal of Second Unit
Water Heater - Drainwater Heat Recovery
Water Heater - Faucet Aerators
Roofs - High Reflectivity
Insulation - Ceiling
Insulation - Ducting
Insulation - Foundation
Insulation - Infiltration Control
Insulation - Radiant Barrier
Insulation - Wall Cavity
Energy Efficiency Potential
5-10 www.enernoc.com
family homes account for the largest share of potential savings by segment, representing
approximately 58% of achievable potential across the study period as indicated in Table 5-7.
Table 5-8 shows the three potential cases by housing type in 2017.
Table 5-7 Residential Achievable Potential by Market Segment

Table 5-8 Residential Potential Summary by Market Segment, 2017

Table 5-9 shows the savings by end use and market segment in 2017. The segments are similar
in terms of the savings opportunities by end use, but a few notable differences emerge. Single-
family homes are more likely to have swimming pools and spas, and therefore have more
Single Family Multi Family Mobile Home Limited
Income SF
Limited
Income MF
Limited
Income MH
Baseline Forecast (MWh) 2,924,242 231,187 291,363 1,280,668 198,307 422,446
Energy Savings (MWh)
Achievable Potential 110,575 5,734 10,256 43,345 4,885 14,674
Economic Potential 405,767 21,765 33,463 156,616 18,128 47,652
Technical Potential 797,849 60,270 83,094 350,870 53,098 120,367
Energy Savings as % of Baseline
Achievable Potential 4%2%4%3%2%3%
Economic Potential 14%9%11%12%9%11%
Technical Potential 27%26%29%27%27%28%
2012 2013 2015 2017 2022 2027 2032
Baseline Forecast (MWh)
Single Family 2,778,180 2,778,139 2,822,026 2,924,242 3,128,860 3,324,492 3,562,633
Multi Family 218,768 218,402 222,202 231,187 248,994 264,823 282,341
Mobile/Mfg Home 273,137 273,872 280,041 291,363 311,733 327,902 345,050
Limited Income SF 1,220,636 1,219,970 1,237,706 1,280,668 1,363,870 1,440,894 1,534,323
Limited Income MF 189,190 188,604 191,234 198,307 211,714 223,152 235,890
Limited Income MH 395,576 396,776 405,816 422,446 452,529 476,500 502,109
Total 5,075,486 5,075,763 5,159,026 5,348,213 5,717,700 6,057,762 6,462,345
Achievable Savings (MWh)
Single Family 19,922 35,531 77,168 110,575 175,999 278,705 409,646
Multi Family 1,038 1,917 4,040 5,734 8,916 14,700 22,014
Mobile/Mfg Home 1,672 3,077 6,756 10,256 18,422 31,017 44,540
Limited Income SF 8,342 14,791 31,138 43,345 61,366 95,960 147,607
Limited Income MF 943 1,676 3,489 4,885 7,289 11,529 18,002
Limited Income MH 2,206 3,998 9,749 14,674 25,058 41,183 59,296
Total 34,123 60,991 132,339 189,469 297,049 473,094 701,104
Achievable - % of Total Savings
Single Family 58% 58% 58% 58% 59% 59% 58%
Multi Family 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3%
Mobile/Mfg Home 5% 5% 5% 5% 6% 7% 6%
Limited Income SF 24% 24% 24% 23% 21% 20% 21%
Limited Income MF 3% 3% 3% 3% 2% 2% 3%
Limited Income MH 6% 7% 7% 8% 8% 9% 8%
Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Energy Efficiency Potential
EnerNOC Utility Solutions Consulting 5-11
potential for savings in pool pumps (captured in the miscellaneous end use). Mobile/Mfg homes
have a relatively larger opportunity in space heating equipment due to the higher saturation of
electric space heating.
Table 5-9 Residential Achievable Potential by End Use and Market Segment, 2017
(MWh)

Commercial Sector Potential
The baseline projection for the commercial sector grows steadily during the projection period as
the region emerges from the economic downturn. As a result, opportunities for energy-efficiency
savings are significant for the commercial sector.
 Achievable potential projects 194,418 MWh (22.2 aMW) of energy savings in 2017, which
corresponds to 5.2% of the baseline projection.
 Economic potential, which reflects the savings when all cost-effective measures are taken,
is 612,619 MWh in 2017, or 16.4% of the baseline energy projection.
 Technical potential, which reflects the adoption of all energy efficiency measures
regardless of cost, is 872,355 MWh or 23.3% of the baseline energy projection...
Table 5-10 and Figure 5-7 present the savings associated with each level of potential. Figure 5-8
shows the commercial sector baseline projection and the three potential level projections.
Table 5-10 Energy Efficiency Potential for the Commercial Sector

Note: Baseline projection includes street lighting.
End Use Single Family Multi Family Mobile Home Limited Income
SF
Limited Income
MF
Limited Income
MH
Cooling 17,801 563 972 3,516 501 1,751
Space Heating 8,793 248 3,463 3,881 20 3,965
Water Heating 4,695 684 585 3,199 707 933
Interior Lighting 57,766 3,075 4,039 25,399 2,713 6,382
Exterior Lighting 6,690 371 468 2,941 331 730
Appliances 251 19 19 113 15 25
Electronics 14,561 774 710 4,296 598 888
Miscellaneous 18 0 0 0 0 0
Total 110,575 5,734 10,256 43,345 4,885 14,674
2012 2013 2015 2017 2022 2027 2032
Baseline Projection (MWh)3,471,595 3,529,438 3,648,761 3,761,465 4,076,572 4,306,054 4,554,986
Cumulative Savings (MWh)
Achievable Potential 51,289 77,323 135,839 194,418 357,246 512,268 633,771
Economic Potential 302,940 390,446 541,384 612,619 1,014,921 1,215,986 1,331,030
Technical Potential 484,824 596,381 781,772 872,355 1,339,940 1,663,446 1,818,324
Cumulative Savings (aMW)
Achievable Potential 5.9 8.8 15.5 22.2 40.8 58.5 72.3
Economic Potential 34.6 44.6 61.8 69.9 115.9 138.8 151.9
Technical Potential 55.3 68.1 89.2 99.6 153.0 189.9 207.6
Savings (% of Baseline)
Achievable Potential 1.5% 2.2% 3.7% 5.2% 8.8% 11.9% 13.9%
Economic Potential 8.7% 11.1% 14.8% 16.3% 24.9% 28.2% 29.2%
Technical Potential 14.0% 16.9% 21.4% 23.2% 32.9% 38.6% 39.9%
Energy Efficiency Potential
5-12 www.enernoc.com
Figure 5-7 Commercial Energy Efficiency Potential Savings

Figure 5-8 Commercial Energy Efficiency Potential Projections

Commercial Potential by End Use, Technology, and Measure Type
Table 5-11 presents the commercial sector savings by end use and potential type. The end uses
with the highest technical and economic potential are:
 Interior lighting, as a result of LED lighting that is now commercially available, has the
highest technical potential at 336,314 MWh in 2017. However, LEDs are not found to be
cost-effective until 2020. Nonetheless, economic potential is high due to CFLs for screw-in
applications, super T8s for linear fluorescent systems, and T5s for high-bay fixtures.
Therefore, economic potential is highest for lighting as well, at 231,640 MWh in 2021,
roughly two-thirds of technical potential. Control systems also contribute to lighting potential.
 Cooling has the second highest savings for technical potential at 154,859 MWh in 2017.
These savings result from installation of high-efficiency equipment and numerous thermal
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
2012 2013 2015 2017 2022 2027 2032
En
e
r
g
y

S
a
v
i
n
g
s

(
%

o
f

B
a
s
e
l
i
n
e

P
r
o
j
e
c
t
i
o
n
)
Achievable Potential
Economic Potential
Technical Potential
Energy Efficiency Potential
EnerNOC Utility Solutions Consulting 5-13
shell measures, HVAC control strategies, and retrocommissioning. Many of these measures
are cost-effective, resulting in economic potential savings of 95,984 MWh in 2025, or 62% of
technical potential savings.
 Ventilation takes third place for technical potential savings at 111,305 MWh in 2017, due
mainly to conversion of constant volume to variable volume systems, but also to control
systems and operating strategies. Economic potential in that year is 84,418 MWh.
 Refrigeration has 2017 technical potential of 62,344 MWh, 61% of which is found to be cost-
effective, for an economic potential of 37,827 MWh.
Water heating, space heating, office equipment and exterior lighting also have savings in terms
of technical and economic potential. The savings potential from food preparation and
miscellaneous uses are relatively small.
Table 5-11 Commercial Potential by End Use and Potential Type (MWh)

End Use Case 2012 2013 2015 2017 2022 2027 2032
Achievable Potential 11,653 15,715 24,004 32,039 54,035 75,568 94,801
Economic Potential 58,528 65,742 81,397 95,984 132,401 164,428 189,511
Technical Potential 89,001 101,910 127,909 154,859 220,040 275,170 306,539
Achievable Potential 3,178 4,192 6,284 8,778 15,769 22,454 29,008
Economic Potential 18,588 20,863 26,190 32,827 49,410 63,653 75,179
Technical Potential 31,241 35,163 43,823 53,316 77,437 96,542 110,912
Achievable Potential 3,279 5,587 15,130 26,974 55,023 70,045 77,126
Economic Potential 21,363 30,329 56,836 84,418 131,179 140,014 145,227
Technical Potential 49,667 59,752 86,753 111,305 157,134 168,520 176,733
Achievable Potential 2,343 3,909 7,781 12,407 24,408 38,721 49,709
Economic Potential 16,193 23,802 37,705 52,360 83,991 109,051 120,176
Technical Potential 20,066 27,733 41,552 55,996 87,698 112,489 123,839
Achievable Potential 21,667 34,038 57,246 77,441 143,006 216,107 276,026
Economic Potential 133,496 179,768 242,492 231,640 449,171 535,708 575,434
Technical Potential 214,652 271,649 346,062 336,314 559,805 706,795 765,139
Achievable Potential 3,359 5,144 8,502 11,953 22,768 32,344 38,105
Economic Potential 17,323 22,841 30,619 35,396 61,103 74,177 77,212
Technical Potential 25,392 32,417 42,046 47,426 84,849 121,630 125,723
Achievable Potential 4,513 5,718 7,762 9,856 15,697 22,272 29,184
Economic Potential 26,704 28,415 32,838 37,827 50,505 63,067 75,627
Technical Potential 39,906 44,056 53,356 62,344 82,719 99,266 115,262
Achievable Potential 232 518 1,774 3,306 7,698 11,643 14,272
Economic Potential 1,864 3,144 6,844 10,530 19,463 23,941 26,991
Technical Potential 5,034 6,543 10,874 15,459 27,397 34,917 40,806
Achievable Potential 1,051 2,470 7,253 11,475 18,398 22,424 24,706
Economic Potential 8,759 15,337 26,049 31,024 36,581 40,479 44,117
Technical Potential 9,416 16,413 27,920 33,121 38,893 42,923 46,707
Achievable Potential 15 32 103 188 444 689 833
Economic Potential 121 204 414 614 1,117 1,469 1,555
Technical Potential 125 212 428 629 1,132 1,481 1,558
Achievable Potential 51,289 77,323 135,839 194,418 357,246 512,268 633,771
Economic Potential 302,940 390,446 541,384 612,619 1,014,921 1,215,986 1,331,030
Technical Potential 484,499 595,848 780,723 870,769 1,337,106 1,659,733 1,813,217
Water
Heating
Interior
Lighting
Exterior
Lighting
Cooling
Heating
Ventilation
Office
Equipment
Refriger-
ation
Miscella-
neous
Food
Prepara-
tion
Total
Energy Efficiency Potential
5-14 www.enernoc.com
Table 5-12 and Table 5-13 present achievable potential savings for equipment measures and
non-equipment measures, respectively.
Table 5-12 Commercial Achievable Savings for Equipment Measures (1,000MWh)

End Use Measure 2012 2013 2014 2015 2017 2022 2027 2032
Air Source Heat Pump 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.05 0.09 0.29 0.46 0.76
Air-Cooled Chiller 0.74 1.43 2.16 2.84 4.00 7.65 11.89 15.37
Evaporative AC - - - - - - - -
Geothermal Heat Pump 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.06 0.12 0.17
Other Cooling 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.04 0.08 0.22 0.34 0.42
Roof top AC 0.04 0.10 0.19 0.27 0.56 1.44 2.61 3.12
Water-Cooled Chiller 0.96 1.87 2.84 3.77 5.32 10.21 15.74 20.36
Air Source Heat Pump 0.01 0.02 0.04 0.07 0.13 0.41 0.64 1.01
Electric Furnace - - - - - - - -
Electric Room Heat - - - - - - - -
Geothermal Heat Pump 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.06 0.13 0.20
Ventilation Ventilation 1.15 2.90 6.95 11.34 21.03 45.54 56.82 60.39
Water Heating Water Heating 1.04 2.14 3.21 4.89 8.54 18.04 29.13 36.32
High-Bay Fixtures 1.17 1.94 2.58 3.19 4.35 9.17 14.61 19.02
Linear Fluorescent 5.10 9.42 14.02 19.06 28.95 69.36 97.37 108.04
Screw-in 9.77 15.41 20.24 24.35 31.77 46.17 81.16 121.40
HID 1.84 3.14 4.28 5.36 7.44 13.71 18.04 18.37
Linear Fluorescent 0.09 0.16 0.24 0.32 0.50 1.00 1.17 1.23
Screw-in 0.37 0.62 0.87 1.10 1.80 4.63 8.79 13.21
Glass Door Display - - - - - - - -
Icemaker - - 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.07 0.17 0.22
Open Display Case - - - - - - - -
Reach-in Refrigerator 0.01 0.03 0.07 0.11 0.21 0.45 0.71 0.86
Vending Machine 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.02 0.01 0.00
Walk-in Refrigerator 0.02 0.05 0.10 0.16 0.39 1.10 2.02 2.61
Dishwasher 0.06 0.14 0.32 0.53 1.00 2.38 3.74 4.71
Fryer 0.03 0.08 0.18 0.29 0.54 1.23 1.77 2.06
Hot Food Container 0.03 0.08 0.19 0.32 0.60 1.40 2.09 2.50
Oven 0.06 0.14 0.33 0.54 1.03 2.45 3.69 4.49
Desktop Computer 0.27 0.80 1.61 2.53 4.49 7.34 8.76 9.44
Laptop 0.08 0.16 0.28 0.42 0.74 1.11 1.32 1.41
Monitor 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.09 0.16 0.25 0.29 0.31
POS Terminal - - - - - - - -
Printer/Copier/Fax 0.04 0.08 0.13 0.20 0.36 0.71 0.88 0.97
Server 0.65 1.40 2.48 4.00 5.72 8.98 11.18 12.57
Non-HVAC Motors 0.01 0.03 0.06 0.10 0.18 0.41 0.62 0.75
Pool Heater - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.03 0.04
Pool Pump 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.04 0.04
Miscellaneous - - - - - - - -
Total 23.61 42.25 63.54 86.01 130.07 255.91 376.30 462.38
Food
Preparation
Office
Equipment
Miscellaneous
Cooling
Heating
Interior
Lighting
Exterior
Lighting
Refrigeration
Energy Efficiency Potential
EnerNOC Utility Solutions Consulting 5-15
Table 5-13 Commercial Achievable Savings for Non-equipment Measures (1,000MWh)

Measure 2012 2013 2014 2015 2017 2022 2027 2032
Advanced New Construction Designs 0.59 1.30 2.31 3.72 6.08 14.15 20.84 28.09
Energy Management System 3.20 4.10 4.75 5.43 6.80 10.77 15.01 19.35
Exterior Lighting - Daylighting Controls 0.85 0.95 1.07 1.22 1.54 2.23 2.69 3.16
HVAC - Occupancy Sensors - - - - - - - -
Insulation - Ceiling 0.07 0.10 0.13 0.16 0.20 0.34 0.47 0.58
Insulation - Ducting 0.23 0.30 0.34 0.39 0.53 0.94 1.25 1.52
Insulation - Wall Cavity 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.11 0.17 0.23 0.28
Interior Lighting - Daylighting Controls 1.97 2.51 2.90 3.32 4.09 6.53 8.56 10.56
Interior Lighting - Occupancy Sensors - - - - - - - -
Interior Lighting - Task Lighting - - - - - - - -
Non-HVAC Motors - Variable Speed Control - - - - - - - -
Pool Pump - Timer - - - - - - - -
Space Heating - Heat Recovery Ventilator 0.37 0.51 0.71 0.85 1.19 2.31 3.34 4.30
Thermostat - Clock/Programmable 0.76 0.99 1.16 1.34 1.72 2.80 4.00 5.23
Vending Machine - Controller - - - - - - - -
Ventilation - CO2 Controlled 0.27 0.36 0.42 0.47 0.59 0.86 1.16 1.48
Ventilation - Variable Speed Control 1.10 1.33 1.54 1.82 3.27 5.04 7.14 8.91
Windows - High Efficiency 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.05 0.07 0.11 0.14 0.18
Insulation - Radiant Barrier 0.13 0.17 0.20 0.24 0.32 0.53 0.76 0.98
HVAC - Duct Repair and Sealing 1.66 1.99 2.28 2.59 3.44 4.82 5.83 6.66
Doors - High Efficiency - - - - - - - -
Roof - High Reflectivity 0.82 1.04 1.21 1.37 1.71 2.47 3.22 3.96
Air-Cooled Chiller - Cond. Water Temperature Reset 0.10 0.12 0.13 0.15 0.19 0.26 0.29 0.32
Air-Cooled Chiller - Economizer 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.50 0.74 0.89 1.03
Air-Cooled Chiller - Thermal Energy Storage - - - - - - - -
Air-Cooled Chiller - VSD on Fans 0.35 0.43 0.50 0.57 0.72 1.06 1.28 1.49
Air-Cooled Chiller - Chilled Water Reset 0.31 0.37 0.43 0.48 0.61 0.85 0.98 1.09
Air-Cooled Chiller - Chilled Water Variable-Flow System 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.09 0.11
Air-Cooled Chiller - High Efficiency Cooling Tower Fans - - - - - - - -
Air-Cooled Chiller - Maintenance 0.37 0.43 0.49 0.56 0.71 0.99 1.15 1.27
Air-Cooled Chiller - Chiller Heat Recovery 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.16 0.30 0.42 0.54
Water-Cooled Chiller - Cond.Water Temperature Reset 0.45 0.54 0.62 0.71 0.88 1.24 1.44 1.61
Water-Cooled Chiller - Economizer 0.20 0.24 0.27 0.31 0.39 0.57 0.68 0.77
Water-Cooled Chiller - Thermal Energy Storage - - - - - - - -
Water-Cooled Chiller - VSD on Fans 1.29 1.55 1.80 2.06 2.62 3.81 4.56 5.28
Water-Cooled Chiller - Chilled Water Reset 0.41 0.49 0.56 0.64 0.80 1.09 1.25 1.38
Water-Cooled Chiller - Chilled Water Variable-Flow System 0.10 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.20 0.28 0.33 0.37
Water-Cooled Chiller - High Efficiency Cooling Tower Fans - - - - - - - -
Water-Cooled Chiller - Maintenance 0.43 0.51 0.58 0.66 0.84 1.14 1.33 1.46
Water-Cooled Chiller - Chiller Heat Recovery 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.16 0.30 0.42 0.54
RTU - Evaporative Precooler 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.07 0.09 0.12
RTU - Maintenance 1.24 1.47 1.68 2.07 2.58 3.68 4.49 5.22
Heat Pump - Maintenance 1.34 1.59 1.81 2.07 2.54 3.64 4.55 5.53
Ventilation - ECM on VAV Boxes - - - - - - - -
Water Heater - Drainwater Heat Recovery 0.05 0.07 0.09 0.10 0.13 0.24 0.35 0.46
Water Heater - Faucet Aerators/Low Flow Nozzles 0.33 0.43 0.54 0.78 1.06 1.09 1.04 1.01
Water Heater - Desuperheater 0.42 0.56 0.74 0.85 1.09 1.86 2.61 3.34
Water Heater - Solar System 0.11 0.17 0.26 0.34 0.54 1.53 3.47 5.99
Water Heater - Pipe Insulation 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05
Water Heater - Tank Blanket/Insulation 0.23 0.31 0.39 0.40 0.42 0.44 0.44 0.44
Energy Efficiency Potential
5-16 www.enernoc.com
Table 5-13 Commercial Achievable Savings for Non-equipment Measures (1,000MWh)
(cont.)

As shown in Figure 5-9, the primary sources of commercial sector achievable savings in 2017 are
as follows:
 Interior and exterior lighting, with lamps and fixtures accounting for 40% of commercial
sector achievable potential, and lighting controls and commissioning providing the remaining
6%
 HVAC — with the largest proportion due to converting ventilation systems to VAV (8%),
followed by high-efficiency chillers (5%), advanced new construction designs (3%), energy
managements systems (4%), and commissioning and other controls (4%)
 Office Equipment – servers and efficient computers (6%)
 Water heating and refrigeration provide 6% and 5% of savings
Measure 2012 2013 2014 2015 2017 2022 2027 2032
Interior Lighting - LED Exit Lighting 2.08 2.65 3.29 3.26 3.12 2.98 2.78 2.60
Interior Lighting - Timeclocks and Timers - - - - - - - -
Interior Fluorescent - Bi-Level Fixture - - - - - - - -
Interior Fluorescent - Delamp and Install Reflectors - - - - - - - -
Exterior Lighting - Bi-Level Fixture - - - - - - - -
Exterior Lighting - Photovoltaic Installation - - - - - - - -
Refrigerator - Anti-Sweat Heater 0.31 0.38 0.43 0.48 0.57 0.78 1.04 1.34
Refrigerator - Decommissioning 1.50 1.93 2.50 2.85 3.62 5.87 8.14 10.64
Refrigerator - Demand Defrost 0.66 0.82 0.92 1.02 1.24 1.81 2.49 3.29
Refrigerator - Door Gasket Replacement 0.13 0.16 0.17 0.19 0.22 0.31 0.41 0.53
Refrigerator - Evaporator Fan Controls - - - - - - - -
Refrigerator - Floating Head Pressure - - - - - - - -
Refrigerator - Strip Curtain 0.14 0.17 0.18 0.20 0.23 0.34 0.49 0.67
Refrigerator - High Efficiency Compressor 0.31 0.38 0.43 0.48 0.58 0.86 1.21 1.62
Refrigerator - Variable Speed Compressor 0.45 0.56 0.63 0.70 0.85 1.23 1.69 2.23
Refrigerator - Food Temperature Simulant - - - - - 0.04 0.06 0.08
Office Equipment - ENERGY STAR Power Supplies 0.05 0.07 0.08 0.10 0.13 0.23 0.36 0.51
Office Equipment - Plug Load Occupancy Sensors - - - - - - - -
Pool Heater - Solar - - - - - - - -
Retrocommissioning - HVAC 0.33 0.42 0.48 0.54 0.82 1.49 2.52 3.25
Retrocommissioning - Lighting 0.46 0.57 0.85 1.67 1.96 2.99 3.80 4.51
Cooking - Exhaust Hoods with Sensor Control 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.11 0.12 0.14
Commissioning - HVAC 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.06 0.13 0.18 0.24
Commissioning - Lighting - - - - - - - -
Grocery - Display Case - LED Lighting 0.41 0.52 0.60 0.67 0.83 1.25 1.73 2.31
Grocery - Display Case Motion Sensors - - - - - - - -
Grocery - ECMs for Display Cases 0.48 0.60 0.69 0.78 0.95 1.40 1.91 2.52
Grocery - Open Display Case - Night Covers 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.10 0.16 0.21 0.27
Lodging - Guest Room Controls - - - - - - - -
NE Measures Total 27.68 35.07 42.24 49.83 64.35 101.33 135.97 171.39
Energy Efficiency Potential
EnerNOC Utility Solutions Consulting 5-17
Figure 5-9 Commercial Achievable Potential Cumulative Savings by End Use in 2017
(percentage of total)

Commercial Potential by Market Segment
Table 5-14 shows potential estimates by segment in 2017. The small office segment has the
largest achievable energy efficiency potential of 109,323 MWh, roughly 17% of the overall
commercial achievable potential and 5% of the segment’s baseline projection. The retail segment
follows close behind at 106,340 MWh. The hospital, college, and grocery segments have the
highest achievable potential as a percentage of their respective baseline consumption.
Table 5-14 Commercial Potential by Market Segment, 2017
Energy Savings (MWh) Energy Savings (% of Baseline)
Baseline
Forecast
Achievable
Potential
Economic
Potential
Technical
Potential
Achievable
Potential
Economic
Potential
Technical
Potential
Small Office 648,706 33,722 109,323 157,362 5.2% 16.9% 24.3%
Large Office 227,029 13,417 38,458 55,907 5.9% 16.9% 24.6%
Restaurant 244,808 12,330 40,659 52,271 5.0% 16.6% 21.4%
Retail 586,191 32,638 106,340 159,114 5.6% 18.1% 27.1%
Grocery 229,607 13,449 46,617 65,165 5.9% 20.3% 28.4%
College 145,476 9,960 29,668 38,861 6.8% 20.4% 26.7%
School 262,053 13,083 40,273 68,003 5.0% 15.4% 26.0%
Hospital 416,263 28,697 82,966 92,205 6.9% 19.9% 22.2%
Lodging 171,721 7,770 26,527 44,351 4.5% 15.4% 25.8%
Assembly 219,711 10,394 33,048 51,742 4.7% 15.0% 23.5%
Warehouse 226,817 10,888 33,576 48,191 4.8% 14.8% 21.2%
Miscellaneous 359,203 8,069 25,163 39,185 2.2% 7.0% 10.9%
Total 3,737,586 194,418 612,619 872,355 5.2% 16.4% 23.3%

Energy Efficiency Potential
5-18 www.enernoc.com
Table 5-15 and Figure 5-10 present the achievable potential in 2017 by end use and building
type. Lighting replacement and upgrade, particularly for screw-in lamps, is a key measure across
all buildings. Other key measures for each building type are as follows:
 Small offices: Ventilation upgrades, high-efficiency servers and computers, daylighting
controls, HVAC duct repair and sealing
 Large Offices: Variable speed drives for chillers, high-efficiency chillers, conversion to VAV
ventilation, high-efficiency computers and servers, and advanced new construction designs
 Restaurants: Lighting upgrades, efficient cooking equipment, daylighting and lighting
controls, VAV ventilation
 Retail: Upgrades to high-bay fixtures and screw-in lighting, conversion to VAV ventilation,
daylighting controls, energy management systems
 Grocery: LED case lighting and anti-sweat heaters, high-efficiency and variable speed
compressors, daylighting controls,
 Colleges: VAV ventilation, daylighting, high-efficiency chillers, energy management systems,
and advanced new construction designs
 Schools: Energy management systems, HVAC duct repair and sealing, VAV ventilation,
advanced new construction designs
 Hospitals and other health: Chiller upgrades, variable speed drives on chillers, VAV
ventilation, water heating upgrades, energy management systems, advanced new
construction designs

Energy Efficiency Potential
EnerNOC Utility Solutions Consulting 5-19
Table 5-15 Commercial Achievable Savings in 2017 by End Use and Building Type (1,000 MWh)

Segment Cooling Heating Ventil. Water Htg.Interior
Lighting
Exterior
Lighting Refr. Food Prep.Office
Equipt.Misc. Total
Small Office 3.7 2.7 6.6 1.7 12.1 2.3 0.0 0.1 4.6 0.0 33.7
Large Office 2.5 0.7 3.6 0.7 3.7 0.4 0.0 0.1 1.8 0.0 13.4
Restaurant 0.4 0.1 2.7 1.2 3.6 0.7 1.9 1.4 0.2 0.0 12.3
Retail 3.4 1.1 3.3 1.7 19.0 2.1 0.4 0.3 1.3 0.0 32.6
Grocery 0.2 0.2 0.8 0.8 4.2 0.3 6.7 0.2 0.1 0.0 13.4
College 2.3 0.5 0.9 0.9 4.6 0.4 0.0 0.1 0.4 0.0 10.0
School 2.5 0.7 1.4 0.8 4.9 1.1 0.2 0.3 1.1 0.0 13.1
Hospital 13.5 1.0 4.5 1.9 6.2 0.4 0.1 0.5 0.6 0.0 28.7
Lodging 0.5 0.3 1.1 1.1 4.0 0.5 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 7.8
Assembly 1.3 0.5 0.7 0.6 5.3 1.4 0.1 0.1 0.5 0.0 10.4
Warehouse 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.3 6.2 1.0 0.3 0.0 0.6 0.0 10.9
Miscellaneous 0.9 0.4 0.7 0.6 3.8 1.2 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.0 8.1
Total 32.0 8.8 27.0 12.4 77.4 12.0 9.9 3.2 11.6 0.2 194.4
Energy Efficiency Potential
5-20 www.enernoc.com
Figure 5-10 Commercial Achievable Savings in 2017 by End Use and Building Type

0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
40.0
Ac
h
i
e
v
a
b
l
e

P
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l

S
a
v
i
n
g
s

(
1
,
0
0
0

M
W
h
)
Miscellaneous
Office Equipment
Food Preparation
Refrigeration
Exterior Lighting
Interior Lighting
Water Heating
Ventilation
Heating
Cooling
Energy Efficiency Potential
EnerNOC Utility Solutions Consulting 5-21
Industrial Sector Potential
The Idaho Power industrial sector accounts for 17% of total energy consumption, making for
prime efficiency opportunities. Table 5 16 and Figure 5 11 present the savings for the various
types of potential considered in this study. Figure 5 12 shows the industrial sector baseline
projection and the three potential level projections.
 Achievable potential projects 174,526 MWh (19.9 aMW) of energy savings in 2017, which
corresponds to 18.0% of the baseline projection.
 Economic potential, which reflects the savings when all cost-effective measures are taken,
is 313,888 MWh in 2017, or 29.7% of the baseline energy projection.
 Technical potential, which reflects the adoption of all energy efficiency measures
regardless of cost, is 380,544 MWh or 30.2% of the baseline energy projection...
Table 5-16 Energy Efficiency Potential for the Industrial Sector

Note: Baseline projection and potential exclude special-contract accounts.
Figure 5-11 Industrial Energy Efficiency Potential Savings

2012 2013 2015 2017 2022 2027 2032
Baseline Projection (MWh)2,651,085 2,740,818 2,895,022 3,010,038 3,209,994 3,492,905 3,812,170
Cumulative Savings (MWh)
Achievable Potential 39,772 69,610 122,714 174,526 301,997 415,708 488,465
Economic Potential 144,676 178,165 241,489 313,888 517,143 710,957 858,220
Technical Potential 185,494 225,094 303,357 380,544 596,122 788,460 927,757
Cumulative Savings (aMW)
Achievable Potential 4.5 7.9 14.0 19.9 34.5 47.5 55.8
Economic Potential 16.5 20.3 27.6 35.8 59.0 81.2 98.0
Technical Potential 21.2 25.7 34.6 43.4 68.1 90.0 105.9
Energy Savings (% of Baseline)
Achievable Potential 1.5% 2.5% 4.2% 5.8% 9.4% 11.9% 12.8%
Economic Potential 5.5% 6.5% 8.3% 10.4% 16.1% 20.4% 22.5%
Technical Potential 7.0% 8.2% 10.5% 12.6% 18.6% 22.6% 24.3%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
2012 2013 2015 2017 2022 2027 2032
En
e
r
g
y

S
a
v
i
n
g
s

(
%

o
f

B
a
s
e
l
i
n
e

P
r
o
j
e
c
t
i
o
n
)
Achievable Potential
Economic Potential
Technical Potential
Energy Efficiency Potential
5-22 www.enernoc.com
Figure 5-12 Industrial Energy Efficiency Potential Projection

Industrial Potential by End Use, Technology, and Measure Type
Table 5-17 presents the industrial savings by end use and type of potential. Most of the
equipment replacement opportunities are in the machine drive (motors) end use, but potential
savings are diminishing due to the National Electrical Manufacturer’s Association (NEMA)
standards, which now make premium efficiency motors the baseline efficiency level. As a result,
potential savings are only available from upgrading to still more efficient levels. Cooling and
lighting have the next highest savings potential, but are dwarfed in comparison to machine
drives.
Energy Efficiency Potential
EnerNOC Utility Solutions Consulting 5-23
Table 5-17 Industrial Potential by End Use and Potential Type (MWh)

Figure 5-13 shows the achievable potential savings by end use in 2017, reflecting that the
preponderance of savings comes from motor loads, followed by process-related measures.
Specific measures that provide significant savings are as follows:
 Adjustable speed and variable frequency drives for pumps, fans, and other motors provide
21% of savings
 Other measures for fans and pumps, including equipment upgrades, controls, maintenance,
and system optimization, provide about 17% of savings
 Refrigeration measures, including floating head pressure, controls, maintenance and system
optimization provide 17% of savings
 Compressed air measures, including compressor replacement, air usage reduction, system
controls, and system optimization, provide nearly 9% of savings

End Use Potential 2012 2013 2015 2017 2022 2027 2032
Achievable Potential 3,978 6,317 10,472 13,606 18,514 21,593 22,937
Economic Potential 12,411 14,455 18,623 22,302 29,020 33,142 34,441
Technical Potential 12,463 14,533 18,774 22,510 29,334 33,521 34,832
Achievable Potential 2,461 4,517 8,091 11,091 15,833 18,335 19,549
Economic Potential 9,774 11,504 15,809 19,855 28,726 34,876 37,988
Technical Potential 14,475 16,593 21,756 26,518 36,339 42,666 45,586
Achievable Potential 403 830 2,516 4,518 9,123 11,431 12,078
Economic Potential 2,093 3,573 8,051 11,778 18,270 18,654 18,662
Technical Potential 2,202 3,696 8,202 11,952 18,469 18,887 18,910
Achievable Potential 4,964 8,599 13,726 17,974 54,123 92,555 111,084
Economic Potential 17,507 25,421 31,183 35,252 73,868 116,564 136,844
Technical Potential 27,603 36,423 45,690 54,331 97,499 135,534 152,368
Achievable Potential 984 1,605 2,185 2,200 6,468 12,857 14,607
Economic Potential 3,599 4,991 5,008 4,391 10,839 17,430 17,883
Technical Potential 3,916 5,352 5,591 5,375 12,303 18,445 18,855
Achievable Potential 17,423 33,847 61,726 89,991 144,742 188,675 219,662
Economic Potential 71,639 85,700 119,489 158,857 259,240 354,057 432,662
Technical Potential 76,722 92,363 129,506 168,812 269,694 362,983 440,075
Achievable Potential 9,545 13,868 23,945 35,055 52,936 69,671 87,693
Economic Potential 27,565 32,407 43,139 61,145 96,213 133,967 176,293
Technical Potential 48,000 55,991 73,609 90,682 131,406 173,977 213,433
Achievable Potential 13 26 54 90 258 590 857
Economic Potential 88 113 188 308 967 2,265 3,446
Technical Potential 112 142 229 364 1,077 2,446 3,698
Achievable Potential 39,772 69,610 122,714 174,526 301,997 415,708 488,465
Economic Potential 144,676 178,165 241,489 313,888 517,143 710,957 858,220
Technical Potential 185,494 225,094 303,357 380,544 596,122 788,460 927,757
Miscella-
neous
Motors
Process
Total
Cooling
Heating
Ventilation
Interior
Lighting
Exterior
Lighting
Energy Efficiency Potential
5-24 www.enernoc.com
Figure 5-13 Industrial Achievable Potential Savings by End Use in 2017 (MWh)

Industrial Sector Potential by Market Segment
Table 5-17 shows potential estimates by segment in 2017. The Manufacturing — Food segment
has the largest achievable energy efficiency potential of 95,217 MWh, roughly 54% of the overall
commercial achievable potential and 5.5% of the segment’s baseline projection. The Agriculture
segment has the highest achievable potential as a percentage of its respective baseline
consumption.
Table 5-18 Industrial Potential by Market Segment, 2017
Energy Savings (MWh) Energy Savings (% of Baseline)
Baseline
Projection
Achievable
Potential
Economic
Potential
Technical
Potential
Achievable
Potential
Economic
Potential
Technical
Potential
Manufacturing-
Food 1,727,704 95,217 134,188 169,237 201,476 5.5% 9.8%
Agriculture 296,780 21,383 29,960 39,106 48,730 7.2% 13.2%
Water and
Wastewater 275,631 16,481 23,735 29,631 32,988 6.0% 10.8%
Electronics 197,444 10,480 14,632 19,233 29,615 5.3% 9.7%
Other 512,479 30,966 42,772 56,681 67,736 6.0% 11.1%
Total 3,010,038 174,526 245,287 313,888 380,544 5.8% 10.4%

Figure 5-14 shows the achievable potential savings by segment and end use. For all segments,
the preponderance of savings comes from motor loads and process optimization related to motor
loads.
Cooling
8%
Heating
6%
Ventilation
3%
Interior
Lighting
10%
Exterior
Lighting
1%
Motors
52%
Process
20%
Energy Efficiency Potential
EnerNOC Utility Solutions Consulting 5-25
Figure 5-14 Industrial Achievable Potential Savings by Segment and End Use in 2017
(MWh)

Irrigation Sector Potential
Although the smallest of the sectors analyzed here, the irrigation sector still has significant
potential as shown in Table 5-19 and Figure 5-15. Figure 5-16 shows the projected irrigation
sector baseline projection and the three potential cases.
 Achievable potential projects 36,360 MWh (4.2 aMW) of energy savings in 2017, which
corresponds to 2.0% of the baseline projection.
 Economic potential, which reflects the savings when all cost-effective measures are taken,
is 124,499 MWh in 2017, or 6.8% of the baseline energy projection.
 Technical potential, which reflects the adoption of all energy efficiency measures
regardless of cost, is 131,099 MWh or 7.2% of the baseline energy projection.
Table 5-19 Energy Efficiency Potential for the Irrigation Sector

-
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
160,000
180,000
200,000
Manufacturing
-Food
Agriculture Water and
Wastewater
Electronics Other Grand Total
Ac
h
i
e
v
a
b
l
e

P
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l

S
a
v
i
n
g
s

(
M
W
h
)
Miscellaneous
Process
Motors
Exterior Lighting
Interior Lighting
Ventilation
Heating
Cooling
2012 2013 2015 2017 2022 2027 2032
Baseline Projection (MWh)1,789,137 1,789,760 1,818,632 1,825,093 1,900,010 1,964,478 2,038,167
Cumulative Savings (MWh)
Achievable Potential 3,046 5,869 19,833 36,360 92,393 169,700 229,821
Economic Potential 49,664 60,691 89,817 124,499 224,723 297,911 337,351
Technical Potential 51,576 63,482 94,455 131,099 236,784 312,290 349,382
Cumulative Savings (aMW)
Achievable Potential 0.3 0.7 2.3 4.2 10.5 19.4 26.2
Economic Potential 5.7 6.9 10.3 14.2 25.7 34.0 38.5
Technical Potential 5.9 7.2 10.8 15.0 27.0 35.6 39.9
Energy Savings (% of Baseline)
Achievable Potential 0%0.3% 1.1% 2.0% 4.9% 8.6% 11.3%
Economic Potential 3%3.4% 4.9% 6.8% 11.8% 15.2% 16.6%
Technical Potential 3%3.5% 5.2% 7.2% 12.5% 15.9% 17.1%
Participation Rate (Achiev./Econ.)6.1% 9.7% 22.1% 29.2% 41.1% 57.0% 68.1%
Energy Efficiency Potential
5-26 www.enernoc.com
Figure 5-15 Irrigation Energy Efficiency Potential Savings

Figure 5-16 Irrigation Energy Efficiency Potential Projection

The only end-use in the irrigation sector analysis is motors. Because of the NEMA motor
standards, all new and replacement motors will move to premium efficiency units in the baseline
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
16%
18%
2012 2013 2015 2017 2022 2027 2032
En
e
r
g
y

S
a
v
i
n
g
s

(
%

o
f

B
a
s
e
l
i
n
e

P
r
o
j
e
c
t
i
o
n
)

Achievable Potential
Economic Potential
Technical Potential
Energy Efficiency Potential
EnerNOC Utility Solutions Consulting 5-27
case and potential savings are only available from upgrading to still more efficient levels. These
higher efficiency units do not pass the cost-effectiveness test. Nonetheless, savings are available
from the following measures:
 Scientific irrigation practices (38% of 2017 savings)
 Proper pressure or head design (21% of 2017 savings)
 Multiple configuration nozzles and nozzle replacement (15% of 2017 savings)
 Variable frequency drives (10% of 2017 savings)
 Multiple pumps to enable part-load operation (6% of 2017 savings)
Special-Contract Customer Potential
The special contract customers were not analyzed within LoadMAP, but instead, potential was
assessed separately. To do so, the project team considered these customers’ past energy-savings
history and asked the Idaho Power customer representatives who work with these customers to
inquire about their upcoming EE plans. Consideration for this analysis included EE measures and
actions already implemented, general business plans, and planned future efficiency measures.
Based on this analysis, potential for these customers was estimated at approximately 10,557
MWh annually.

EnerNOC Utility Solutions Consulting
500 Ygnacio Valley Road, Suite 450
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
P: 925.482.2000 F: 925.284.3147
About EnerNOC
EnerNOC’s Utility Solutions Consulting team is part of EnerNOC’s Utility Solutions,
which provides a comprehensive suite of demand-side management (DSM)
services to utilities and grid operators worldwide. Hundreds of utilities have
leveraged our technology, our people, and our proven processes to make their
energy efficiency (EE) and demand response (DR) initiatives a success. Utilities
trust EnerNOC to work with them at every stage of the DSM program lifecycle –
assessing market potential, designing effective programs, implementing those
programs, and measuring program results.
EnerNOC’s Utility Solutions deliver value to our utility clients through two
separate practice areas – Implementation and Consulting.
• Our Implementation team leverages EnerNOC’s deep “behind-the-meter
expertise” and world-class technology platform to help utilities create and
manage DR and EE programs that deliver reliable and cost-effective energy
savings. We focus exclusively on the commercial and industrial (C&I)
customer segments, with a track record of successful partnerships that
spans more than a decade. Through a focus on high quality, measurable
savings, EnerNOC has successfully delivered hundreds of thousands of MWh
of energy efficiency for our utility clients, and we have thousands of MW of
demand response capacity under management.
• The Consulting team provides expertise and analysis to support a broad
range of utility DSM activities, including: potential assessments; end-use
forecasts; integrated resource planning; EE, DR, and smart grid pilot and
program design and administration; load research; technology assessments
and demonstrations; evaluation, measurement and verification; and
regulatory support.
The team has decades of combined experience in the utility DSM industry. The
staff is comprised of professional electrical, mechanical, chemical, civil, industrial,
and environmental engineers as well as economists, business planners, project
managers, market researchers, load research professionals, and statisticians.
Utilities view EnerNOC’s experts as trusted advisors, and we work together
collaboratively to make any DSM initiative a success.

FlexPeak Management
2012 Program Report

December 29, 2012

Idaho Power
FlexPeak Management 2012 Program Report Page 2

Table of Contents
Table of Contents ...................................................................................................................................2
Program Summary .................................................................................................................................3
2012 Demand Reduction Event Results ................................................................................................4
Customer Recruitment ...........................................................................................................................5
Metering .................................................................................................................................................6
Event Initiation.......................................................................................................................................7
Customer Event Monitoring ..................................................................................................................7
Idaho Power Event Monitoring ..............................................................................................................8
Customer Satisfaction ............................................................................................................................9
Idaho Power Participation ....................................................................................................................10
Payment Reconciliation .......................................................................................................................10
Payment Adjustments ..........................................................................................................................11
Cost-Effectiveness ...............................................................................................................................11
Conclusion ...........................................................................................................................................11

Idaho Power
FlexPeak Management 2012 Program Report Page 3

Program Summary
FlexPeak Management is a voluntary demand response program designed for Idaho Power’s industrial and large commercial customers that are capable of reducing their electrical energy loads for short
periods during summer peak days. The program became available to the company’s customers in Idaho
in May 2009 and became available to Oregon customers in May 2010. The program objective is to
reduce the demand on Idaho Power’s system during peak times through customers’ voluntary electrical
use reduction. The program is active June 1 to August 31, between the hours of 2:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. on non-holiday weekdays. Customers receive notification of a demand reduction event two hours prior
to the start of the event, and events last between two and four hours, with a maximum of 60 hours per
summer.
In November 2008, Idaho Power selected EnerNOC, Inc. through a competitive Request for Proposal
(RFP) process, to implement the program. Idaho Power entered into a five-year agreement with EnerNOC in February 2009, pending the Idaho Public Utilities Commission (IPUC) approval. In May 2009, the IPUC approved the contract in Order No. 30805.
In February 2010, Idaho Power filed a petition requesting the IPUC to approve an amendment to the
agreement between Idaho Power and EnerNOC. The contract changes clarified language regarding
accrual of energy payments, adjustment of language regarding baseline calculations, correction of an error in EnerNOC penalty calculations, and the addition of a non-solicitation clause. On June 2, 2010, under Order No. 31098, the IPUC granted the company’s Petition for Approval of the Amendment to the
Agreement. In March 2010, Idaho Power filed an application with the Oregon Public Utilities
Commission (OPUC) to approve the FlexPeak Management program to be available to Idaho Power
Oregon customers, which was approved on June 2, 2010 in Order No. 10-206.
EnerNOC is responsible for developing and implementing all marketing plans, securing all participants, installing and maintaining all equipment downstream of Idaho Power’s meter, tracking participation, and
reporting results to Idaho Power. Idaho Power initiates demand response events by notifying EnerNOC,
who then supplies the requested load reduction to the Idaho Power system.
EnerNOC meets with prospective customers to identify their potential to reduce electrical energy load during active program hours with minimal impact to their business operations. Customers enroll in the program by entering into a contract with EnerNOC. EnerNOC then installs energy monitoring
equipment at the customer site, simulates a demand response event to ensure customer satisfaction and
performance, and officially enrolls the facility in the program.
Contractually, EnerNOC has agreed to a target annual demand reduction amount for the five year contract length. Each week during the active season, EnerNOC commits a demand reduction level in megawatts (MWs) to Idaho Power that EnerNOC is obligated to meet during a demand reduction event.
When Idaho Power anticipates the need for capacity, it schedules the date and time of the event and
notifies EnerNOC.
Idaho Power has access to an EnerNOC web site that shows near real-time energy usage data of the aggregated load, and can continually monitor the success of the demand reduction during an event. Customers can also continuously monitor their demand reduction performance using their individual
near real-time energy usage data available to them through the EnerNOC web site.
Idaho Power
FlexPeak Management 2012 Program Report Page 4

2012 Demand Reduction Event Results
EnerNOC’s contractual demand response obligation to Idaho Power in 2012 was 35 MW. The first week of the 2012 season, EnerNOC committed to provide a reduction of 30.5 MW. This weekly
commitment or “nomination” was comprised of 99 facility sites, of which 96 participated in the program
in 2011 and 3 were added in 2012. The reduction commitment peaked at the end of the season at 38.8
MW, comprised of 101 facility sites.
Idaho Power initiated four demand response events in 2012. One event occurred in June, two in July, and one in August. The highest hourly reduction achieved was in July, at 47.9 MW (meter-level).
EnerNOC performed to the committed MW reductions by the percentages shown in the table below.

91%
121%
87%
123%
1st 2nd 3rd 4th
MW

R
e
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

Event
FlexPeak 2012
Demand Reduction Percent Performances
Committed Capacity (MW) Avg Actual Reduction (MW)
Idaho Power
FlexPeak Management 2012 Program Report Page 5

Customer Recruitment
EnerNOC began the recruitment process in 2009 by partnering with Idaho Power Customer Representatives to engage customers with a demand of 500 kW and above. They then included
customers with a demand between 200 to 500 kW. Much of 2010 through 2012 was spent revisiting
those customers whose operations or demand may have changed to making them eligible to participate
in the program. EnerNOC and Idaho Power Customer Representatives also worked with existing
participants to increase nominations where appropriate.
Once potentially eligible customers were identified, EnerNOC worked with them to develop a demand
reduction plan that could be implemented at the site with minimal impact to the customer’s business
operations. Customers were then invited to sign a contract with EnerNOC and enroll in the program.
The most recent breakdown of MW reduction committed by customer segment is shown below.

Asphalt, Concrete,
Gravel
41%
Food Processing
16%
Other Light
Industrial
8%
Distribution/Shipping
/Warehouse
8%
Refrigerated
Warehouse
7%
Energy/Mining
3%
Military/Federal
3%
Agriculture
3%
Education
2%
Grocer/Market
2%
Manufacturing
2%
Water & Wastewater
Treatment
2% Other
3%
FlexPeak 2012
Committed MW Reduction by Customer Segment

Idaho Power
FlexPeak Management 2012 Program Report Page 6

Metering
Customers enroll in the program by signing a contract with EnerNOC. EnerNOC then submits requests to Idaho Power to enable the customers’ electric meters to transmit KYZ-pulse outputs. Some
customer’s meters are already enabled for pulse outputs. For each customer not receiving pulse outputs,
Idaho Power metering technicians enable the meters to transmit these outputs, and EnerNOC reimburses
Idaho Power for the associated costs. EnerNOC then installs monitoring equipment to obtain and
transmit the pulse output to their servers. By using EnerNOC’s proprietary software, DemandSMART™, customers can then monitor their near real-time energy use on a continual basis.
Below are examples of information participants can access year round through the EnerNOC web site
using their unique login and password. In these examples the reduction in energy use occurs on a
Saturday and Sunday.

Customers have an opportunity to compare actual usage to a calculated baseline, as shown below.

Idaho Power
FlexPeak Management 2012 Program Report Page 7

Event Initiation
In 2012, as in years prior, the Idaho Power team responsible for the identification of potential days for demand response events included representatives from groups such as Customer Relations and Energy
Efficiency, Power Supply Planning, Power Supply Operations, Grid Operations and Generation
Dispatch. The team held weekly meetings through the active season to review system demand forecasts
and evaluate up-to-date information, including weather predictions, transmission constraints and market
conditions, to monitor the need for demand reduction events.
Idaho Power initiated events in 2012 using EnerNOC’s dispatch web portal. EnerNOC, in turn, notified
customers two hours prior to each event. In 2012, 16 customer sites were voluntarily set up for remote
reduction of their energy use, triggered directly by EnerNOC. All other demand reduction was achieved
manually by the participants at their sites, with EnerNOC retaining no automatic control of the reduction processes.

Customer Event Monitoring
EnerNOC submitted weekly reduction commitments to Idaho Power by the Friday proceeding the event week. During each event, participants had access to near real-time electric use data, which displayed
their baselines and reduction commitments through EnerNOC’s web site. Below is an example of what
a customer might see during a demand reduction event.

Idaho Power
FlexPeak Management 2012 Program Report Page 8

Idaho Power Event Monitoring
During each event Idaho Power has access to graphs showing near real-time aggregate performance in order to monitor event progress. In prior years the graphics displayed only the current event
performance, as a snapshot in time, and the average performance for the duration of the event. In 2012
EnerNOC improved its graphics and made available a time-variant view as shown below. In this graph,
the green horizontal line represents EnerNOC’s demand reduction commitment (in this case at
approximately 35 MW), and the blue shaded area represents actual performance. The performance is an aggregate representation of all the sites reductions in near real-time.

Idaho Power
FlexPeak Management 2012 Program Report Page 9

Customer Satisfaction
EnerNOC conducted a post-event survey after the June event in 2012. The survey was sent via email to 195 participants, which represented the 101 customer sites nominated for the June event. Of the
customers surveyed, 18 responded. Customers were asked about their overall satisfaction with
operations support, the event performance dashboard in DemandSMART™, how likely they were to
recommend the program, how prepared they felt, the clarity of the initial notification and overall
satisfaction with the way the event was managed. Responses were based on a 0-10 scale, 10 being very positive, and 0 being very negative. The same post-event survey was conducted for the August event in
2012. Of the 201 participants surveyed in August, 20 responded. Results are shown below.

EnerNOC plans to conduct a 2012 post-season survey within the first quarter of 2013. Results of the survey will be made available to Idaho Power.

0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
9.0
10.0
Satisfaction:
Operations
Support
Satisfaction: DS
Portal
Functionality
Likely to
Recommend
Level of
Preparation
Clarity of Initial
Notification
Satisfaction:
Event
Management
2012 Post-Event Surveys
June
August
Idaho Power
FlexPeak Management 2012 Program Report Page 10

Idaho Power Participation
In 2010 Idaho Power identified the Idaho Power Corporate Headquarters (IPC CHQ) in downtown Boise as a candidate to participate in FlexPeak Management. In August of 2010 Idaho Power entered into an
agreement with EnerNOC, similar to the agreement customers enter into to enroll in the program.
Unlike other program participants, Idaho Power does not receive any financial incentives to participate.
In 2012 Idaho Power committed to reduce their electrical consumption by 100 kW during demand
reduction events. The CHQ participated in all four of the FlexPeak events initiated in June, July and August. The average reduction achieved by the facility across the fourteen events was 425 kW. The
CHQ exceeded the committed reduction in all events. The maximum hourly reduction was 775 kW,
achieved in July. Reductions were mostly obtained by turning off lights, adjusting chiller set-points,
decreasing fan speeds and curtailing elevator use. Besides the benefit of experiencing first-hand what
participants experience with the program, Idaho Power now has a facility reduction plan in place that could be executed at any time to reduce electricity use when necessary.

Payment Reconciliation
EnerNOC invoices Idaho Power on a monthly basis for the months of June, July and August each year.
Invoices consist of both a capacity payment component, which is based on the amount of reduction
available during active program times, and an energy payment component, which is based on measured reductions during each event. During each month where demand reduction events were called, invoice amounts had an energy component and a capacity component which were both based on actual
participant reductions.

The overall demand reduction was determined by summing the demand reduction of each participating facility. The demand reduction of each participating facility was determined by subtracting their actual use from a calculated baseline. The baseline in a demand reduction program is used to measure
response and establish appropriate compensation for program participants. It estimates what would have
happened on an event day, absent the demand reduction event, which then allows Idaho Power to
determine how much load was reduced as a result of the program. Specifically, a baseline is calculated by selecting the three highest load days of the preceding ten non-event business days.
EnerNOC provided customer baseline and reduction data to Idaho Power with each of the invoices and
Idaho Power worked in parallel, using the actual five minute interval data received from EnerNOC to
determine baselines and reductions independently. Idaho Power then cross-referenced a sample population to verify that the interval data provided by EnerNOC matched the AMI data for the customers. The companies worked together to identify and resolve all discrepancies. Discrepancies
were typically due to things such as individual baseline day selections. At the end of the reconciliation
process, both companies agree upon the individual reductions and composite reductions for each event.

Idaho Power
FlexPeak Management 2012 Program Report Page 11

Payment Adjustments
In December 2011 the Idaho Public Utilities Commission acknowledged Idaho Power’s 2011 IRP. In this IRP the cost of a 170-MW simple-cycle combustion turbine (SCCT), which is used as an avoided
resource cost for demand response programs, increased. The contractual amount Idaho Power pays to
EnerNOC per kW reduction is directly tied to that avoided resource cost, and therefore increased
proportionally, starting with the 2012 season. Some of that increase was passed to customers through a
contract amendment that EnerNOC dispersed to all customers, which served to compensate customers for potentially high dispatch hours, as were experienced in 2011. For participants who signed that
amendment, they received an increased incentive for the same participation in 2012.
Cost-Effectiveness
The B/C analysis for the FlexPeak program is based on a 10-year model that uses financial and DSM alternate cost assumptions from the most recent IRP. As published in the 2011 IRP, for peaking
alternatives, such as demand response programs, a 170-MW SCCT is used as an avoided resource cost.
The company conducted the cost-effectiveness analysis using the same cost and benefit assumptions as
it has in the past using the 2013 budgeted expenses and forecasted performance, only updating 2012
actual demand reductions and costs.
Because demand response programs are analyzed over the program life, this includes historical program
demand reduction and expenses as well as forecasted program activity. The program is analyzed over a
10-year program life because the five-year contract with EnerNOC includes an option to extend the
contract for another 5 years.
This analysis is updated annually with actual benefits and costs. For the FlexPeak Management program,
the benefits are based on measured demand reduction at the participant’s meter. The costs include the
fees paid to EnerNOC and Idaho Power administration for the program. The 2012 cost-effective analysis
demonstrated the FlexPeak program has a TRC ratio of 1.22 from a long-term prospective and a TRC
ratio of 1.21 for 2012.
Conclusion
2012 proved to be another successful year for FlexPeak, with an average demand reduction event
performance of 104%. FlexPeak was available on July 12, when Idaho Power’s overall peak-hour average system load hit a record high of 3,245 MW, and provided an average meter-level reduction of 31 MW.

Idaho Power will continue to evaluate the best use of the program in order to meet the program
objectives, maximize the benefit to Idaho Power’s system and refine internal criteria to call demand
reduction events. Results will continue to be reported annually in Idaho Power’s Demand Side Management Annual Report.

Idaho Power

December 31, 2012
Idaho Power 2012

2012 Irrigation Peak Rewards
Program Report

Idaho Power
Irrigation Peak Rewards Program Report Page i
Table of Contents
Table of Contents ............................................................................................................................. i
List of Tables .................................................................................................................................. ii
List of Figures ................................................................................................................................. ii
Executive Summary .........................................................................................................................1
Summary of Program Results ..........................................................................................................2
Program Details .........................................................................................................................2
Timer Option ........................................................................................................................2
Dispatch Option ...................................................................................................................2
Program Incentives ..............................................................................................................2
Program Opt-out ..................................................................................................................4
Review of Program Results .............................................................................................................5
Participation ...............................................................................................................................5
Operations ..................................................................................................................................7
Equipment and Monitoring ..................................................................................................7
Timer Option ..................................................................................................................7
Dispatch Option .............................................................................................................7
Program Analysis .............................................................................................................................8
Load Reduction Analysis ...........................................................................................................8
Hourly Data Analysis—Timer Option .................................................................................8
Hourly Data Analysis—Large Service Option ....................................................................9
Hourly Data Analysis—Automatic Dispatch Option ........................................................10
M2M Communications Device Analysis—Automatic Dispatch Option ...........................11
Load Reduction Achieved........................................................................................................12
Cost-Effectiveness .........................................................................................................................14
Program Costs ..........................................................................................................................14
Benefit-Cost Analysis ..............................................................................................................14
Conclusions ....................................................................................................................................15
Idaho Power
Page ii Irrigation Peak Rewards Program Report

List of Tables

Table 1. Option incentives. ....................................................................................................4
Table 2. 2012 Service point enrollment by area. ...................................................................6
Table 3. 2012 Service point distribution by area and program option ...................................7
Table 4. Timer Option hourly data analysis ...........................................................................9
Table 5. Realization rates by period for Timer Option participants ......................................9
Table 6. Large Service Option hourly data analysis ............................................................10
Table 7. Automatic Dispatch Option hourly data analysis ..................................................11
Table 8. Communication status of automatic devices..........................................................12
Table 9. Enrolled billing demand by region (kW) 2012Error! Bookmark not
defined.
Table 10. Realization rates used for program options. ..........................................................13
Table 11. Total program daily MW reduction using realization rates for 2012. ...................13
Table 12. Annual program costs 2012. ..................................................................................14
Table 13. Benefit-cost model inputs 2012. ............................................................................15

List of Figures
Figure 1. Idaho Power service areas. .......................................................................................5
Figure 3. Distribution of participants 2012. ............................................................................6

Idaho Power
Irrigation Peak Rewards Program Report Page iii
This page left blank intentionally.

Idaho Power
Irrigation Peak Rewards Program Report Page 1
Executive Summary
The Irrigation Peak Rewards program (the program) is a voluntary demand response program
that has been available to Idaho Power’s agricultural irrigation customers since 2004. The program pays irrigation customers a financial incentive for the ability to turn off participating irrigation pumps at potential high system load periods. The program is designed to minimize or
delay the need to build new supply-side resources. The company estimates future capacity
shortfalls through the Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) planning process and then plans resources
to mitigate these shortfalls. The Irrigation Peak Rewards program is a result of this planning process. The program is measured by the amount of demand reduction, in MW, available to the company during potential system peak periods.
A major change in the demand response program occurred in 2009. This change expanded
the dispatch capability of Idaho Power to reduce system demand during critical summer peak
periods. The Irrigation Peak Rewards program, originally identified as a resource in 2004, was
transitioned to act primarily as a direct load control or dispatch program in 2009. The Irrigation Peak Rewards program, which included the dispatch demand response option, was filed with the
IPUC on November 10, 2008, and approved by the IPUC on January 14, 2009. The program was
approved in Oregon by the Public Utility Commission of Oregon (OPUC) on February 25, 2009.
In prior years, demand reduction through the program was controlled only with pre-programmed
timers that provided demand reduction from irrigation pumping systems from 4:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. on weekdays in June, July, and August. Options added to the program in 2009 allowed
direct load control or dispatch capabilities to match demand response resources with actual
system peaks. These changes have increased the programs peaking resource capacity from its
previous range of approximately 40 megawatts (MW) to 340 MW’s in 2012. This report
provides a review of the program’s performance and operational results for 2012 and is a supplement to the 2012 DSM Annual Report.
Following the 2010 program season, Idaho Power met with the Idaho Irrigation Pumpers
Association (IIPA) participants and Commission staff, to propose changes to the program that
would better align the program with the needs of the company. The changes included having an
incentive structure that included a ‘Fixed’ and ‘Variable’ payment, extending the program hours to 9 PM with increased incentive for participation in this extended hour, and changing the opt out
penalty per event, making it easier for participants to understand the cost to opt out. The
proposed changes were approved by the IPUC March 9, 2011and were approved by the OPUC
on March 22, 2011. The program was available to all agricultural customers receiving service
under Irrigation Rate Schedule 24 in 2012.
Details on the approved Irrigation Peak Rewards program changes are listed as part of Case
No. IPC-E-10-46 on the IPUC Web site and as Advice No. 11-01 on the OPUC website, and are
identified as Schedule 23 in both Idaho and Oregon.

Idaho Power Company
Page 2 Irrigation Peak Rewards Program Report
Summary of Program Results
The following items summarize the key results of the program on a system-wide basis:
 In 2012, the program had an estimated 340 MW maximum peak load reduction potential.
 Six hundred twenty five (625) customers, or 9.7% of the 6,415 eligible customers, chose
to participate in 2012.
 Two thousand four hundred thirty three (2,433) or 13.2% of the eligible metered service
points were enrolled in 2012.
 Of the 2,433 enrolled service points for 2012, 83 were enrolled in the Timer Option, and
2,350 were enrolled in the Dispatch Option.
 The program achieved a total billing demand enrollment of 415,459 kilowatts (kW), of which 13,199 kW were enrolled in the Timer Option and 402,260 kW were enrolled in the Dispatch Option in 2012.
 The total program costs for 2012 were $ 12,423,364
 Results show a 20-year average Total Resource benefit cost (B/C) ratio of 1.72.
Program Details
Timer Option
This option allows customers who prefer a consistent turn-off schedule rather than the
unpredictability associated with the Automatic Dispatch Option. The level of participation in the Timer Option has decreased each year as customers move to participate in the Dispatch Option for the higher incentive. Customers could choose to have all irrigation pumps on a single
metered service point turned off on one, two, or three weekdays per week.
 Idaho Power determined the specific weekday or weekdays to schedule the interruption of
all pumps at each service point.
 Interruptions occurred from 4 p.m. to 8 p.m.
 Installation fees between $250 and $500 were applied to participating service locations
less than 75 Hp.
Dispatch Option
 The Dispatch Option allowed Idaho Power to initiate load control events that prevented pumps from operating at participating metered service points. Participation in this option
has continued to increase each year as customers become more familiar with the Dispatch
Idaho Power
Irrigation Peak Rewards Program Report Page 3
Option. Installation fees between $500 and $1,000 applied to participating service points
less than 50 Hp. Customers could participate in one of three ways:
 Have a one-way communication device installed that allowed Idaho Power to control all the customer’s pumps at a single metered service point.
 Have a two-way communication device installed that allowed both Idaho Power and
the customer to control all the pumps at a single service point.
 Service points with multiple pumps and over 1,000 cumulative Hp were eligible to participate as a Large Service Location. Customers under this classification could choose
to manually control which pumps were controlled during a load control event. Large
Service Locations are required to nominate the amount of kilowatts available to dispatch
during load control events.
The parameters of the Dispatch Option, which limits the impact on customers, include the following:
 Idaho Power will initiate control (dispatch) events on a customized M2M
Communications Web site.
 Dispatch load control events can occur any weekday or Saturday, excluding July 4, between the hours of 1 p.m. and 9 p.m.
 Load control events can occur up to 4 hours per day and up to 15 hours per week, but no
more than 60 hours per program season.
 Idaho Power will give notice by 4 p.m. the day prior to the initiation of a control event.
 If prior notice of a load control event had been sent, Idaho Power could choose to cancel
the event by 12:30 p.m. on the scheduled day of the event.
 Idaho Power gives 30 minutes notice prior to start of all actual events and 30 minutes prior to the end of all actual events.
 The provisions for this program do not apply to system emergencies or events outside the
control of Idaho Power.
Program Incentives
A customer’s incentive appears as a demand credit and energy credit applied to the monthly bills
for the period of June 15th through August 15 th. The demand credit is calculated by multiplying the monthly billing kW by the demand-related incentive amount for the interruption option selected by the customer. The energy credit is calculated by multiplying the monthly billing
kilowatt-hour (kWh) use by the energy-related incentive amount for the interruption option
selected by the customer. For the June and August bill, the credit is prorated to the 15th of the
month. The incentive structure includes a ‘Fixed’ and ‘Variable’ payment, with an increased
Idaho Power Company
Page 4 Irrigation Peak Rewards Program Report
variable credit amount for service points that voluntarily participate in the ‘Extended’ 9 p.m. late
interruption period. Incentives offered for 2012 are listed in Table 1.
Table 1. 2012 Option Incentives.
Dispatchable Interruption Option Incentives
Dispatchable
Option

Fixed Incentive Payment Variable Incentive Payment

Demand Credit ($ per billing kilowatt)

Energy Credit ($ per billing kilowatt-hour)
Standard Interruption Variable Energy Credit - 4 hours between 1 - 8 pm ($ per event kilowatt-hour)
Extended Interruption Variable Energy Credit - 4 hours between 1 - 9 pm ($ per event kilowatt-hour)
Options 1,2 and 3 $5.00 and $0.019 plus $0.159 or $0.209

Electronic Timer Option Incentives

Demand Credit
($ per billing kW)
Energy Credit
($ per billing kWh)
Timer Options
One Weekday $3.15
Two Weekdays $4.65 plus $0.002
Three Weekdays $4.65 plus $0.007
All customer incentives in the Timer or Dispatch options are calculated using Idaho Power
metered billing data. Idaho Power’s Customer Information System (CIS) calculates the bill
credits and applies it to the bill. The incentive structure provides for the ‘Fixed’ portion of the
incentive as a bill credit. The ‘Variable’ portion of the credit is paid to the customer in the form of a check within 45 days of the end of the program season. Installation fees are charged through manual adjustments. Incentives for service points classified as Large Service Locations are
calculated using interval meter data and also are paid out in the form of a check.
Program Opt-out
In 2012, two services points participating in the Dispatch Option requested removal from the
program resulting in $1000 in fees being credited back to the Program. One request for removal
occurred prior to June 15th, however the load control device had already been installed resulting in an assessed fee of $500. Under the rules of the Dispatch Option, participants have the ability
to opt-out of dispatch events five times per service point. Each opt-out incurs a fee. The opt-out
fee is $1.00 per kW based on the current month’s billing demand (kW). The opt-out penalty fee
is prorated to correspond with the dates of program operation. Large Service Locations are
charged opt-out penalty fees based on the nominated kW that is not turned off during a load control event. There were no load control events in the 2012 season resulting in no opt-outs.

Idaho Power
Irrigation Peak Rewards Program Report Page 5
Review of Program Results
Participation
Idaho Power presented the program details at irrigation workshops across Idaho Power’s service
area, and each year Idaho Power staff participates in four agriculture shows.
In February 2012, customer mailings were sent to all past program participants. Contents of this
mailing included program details, a program application, the program’s incentive structure,
listing of the customer’s eligible service points, and a potential incentive estimate for each program option based on the customer’s previous year’s use. Additionally, Idaho Power
agriculture representatives answered specific customer questions by phone, email, and face to
face contact which help familiarize customers with the program technology and details.
Figure 1 portrays Idaho Power’s service area divided into five regional areas; Western, Canyon,
Capital, Southern, and Eastern. These areas are used throughout this report in reference to program information.
Figure 1. Idaho Power service areas.

Idaho Power Company
Page 6 Irrigation Peak Rewards Program Report
Figure 2 represents the 2,433 irrigation service points that participated in the program in 2012
and their distribution by Idaho Power’s regional service areas.
Figure 2. Distribution of participants 2012.

Table 2 lists the total number of eligible service points and the participation levels for each area
in 2012. Eligible service points shown in this report represent service points that had been active within the prior year. However, whether a service point was active or not in the past, did not
affect a customer’s ability to participate in the program.
Table 2. 2012 Service point enrollment by area.

2012-Idaho Power Area
Eligible
Service
Points
Service
Points
Enrolled
Dispatch
Option
Timer
Option
Enrolled Percentage
by Area
Western Idaho 1,877 49 48 1 2.6%
Oregon 1,570 33 30 3 2.1%
Canyon Idaho 2,327 144 142 2 6.2%
Oregon 84 4 4 0 4.8%
Capital 1,657 338 334 4 20.4%
Southern Twin Falls 5,292 478 470 8 9.0%
Mini-Cassia 2,289 420 410 10 18.3%
Eastern 3,347 967 912 55 28.9%

Total Service Points 18,443 2,433 2,350 83 13.2%

Table 3 compared how the 2,433 participating service points in 2012 were distributed among the
different program options across Idaho Power’s service area.
Western
3% Canyon
6%
Capital
14%
Southern
37%
Eastern
40%
2012 Participation by Area
Idaho Power
Irrigation Peak Rewards Program Report Page 7

Table 3. 2012 Service point distribution by area and program option

Dispatch Option Timer Option

Interrupt
Option 1
Interrupt
Option 2
Interrupt
Option 3
2012-Idaho Power
Area
Automatic
Device Manual
Total
Dispatch
1
Days/Week
2
Days/Week
3
Days/Week
Total
Timers
Western Idaho 48 0 48 0 0 1 1
Oregon 30 0 30 1 0 2 3
Canyon Idaho 134 8 142 0 0 2 2
Oregon 4 0 4 0 0 0 0
Capital 310 24 334 1 1 2 4
Southern Twin Falls 467 3 470 4 0 4 8
Mini-Cassia 410 0 410 4 3 3 10
Eastern 912 0 912 27 20 8 55

Total Service
Points 2,315 35 2,350 37 24 22 83
Operations
Equipment and Monitoring
Timer Option
Electronic timers manufactured by Grasslin Controls Corp. (Model GMX-891-0-24) were used
to interrupt power to customers’ pumps during the interruption period. The timers were installed
in the pump motor control circuit to prevent the pump from running during the interruption
period.
Problems with timers are identified during the reprogramming of the devices in the spring and 15 (18%) service points with timers required a visit by a contract electrician to resolve a problem
prior to the program start date on June 15, 2012. All service points participating in the Timer
Option were checked and reprogrammed for the 2012 irrigation season. While each known timer
problem was resolved, a review of Idaho Power’s hourly Automated Metering Infrastructure (AMI) data shows some cases where problems went undetected and were not reported by customers. These failures were few and were due to mechanical or electrical problems and were
calculated into the associated load reduction that is assumed for this program option.
Dispatch Option
At the inception of the Dispatch Option, Idaho Power contracted with Irrigation Load Control,
LLC (ILC) who had formed a joint venture between M2M Communications and Spartan Energy Control Systems to provide installation and service for this portion of the program. In the winter
of 2010, M2M Communications was purchased by ENERNOC which requested a modification
Idaho Power Company
Page 8 Irrigation Peak Rewards Program Report
to the existing contract to change the name on the contract to M2M Communications. Idaho
Power granted this request and in 2011, and contracted solely with M2M Communications to
provide equipment, installation, and service for the Irrigation Peak Rewards Dispatch Option.
The current contract has been extended to March 31, 2013.
Idaho Power initiates Irrigation Peak Rewards dispatch control events on a customized M2M Communications’ Web site. The Web-to-wireless remote control system utilizes the Loadstar®
Model M101control device installed in customers’ pump motor control circuit to turn off or
prevent the pump from running during an interruption event. This equipment provides remote
cellular communication or remote satellite communication. The Web service allows Idaho Power to dispatch, schedule and carry-out interruption events. Two-way communication from the device can provide feedback to determine the status of the customers’ equipment surrounding an
interruption event. Customers also have the option of using the equipment for their own remote
control purposes outside of interruption events.

Program Analysis
Load Reduction Analysis
While Idaho Power had no actual events in the dispatch options of the program, the load
reduction potential of the program was still analyzed using information that was available.
Potential load reduction impacts were determined by reviewing four different sets of data and
past information contained in an impact analysis done by Summit Blue Consulting, LLC, in 2004. The four data sets reviewed and summarized in this section are Idaho Power hourly data
for timer option participants who did have their normal load control events, hourly data for both
automatic dispatch option and manual dispatch option participants, and M2M Communication
data. This information was used to determine and verify realization rates used to estimate load
reduction potential.
For the purposes of this report, realization rate is defined as the likelihood an irrigation service
point is operating during the interruption period and includes program equipment failures, and is
used to determine program impacts. The realization rate can be characterized as the percentage
of monthly billing demand expected to result in an actual load reduction on the system during a
given interruption period in a typical summer. This rate is highest at the end of June and the beginning of July when many irrigation pumps are operating nearly 24 hours per day and 7 days
per week. The realization rate is lower later in the irrigation season when many irrigation pumps
are turned off due to crop maturity. Hourly data used for the Timer Option and Automatic
Dispatch Option was acquired and analyzed using information from IPC’s Automated Metering
Infrastructure (AMI) technology.
Hourly Data Analysis—Timer Option
Each year, Idaho Power reviews the realization rates from the impact evaluation prepared by Summit Blue Consulting, LLC for the timer program. In 2012, Idaho Power had hourly data on
Idaho Power
Irrigation Peak Rewards Program Report Page 9
72 of the 83 timer service points and reviewed the hourly data for five different days throughout
the summer.
Table 4 shows the total potential demand reduction from summing the billing kWfrom 2011 for
each of the service locations programmed to interrupt and compares it to the actual kW at 1 PM vs. 6 PM on an interrupt day in 2012.
Table 4. Timer Option hourly data analysis.
2012 Sample Days 6/28/2012 7/6/2012 7/12/2012 7/27/2012 8/6/2012
Potential Demand (kW) 4,702 2,536 4,702 2,536 3,822
Realized Reduction at 6
PM compared to 1 PM 3,322 1,669 3,392 1,177 2,365
Realization Rate 71% 66% 72% 46% 62%

With the exception of July 27, each of the days analyzed shows results higher than the realization
rates from the Summit Blue analysis. This is likely because only 5 days were analyzed and 2012
was an abnormally hot dry summer, resulting in more irrigation pumps being on and running for longer periods during the program season. Idaho Power believes the realization rates from the impact evaluation are still reasonable to estimate the program’s load reduction for Timer Option
participants. Table 5 shows the program evaluation results from Summit Blue Consulting, LLC’s
impact evaluation for each two-week period of the program season.
Table 5. Realization rates by period for Timer Option participants.
Period Idaho Power Realization Rate
2nd half of June 64%
1st half of July 60%
2nd half of July 53%
1st half of August 49%
Average 57%
Hourly Data Analysis—Large Service Option
For the Large Service Level Option, Idaho Power used hourly AMI data from each of the
participants to determine the amount of load reduction potential that existed on five different
days during the program season. These days were selected based on IPC system load data showing these days as fairly high load days for their associated time period. Table 6 shows the potential load reduction per participating metered service point under the Large Service Option.
The realization rate is determined by calculating the kW recorded prior to the potential event,
reduced by the kW not nominated to turn off, divided by the billing demand.
Idaho Power Company
Page 10 Irrigation Peak Rewards Program Report
Table 6. 2012 Large Service Option hourly data analysis.
Large Service Potential Demand Not Nominated
Actual
Load 6/28/2012
Actual
Load 7/6/2012
Actual
Load 7/12/2012
Actual
Load 7/27/2012
Actual
Load 8/6/2012
Participant (kW) (kW) (kW) (kW) (kW) (kW) (kW)
1 1,030 0 264 519 517 761 751
2 3,696 280 3,122 2,867 2,251 2,120 2,952
3 1,920 960 1,867 1,854 1,405 1,867 1,866
4 1,070 40 926 887 979 876 872
5 996 0 972 972 972 972 972
6 3,720 0 3,473 2,610 2,804 3,022 2,142
7 1,320 0 1,512 1,512 1,512 1,512 1,512
8 572 0 528 528 528 527 527
9 689 0 473 679 551 133 473
10 698 0 895 895 895 888 888
11 5,648 0 5,427 5,600 5,491 5,448 4,514
12 1,024 0 1,166 1,071 481 988 1,028
13 908 0 963 951 504 608 0
14 6,012 1,200 5,888 5,855 3,571 3,673 3,455
15 6,116 2,400 5,998 7,146 4,746 4,798 4,835
16 4,512 240 2,901 3,978 3,667 3,664 3,163
17 830 0 531 686 754 599 537
18 3,600 0 2,944 3,125 2,941 2,456 2,460
19 2,256 0 1,937 1,964 1,960 1,887 1,952
20 1,157 0 1,080 974 675 675 674
21 864 0 844 826 662 850 845
22 2,240 480 1,875 1,353 1,672 1,749 1,588
23 1,232 280 1,046 766 897 1,087 1,100
24 1,840 0 909 1,407 1,852 1,852 1,406
25 1,112 0 1,024 885 984 827 993
26 7560 0 6,659 7,607 6,635 7,007 7,018
27 1,760 0 1,792 1,792 1,792 1,792 1,792
28 1,164 604 827 667 824 830 673
29 3,045 1,395 1,233 3,002 2,991 3,015 3,008
30 5,092 1,040 4,121 4,638 4,636 4,588 3,115
31 884 0 639 850 487 546 641
32 3,216 0 1,864 2,502 1,876 1,206 1,842
33 1,037 0 962 956 929 850 848
34 1,034 0 1,021 1,050 776 941 861
35 1,003 0 666 344 377 426 224
Totals 80,857 8,919 68,349 73,318 64,594 65,040 61,527
Potential Realization Rate ( %) 74% 80% 69% 69% 65%
The realization rates on the five different days are representative of the potential reduction since the actual kW is at the starting hour of a potential event time and is reflective of each customer’s
nominated demand.

Hourly Data Analysis—Automatic Dispatch Option
The Automatic Dispatch Option represents the remainder of total program participation. This
was the largest participation group with 2,315 service points enrolled in 2012. Idaho Power had
Idaho Power
Irrigation Peak Rewards Program Report Page 11
hourly data on 2,030 or 88 % of the service points in this group, although the actual data for each
day varied by 3 or 4 service points due to meter or communication problems causing a lack of
AMI data. Table 7 shows the total potential demand reduction from summing the billing kW
from 2011 for each of the service locations and comparing it to the actual kW at 1 PM on each of the days analyzed in 2012.

Table 7. Automatic Dispatch Option hourly data analysis.
2012 Sample Days 6/28/2012 7/6/2012 7/12/2012 7/27/2012 8/6/2012
Potential Demand (kW) 278,689 278,440 279,993 278,733 278,396
Potential Reduction at 1
PM (kW) 214,458 210,092 203,877 144,591 157,628
Realization Rate 77% 75% 73% 52% 57%

M2M Communications Device Analysis—Automatic Dispatch Option
For the Automatic Dispatch Option, Idaho Power used device communication data from M2M
Communications. A complete log of the operational data for each automatic device was
analyzed for five different days during the program season. These days were selected based on
IPC system load data showing these days as fairly high load days for their associated time period. This data does not lead to a definite realization rate because we have determined in the
past that there were devices responding even though the data showed they were not. However,
due to improvements in communication with the devices we believe that the data quality in the
last few years has continually improved. In 2012, M2M Communication contractors updated the
monitoring system ensuring greater device viability and more accurate data reporting.
The realization rates determined in Table 8 show the number of control devices that were
responding with the potential to turn pumps off during the five interval periods. The analysis of
this data resulted in an average realization rate of 66% for all events in 2012 with the highest
realizations rates occurring between the last week of June and first week of July. This correlates
with IPC’s highest system peak loads.
The event status and corresponding realization rates in the table 8 below indicate the progress of M2M Communications in improving communication and maintaining the devices to be effective
when dispatchable load control events are needed.

Idaho Power Company
Page 12 Irrigation Peak Rewards Program Report
Table 8. Communication status of automatic devices for five days of the program season.
6/28/2012 7/6/2012 7/12/2012 7/27/2012 8/6/2012
Number of devices
that indicated they
were communicating 2,091 2,035 1,996 1,491 1,628
Total Number of
Devices 2,834 2,834 2,834 2,834 2,834
Realization Rate 74% 72% 70% 53% 57%
No Load Control Events occurred during the 2012 season. Data is a result of status query
June 28, July 6,12,27, and August 6,2012.

Load Reduction Achieved
Idaho Power uses prior year’s peak billing demand data from the months of June and July to
estimate the amount of load enrolled in the program each year. The total billing demand enrolled in the 2012 program was 415,459 kW. Idaho Power attempts to distribute the Timer Option participating service points evenly throughout each weekday, based on cumulative load reduction
potential. However, due to service point size variability and enrollment requests by customers,
the load is not be exactly balanced. All participants in the Dispatch Option were grouped into
five areas to be dispatched on each scheduled event day. Table 9 shows how the enrolled load was distributed by area.
Table 9. Enrolled billing demand by region (kW) 2012.

Dispatch Option(a) Timer Option(b)

Interrupt
Option 1
Interrupt
Option 2
Interrupt
Option 3
2012-Idaho Power Area
Automatic
Device Manual
1
Days/Week
2
Days/Week
3
Days/Week
Total All
Options
Western Idaho 3,980 0 0 0 44 4,024
Oregon 1,806 0 84 0 119 2,009
Canyon Idaho 16,394 19,281 0 0 175 35,850
Oregon 284 0 0 0 0 284
Capital 41,576 50,954 130 128 372 93,160
Southern Twin Falls 48,485 1,959 523 0 306 51,273
Mini-Cassia 90,470 0 695 562 424 92,151
Eastern 127,071 0 3,977 4,052 1,608 136,708

Total Billing
KW 330,066 72,194 5,409 4,742 3,048 415,459
(a)It is important to note that this billing demand level would be achieved only if 100% of the pumps enrolled in the program were all running at the scheduled interruption time and if all the equipment worked flawlessly (i.e. 100 % realization rate). (b) The Totals for the Timer option cannot be added together due to the fact that on any one day only a portion of the participants are being interrupted based on the preprogrammed Timer schedule.
Idaho Power
Irrigation Peak Rewards Program Report Page 13
After reviewing the results from each of the different methods used to analyze load reduction,
Idaho Power determined realization rates shown in Table 10 would best represent program
potential in 2012. The automatic dispatch option realization rates were determined by using the
lower of the two different analysis that were done with the exception of the period representing the 2nd half of July. For this period, Idaho Power used a 60 % realization rate which better matches past analysis for that period of time. For the Large Service Option, Idaho Power used
the realization rates from the representative days in 2012 for each of the two week periods. For
the Timer Option, Idaho Power used the realization rates from Summit Blue Consulting, LLC
analysis done in 2004.
Table 10. Realization rates used for program options.
Period Timer Options
Automatic Dispatch
Option
Manual Dispatch Option
(Large Service Locations)
June 15-16 60% 68% 68%
June 18-22 64% 72% 72%
June 25-29 64% 74% 74%
July 2-6 60% 72% 80%
July 9-13 60% 70% 69%
July 16-20 53% 61% 69%
July 23-27 53% 57% 69%
July 30-Aug 3 49% 57% 68%
Aug 6-10 49% 57% 68%
Aug -13-15 49% 54% 60%
Average 56% 64% 70%

Table 11 shows the MW reduction achieved daily on a week-by-week basis for 2012. This table
shows resulting load reduction with system losses of 13 % added in to represent the program
capacity at the generation level.

Table 11. Total program daily MW reduction using realization rates for 2012.
Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday
June 15 n/a n/a n/a n/a 3.1
June 18-22 4.2 4.0 3.9 4.2 3.3
June 25-29 4.2 4.0 3.9 339.9a 3.3
July 2-6 4.0 3.8 3.7 3.9 3.1
July 9-13 4.0 3.8 3.7 320.7b 3.1
July 16-20 3.5 3.3 3.2 3.5 2.7
July 23-27 3.5 3.3 3.2 3.5 2.7
July 30-Aug 3 3.2 3.1 3.0 3.2 2.5
August 6-10 3.2 3.1 3.0 3.2 2.5
Idaho Power Company
Page 14 Irrigation Peak Rewards Program Report
August 13-15 3.2 3.1 3 n/a n/a
a The shaded cell reflects the estimated MW load reduction capacity available through the program
b The shaded cell is Idaho Power’s peak load day and reflects the estimated MW load reduction capacity available through the program

Cost-Effectiveness
Program Costs
This program had a total cost of $12,423,364 in 2012 with customer incentives being the largest
expenditure at 89 % of total costs. The program was not marketed to new participants in 2012. However, due to participating customers changing crops and leasing or purchasing new service points and other customers hearing about the program through word of mouth, there was still a
moderate amount of growth in the program. Customers participating in the Irrigation Peak
Rewards program in 2012 realized an average incentive on a per-kW basis of $26 in 2012.
Table 12 displays the annual program costs by category.

Table 12. Annual program costs 2012.
Item 2012 Program Costs
Materials and Equipment $290,923
Installation and Contract Services $1, 1,001,876
Incentive payments $11,024,693
Marketing and Administration $105,873
Total $12,423,364

Benefit-Cost Analysis
The B/C analysis for the Irrigation Peak Rewards program is based on a 20-year model that uses
financial and demand-side management (DSM) alternative costs assumptions from the 2011
Integrated Resource Plan (IRP). As published in the 2011 IRP, for peaking alternatives such as
demand response programs, a 170 MW simple cycle combustion turbine is used as a cost basis. The levelized capacity cost factors applied are $94 kW/yr. Idaho Power’s cost-effectiveness model for the Irrigation Peak Rewards program is updated annually with actual benefits and
costs. For demand response programs, the benefits are based on potential peak reduction capacity
of the program.
The updated cost-effectiveness model resulted in a one year utility B/C ratio of 2.4 for 2012.
Idaho Power
Irrigation Peak Rewards Program Report Page 15
Table 13 summarizes the inputs that were used in the cost-effectiveness model. The most current
analysis results in an overall 20-year average B/C ratio from the total resource cost perspective
of 1.72, if future benefits are calculated without regard to actual potential need.

Table 13. Benefit-cost model inputs for 2012.
Description Input
Number of metered service points 2,433
Program realization rate in July 70%
Average service point, billing kW (peak month) 171
Enrolled peak (kW) 415,459
July peak reduction (MW)(a) 340
Actual Program Cost Total $12,423,364

Conclusions
 The Irrigation Peak Rewards program, increased participation in 2012 by 3.9 % over 2011 despite not marketing the program to new participants.
 The combined Timer and Dispatch Options of the program had a potential to reduce peak
demand by 340 MW in 2012, at the generation level.
 The cost of having this resource available was $36.55 per kW in 2012.
 When looking at the program at the generation level, irrigation customers have made
significant contributions to Idaho Power’s demand response efforts. The Irrigation Peak
Rewards program currently contributes approximately 80 % of Idaho Powers overall demand response portfolio.

Idaho Power Company Supplement 2: Evaluation
Demand-Side Management 2012 Annual Report Page 575
SURVEYS
Table 6. 2012 Surveys
Report Title Sector Analysis Performed by Study Manager Study/Evaluation Type
Easy Savings Survey Residential Resource Action Plan Idaho Power Survey
Idaho Green Expo Survey Residential Idaho Power Idaho Power Survey
Women’s Show Survey All Idaho Power Idaho Power Survey
Boise City Audit Program Survey Residential Idaho Power Idaho Power Survey
EnerNOC FlexPeak Post-Event Survey Commercial/Industrial EnerNOC, Inc. Idaho Power Survey

Supplement 2: Evaluation Idaho Power Company
Page 576 Demand-Side Management 2012 Annual Report
This page left blank intentionally.

Survey
Response
Summary
Question % Answered Qty Answered Total Answered
1. How much would you like to save?

116
$30 - Install just the showerhead, CFLs, and LED Night Light

9% 10
$85 - Install the showerhead, CFLs, LED Night Light, and unplug under used appliances

18% 21
$300 - Complete the Easy Savings® Quick Start Guide Steps

73% 85

100% 116

2. Have you (or will you) lower your heat during the day?

125
Yes

91% 114
No

9% 11

100% 125

3. Have you (or will you) lower your heat at night?

126
Yes

82% 103
No

18% 23

100% 126

4. Did you place the Thermostat Temperature Sticker near your thermostat?

118
Yes

79% 93
No

21% 25

100% 118

5. How many new Compact Fluorescent Lamps (CFLs) did you install?

122
1

12% 15
2

82% 100
Didn't install CFLs

6% 7

100% 122

6. Did you place the Turn Off Light Sticker near a light switch that was often left on?

122
Yes

79% 96
No

21% 26

100% 122

7. Do you turn off lights in empty rooms more often now?

126
Yes

98% 124
No

2% 2

100% 126

8. Did you install the High-Efficiency Showerhead?

121
Yes

79% 96
No

21% 25

100% 121

9. Do you use cold water when you do your laundry?

123
Yes, always

58% 71
Yes, sometimes

40% 49
Never

2% 3

100% 123

10. Did you place the Wash in Cold Water Magnet on your washing machine?

133
Yes

59% 78
No

26% 34
Don't have a washing machine

16% 21

100% 133

11. Did you use the Digital Thermometer to check the temperature of your water?

121
Yes

73% 88
No

27% 33

100% 121

12. Did you change the temperature setting of your water heater?

118
Yes, raised (warmer)

14% 17
Yes, lowered (cooler)

37% 44
No

48% 57

100% 118

13. Did you check the temperature of your refrigerator(s) and freezer(s)?

124
Yes

95% 118
No

5% 6

100% 124

14. Did you adjust the temperature of your refrigerator(s) and freezer(s)?

117
Yes, turned up (warmer)

36% 42
Yes, turned down (colder)

27% 32
No

37% 43

100% 117

15. Did you recycle or unplug your second or old refrigerators or freezers?

114
Yes, recycled 1 unit

12% 14
Yes, unplugged 2 units

12% 14
Yes, unplugged 1 unit

4% 5
No

71% 81

100% 114

16. Did you place the Turn Your Computer Off Sticker on your computer?

123
Yes

43% 53
No

13% 16
I don't have a computer

44% 54

100% 123

17. How many items from your Easy Savings® Kit did you install?

119
1

3% 4
2

8% 9
3

8% 10
4

23% 27
5+

58% 69

100% 119

18. What is your average yearly income?

122
$0 - $7,999

18% 22
$8,000 - $15,999

46% 56
$16,000 - $23,999

26% 32
$24,000 - $31,999

3% 4
$32,000+

2% 2
No Answer

5% 6

100% 122

19. How effective was the Easy Savings® Quick Start Guide in helping you install the items in your
kit?

123
Very helpful

85% 104
Somewhat helpful

13% 16
Not helpful

1% 1
Didn't use

2% 2

100% 123

20. Now that you have completed the Easy Savings® Quick Start Guide, how much have you
learned about saving energy and money in your home?

122
I learned a lot

74% 90
I learned a little

26% 32
Nothing

0% 0

100% 122

1 of 11
2012 Idaho Green Expo Attendee Survey
1. What is your gender?
 Response
Percent
Response
Count
Male 40.5%137
Female 59.5%201
 answered question 338
 skipped question 4
2. What age group are you in?
 Response
Percent
Response
Count
Under 18 9.8%33
19 - 25 9.2%31
26 - 35 13.1%44
36 - 45 21.1%71
46 - 59 28.8%97
60+18.1%61
 answered question 337
 skipped question 5
2 of 11
3. What is the highest level of education you have completed?
 Response
Percent
Response
Count
Less than High School 9.2%31
High School 6.5%22
Some College 25.1%85
4 year College Degree 23.7%80
Some Post-Graduate Work 12.7%43
Graduate Degree 22.8%77
 answered question 338
 skipped question 4
4. Do you own or rent your home?
 Response
Percent
Response
Count
Own 78.7%259
Rent 21.3%70
 answered question 329
 skipped question 13
5. What is your zip code?
 Response
Count
 332
 answered question 332
 skipped question 10
3 of 11
6. Who did you bring with you today? (Check all that apply.)
 Response
Percent
Response
Count
Came alone 12.3%40
Spouse / Significant Other 52.8%171
Children under age 12 21.0%68
Teenager/s 7.7%25
Friend/s 15.7%51
Other relatives 14.2%46
Other (please specify)
 32
 answered question 324
 skipped question 18
7. How many children under the age of 18 live at home with you?
 Response
Percent
Response
Count
0 58.3%190
1 21.2%69
2 14.7%48
3 3.4%11
4 or more 2.5%8
 answered question 326
 skipped question 16
4 of 11
8. Which of the following are true? (Check all that apply)
 Response
Percent
Response
Count
I played the Scavenger Hunt
texting game at the Expo 26.6%75
I am a member of GreenWorks
Idaho 16.3%46
I have a Facebook account 82.3%232
I am a friend of GreenWorks Idaho
(the Idaho Green Expo) on
Facebook
14.2%40
I have received an energy
efficiency credit or incentive
payment from Idaho Power
29.8%84
 answered question 282
 skipped question 60
5 of 11
9. How did you find out about the Idaho Green Expo? (Check all that apply)
 Response
Percent
Response
Count
Radio 18.3%60
Boise Weekly 23.5%77
TV 8.3%27
Word of Mouth 30.3%99
Sponsoring Organization 6.7%22
Twitter 2.8%9
Facebook 10.7%35
Posters 11.9%39
Idaho Statesman 27.5%90
2 for 1 Discount Coupon 31.2%102
Green Expo website 11.0%36
Postcard in my mailbox 9.8%32
Other (please specify)
 15.9%52
 answered question 327
 skipped question 15
6 of 11
10. On which radio station did you hear about the Green Expo? (check all that apply)
 Response
Percent
Response
Count
Bob FM 96.1 19.0%11
BSPR 90.3 6.9%4
X103.3 10.3%6
The River 94.9 65.5%38
Other Radio (please specify)
 10.3%6
 answered question 58
 skipped question 284
7 of 11
11. What brought you to the Expo today? (Check all that apply)
 Response
Percent
Response
Count
I am a volunteer 11.9%39
To check out the exhibitors and
see the latest green products
and services
67.3%220
Seemed like an interesting thing to
do this weekend 49.8%163
To see what the “green” movement
is all about 15.9%52
To get specific ideas about how to
make more sustainable choices 43.1%141
My organization is involved in the
Expo 8.9%29
To mingle with sustainably-minded
people 28.7%94
To attend a workshop 9.8%32
To enjoy the music, food trucks
and beer festival 32.1%105
To check out the Eco-Auto Show 15.3%50
Other (please specify)
 3.1%10
 answered question 327
 skipped question 15
8 of 11
12. Please rate the Idaho Green Expo on the following:
 Excellent Good Fair Poor N/A Rating
Average
Rating
Count
Admission Price 37.7%
(121)
28.3%
(91)
26.5%
(85)5.6% (18)1.9% (6)3.00 321
Event venue 41.7%
(133)
46.1%
(147)
9.4% (30)2.5% (8)0.3% (1)3.27 319
Quality of Exhibitors 44.2%
(141)
49.5%
(158)
5.6% (18)0.6% (2)0.0% (0)3.37 319
Variety of Exhibitors 38.8%
(124)
47.5%
(152)
10.9%
(35)1.3% (4)1.6% (5)3.26 320
Quality of Workshops 20.8%
(64)
26.0%
(80)3.6% (11)0.0% (0)49.7%
(153)
3.34 308
Variety of Workshops 23.5%
(72)
27.5%
(84)4.9% (15)0.7% (2)43.5%
(133)
3.31 306
Eco-Kids 20.5%
(62)
25.2%
(76)7.3% (22)1.0% (3)46.0%
(139)
3.21 302
Green Within 25.2%
(76)
38.7%
(117)
4.6% (14)1.0% (3)30.5%
(92)3.27 302
Eco-Auto Show 23.3%
(70)
40.9%
(123)
11.0%
(33)2.0% (6)22.9%
(69)3.11 301
Food Truck Rally 27.9%
(85)
35.1%
(107)
8.2% (25)2.3% (7)26.6%
(81)3.21 305
Concert 24.5%
(73)
26.5%
(79)7.4% (22)0.3% (1)41.3%
(123)
3.28 298
Eco-Brew Fest 26.2%
(79)
22.8%
(69)5.0% (15)1.0% (3)45.0%
(136)
3.35 302
 answered question 323
 skipped question 19
9 of 11
13. If you have previously attended the Green Expo, indicate what years you attended?
(check all that apply)
 Response
Percent
Response
Count
2008 18.6%60
2009 26.6%86
2010 34.4%111
2011 34.1%110
This is my first time 51.7%167
 answered question 323
 skipped question 19
14. How much time did you spend at the Expo?
 Response
Percent
Response
Count
Less than 1 hour 3.1%10
1-2 hours 44.1%142
2-3 hours 31.1%100
More than 3 hours 21.7%70
 answered question 322
 skipped question 20
10 of 11
15. Do you plan to attend the Idaho Green Expo next year?
 Response
Percent
Response
Count
Yes 75.9%243
No 2.2%7
Maybe 21.9%70
 answered question 320
 skipped question 22
16. Based on your experience at the Green Expo, please share one green change you plan
to make in your home, garden or lifestyle in the next 90 days.
 Response
Count
 238
 answered question 238
 skipped question 104
17. Do you have any suggestions for improving the Idaho Green Expo?
 Response
Count
 173
 answered question 173
 skipped question 169
11 of 11
18. If you want a chance to win an iPad please enter your email address below so we may
contact you.
 Response
Count
 294
 answered question 294
 skipped question 48
1

2012 Green Expo
Metrics and Survey Results
Denise Humphreys
CR&EE
Program Specialist

Final Report
Aug 22, 2012

2012 Green Expo Metrics Final report Aug 22, 2012
2

Summary of Green Expo Overall Attendance
Three significant variables affected attendance at this year’s Green Expo: 1) the venue
moved from the Boise Centre to Expo Idaho, 2) the event was held at the end of June rather than mid-May, and 3) attendees were asked to pay an admission charge. The
combined effect of these changes resulted in a 56% drop in attendance over 2011. The
Green Expo Board of directors carefully considered each of the changes. Based on
discussions with the Expo Director, these were some of the key decision drivers along
with the actions taken to mitigate potential negative effects:
1. Venue Change
a. Benefits: Less expensive venue with more dates available, lots of free parking,
more outdoor space, easy access to the greenbelt, easier move-in and move-out
procedures for exhibitors
b. Mitigation: Free entrance to bicyclists, more publicity and advertising, direct mail
advertising to a targeted audience of 26,419
2. $5 Admission Fee
a. Benefits: Additional income to support event, increase perception of “value” for
attendees
b. Mitigation: Liberal distribution of “2 for 1” coupons through exhibitors, sponsors
and direct mail
3. Date Change
a. Benefits: more assurance of good weather for outdoor activities
b. Mitigation: publicity and advertising
Although it’s difficult to pinpoint which of these variables had the most impact on
attendance, the Green Expo Board of Directors feels that the change in venue was a
positive change. As of the date of this report, the Board is considering potential adjustments in admission price and dates for the 2013 event. They are open to input and have reached out to Idaho Power for feedback.
Of those that attended, approximately half were admitted with “2 for 1” coupons.
Another 15% entered the event with a free pass. Approximately 35%, or 1180
attendees, paid the full $5 entrance fee.
Charging admissions did provide a more accurate count of visitors as everyone except a few exhibitors passed through the front gate. It is noteworthy that 389 people left the
event and then returned a 2nd time with hand stamps.
The following table shows the total number of attendees by day for the three years on
record.

2012 Green Expo Metrics Final report Aug 22, 2012
3

Expo Attendance
Saturday Sunday Total
2010 5296 (62%) 3280 (38%) 8576
2011 4482 (59%) 3105 (41%) 7587
2012 1989 (59%) 1393 (41%) 3372

After some discussion with CR&EE leaders, Denise conveyed the following
recommendations to Greg Otero:
• Try to schedule the event earlier in the spring, preferably near Earth Day in April.
• Consider changing the format to a one-day, Saturday-only show.

Summary of Idaho Power’s 2012 Expo Activities
Sponsorship
Idaho Power sponsored the event at the Foundation level for the third consecutive year.
We also committed to sponsor the bag, but due to some sensitivity around PURPA and
renewables in the early spring, Idaho power determined it may be better to re-direct
these funds in an effort to increase Expo attendance and gather important metrics. Accordingly, Roberta Rene worked with Greg Otero, the Expo Director, to identify and implement a direct mail marketing effort and Denise worked with Greg to create the exit
survey to learn more about the motivation and concerns of attendees.
Lessons Learned/Comments
• Idaho Power’s shift in direction impacted GreenWorks a number of times (bags,
marketing campaign, workshops, Green Power program). They were gracious but in the
future, it would be helpful if Idaho Power could identify needs and direction changes
earlier.
• Need to get management agreement and/or contingencies related to our involvement in
2013’s Green Expo prior to January 1, 2013.This way sponsorship agreements will
accurately reflect commitments and responsibilities for all parties.

Marketing (direct mail) Campaign
When Idaho Power determined that it would be best not to supply bags for this year’s
event per the signed agreement, we suggested that the money may be diverted to
support a marketing effort to increase Expo attendance at the new venue. With funds
from Idaho Power, Greg Otero worked with TV Litho to implement a direct mail
2012 Green Expo Metrics Final report Aug 22, 2012
4

promotion to 26,419 Treasure Valley residents. The cost for everything – printing, mail lists, addressing, postage, etc was about $8940.
To narrow the list of potential recipients, TV Litho worked with data collected on past
surveys to identify the best target audience. Zip Codes considered were:
83616 EAGLE, ID 4269
83642 MERIDIAN, ID 4978
83646 MERIDIAN, ID 6608
83703 BOISE, ID 2221
83704 BOISE, ID 3966
83705 BOISE, ID 1848
83706 BOISE, ID 3703
83709 BOISE, ID 7217
83713 BOISE, ID 3999
83714 GARDEN CITY, ID 2695
Total Grand Total
Total 41504

To further narrow the list, the zip codes were filtered for additional criteria and the final
list was sent to these demographics:
• About 12,000 were: o College Grads o And earn $50K HH plus (total household income)
o Voted Democratic o And are in our above zip codes
• About 14,000 were: o College Grads o And earn $50K HH plus (total household income)
o And are between 35-60 o And live in a single family home o And did NOT vote Democratic
o And are in our above zip codes
2012 Green Expo Metrics Final report Aug 22, 2012
5

Actual post-card size was 8.5”x11.5”. This is a reduced image of the front/back.
Although we weren’t certain what to expect, results of the Direct Mail Campaign were
somewhat disappointing. Of the approximately 1680 attendees who entered the event
with coupons, only 240 – or 14% of those presenting coupons -- entered with discount passes printed on a postcard. The breakdown of who used the 2 for 1 coupons is as follows:
83703 14 83713 5
83704 22 83714 13
83705 7 83616 6

83706 13 83642 7
83709 14 83646 13
Don't
Know 6
TOTAL 70 coupons 50 120 coupons

Lessons Learned/Comments
• When we proposed using the “bag” funds for a marketing effort, the plan was that we’d
produce the artwork for the direct mail piece and include imagery related to our booth,
etc. However, management determined that it would be best to complete the direct mail
without a tie to Idaho Power’s other participation. We delivered this news to Greg Otero
less than four weeks prior to the Expo. He took responsibility and did an excellent job.
But it would have been nice to give him more notice.
• Zip codes with highest participation were: 83704 (Capital High School area) , 83703
(Collister,Highlands, Quail Ridge, Veterans Park), 83709 (Five Mile/Overland area),
2012 Green Expo Metrics Final report Aug 22, 2012
6

83706 (Morris ill, Winstead Park, Central Rim, Depot Bench), 83714 (Garden City, HP
Area), 83646 (Meridian)

Green Power Offset
For the 2nd consecutive year, GreenWorks Idaho decided to offset the Green Expo’s
energy use with green power purchased through Idaho Power’s Green Power Program.
Patti Best prepared the proposal and worked with Greg to set up the non-utility service
agreement. To call attention to the Expo’s support of the Green Power Program, Idaho
Power provided a non-branded sign explaining the program and lauding GreenWorks’
decision to participate. Patti collected funds through a one-time service agreement .
collecting an estimated upfront payment and later “truing up” the actual amount due based on meter reads before and after the event.
Lessons Learned/Comments
• Approach Greg early as we did this year (4 months in advance)
• Be sensitive to Idaho Power’s media position on renewables……..i.e. signage was
branded in 2011 but management asked that it not be in 2012

Staff Training & Scheduling
A one-hr staff training was held at the BOC on June 19 (Tuesday prior to the event). Denise gave a brief overview of Idaho Power’s activities planned for the event and introduced the booth theme and message. Stephanie McCurdy and Brad Bowlin from
Corp Comm each gave a short overview of current issues surrounding Rates,
Wind/PURPA, and Renewables and then modeled how to bridge customers from
difficult topics to our message. Staff received a FAQ handout for each topic, including one Todd Greenwell prepared for ductless heat pumps. They also made suggestions
for how to prepare the booth, i.e. include a list of approved DHP contractors, etc.
Lessons Learned/Comments
• Needed to go into more detail re: the text game. Even though it was the 2nd year, some
of the staff was new and felt unprepared at the event.
• Training should have been scheduled for 90 minutes. Brad and Stephanie didn’t have
as much time as they really needed to work with us and several people had to leave
early.
• Need to STRESS importance of recording customer contacts. Only 2 shifts did this at
event…..other numbers had to be collected after event.

2012 Green Expo Metrics Final report Aug 22, 2012
7

Move-In/Move-Out/Setup
Rowdy Yost committed to have a IPC truck available to assist with move-in but without the need to transport pallets of bags, we were able to handle it with just cars and Scott
Gates’ assistance this year. The most cumbersome item we moved this year was the
ductless heat pump exhibit.
The booth design, as envisioned by Jason Sutton, required some special props, i.e. a
mirror ball hung from the ceiling in an exact spot in relationship to the backdrop, a dance floor, lights, etc. This required the involvement of a lot of players, i.e. Roberta,
Denise, Greg Otero, Tates Rents, Expo Idaho staff and Jason. The good side was that
the booth was set up two days in advance of the general move-in and that simplified
things on Friday.
Lessons Learned/Comments
• It was great to have Roberta and Jason both involved in executing the design. This
allowed them to experience the real-world joys and difficulties associated with setup.
Their contributions were much appreciated!
• Consider putting wheels on the new ductless heat pump exhibit so that it can be easily
transported without a dolly. Take a quart-sized container for the condensation hose.
• Do not under-estimate the amount of Velcro that will be needed to make the backdrop
panels adhere flawlessly.

Booth
Jason Sutton designed a new 20-ft backdrop using the Skyline black fabric panels to
communicate the theme “Welcome to the Summer of 78°.” He printed the colorful, full-
length panels in-house to reduce costs. The fun images of 70’s vintage characters dancing to boom boxes and a spinning mirror ball reinforced the message of “Set Your
Thermostat at 78°” to be cool. Booth staff was encouraged to carry the 70’s theme
through clothing and accessories and everyone was asked to wear a tie-dyed bandana
along with their IPC logo shirt or name tag.
Booth focus:
• Act Cool. Set your thermostat to 78° to maximize savings in the summer.
• Be Cool. Close blinds, wear loose clothing, turn on fans and cook outdoors to stay
comfortable.
• Stay Cool. A new heat pump is one of the most efficient ways to heat and cool your
home.
Booth staff were supplied with tally counters and asked to record their meaningful
interactions with customers.

2012 Green Expo Metrics Final report Aug 22, 2012
8

Idaho Power Booth “Touches”
Saturday Sunday Total
2010 325 (6.1%) 284 (8.6%) 609 (7%)
2011 131 (2.9%)
by shift: 67/37/27
146 (4.7%)
by shift: 107/39
277 (3.65%)
2012 147 (7.4%) by shift: 47/60/40 102 (7.3%) by shift: 52/50 249 (7.4%)
Lessons Learned/Comments
• Gloss finish on booth panels provided glare. It wasn’t bad -- just something for the
designer think about in future.
• In the future, seriously consider the impact and unless absolutely necessary, avoid
incorporating booth elements that require involvement from multiple parties…….the
mirror ball was effective but probably not worth the effort expended.
• Need stools for stand-up photo people. Many kids weren’t tall enough to get their faces
in the holes and lifting them up wasn’t practical for most staffers.
• The booth backdrop and theme were a little “out of the box” for Idaho Power. Although
there were a couple of concerns expressed by employees, the majority of feedback from
attendees was positive. Following the Expo, Denise received this unsolicited e-mail from
Randi Braunwalter, HP Boise Site Sustainability Network Lead. “Wanted to send you a
note to say I saw the Summer of ’78 campaign at the Idaho Green Expo this weekend,
and think it’s great! Sorry to have missed you; had a chance to talk briefly with Tonja and
Randy and met Todd. I appreciate your group’s continued support of our environmental
events and work here at HP. “
• Theresa had concerns about a departure from professional looking attire. Consider this
in the future.
• Bandanas were an unnecessary expense. Most didn’t wear them.
• DO need to stress the importance of recording customer interactions at events.

Green Expo Green Tips Text Scavenger Hunt
What Eighteen fill-in-the blank energy efficiency tips were placed in various locations around the
Exhibit Hall, seven questions were hidden on the grounds, and one bonus question was placed
on the IPC website. Game players texted in the missing word and received an additional energy efficiency tip in response. Additionally, five of the tips indicated that players could
receive an “instant prize” by going to the booth with the missing word. Kevin Winslow
coordinated this effort from Corp Comm, working with I2SMS as the vendor.
With management support to expand the reach of this educational effort, Roberta Rene and Denise Humphreys reached out to other utility and non-profit groups exhibiting at the Expo. City of Boise, City of Meridian, United Water, Intermountan Gas and ACHD Commuteride
responded favorably and got their questions in by the deadline.
2012 Green Expo Metrics Final report Aug 22, 2012
9

City of Boise Vince Trimboli [e-mail]
City of Meridian Mollie Mangerich [e-mail]
United Water Stephanie Raddatz [e-mail]
Intermountain Gas Rachel Anderson [e-mail]
Republic Services Rachele Klein [e-mail]
T.V. Clean Cities
Coalition
Beth Baird [e-mail]
ACHD Commuteride Kirk Montgomery [e-mail]
Boise State University John Gardner [e-mail]
City of Boise Greenhouse (Idaho Business
Development Ctr.)
Katie Sewell [e-mail]
Valley Regional Transit Mark Carnopis [e-mail]

At the conclusion of the Expo, one winner received an iPad 2 and all other participants were notified that they did not win.
Game Promotion
• GreenWorks promoted the text game on their Green Expo website.
• Two large posters advertising the event were place on the fence near the gate.
• 6 large banners were placed at main entrance to the exhibit hall (3 inside and 3
outside).
• 8 posters with rules were placed around the exhibit hall on easels.
• And two teams of youth – one from Timberline High School and one from the Boise
Nationals Soccer Club – handed out in excess of 1100 instruction cards. Additional
cards were distributed at partner booths and on GreenWorks information tables.
Expo Text Game Stats
We had 186 unique individuals participate in the texting game. This represents 5.51% of the
total Expo attendees. On average, each participant returned 17 messages or 65% of the total number possible (26). The median number of texts was 20.
Giff Gfroerer, the Regional Director of i2SMS (vendor) sent the following comments:
2012 Green Expo Metrics Final report Aug 22, 2012
10

These results are quite fantastic. Your marketing team is doing an incredible job.
People always ask me what makes a good text-2-win contest and I say the first thing is
prize, the second thing is consumer awareness of the contest. To have 5.5% of the
folks at a festival participate pretty much means your marketing was right on track…actually well over on track.
In a typical setting I would estimate 1.5% to 2.0% participation. You all have tripled
that.
Great effort!

2011 2012
Saturday Attendance 4482 1989
Saturday Texts 1789 1742
Sunday Attendance 3105 1383
Sunday Texts 1561 1351
Total Attendance 7587 3372
Total Texts 3350 3093
Unique Players 307 187
% participation 4 5.54
Avg. texts per player 11 (52% of total) 17 (65% of total)
Median # of texts 12 20
Keyword Most
returned
Degree/146 (IPC
booth)
Keyword Least returned Pump/10 (IPC website)
Most texts by carrier Verizon/1506
Least texts by carrier Boost/3

Stats by Expo Idaho Location
Key Word # Texts Location
degree 146 Idaho Power Booth, north
energy 140 Outside….N side of Exhibit Hall near GreenWorks Info Booth
day 135 Exhibit Bldng, post in NE corner
lanes 134 Outside Front Path near auto show
vans 134 ACHD Commuteride Booth #44
value 133 Exhibit Bldng front wall, SW
heater 133 Outside, by ATM machine on walkway to Food Trucks
freezer 132 By Men’s restroom, SW corner of Exhibit Bldng
toilet 129 Outside near Eco Kids
2012 Green Expo Metrics Final report Aug 22, 2012
11

cooling 126 Idaho Power Booth, south
star 125 Outside front walkway midway between Gate and Exhibit Bldng
moisture 125 Exhibit Hall between drinking fountains
fans 125 Exhibit Bldng, post in NW corner
thermostat 124 Workshop Rm B
Meridian 122 Republic Services Booth #31
water 121 United Water Booth #22
trees 119 SE corner of Exhibit Bldng near Backyard Chicken Booth
compost 117 City of Boise #32-33
mercury 117 Exhibit Bldng exit door NW corner
line 111 Goodwill Booth
CFL 110 Exhibit Bldng inside front doors on NW
greenhouse 109 Outside, Intermountain Gas booth
oven 108 Workshop Rm A
strip 104 Outside, Green Within Area
gravel 94 City of Meridian #21
pump 10 www.idahopower.com/energyefficiency

Lessons Learned/Comments
• Complete list of the answers and clue locations at the booth worked well
• Booth staff needed better instruction on text game particulars even though it was 2nd
year. If do again, make certain staff knows rules and how it works.
• If involve partners, start early enough to allow time for massaging their questions. The
educational aspect wasn’t intuitive for them – submissions were more like factoids and
text responses didn’t take full advantage of opportunity.
• Clear all clues through Theresa well in advance……particularly partner questions.
• Encourage partners to use clues and answers that won’t compete or discount other
partner’s business or products. Make certain all stats can be substantiated byan
objective source,
• If use student volunteers again. Keep materials for them in a visible spot. Sheet with
sign in and # of cards distributed worked well.
• Although four instant prizes were offered, they did not seem to be a significant draw for
either the text game or the booth. Estimate is that fewer than 100 were given out in
conjunction with the texting game this year. This is consistent with response in 2011.
I’d drop this for next time…..but do include a few give-aways at the booth for boot staff to
give at their discretion to encourage participation, etc..
• Message matters. The scavenger hunt made you work a little and learn a lot. Quote
from participant: “The text response was unexpected and….very informative. It was
kind of a reward for participating and it prompted me to go to the next one. Toward the
2012 Green Expo Metrics Final report Aug 22, 2012
12

end of the day on Sunday, I deliberately walked through as much of the Expo as I could,
looking for the signs.”
• Takeaway: Make it fun, give participants something clever to remember, make them
work a little (but not a lot) --- vendor says the more they’ve got to work, the less they’ll
participate.

Workshops
We presented three workshops:
Light Up Your Life
• Saturday, 1:00-2:00 p.m.
• Patti Best
• 12 attendees
Look Behind the Walls
• Sunday, noon-1:00 p.m.
• Becky Arte-Howell and Tad Duby
• 8 attendees
Leaks and Tweaks
• Sunday1:00-2:00 p.m.
• Ryan Hartnett and Steve Mendoza
• 10 attendees (extremely engaged)
Lessons Learned/Comments
• Tent situation @ Expo Idaho was okay but kind of loud……people not attending
workshop kept popping in to lok at literature left on table (and take a bulb).
• Sign outside workshop room had what was currently happening, but poster behind on
Saturday, had workshops for Sunday so it was confusing for people.
• At the last minute, Theresa decided that we shouldn’t one of the workshops we had
proposed – Shade: Energy’s Friend and Foe. Greg and Patti graciously worked out a
solution and replaced this workshop with the Lighting one…..but again, this happened
approximately 3 weeks before the Expo. This would have been a real problem in years
past with the printed program. This year, however, workshops were advertised on-line
and via posters that were able to be adjusted without too much hassle.
• Deadline for proposals is usually January with final descriptions due in March. We
should be looking at topics in the fall of the prior year.
2012 Green Expo Metrics Final report Aug 22, 2012
13

IPC Web Presence
• Facebook
• Expo Pod on Residential EE landing page……linked to Green Expo website.
• Expo weekend, pod on Residential EE landing page was updated to include the 26th
text game clue. Pod was removed prior to Monday morning.
Lessons Learned/Comments
• The text promotion keyword from the IPC website (PUMP) was sent in 10 times. For
comparison, the top keyword (DEGREE) was sent in 146 times.
• In 2011, the text game had a presence briefly on the home page under “Up Close.” If
this is an option next time, I think it’s a better fit.
• Also, we’ve never had the pod link to an outside webpage before. We’ve always created
our own Green Expo landing page and included the Expo link there. I think this is a
preferable way to handle it the PR; but at this point, the Web traction the Expo received
from our website is not significant.

Other

In the past, there have been some last-minute opportunities associated with the Expo
that increased the scope of our participation, but also the value. This year, there were no surprise opportunities – a mixed blessing.

Exit Survey
This is the third consecutive year Idaho Power has worked with GreenWorks to
administer an Exit Survey. As in years past, Denise worked with Becky Andersohn and
Greg Otero to create the survey using Idaho Power’s Survey Monkey software. Once the survey was developed, the appropriate links were sent to Greg. GreenWorks
managed the survey administration on-site. Three computers were dedicated to the exit
survey activity and placed inside the exhibit hall near the main entrance/exit doors.
A portion of the “bag” funds that was diverted to marketing and metric efforts went to
support the hard costs of administering this survey, i.e. computer rental, signage, prize (iPad), etc. which had been previously donated by Mac Life.
342 attendees completed this year’s survey compared to 402 in 2011 and 328 in 2010.
It should be noted that 26.7% of those completing the survey indicated that they
2012 Green Expo Metrics Final report Aug 22, 2012
14

participated in the texting game. Since only 5.54% of the total attendees participated in the texting game, this would indicate that a disproportionate number of game players
completed the survey. Full results of the exit survey can be found at the end of this
document.
Full results of the exit survey can be found at the end of this document.
Lessons Learned/Comments
• Survey went well. Denise worked with Greg & Becky to complete survey development
earlier this year. The link was delivered a full week in advance and the discussions took
place 3-4 weeks in advance.
• The reporting link was scheduled to be delivered to Greg on the Monday following the
Expo. He would like to have had it on Sunday so that he could get a preliminary look at
the results. Next year, send him both links in advance of the Expo.
• If metrics continue to be important to us, we may need to specify this as a condition of
our sponsorship. A survey sponsor did not step up this year.
• We added an item to Question #6 “who did you bring with you today.” People didn’t
seem to understand “other relative” as an option and continued to fill in verbatim
responses to “other” such as mother-in-law, sister, etc.
• The “sponsoring organization” option did not equate to “vendor” for a number of
respondents. The language for this option should be adjusted in 2013.

2012 Green Expo Metrics Final report Aug 22, 2012
15

Survey results
More women continue to attend than men; however the percentage of women completing the survey increased slightly from the 56% reported in both 2009 and 2010.
Exhibit 1: Gender of attendees
44.3%
55.7%
43.4%
56.6%
40.5%
59.5%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Male Female
Year-to-Year Attendee Gender
2010 2011 2012
Male, 40.5%
Female, 59.5%
What is your gender?
2012 Green Expo Metrics Final report Aug 22, 2012
16

Ages 46-59 continue to be the largest attendee group. According to survey
respondents, 2012 Expo saw an increase in the under age18 and over age 60
populations and a decrease in attendees aged 26-59.
Exhibit 2: Age Grouping of Attendees

11.7%
9.6%
19.8%
21.9%
28.1%
9.0%
7.0%
9.3%
17.1%
23.6%
31.7%
11.3% 9.8% 9.2%
13.1%
21.1%
28.8%
18.1%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
Under 18 19 - 25 26 - 35 36 - 45 46 - 59 60+
What age group are you in?
2010 2011 2012
2012 Green Expo Metrics Final report Aug 22, 2012
17

Attendees were asked to identify their education level which oftentimes can be correlated with income level. The % of respondents with some college increased.
Those with post-graduate and graduate degrees stayed roughly the same and those
with 4 year degrees decreased slightly over 2011.

Exhibit 3: Education Level of Attendees

10.5%
7.1%
17.5%
26.5%
13.2%
25.2%
5.7% 6.2%
21.9%
31.4%
10.7%
23.9%
9.2%
6.5%
25.1% 23.7%
12.7%
22.8%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
Less than High
School
High School Some College 4 year College
Degree
Some Post-
Graduate Work
Graduate
Degree
What is the highest level of education you have
completed?
2010 2011 2012
2012 Green Expo Metrics Final report Aug 22, 2012
18

Attendees continued to be largely homeowners – even more than in the two previous years.

Exhibit 4: Home Ownership

71.4%
28.6%
72.5%
27.5%
78.7%
21.3%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Own Rent
Do you own or rent your home?
2010 2011 2012
2012 Green Expo Metrics Final report Aug 22, 2012
19

Thirteen area zip codes were prominent in our survey sample. The North End moved into third position with Garden City and the Bench taking the lead.

83642 – Meridian South
83646 – Meridian North 83702 – North End 83703 – Collister/Hill Rd
83704 – West Bench
83705 – Central Bench
83706 – East Bench, Wilderness Ranch
83709 – Southwest Boise
83712 – East End (north), Harris Ranch 83713 – Northwest Boise (Cloverdale/McMillan)
83714 – Garden City
83716 – Southeast Boise

Exhibit 5: Zip Codes relative to Attendees

13%
11%
10%
7% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6%
5% 4% 4% 3%
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
16%
18%
20%
83706 83704 83702 83709 83705 83714 83713 83703 83646 83712 83642 83616 83716
Primary Zip Codes of Attendees
2012 Green Expo Metrics Final report Aug 22, 2012
20

This question still receives a lot of Other/verbatim comments for family members other than spouse. Apparently “other relatives” is just as confusing as “other family members”
was in 2011. Becky scrubbed the data to produce the chart below. One noteworthy
difference between 2012 and the two previous years is that the percentage of people
that came to the Expo alone decreased significantly to 12.3% of respondents from 24.1% in 2011 and 28.1% in 2010.

Exhibit 6: Who Came With Attendees

52.8%
22.5% 21.0%
16.4%
12.3%
7.7%
0.6%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Spouse /
Significant
Other
Other relatives Children under
age 12
Friend/s Came alone Teenager/s Other
Who did you bring with you today?
(check all that apply)
* Response was check all that apply so total will add to more than 100%
2012 Green Expo Metrics Final report Aug 22, 2012
21

The majority of attendees had no under-age children living at home with them at the present time. This is consistent with the results of 2010 and 2011 surveys.

Exhibit 7: Number of Children Under Age 18 Living at Home

0 children, 58.3% 1 child, 21.2%
2 children, 14.7%
3 children, 3.4%
4 children or
more, 2.5%
How many children under the age of 18 live at home with you?
2012 Green Expo Metrics Final report Aug 22, 2012
22

The respondents were asked a number of specific questions to determine their
engagement in various sustainable practices and social media activities. 29.8% of respondents indicated that they had received an energy efficiency credit or incentive payment from Idaho Power, up from 21% in 2011. 26.6% participated in the texting
game, up from 18.4% in 2011.

Exhibit 8: Level of Engagement in Sustainable Practices

82.3%
29.8% 26.6%
16.3% 14.2%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
I
h
a
v
e

a

F
a
c
e
b
o
o
k

a
c
c
o
u
n
t

I
h
a
v
e

r
e
c
e
i
v
e
d

a
n

e
n
e
r
g
y

ef
f
i
c
i
e
n
c
y

c
r
e
d
i
t

o
r

i
n
c
e
n
t
i
v
e

pa
y
m
e
n
t

f
r
o
m

I
d
a
h
o

P
o
w
e
r

I
p
l
a
y
e
d

t
h
e

S
c
a
v
e
n
g
e
r

H
u
n
t

te
x
t
i
n
g

g
a
m
e

a
t

t
h
e

E
x
p
o

I
a
m

a

m
e
m
b
e
r

o
f

G
r
e
e
n
W
o
r
k
s

Id
a
h
o

I
a
m

a

f
r
i
e
n
d

o
f

G
r
e
e
n
W
o
r
k
s

Id
a
h
o

(
t
h
e

I
d
a
h
o

G
r
e
e
n

E
x
p
o
)

on

F
a
c
e
b
o
o
k

Which of the following are true?
2012 Green Expo Metrics Final report Aug 22, 2012
23

Word of Mouth, the Idaho Statesman and Boise Weekly continue to dominate as the
best marketing tactics, but this year, the two-for-one coupons took the second place
position. Two for one coupons were distributed primarily through the direct mail and vendor and sponsor organizations.

Exhibit 9: Expo Marketing

35.5%
31.8%
27.8%
23.9%
18.3%
12.2% 11.0% 10.7% 10.1% 9.5% 8.3% 6.1%
2.8%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
Wo
r
d

o
f

M
o
u
t
h

2
f
o
r

1

D
i
s
c
o
u
n
t

C
o
u
p
o
n

Id
a
h
o

S
t
a
t
e
s
m
a
n

Bo
i
s
e

W
e
e
k
l
y

Ra
d
i
o

Po
s
t
e
r
s

Gr
e
e
n

E
x
p
o

w
e
b
s
i
t
e

Fa
c
e
b
o
o
k

Po
s
t
c
a
r
d

i
n

m
y

m
a
i
l
b
o
x

Sp
o
n
s
o
r
i
n
g

O
r
g
a
n
i
z
a
t
i
o
n

TV

Ot
h
e
r

(
p
l
e
a
s
e

s
p
e
c
i
f
y
)

Tw
i
t
t
e
r

How Did You Find Out About the Green Expo?
2012 Green Expo Metrics Final report Aug 22, 2012
24

Of those that heard about the Expo via a radio station, the majority (58.5%) heard the
announcement through X103.3. The River took second position with a dismal 16.9%.

Exhibit 10: Radio Station Effectiveness
58.5%
16.9%
9.2% 9.2% 6.2%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
X103.3 The River 94.9 Bob FM 96.1 BSPR 90.3 Other Radio
On which radio station did you hear about the Green
Expo?
2012 Green Expo Metrics Final report Aug 22, 2012
25

The top two reasons respondents gave for attending the Expo were:
• To check out the exhibitors and see the latest green products
• It seemed like an interesting thing to do over the weekend
These are the same top two reasons respondents gave in 2011.

Exhibit 11: Why People Attended

67.3%
49.8%
43.1%
32.1% 28.7%
15.9% 15.3% 11.9% 9.8% 8.9%
3.1%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
To

c
h
e
c
k

o
u
t

t
h
e

e
x
h
i
b
i
t
o
r
s

a
n
d

s
e
e

th
e

l
a
t
e
s
t

g
r
e
e
n

p
r
o
d
u
c
t
s

a
n
d

se
r
v
i
c
e
s

Se
e
m
e
d

l
i
k
e

a
n

i
n
t
e
r
e
s
t
i
n
g

t
h
i
n
g

t
o

do

t
h
i
s

w
e
e
k
e
n
d

To

g
e
t

s
p
e
c
i
f
i
c

i
d
e
a
s

a
b
o
u
t

h
o
w

t
o

ma
k
e

m
o
r
e

s
u
s
t
a
i
n
a
b
l
e

c
h
o
i
c
e
s

To

e
n
j
o
y

t
h
e

m
u
s
i
c
,

f
o
o
d

t
r
u
c
k
s

a
n
d

be
e
r

f
e
s
t
i
v
a
l

To

m
i
n
g
l
e

w
i
t
h

s
u
s
t
a
i
n
a
b
l
y
-mi
n
d
e
d

pe
o
p
l
e

To

s
e
e

w
h
a
t

t
h
e

“
g
r
e
e
n
”

mo
v
e
m
e
n
t

i
s

a
l
l

a
b
o
u
t

To

c
h
e
c
k

o
u
t

t
h
e

E
c
o
-Au
t
o

S
h
o
w

I
a
m

a

v
o
l
u
n
t
e
e
r

To

a
t
t
e
n
d

a

w
o
r
k
s
h
o
p

My

o
r
g
a
n
i
z
a
t
i
o
n

i
s

i
n
v
o
l
v
e
d

i
n

t
h
e

Ex
p
o

Ot
h
e
r

(
p
l
e
a
s
e

s
p
e
c
i
f
y
)

What brought you to the Expo today?
2012 Green Expo Metrics Final report Aug 22, 2012
26

Respondents were asked to rate the various features of the Expo in which they
participated on a 1-4 scale with 1 being Poor and 4 being Excellent. Of the items rated,
the respondents were most pleased with quality of exhibitors, the Eco-Brew Fest, and
the quality of the workshops. This was the first year we separated the characteristics of quality and variety with respect to the exhibitors and workshops. It appears that respondents are more satisfied with the quality than the variety of these two Green
Expo components.

Exhibit 12: Participants’ View of the 2012 Expo

3.00
3.11
3.21
3.21
3.26
3.27
3.27
3.28
3.31
3.34
3.35
3.37
2.80 2.90 3.00 3.10 3.20 3.30 3.40
Admission Price
Eco-Auto Show
Eco-Kids
Food Truck Rally
Variety of Exhibitors
Event venue
Green Within
Concert
Variety of Workshops
Quality of Workshops
Eco-Brew Fest
Quality of Exhibitors
Please rate the Idaho Green Expo on the following:
2012 Green Expo Metrics Final report Aug 22, 2012
27

Fifty-one percent of respondents reported that they attended the Green Expo for the first
time in 2011, up from forty-eight percent in 2011.

Exhibit 13: Previous Expo Attendance

Next year, rather than ask “which years,” perhaps we should just ask how many years
to get a quick sense of how engaged the attendee thinks he/she is. It’s getting harder
and harder to remember which year was which.
18.6%
26.6%
34.4% 34.1%
51.7%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
2008 2009 2010 2011 This is my first time
If you have previously attended the Green Expo, indicate what
years you attended?
2012 Green Expo Metrics Final report Aug 22, 2012
28

Consistent with the past two years, most of the attendees spent between one and two
hours at the Expo. The chart below shows the year-to-year comparison, highlighting
that overall, respondents spent more significant times at this year’s Expo.
Exhibit 14: Length of Time Spent at the Expo

11.3%
48.2%
19.3%
21.2%
11.0%
54.2%
20.9%
13.9%
3.1%
44.1%
31.1%
21.7%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Less than 1 hour 1-2 hours 2-3 hours More than 3 hours
How much time did you spend at the Expo?
2010 2011 2012
2012 Green Expo Metrics Final report Aug 22, 2012
29

A significant number of attendees said they plan to attend the Expo again in 2012, although a few more fell into the “maybe” category than in years past.

Exhibit 15: 2011 Attendance

85.9%
79.2% 75.9%
1.3% 1.3% 2.2%
12.8%
19.5% 21.9%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
2010 2011 2012
Do you plan to Attend the Idaho Green Expo next
year?
Yes
No
Maybe
2012 Green Expo Metrics Final report Aug 22, 2012
30

Respondents were asked to share one green change they planned to make
in their home, garden or lifestyle in the next 90 days based on their experience at the Green Expo. 104 people skipped this question, but of the
238 that completed it, 73 responses, or nearly 30% of the total pertained to
home energy use. Besides messages Idaho Power delivered, those that
seemed to get a lot of traction were: 1) taking shorter showers, and 2)
solar whole house fans.

Verbatim Comments

Based on your experience at the Green Expo, please share one green change you plan to make in your home, garden or lifestyle in the next 90 days.
planting a flower garden
I will be contacting one solar fellow about working with him on ghettinh paid for installation work, i made a job connection
Use less water by watching toilet, washing machine, and dish washer use.
Use less electricity by raising the thermostat and turning the AC off at night.
solar hot water supplement
I don't know
Recycle
pllant xeric
try to use recycled building materials and green cleaning products
solar fan
organic Gardening
no change, was hunting for products I already knew about
Organic landscaping (hopefully), sustainable chicken keeping
i plan on taking 5 minute showers
consume less water, more l.e.d. bulbs
Look into the GMO problem and try to buy more organic
Organic Patio Gardening
i wiil continue to do what i do because it looks like imalready on track
home garden and composting
Compost
turn off appliances
Chose to walk within the next month instead of driving my care.
Interested in learning about the choices green provides to maintain or enhance the environment around me.
concerve on power and electricity
Recycle
Purchase recycled bark landscape covering; possibly join local co-op delivery/pickup for food purchases.
Hoping to get chickens
Organic vegetables - we plan to plant more of them.
use solar power
plant my free marigolds in my garden
grow more organic vegis
2012 Green Expo Metrics Final report Aug 22, 2012
31

planting organic herbs
ride bike instead of drive more
Set the thermostat to 78 degrees.
Ride my bike more
To use better soils, and to start a chicken coop
i am going to buy a worm composter
diet, recycling
to continue to reduce the amount of energy to run our home, produce our own food and doing what we can with local businesses
Shower Timer
Better recycling plans
plant beautiful flowers in a garden
buy renewable wood
plant some flowers
Wall outlet switches to turn off plugged in appliances!
Attempt to use less water.
Xeriscaping
looking into adding solar panels
Windows
recycle more glass
Chickens- we will talk to our HOA about allowing them
walk when possible
maybe poultry
Check on replacing inefficient heater.
Better composting and resuable teacher items
possible insulation for cabin in Atlanta, Id
Using reuseable shopping bags! Especially since I got so many free ones here.
Insulate home better
shower timer 5 minutes
St. Al's Chalkboard Paint Garden Sticks
eating more green
Install drip irrigation system. Xeriascape.
used clothing and possible landscape ideas
solar panels
We may be getting a solar whole house fan.
ride bike more
use less water
Change light bulbs.
join some community groups I found today
Time of day charging, laundry etc.
Solatube or something similar
More gardening - ride bike more often
already have a garden
Upgrade landscaping
Incorporate a service learning project based on what I learned/who I talked with today
May buy a hybrid car this year.
I am going to plant more native plants in my yard.
use solar tube lighting to grow plants
I am going to eat more raw cacao!
2012 Green Expo Metrics Final report Aug 22, 2012
32

duct cleaning and new sun screens for our house
more walking.
more food production at home
more skylight gardening.. urban chickens
THe garden pallet lady had great info...(St. Al's) can't wait to go home and build a vertical garden
I will be more aware of buying products that are GMO. I live in an apartment building so I am highly limited to
the changes I am able to make.
I am going to look at solar
more insulation
Computer recycling, Use of discarded pallates for gardening
ride my bike more
check for lead paint
Use more green health products
Learning more about backyard chickens.
not sure make a few changes food pets etc
water concervation...solar
i plan on timing my shower to see if i can manage to lower my water bill
Bark
We are renting so difficult to make modifications, but have ideas for when we buy.
shorter showere
may decide to do the "fake" grass
Put in a whole house fan
I found out that I could request an extra blue recycling bin. I always seem to run out of space by the end of 2 weeks. I also got to talk to the worm guy about my worm farm.
Turn off lights when they are not being used.
Harvest food from our garden.
Solar panels on the cabin to heat and stuff.
I know how hard it is to power a hair dryer with a bike. As such, i wont be powering a hair dryer with a bike at home.
y a new air conditioner
Possibly add a solar attic fan
Keeping chickens
Make a compost pile. Conserve water. Buy organic lotions and hair products.
Sustainable plants in yard
timing showers
Building raised garden beds, and looking at adding solor improvements and possible raising chickens.
use mulch in my yard
lawn care
eating more raw foods, using more green friendly cleaning products in my home
plant a garden
recirculate basment air for AC.
explore solar for water heater
Considering solar hot water
changing out my chemical cleaners
I have already build a vegetable garden by making it an organic one.
I plan to bike around town more and keep the air green as the forest's in Idaho that gives us oxygen to
breathe everyday of our lives.
replace my historic windows
I will walk more
2012 Green Expo Metrics Final report Aug 22, 2012
33

I have currently made a lot of green changes in my home.
Sustainable gardening
Will start composing for our garden space.
planta conainer apple tree
Hard to say right now as I'm selling my home and I don't know what the next step is. That said I lead a
conscious green lifestyle.
Check into more solar info for future home remodel.
i like it downtown
Ride the bus once this month.
Walk and/or commute more!
more gardening, composting
Ride bike/bus more. thinking about some solar changes.
light bulbs
Plan to bike more and use more worms in our garden
the length of my showers
just plan on continuuing recycling
Changes to garden
Do more gardening. Cycle more often.
More biking!
more food production in the landscape. Visit the ReUse Market for sewing and craft supplies
Sustainabel chicken farming.
solar fan
Looking into solar attic fans and green foam insulation to reduce energy costs and be more enviromentally friendly.
Skylight
take shorter showers
Use own compost in garden.
start a compost bin
Walk more
drip system for garden
Keep the AC off as long as possible
nothing, I'm already very green and didn't really learn much new stuff
We're pretty green already.
use bark in my flower beds
windows and screens
None, we rent our home
Use more GMO food.
more exhibitors
I plan on installing alternative power sources, such as a solar water heater.
solar panels
i would enjoy getting more flowers and understand how to properly take care of them.
I am going to re-use bags for shopping
solar panel
work with non-profit to improve bikeability of my neighborhood
Look into new water treatment system I learned about at the Expo
lawn care at Zamzows
more insulation
i am green already
New efficient toilet and solar panel assessment
2012 Green Expo Metrics Final report Aug 22, 2012
34

Solar panels
I am going to start recycling cans, bottles, paper. I am going to start a compost bin. I am going to start planting fruit and vegetabgooles iny backyard. I am going to try and wear recycled clothing from the good will.
Recycle more and when building a house, consider all the green fixtures and renovations I can make
gardening changes
Shop at some of the stories showcased here
Make sure our home is insulated better as we build.
the use of cfl light bulbs
Heat pump, lighting
Less lawn
Looking at purchasing PV panels for my home.
Beekeeping
Going to investigate the fake turf alternative to a grass lawn
recycle
to recicle
remodeling, water heating attic insulation
worm farm
More green gardening. Composting.
my dad is planning to use green insulation
my step father has planned on using green inusalation
Making Office space more livable
plug in outlet strip
solar panel
taking shorter showers
lighting
plant a flower
try a pallett garden
new eco car
walk more Plant more
Walk more
I wnt totry the vertical gardenwith a pallet
Become involved with at least one of the groups represented here.
Installing solar Hot water and Radiant Heat
shorter showers, plant flowers/bushes.
garden waste recycling
Sustainable Cleaning. REview Idaho Bounty for food purchses. Continue to use Sustainable Growthe & Flutterby Gardens. Consider adding home gardening.
I will be using re-usable bags while shopping
get involved with the Idaho Conservation League
sign up with Idaho Power for Account Mgmt and discover more about my power usage, including phantom stuff
Composting! Maybe, MAYBE solar....
Purchased some organic products that am anxious to try and will read literature on effects of chemicals we come in contact.
decrease how much i use my car and instead walk or ride a bike, and recycle
2012 Green Expo Metrics Final report Aug 22, 2012
35

Recycle
I am going to try and conserve water when I brush my teeth, or take a bath or shower, make sure I use only
what I need.
started savi n used batteries
add composting worms!!!
recycle
Try to buy and eat more local foods
use less water
I want to try to walk more or use public transportation instead of my own car.
Garden.
Leave my thermostat at 78 degrees.
Raising the temperature in my house to 78
Adding more plants
purchase an electric lawn mower
Looking into a solar mower
I hope to start a garden
Can't think of anything right now
recycle
worm composting
I plan to start composting
composting
car
solar panels
raised beds and hydroponics

2012 Green Expo Metrics Final report Aug 22, 2012
36

When asked for suggestions for improving the Idaho Green Expo, these comments were offered:
Perhaps more shaded seating areas for those of us who stayed a really long time
More longer hands on workshops to allow people to build things.
Too spread out.
try to use less paper for everything or only recycled paper--like QR codes etc.
back to downtown
Keep up The good work!!! you are amazing!!!
More vendors, continue the variety, more classes
appliances, green gadgets, green clothing
No, this was great!
More diverse vendors, seemed like it was all about solar panels and nothing else really.
more exhibitors
I was looking for green baby supplies (cloth diapers, etc)
more people and more music
More advertising to bring in more visitors and vendors!
No. It all looks really good. Next year I'll come on a Saturday and spend more time here.
more people
Keep up the good work!
Bigger area for classes
More seating and better sound system for the workshops.
have more participants
more shade for concert
No stupid SUV hybrids, more diesel BMW appearance, better beer prices.
bigger variety of vendors
More social media advertising.
i feel that eliminating the beer garden will help to improve the point of going green, alcohol is a poison to
the body.
more exhibits
maybe some more things for the kids with people who are actually interested in interacting with the kids.
adding coffee vendors, especially Dutch bros and Flying M. There was no non-soda caffeine available to
buy.
make more alive
free rocket packs with ticket purchase
healthier food vendors
I do not think this location was a good location .
More announcing for workshops
no, good venue, great staff, fun people
It was not a great workshop space An exhibitor for diy green houses.
Legislator green living in idaho tax breaks, their views, what is in the legislator session that deals with green living...
Keep doing what you're doing. :)
we paid an admission and we still had to pay for kids actitivies...not cool
Make the outdoor activities more interactive. Maybe have some test vehicles for people to see that hybrids and electric vehicles are just as good as gas vehicles.
2012 Green Expo Metrics Final report Aug 22, 2012
37

great event
More information on having landscaping with waterwise plants.
more stuff for little kids
if you are going to advertise free entry if you ride your bike, make sure the ticket booth knows. we rode our bikes and still had to buy tickets.
More food choices
more signage. maps could be handed out if requested. anouncers for special events such as the workshop would have been good
Yes please - real bike racks - there really weren't any that we saw and barriers for parking and separating
booths don't count. You cannot put the front wheel through the bars to lock up properly. Also, i heard after we paid that bicyclists were free - we walked up to pay with our bicycles and he didn't say anything...Overall, it was really good and I don't mind paying a bit for a good exhibition - but you should get
what was advertised, even if you don't ask for it. At least one volunteer I ran into was very poorly informed - but that was the exception rather than the rule.
Bring it back to the grove plaza and make it free!
Market it to teachers.
Really like having it at the fairgrounds.
I loved having it at the fairgrounds. It was great to wander inside and out. It wasn't as packed because we
were more spread out.
more variety
The bags provided at entry are made in China!? Why don't we have these bags sourced locally or at least
through a Fair Trade vendor??
Don't make your bags in China! Give a discount for those who bike here.
more vendors
Ugh, get rid of Melaleuca. Hate isn't green, it's mean and hurts Idaho.
i was expecting more gardening ... anything.
More gardening and outdoor vendors and suggestions.
Maybe not use extra paper for the ticket booth to get in... Poor first impression upon first entering the "Green Expo"
reschedule music at better time, more emphasis in recycling, more inter-active activities
quicker survey
No! I thought it was great!!
it was my first time so i didn't know what to expect, it was quite enjoyable and informative
more vendors, get in free if you bike or walk here
It was a nice event
maybe doing the workshops at a different time of year...my head wasn't into meet/greet and education all at the same time
discount if you ride your bike.
I ca't think of anything.
Add more variety in the types of booths
great Show
Not have such angry, negative, agressive sales people from The Statesman. Couldn't get away from their
table fast enough. Both men where unkind. Think twice about having them back next year.
it's not for tree huggers
more music!!
More vendors
We need to send more information to the general public for going green. More effforts from the state and
federal governments must be made to bring in the changes. some changes can be made mandatory to every household.
2012 Green Expo Metrics Final report Aug 22, 2012
38

No, Idaho Green Expo is so amazing!! I could nevoer tear myself away from it. (unless it's an emergency(;)
nope
More vendors
More kid friendly exhibits inside.
No! Great show this year.
this survey is longer than 2 min.
Have two of each workshop at separate times.
maybe hold event before summer gets too busy
brilliant idea for bikers to have free admission
more variety of exhibotors, more will come as they learn there connection to the green community....including health and food related companies
advertise more
music inside!
continue to provide a larger venue like this one with ample parking, lots of outdoor space, less
congestion...the opportunity to relax outdoors and then re-visit the indoor venue. Love the less claustrophic environment! Great job!
There were so many people selling solar panels, it became a bit overwhelming. Maybe not so many solar
panel sellers or have them all in one area for a big solar panel event.
more variety of vendors - enjoyed the food vendors inside too
The venue for the workshops was noisy. Auditoriums that can be partioned off from the outside noise is much more condusive to learning. The charge this year compared to the other years was disappointing
especially with less of what I come for being offered.
Continue the Idaho Green Expo so that the community becomes more aware and educated of the green movement.
More exhibitors. Household services seemed underrepresented this year.
take it back downtown, have a green carpet cleaning company, go back to free admission, make a new shirt every year to sell. Seems like we paid admission this year but got less...
Have an off-grid area with all power & water, etc supplied by renewable resources? I know, this would be
difficult, at least with the water.
more exhibitors
keep it coming... very enjoyable
Alternative housing such as straw bale, rammed earth and container housing.
stay positive and awesome like it is!
more ev cars
Clean water drinking station
more pubicity
more brochures by vendors to take home and more raffles
More exhibitors
Not in the fairgrounds
have an information desk and have well marked maps for each booth.
More food and music
Nope, it's great, although we drove this time as opposed to biking the past two years to the Grove. Fairgrounds is not so bike friendly for us.
Closer to downtown Boise would be better for bringing in more people. Anne Morrison park perhpaps?
Have something where you could donate to the Humane Society
have more kids stuff
Loved the down town location
2012 Green Expo Metrics Final report Aug 22, 2012
39

i only like it here because of the food truck rally and concert. make sure to do those again OR hold it
downtown
bring it back downtown
the idaho green expo is already great how it is!
no admission and free waterbottle
where's the coop booth?
Having an old antique diner car operating on grounds
no windpower rep
No But I did enjoy having it at the Grove
These computers are really slowing down taking of the survey - they keep going back to previous
questions....get a mouse
It was Fabulous!
More vendors.
no, overall was an excellent exp.
Add a bit more local food and education on the importance of eating local and organic.
loved the matierial making company, very thought provoking and cool - would like more "out there" type of things along with the standard great stuff
Just get Bigger! (All of the nothwest!)
more music variety
Nope it was great!
Have More electric vehicles and Vegan food. Don't charge admission
Have recycling bins available at the expo
more stuff
Music inside!
More Sponsorship
More exhibits and more interactive events.
More vendors
Liked downtown location
it was lovely
I really liked when the expo was downtown, however, I understand that as it has grown locations had to be
changed.

1 of 10
2012 Women's Show Attendee Survey
1. Is Idaho Power your electric utility?
 ResponsePercent ResponseCount
Yes 94.2%628
No 4.9%33
Don't know 0.9%6
 AnsweredQuestion 667
 SkippedQuestion 3
2 of 10
2. Please indicate how familiar you are with the following Idaho Power programs:
 Never heard of Aware of Participated in RatingCount
A/C Cool Credit (Air conditioner
cycling)27.4% (169)51.1% (315)21.4% (132)616
Heating & Cooling Efficiency (Heat
pump rebates)43.5% (264)49.3% (299)7.2% (44)607
Home Products (ENERGY STAR
Appliance rebates)22.4% (136)54.4% (331)23.2% (141)608
ENERGY STAR Lighting (In-store
promotional pricing for CFL light
bulbs)
28.2% (171)57.8% (350)14.0% (85)606
ENERGY STAR Homes (Inspected
and labeled energy efficient new
homes)
16.9% (102)76.8% (464)6.3% (38)604
Energy House Calls (Free duct
sealing for electrically-heated
manufactured homes)
65.4% (397)32.9% (200)1.6% (10)607
See Ya Later Refrigerator ($30
rebate when Idaho Power picks up
and recycles your old refrigerator)
40.8% (248)51.5% (313)7.7% (47)608
Home Improvement (Incentive for
adding insulation to exisiting
homes)
33.2% (200)57.4% (346)9.5% (57)603
Green Power Program (Voluntary
renewable energy purchase)52.1% (316)45.0% (273)2.8% (17)606
 AnsweredQuestion 618
 SkippedQuestion 52
3 of 10
3. If you were to participate in an energy efficiency rebate program, how would you like to
receive your incentive? Please rank your first and second choice.
 First Second RatingCount
A check by postal mail 81.7% (446)18.3% (100)546
A cash card by postal mail 28.2% (134)71.8% (342)476
A donation to a charity 19.2% (19)80.8% (80)99
Other (please specify)
 16
 AnsweredQuestion 606
 SkippedQuestion 64
4. Who is the primary decision maker in your house for:
 Me Other Adult Owner or property
manager RatingCount
Setting the controls on your heating
and/or cooling system 75.1% (462)30.1% (185)1.6% (10)615
Deciding to install new or upgrading
insulation 48.4% (294)42.6% (259)15.5% (94)608
Purchasing a new major appliance
(e.g., refrigerator, furnace, hot
water heater, washer & dryer)
71.1% (435)27.1% (166)11.6% (71)612
Purchasing a new electronic device
(e.g., television, computer, DVD
player)
70.3% (431)38.2% (234)2.4% (15)613
Purchasing light fixtures and light
bulbs 77.7% (474)26.7% (163)3.6% (22)610
Reviewing and paying your
monthly bills 75.9% (456)27.8% (167)1.7% (10)601
 AnsweredQuestion 616
 SkippedQuestion 54
4 of 10
5. Which of the following statements best describes you?
 ResponsePercent ResponseCount
I do not have any plans to take
action to reduce my electricity
consumption
8.2%50
I am exploring ways to reduce my
electricity usage but have not yet
taken any specific actions
26.4%161
I am starting to take some action to
reduce my electricity usage 22.3%136
I have been taking actions that
have reduced my electricity
usage
43.0%262
 AnsweredQuestion 609
 SkippedQuestion 61
5 of 10
6. How likely would you be to take the following actions if you could save money on your
electricity bill?
 Not Likely
1 2 3 4 Very
Likely 5 RatingCount
Replace incandescent light bulbs
with compact fluorescents 6.3% (38)5.5% (33)14.3% (86)19.4%
(117)
54.6%
(329)
603
Adjust my thermostat up 2 degrees
in the summer 3.4% (20)5.0% (30)11.6% (69)22.4%
(134)
57.6%
(344)
597
Install a solar panel at home to
generate electricity
39.5%
(232)
17.7%
(104)
19.9%
(117)9.2% (54)13.8% (81)588
Reduce your water heater
temperature 10 degrees 11.1% (66)13.3% (79)31.1%
(185)
21.8%
(130)
22.7%
(135)595
Allow Idaho Power to cycle my A/C
up to 50% of the time on some hot
summer afternoons
25.3%
(151)
15.1% (90)25.2%
(150)13.1% (78)21.3%
(127)596
Turn lights off when leaving rooms 1.0% (6)0.8% (5)3.3% (20)6.8% (41)88.1%
(532)
604
Insulate attic, floors, and/or walls 10.5% (63)7.0% (42)20.3%
(122)
17.7%
(106)
44.5%
(267)
600
 AnsweredQuestion 605
 SkippedQuestion 65
6 of 10
7. How likely would you be to take the following actions if it had a positive environmental
impact?
 Not Likely
1 2 3 4 Very
Likely 5 RatingCount
Replace incandescent light bulbs
with compact fluorescents 6.7% (37)3.4% (19)16.4% (91)14.6% (81)58.8%
(326)
554
Adjust my thermostat up 2 degrees
in the summer 5.3% (29)3.1% (17)17.5% (96)19.3%
(106)
54.8%
(301)
549
Install a solar panel at home to
generate electricity
27.6%
(151)
13.0% (71)20.7%
(113)12.1% (66)26.7%
(146)547
Reduce your water heater
temperature 10 degrees 10.0% (55)10.6% (58)24.2%
(133)
21.3%
(117)
33.9%
(186)
549
Allow Idaho Power to cycle my A/C
up to 50% of the time on some hot
summer afternoons
18.5%
(102)12.0% (66)24.0%
(132)14.2% (78)31.3%
(172)
550
Turn lights off when leaving rooms 1.4% (8)1.3% (7)7.2% (40)8.5% (47)81.5%
(450)
552
Insulate attic, floors, and/or walls 8.4% (46)6.0% (33)20.0%
(110)16.2% (89)49.5%
(272)
550
 AnsweredQuestion 556
 SkippedQuestion 114
7 of 10
8. Which of the following best describes your purchase habits regarding environmentally
friendly products?
 ResponsePercent ResponseCount
I never purchase environmentally
friendly products 3.3%20
I will only purchase
environmentally friendly
products if they are comparably
priced
80.1%482
I always purchase environmentally
friendly products 16.6%100
 AnsweredQuestion 602
 SkippedQuestion 68
9. Which of the following statements best describes your actions to reduce potential harm
to our environment or help conserve our planet's natural resources?
 ResponsePercent ResponseCount
I do not have any current plans 11.3%67
I am exploring ways to reduce harm
or conseve resources but have not
yet taken any specific actions
20.9%124
I am starting to take some actions
to reduce/conserve 29.3%174
I have been taking actions that
have reduced/conserve 38.4%228
 AnsweredQuestion 593
 SkippedQuestion 77
8 of 10
10. Have you visited www.idahopower.com in the past six months?
 ResponsePercent ResponseCount
Yes 34.7%209
No 63.5%382
Don't know 1.8%11
 AnsweredQuestion 602
 SkippedQuestion 68
11. What did you go to www.idahopower.com for? (check all that apply)
 ResponsePercent ResponseCount
Energy efficiency information 26.0%53
Pay your bill 64.2%131
Billing or usage information 40.7%83
Parks information 6.4%13
Other (please specify)
 10
 AnsweredQuestion 204
 SkippedQuestion 466
12. What is your zip code?
 ResponseCount
 594
 AnsweredQuestion 594
 SkippedQuestion 76
9 of 10
13. What is your gender?
 ResponsePercent ResponseCount
Female 97.5%584
Male 2.5%15
 AnsweredQuestion 599
 SkippedQuestion 71
14. Which of the following best describes your age?
 ResponsePercent ResponseCount
Under 18 1.3%8
19-25 6.8%41
26-35 21.4%128
36-45 22.4%134
46-60 33.9%203
Over 60 14.2%85
 AnsweredQuestion 599
 SkippedQuestion 71
10 of 10
15. What is the highest level of education you have completed?
 ResponsePercent ResponseCount
Less than High School 1.3%8
High School or Equivalent 9.7%58
Some College/Technical School 41.8%250
4 year College Degree 28.4%170
Some Graduate courses 6.5%39
Graduate Degree 12.2%73
 AnsweredQuestion 598
 SkippedQuestion 72
16. For a chance to win the iPad2, please enter your email address below.
 ResponseCount
 597
 AnsweredQuestion 597
 SkippedQuestion 73
1 of 46
Boise City Home Audit Follow-up Survey
1. 1. How easy was it for you to apply for the Boise City Home Audit Program?
 Response
Percent
Response
Count
Very easy 78.2%334
Somewhat easy 20.4%87
Somewhat difficult 1.2%5
Very difficult 0.2%1
 answered question 427
 skipped question 4
2. 1(a). If the application process was difficult what was it about that process that made it
difficult?
 Response
Count
 6
 answered question 6
 skipped question 425
2 of 46
3. 2. How satisfied were you with the ability to schedule a time and day for your audit that
was convenient for you?
 Response
Percent
Response
Count
Very        satisfied 80.4%341
Somewhat        satisfied 15.8%67
Somewhat       dissatisfied 2.8%12
Very       dissatisfied 0.9%4
 answered question 424
 skipped question 7
4. 2(a). If the appointment scheduling process was dissatisying for you, what was it about
the process that was dissatisfying
 Response
Count
 13
 answered question 13
 skipped question 418
3 of 46
5. 3. Please identify the auditor you used for your home audit.
 Response
Percent
Response
Count
Kevin Abbott, Western Heating and
Air Conditioning 22.9%90
Chris Callor, Affordable Energy
Improvements 39.9%157
Tad Duby, On Point, LLC with
Western Heating and Air
Conditioning
20.9%82
 answered question 393
 skipped question 38
6. 4. Please rate your home auditor on each of the following:
 Excellent Good Fair Poor Response
Count
Courteousness 81.9% (339)17.1% (71)0.7% (3)0.2% (1)414
Professionalism 76.5% (316)19.6% (81)2.9% (12)1.0% (4)413
Explanation of work/measurements
to be performed as part of audit 66.5% (274)26.9% (111)5.6% (23)1.0% (4)412
Explanation of recommendations
resulting from audit 58.7% (242)30.1% (124)8.7% (36)2.4% (10)412
Overall experience with auditor
(from scheduling an appointment to
follow-up after the audit)
63.4% (260)28.0% (115)6.6% (27)2.0% (8)410
 answered question 414
 skipped question 17
4 of 46
7. 5. If you have additional comments you would like to offer about your home auditor,
please enter them in the space below.
 Response
Count
 137
 answered question 137
 skipped question 294
8. 6. How much did the audit increase your understanding of ways to reduce energy usage?
 Response
Percent
Response
Count
A lot 41.3%169
Some 54.0%221
None at all 4.6%19
 answered question 409
 skipped question 22
9. 7. Overall, how would you rate the Boise City Home Audit Program?
 Response
Percent
Response
Count
Excellent 53.1%220
Good 32.6%135
Fair 11.1%46
Poor 3.1%13
 answered question 414
 skipped question 17
5 of 46
10. 7(a). What, if anything, about the Boise City Home Audit Program was most satisfying to
you?
 Response
Count
 238
 answered question 238
 skipped question 193
11. 7(b). What, if anything, about the Boise City Home Audit Program was most dissatisfying
to you?
 Response
Count
 53
 answered question 53
 skipped question 378
12. 8. How likely would you be to recommend the Boise City Home Audit Program to a friend
or relative?
 Response
Percent
Response
Count
Very         likely 65.0%267
Somewhat         likely 21.9%90
Somewhat         unlikely 7.1%29
Very         unlikely 6.1%25
 answered question 411
 skipped question 20
6 of 46
13. 9. If you have other comments about the Boise City Home Audit Program, please enter
them below:
 Response
Count
 61
 answered question 61
 skipped question 370
14. 10. Please identify your age in the ranges below:
 Response
Percent
Response
Count
Under 25  0.0%0
26-35 11.8%48
36-50 30.2%123
51-65 41.5%169
Over 65 16.5%67
 answered question 407
 skipped question 24
7 of 46
15. 11. What is the highest level of education you completed?
 Response
Percent
Response
Count
Less than high school 0.2%1
Some high school  0.0%0
High school graduate or equivalent 5.2%21
Some college 16.3%66
Two year Associate degree or      
Trade/Technical school 8.1%33
Four year college degree 26.6%108
Some graduate courses 10.6%43
Advanced degree 33.0%134
 answered question 406
 skipped question 25
8 of 46
Page 2, Q1. 1(a). If the application process was difficult what was it about that process that made it difficult?
1 Looking up information to complete the application.Jun 27, 2011 1:02 PM
2 I was trying to apply through use of a smart phone, not a computer Jun 27, 2011 1:01 PM
3 I cound not get the website to work - wouldn't take my info. Then I had some
trouble connecting with the office staff - busy, messages back and forth.
Apr 6, 2011 12:19 PM
4 The online application timed out without my knowledge of it occuring so i had to
do it over the phone some weeks later. The gal i spoke to on the phone was
great, though. Amber or Autumn?? Can't recall.
Apr 4, 2011 7:57 AM
5 Had to submit it twice; showed not submitted the first time.Mar 29, 2011 12:52 PM
6 It required my account number which appears on my bill. I don't save previous
month's bills, so I had to call Idaho Power to find out what it was.
Mar 26, 2011 9:26 AM
9 of 46
Page 4, Q1. 2(a). If the appointment scheduling process was dissatisying for you, what was it about the process
that was dissatisfying
1 Service person didn't show up and didn't return our calls the day he was to arrive Sep 30, 2012 6:11 PM
2 The scheduling was fine. I was disappointed with the appointment itself.Sep 17, 2012 1:26 PM
3 It was difficult to get a hold of the auditor. There weren't many options for times
that he could come
Sep 17, 2012 11:45 AM
4 ertewrtwertwer Sep 17, 2012 8:03 AM
5 Never showed up Jun 29, 2011 3:46 PM
6 rescheduling before audit appointment.Jun 29, 2011 7:52 AM
7 The person making the appointment didn't show one day, and then rescheduled
another. It was a bit frustrating.
Jun 27, 2011 8:26 PM
8 The appointment had to be during regular business hours. Thus, I had to take
time off of work to be present at my home during the audit.
Jun 27, 2011 1:03 PM
9 not late enough in the day, had to leave my job early to accomadate Apr 24, 2011 9:19 PM
10 I had to take time off of work TWICE to complete the audit and the audit on the
audit.
Apr 4, 2011 7:03 AM
11 I had to reschedule my original appointment because the auditors were
overbooked.
Mar 26, 2011 4:20 PM
12 Need to have after normal working hours appointments.Mar 26, 2011 9:51 AM
13 Doug called me three different times to make the (first) appointment. I don't
know if he just didn't schedule it the first and second times he called.
Mar 25, 2011 11:52 AM
10 of 46
11 of 46
Page 5, Q3. 5. If you have additional comments you would like to offer about your home auditor, please enter
them in the space below.
1 What happened to the "up to $400 in improvements he could perform. I know my
home could use some. All he did was bring me a few light bulbs.
Oct 2, 2012 9:40 AM
2 The report I received after the inspection was not all that helpful. Luckily, Tad
was able to make more detailed recommendations to me. For example, report
said I needed more insulation in roof. B/c of special features of my house, Tad
described in more detail how the insulation would need to be installed. We also
discussed energy efficent heating and cooling systems. I have a two story
house built in 1904. Have troubles keeping top cool/hot and only part of the
problem is related to insulation. Tad took time to discuss with me energy efficent
option to help addresss. This was what was valuable to me, not that silly report
they sent.
Sep 27, 2012 8:43 PM
3 Please check your records on who I had. He was wonderful.Sep 27, 2012 6:38 PM
4 Seems like a disconnect between the auditor and Idaho Power Sep 27, 2012 3:16 PM
5 I really enjoyed the education you offered and would have liked something
written down that was specific to our home instead of the generic
recommendations we received in the mail. The walk through seemed quick for
me. I do have children so I was having to tend to them as well which is why it
probably seemed fast. That is why something written out would be great. I
should have had a pencil and paper and written things as we went....
Sep 27, 2012 12:26 PM
6 Very knowledgeable and informative.Sep 27, 2012 9:19 AM
7 suggestion were right and approiate.Sep 19, 2012 6:48 PM
8 they never followed up, I also did not get lightbulbs Sep 19, 2012 5:25 PM
9 We learned a lot about our use of electricity in our home. This was very helpful. Sep 19, 2012 1:09 PM
10 He was more helpful than I expected.Sep 18, 2012 9:00 PM
11 Kevin was very informative and helpful. He knows his stuff and we felt very
assured by his comments and suggestions
Sep 18, 2012 6:45 PM
12 I appreciated his suggestions that were beyond the home audit as well as his
being open for further questions.
Sep 18, 2012 1:10 PM
13 It was a great experience!!Sep 18, 2012 6:57 AM
14 very helpful and nice Sep 17, 2012 8:23 PM
15 I truly felt this was a waste of $49. I was excited to hear how to increase the
efficiency in our home, but when we got the written report I was highly
disappointed in the auditors assessment of some of our home furnishings: our
appliances except for the fridge are new to fairly new, our furnace and air
conditioner, water heater are also fairly new; this was not reflected in the audit.
Sep 17, 2012 6:58 PM
16 Tad was very friendly and informative. Added more information at each point
that he explained to us.
Sep 17, 2012 6:54 PM
12 of 46
Page 5, Q3. 5. If you have additional comments you would like to offer about your home auditor, please enter
them in the space below.
17 When I signed up, I thought it was going to be quite different. It was a little
misleading as far as what would happen and what you would get for your $50.
But Tad was great.
Sep 17, 2012 6:41 PM
18 Our auditor was Rudy Ashenbrener (A-1 Heating and Air Conditioning)Sep 17, 2012 6:14 PM
19 I was surprise from the audit because when Tad came to the house he pointed
out how some items were not the best, but not horrible and it would cost a lot to
get them up to complete par, so where I am at is about the best I can get. Then
when I got the report it was on the D level, which makes it sounds like the house
is doing horrible. Most of the energy efficiency areas I already knew about, so it
was somewhat a waste of money. But it was nice to be reconfirmed in my
original thoughts.
Sep 17, 2012 5:45 PM
20 I was disappointed. My expectations of doing the audit was that there would be
some minor items replaced or upgraded along with the recommendations of how
to save on energy. All that was replaced in my home was a single light bulb. The
recommendations are on file, but since we are low income, there are no
programs listed that can help upgrade our home.
Sep 17, 2012 4:47 PM
21 Great service and we thank you for offering it.Sep 17, 2012 2:29 PM
22 It's been too long ago. I can't remember his name.Sep 17, 2012 2:11 PM
23 I expected some actions to be taken during the audit process and nothing was
done at all.
Sep 17, 2012 1:59 PM
24 He left the newspaper in the fireplace, and did not put the fireplace cover back in
place. He also did not change any light bulbs...or offer any. That was one of my
reasons for signing up for the audit. I was very disappointed.
Sep 17, 2012 1:31 PM
25 Its been a while and Im not sure it was Chris Sep 17, 2012 1:18 PM
26 The auditor did a good job and explained different areas in the house where I
could improve on efficiency. The one downside is that I got the feeling he was
trying to sell me a product Western carry's which is a duct seal product that is
very expensive. He also had some other good ideas but unforntunitly I was not
sure if the duct sealing was an unbiased opinion. Also, since it was towards the
end of the audit he did not have very many high efficiency bulbs left which was
one of the main reasons I appiled for the audit. I felt it would be a great deal for
someone to not only audit my house but provide new high efficient bulbs. This is
how the program was advertised so I was dissapointed when told he was almost
out becuase it was nearing the end of the project and was not able to replace my
several of my incandesant bulbs.. I think it would have made sense to tell me
this up front when I decided to do the audit instead of during the audit.
Sep 17, 2012 1:09 PM
27 thank you for the opportunity to participate in a discounted home energy audit. Sep 17, 2012 12:29 PM
28 My understanding was that the auditor would be providing energy saving light
bulbs. None were offered. Also, when going into my attic to check insulation,
pieces from one of my special porcelain Christmas manger scenes was dropped
and broken. He was very apologetic and I understand that accidents happen.
Sep 17, 2012 12:28 PM
13 of 46
Page 5, Q3. 5. If you have additional comments you would like to offer about your home auditor, please enter
them in the space below.
We probably did not have the box placed very securely so it may have been
partially our own fault. Still, I've had that collectors piece for many years and
now one of my wise men is gone which spoils the whole set, so that was a
negative. The gentleman was very apologetic. Still, is was something that
made me wish I had never even bothered with the whole thing.
29 they did the audit but didn't install anything. i was under the impression that they
would be installing a water heater blanket, insullation on the pipes from the water
heater to the house, etc. They just did the audit, which didn't really give me any
valuable information to inprove our energy efficiency other than to use a cheap
furnace air filter.
Sep 17, 2012 12:12 PM
30 i don't remember his name.Sep 17, 2012 11:47 AM
31 Very nice and would welcome him in to our home anytime!Sep 17, 2012 11:40 AM
32 agagtewtawwar Sep 17, 2012 9:15 AM
33 sadfdsafsda Sep 17, 2012 8:03 AM
34 Some of the information rendered (taken during audit) on final report was
inaccurate. I was thinking the final report and auditor comments could be a bit
more specific about what different options to conserve energy and reduce
energy use were available and what their payback would be (i.e., new thermal
pane/low e windows, added floor insulation, different heating system, etc.). Audit
report almost focused exclusively on cleaning/sealing ductwork, ands again, no
payback information.
Dec 28, 2011 3:37 PM
35 Big waste of time and money. he could not answer a lot of basic questions I had.
A lot of his recommendations were for things that his business benefited from
and he came to conclusions that were not backed up, like he told us our
elements were dirty when he never looked inside the furnace!
Jul 19, 2011 4:36 PM
36 CHRIS DID A GREAT JOB AND I DID RECOMMEND HIM TO MY FRIENDS. Jul 12, 2011 3:54 PM
37 Chris did not seem very professional over the phone - perhaps I caught him on a
bad day. I didn't meet him in person, but the guys that worked for Chris and
performed the audit did a great job and were professional.
Jul 6, 2011 8:43 AM
38 I feel that some things were overlooked and was hoping for more of a complete
scan of windows, light sockets, and doors. He only looked at two doors and
windows. I have five exteriors doors that I was hoping that he would check for
leaks. I felt they were only concerned about the kitchen cam lights and pushing
to have them replaced. We just did a remodel and could have changed them at
that time. It would be nice to have a list of recommended qualitiy contracted
that could complete work to bring the house up to standards. Are there any
available tax programs for said improvements?
Jun 30, 2011 12:56 PM
39 The written report we received after the audit did not include draft issues
identified during the audit for our new fireplace insert. This would have most
helpful when we had Leisure Time return to our home to re-inspect the insert.
Jun 29, 2011 11:09 AM
14 of 46
Page 5, Q3. 5. If you have additional comments you would like to offer about your home auditor, please enter
them in the space below.
40 Some of the information the auditors shared with customers seems to be
inconsistent. I have a friend that also participated in the home audit. His home
is only 3 years old (therefore, his water heater is only 3 years old). He was given
a water heater blanket. I was told that my 8 year old water heater was new
enough that it did not need a blanket... in fact it was redundunt and wouldn't
provide any benefit. I don't know what's the real story.... but we got different
versions. His auditor also performed more tests during the fan in the door
exercise than my auditor. His auditor was Chris Callor I believe. It was not
Western Heating. I also felt that my auditor was trying to push a very expensive
duct sealing process that only Western Heating provides. It was accurate that
my ducts needed sealing, but there are several options that are effective and
don't cost $1000. I got it done for $300 instead of $1000 that Western tried to
sell me. I was disappointed to find out that the audit did not include wrapping our
water pipes under the home. The letter announcing the program clearly stated
that it would be included, but Kevin said that it was not. That was one of the
main reasons I signed up for the program. Overall, Kevin was nice and I did get
some ideas and learned a few things.
Jun 29, 2011 11:00 AM
41 We didn't remember his name Jun 29, 2011 7:22 AM
42 Chris was very knowledgeable, but didn't like how he presented his estimate of
work needed at the end. I understand he is trying to get business, but seemed
like he might be giving everyone the same estimate. Why wouldn't he tell me i
need duct work? It benefits his business. Maybe next time get an un biased
inspector.
Jun 28, 2011 8:52 PM
43 No after audit follow up. Thought it odd that he stressed sealing the ducts
(minimal loss area) and ignored/ minimized the huge loss from the chimney.
Perhaps because the company he works for has a duct sealing producty??
Jun 28, 2011 8:42 PM
44 He made me very comfortable - it's always a risk to invite someone into your
home - especially as a single woman.
Jun 28, 2011 5:18 PM
45 Chris went a little too fast in his explanations for a novice to be able to follow
comfortably. Also, wasn't real clear on what kind of information I would be
receiving post-audit. The package I received (a couple of weeks later) was
useful, but I didn't realize that was what I was going to receive. An explanation
and maybe an example at the beginning of the audit would be useful. As it was,
I kind of got the feeling the whole thing was all about trying to drum up business
for his company for repair work.
Jun 28, 2011 10:09 AM
46 Just wanted to see what was needed to improve my home.Jun 28, 2011 7:29 AM
47 I am not sure on the name but it was western heating. He all of the above Jun 28, 2011 6:56 AM
48 The auditor recorded different information than is the fact in my home. Also, I
expected far more progressive suggestions from the auditor, such as solar
panels, water collection and notes about sustainable usage practices that
seemed to go unnoticed and certainly not noted.
Jun 27, 2011 8:27 PM
49 To whom it may concern: I had an energy audit on Friday afternoon May, 20th.
Kevin Abbott from Western Heating & Air Conditioning did the audit in an
Jun 27, 2011 4:42 PM
15 of 46
Page 5, Q3. 5. If you have additional comments you would like to offer about your home auditor, please enter
them in the space below.
accommodating and professional manner. I appreciate the lights, shower head,
information, and suggestions he made regarding our home. My experience
started with not being able to sign up online - Leaving a message with Idaho
Power on the phone- then receiving a pleasant phone message in response. My
second attempt online was successful and I was contacted by Mr. Abbott shortly
thereafter. Thank you for the audit. It was informative and I enjoyed the service
from the people involved in the process. Sincerely, Gordon D. Chipman
Delivery to the following recipient failed permanently:
[e-mail] Technical details of permanent failure: Google
tried to deliver your message, but it was rejected by the recipient domain. We
recommend contacting the other email provider for further information about the
cause of this error. The error that the other server returned was: 550 550 5.1.1
<[e-mail]>: Recipient address rejected: User unknown
in relay recipient table (state 14).
50 I hope to contract with him in the future to do upgrades when I have more
money.
Jun 27, 2011 3:05 PM
51 My first appointment turned out to be a day I wasn't available ... when I called
him, he changed my appointment without any hassel.
Jun 27, 2011 1:53 PM
52 He was very professional and had many available ideas not listed on the energy
audit
Jun 27, 2011 1:02 PM
53 My auditor from EcoHomes was: Steve Olmstead May 16, 2011 3:50 PM
54 The suggested fix was very expensive -- the "sealing" of the crawl space -
$6000+ for a very small home (1240 sq. ft.)
May 13, 2011 6:27 AM
55 What he told me at the time of the audit did not match up with what was in the
written report that I received later
May 9, 2011 6:55 AM
56 I emailed questions after the audit and have not heard back.May 4, 2011 9:39 AM
57 Dustin was unavailable, our auditor was Steve Olmstead of EcoHome Solutions Apr 29, 2011 8:51 AM
58 They made it fun and everyone has to have laughter in life Thanks Apr 25, 2011 6:08 PM
59 A little technical on the explanation at least for me. Not real sure of what the air
sealing involves.
Apr 25, 2011 11:15 AM
60 never received digital photos taken of my basement / crawlspace HVAC
ductwork. old humidifier in crawlspace,, not sure if we talked about its condition
and if its worth repairing or replacing.
Apr 25, 2011 4:44 AM
61 very friendly, explained everything Apr 24, 2011 9:20 PM
62 Tad did an excellent job, very thorough and willing to listen to any questions I
had. I would recommend him to anyone.
Apr 23, 2011 8:15 AM
63 Would have liked to receive written specific recommendations. I wound up
scribbling incomplete notes on a subject of which I have limited knowledge.
There has been no follow-up.
Apr 22, 2011 10:36 PM
16 of 46
Page 5, Q3. 5. If you have additional comments you would like to offer about your home auditor, please enter
them in the space below.
64 This company is shadey. They wanted to charge me $5200 to increase my
insulation, repair the baffles....they didn't go under my house...they just assumed
I needed several things done down there.
Apr 22, 2011 2:30 PM
65 How do I know they gave us the best price? Do you only have a select few you
work with? How do we know we can really trust them? I need the work done,
but widows have many people take advantage of them.
Apr 22, 2011 2:23 PM
66 Chris was polite and professional. I was a pleasure to have him do the energy
audit. So much so that I hired him to do further energy improvement work on my
home. I recommend him heartily.
Apr 22, 2011 1:55 PM
67 I wanted the audit done mainly to address problems I have with the temperature
in the bonus room, especially during extreme weather conditions. The response
I got would be very costly to implement and I'm not confident it would even solve
the problem.
Apr 22, 2011 12:22 PM
68 I think he assumed that I knew more than I did about home repair/energay
saving measures so in some incidenced did not explain what I felt he should. I
didn't ask, thinking he would explain.
Apr 22, 2011 9:56 AM
69 Very professional - appreciated his expertise Apr 22, 2011 9:41 AM
70 My auditor was Jason Guinn of Ecohomes Apr 22, 2011 9:02 AM
71 Very informative Apr 22, 2011 8:14 AM
72 Very unprofessional and not properly prepared for the inspection. For example,
they did not have working batteries for any of the flashlights. One of the
auditors, believe the name was Steve, sealed the furnace with mastic knowing
that the filter was dirty and needed to be replaced. I called Jason Guinn and he
didn't even remember that the mastic sealant was applied to all the seams
around the furnace blocking the access to the chamber to replace the filter. I
have a picture as a proof of this poor job. Furthermore, when Jason Guinn and
Steve went up in the attic they did not have a working light and missed the rafter.
I heard a pounding noise and, as a result of this, the ceiling in the hallway has a
substantial crack from one of them falling in the attic. I called and emailed Jason
Guinn regarding the report and his written answer was: " the information in our
report is very detailed and we are not allowed through company policies to email
or mail the copies." Jason Guinn clearly indicated that if I was not interested in
making immediate improvements to my home in order to make it more energy
efficient, that they were busy with a an upcoming Home Show and other
appointments that they would not spend time in explaining me the results of their
audit. Seven weeks went by and I have not received any report from Ecohomes
or Idaho Power. I truly believe that this is nothing else but a scam and
Ecohomes auditors only invest their time in customers interested in giving the
business to them. Mr Guinn was more interested in providing information about
the financing Ecohomes offer rather than the expected report I was supposed to
receive. At this stage, I would like to request the refund of the $49 paid to
Ecohomes and the repair of the cracked ceiling as it is clear that their visit was a
total waste of time. I would like to request an inspector from Idaho Power to
evaluate the damage to the ceiling and check the mastic around the furnace.
Apr 11, 2011 11:33 PM
17 of 46
Page 5, Q3. 5. If you have additional comments you would like to offer about your home auditor, please enter
them in the space below.
Certainly, I would not be inclined to contract the services of Ecohomes to make
any improvements to my home. Last, I tried to contact Andrea Simmonsen on
the number provided in the email with the survey (1-866-865-2665). The person
that answered said that this number is linked to another Idaho Power program
and had never heard of such Boise City Audit! I also tried [phone] and
there is never an answer on this number. I expect an explanation of this.
Laureana I Thorn. 3701 S Minuteman Way. Boise, ID 83706. Tel: (208) 968-
4951.
73 I felt fine during the initial home visit, but in the follow up visit to explain the audit
results I was uncomfortable with the high pressure tactics after I stated I could
not afford the improvements suggested.
Apr 8, 2011 9:27 AM
74 I had to show the gentlemen the form that showed the number of newer light
bulbs to be changed. I did feel that I constantly had to apologize for the way the
home was built. Unfortunately, the prices they provided to "help" were way too
expensive. From the date of the audit until I received the paperwork, I had
already changed the water heater AND the furnace out at a much lower cost.
Apr 6, 2011 10:46 AM
75 Most professional contractors where foot coverings over their boots when they
enter a customers house. This contractor did not. I should not have to ask
someone to take their boots off when entering my home.
Apr 6, 2011 10:07 AM
76 Friendly and honest. No pressure and showed real concern.Apr 6, 2011 8:19 AM
77 Mr. Duby did an excellent job in helping me with my questions and to help me
understand what needed to be done to improve. When he gave me a
recommendation of good quality contractors to consider for the work that I
couldn't do for myself, the only recommendation he gave me was Western
Heating and Air. They may be the very best company in the valley for the job,
but it was hard for me to trust just that one recommendation, being they are the
company he works for. It would have been helpful to be given a few trusted
companies to choose from.
Apr 5, 2011 12:17 PM
78 I really appreciate the offering of this service! I learned a lot, it was a great price
and I'm satisfied with everything! Thank you!
Apr 4, 2011 9:52 PM
79 I thought the auditor was supposed to be from an uninterested third party. What
he found and what the results showed, were not the same results.
Apr 4, 2011 8:34 PM
80 Felt like he focused on improvements his company could do. Perhaps b/c this is
his area of expertise, but I felt like I didn't get the overall advice I had hoped for.
Apr 4, 2011 8:13 PM
81 Great service during the audit, and great service during a follow-up phone
conversation as well.
Apr 4, 2011 4:58 PM
82 The light bulb aspect of program was difficult to understand.Apr 4, 2011 3:20 PM
83 I didn't receive any recommendations at the time of the audit. I received a report
from Idaho Power that gives some suggestions.
Apr 4, 2011 9:38 AM
84 Would like to have recieved the report sooner than we did. It took a month or so Apr 4, 2011 8:51 AM
18 of 46
Page 5, Q3. 5. If you have additional comments you would like to offer about your home auditor, please enter
them in the space below.
to get written results.
85 I was pleased with the process.Apr 4, 2011 8:22 AM
86 The auditor told me my house was ranking in everything very well and then I got
horrible scores on my report.
Apr 4, 2011 8:09 AM
87 Chris did a great job. Very thorough explanation of process and recommended
improvements.
Apr 4, 2011 7:58 AM
88 Very efficient, was on time and did not waste my time. I probably could have
used more information and guidance as to how and what to do to make my
house more efficient.
Apr 4, 2011 7:04 AM
89 Even that the inspector didn't solicate for business they should not be permitted
to do so.
Apr 4, 2011 6:49 AM
90 report not accurate to our home Apr 4, 2011 5:04 AM
91 Volunteered useful vcontact info--vry knowledgeable about people in the field. Apr 2, 2011 9:13 PM
92 One of the recommendations, which we opted to do, was to seal our ductwork. I
would have liked to see another house pressurization test to see the "tangible"
effect of that work (especially since all of the work was done in the crawlspace,
which made it difficult to inspect.)
Mar 30, 2011 11:05 AM
93 It was a great experience. We just wish we could afford to invest inthe
improvements that were recommended... :(
Mar 30, 2011 5:44 AM
94 He had said he'd get us an estimate to make additional upgrades/improvements,
but never got back to us.
Mar 29, 2011 2:06 PM
95 Tad did a great job with the audit. I was disappointed that he didn't have more
info from the company about next steps or even what the final report would look
like.
Mar 29, 2011 1:52 PM
96 It has been so long since I had the original audit that I don't recall the guy's name
who performed the work.
Mar 29, 2011 1:37 PM
97 he was great, was available to answer questions after he left, and was straight
forward about what we can do ourselves, what we should leave for the
professionals, and what would give us the biggest "bang for the buck".
Mar 29, 2011 12:55 PM
98 Should explain more about the lights - that CFLs have mercury and if they break
how to clean it up.
Mar 29, 2011 12:55 PM
99 It was his first audit. He did a great job given that he and his partner were
figuring it all out.
Mar 29, 2011 12:44 PM
100 In order to receive the report from Chris I had to contact him several times and it
wasn't until I cc'd the overseer for the audit project did I finally receive the report.
Chris did reply at one time that he became extremely busy after conducting our
home inspection.
Mar 28, 2011 12:50 PM
19 of 46
Page 5, Q3. 5. If you have additional comments you would like to offer about your home auditor, please enter
them in the space below.
101 Very pleasant person and very helpful.Mar 27, 2011 3:22 PM
102 I felt like all he wanted to do was spend my money that I dont have. I told him my
biggest concerns were money and the lack of it and that my prioritys were my
water heater and the plumbing in the main bath shower as water was leaking
from faucets. Then he proceded to tell me that the water element was burnt out
and that it is very difficult to replace an element and it would be cheaper to
replace the water heater. I asked him how much he thought that would cost and
he said about $1300.00. Then he wanted me to get a loan from them and called
it low interest that was not low interest if you ask me. Anyway the ECOHOMES
People I am not impressed with. I thought his name was Justin but it may have
been Dustin..
Mar 27, 2011 1:39 PM
103 He was to follow up with bulbs but did not.Mar 27, 2011 6:39 AM
104 Kevin was helpful and informative, and gave us excellent recommendations,
which we have now followed up on.
Mar 26, 2011 4:40 PM
105 Just curious as heck to know how the work they did actually changed our
heating...it has not necessarily felt warmer in the house...still using a little bit of
extra heating in the attic room...not sure what that means and would like to
know.
Mar 26, 2011 3:38 PM
106 Matt Vandermeer %MOMENTUM was fabulous on the follow up audit. He took
more time to really explain my options and how everything in the audit worked.
EXCELLENT & would use his services.
Mar 26, 2011 11:47 AM
107 great job by Tad, and by the follow-up auditor whose name I can't recall at this
moment.
Mar 26, 2011 10:47 AM
108 While it was nice to see how tight my house was, I was unable to attend due to
work and instead had my adult kids there instead. I did call to get a verbal report
which was very nice. However, I noticed on the written report he stated my
refrigerator was not energy star nor was I using power strips (both untrue). It
made me wonder if he really looked carefully at my house.
Mar 26, 2011 10:18 AM
109 I was surprised to receive a bill in the mail from EcoHome for the audit. I don't
recall seeing that there was a charge for this. Please advise.
Mar 26, 2011 9:22 AM
110 Chris was a really great auditor. He did a great job and gave me some great tips
on improving the efficiency of my home.
Mar 26, 2011 7:26 AM
111 I felt the free audit was a way to provide leads for people to sell me services than
to help me as a homeowner to solve affordable energy solutions.
Mar 25, 2011 10:45 PM
112 Our auditor and his assistant were incredibly warm and understanding. We know
that our house is in need of massive repairs, but they both treated us as though
we were incredibly important. Very, very nice guys!!
Mar 25, 2011 8:52 PM
113 Left the heavy cover to the crawl space off the crawl space; didn't close the flue
before testing air flow, so soot was sucked out of fireplace onto living room floor,
which wasn't cleaned up before he left; didn't know that code won't allow gas
Mar 25, 2011 5:41 PM
20 of 46
Page 5, Q3. 5. If you have additional comments you would like to offer about your home auditor, please enter
them in the space below.
fixtures under the stairs.
114 He gave our house a 9.6 rating, said it was a good score, and didn't mention any
ways we could improve the rating (which we later learned was .4 from being
leaky. He talked mostly about the need for a new heater.
Mar 25, 2011 5:21 PM
115 very cursory audit. assessment of attic insulation was way off.Mar 25, 2011 5:13 PM
116 My poor overall mark is due because of the information I obtained from the
person auditing Todd's work. I feel as if not all options that should have been
offered were.
Mar 25, 2011 4:47 PM
117 Chris Callor was very easy to work with and provided great tips and suggestions. Mar 25, 2011 2:33 PM
118 The auditor's assistant was asked to change my light bulbs during the audit. I
told him to go ahead and change all of them. I had just had knee surgery so was
on crutches and couldn't walk around to explain which light bulbs. He replaced
all of the bulbs except he missed the bulbs in the overhead light in my spare
bedroom. My house is only 800 square feet and 5 rooms TOTAL (2 bedrooms,
kitchen, bathroom, living room. My boyfriend called Tad a week or so after the
audit to ask if we could receive some light bulbs to replace the forgotten bulbs in
my bedroom, and he told my boyfriend that he had asked me which light bulbs
to replace and I told him not to replace the ones in the spare room. (Why would I
do that???). He was also unclear about which furnace was actually functioning
(2 old ones in the crawlspace and one unit outside) and that was one of the main
reasons why I had the audit done. I don't know how to change my furnace filter
and I still don't know. He told me I needed to contact someone about a furnace
servicing program, but didn't leave me any information. It was confusing.
Mar 25, 2011 2:11 PM
119 our auditor was actually named Steve Mar 25, 2011 1:49 PM
120 According to my husband, who was the one who handled this, Mr. Callor and his
team were outstanding in every way. We're very pleased with the audit. Our one
complaint is that the written version differed a great deal from the in-person
information given to us by Mr. Callor- in several areas, the information in the
secondary written part is wildly incorrect. However, since my husband was able
to discuss it directly with Mr. Callor and his team, we're pretty confident that we
got the correct information, anyway.
Mar 25, 2011 1:23 PM
121 Chris was simply excellent to work with, very enthusiastic, straightforward, and
willing to answer any and all questions.
Mar 25, 2011 1:19 PM
122 My auditor was Jason with Eco homes - he did a great job - i thought the
suggested repairs were very costly.
Mar 25, 2011 12:51 PM
123 After having it done, I feel we wouldn't do it again!Mar 25, 2011 12:29 PM
124 Tad was very professional, knowledgeable, and efficient. It was a very positive
experience having him work with us.
Mar 25, 2011 11:56 AM
125 He said I need to get an Energy Star washing machine, and my new washing
machine has the Energy Star seal right on the front.
Mar 25, 2011 11:54 AM
21 of 46
Page 5, Q3. 5. If you have additional comments you would like to offer about your home auditor, please enter
them in the space below.
126 There were 3 people at my house as someone was taking a test. I may have
had unrealistic expectations about recommendations. I didn't feel like I received
enough information from any of them. He replaced the lightbulbs and shower
head which was great and was very friendly, but there was a lot going on with 3
people in the house.
Mar 25, 2011 11:22 AM
127 I normally don't give an excellent rating but Mr. Abbot was very thorough and
patient with my questions. He was able to recommend another contractor to fix a
problem he found not related to energy efficiency or the work his company does.
Mar 25, 2011 11:17 AM
128 great to work with Mar 25, 2011 10:22 AM
129 he did an excellent job, liked that he left a summary with me so I didn't have to
wait, he seemed very knowledgeable
Mar 25, 2011 10:16 AM
130 This was very helpful, and I have every intention of making some of the
improvements Chris and his team recommended. I was very pleased with this
opportunity!
Mar 25, 2011 10:12 AM
131 This team was in quite a hurry when they reached our house. I missed the
explanation that I was supposed to have my fireplace cleaned out. The service
people were VERY annoyed that this wasn't done beforehand. My girlfriend
quickly cleaned it, but in my opinion they were rude to her at blamed me for not
having it done.
Mar 25, 2011 10:12 AM
132 They tore molding off my front door and did not bother to reinstall before they
left. They left me with no hot water, did not turn the water heater back on before
they left. It was like watching the 3 Stooges run around my house. Todd was
cryptic about the results and pushed to get his company back for a visit to upsell
his products. It was a terrible experience and not worth my time or the grant
money that the city got and used for this program. My tax money down the drain!
Mar 25, 2011 10:01 AM
133 My only issue with the auditor was that they didn't want to give "too much" detail
about the work needing to be done because they said many contractors who do
the work will not do it correctly (i.e., the energy improvements won't be what they
should be), so they don't like to describe too much of what needs to be done and
rather want to do the work themselves. I'm sorry, but if I am going to put
thousands of dollars of improvements into my house, I certainly will want to talk
to several potential contractos and get competing bids. So I was very
disappointed that the same company doing the audit expected to be the
company doing any home improvements. Made me a bit distrustful.
Mar 25, 2011 9:37 AM
134 I hired chris to do $1300 of improvements and am very satisfied.Mar 25, 2011 9:31 AM
135 When they looked at my furnace I told them not to unplug the extension cord as
that went to my freezor. They did unplug the extension cord, rolled it up and
never pluged it back in. I didn't find it until 5 days later. I getting together a list of
what was in the chest freezor and pricing it. They said they would make it right
with me. They want to trade out work for it. That was not such a good
experience. We will see how it ends up.
Mar 25, 2011 9:20 AM
136 He was obviously an expert in his field.Mar 25, 2011 9:19 AM
22 of 46
Page 5, Q3. 5. If you have additional comments you would like to offer about your home auditor, please enter
them in the space below.
137 I'm still trying to figure out the paperwork i received after the audit. it is pretty
technical and hard to understand. However, i will get thru it eventually.
Mar 25, 2011 9:17 AM
23 of 46
24 of 46
Page 7, Q1. 7(a). What, if anything, about the Boise City Home Audit Program was most satisfying to you?
1 Everything was handled very professionally.Oct 9, 2012 11:03 AM
2 Getting feedback on the efficiency of our home.Oct 8, 2012 1:50 PM
3 Validation that we were doing several things correctly. The audit provided us
with several other areas where we could improve.
Oct 4, 2012 6:22 AM
4 The information I gleaned.Oct 3, 2012 3:44 PM
5 knowing about leaks/drafts around doors, windows, vents, etc.Oct 1, 2012 9:18 PM
6 Gave me a good idea how to improve my efficiency.Sep 30, 2012 9:24 PM
7 Provided target measures to take to increase home energy efficiency.Sep 30, 2012 3:01 PM
8 To be shown simple energy saving ideas that I could do that didn't involve
buying anything
Sep 29, 2012 4:33 PM
9 Lots of information and little costs. Excellent Sep 28, 2012 4:02 PM
10 it reassurred me of a few points I already knew & gave me suggestions I didn't
know about.
Sep 28, 2012 11:22 AM
11 I thought I needed to replace my windows in my home. I learned that they aren't
as inefficient as I thought they were and that there are more cost-effective ways
to improve energy efficiency in my home.
Sep 28, 2012 7:07 AM
12 Provided me good information and a good resource for information Sep 27, 2012 8:44 PM
13 Confirmation that we have made several good energy-saving decisions already
and the opportunity to get some recommendations for other things we can do.
Sep 27, 2012 7:51 PM
14 It was all good, from the careful assessment of our home, to the written report,
and having Chris go over it verbally with us.
Sep 27, 2012 7:11 PM
15 The explanation of where my air leaks were. I thought windows. If I could afford
to do so, I would insulate under the living room, where I'm loosing heat.
Sep 27, 2012 6:39 PM
16 The price for what I got. I was ready to replace windows that do not need
replacing. $50 vs thousands is worth it to me.
Sep 27, 2012 6:21 PM
17 light bulb replacement Sep 27, 2012 5:00 PM
18 Identification of key areas that needed fixing Sep 27, 2012 3:17 PM
19 as a single mom, it was helpful to know where to save energy and what to do on
ongoing basis
Sep 27, 2012 1:14 PM
20 Being aware of improvements needed Sep 27, 2012 12:35 PM
21 The walk through and education about what we can do to increase home energy
efficiency.
Sep 27, 2012 12:27 PM
22 Recommendations Sep 27, 2012 12:26 PM
25 of 46
Page 7, Q1. 7(a). What, if anything, about the Boise City Home Audit Program was most satisfying to you?
23 Our concerns about air leakage was answered.Sep 27, 2012 12:12 PM
24 Just to know that our house didn't have any major problems Sep 27, 2012 11:53 AM
25 To know what we should focus our efforts on to improve energy efficiency. Sep 27, 2012 9:20 AM
26 Finding out how efficient my home was and how I could improve it.Sep 27, 2012 9:19 AM
27 receiving direction that will help me lower my utility costs.Sep 26, 2012 11:09 AM
28 iT WAS ALL VERY INSERESTING, AND HE EXPLAINED EVERYTHING VERY
WELL
Sep 23, 2012 4:45 AM
29 Pointed out something I was totally unaware of that explains why I have heating
issues. Offered specific information about what I need to ask for to fix it. Really
helped me understand what I need to focus on to increase energy.
Sep 22, 2012 8:52 AM
30 Knowing how to improve efficiency specific to our house.Sep 22, 2012 6:40 AM
31 It is a great service and we found out our house is in good shape and we don't
need to spend a lot of money on upgrades. It was an objective opinion.
Sep 21, 2012 6:21 PM
32 Ease of sign up and completion.Sep 20, 2012 7:17 AM
33 good suggestions & good follow thru.Sep 19, 2012 6:49 PM
34 Learning what to do to save money on our consumption of energy.Sep 19, 2012 1:10 PM
35 finding air leaks Sep 19, 2012 10:23 AM
36 The individual.Sep 19, 2012 9:52 AM
37 He performed the suction test for air flow leaks.Sep 18, 2012 9:01 PM
38 The ease in signing up and the information we gathered. the replacement of our
energy using spots in our kitchen was nice too!
Sep 18, 2012 6:46 PM
39 It helped us to think about things that would not normally be on our minds, and
drew attention to areas that we could improve ourselves.
Sep 18, 2012 6:32 PM
40 I liked learning about how to make our more energy efficient and actually having
someone come to the house.
Sep 18, 2012 6:08 PM
41 Air pressure test....satisfied my question about air leakage Sep 18, 2012 1:53 PM
42 Learning ways to be more efficient and cut costs.Sep 18, 2012 1:23 PM
43 Just finding out the different ways to save energy.Sep 18, 2012 9:00 AM
44 Learning about ways to save money and make our home more energy efficient. Sep 18, 2012 8:12 AM
45 Access to a professional analysis of our home's energy loss areas. However, it
would have been even better if there was also information on available
contractors to fix the problems.
Sep 18, 2012 7:37 AM
26 of 46
Page 7, Q1. 7(a). What, if anything, about the Boise City Home Audit Program was most satisfying to you?
46 Contractor was very professional, courteous, gave us lots of good suggestions--
affordable, doable suggestions
Sep 18, 2012 6:58 AM
47 The installation of CFL flood lights was a great value.Sep 17, 2012 9:53 PM
48 New understanding of home energy efficiency factors Sep 17, 2012 8:45 PM
49 kevin Sep 17, 2012 8:24 PM
50 Quick to schedule the visit.Sep 17, 2012 8:24 PM
51 just having another opinion on strengths and weaknesses of our home when it
comes to energy use.
Sep 17, 2012 7:12 PM
52 The promptness of scheduling and the info provided by the auditor.Sep 17, 2012 7:00 PM
53 To be offered this program to increase our knowledge of how to save money. Sep 17, 2012 6:55 PM
54 Professional expertise of person conducting the Udit Sep 17, 2012 6:42 PM
55 It identified what was energy effecient and what issues would increase energy
effeciency.
Sep 17, 2012 6:15 PM
56 suggestions helpful Sep 17, 2012 5:32 PM
57 Not one thing Sep 17, 2012 2:29 PM
58 Learning about ways to improve energy efficiency that I was not familiar with.
Learning what would be most cost effective.
Sep 17, 2012 2:19 PM
59 Prioritizing what to do to the home to save the most energy.Sep 17, 2012 2:15 PM
60 Homed in on the important things.Sep 17, 2012 1:23 PM
61 Seeing the various areas of my house that were inefficient and letting heat out or
cold air in. I found some useful tips on adding insulation in certain areas that will
help improve the homes efficiency.
Sep 17, 2012 1:10 PM
62 Learning about the hidden good things and bad things with the house.Sep 17, 2012 1:05 PM
63 Just to know what needs to be done to decrease the heat loss.Sep 17, 2012 12:54 PM
64 Identifying all the ways my home was affected by poor insulation or construction. Sep 17, 2012 12:47 PM
65 I found out that the windows I was planning to replace were not the problem. The
problem was a need for improved air sealing. This saved me a ton of money.
Sep 17, 2012 12:45 PM
66 To know for sure that the measures we have taken to improve the effeciency of
our older home are doing what we hoped.
Sep 17, 2012 12:36 PM
67 Offer the $50 deal more often so more homeowners can benefit Sep 17, 2012 12:34 PM
68 Recommendations made Sep 17, 2012 12:33 PM
27 of 46
Page 7, Q1. 7(a). What, if anything, about the Boise City Home Audit Program was most satisfying to you?
69 the chance for a disconted home energy audit. I want to improve the energy
efficiency of my home, but didn't know what were the best cost effective steps to
take. I am now in the process of insulating portionis of my home based upon the
energy audit.
Sep 17, 2012 12:31 PM
70 Well-rounded; provided information about things that were found in the course of
the audit which needed addressed that were not specifically part of the audit (in
my case, crawlspace dampness)
Sep 17, 2012 12:09 PM
71 new light bulbs that were fluorescent Sep 17, 2012 11:52 AM
72 testing how much goes out of the house with that huge piece of equipment he
put on the front door.
Sep 17, 2012 11:48 AM
73 Auditor showed me ways to increase the efficiency of my HVAC and provided
recommendation of a qualified company to further evaluate and do the work.
Sep 17, 2012 11:47 AM
74 It seemed to be very thorough.Sep 17, 2012 11:45 AM
75 Just getting the info to better our home.Sep 17, 2012 11:41 AM
76 gaining additional knowledge Sep 17, 2012 11:37 AM
77 daeewrwarew Sep 17, 2012 9:15 AM
78 I learned about the value of crawl space insulation and what alternatives there
were to insulation. I learned a little more about types of heating and A/C
systems, especially hybrids. I found out where my major air leaks were located.
Aug 17, 2011 6:18 AM
79 incandescent change out, blower door test Jul 13, 2011 4:36 PM
80 reliable resources Jul 13, 2011 1:04 PM
81 I WILL IMPLEMENT SOME OF THE ITEMS CHRIS RECOMMENDED Jul 12, 2011 3:55 PM
82 It was good to get a few 'action-items' to improve home energy efficiency.Jul 6, 2011 8:44 AM
83 all did a great job the 1st auditer dropped out the program. was changed indays
to new one
Jul 4, 2011 3:41 PM
84 It was a resonable price to find out how to save energy.Jul 3, 2011 5:36 PM
85 The C rating was eye opening as well as the money we are wasting. We also
appreciate knowing about the improvements that are required to make our
home more efficient.
Jun 30, 2011 12:56 PM
86 Making energy reduction a priority in the City of Boise.Jun 30, 2011 7:45 AM
87 knowing that our home is airtight, no leaks, for energy savings Jun 29, 2011 2:23 PM
88 Personalized recommendations for improving my home's energy efficiency. Jun 29, 2011 11:36 AM
89 Finding ways to save energy, but discouraged by the amount of cost to upgrade
an older home in the things that matter the most like furnace and AC units.
Jun 29, 2011 11:17 AM
28 of 46
Page 7, Q1. 7(a). What, if anything, about the Boise City Home Audit Program was most satisfying to you?
90 Information provided on installing an attic solar fan.Jun 29, 2011 11:11 AM
91 I liked the free CFL bulbs. I want to start using more of them. I signed up
because of the insulating of the water pipes and to find out other ideas to
improve our homes energy effeciency. Overall it was good, but I was
disappointed to find out that the insulating was not actually part of the audit.
Jun 29, 2011 11:02 AM
92 Chris' knowledge. He knows what he's talking about.Jun 29, 2011 8:59 AM
93 information was good, but we don't have the money to make most of the
changes suggested
Jun 29, 2011 8:39 AM
94 Cfl bulbs & showerhead Jun 29, 2011 8:24 AM
95 Get an inspector that is not trying to sell something.Jun 28, 2011 8:52 PM
96 A follow up survey AFTER I have had a chance to see if following through with
the recommendations was cost efficient
Jun 28, 2011 8:44 PM
97 I liked the efficincy measurement (device that looks like a backwards fan) and his
tips for improving the energy efficiency. Everyone should do this.
Jun 28, 2011 5:19 PM
98 Very informative, good use of time.Jun 28, 2011 12:38 PM
99 I thought it was a very reasonable cost for the service provided.Jun 28, 2011 10:10 AM
100 Helping find ways to improve energy efficiency Jun 28, 2011 8:53 AM
101 Professionalism, informative Jun 28, 2011 8:25 AM
102 they were nice and very helpfull Jun 28, 2011 7:30 AM
103 Showed me the problem areas around windows, doors and electrical outlets. Jun 27, 2011 6:56 PM
104 It helped me prioritise my needs and gave me the momentum to make some
changes.
Jun 27, 2011 4:52 PM
105 The program let me know some concerns I had regarding my home. It helped
me to know what specifically to look at and I found out the some of my concerns
were unwarranted.
Jun 27, 2011 4:44 PM
106 I wish that some weatherization techniques were taught along with the process. Jun 27, 2011 3:06 PM
107 confirming our house was pretty energy efficient Jun 27, 2011 3:00 PM
108 Because I do have an older home, it was helpful to see what things I am going to
need to do in the near future to make my home a safer environment.
Jun 27, 2011 2:23 PM
109 Learning what I can do for my home to increase the energy efficiency Jun 27, 2011 1:54 PM
110 Ease of setting it up; cost; energy-saving tips; replacement of light bulbs; follow-
up information.
Jun 27, 2011 1:36 PM
111 Knowing the small things we could do to improve our energy.Jun 27, 2011 1:20 PM
29 of 46
Page 7, Q1. 7(a). What, if anything, about the Boise City Home Audit Program was most satisfying to you?
112 Observation of the home with respect to energy conversion and not a typical
home inspection
Jun 27, 2011 1:03 PM
113 Kevin validated our thinking as to what could be improved around our house. Jun 7, 2011 3:50 PM
114 Identifying trouble areas, the cost of fixing them and the possible savings of
implementing the changes.
May 16, 2011 3:51 PM
115 Pointed out areas and ideas for improvement to reduce energy costs.May 15, 2011 4:06 AM
116 don't know.May 13, 2011 6:27 AM
117 Not sure, because I do not think there is much I can do at this point to reduce my
power bill.
May 4, 2011 9:40 AM
118 It was available to me, did not need to find a contractor on my own.May 1, 2011 1:12 PM
119 The auditor's ability to explain the procedures and findings in layman's language. Apr 29, 2011 8:51 AM
120 Learning about results of survey, where to improve & what is most critical Apr 28, 2011 9:42 AM
121 the willingness to help.Apr 27, 2011 2:38 PM
122 Learning what improvements I could make in order to increase the energy
efficiency of my home.
Apr 26, 2011 7:55 PM
123 Acknowledgement from audit team that we have good energy saving processes
in our home and things that we can do to improve upon them. We also
discovered a BIG leak in the ducting under the house.
Apr 26, 2011 8:37 AM
124 finding out how to make my home more energy efficent Apr 25, 2011 6:11 PM
125 Knowing my home is OK as far as energy leakage. Thanks Apr 25, 2011 6:09 PM
126 Reassured my believe that there were problems and that it wasn't totally
financially unreasonable to correct the problems over time.
Apr 25, 2011 11:16 AM
127 the entire audit of my home which we thought was preety efficient,,but learned
where the drafts come from now...
Apr 25, 2011 4:44 AM
128 showing me where I am losing heat/cooling, things i wasn't aware of, wish we
had more programs for low income people
Apr 24, 2011 9:21 PM
129 I particularly appreciated seeing the pictures of the attic and crawl space... Apr 23, 2011 4:35 PM
130 The audit itself was very enlightening; when we went to get alternate bids to get
some work done, we ended up with Todd's Heating and Cooling. They did
another, independent and free audit. And it was great; better than EcoHomes.
And they did the work for us and then tested us out after the work; providing a
report. The Boise city audit was the catalyst.
Apr 23, 2011 9:02 AM
131 viewing areas with the IR camera Apr 22, 2011 7:24 PM
132 I didn't know that I lacked insulation in my crawlspace, and I didn't know that my Apr 22, 2011 4:16 PM
30 of 46
Page 7, Q1. 7(a). What, if anything, about the Boise City Home Audit Program was most satisfying to you?
vapor barrier was totally ineffective. Knowing that and having it fixed gave me
great satisfaction. I also appreciated having my furnace updated before it
stopped working; I had time to move it to the garage and gain another closet in
my house.
133 They showed me where the holes in the ducts are and how the duct work is
done and not doneproperly
Apr 22, 2011 2:24 PM
134 The explanation of possible ways to improve our energy efficiency and praise for
what we are doing right.
Apr 22, 2011 2:17 PM
135 Fast and professional response and answers to questions regarding energy
improvements and cost and energy savings.
Apr 22, 2011 1:57 PM
136 The amenities, ie light bulbs, shower head. , low cost "inspection"Apr 22, 2011 1:22 PM
137 It gave me a guideline for things that need to be done.Apr 22, 2011 1:06 PM
138 Knowing that my home is fairly typical and that, apart from the bonus room, is
fairly energy efficient. I also appreciate very much the light bulbs offerred and
the water heater insulation.
Apr 22, 2011 12:24 PM
139 Unerstanding that the actions I have previously taken are proving advantagous
as well as learning other new ides to try.
Apr 22, 2011 10:49 AM
140 Ease of scheduling, understanding status of our home and where we can reduce
energy usage.
Apr 22, 2011 9:42 AM
141 THey were extremely thorough in explaining alternatives and also verifying our
thoughts about how to improve energy efficiency in our home.
Apr 22, 2011 9:30 AM
142 It is so important that Idaho Power has programs like this to raise awareness and
educate customers on the best way to use and conserve energy! This is a
wonderful program at an extremely affordable price and I hope to see more of
the same from Idaho Power and other local utility companies.
Apr 22, 2011 9:14 AM
143 I now understand the things that can be changed to improve my energy
efficiency, rather than just guessing.
Apr 22, 2011 9:06 AM
144 Identifying areas for improved energy efficiency Apr 22, 2011 9:02 AM
145 Developing a good plan of what actions - and in what order - we could take to
improve the energy efficiency of our home.
Apr 22, 2011 8:48 AM
146 Having a thorough review of my home and the educational aspects.Apr 22, 2011 8:14 AM
147 The cost Apr 22, 2011 8:09 AM
148 Knowing what can be done to use less energy in the home Apr 13, 2011 7:53 AM
149 Understanding the mix of options to improve efficiency and learning that my old
house wasn't so bad off.
Apr 13, 2011 6:58 AM
150 Having them actually going under my house and up in the attic.Apr 12, 2011 5:28 PM
31 of 46
Page 7, Q1. 7(a). What, if anything, about the Boise City Home Audit Program was most satisfying to you?
151 It clarified some misunderstandings I had about what it would take to fix our
problems.
Apr 8, 2011 8:58 PM
152 Getting some good ideas about how to decrease my heating bill.Apr 6, 2011 8:19 AM
153 Results seemed better than expected.Apr 5, 2011 8:09 PM
154 To know what needed to be done to improve the integrity of my home; and to
know how to prioritize those issues.
Apr 5, 2011 12:19 PM
155 Knowing that my 1973 home built by my father is near or close to energy star
homes built today! Yaa for solid, older craftsmanship versus the up in three days
building pieces of junk that is going on now. We insulated the attic this fall and
the only thing we could do that would help would be to go back in and insulate
the walls. Other than that, the house is quite energy efficient. We appreciate the
low flow shower head and all the other perks that came with the audit (light
bulbs, etc.)
Apr 4, 2011 9:55 PM
156 Nothing Apr 4, 2011 8:35 PM
157 The cost and potential for improving our home's efficiency.Apr 4, 2011 8:14 PM
158 Understanding where I should invest to improve my house energy efficiency Apr 4, 2011 7:34 PM
159 learning where our major energy loss existed in our house Apr 4, 2011 6:07 PM
160 Knowing concretely where the "leaks" were in my house--in other words, where
we needed further insulation, etc.
Apr 4, 2011 4:59 PM
161 Really liked the pressure test.Apr 4, 2011 3:21 PM
162 I hadn't really thought too much about the crawl space before. I knew that my
house was leaky in the upstairs.
Apr 4, 2011 2:08 PM
163 Knowing that my home is fairly well insulated and the appliances that I have
could be upgraded for better efficiency was satisfying to me.
Apr 4, 2011 9:40 AM
164 Checking under my house....glad it was dry and also found out how my fireplace
is a very bad source of cold air coming in....liked that they wrapped pipes around
my water heater and changed some lightbulbs out. Liked knowing that my home
was not in too bad of shape, considering.
Apr 4, 2011 9:10 AM
165 The auditor identified many issues that were easy fixes and not very expensive. Apr 4, 2011 8:52 AM
166 The information i received to continue making energy improvements to my home
and the free light bulbs.
Apr 4, 2011 7:59 AM
167 I was happy to learn about ways to save energy in my home and have
implemented most of the suggestions offered.
Apr 4, 2011 7:21 AM
168 verify the problems that I knew existed and some addition things that i should
take care of
Apr 4, 2011 6:50 AM
169 Confirmation of some of the things I thought might be energy problem areas. Apr 4, 2011 6:48 AM
32 of 46
Page 7, Q1. 7(a). What, if anything, about the Boise City Home Audit Program was most satisfying to you?
170 Availability and cost Apr 3, 2011 6:18 PM
171 Essentially confirming what I already thought I knew Apr 2, 2011 9:14 PM
172 finding out what needs to be done.Apr 2, 2011 12:24 PM
173 I thought I was doing a pretty good job around the house keeping it draft free etc.
The audit showed me additional places that I would have never thought of. Also
having someone count out all the incandescent lights in the house amazed me at
how many lights I truly have
Apr 2, 2011 10:29 AM
174 Getting the water heater better insulated and completing CFL retrofit.Apr 1, 2011 10:21 AM
175 Identifying leaks in the home and possible solutions. thoroughness of the audit,
attic to crawl space
Mar 30, 2011 4:05 PM
176 The quick response time.Mar 30, 2011 11:05 AM
177 The opportunity to have a person come in and actually look at the existing
energy uses in our house and make personalized recommendations.
Mar 30, 2011 5:45 AM
178 Learning inexpensive things we could do to increase the energy efficiency in our
home. It was interesting to see where we were experiencing air leaks so we
could get those areas remedied
Mar 29, 2011 6:11 PM
179 The program itself, having this audit available.Mar 29, 2011 2:39 PM
180 great savings - though I've recently learned that one of the heating and cooling
companies is performing the same audit at no charge.
Mar 29, 2011 2:06 PM
181 Tangible & affordable recommendations on what I can do to save energy. Mar 29, 2011 1:38 PM
182 being able to get an itemized list of what we can do to increase the efficiency of
our home. before we could only speculate what we could do and the effect it may
or may not have... after the audit we had a clear list
Mar 29, 2011 12:57 PM
183 The ease. I would never have sought out an audit without this program.Mar 29, 2011 12:44 PM
184 The ability to have a professional evaluate our home's energy use and to then
provide us with a direction for future home improvement projects.
Mar 28, 2011 12:51 PM
185 It was educational and when I understood how I could improve my energy
consumption I was motivated to make changes.
Mar 27, 2011 8:18 PM
186 Information from an independent source. If feel, if I called an insulation company
to inquire about whether I needed more insulation, I think there's a strong
probably they would say yes whether it was true or not.
Mar 27, 2011 7:47 PM
187 Learning some simple ways to increase the efficiency of my home and most
interesting where I am losing alot of efficiency that did not even occur to me.
Mar 27, 2011 3:23 PM
188 Information about how to improve energy efficiency in my home.Mar 27, 2011 8:03 AM
189 The audit seemed thorough and was very specific about actions we could take. Mar 27, 2011 5:51 AM
33 of 46
Page 7, Q1. 7(a). What, if anything, about the Boise City Home Audit Program was most satisfying to you?
190 Great to be able to discuss ideas/plans/priorities with Chris during the audit.
Could have used a bit more clarification, tangible recommendations in the mailed
report.
Mar 26, 2011 7:40 PM
191 We found the explanations about drafts and energy conservation through
insulation and other methods most useful.
Mar 26, 2011 4:40 PM
192 The result. I hope that my energy efficiency will be improved.Mar 26, 2011 4:21 PM
193 Simple, convenient, useful, informative Mar 26, 2011 3:53 PM
194 Just having them review our electrical systems and make suggestions Mar 26, 2011 3:39 PM
195 Finding out how to reduce energy costs and what home improvements are
needed to do so.
Mar 26, 2011 2:59 PM
196 Learning that replacing my metal windows is not the most cost effective measure
in saving energy. I believed the hype about new windows, but I learned of better
ways to spend my money, like putting more insulation in my attic and sealing up
some leaks.
Mar 26, 2011 1:09 PM
197 Ease of sign-up; peace of mind at end knowing that we had finally completed an
audit process that we'd long planned to do and had finally got around to doing.
Mar 26, 2011 12:37 PM
198 The modest cost for great information. I can now choose the most energy saving
additions (ductwork, insulation) to start with within my budget.
Mar 26, 2011 12:21 PM
199 To have them verify we were on the right track for enery conservation. Also
gave us insite as to what we need to do to update our home's insulation.
Mar 26, 2011 11:48 AM
200 Finding out where the problems were so we can take future action to resolve
them.
Mar 26, 2011 11:27 AM
201 Knowledge, Explaining the program, Skill Level, friendly and courteous.Mar 26, 2011 11:00 AM
202 finding out where to invest in further insulation or updates to reduce energy
consumption
Mar 26, 2011 10:48 AM
203 The affordable cost and the fact that all that cost will come back to me in energy
savings easliy in the first year with some simple upgrades.
Mar 26, 2011 7:27 AM
204 I felt like a 'rescue team' came to our house! Right away they started changing
light bulbs and getting down to business! Wish we could get that kind of service
from every area of industry/customer service! Fantastic team!
Mar 25, 2011 8:53 PM
205 Learning where the biggest opportunities are to improve the energy efficiency of
our home and the recommendations from the auditor on which are most
important and how to address them.
Mar 25, 2011 8:44 PM
206 Everything Mar 25, 2011 8:02 PM
207 The print material that accompanied the audit was very valuable. I used the
results of the audit as a tool in making the decision to purchase a new energy
efficient furnance.
Mar 25, 2011 6:53 PM
34 of 46
Page 7, Q1. 7(a). What, if anything, about the Boise City Home Audit Program was most satisfying to you?
208 The cost was reasonable fr what I got.Mar 25, 2011 5:39 PM
209 The free items were great, and I plan to do at least some of the suggestions to
make more home more energy efficient.
Mar 25, 2011 5:36 PM
210 Two things. Ease of enrolling and the easy to understand audit results Mar 25, 2011 5:19 PM
211 thoroughness, cost Mar 25, 2011 4:13 PM
212 Learning how to prioritize future energy efficiency projects.Mar 25, 2011 3:41 PM
213 Practical recommendations for increasing energy efficiency of my home. The
audit results give me some specific and measurable steps I can take to
accomplish this.
Mar 25, 2011 3:40 PM
214 The suggestions for improvement of our insulation and ductwork.Mar 25, 2011 3:40 PM
215 Love my new efficient light-bulbs!!Mar 25, 2011 2:59 PM
216 Most of the recommendations they had were very easy and inexpensive to
implement.
Mar 25, 2011 2:34 PM
217 Knowing that our house is not a leaking sieve! Mr. Callor and his team said that
this house is actually in better shape, for retaining heat, than an EnergyStar
home. This let us know that we don't need to be replacing the windows, etc.,
right away, as we had feared.
Mar 25, 2011 1:25 PM
218 Pointed to affordable, relatively easy improvements that I could implement
quickly. Home is much more comfortable.
Mar 25, 2011 1:20 PM
219 Knowing where to save energy and money.Mar 25, 2011 12:53 PM
220 The cost. The professional review of our home energy needs. The follow-up
report/recommendations we received.
Mar 25, 2011 11:57 AM
221 Knowing we need to put insulation around the perimeter of our crawl space. Mar 25, 2011 11:54 AM
222 knowledge I gained Mar 25, 2011 11:37 AM
223 I thought that we had a faily efficient home and was startled to find out all of the
things that were hidden and so important to energy efficiency. Thank you Idaho
Power!
Mar 25, 2011 11:22 AM
224 Finding out how "leaky" my house is and how to fix it.Mar 25, 2011 11:18 AM
225 It allowed me to prioritize my home energy improvements based in impact and
cost.
Mar 25, 2011 10:37 AM
226 to learn how easy it was to save energy and the programs available to help with
the more difficult projects. Like replacing windows or adding insulation.
Mar 25, 2011 10:34 AM
227 Kevin Mar 25, 2011 10:22 AM
228 cost and thoroughness Mar 25, 2011 10:17 AM
35 of 46
Page 7, Q1. 7(a). What, if anything, about the Boise City Home Audit Program was most satisfying to you?
229 Confirmed issues that I felt about the house. Implemented some things that I
should have done before. Overall I have more confidence that I am doing things
that can help cut down on energy usage.
Mar 25, 2011 10:16 AM
230 I wished that I had the audit done prior to changes that I'd already made within
my home. I have to admit that some of the recommendations coming from Chris
Callor seemed to be biased because he owns his own company that happens to
perform those modifications for clients. That being said, we will probably still call
him to have it done as he seemed very knowledgeable. Also, Chris identified a
leak in my plumbing that I was unaware of beforehand. This was certainly a nice
side benefit.
Mar 25, 2011 10:14 AM
231 The debrief at the end. Very easy to understand and answered my questions
directly in language I got. Terrific!
Mar 25, 2011 10:13 AM
232 Understanding the site-specific (my house) needs, options, and relative cost
effectiveness to make my house more energy efficient
Mar 25, 2011 10:00 AM
233 UNderstanding air quality Mar 25, 2011 9:32 AM
234 Found that my cam lights are leaking the most air into my kitchen Mar 25, 2011 9:21 AM
235 It was interesting to watch the process and I learned some interesting things. Mar 25, 2011 9:20 AM
236 Knowing what to fix to help reduce my utility bills Mar 25, 2011 9:20 AM
237 Knowing exactly what I could do to improve my home's efficiency by getting a
punch list with tips
Mar 25, 2011 9:15 AM
238 it helped us locate issues in our home (no insulation under the house) that we
were not aware of, we've since insulated these areas and feel like it has made a
difference in our energy costs
Mar 25, 2011 9:15 AM
36 of 46
37 of 46
Page 8, Q1. 7(b). What, if anything, about the Boise City Home Audit Program was most dissatisfying to you?
1 The improvements he could have made but didn't. The $49 fee wasn't worth it at
all.
Oct 2, 2012 9:43 AM
2 It lacks a way for homeowners to affordably finance needed improvements. Oct 1, 2012 9:40 AM
3 after the audit was complete i was given some paperwork to find websites w/
energy programs/grants, i felt like i could have don this on my own. going to the
websites is a bit irritating as each website says click on this link then you click on
it, then you have to click on another link, it gets to the point where it's just a big
waste of time. would be nice if the paper work given will have a direct link where
you can find energy saving grants/ programs rather then just a website with no
direction.
Sep 28, 2012 6:06 PM
4 they spent so much of my time and then never followed up with an estimate, they
did not even call back
Sep 19, 2012 5:26 PM
5 Very little information on what the recommended inprovement would mean to me
in terms of saving in the future and what numbers it would be possible to achieve
on my 30 year old house.
Sep 19, 2012 9:20 AM
6 Was under the impression from the intro. letter that heating ducts would be
wrapped as part of the audit
Sep 19, 2012 7:31 AM
7 I was told I would receive 20 CFL light bulbs, only light bulbs available to me
were spot lights. Overall audit was simply "you have an old house that is drafty."
I already knew that..
Sep 17, 2012 8:21 PM
8 The auditor himself; he was pleasant and nice but the written report did not
reflect our furnishings.
Sep 17, 2012 6:59 PM
9 already said...Sep 17, 2012 6:42 PM
10 The official report being way below the verbal report.Sep 17, 2012 5:45 PM
11 I had expectations of minor replacements or repair included in the audit
according to the mailing that we received. All that was replaced was 1 light bulb
and no list of programs to help lower income families upgrade.
Sep 17, 2012 4:49 PM
12 I must have miss understood the entire thing. I thought that the auditor was
going to be bringing in effecient light bulbs (a certain number ony), would be
sealing around door-ways, providing a blanket for the water heater if needed and
other items. nothing like that was done or offered. Did I totally read the sign up
letter wrong, because I already knew what I was told, I did this because I thought
tht I was going to be getting some helps out of this audit for the miniimal fee that
I paid. Thank you for your time in addressing my questions.
Sep 17, 2012 3:53 PM
13 Nothing was done at all that I couldn't have done myself for the same cost,
hence, I can not see that there was any advantage gained by applying for the
program. The program description indicated that some things would be done as
part of the audit, and that was not the case.
Sep 17, 2012 2:03 PM
14 The literature "advertising" the program said it would cost $10 less than I was
charged. It also said we'd get the lightbulbs that use less energy. I didn't get
Sep 17, 2012 1:32 PM
38 of 46
Page 8, Q1. 7(b). What, if anything, about the Boise City Home Audit Program was most dissatisfying to you?
any light bulbs...which seems like a petty thing, until you realize that was what
was promised. The $10 higher price was hard to swallow, especially when there
wasn't anything else suggested that I could do to save energy.
15 When I got the final report, most of the findings in the report were never
discussed with me while the auditor was at my home.
Sep 17, 2012 12:31 PM
16 Other than recommendations to replace my appliances, which would be quite
expensive, I didn't feel like I was given any information that was all that helpful.
Also, perhaps it was a misunderstanding on my part, but I thought that he would
be bringing energy saving fluorescent light bulbs (Stated in application packet)
which was not the case.
Sep 17, 2012 12:30 PM
17 It just wasn't valuable for an 'average' home.Sep 17, 2012 12:14 PM
18 Lack of options for lighting and perhaps they do not exist. I really do not care for
fluorescent lamps and that was really the only option presented. My house was
pretty tight overall but I guess looking for a better overall evaluation and options
other than replacing all of my appliances, furnace and electronics.
Sep 17, 2012 11:57 AM
19 sadfsadfa Sep 17, 2012 8:03 AM
20 See previous response.Dec 28, 2011 3:37 PM
21 Waste of time! They put in a few lightbulbs for 50 bucks Jun 29, 2011 3:48 PM
22 Had a question about one of the items that was proposed and called the city
building dept. to see if it was legal. I have yet to receive a return call. We did
not go with the proposed item as HVAC company and and architect did not
recommend it. If the city is going to sponsor a program all departments should
be available for question and give it support.
Jun 28, 2011 9:33 AM
23 The sales tactics for a duct sealing system. This clearly completely biases the
auditor and when one pays for an energy audit, one would not want a sales
pitch. Clearly a conflict of interest and shows the lack of integrity of those in
charge of this program from Idaho Power.
Jun 27, 2011 8:31 PM
24 The price I had to pay for the audit vs. the benefits received.Jun 27, 2011 1:04 PM
25 The discrepancies between what the auditor told me at the time of the audit and
what was in the written report. Also, some of the findings in the report are just
wrong.
May 9, 2011 6:56 AM
26 I was disappointed in the general nature of many of the suggestions - buy energy
star appliances? - use CFL lightbulbs? Come on.
May 5, 2011 7:09 PM
27 Lack of specific recommendations and cost/benefit data. Where is the audit? Apr 22, 2011 10:39 PM
28 EcoHomes....scary fraudulent Apr 22, 2011 2:30 PM
29 I expectem more detail about windows, our weakness, etc, where we could
improve. In the end, there was not much done except change some light bulbs
and put a small wrap on our water heater pipes
Apr 22, 2011 9:58 AM
39 of 46
Page 8, Q1. 7(b). What, if anything, about the Boise City Home Audit Program was most dissatisfying to you?
30 As explained before: 1) A total waste of time and money. 2) Lack of
professionalism of the auditors. 3) No report was provided. 4) Unable to
communicate with the coordinators of this program: Beth Baird or Andrea
Simmonsen. 5) Lack of interest from Idaho Power and Boise City on conducting
an immediate follow up.
Apr 11, 2011 11:33 PM
31 The follow up visit to explain the suggested improvements resulting from the
audit. I needed time to consider the options presented to me, and was pressured
to make a desicion that night. That was the biggest reason I chose not to go with
EcoHomes.
Apr 8, 2011 9:29 AM
32 The price versus the quality/quantity of work performed.Apr 6, 2011 10:47 AM
33 It is my understanding that as part of the program per the Idaho Power website,
the auditor was to seal air leaks around my furnace. The auditor did not perform
this function. He simply pointed out the air leaks to me and told me I needed to
seal them. In addition, I questioned how knowledgeable a person from Western
Heating and Air Conditioning really is with this. I would feel more comfortable
having someone who actually specializes in home audits from a company like
EcoHome Solutions performing my audit. I would like to request a new audit from
that company if possible please. I can be reached at 473-0147.
Apr 6, 2011 10:08 AM
34 I have filled out the energy tool profile and my home consistently uses much less
energy than another home of it's similar set up. yet I got horrible scores on my
report. and both my auditor and the follow up auditor told me everything was
pretty good on my home. Every home has areas for improvement but I was
ANGRY that my scores reflected what they did. I work for Idaho Power so I
know much more about my usage than the average customer and felt the scores
were ridiculous and misleading. If I was a normal home owner I would have
spent thousands of dollars to get my scores up with little to no energy savings at
all. THIS PROGRAM IS AWFUL AND MISLEADING!!!!
Apr 4, 2011 8:12 AM
35 I understood the audit to be different than it was. I thought the auditor was going
to seal/wrap my doors, etc. I expected the auditor or Idaho Power or Boise City
to tell me where EXACTLY to spend my dollars to get the most bang for my buck
but no one was willing to give me any firm, direct advice. I find that very
frustrating. Now I have knowledge but still no clear direction on what to do or
what will give me the most efficiency for my dollars. The audit NEEDS to come
with faster results, faster follow up, and usable information SPECIFIC to my
home. The pass/fail report that arrived 3 months after the audit was insulting
and conflicted with the state of my home and the comments from the auditors. It
also told me nothing. The audit was worth $50 but not any more. I had higher
expectations. I would not recommend this program to friends or family.
Apr 4, 2011 7:10 AM
36 You publicized that it would be a huge benefit for homeowners- I don't feel it was
a huge benefit. When I read the report he marked C and D in categories that are
not true about our home. He was verbally very good to talk to. Maybe you
should include insulation in stead of shower heads and light bulbs.
Apr 4, 2011 5:06 AM
37 I saw on TV recently that Todd's is doing audits for free. The fee wasn't much,
but I had hoped for more than two CFLs and a low-flow shower head.
Additionally, I didn't feel like the auditor had enough information from the
company on what the final report would look like. The report arrived months after
Mar 29, 2011 1:54 PM
40 of 46
Page 8, Q1. 7(b). What, if anything, about the Boise City Home Audit Program was most dissatisfying to you?
the audit was done (or so it felt like). I love the fact that this was offered, but feel
like there was some miscommunication about what to expect.
38 Was expecting use of an infrared camera and draft locator. Identifying the exact
location of heat loss was important to me, but that ability was not made avaialble
in the energy audit program. I mentioned this to the auditor and he agreed it was
a deficiency in the program.
Mar 29, 2011 1:34 PM
39 The trying to give me a loan was extremely dissatisfying Mar 27, 2011 1:40 PM
40 that the person who does it can benefit from our making improvements Mar 27, 2011 6:39 AM
41 I was hoping the auditors would provide more detailed recommendations to
improve my home's energy efficiency, however, the auditors did not want to
divulge all information because they were also selling their company's services
to make my home more energy efficient.
Mar 26, 2011 4:22 PM
42 Need more practical specifics on what to do to improve. I should have been
there and he could have walked me through window to window, door to door
exactly what I needed to do- eg use xyz weather stripping for this window, use
xyz for the doors etc. I am glad you are offering this program to help with the
energy crisis! THANKS!
Mar 26, 2011 10:24 AM
43 I paid $49, received a half dozen lightbulbs (because they didn't have enough
with them)and an energy audit recommending solutions beyond my financial
means. I was expecting more hands on solutions and recommendations for
more accesible and affordable solutions.
Mar 25, 2011 10:51 PM
44 I wouldn't call this dissatisfying, but I'm sure many audits have some common
problems and it would be nice if contractors were in place at a group discount for
the improvements... the el-ada program for the elderly is a great example of
energy savings improvements...
Mar 25, 2011 5:58 PM
45 I understood they would do small things like wrap water heaters and pipes if
necessary. Perhaps none of that was necessary, but nothing was done except 2
light bulbs were replaced.
Mar 25, 2011 5:42 PM
46 As I said, he talked about more efficient heaters but didn't say anything at all
about making the house more efficient... He did tell us how to make a crawl
space more thermally efficient--after we asked.
Mar 25, 2011 5:22 PM
47 Consistancy of work. Auditor preforming different tasks at different homes. Mar 25, 2011 4:50 PM
48 The service/follow up I explained to you earlier. Good handouts, though.Mar 25, 2011 2:12 PM
49 Results of audit were not especially helpful and lack of accuracy of info on report
regarding appliances, etc..
Mar 25, 2011 12:47 PM
50 Just the whole way the program is handled!Mar 25, 2011 12:30 PM
51 I didn't fell I got enough explanation as to ways to improve or what the test
results meant. On one had they told me the house was too tight then they said I
needed to add insulation to certain walls. It was a little confusing.
Mar 25, 2011 11:23 AM
41 of 46
Page 8, Q1. 7(b). What, if anything, about the Boise City Home Audit Program was most dissatisfying to you?
52 Please read my former comnments, what a waste of tax payer money. This
contractor you sent out was nothing more than a guy who went bankrupt as a
former contractor, who left many people in the treasure valley with thousands
upon thousands of unpaid bills. Now he is getting government contracts because
he starts a new company wiith a new name and no one bothers to do their
homework or due diligence on this guy? The city vouches for these guys and its
seems they have been vetted by the city? It was a sham.
Mar 25, 2011 10:06 AM
53 Audit was no problematic. The auditor who offerred to fix our problems was not
professional in his follow through.
Mar 25, 2011 9:25 AM
42 of 46
43 of 46
Page 10, Q1. 9. If you have other comments about the Boise City Home Audit Program, please enter them below:
1 I was dissappointed that by the time our audit was done all the little perks, light
bulbs etc were gone.
Oct 2, 2012 8:45 PM
2 It's good to know where energy leaks are in the house and how to fix them. Oct 1, 2012 9:30 PM
3 1. I did not get a shower head replacement, was told they were out of them. 2.
The man explained how to turn off the gas fireplace, but would not do it for me.
Sep 27, 2012 5:02 PM
4 I didn't like how they were out of light bulbs, etc, to replace because you think
you are investing and some stuff will be replaced to help out with energy costs
but nothing that I can recall was replaced or giving in my house to help out with
energy saving.
Sep 27, 2012 12:36 PM
5 Wish I had done it sooner. Please work on continuing this program.Sep 22, 2012 8:55 AM
6 It caused us to make many improvements in our home's energy efficiency. Sep 18, 2012 9:02 PM
7 Dont run out of light bulbs or shower heads Sep 18, 2012 12:57 PM
8 I think I was confused when I signed up and thought there would be more
"freebies" (like light bulbs, water heater covers, etc.) He left one light bulb over
the sink and some covers on the pipes of the water heater). Maybe the cover
wasn't needed, but it is in the garage. I think this is a really neat program and it
was useful to me and these comments are just to help in the future. I just was a
little disappointed by what was advertised and what was actually given, although
he did do a good job with the audit of the house.
Sep 18, 2012 9:04 AM
9 List contractors who fix the problems identified in the audit, such as
weatherproofing doors and windows.
Sep 18, 2012 7:39 AM
10 Rudy was outstanding! He even wore booties when he came into the house. Sep 17, 2012 6:16 PM
11 More educational to have someone visit your home than to read fliers, etc. Sep 17, 2012 2:20 PM
12 Provide something as part of the audit. As it stands using the audit through you
accomplished nothing!
Sep 17, 2012 2:06 PM
13 I am not sure how this could be done but if Idaho Power could use truly
independent auditors I think that would help. The auditor that did my house was
probably right on with all his recommendations but in the back of my mind I was
always wondering if I was getting a straight answer or a sales pitch.
Sep 17, 2012 1:12 PM
14 Summarize most common energy leaks/waste and brief how-to repairs in a flyer Sep 17, 2012 12:36 PM
15 Might be good for old houses, but wasn't useful for our house. the description of
the audit said that several hundred dollars worth of services/improvements would
be included, but we just got the audit results.
Sep 17, 2012 12:16 PM
16 Please work with the local business community to create a list of referral
opportunities to complete identified work. I realize you can't be in the position of
appearing to favor some suppliers over another, but knowing work needs to be
done that I'm not comfortable doing myself requires calling someone. Having a
list of approved/"known quantity" contractors able to do the work would make the
results of the audit more applicable.
Sep 17, 2012 12:12 PM
44 of 46
Page 10, Q1. 9. If you have other comments about the Boise City Home Audit Program, please enter them below:
17 aewraeeatearwae Sep 17, 2012 9:15 AM
18 asdfsdaf Sep 17, 2012 8:03 AM
19 While the cost vs information was about satisfactory, the 'free' CFL bulbs more
than made up for the cost of the audit. Nice touch.
Dec 28, 2011 3:38 PM
20 It would be nice to understand any federal or state programs available to help
homeowners burden of improvements. I do appreciate the testing result
information sent to us with the ideas of how to make improvements (booklet).
The lights that were changed out are working great and a good savings to us.
This aduit was a informative tool making us aware of future projects.
Jun 30, 2011 1:00 PM
21 Kevin was a heating guy, so that clearly became his focus. He thought I had
vinyl windows, but they are aluminum. He didn't really have much knowledge
about the advantage or disadvantage of adding an attic fan. He quickly looked
at my attic and determined that I didn't have soffit covers for the vents (so he
thought the insulation was covering the vents). In fact, the covers are in place.
For $49, it was a good audit. He did point out some good things. I just felt that
his main purpose was to hopefully generate new business (which is probably
exactly why Western Heating participated in the audit).
Jun 29, 2011 11:09 AM
22 When scheduling, please give a contact number in case rescheduling is
necessary. ..I happened to remember that he worked for Western Heating so I
could reschedule, but otherwise I would have been a no-show.
Jun 28, 2011 5:20 PM
23 I attempted to feedback info via email...perhaps I missed some capital letters in
the address. Thank you for the program.
Jun 27, 2011 4:45 PM
24 Wish I could have questions answered after the audit. It is hard to think of
everything at the time of the audit. They negated the window I replaced and said
they would have resided the house first. They could only recommend another
company to see where heat was lost. I have clear idea how to improve fireplace,
but outside of that a little stumped.
May 4, 2011 9:44 AM
25 I thought I was going to receive a written from Idaho Power woth Tad comments,
is this true?
Apr 27, 2011 2:39 PM
26 For those of us that are not so technically savvy explain what the procedure to
correct things would involve.
Apr 25, 2011 11:16 AM
27 hard to get follow up / sit down appointment due to college and work. online
confernce calls / skpye or something may really be good for this,, once tthe
customerr (me) gets the audit paperwork back AND the digital photos that we
promised.
Apr 25, 2011 4:46 AM
28 This program was a welcome, easy and good way to get updated on new energy
saving options. It also gave me confidence vs simply calling any individual
contractor selling energy products.
Apr 23, 2011 8:17 AM
29 thank you for the help. I have wanted this done for three years. since I bought
this house
Apr 22, 2011 2:26 PM
45 of 46
Page 10, Q1. 9. If you have other comments about the Boise City Home Audit Program, please enter them below:
30 This is a good program. I still have questions but they concern the meter
reading done by Idaho Power and I understand not covered for the home audit.
Apr 22, 2011 1:08 PM
31 I have not received a written report about the audit.Apr 22, 2011 9:42 AM
32 Thank you for this awesome opportunity. Will it be available in other counties in
the future? My friends in Blaine county are interested.
Apr 22, 2011 8:16 AM
33 A total waste of time and money. There are several HVAC and insulation
companies in the Treasure Valley offering free energy evaluation with flexible
schedules.
Apr 11, 2011 11:33 PM
34 The report was very general. In my opinion it should be more specific to my
home and the results of the audit. Generally speaking, my take away, other than
the new light bulbs and shower head, was pretty slim. The only real
recommendation was to climatize my crawl space at a cost in excess of $3,000.
That is great, but I can walk through and find 10 items under $100 that should be
fixed that would make the home more energy efficient. Nice guy, very polite and
professional, but the take away was questionable.
Apr 10, 2011 10:45 AM
35 Their report was quickly put together and lacked two specific items: 1) insulating
one section of wall and 2) sealing light and can lights.
Apr 8, 2011 9:04 PM
36 I already recommended this to my mother.Apr 4, 2011 9:55 PM
37 In theory it was a good program, but I consider it a waste of my money. Five
minutes after the completed audit, I was able to get a contractor over who
completely disagreed with what the auditor said. Then I called another
contractor, for another opinion, and they also disagreed with the auditor's
evaluation. I felt like the auditor was trying to drum up business, and even bad
mouthed some of the contractors I had used in the past, and their products. Not
cool.
Apr 4, 2011 8:38 PM
38 I was expecting them to plug the leaks around windows and a few things like
that, which they didn't do.
Apr 4, 2011 10:09 AM
39 No comments.Apr 4, 2011 9:41 AM
40 Just need results in writing sooner.Apr 4, 2011 8:53 AM
41 There wasn't much of a mention of other Idaho Power programs available for me
to use.
Apr 4, 2011 8:23 AM
42 I think our water heater temperature may have gotten turned down, unknowown
to us. I think our basement freezer door may have been left ajar, resulting in
melting of some contents. I'm not sure if we did it or if the auditors did it. The
energy light bulbs they installed don't work on rheostat fixtures, so I've replaced
them with tungston bulbs. I had a couple of 30 watt bulbs in a small bathroom.
They replace them with 3 energy bulbs - the resulting light in there was too
bright, so I replaced the energy bulbs with 30 watt tungston bulbs.
Apr 4, 2011 6:54 AM
43 After we signed up for the audit - early on in the program - we continue to
receive letters promoting the program
Mar 29, 2011 2:07 PM
46 of 46
Page 10, Q1. 9. If you have other comments about the Boise City Home Audit Program, please enter them below:
44 (there are typos on two of your survey questions for the words "satisfied") Mar 28, 2011 12:52 PM
45 Need to advertise more widely. Heard about the program from a friend that is in
the know about these kinds of things.
Mar 27, 2011 3:25 PM
46 Great experience. Great follow up.Mar 27, 2011 8:04 AM
47 There was some confusion about "Account #" and "Service Agreement #"--the
application asked for one, but the verifying document used the other term. Yet
the email address provided would not accept my email asking for clarification.
Mar 27, 2011 5:55 AM
48 We are already aware of energy costs and ways to reduce usage, but we still
found the program helpful and informative. Kevin noted that we had already
completed many of the standard things they recommend, but the 5 or 6
recommendations he made should help us further reduce our energy
consumption.
Mar 26, 2011 4:42 PM
49 I think they should do a follow up test to see if the work they did changed what
they said it would...:)
Mar 26, 2011 3:40 PM
50 My only concern is the affordability of making all the recommended home
improvements. This house is our rental house, and our rental income does not
even cover the cost of the mortagage.
Mar 26, 2011 3:01 PM
51 Thanks very much for offering this program.Mar 26, 2011 12:37 PM
52 About the survey: some misspelling.Mar 26, 2011 12:22 PM
53 Andrea Simmonsen was extremely helpful from signing up for the audit & follow
up. GOOD JOB!
Mar 26, 2011 11:50 AM
54 I felt it was a good program and have told others I know to do it. Some have
signed up.
Mar 25, 2011 5:40 PM
55 it would be nice to have a list of programs that might be available along with
recommendations.
Mar 25, 2011 4:19 PM
56 I was surprised I hadn't learned about the program earlier. It was very hard to
find any information on the internet about the program. This needs to be
advertised better.
Mar 25, 2011 2:35 PM
57 We really appreciate the program, and hope that more people take advantage of
it.
Mar 25, 2011 1:25 PM
58 We are moving soon and would like to consider the same program in the new
house if possible.
Mar 25, 2011 1:21 PM
59 it would be nice to have financial incentives in place to Mar 25, 2011 10:20 AM
60 Now that I did the audit, who do I contact to help with the problems?Mar 25, 2011 9:22 AM
61 I am so glad i had my daughter do this. her furnace was emitting more carbon
monoxide than the auditor had ever seen. they will be getting a new furnace
soon. thank you.
Mar 25, 2011 9:18 AM
1 of 23
Boise City Home Audit Follow-up Survey
1. 1. How easy was it for you to apply for the Boise City Home Audit Program?
 Response
Percent
Response
Count
Very easy 77.4%103
Somewhat easy 22.6%30
Somewhat difficult  0.0%0
Very difficult  0.0%0
 answered question 133
 skipped question 2
2. 1(a). If the application process was difficult what was it about that process that made it
difficult?
 Response
Count
0
 answered question 0
 skipped question 135
2 of 23
3. 2. How satisfied were you with the ability to schedule a time and day for your audit that
was convenient for you?
 Response
Percent
Response
Count
Very        satisfied 83.2%109
Somewhat        satisfied 14.5%19
Somewhat       dissatisfied 2.3%3
Very       dissatisfied  0.0%0
 answered question 131
 skipped question 4
4. 2(a). If the appointment scheduling process was dissatisying for you, what was it about
the process that was dissatisfying
 Response
Count
 4
 answered question 4
 skipped question 131
3 of 23
5. 3. Please identify the auditor you used for your home audit.
 Response
Percent
Response
Count
Kevin Abbott, Western Heating and
Air Conditioning 23.8%29
Chris Callor, Affordable Energy
Improvements 42.6%52
Tad Duby, On Point, LLC with
Western Heating and Air
Conditioning
33.6%41
 answered question 122
 skipped question 13
6. 4. Please rate your home auditor on each of the following:
 Excellent Good Fair Poor Response
Count
Courteousness 84.0% (110)15.3% (20)0.8% (1)0.0% (0)131
Professionalism 77.1% (101)22.1% (29)0.8% (1)0.0% (0)131
Explanation of work/measurements
to be performed as part of audit 70.2% (92)23.7% (31)4.6% (6)1.5% (2)131
Explanation of recommendations
resulting from audit 67.2% (88)26.0% (34)6.1% (8)0.8% (1)131
Overall experience with auditor
(from scheduling an appointment to
follow-up after the audit)
69.0% (89)25.6% (33)5.4% (7)0.0% (0)129
 answered question 131
 skipped question 4
4 of 23
7. 5. If you have additional comments you would like to offer about your home auditor,
please enter them in the space below.
 Response
Count
 33
 answered question 33
 skipped question 102
8. 6. How much did the audit increase your understanding of ways to reduce energy usage?
 Response
Percent
Response
Count
A lot 42.3%55
Some 52.3%68
None at all 5.4%7
 answered question 130
 skipped question 5
9. 7. Overall, how would you rate the Boise City Home Audit Program?
 Response
Percent
Response
Count
Excellent 51.1%67
Good 32.1%42
Fair 13.7%18
Poor 3.1%4
 answered question 131
 skipped question 4
5 of 23
10. 7(a). What, if anything, about the Boise City Home Audit Program was most satisfying to
you?
 Response
Count
 77
 answered question 77
 skipped question 58
11. 7(b). What, if anything, about the Boise City Home Audit Program was most dissatisfying
to you?
 Response
Count
 19
 answered question 19
 skipped question 116
12. 8. How likely would you be to recommend the Boise City Home Audit Program to a friend
or relative?
 Response
Percent
Response
Count
Very         likely 61.5%80
Somewhat         likely 23.1%30
Somewhat         unlikely 8.5%11
Very         unlikely 6.9%9
 answered question 130
 skipped question 5
6 of 23
13. 9. If you have other comments about the Boise City Home Audit Program, please enter
them below:
 Response
Count
 18
 answered question 18
 skipped question 117
14. 10. Please identify your age in the ranges below:
 Response
Percent
Response
Count
Under 25  0.0%0
26-35 11.7%15
36-50 28.1%36
51-65 40.6%52
Over 65 19.5%25
 answered question 128
 skipped question 7
7 of 23
15. 11. What is the highest level of education you completed?
 Response
Percent
Response
Count
Less than high school 0.8%1
Some high school  0.0%0
High school graduate or equivalent 9.4%12
Some college 11.8%15
Two year Associate degree or      
Trade/Technical school 7.9%10
Four year college degree 30.7%39
Some graduate courses 9.4%12
Advanced degree 29.9%38
 answered question 127
 skipped question 8
8 of 23
Page 4, Q1. 2(a). If the appointment scheduling process was dissatisying for you, what was it about the process
that was dissatisfying
1 Service person didn't show up and didn't return our calls the day he was to arrive Sep 30, 2012 6:11 PM
2 The scheduling was fine. I was disappointed with the appointment itself.Sep 17, 2012 1:26 PM
3 It was difficult to get a hold of the auditor. There weren't many options for times
that he could come
Sep 17, 2012 11:45 AM
4 ertewrtwertwer Sep 17, 2012 8:03 AM
9 of 23
10 of 23
Page 5, Q3. 5. If you have additional comments you would like to offer about your home auditor, please enter
them in the space below.
1 What happened to the "up to $400 in improvements he could perform. I know my
home could use some. All he did was bring me a few light bulbs.
Oct 2, 2012 9:40 AM
2 The report I received after the inspection was not all that helpful. Luckily, Tad
was able to make more detailed recommendations to me. For example, report
said I needed more insulation in roof. B/c of special features of my house, Tad
described in more detail how the insulation would need to be installed. We also
discussed energy efficent heating and cooling systems. I have a two story
house built in 1904. Have troubles keeping top cool/hot and only part of the
problem is related to insulation. Tad took time to discuss with me energy efficent
option to help addresss. This was what was valuable to me, not that silly report
they sent.
Sep 27, 2012 8:43 PM
3 Please check your records on who I had. He was wonderful.Sep 27, 2012 6:38 PM
4 Seems like a disconnect between the auditor and Idaho Power Sep 27, 2012 3:16 PM
5 I really enjoyed the education you offered and would have liked something
written down that was specific to our home instead of the generic
recommendations we received in the mail. The walk through seemed quick for
me. I do have children so I was having to tend to them as well which is why it
probably seemed fast. That is why something written out would be great. I
should have had a pencil and paper and written things as we went....
Sep 27, 2012 12:26 PM
6 Very knowledgeable and informative.Sep 27, 2012 9:19 AM
7 suggestion were right and approiate.Sep 19, 2012 6:48 PM
8 they never followed up, I also did not get lightbulbs Sep 19, 2012 5:25 PM
9 We learned a lot about our use of electricity in our home. This was very helpful. Sep 19, 2012 1:09 PM
10 He was more helpful than I expected.Sep 18, 2012 9:00 PM
11 Kevin was very informative and helpful. He knows his stuff and we felt very
assured by his comments and suggestions
Sep 18, 2012 6:45 PM
12 I appreciated his suggestions that were beyond the home audit as well as his
being open for further questions.
Sep 18, 2012 1:10 PM
13 It was a great experience!!Sep 18, 2012 6:57 AM
14 very helpful and nice Sep 17, 2012 8:23 PM
15 I truly felt this was a waste of $49. I was excited to hear how to increase the
efficiency in our home, but when we got the written report I was highly
disappointed in the auditors assessment of some of our home furnishings: our
appliances except for the fridge are new to fairly new, our furnace and air
conditioner, water heater are also fairly new; this was not reflected in the audit.
Sep 17, 2012 6:58 PM
16 Tad was very friendly and informative. Added more information at each point
that he explained to us.
Sep 17, 2012 6:54 PM
11 of 23
Page 5, Q3. 5. If you have additional comments you would like to offer about your home auditor, please enter
them in the space below.
17 When I signed up, I thought it was going to be quite different. It was a little
misleading as far as what would happen and what you would get for your $50.
But Tad was great.
Sep 17, 2012 6:41 PM
18 Our auditor was Rudy Ashenbrener (A-1 Heating and Air Conditioning)Sep 17, 2012 6:14 PM
19 I was surprise from the audit because when Tad came to the house he pointed
out how some items were not the best, but not horrible and it would cost a lot to
get them up to complete par, so where I am at is about the best I can get. Then
when I got the report it was on the D level, which makes it sounds like the house
is doing horrible. Most of the energy efficiency areas I already knew about, so it
was somewhat a waste of money. But it was nice to be reconfirmed in my
original thoughts.
Sep 17, 2012 5:45 PM
20 I was disappointed. My expectations of doing the audit was that there would be
some minor items replaced or upgraded along with the recommendations of how
to save on energy. All that was replaced in my home was a single light bulb. The
recommendations are on file, but since we are low income, there are no
programs listed that can help upgrade our home.
Sep 17, 2012 4:47 PM
21 Great service and we thank you for offering it.Sep 17, 2012 2:29 PM
22 It's been too long ago. I can't remember his name.Sep 17, 2012 2:11 PM
23 I expected some actions to be taken during the audit process and nothing was
done at all.
Sep 17, 2012 1:59 PM
24 He left the newspaper in the fireplace, and did not put the fireplace cover back in
place. He also did not change any light bulbs...or offer any. That was one of my
reasons for signing up for the audit. I was very disappointed.
Sep 17, 2012 1:31 PM
25 Its been a while and Im not sure it was Chris Sep 17, 2012 1:18 PM
26 The auditor did a good job and explained different areas in the house where I
could improve on efficiency. The one downside is that I got the feeling he was
trying to sell me a product Western carry's which is a duct seal product that is
very expensive. He also had some other good ideas but unforntunitly I was not
sure if the duct sealing was an unbiased opinion. Also, since it was towards the
end of the audit he did not have very many high efficiency bulbs left which was
one of the main reasons I appiled for the audit. I felt it would be a great deal for
someone to not only audit my house but provide new high efficient bulbs. This is
how the program was advertised so I was dissapointed when told he was almost
out becuase it was nearing the end of the project and was not able to replace my
several of my incandesant bulbs.. I think it would have made sense to tell me
this up front when I decided to do the audit instead of during the audit.
Sep 17, 2012 1:09 PM
27 thank you for the opportunity to participate in a discounted home energy audit. Sep 17, 2012 12:29 PM
28 My understanding was that the auditor would be providing energy saving light
bulbs. None were offered. Also, when going into my attic to check insulation,
pieces from one of my special porcelain Christmas manger scenes was dropped
and broken. He was very apologetic and I understand that accidents happen.
Sep 17, 2012 12:28 PM
12 of 23
Page 5, Q3. 5. If you have additional comments you would like to offer about your home auditor, please enter
them in the space below.
We probably did not have the box placed very securely so it may have been
partially our own fault. Still, I've had that collectors piece for many years and
now one of my wise men is gone which spoils the whole set, so that was a
negative. The gentleman was very apologetic. Still, is was something that
made me wish I had never even bothered with the whole thing.
29 they did the audit but didn't install anything. i was under the impression that they
would be installing a water heater blanket, insullation on the pipes from the water
heater to the house, etc. They just did the audit, which didn't really give me any
valuable information to inprove our energy efficiency other than to use a cheap
furnace air filter.
Sep 17, 2012 12:12 PM
30 i don't remember his name.Sep 17, 2012 11:47 AM
31 Very nice and would welcome him in to our home anytime!Sep 17, 2012 11:40 AM
32 agagtewtawwar Sep 17, 2012 9:15 AM
33 sadfdsafsda Sep 17, 2012 8:03 AM
13 of 23
14 of 23
Page 7, Q1. 7(a). What, if anything, about the Boise City Home Audit Program was most satisfying to you?
1 Everything was handled very professionally.Oct 9, 2012 11:03 AM
2 Getting feedback on the efficiency of our home.Oct 8, 2012 1:50 PM
3 Validation that we were doing several things correctly. The audit provided us
with several other areas where we could improve.
Oct 4, 2012 6:22 AM
4 The information I gleaned.Oct 3, 2012 3:44 PM
5 knowing about leaks/drafts around doors, windows, vents, etc.Oct 1, 2012 9:18 PM
6 Gave me a good idea how to improve my efficiency.Sep 30, 2012 9:24 PM
7 Provided target measures to take to increase home energy efficiency.Sep 30, 2012 3:01 PM
8 To be shown simple energy saving ideas that I could do that didn't involve
buying anything
Sep 29, 2012 4:33 PM
9 Lots of information and little costs. Excellent Sep 28, 2012 4:02 PM
10 it reassurred me of a few points I already knew & gave me suggestions I didn't
know about.
Sep 28, 2012 11:22 AM
11 I thought I needed to replace my windows in my home. I learned that they aren't
as inefficient as I thought they were and that there are more cost-effective ways
to improve energy efficiency in my home.
Sep 28, 2012 7:07 AM
12 Provided me good information and a good resource for information Sep 27, 2012 8:44 PM
13 Confirmation that we have made several good energy-saving decisions already
and the opportunity to get some recommendations for other things we can do.
Sep 27, 2012 7:51 PM
14 It was all good, from the careful assessment of our home, to the written report,
and having Chris go over it verbally with us.
Sep 27, 2012 7:11 PM
15 The explanation of where my air leaks were. I thought windows. If I could afford
to do so, I would insulate under the living room, where I'm loosing heat.
Sep 27, 2012 6:39 PM
16 The price for what I got. I was ready to replace windows that do not need
replacing. $50 vs thousands is worth it to me.
Sep 27, 2012 6:21 PM
17 light bulb replacement Sep 27, 2012 5:00 PM
18 Identification of key areas that needed fixing Sep 27, 2012 3:17 PM
19 as a single mom, it was helpful to know where to save energy and what to do on
ongoing basis
Sep 27, 2012 1:14 PM
20 Being aware of improvements needed Sep 27, 2012 12:35 PM
21 The walk through and education about what we can do to increase home energy
efficiency.
Sep 27, 2012 12:27 PM
22 Recommendations Sep 27, 2012 12:26 PM
15 of 23
Page 7, Q1. 7(a). What, if anything, about the Boise City Home Audit Program was most satisfying to you?
23 Our concerns about air leakage was answered.Sep 27, 2012 12:12 PM
24 Just to know that our house didn't have any major problems Sep 27, 2012 11:53 AM
25 To know what we should focus our efforts on to improve energy efficiency. Sep 27, 2012 9:20 AM
26 Finding out how efficient my home was and how I could improve it.Sep 27, 2012 9:19 AM
27 receiving direction that will help me lower my utility costs.Sep 26, 2012 11:09 AM
28 iT WAS ALL VERY INSERESTING, AND HE EXPLAINED EVERYTHING VERY
WELL
Sep 23, 2012 4:45 AM
29 Pointed out something I was totally unaware of that explains why I have heating
issues. Offered specific information about what I need to ask for to fix it. Really
helped me understand what I need to focus on to increase energy.
Sep 22, 2012 8:52 AM
30 Knowing how to improve efficiency specific to our house.Sep 22, 2012 6:40 AM
31 It is a great service and we found out our house is in good shape and we don't
need to spend a lot of money on upgrades. It was an objective opinion.
Sep 21, 2012 6:21 PM
32 Ease of sign up and completion.Sep 20, 2012 7:17 AM
33 good suggestions & good follow thru.Sep 19, 2012 6:49 PM
34 Learning what to do to save money on our consumption of energy.Sep 19, 2012 1:10 PM
35 finding air leaks Sep 19, 2012 10:23 AM
36 The individual.Sep 19, 2012 9:52 AM
37 He performed the suction test for air flow leaks.Sep 18, 2012 9:01 PM
38 The ease in signing up and the information we gathered. the replacement of our
energy using spots in our kitchen was nice too!
Sep 18, 2012 6:46 PM
39 It helped us to think about things that would not normally be on our minds, and
drew attention to areas that we could improve ourselves.
Sep 18, 2012 6:32 PM
40 I liked learning about how to make our more energy efficient and actually having
someone come to the house.
Sep 18, 2012 6:08 PM
41 Air pressure test....satisfied my question about air leakage Sep 18, 2012 1:53 PM
42 Learning ways to be more efficient and cut costs.Sep 18, 2012 1:23 PM
43 Just finding out the different ways to save energy.Sep 18, 2012 9:00 AM
44 Learning about ways to save money and make our home more energy efficient. Sep 18, 2012 8:12 AM
45 Access to a professional analysis of our home's energy loss areas. However, it
would have been even better if there was also information on available
contractors to fix the problems.
Sep 18, 2012 7:37 AM
16 of 23
Page 7, Q1. 7(a). What, if anything, about the Boise City Home Audit Program was most satisfying to you?
46 Contractor was very professional, courteous, gave us lots of good suggestions--
affordable, doable suggestions
Sep 18, 2012 6:58 AM
47 The installation of CFL flood lights was a great value.Sep 17, 2012 9:53 PM
48 New understanding of home energy efficiency factors Sep 17, 2012 8:45 PM
49 kevin Sep 17, 2012 8:24 PM
50 Quick to schedule the visit.Sep 17, 2012 8:24 PM
51 just having another opinion on strengths and weaknesses of our home when it
comes to energy use.
Sep 17, 2012 7:12 PM
52 The promptness of scheduling and the info provided by the auditor.Sep 17, 2012 7:00 PM
53 To be offered this program to increase our knowledge of how to save money. Sep 17, 2012 6:55 PM
54 Professional expertise of person conducting the Udit Sep 17, 2012 6:42 PM
55 It identified what was energy effecient and what issues would increase energy
effeciency.
Sep 17, 2012 6:15 PM
56 suggestions helpful Sep 17, 2012 5:32 PM
57 Not one thing Sep 17, 2012 2:29 PM
58 Learning about ways to improve energy efficiency that I was not familiar with.
Learning what would be most cost effective.
Sep 17, 2012 2:19 PM
59 Prioritizing what to do to the home to save the most energy.Sep 17, 2012 2:15 PM
60 Homed in on the important things.Sep 17, 2012 1:23 PM
61 Seeing the various areas of my house that were inefficient and letting heat out or
cold air in. I found some useful tips on adding insulation in certain areas that will
help improve the homes efficiency.
Sep 17, 2012 1:10 PM
62 Learning about the hidden good things and bad things with the house.Sep 17, 2012 1:05 PM
63 Just to know what needs to be done to decrease the heat loss.Sep 17, 2012 12:54 PM
64 Identifying all the ways my home was affected by poor insulation or construction. Sep 17, 2012 12:47 PM
65 I found out that the windows I was planning to replace were not the problem. The
problem was a need for improved air sealing. This saved me a ton of money.
Sep 17, 2012 12:45 PM
66 To know for sure that the measures we have taken to improve the effeciency of
our older home are doing what we hoped.
Sep 17, 2012 12:36 PM
67 Offer the $50 deal more often so more homeowners can benefit Sep 17, 2012 12:34 PM
68 Recommendations made Sep 17, 2012 12:33 PM
17 of 23
Page 7, Q1. 7(a). What, if anything, about the Boise City Home Audit Program was most satisfying to you?
69 the chance for a disconted home energy audit. I want to improve the energy
efficiency of my home, but didn't know what were the best cost effective steps to
take. I am now in the process of insulating portionis of my home based upon the
energy audit.
Sep 17, 2012 12:31 PM
70 Well-rounded; provided information about things that were found in the course of
the audit which needed addressed that were not specifically part of the audit (in
my case, crawlspace dampness)
Sep 17, 2012 12:09 PM
71 new light bulbs that were fluorescent Sep 17, 2012 11:52 AM
72 testing how much goes out of the house with that huge piece of equipment he
put on the front door.
Sep 17, 2012 11:48 AM
73 Auditor showed me ways to increase the efficiency of my HVAC and provided
recommendation of a qualified company to further evaluate and do the work.
Sep 17, 2012 11:47 AM
74 It seemed to be very thorough.Sep 17, 2012 11:45 AM
75 Just getting the info to better our home.Sep 17, 2012 11:41 AM
76 gaining additional knowledge Sep 17, 2012 11:37 AM
77 daeewrwarew Sep 17, 2012 9:15 AM
18 of 23
19 of 23
Page 8, Q1. 7(b). What, if anything, about the Boise City Home Audit Program was most dissatisfying to you?
1 The improvements he could have made but didn't. The $49 fee wasn't worth it at
all.
Oct 2, 2012 9:43 AM
2 It lacks a way for homeowners to affordably finance needed improvements. Oct 1, 2012 9:40 AM
3 after the audit was complete i was given some paperwork to find websites w/
energy programs/grants, i felt like i could have don this on my own. going to the
websites is a bit irritating as each website says click on this link then you click on
it, then you have to click on another link, it gets to the point where it's just a big
waste of time. would be nice if the paper work given will have a direct link where
you can find energy saving grants/ programs rather then just a website with no
direction.
Sep 28, 2012 6:06 PM
4 they spent so much of my time and then never followed up with an estimate, they
did not even call back
Sep 19, 2012 5:26 PM
5 Very little information on what the recommended inprovement would mean to me
in terms of saving in the future and what numbers it would be possible to achieve
on my 30 year old house.
Sep 19, 2012 9:20 AM
6 Was under the impression from the intro. letter that heating ducts would be
wrapped as part of the audit
Sep 19, 2012 7:31 AM
7 I was told I would receive 20 CFL light bulbs, only light bulbs available to me
were spot lights. Overall audit was simply "you have an old house that is drafty."
I already knew that..
Sep 17, 2012 8:21 PM
8 The auditor himself; he was pleasant and nice but the written report did not
reflect our furnishings.
Sep 17, 2012 6:59 PM
9 already said...Sep 17, 2012 6:42 PM
10 The official report being way below the verbal report.Sep 17, 2012 5:45 PM
11 I had expectations of minor replacements or repair included in the audit
according to the mailing that we received. All that was replaced was 1 light bulb
and no list of programs to help lower income families upgrade.
Sep 17, 2012 4:49 PM
12 I must have miss understood the entire thing. I thought that the auditor was
going to be bringing in effecient light bulbs (a certain number ony), would be
sealing around door-ways, providing a blanket for the water heater if needed and
other items. nothing like that was done or offered. Did I totally read the sign up
letter wrong, because I already knew what I was told, I did this because I thought
tht I was going to be getting some helps out of this audit for the miniimal fee that
I paid. Thank you for your time in addressing my questions.
Sep 17, 2012 3:53 PM
13 Nothing was done at all that I couldn't have done myself for the same cost,
hence, I can not see that there was any advantage gained by applying for the
program. The program description indicated that some things would be done as
part of the audit, and that was not the case.
Sep 17, 2012 2:03 PM
14 The literature "advertising" the program said it would cost $10 less than I was
charged. It also said we'd get the lightbulbs that use less energy. I didn't get
Sep 17, 2012 1:32 PM
20 of 23
Page 8, Q1. 7(b). What, if anything, about the Boise City Home Audit Program was most dissatisfying to you?
any light bulbs...which seems like a petty thing, until you realize that was what
was promised. The $10 higher price was hard to swallow, especially when there
wasn't anything else suggested that I could do to save energy.
15 When I got the final report, most of the findings in the report were never
discussed with me while the auditor was at my home.
Sep 17, 2012 12:31 PM
16 Other than recommendations to replace my appliances, which would be quite
expensive, I didn't feel like I was given any information that was all that helpful.
Also, perhaps it was a misunderstanding on my part, but I thought that he would
be bringing energy saving fluorescent light bulbs (Stated in application packet)
which was not the case.
Sep 17, 2012 12:30 PM
17 It just wasn't valuable for an 'average' home.Sep 17, 2012 12:14 PM
18 Lack of options for lighting and perhaps they do not exist. I really do not care for
fluorescent lamps and that was really the only option presented. My house was
pretty tight overall but I guess looking for a better overall evaluation and options
other than replacing all of my appliances, furnace and electronics.
Sep 17, 2012 11:57 AM
19 sadfsadfa Sep 17, 2012 8:03 AM
21 of 23
22 of 23
Page 10, Q1. 9. If you have other comments about the Boise City Home Audit Program, please enter them below:
1 I was dissappointed that by the time our audit was done all the little perks, light
bulbs etc were gone.
Oct 2, 2012 8:45 PM
2 It's good to know where energy leaks are in the house and how to fix them. Oct 1, 2012 9:30 PM
3 1. I did not get a shower head replacement, was told they were out of them. 2.
The man explained how to turn off the gas fireplace, but would not do it for me.
Sep 27, 2012 5:02 PM
4 I didn't like how they were out of light bulbs, etc, to replace because you think
you are investing and some stuff will be replaced to help out with energy costs
but nothing that I can recall was replaced or giving in my house to help out with
energy saving.
Sep 27, 2012 12:36 PM
5 Wish I had done it sooner. Please work on continuing this program.Sep 22, 2012 8:55 AM
6 It caused us to make many improvements in our home's energy efficiency. Sep 18, 2012 9:02 PM
7 Dont run out of light bulbs or shower heads Sep 18, 2012 12:57 PM
8 I think I was confused when I signed up and thought there would be more
"freebies" (like light bulbs, water heater covers, etc.) He left one light bulb over
the sink and some covers on the pipes of the water heater). Maybe the cover
wasn't needed, but it is in the garage. I think this is a really neat program and it
was useful to me and these comments are just to help in the future. I just was a
little disappointed by what was advertised and what was actually given, although
he did do a good job with the audit of the house.
Sep 18, 2012 9:04 AM
9 List contractors who fix the problems identified in the audit, such as
weatherproofing doors and windows.
Sep 18, 2012 7:39 AM
10 Rudy was outstanding! He even wore booties when he came into the house. Sep 17, 2012 6:16 PM
11 More educational to have someone visit your home than to read fliers, etc. Sep 17, 2012 2:20 PM
12 Provide something as part of the audit. As it stands using the audit through you
accomplished nothing!
Sep 17, 2012 2:06 PM
13 I am not sure how this could be done but if Idaho Power could use truly
independent auditors I think that would help. The auditor that did my house was
probably right on with all his recommendations but in the back of my mind I was
always wondering if I was getting a straight answer or a sales pitch.
Sep 17, 2012 1:12 PM
14 Summarize most common energy leaks/waste and brief how-to repairs in a flyer Sep 17, 2012 12:36 PM
15 Might be good for old houses, but wasn't useful for our house. the description of
the audit said that several hundred dollars worth of services/improvements would
be included, but we just got the audit results.
Sep 17, 2012 12:16 PM
16 Please work with the local business community to create a list of referral
opportunities to complete identified work. I realize you can't be in the position of
appearing to favor some suppliers over another, but knowing work needs to be
done that I'm not comfortable doing myself requires calling someone. Having a
list of approved/"known quantity" contractors able to do the work would make the
results of the audit more applicable.
Sep 17, 2012 12:12 PM
23 of 23
Page 10, Q1. 9. If you have other comments about the Boise City Home Audit Program, please enter them below:
17 aewraeeatearwae Sep 17, 2012 9:15 AM
18 asdfsdaf Sep 17, 2012 8:03 AM

0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
9.0
10.0
2012 EnerNOC FlexPeak Post-Event Surveys
June
August
Idaho Power Company Supplement 2: Evaluation
Demand-Side Management 2012 Annual Report Page 717
SUCCESS STORIES
Table 7. 2012 Success Stories
Title Sector Program
Upgrading its lighting gives Dominick’s Quick Print whiter whites, brighter colors, and more cheerful employees Commercial Easy Upgrades
A one-of-a-kind hotel takes advantage of a one-of-a-kind energy efficiency opportunity. Commercial Custom Efficiency
Two public utilities work together to help their ratepayers Commercial/Industrial Custom Efficiency
Idaho Power Helps Motorcycle Parts Manufacturer Keep Jobs at Home Commercial Building Efficiency
Idaho Power incentives help Ballard Dairy and Cheese bring the kids back to their family operation Commercial/Industrial Custom Efficiency
Duplex, triplex, and four-plex homeowners can take advantage of Idaho Power’s ductless heat pump incentive Residential Ductless Heat Pump Pilot Program

Supplement 2: Evaluation Idaho Power Company
Page 718 Demand-Side Management 2012 Annual Report
This page left blank intentionally.

Upgrading its lighting gives
Dominick’s Quick Print whiter
whites, brighter colors, and more
cheerful employees
The savings (and a little more)
The entire lighting project cost $1,950,
and the Idaho Power Easy Upgrades
incentive covered $1,276 of it. The new lights
are estimated to reduce the company’s
electric usage by 7,586 kilowatt-hours (kWh)
per year, an annual savings of $612.
Continued on back.
Joe Dominick splits his time between two very important jobs:
owner/manager/president of Dominick’s Quick Print and mayor of Ontario,
Oregon. “The key to a successful small business is your staff, especially for
somebody like me,” Joe said. “Like this morning, Mayor Joe met with the CEO
of the hospital, so Businessman Joe didn’t get in until 9:30, but I’ve got three
great employees covering for me.”
Making Joe’s power bill look as good as his printing
Another good thing to have in the printing business is good lighting. “A few
years ago,” Joe said, “my electrician suggested that I replace the old lamps in
my building. He said I’d save money on my power bill and the colors on my
printing would look truer. Those are two things a small printer like me likes
to hear.”
The only thing about the project that worried Joe was the price. Then his
ever-helpful electrician told him about the Idaho Power Easy Upgrades
incentive program.
“I gulped when he first told me the cost,” Joe said, “but when he told me that
Idaho Power’s incentive program could cut the cost by 65 percent, that got my
attention. That made the project possible.”
The project
Through Idaho Power’s Easy Upgrades program, Joe changed out all 41 of
his T12 light fixtures to much more efficient T8 fixtures. But it wasn’t an easy
decision. “The cost was $1,950, which can be serious money for a little guy

Easy Upgrades
For Simple Retrofits
like me. But Idaho Power’s incentive reduced my out-of-pocket
expense by almost $1,300.”
Joe consulted with his wife/bookkeeper, and they agreed they could manage
the cost. “So we said, ‘We’ve got to go for this.’”
Project
Cost
Idaho
Power
Incentive
Customer
out-of-
Pocket
Savings
(kWh/year)
Annual
Savings
Payback in
Months
$1,950 $1,276 $674 7,586 $612 13
*Source: Estimated savings from Dominick’s Quick Print project using Idaho
Power’s Easy Upgrades program.
Uncommon savings are quite common
Saving energy has always been a smart business decision. Now, Idaho Power
makes it attainable. Our complete suite of energy efficiency programs
provides attractive incentives to commercial and industrial customers who
want to reduce their utility costs.
• The Custom Efficiency program offers substantial incentives to
large commercial and industrial customers who invest
energy-saving improvements in their facilities.
• Easy Upgrades provides financial incentives to commercial and
industrial customers who implement qualified energy-saving
measures in their facilities.
• The Building Efficiency program helps offset the additional
capital costs when a company upgrades its planned lighting,
cooling, controls, and building-shell designs in favor of more
efficient components.
• FlexPeak Management offers commercial and industrial
customers incentives in the form of recurring payments for
reducing their power consumption during times of overall
peak demand.
How much can your company save?
For more information about Idaho Power’s energy efficiency incentive
programs, go to www.idahopower.com/business or call us at 208-388-5624
within the Treasure Valley or 1-800-488-6151 outside of the Treasure Valley.
We’ll show how you can join smart companies like Dominick’s Quick Print,
saving energy and money.
“The project had so many advantages along with the savings; it was a great investment on a lot of levels.”
– Joe Dominick
Dominick’s Quick Print
www.idahopower.com/business
The above success story was produced in cooperation with, and approval
from, Dominick’s Quick Print.
The savings (and a little more) (cont.)
“The new lighting and Idaho Power’s
incentive program that paid for most of it are
great,” said Joe, “but there were a lot of other
advantages, too. The new bulbs put out a
higher quality light, so it’s a lot more cheerful
in here, which helps morale and productivity.
We also see printed colors more accurately.
The bulbs don’t put out as much heat,
which reduces our air conditioning needs,
and the ballasts last longer. So all in all, it was
a great investment.”
A one-of-a-kind hotel takes
advantage of a one-of-a-kind
energy efficiency opportunity.
The Grove Hotel is a unique hospitality property in the Treasure Valley
on several levels. Rising 16 stories above the heart of downtown Boise,
it’s the only hotel in southwestern Idaho or eastern Oregon that carries the
American Automobile Association’s (AAA) four-star rating.
It’s also the only hotel in the area with a premier sports and entertainment
venue that serves as the home for two professional sports teams.
Grove guests can enter the Century Link Arena directly from the lobby
to enjoy Idaho Steelheads hockey games, Idaho Stampede basketball,
big-name concerts, and more.
And, most exciting from Idaho Power’s point of view, it’s the first major hotel
in southern Idaho to take advantage of Idaho Power’s Custom Efficiency
incentive program. And they’ve done it in a big way.
Brighter lights. Lower costs. Greener practices.
“Recently, as part of a larger lighting upgrade, we decided to retrofit the
lighting in the hotel and Century Link Arena,” explained Michael Campbell,
the property’s chief financial officer (CFO) and controller. “This was right in
line with the philosophy of the hotel’s ownership group, which liked the idea
of not only making our guest experience more enjoyable and reducing our
costs, but doing so in an environmentally responsible way.”
The project replaced more than 1,900 older T12, metal halide, and compact
fluorescent lamp (CFL) fixtures with high-efficiency T8, pulse-start metal
halide, light-emitting diode (LED) and modern CFL lights. It’s the final stage
of a complete lighting refit that included all areas of the hotel, including its
250 luxury rooms, dining and kitchen areas, lobby and maintenance
areas, the public areas, main arena, locker rooms of the arena, and the
underground parking garage that services both structures.
Custom Efficiency
For Commercial and Industrial Projects
The savings
The total cost of the upgrade project was $140,392, of which $95,085,
or 68 percent, was covered through the Idaho Power Custom Efficiency
program. Average annual energy savings are estimated to be approximately
792,374 kilowatt-hours (kWh), which is the equivalent to the electricity used
by 50 typical homes in Idaho Power’s service area. It also saves the hotel
$43,580 every year.
But there’s an added benefit: lights that use less energy create less heat,
which reduces the cooling load the building’s heating, ventilation and
air conditioning (HVAC) system must carry as well as the amount of
refrigeration needed for Century Link Arena’s ice rink.
Cost
Idaho Power
Incentive
Savings
(kWh/year)
Savings
($/year)
Customer
out-of-
pocket*
Payback in
Months
$140,392 $95,085 792,374 $43,580 $45,307 13
* Source: Idaho Power Grove Hotel Lighting Upgrade project summary IND0667.
Uncommon savings are quite common
Saving energy has always been a smart business decision. Now, Idaho Power
makes it attainable. Our complete suite of energy efficiency programs
provides attractive incentives to commercial and industrial customers who
want to reduce their energy costs.
• The Custom Efficiency program offers substantial rebates to
large commercial and industrial customers who invest
energy-saving improvements in their facilities.
• Easy Upgrades provides incentives of up to $100,000 when
companies retrofit their infrastructures with
energy-saving upgrades.
• The Building Efficiency program pays up to $100,000 per project
to mitigate the additional capital costs when companies upgrade
their lighting, cooling, controls, and building shells to more
efficient components.
• FlexPeak Management offers commercial and industrial
customers incentives in the form of recurring payments for
reducing their power consumption during times of overall
peak demand.
“[The project] turned out to be very much a win-win situation for us.”
–Michael Compbell, CFO and
Controller, Grove Hotel and
Century Link Arena
www.idahopower.com/business
The above success story was produced in cooperation with,
and approval from, Grove Hotel and Century Link Arena.
How much can your company save?
For more information about Idaho Power’s
energy efficiency incentive programs, go to
www.idahopower.com/business or call us
at 208-388-5624. We’ll show how you can
join smart companies like the Grove Hotel
and Century Link Arena, saving energy
and money.
Two public utilities work together
to help their ratepayers
Keeping utility rates as low as possible
United Water has worked with Idaho Power on
other energy efficiency projects. “We’ve also
replaced pumping equipment at the Hilton,
Taggart, Hillcrest, and Sunset wells,” Mark Snider
pointed out. “We increased the efficiency by
30 percent at the Hilton well alone, which is a
monthly savings of about $1,000.”
Programs like Custom Efficiency are helping
Idaho Power and United Water Idaho keep their
rates in check. “It’s called cost avoidance,”
Mark said. “For us, it’s reducing the power
bills our ratepayers have to pay. For Idaho
Power, if they’re anything like us, it’s reducing
the amount of power their customers use so
the company delays the need to build new
power plants.
“Either way, it’s one way we keep our customers’
rates as low as possible.”
“We’re actually regulated by four different agencies,” said United Water
Idaho Public Affairs Manager Mark Snider, “the Public Utilities Commission
[PUC], the Department of Environmental Quality [DEQ], the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency [EPA], and the Idaho Department of
Water Resources [IDWR].”
“And participating in programs like the Idaho Power Custom Efficiency
program certainly keeps all those regulators very happy.”
Working with Idaho Power through its Custom Efficiency incentive
program, United Water Idaho upgraded the lighting systems in its
main offices on Victory Road and in its Marden Water Treatment Plant,
both located in Boise. “Idaho Power’s advice and expertise really helped us,”
Mark noted. “We found their input to be very valuable.”
Between the two facilities, United Water Idaho replaced 707 outdated T12
and high-pressure sodium (HPS) light fixtures with modern T8, T5HO,
and compact fluorescent lighting (CFL), resulting in a total energy savings
of more than 258,000 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year, enough electricity to
serve 17 homes in Idaho Power’s service territory.
The savings
The Victory Road Offices. The work at the Victory Road offices involved
replacing 295 T12 fixtures installed in aging magnetic ballasts with more
efficient T8 lamps in new electronic ballasts. Four HPS fixtures were also
replaced with T5HO fixtures. The new lighting system saves 96,646 kWhs
per year while reducing demand wattage by 17.2 kilowatts (kW).
Continued on back
Custom Efficiency
For Commercial and Industrial Projects
The Marden Water Treatment Plant. The Marden Water Treatment Plant
was a little more involved. Two hundred and forty HPS fixtures were
replaced with several different products—depending on their placement
and use—including T8 high-bay fixtures, T5HO 4- and 6-lamp fixtures,
26-watt CFLs, and 100-watt pulse-start metal halide fixtures; 164 T12
fixtures were upgraded to T8 fixtures with electronic ballasts.
The Marden project achieved total energy savings of 162,064 kWhs per year
with a demand savings of 35 kW.
Estimated savings from the United Water Idaho lighting
upgrade project*
Project
kWh/Year
Savings
Project
Cost
$/Year
Savings
Idaho
Power
Incentive
Customer
Out-of-Pocket*
Payback
in Months
Marden
Treatment
Plant
162,064 $92,338 $8,914 $19,405 $72,933 –
Victory Road
Offices
96,646 $20,049 $5,315 $11,598 $8,451 –
Total 258,710 $112,387 $14,229 $31,003 $81,384 72
*Source: Idaho Power United Water Idaho Lighting Upgrade project summaries IEIP-071031 and
IEIP-070928.
Uncommon savings are quite common
Saving energy has always been a smart business decision. Now, Idaho Power
makes it attainable. Our complete suite of energy efficiency programs
provides attractive incentives to commercial and industrial customers who
want to reduce their utility costs.
• The Custom Efficiency program offers substantial rebates to
large commercial and industrial customers who invest
energy-saving improvements in their facilities.
• Easy Upgrades provides incentives of up to $100,000 when
companies retrofit their infrastructures with
energy-saving upgrades.
• The Building Efficiency program pays up to $100,000 per project
to mitigate the additional capital costs when companies upgrade
their lighting, cooling, controls, and building shells to more
efficient components.
• FlexPeak Management offers commercial and industrial
customers incentives in the form of recurring payments for
reducing their power consumption during times of overall
peak demand.
“Idaho Power’s advice and expertise really helped us.”
–Mark Snider,
Public Affairs Manager,
United Water Idaho
www.idahopower.com/business
How much can your company save?
For more information about Idaho Power’s
energy efficiency incentive programs, go to
www.idahopower.com/business or call us
at 208-388-5624. We’ll show how you can
join smart companies like United Water
Idaho in saving energy and money.
This success story was produced in
cooperation with, and approval from,
United Water Idaho.
Idaho Power Helps
Motorcycle Parts Manufacturer
Keep Jobs at Home
A new-look factory
When you walk into the Rekluse shop, you notice
the paint—stark white walls and a gray floor—
and you think, “This place could use an interior
designer.” Then Dwayne Dayley, the Rekluse
Operations Manager, points up at the skylights
in the ceiling. “The color scheme, or lack of it,”
he says, “bounces the natural light back into
the room.”
Continued on back.
In a time when American companies are exporting jobs, motorcycle auto-
clutch maker Rekluse recently moved into a new manufacturing facility
in Boise, Idaho. “We faced the same problems other American companies
do,” noted Joe DeGano, the company’s sales and marketing manager,
“rising manufacturing costs, labor costs, machine costs, power, everything.”
Yet, even with those cost-induced hurdles, Rekluse vowed to remain
an American manufacturer. “We don’t export jobs; we export clutches,”
Joe said proudly. “We’re the only performance auto-clutch supplier in
the world. We have a worldwide distribution network, and we’re the 2012
Small Business Administration Exporter of the Year. It’s pretty amazing.”
The project
To keep its plants onshore, Rekluse had to think “skinny” when it moved
into its new Boise facility. “We reinvented our factory with all the lean
manufacturing principles,” Joe said. “State-of-the-art tools, pod work
stations, and operational efficiencies. And Idaho Power helped us with a lot
of them.”
Through Idaho Power’s Building Efficiency program, Rekluse revamped its
facility with the following:
• Ceiling skylights with photocells that cycle the interior lights off or
on depending how much sunlight is coming into the building
• New, high-efficiency lighting
• Sensors that turn off lights when rooms are vacant
• A new, quiet air compressor with a variable frequency drive (VFD)
that reduces power usage
Building Efficiency
For Commercial Construction
“The point is,” Joe noted, “if we can manage our costs and
maintain quality, we can keep jobs in Idaho.”
The savings
“We doubled the number of machines and square footage in this new plant,”
Joe said, “but our power usage has remained pretty much the same.”
At a cost of $46,444, the four phases of the project are estimated to reduce
Rekluse’s overall power usage by more than 91,000 kilowatt-hours (kWh)
per year and its annual power bill by just over $5,000.
The project also qualified for $5,873 in incentives. Following are the
estimated savings from the Rekluse Building Efficiency project.*
Project Cost Idaho Power Incentive Savings (kWh/year)Annual Savings
$46,444 $5,873 91,008 $5,005
* Source: Idaho Power Building Efficiency project summary for Rekluse.
Uncommon savings are quite common
Saving energy has always been a smart business decision. Now, Idaho Power
makes it attainable. Our complete suite of energy efficiency programs
provides attractive incentives to commercial and industrial customers who
want to use energy more effectively.
• The Building Efficiency program helps offset the additional
capital costs when a company upgrades its planned lighting,
cooling, controls, and building-shell designs in favor of more
efficient components.
• The Custom Efficiency program offers substantial incentives to
large commercial and industrial customers who invest
energy-saving improvements in their facilities.
• Easy Upgrades provides financial incentives to commercial and
industrial customers who implement qualified energy-saving
measures in their facilities.
• FlexPeak Management offers commercial and industrial
customers incentives in the form of recurring payments for
reducing their power consumption during times of overall
peak demand.
“We don’t export jobs; we export clutches.”
– Joe DeGano
Sales and Marketing Manager
Rekluse
www.idahopower.com/business
The above success story was produced in cooperation with,
and approval from, Rekluse.
A new-look factory (cont.)
On the floor, lathes and saws cut aluminum
bars into small blocks. Milling machines that
sculpt the blocks into parts sit in pods of three,
with one worker assigned to each pod. “In the
old scheme,” Dwayne says, “we had one guy on
one machine. Today, we have one guy running
three machines. Eight staffers do the work
of twelve.”
How much can your company save?
For more information about Idaho Power’s
energy efficiency incentive programs, go to
www.idahopower.com/business. We’ll show
how you can join smart companies like Rekluse,
saving energy and money.
Idaho Power incentives help
Ballard Dairy and Cheese bring the
kids back to their family operation
Changing lives
The project was a real team effort, from the
concept to the engineering to the financing.
“We went through four banks and got real good
at rejection,” Steve said, “then Mike Schlatter
at D. L. Evans Bank in Hailey agreed to work
with us. This never would have happened
without them.”
“Idaho Power’s participation in this project was
also critical,” said Paul Conrad of Site Based
Energy, LLC, the engineering firm that designed
and built the Ballards’ new system. “The
project may not have been feasible without its
incentives.”
Continued on back
Steve and Stacie Ballard of Ballard Dairy and Cheese of Gooding, Idaho,
have always done whatever it takes to succeed. Having dreamed of starting
a dairy, they arrived in 1993 from San Diego, California, knowing nothing
about the dairy business. However, Stacie came up with an innovative way
of learning the basics. “I told the guy we bought our first calves from that I’ll
milk your cows for free if you’ll teach me how.”
Today, they have about 90 head of milk cattle and produce about
120,000 gallons of milk a month. Of that, roughly 40,000 gallons gets made
into cheese. “We make about 70,000 pounds of cheese ourselves,” Steve said,
“and ship the rest to a cheese processor.”
The project
The Ballards had some very personal reasons for finding ways to reduce
their dairy’s expenses and increase revenues. “We wanted to bring the kids
into the business,” Steve noted, “but, on a farm this size, we can’t make
enough money just from a dairy operation to support the whole family,
so we started using a portion of the milk to make hard cheese, which added
value to our dairy business.”
“We also started working with Idaho Power,” Steve added, “to convert
the residential power we’ve been running off of to commercial power,
which costs a lot less.”
Through its Easy Upgrades and Custom Efficiency programs, Idaho Power
also provided financial incentives for several energy-saving projects,
including installing a new solar thermal heating system, new heat pumps,
electric back-up boilers, new milk vacuum pumps with variable frequency
drives (VFD), insulation on previously bare heating and cooling pipes,
and retrofitting the dairy’s aging lighting system.
Custom Efficiency
For Commercial and Industrial Projects
The savings
“We knew switching over to commercial power would save us a lot,”
Steve said, “but we were really surprised by how much we could save just by
changing out the lights.” The Ballards replaced their old fluorescent lighting
with a high-efficiency LED lighting system, which is 60 to 80 percent more
efficient, and fitted it with motion sensors so the lights are only on when
people are in the room.
The project saves an estimated 238,927 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year,
which warranted $28,604 in total incentives from Idaho Power and
represents over $12,000 in annual utility bill savings.
Uncommon savings are quite common
Saving energy has always been a smart business decision. Now, Idaho Power
makes it attainable. Our complete suite of energy efficiency programs
provides attractive incentives to commercial and industrial customers who
want to reduce their utility costs.
• The Custom Efficiency program offers substantial incentives to
large commercial and industrial customers who invest
energy-saving improvements in their facilities.
• Easy Upgrades provides financial incentives to commercial and
industrial customers who implement qualified energy-saving
measures in their facilities.
• The Building Efficiency program helps offset the additional
capital costs when a company upgrades its planned lighting,
cooling, controls, and building-shell designs in favor of more
efficient components.
• FlexPeak Management offers commercial and industrial
customers incentives in the form of recurring payments for
reducing their power consumption during times of overall
peak demand.
How much can your business save?
For more information about Idaho Power’s energy efficiency incentive
programs, go to www.idahopower.com/business or call us at 208-388-5624
within the Treasure Valley or 1-800-488-6151 outside of the Treasure Valley.
We’ll show how you can join smart companies like Ballard Dairy and
Cheese, saving energy and money.
“We had help from the Small Business Administration and the USDA, too, but we really couldn’t have done it without Idaho Power’s assistance.”
– Stacie Ballard
Ballard Dairy and Cheese
www.idahopower.com/business
The above success story was produced in cooperation with,
and approval from, Ballard Dairy and Cheese.
Changing Lives (cont.)
For business owners like the Ballards,
those incentives represent a bigger bottom line
on two levels.
“Now, their dairy is stronger,” Paul continued,
“operationally and financially. They can grow
their capital and leverage it in the future. Without
Idaho Power’s incentives, this project may not
have happened at all.”
“For the Ballards, Idaho Power has created
opportunities out here. It’s changed their lives.”
Duplex, triplex, and four-plex
homeowners can take advantage
of Idaho Power’s ductless heat
pump incentive
The Mom test
There’s a reason they call them ductless
heat pumps. They don’t need any ductwork.
As a result, a contractor doesn’t need to
install ducting or cut holes in your floor for
heat registers.
There’s an outside unit and an inside unit that
hang on your wall. The two are connected by
refrigerant lines and control wires that run
through a small hole drilled through the wall.
The simplicity of the system means installing
a ductless heat pump normally takes less time
than a ducted heating system. The result is an
efficient, quiet heating and cooling alternative
that you hardly know is there.
“I was afraid of these things up on my wall,”
one satisfied customer reports, “but my mom
came to visit and she didn’t even notice them.”
Wayne Thiessen of McCall owns a duplex on the Payette River just south
of Payette lake. “We built this home in 1992,” Wayne says from his kitchen
table. “Originally, we built it with the living quarters for us upstairs,
and a bedroom wing downstairs, which we then turned into a separate
stand‑alone living space.”
Owners of multi-unit dwellings can qualify for multiple
incentive payments
Wayne put two ductless heat pumps on his house, one for the main
living space upstairs and one for the separate living space downstairs.
Brent Frans, a Boise heating contractor, talks about what that means from
Idaho Power’s standpoint. “The fact that the house had two separate living
areas with two separate addresses,” he explains, “meant Wayne did in fact
qualify for two Idaho Power incentives. Which was very exciting for the
Thiessens, obviously.”
It’s true. Owners of multi‑unit dwellings can qualify for multiple $750
Idaho Power incentives when they install ductless heat pumps in more
than one living unit within the same building. For example, the owner of a
four‑plex could receive an incentive payment of up to $3,000 if they installed
a ductless heat pump in each unit.
Lower heating bills, more comfort
Of course, in McCall, where snow is a fact of life five months of the year,
heating bills have a major impact. As Wayne points out, ductless heat pumps
soften the blow. “This is the second fall we’ve had our ductless heat pump,”
Continued on back
Ductless Heat Pump
Pilot Program
For Residential Customers
Lower heating bills, more comfort (cont.)
he says, “and basically our heat efficiency has improved by 25 percent over
our old baseboard heating.”
Another thing that’s improved is the comfort level. “The fact that it’s a
forced‑air kind of heat is vastly superior to baseboard units,” Wayne says.
“Forced air fills the whole room,” Brent adds. “The temperature is much
more consistent throughout the whole house.”
“Baseboard heat is just convection,” Wayne points out, “and it tends to
leave some cold spots in the room. I think these ductless heat pumps have
delivered on all counts.”
Talk to one of Idaho Power’s participating contractors
Check out Idaho Power’s website for a participating contractor near you.
They’ll take care of all the details involved in sizing the heat pump
specifically for your home and applying for your incentive.
You can also view a video about ductless heat pumps at www.idahopower.
com/residential. See for yourself how good a ductless heat pump can look
in your home, and all the other benefits people like you have come to enjoy
after having one installed.
“I think these ductless heat pumps have delivered on all counts.”
– Wayne Thiessen,
ductless heat pump owner,
McCall, Idaho
www.idahopower.com/residential
The above success story was produced in cooperation with, and approval
from, Wayne Thiessen and Brent Frans.
Most interior units are sleek and
well-designed.
Idaho Power Company Supplement 2: Evaluation
Demand-Side Management 2012 Annual Report Page 731
WEATHERIZATION ASSISTANCE FOR QUALIFIED CUSTOMERS
2011 ANNUAL REPORT
The Weatherization Assistance for Qualified Customers 2012 Annual Report will be available beginning April 1, 2013.
Supplement 2: Evaluation Idaho Power Company
Page 732 Demand-Side Management 2012 Annual Report
This page left blank intentionally.
2011
Weatherization Assistance
for Qualified Customers
April 1, 2012
2011 Annual Report
Idaho Power Company Weatherization Assistance for Qualified Customers
2011 Annual Report Page i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table of Contents ............................................................................................................................. i
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................... i
List of Figures .................................................................................................................................. i
Description .......................................................................................................................................1
Background ......................................................................................................................................1
Review of Weatherized Homes and Non-Profit Buildings by County ............................................2
Review of Measures Installed ..........................................................................................................6
Overall Cost-Effectiveness ..............................................................................................................8
Customer Education and Satisfaction ............................................................................................11
Plans for 2012 ................................................................................................................................11

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1
2011 WAQC weatherization activities and Idaho Power expenditures by agency and county .....................................................................................................................................3
Table 2 2011 WAQC base and available funds .........................................................................................5
Table 3
2011 WAQC review of measures installed ...................................................................................7

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1
SIR frequency distribution ............................................................................................................9
Weatherization Assistance for Qualified Customers Idaho Power Company
Page ii 2011 Annual Report
This page left blank intentionally.

Idaho Power Company Weatherization Assistance for Qualified Customers
2011 Annual Report Page 1
DESCRIPTION
The Weatherization Assistance for Qualified Customers (WAQC) program provides financial
assistance to regional Community Action Partnership (CAP) agencies in the Idaho Power service
area. This assistance helps cover weatherization costs of electrically heated homes occupied by
qualified customers with limited incomes. The WAQC program also provides a limited pool of
funds for the weatherization of buildings occupied by non-profit organizations serving primarily
special-needs populations, regardless of heating source, with priority given to buildings with
electric heat. Weatherization improvements enable residents to maintain a more comfortable,
safe, and energy-efficient home while reducing their monthly electricity consumption.
Improvements are available at no cost to qualifying applicants who own or rent their homes.
These customers also receive educational materials and efficiency ideas for further reducing
energy use in their homes. Local CAP agencies determine program eligibility according to
federal and state guidelines.
BACKGROUND
In 1989, Idaho Power began offering weatherization assistance in conjunction with the State of
Idaho Weatherization Assistance Program. Through the WAQC program, Idaho Power provides
supplementary funding to state-designated CAP agencies for the weatherization of electrically
heated homes occupied by qualified customers and buildings occupied by non-profit
organizations that serve special-needs populations.
Idaho Power has a WAQC agreement with each CAP agency. The agreement specifies the
funding allotment, billing requirements, and program guidelines. Currently, Idaho Power
oversees the program in Idaho through five regional CAP agencies, including the Canyon County
Weatherization Assistance for Qualified Customers Idaho Power Company
Page 2 2011 Annual Report
Organization on Aging, Weatherization, and Human Services (CCOA); Eastern Idaho
Community Action Partnership (EICAP); El-Ada Community Action Partnership (El-Ada);
South Central Community Action Partnership (SCCAP); and Southeastern Idaho Community
Action Agency (SEICAA). In Baker County, Oregon, Community Connection of Northeast
Oregon, Inc. (CCNO), serves Idaho Power customers. Community in Action (CinA)
provides weatherization services for qualified customers in Malheur and Harney counties.
The Weatherization Assistance for Qualified Customers 2011 Annual Report satisfies
the reporting requirements set out in the Idaho Public Utilities Commission’s (IPUC)
Order No. 29505 with the inclusion of the following topics:
• Review of Weatherized Homes and Non-Profit Buildings by County
• Review of Measures Installed
• Overall Cost-Effectiveness
• Customer Education and Satisfaction
• Plans for 2012
REVIEW OF WEATHERIZED HOMES AND NON-PROFIT
BUILDINGS BY COUNTY
In 2011, Idaho Power provided a total of $1,228,225 to Idaho CAP agencies,
with $1,056,757 directly funding audits, energy-efficient measures, and health and safety
measures for qualified customers’ homes (production costs) and another $105,676 funding the
administration costs incurred by the Idaho CAP agencies for those homes weatherized.
Idaho Power funding provided for the weatherization of 269 Idaho homes and four Idaho
Idaho Power Company Weatherization Assistance for Qualified Customers
2011 Annual Report Page 3
non-profit buildings in 2011. The cost of those weatherization measures was $59,811. Another
$5,981 in administrative expenses was paid for those non-profit building weatherization jobs.
In Oregon, Idaho Power provided a total of $43,677 to CAP agencies, including $39,707 in
production costs for 14 homes and $3,970 in administrative costs. Table 1 shows the number of
homes weatherized, production costs, average cost per home, administration payments, and total
payments per county made by Idaho Power.
Table 1
2011 WAQC weatherization activities and Idaho Power expenditures by agency and county
Agency County
Number
of Jobs
Production
Costs
Average
Cost
Administration Payment to
Agency
Total
Payment
Idaho
Homes
CCOA Adams 1 $3,626 $3,626 $363 $3,989
Boise 4 $20,466 $5,117 $2,047 $22,513
Canyon 40 $169,898 $4,247 $16,990 $186,888
Gem 5 $21,114 $4,223 $2,111 $23,225
Payette 9 $38,970 $4,330 $3,897 $42,867
Valley 2 $11,281 $5,640 $1,128 $12,409
Washington 1 $9,335 $9,335 $933 $10,268
Total 62 $274,690 $4,430 $27,469 $302,159
EICAP Lemhi 3 $11,625 $3,875 $1,163 $12,788
Total 3 $11,625 $3,875 $1,163 $12,788
El-Ada Ada 90 $370,695 $4,119 $37,069 $407,764
Elmore 15 $75,217 $5,014 $7,522 $82,739
Owyhee 14 $70,887 $5,063 $7,089 $77,976
Total 119 $516,799 $4,343 $51,680 $568,479
SCCAP Blaine 2 $5,264 $2,632 $526 $5,790
Cassia 4 $9,949 $2,487 $995 $10,944
Gooding 5 $18,019 $3,604 $1,802 $19,821
Jerome 5 $17,434 $3,487 $1,744 $19,178
Lincoln 2 $5,583 $2,791 $558 $6,141
Minidoka 3 $9,863 $3,288 $986 $10,849
Twin Falls 26 $86,074 $3,311 $8,607 $94,681
Total 47 $152,186 $3,238 $15,218 $167,404
Weatherization Assistance for Qualified Customers Idaho Power Company
Page 4 2011 Annual Report
Table 1 (continued)
Agency County Number of Jobs Production Costs Average Cost
Administration Payment to Agency Total Payment
SEICCA Bannock 23 $60,088 $2,613 $6,009 $66,097
Bingham 10 $25,630 $2,563 $2,563 $28,193
Power 5 $15,739 $3,148 $1,574 $17,313
Total 38 $101,457 $2,670 $10,146 $111,603
Total Homes 269 $1,056,757 $3,928 $105,676 $1,162,433
Non-Profit Buildings Canyon 2 $43,621 $21,810 $4,362 $47,983
Owyhee 1 $6,093 $6,092 $609 $6,702
Power 1 $10,097 $10,097 $1,010 $11,107
Total Non-Profit Buildings 4 $59,811 $14,953 $5,981 $65,792
Idaho Total 273 $1,116,568 $4,090 $111,657 $1,228,225
Oregon
CCNO Baker 2 $5,864 $2,932 $586 $6,450
Total 2 $5,864 $2,932 $586 $6,450
CinA Malheur 12 $33,843 $2,820 $3,384 $37,227
Total 12 $33,843 $2,820 $3,384 $37,227
Oregon Total 14 $39,707 $2,836 $3,970 $43,677
Program Total 287 $1,156,275 $4,029 $115,627 $1,271,902
Note: All amounts are rounded to the nearest dollar.

Idaho Power’s agreements with agencies include a provision allowing a maximum annual
average cost per home up to a dollar amount specified in the agreement between the agency and
Idaho Power. The average cost per home served is calculated by dividing the total annual
Idaho Power production cost of homes weatherized per agency by the total number of homes
weatherized that the CAP agency billed to Idaho Power during the year. The maximum annual
average cost per home the CAP agency allowed under the 2011 agreement was $5,525. In 2011,
Idaho CAP agencies had a combined average cost per home served of $3,928. Oregon CAP
agencies averaged $2,836. A CAP agency may have an average by county of over $5,525;
however, the maximum annual average applies to the agency’s entire service area for the year.
Idaho Power Company Weatherization Assistance for Qualified Customers
2011 Annual Report Page 5
There is no annual average maximum for the weatherization of buildings occupied by
non-profit agencies.
CAP agency administration fees are based on 10 percent of Idaho Power’s per-job production
costs. The average administration cost paid to agencies per Idaho home weatherized in 2011 was
$393, and the average administration cost paid to Oregon agencies per Oregon home weatherized
during the same period was $284. Additionally, Idaho Power staff labor, marketing, and support
costs for the WAQC program totaled $52,513 for the year. These expenses were paid in addition
to the WAQC program funding requirements in Idaho of $1,212,534 specified in IPUC
Order No. 29505.
In compliance with Order No. 29505, WAQC program funds are tracked separately,
with unspent Idaho funds carried over and made available to CAP agencies in the following year.
In 2011, $50,000 in unspent funds from 2010 were made available for expenditures in Idaho and
$11,939 were made available in Oregon. Table 2 details the funding base amount, available
funds from 2010, and the total amount of 2011 spending.
Table 2
2011 WAQC base and available funds
Idaho Agency Base Available Funds from 2010 Total 2011 Allotment 2011 Spending
CCOA ........................................................ $302,259 $0 $302,259 $302,159
EICAP ....................................................... $12,788 $0 $12,788 $12,788
El-Ada ....................................................... $568,479 $0 $568,479 $568,479
SCCAP ...................................................... $167,405 $0 $167,405 $167,405
SEICAA ..................................................... $111,603 $0 $111,603 $111,603
Non-profit buildings ................................... $50,000 $50,000 $100,000 $65,791
Idaho Total ............................................... $1,212,534 $50,000 $1,262,534 $1,228,225

Weatherization Assistance for Qualified Customers Idaho Power Company
Page 6 2011 Annual Report
Table 2 (continued)
Oregon Agency Base Available Funds from 2010 Total 2011 Allotment 2011 Spending
CCNO $6,450 $0 $6,450 $6,450
CinA $36,550 $1,939 $38,489 $37,227
Non-profit buildings $2,000 $10,000 $12,000 $0
Oregon Total $45,000 $11,939 $56,939 $43,677
Note: All amounts are rounded to the nearest dollar.

REVIEW OF MEASURES INSTALLED
The WAQC program realized 2,599,630-kilowatt-hour (kWh) savings from weatherizing homes
in Idaho and Oregon in 2011. In addition, the four buildings housing non-profit agencies
weatherized in Idaho during 2011 saved 184,018 kWh per year for the life of the
measures installed.
Table 3 details job counts in which Idaho Power paid a portion of measure costs and reports the
corresponding kWh savings by individual measure during 2011. The table also shows the life of
each measure as defined in the Energy Audit (EA4) energy audit—the software program
approved for use by the State of Idaho Weatherization Assistance Program. The Job Counts
column represents the number of times any percentage of that measure was billed to Idaho Power
during the year. In reality, measure counts are higher when considering each job because in some
homes the measure was actually installed and billed at 100 percent to the state weatherization
program and not to Idaho Power. In this case, Idaho Power would claim no savings for that
measure. Consistent with the State of Idaho Weatherization Assistance Program, the WAQC
program offers several measures that have costs but do not necessarily save energy or the savings
cannot be measured. Included in this category are health and safety measures, vents, furnace
repairs, and home energy audits. Health and safety measures are necessary to ensure
Idaho Power Company Weatherization Assistance for Qualified Customers
2011 Annual Report Page 7
weatherization activities do not cause unsafe situations in a customer’s home or compromise a
household’s existing indoor air quality. Other non-energy-saving measures are allowed under
this program because of the interaction between the non-energy-saving measures and the energy
saving measures. Examples of items included in the “other” measure category are solid metal
crossover duct with spray-foam sealant, fire retardant, and tie wire. The EA4 includes material
costs, labor costs for installation, and agency support costs for each measure.
Table 3
2011 WAQC review of measures installed

Idaho Power Portion
Measure Life: Years Levelized Costs ($/kWh) Job Counts Production Costs Annual kWh Savings
Idaho Job Measures
Windows .................................................... 173 $209,598 495,019 15 $0.043
Doors ......................................................... 188 $119,273 368,770 15 $0.033
Wall insulation ........................................... 17 $13,610 47,893 20 $0.025
Ceiling insulation ....................................... 147 $100,442 278,119 20 $0.032
Vents ......................................................... 24 $1,994 0 n/a n/a
Floor insulation .......................................... 138 $101,708 185,626 20 $0.048
Infiltration ................................................... 210 $120,180 257,999 15 $0.048
Ducts ......................................................... 66 $38,989 237,102 20 $0.014
Health & Safety .......................................... 24 $13,307 0 n/a n/a
Other ......................................................... 2 $428 0 n/a n/a
Water Heater ............................................. 31 $2,679 8,538 10 $0.042
Pipes ......................................................... 44 $3,418 3,421 15 $0.102
Refrigerator................................................ 1 $270 496 20 $0.048
Furnace Tune ............................................ 3 $3,204 10,557 3 $0.108
Furnace Modify .......................................... 4 $9,350 31,365 3 $0.106
Furnace Repair .......................................... 21 $9,157 0 15 n/a
Furnace Replace ....................................... 124 $351,444 684,072 20 $0.045
Compact Florescent Light (CFL) Bulbs ...... 254 3,272 39,698 7 $0.014
Audit Investment ........................................ 186 $14,245 0 n/a n/a
Total Idaho jobs ........................................................ $1,116,568 2,648,676

Weatherization Assistance for Qualified Customers Idaho Power Company
Page 8 2011 Annual Report
Table 3 (continued)

Idaho Power Portion
Measure Life: Years Levelized Costs ($/kWh) Job Counts Production Costs Annual kWh Savings
Oregon Job Measures

Windows .................................................... 9 $7,054 10,747 15 $0.067
Ceiling insulation ....................................... 4 $6,680 41,148 20 $0.014
Floor insulation .......................................... 2 $2,672 26,362 20 $0.009
Infiltration ................................................... 5 $4,078 11,545 15 $0.036
Ducts ......................................................... 6 $3,769 12,784 20 $0.026
Water Heater ............................................. 1 $115 366 10 $0.042
Furnace Replace ....................................... 9 $15,339 32,020 20 $0.042
Total Oregon jobs ..................................................... $39,707 134,972

OVERALL COST-EFFECTIVENESS
The cost-effectiveness for the WAQC program is determined using an energy-savings audit
program known as EA4. The EA4 audit program is used by state weatherization programs and is
approved for use by the Department of Energy (DOE). A weatherization auditor uses the EA4 to
conduct the initial audit of a potential home. The EA4 compares the efficiency of measures prior
to weatherization to the efficiency after the proposed improvement. The output of the EA4
savings-to-investment ratio (SIR) is analogous to a benefit/cost (B/C) ratio. If the EA4 computes
a SIR of 1.0 or higher, where the energy-savings benefits of the measures outweigh the cost of
the project, the CAP agency is authorized to complete the proposed measures. In addition to the
individual measure SIR, the entire job is required to show a SIR of 1.0 or higher. The SIR also
accounts for measures that provide no actual savings but are provided for either the health or
safety of the customer or are required to make the other measures with savings more effective.
Idaho Power also assesses cost-effectiveness by calculating the traditional utility cost (UC)
and total resource cost (TRC) B/C ratios. Looking at 2011 reported savings and costs, the UC
B/C ratio was 2.67 while the TRC B/C ratio, which accounted for the total cost of installed
Idaho Power Company Weatherization Assistance for Qualified Customers
2011 Annual Report Page 9
measures, was 1.29. For the complete list of assumptions and inputs into the cost-effectiveness
ratios, refer to the Demand-Side Management 2011 Annual Report, Supplement 1:
Cost-Effectiveness, p. 79.

Note: One job, with an SIR of 17.8, was excluded from the distribution chart due to a savings calculation error.
Figure 1
SIR frequency distribution
Figure 1 shows the SIR frequency distribution of the 2011 projects funded through WAQC.
During 2011, SIR values ranged between a low of 1.04 and a high value of 8.76, with a mean
SIR of 2.36. The levelized cost of saved energy in 2011 for the WAQC program is $0.029/kWh
from a UC perspective and $0.042/kWh from a TRC perspective.
Annually, Idaho Power audits approximately 5 percent of the homes weatherized under the
WAQC program. This includes Idaho Power personnel’s participation in the Idaho state peer
review process that reviews weatherized homes as well as through third-party home verifiers.
The Idaho state peer review involves representatives from CAP agencies, Community Action
Partnership Association of Idaho, Inc. (CAPAI), and the Idaho State Department of Health and
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
WA
Q
C

J
o
b

C
o
u
n
t
s
Savings to Investment Ratio (SIR) Values
2011 SIR Summary
Minimum SIR =1.04
Maximum SIR = 8.76
Average SIR = 2.36
Median SIR = 2.05
Weatherization Assistance for Qualified Customers Idaho Power Company
Page 10 2011 Annual Report
Welfare (IDHW) reviewing homes weatherized by each of the other CAP agencies. In 2011,
one electrically heated Idaho Power home was included in the peer review process. Results show
that all CAP agency weatherization departments are weatherizing in accordance with
federal guidelines.
Two companies, The Energy Auditor and Momentum, LLC, employ certified
building-performance specialists to verify installed measures in customer homes in specific
regions for the program. The Energy Auditor verifies homes weatherized for WAQC in
Idaho Power’s eastern and southern regions. The owner of The Energy Auditor is certified by
Performance Tested Comfort Systems and is an ENERGY STAR® Home Performance specialist.
Additionally, the owner is a member of the Radiant Panel Association, US Green Building
Council, and Air Conditioning Contractors of America. Momentum LLC verifies weatherization
services provided through WAQC in the Capital and Canyon regions. The owner of
Momentum LLC is a Residential Energy Services Network (RESNET®) certified Home
Energy Rater.
Information from homes verified in 2011 provides feedback to improve the program as well as
verify that measures have been installed. In 2011, verifiers visited 24 homes. In three instances, a
verifier found the need for the heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) installer to
return to the residence for adjustments on the new heat system and to further educate those
customers about operating their new systems. During the verification process described above,
home verifiers asked customers how much they learned about saving electricity.
Thirteen customers answered that they learned “a lot” or “some.” When asked about how many
ways they tried to save electricity, 17 responded “a lot” or “some.” Additional home verifications
are in progress to be completed during the first quarter of 2012.
Idaho Power Company Weatherization Assistance for Qualified Customers
2011 Annual Report Page 11
CUSTOMER EDUCATION AND SATISFACTION
Idaho Power provides materials to each CAP agency to help educate qualified customers who
receive weatherization assistance. Included in the materials are copies of the Idaho Power
brochures Practical Ways to Manage Your Electricity Bill and Energy Saving Tips,
which describe energy conservation tips appropriate for both the heating and cooling seasons,
and a two-sided card that describes the energy-saving benefits of using CFL bulbs and helpful
information about using the bulbs. In addition, Idaho Power provides each CAP agency copies of
the book 30 Simple Things You Can Do to Save Energy. Idaho Power also actively informs
customers about weatherization assistance through energy, resource, and senior fairs.
To stay current with new programs and services, the Idaho Power program specialist overseeing
WAQC attends state and federal energy assistance/weatherization meetings and other
weatherization-specific conferences, such as the National Energy and Utility Affordability
Conference. Idaho Power is also active in the Policy Advisory Council, helping advise and direct
Idaho’s state weatherization application to the DOE.
PLANS FOR 2012
Idaho Power will continue working in partnership with the Idaho Department of Health and
Human Services (IDHHS), Oregon Housing and Community Services (OHCS), CAPAI,
and individual CAP agency personnel to maintain the targets, guidelines, and cost-effectiveness
of the WAQC program.
An updated version of the EA4, the EA5, was given interim approval by the DOE for use by the
Idaho State Weatherization Assistance Program in 2011. The EA5 has mechanical and
Weatherization Assistance for Qualified Customers Idaho Power Company
Page 12 2011 Annual Report
architectural measure interaction functionality that will prioritize measures according to the
interacted SIR. The EA5 is being tested and is scheduled for use starting April 2012.
Based on the required funding and the contracted annual average per home cost of $5,525,
Idaho Power estimates 188 homes and six non-profit buildings will be weatherized in Idaho
in 2012. In Oregon, an estimated eight homes and one non-profit building will be weatherized. In
2012, Idaho Power expects to fund $1,246,843 in weatherization measures and agency
administration fees in Idaho, of which $84,200 will be used to weatherize buildings housing
non-profit agencies that primarily serve qualified customers. Through the WAQC program,
Oregon CAP agencies have a budgetary amount of $45,000 to manage weatherization services
for Idaho Power customers. Overall, Idaho Power will provide the WAQC program with over
$1,291,843 in funding for the weatherization of homes and buildings of non-profit agencies
serving qualified customers.
Idaho Power plans to continually evaluate the need for additional program changes.
The company will continue to participate in the Idaho state peer review process of reviewing
weatherized homes. Idaho Power plans to verify a minimum of 5 percent of the homes
weatherized under the WAQC program.
In 2011, Idaho Power reviewed the evaluations conducted by Avista and Rocky Mountain
Power. Idaho Power also provided the requested information to the Applied Public Policy
Research Institute for Study and Evaluation (APPRISE), which is conducting a nationwide
evaluation of low-income weatherization programs for the Oak Ridge National Laboratory and
for the DOE. Idaho Power is planning on conducting its own third-party impact evaluation of the
WAQC program during the fourth quarter of 2012. The final report from this evaluation and the
Idaho Power Company Weatherization Assistance for Qualified Customers
2011 Annual Report Page 13
results of the national evaluation will be included in the Demand-Side Management 2012 Annual
Report, Supplement 2: Evaluation.
Weatherization Assistance for Qualified Customers Idaho Power Company
Page 14 2011 Annual Report
This page left blank intentionally.