20160223Compliance Filing.pdf

sIm[.
RECE IVED
?0t6 FIB ?3 Pt{ h 2lt
LISAD. NORDSTROM
Lead [e-mail]
February 23,2016
VIA HAND DELIVERY
Jean D. Jewell, Secretary
ldaho Public Utilities Commission
472 West Washington Street
Boise, ldaho 83702
RE: Case No. IPC-E-15-03 - Compliance Filing - Flex Peak Program One-Time Report
Dear Ms. Jewell:
!n Order No. 33292, the ldaho Public Utilities Commission ('Commission") ordered ldaho
Power Company to file a Flex Peak Program one-time report no later than May 7, 2016.
Therefore, enclosed for filing are an original and seven (7) copies of the Redacted Flex Peak
Program One-Time Report containing the information requested by the Commission in the order.
Also enclosed are an original and seven (7) copies of the confidential portion of the
report and confidentialAttachment 1 to ldaho Power Company's Flex Peak Program One-Time
Report. Please handle the confidentia! information in accordance with the Protective Agreement
executed in this matter.
!f you have any questions regarding this filing, please contact Zach Hanis at (208) 388-
2305 or zhanis@idahopower. com.
Very truly yours,fue@
Lisa D. Nordstrom
, r 1 ; 1 !f ii u"*b'#*! is*,o*
An IDACORP Company
P.O. Box 70 (83707)
1221 W. ldaho 5t.
Boise, lD 83702
LDN:kkt
Enclosures
SEffi*.
r-1.. t\,lgt' cf\
;=. T--'-; _r:'i:-- cfJ m
'7':-i , rrr C)r:-I (*) mtr-: e*!) i rn
,;; -e- (J
1..4rso.rz
2015 Flex Peak Program
One-Time Report
February 23,2016
ldaho Power
Table of Contents
Table of Contents............ ................. i
List of Tables ................... ii
List of Figures .................. ii
Background............. ........1
Summary .........1
Program Operation ..........2
Program Details .........2
Program lncentives ....................3
Recruitment............. ...................3
Use of lnterval Metering Data........ .............5
Participant Performan@.......... ........6
Baseline Methodology Comparison........ ....................6
Load Reduction Comparison.............. ........9
Comparison of Program Costs and Benefits........... .......10
Customer Satisfaction Results. ......12
Changes that Might lmprove the Program............. ........12
Conclusion.............. ....... 13
Flex Peak Program One-Time Report Page i
ldaho Power
List of Tables
Table 1. 201slncentive Structure. ...........4
Table 2. 2015 Event Realization Rates. .......9
Table 3. Program Costs for 2015. ............ ..............11
List of Figures
Figure 1. Distribution by Customer Segment lor 2015............. ...................5
Figure 2. Baseline and "Day of Adjustment" Methodology Comparisons....................8
Figure 3. Annual Program costs versus Peak Load Reduction .................11
Attachments
Attachment 1 - CONFIDENTIAL CLEAResult Memo dated February 18, 2016
Attachment2 - Flex Peak 2015 Survey Results
Page ii Flex Peak Program One-Time Report
ldaho Power
Background
The Flex Peak Program ("Program") is a voluntary demand response ("DR') program
available to ldaho Power Company's ("ldaho Power" or "Company") commercial and
industrial ("C & l") customers who are capable of reducing their electrical energy loads
for short periods during summer peak system load days. The Program objective is to
reduce the demand on ldaho Power's system during periods of extreme electricity use
or load. By reducing demand on extreme system load days during summer months, the
Program reduces the amount of generation and transmission resources required to
serve customers. The Program pays participants a financial incentive for reducing load
and is active June 15 to August 15, between the hours of 2:00 p.m. and 8:00 p.m. on
non-holiday weekdays. Load reduction events may be called a maximum of 60 hours
per season.
A similar program originated in 2009 as the FlexPeak Management program to provide
C & I customers an option to participate in a demand response program. The FlexPeak
Management program was managed by EnerNOC, lnc. ("EnerNOC") a third-party
contractor. On February 4, 2015, the Company filed an application with the ldaho
Public Utilities Commission ("Commission"), in Case No. IPC-E-15-03, requesting
authority to replace the existing FlexPeak Management demand response program with
a demand response program to be managed by ldaho Power. The Commission issued
Order No. 33292 on May 7,2015, authorizing Idaho Power to implement the Flex Peak
Program under Schedule No. 82 in ldaho.
As part of Order No. 33292, the Commission ordered the Company to file an annual
end-of-season report that should include the number of participants, number of
participating sites, megawatts ("MW") of demand response under contract, MWs of
demand response realized and incented per dispatch, percent of nominated MW
achieved in each dispatch event by participant, and a detailed program cost analysis.
The Company filed its annual Flex Peak Program End-of-Season Report on November
3,2015.
Page 8 of Order No. 33292 also required ldaho Power to file a separate, one-time report
no later than May 7, 2016 that discusses the Company's experience in running the
Program, how the Program's costs and benefits compare to those achieved under the
prior program, how participants have performed under the structure, and whether
changes might improve the Program. This report addresses the one-time reporting
requirements.
Summary
The substantial cost savings and increased customer interaction by managing and
operating the Program outweighs the slightly decreased enrollment. The Company
believes the Program will continue to gain participation and increase capacity with a
longer recruitment season in 2016. ln addition, the Company concluded the following:
o The Program had a total of 72 sites reducing peak demand by 25.6 MW
Flex Peak Program One-Time Report Page 1
a
a
ldaho Power Company
Despite changing to a Company-managed program and a short timeline to
implement the Program, the Flex Peak Program retained 71 percent of past
participants (34 of 48 participants) from lhe 2014 season
15 new sites enrolled in the 2015 season
Curtailment event results showed maximum load reductions of 24.1 MW, 25.6 MW,
and 14.6 MW, respectively, for the three events, and an average of 21.4 MW. The
events achieved realization rates of 86.7 percent, 96.6 percent, and 55.4 percent,
respectively, averaging 79.6 percent
Idaho Power believes the current methodology to determine load reduction results is
more accurate than the prior program
The tota! Program costs for 2015 was $592,872
Program cost savings did not result from a reduction in incentive payments as
customers are paid more per kW than the prior program
The cost of having this resource availabb was $21.96 per kW in 2015 based on the
average nomination for the season compared to $49.16 per kW based on average
nomination for the 2014 season
The Program shows high customer satisfaction results among participants
Program Operation
ldaho Power's experience in running the Program in 2015 was positive. The Company
was able to effectively manage the Program and achieve nearly $1 million in cost
savings while experiencing a relatively small reduction in participation. ln 2015,
parameters were established for the Program, an incentive structure was developed,
participants were recruited, and the Program was administered in a manner that
resulted in similar load reduction compared to the prior program.
Program Details
Customers with the ability to nominate or provide load reduction of at least 20 kilowatts
('kW') are eligible to enroll in the Program. The nomination is the amount of load
reduction a participant has agreed to reduce during a load reduction event. The 20 kW
threshold allows a broad range of customers to participate in the Program. Participants
receive notification of a load reduction event ("event") two hours prior to the start of the
event, and events last between two to four hours.
The parameters of the Flex Peak Program are set forth in Schedule 82, and include the
following:
o A minimum of three load reduction events each Program season
o Events occur any weekday, excluding July 4, between the hours of 2:00 p.m. and
8:00 p.m.
o Events occur up to four hours per day and up to 15 hours per week, but no more
than 60 hours per Program season
o ldaho Power notifies participants two hours prior to the initiation of an event
a
a
Page2 Flex Peak Program One-Time Report
ldaho Power
o If prior notice of a load reduction event has been sent, ldaho Power can choose
to cancel the event and notify participants of cancellation 30 minutes prior to the
start of the event
Program lncentives
The Flex Peak Program includes both a fixed and variable incentive payment. The fixed
incentive is calculated by multiplying the actual kW reduction by $3.25 for weeks when
an event is called or the weekly nominated kW amount by $3.25 for weeks when an
event is not ca!!ed. The variable energy incentive is calculated by multiplying the kW
reduction by the event duration hours to achieve the total kilowatt-hour ("kWh")
reduction during an event. The variable incentive payment is $0.16 per kWh and is
implemented for events that occur after the first three events.
The Program also includes an incentive adjustment of $2.00 per kW when participants
do not achieve their nominated amount during load reduction events. This adjustment
amount is used for the first three events. After the third event, the adjustment is
reduced to $0.25 per kW. lncentives are calculated using ldaho Power's interval
metering billing data and participants' incentive checks were mailed by September 15 in
2015, within 30 days of the end of the Program season. The incentive structure offered
for the 2015 season is listed in Table 1 .
Table 1.
Fixed Capacity Payment Rate*Variable Energy Payment Rate**
$3.25 per Weekly Effective kW Reduction
Adjustment for first three events
$2.00 per kW not achieved up to nomination
$0.16 per kWh (Actual kW x Hours of Event)
Adjustment after first three events
$0.25 per kW not achieved up to nomination
*To be prorated for partialweeks **Does not apply to first three Program events
Recruitment
The Company actively engaged in recruiting activities to ensure the Program would
have sufficient participation to reduce peak !oad. However, there were some
contributing factors that made enrollment challenging for the Program in 2015. The
Program was approved on May 7, 2015, providing ldaho Power 25 business days to
recruit customers for the Flex Peak Program before the season began on June 15,
2015. The biggest hurdle was the limited timeframe to enroll Program participants.
Knowing this would be a challenge, the Company communicated with prior participants
as well as engaged in Customer Representative visits advising customers about the
short timeframe to enroll in the Program.
Early in May 2015, Program enrollment mailings were sent to all participants that had
participated in prior seasons lrom 2012 to 2014. The Company actively recruited from
the 60 previous participants with 107 sites to attain a level of potential load capacity
similar to prior years. Previous participants were identified for enrollment due to their
Flex Peak Program One-Time Report Page 3
ldaho Power Company
past experience and familiarity with the prior program. Contents of the enrollment
mailing included Program details, a Program application, the Program's incentive
structure, and a listing of the customer's eligible service points. Additionally, the ldaho
Power Program Specialist and Customer Representatives answered specific customer
questions by phone, email, and through face-to-face contact, which helped inform
potentia! participants of new Program details.
While the Company's recruitment of previous participants was effective, some previous
participants did not re-enroll and other participants elected to nominate a load that was
lower than prior years. Once ldaho Power realized reduced enrollment was likely, a
second marketing effort was launched that identified candidates for the Program that
had a kW of 450 or greater in the summer months. This customer communication was
sent on May 27,2015 to 132 customers totaling 169 sites. As a result of this effort, an
additional 15 sites enrolled in the Program for the 2015 season. Demand response
program dynamics can be complicated and require customers to process and evaluate
impacts on business operations as well as gain approval from corporate entities. Some
customers may not have had the amount of time necessary to fully evaluate both the
incentive structure and operation of the Program in order to enrol! or gain corporate
approval prior to the start of the season.
Despite changes to the Program, most past participants and sites re-enrolled. The
number of sites enrolled in the Program tor 2015 was 72 compared to 93 sites in 2014.
Of those 72 sites, 57 were previously enrolled during the 2014 season. Those 57
accounted for 79 percent of the 2015 enrolled sites. The Program retained 34 of the 48
participants from the 2014 season for a71 percent customer retention rate. ln addition
to retaining 57 sites, 15 new sites were added to the Program. During the 2015
Program season, there was no attrition from enrolled participants; however,
participant with six sites enrolled had one site drop out of the Program during
season due to some customer-owned equipment maintenance occurring during
Program season.
The Company considers the enrollment numbers for 2015 to be satisfactory, given the
limited timeframe to recruit participants. Some former participants were unable to re-
enroll in 2015 due to increased production requirements that prevented participating in
load reduction events and some former participants discontinued their business
operations. These extenuating circumstances would have prevented these customers
from participating in any demand response program.
When comparing actual enrollment from 2014 lo 2015, the enrolled capacity was
similar. ln 2014, the average nominated amount was 31.8 MW compared to 27 MW for
the 2015 season.
The Company did not identify any issues related to meeting requests to participate in
the Program in 2015. ldaho Power processed and accepted all customer applications
for the 2015 season.
Figure 1 represents the 72 sites that enrolled in 2015 and their diversity per customer
segment.
one
the
the
Page 4 Flex Peak Program One-Time Report
ldaho Power
2OL5 Participation by Customer Segment
Based on Nomination
Refrigerated
Warehouse -.LLo/o \
Manufacturing
3%
Light lndustrial
L0%
Use of Interval Metering Data
lnterval metering data provides ldaho Power the ability to view all participants' load after
events. This metering data was used to calculate the reduction achieved per site during
load reduction events. Using this data, ldaho Power provided participants post-event
usage reports that showed hourly baseline, actual usage, and reduction during an
event. This tool assisted participants in refining their nomination for future events. This
data provides information useful in determining which participating sites may have an
opportunity to provide more reduction or change their reduction strategy if nomination
amounts were not achieved.
Based on individual event performance, ldaho Power contacted participants if their
reduction was 25 percent less than the nominated amount for the event. When a
participant did not achieve at least 75 percent of their nominated amount, there was
often one or more of the following factors that influenced the performance:
o Production requirements prevented the ability to curtail or fu!!y implement all load
reduction measures within facility
o Building operators and/or maintenance personne! were out of town or unavailable
during event day
o Enrolled facility was offline or not in production during entire load reduction event
or baseline period due to reduced hours of operation
The Company works with participants to assist in electing a feasible nomination amount
based on facility size and operation. The Company believes that with more accurate
nominations, participants will be more likely to achieve the expected reduction providing
a higher realization rate and more reliable load resource. Additionally, if a Program
Figure 1.
Water &
Wastewater
Treatment
Facility
9%
Other
5%_
Flex Peak Program One-Time Report Page 5
ldaho Power Company
participant does not achieve their nominated load reduction amount during a load
reduction event, they wil! receive a lower incentive amount based on the actual
reduction achieved. This encourages participants to elect achievable nomination
amounts which maintains the reliability of the expected Program results. The Company
anticipates improved Program performance in 2016 because participants will be more
familiar with the Program and wi!! be able to nominate amounts that more closely align
with achievable load reduction levels.
Pa rtici pant Performance
The results throughout this report are calculated at the generation leve! and system
losses have been taken into account. Idaho Power called three Flex Peak Program
load reduction events in 2015. A detailed analysis of the realization and reduction
amounts for each event was provided in the F/ex Peak Program End-of-Season Report
filed on November 3,2015.
The highest hourly or peak load reduction for 2015 was 25.6 MW during the second
event. Had the previous methodology been used to calculate the load reduction for this
event, the peak load reduction would have been 32.0 MW. The difference is primarily
due to a variation in the baseline methodology and the corresponding adjustment on the
day of the event. A comparison of the baseline methodologies is explained in more
detail below.
Baseline Methodology Comparison
The Company's load reduction results in 2015 were verified by an impact evaluationl
performed by a third-party contractor, CLEAResult. ln addition to the impact evaluation,
CLEAResult also conducted an analysis of another baseline methodology that was used
in prior seasons by EnerNOC. The additional analysis determined the load reduction
achieved using both the current Program methodology as well as the methodology used
in the prior program. The memo prepared by CLEAResult analyzing the baseline
methodologies is included as confidentialAttachment 1 to this report.
The confidentia! memo describes proprietary information about EnerNOC's business
mode! regarding the baseline methodology used for the FlexPeak Management
program. The goal of the analysis was to calculate load reduction in MW under ldaho
Power's methodology and the methodology that was previously used for the FlexPeak
Management program.
For the Flex Peak Program, the baseline that load reductions are measured against
during load reduction events is calculated using a 10-day period. The baseline is the
average kW of the highest energy usage days during the event availability time (2:00 -
' The lmpact Evaluation was included as an attachment to the annual Ftex Peak Program End-
of-Season Report filed on November 3, 2015.
Page 6 Flex Peak Program One-Time Report
ldaho Power
8:00 p.m.) from the highest three days out of the last 10 non-event weekdays.
lndividual baselines are calculated for each facility site. Once the original baseline is
calculated, there is an additional piece included in the methodology called the Day-of-
Adjustment ("DOA") that is used to arrive at the adjusted baseline.
Adjustments address situations when load is higher or lower than it has historically been
and the baseline does not accurately reflect the load behavior immediately prior to the
event. The DOA is used to determine the amount of load the participant curtailed as a
result of participating in the load reduction event. The DOA is applied to each site's
original baseline by accounting for the difference between the average baseline kW and
the average curtailment day kW during the two hours prior to event notification. The
DOA is calculated as a flat kW and is applied to all baseline hours and capped at +l- 20
percent of the original baseline kW. The DOA is symmetrical, having either an upward
or downward adjustment to the baseline, and is applied to the original baseline kW for
each facility site for each hour during the load reduction event.
ln determining the load reduction amount for each event, there was a variation from the
previous program's baseline methodology compared to the current ram's baseline
methodo used in 2015 due to the DOA.
The prior baseline methodology resulted in greater reductions and increased realization
rates averaging 17.9 percent higher compared to the current Program realization rates.
The results for the first event had similar load reduction between the two
unlike the last two events.
During the 2015 season, the peak nomination was 28.1 MW with a peak
reduction of 25.6 MW at generation level. Using the previous baseline and DOA
methodology would have resulted in a peak reduction of 32.0 MW, or 6.4 MW greater
than the current methodology.
Flex Peak Program One-Time Report Page 7
ldaho Power Company
Both methodologies are commonly accepted throughout the industry, however, ldaho
Power believes having a symmetrical DOA with caps is a more equitable way to
calculate load reduction for both participants and the Company. At this time, the
Company does not anticipate any changes to the baseline methodology for 2016.
Figure 2 represents the measured reduction from ldaho Power's baseline and DOA
methodology versus the prior program baseline methodology for the second event on
July 21,2015.
Figure 2.
Flex Peak Baseline Comparison-7 l2Ll2O15 (All sitesf
105,C00
15.000
Notificetion EventStert Evcnt End
.-"+*-.----l ".,r,fliorbaselins
=J
-..4- Original Eseline
+- ldaho PooEr Srselin"
-'r",Pri€r Baseline
5 7J21 Usge
ldaho Powrr pcek redustinn-25.5 MW
Prior mcthod peak reduction 32 MW
LC00 1100 12:CE 100 20C 3:0O 4C0 5CO 60O 700 8OO 9C0
Table 2 shows a comparison of the realization rates for 2015 based on peak load
reduction per event. The table shows the realization rate for each event using the Flex
Peak Program DOA methodology and what the realization rates would have been had
the Company used the DOA methodology from the previous program.
Page 8 Flex Peak Program One-Time Report
ldaho Power
Table 2.
Event Date
FIex Peak Program DOA
Methodology
Previous Program DOA
Methodology
June 30, 2015
July 21,2015
August 4,2015
Season Average
86.7o/o
96.6%
55.40/o
79.60/o
91.30/o
121.1o/o
80.20/o
97.5%
The realization rate is the percentage of load reduction achieved versus the amount of
load reduction nominated for an event. A realization rate over 100 percent indicates the
participants exceeded their nominated amount. A realization rate under 100 percent
indicates the participants did not achieve their nominated amount. The realization rates
for each event are lower than in prior years due to the calculation change in the DOA.
The change in the DOA resulted in a reported reduction less than the previous
methodology; however, the Company believes the load reduction amounts achieved
from each event are a more accurate representation of the actual load reduced for each
event using the Flex Peak Program DOA methodology.
The realization rate analysis results show that maximum load reduction was realized in
the middle of the Program season. This time period is the last week of June through the
middle of July, which corresponds to ldaho Power's overall summer system peak.
Load Reduction Comparison
Program participants had a committed load of 28.1 MW in the first week of the Program,
which was the peak nomination for the season. The nomination was comprised of 38
participants totaling 72 sites. The committed load at the end of the season was 26.37
MW, which was achieved by Tl facility sites.
The first event was called on Tuesday, June 30. Participants were notified at 2:00 p.m.
for a four-hour event from 4:00 - 8:00 p.m. The tota! nomination for this event was
27.72 MW. The average load reduction was 23.6 MW. The highest hourly load
reduction was 24.0 MW during hour three. The realization rate for this event was 86.7
percent. Had the previous methodology been used to calculate the load reduction for
this event, the peak reduction would have been 25.3 MW with a realization rate of 91.3
percent.
The second event was called on Tuesday, July 21. Participants were notified at 2:00
p.m. for a four-hour event from 4:00 - 8:00 p.m. The total nomination for this event was
26.4 MW. The average load reduction was 24.9 MW. The highest hourly load reduction
was 25.6 MW during hour one. The realization rate for this event was 96.6 percent.
Flex Peak Program One-Time Report Page 9
ldaho Power Company
Had the previous methodology been used to calculate the load reduction for this event,
the peak reduction would have been 32.0 MW with a realization rate of 121.1 percent.
The third event was called on Tuesday, August 4. Participants were notified at 2:00
p.m. for a three-hour event from 4:00 -7:00 p.m. The total nomination for this event was
26.2 MW. The average load reduction was 13.8 MW. The highest hourly load reduction
was 14.6 MW during hour three. The realization rate for this event was 55.4 percent.
This was primarily due to one customer with two sites that was not able to provide their
typical load reduction because of production issues caused by outages from range fires.
These two sites achieved a realization rate of 8 percent in the August 4 event,
compared to an average of 113 percent for the first two events. Had the site's
realization rate for the August 4 event been the average of its realization rates from the
first two events, the realization rate for this event would have been 94.8 percent. Had
the previous methodology been used to calculate the load reduction for this event, the
peak reduction would have been 21.1 MW with a realization rate of 80.2 percent.
Gomparison of Program Costs and Benefits
The primary benefit of the Program is the cost savings compared to the prior program.
Total Program costs for 2015 were $592,872, or $21.96 per kW based on the average
nomination amount of 27 MW for the 2015 season. By managing the FIex Peak
Program internally the Company saved its customers nearly $t million in 2015
compared lo 2014 program costs. lncentive payments were the largest expenditure
comprising 82 percent of total costs. Total costs during 2014 for the FlexPeak
Management program were $1,563,211 or $49.16 per kW based on an average
nomination amount of 31.8 MW for the 2014 season.
The incentive payments were fixed capacity payments resulting from the three events
called during the 2015 Program season. The fixed capacity payments totaled $487,857.
Variable energy payments were not made during the season because the variable
energy payment is implemented starting with the fourth event.
Based on ldaho Power's understanding, the cost savings of approximately $1 million
was not due to customers receiving lower incentives. The Flex Peak Program pays
customers an incentive between $29.25 (with three events) and $36.93 (with the
maximum of 60 hours) per kW compared to the former FlexPeak Management program
that paid customers an incentive between $25 and $35 based on a public press release
from EnerNOC in the "ldaho Business Review" from 2009.
The Company recognizes that participation and realization rates decreased somewhat
after changing the methodology to determine load reduction in 2015 compared to prior
years, but ldaho Power believes the significant cost savings outweighs the slight
reduction in participation. Due to the cost savings, the Flex Peak Program is more cost
effective than the prior program. As shown in Figure 3, the cost of the Program in
relation to the kW reduced is significantly lower in 2015 compared to prior years.
Figure 3 shows the annual program costs and peak reduction in kW from 2009 to 2015.
NOTE: ln 2015, ldaho Power used a different methodology to determine peak Ioad
Page 10 Flex Peak Program One-Time Report
ldaho Power
reduction. Had the previous methodology been used, the total peak load reduction in
2015 would have been 32,000 kW.
Figure 3.
Cost vs Load Reduction
s3,5oo,ooo
s3,ooo,ooo
s2,5oo,ooo
52,000,000 AnnualCost
51,500,000 -
Peak Reduction (kW)
*Program Cost (S)
s1,000,000
s5oo,ooo
SO
Table 3 displays the 2015 Flex Peak Program costs by category.
Table 3.
3J
tro,U(,
=EoE
J(EoC
50,000
50,000
40,000
30,000
20,000
10,000
o
2015 Program Costs
Materials and O&M expenses
Contract Services
lncentive payments
Marketing & Administration
Total
$13,309
$8,165
$487,857
$83,541
$592,872
ln addition to the cost savings, the Program also provides several other benefits to the
Company and its customers. By managing the Program internally, the Company is able
to engage with its customers more frequently and provide additional opportunities to
better serve them in their overall electrical needs. More engagement with customers
encourages more participation in the Company's energy efficiency programs and
increases overall customer satisfaction. Participants have also expressed that they
Flex Peak Program One-Time Report Page 11
ldaho Power Company
value the Program's transparency as all enrolled participants must abide by the same
program rules, incentive structure, and operational boundaries unlike prior years when
customers had individual contracts.
Customer Satisfaction Results
Customer satisfaction results from the end of season survey indicate increased
satisfaction among Program participants. ldaho Power conducted a post-season survey
sent via email to all participants enrolled in the Program. The survey focused on
quantifiable questions that encouraged customer feedback for future Program
improvement. ldaho Power received responses from 19 of 38 customers for a response
rate of 50 percent. ln 2014, the Company received responses from 13 of 48 customers
for a response rate of 27 percent. Survey results were evaluated on a S-point rating
scale with 5 being the "best" and 1 being "worst". The combined average response for
all questions in 2015 was 4.6 out of 5 compared to an average response of 4.4 in 2014.
When customers where asked how satisfied they were with their overall experience in
the Flex Peak Program, the average response was 4.5. Additionally, when asked how
likely they would be to re-enroll in the Flex Peak Program in the future, the average
response was 4.9. The results of the survey were favorable and showed that
participants were satisfied. The full survey report is included as Attachment 2 to this
Flex Peak Program one-time report.
Ghanges that Might lmprove the Program
An increase in enrollment is the primary improvement that could benefit the Program. ln
an effort to increase enrollment, recruitment efforts for the 2016 season began in the
fourth quarter of 2015 and wil! continue in 2016. ldaho Power Customer
Representatives or the Flex Peak Program Specialist will meet with participants from
the 2015 season during the off-season to discuss past-season performance and review
Program details. Potential participants have been identified and are being recruited
through field visits and will receive further communication in early spring of 2016.
ldaho Power has launched a marketing/customer recruitment campaign with Customer
Representatives to recruit new participants. The goals of the marketing campaign are
to increase the number and size (in terms of nominated load reduction) diversity of sites
enrolled. By having a larger size diversity enrolled, the Program would be less prone to
volatility in its realization rate. The Company also developed new Program literature
and a new Program brochure. This marketing campaign will focus on identifying
customer dynamics that make successful Program participants and will also highlight
available incentive amounts based on customers' load size. The Program will be jointly
marketed with ldaho Power's energy efficiency programs and promoted during events
such as workshops, trainings, and tradeshows.
The Company also believes that having at least three contacts per facility to notify prior
to load reduction events provides a higher participation rate of enrolled facilities. When
an event is initiated and the participant only has one or two personne! to notify of the
event, the reduction plan may not always be implemented if the designated points of
Page 12 Flex Peak Program One-Time Report
contact are not available. Having at least three contacts per site provides redundancy
in the notification process. For the 2016 season, the Company has updated its
recruiting and enrollment application to request three contacts per facility.
Conclusion
A Company-managed program offers customers and the Company several benefits.
First, there are significant annual cost savings. The total cost savings this season
compared to the prior year was nearly $1 million. These cost savings flow back to
customers through the Company's Power Cost Adjustment mechanism. Second, all
participants were paid within 30 days of the season ending compared to previous years
where the second installment was paid nearly five months after the end of the season.
Lastly, because the Program is managed by the Company, Idaho Power was able to
cross-market energy efficiency programs and strengthen relationships with its
customers.
Flex Peak Program One-Time Report Page 13
BEFORE THE
IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
GASE NO. IPC-E-15-03
IDAHO POWER COMPANY
ATTACHMENT 1
ATTACHMENT 1
IS CONFIDENTIAL
AND WI LL BE PROVIDED
TO THOSE PARTIES THAT
HAVE SIGNED THE
PROTEGTIVE
AGREEMENT
BEFORE THE
IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
GASE NO. IPC.E.15.O3
IDAHO POWER COMPANY
ATTACHMENT 2
Flex Peak Program Summary
How much do you agree, or disagree, wlth the followlng statements about the applicaton prooess and operation of the
program:
How clear were the noUfication messages for the Flex Peak Program events?
Mean Raa,ptse
Man Resptse
For each of the events ldaho Power called thls summer, please lndicate how prepared were you for the event?
Man Rspnse 4.2
Followlng each event, ldaho Power provided post event perfurmance data for eacfi particlpaUng facility. How usefu! was
thls infurmatlon ln helping you refine future nomlnatlons for the program?
llan Rsrynse 4.9
lf you contacted ldaho Powsr, how helpful was ldaho Power with any questions you had regardlng the Flex Peak Program?
fulean Rsponse 4,6
How satisfled are you with the dmellness of recelvlng your lncentive payment?
llan Respnse 4.7
How saUsfied aro you with your incentive amount?
llean R*pnse
hlean Rspotr*
Mean Rsptts
4.4
4.9
How satlsfied are you with your overall o<perlenca wlth the Flex Peak Program?
How llkely would you be to re-enroll in the Flex Peak Program ln the future?
4.5
4.9
4.6Overall Program Average
Flex Peak Program Survey
What ls your role at your company?
Answer Options
Facilities Director/Manager/Superuisor
Mai ntenance Di rector/Manager/Supervisor
Operations Director/Manager/Supervisor
Plant Di rectoriManager/Supervisor
Other (please specify)
Other (please spedff)
Energy Engineer
Master Electrician
Lead Water Tech.
Roeponeo
Porcent
26.3o/o
21 .1o/o
15.80/o
21.10/o
15.87oerctM@r
skippdqtrcfran
What is your role at your company?
Reeponse
Count
5
4
3
4
3
19
0
r Facilities Director/Manager/Supervisor
I Maintenance
Director/Manager/Supervisor
: operations
Director/Ma nager/Su pervisor
r Plant Director/Manager/Supervisor
r Other (please specify)
NN
f\FFf\FFFF
ssssoooo
ssssoooo
ss
gg
E$
oII5I ssssz'e o(o(ooeG
-6'L ov
# E g E$Edz F.8E
Eg ssssOXFf\[orr)trg st\t(')(f)
8R
o2r
AE0l
eiocc6o (O (Y) (', roEg + + + +
OE
o?rE':B,qovG
t\N
FT\T\F
FFFF
Eg o--"Et 3; : s s : SF ER &" I
HE ooo-*' $ EE o o o o
E-E
=-PE9a6EE
EO
EEEED
Bg
oooo
@or(')
@N$sl(\ (f, c\t N
B;B
-6X L Crv
E E gB "
t
E E?g EF
rO€oB E ooooCED
Eg
sGD
OE6
€gE oNd)F9 HR- E',sl,
Et, F."(o(o
EB
>6EDv ro ro ro ro-io\o\o\o\E E gts5g6B
EEEEd .ec=q)(Eo=
=BI.v-9,r-L-lSoo>o)-cE [D'
=P€,(o
E PE fiet tiB's g EE aaEooGH(E(l,(l)1Sooh- G (E.=F==6EggO.E'-'-:
E €EE;v =oo€!. !+d) 0)i
E gE g g
>a.EloEDV E CD-e 5'g e..P El_e Eq I I B I eE BF Es nF E88f;oo-oP eE .E e E .BE =fi E E fi EE EEe E E E e Er g8= t g # = tE i;El E g; c ir -c'E g+te E- B* E f E-g Er1E g EBE!ps etti I e5 & o o* E AeeE E B.e e E EE b EaaE b Ea a 8 bA I EEs= I gs s = BF=q =ss€ t Es;sfi EEl ? €;;=e i ?:;E;-fl i
* I B E*** EE s E*A* g ;s : E leee; rE E :aEFE + :#E E }E:s si E iEE:3 i
!goo
e?$=SFESgF#TFgEf,bf,tEEbEEcoGocEEEEg
IT:!I
Po
s. ilEFrf;E;i
dg=gEo
ftrtaPtro
Eo+,oPti
a0tr'=
-9o*-o.Cttts
.!=
3
otot-a0o.2T'
Lo
oot-
b/0o5o
o
=,E,(J
=E
3oI
I
6a!.oEg$
TE8bEE!roO.5oirtOo]!
oii..!!-oEr
s E#rrlE
s.E EE.g =E$Fi+ e
=6ooo.!
'EO
E!-
EE!scCLt!os
Flex Peak Program Survey
ldaho Power noufred customers of an event by contaaing them three tmes by emall or by phone.
Which of the following statements best describes your thoughts on the number of noUllcations
recaived?
Answer Optlons
Too much
Right amount
Too little
OverallMean
Response ResponsePercent Count
29.4o/o 5
70.60/o 12
0.Oo/o 0
answercd quelrtion 17
skipped question 2
Which of the following statements best describes your thoughts
on the number of notifications received?
FIex Peak Program Survey
How clear were the notfication messages for the Flex Peak Program events?
Answer Options
Very clear (5)
Somewhat clear (4)
Neither clear nor unclear (3)
Somewhat unclear (2)
Very unclear (1)
Response ResponsePercent Count
88.2o/o 15
11.8o/o 2
0.0o/o 0
0.0olo 00.0% 0ansnadquqrtion 17skippedqu*tion 2
Mean Response
Weighted
Response
75
8
0
0
0
4.9
How clear were the notification messages for the Flex Peak
Program events?
r Very clear (5)
r Somewhat clear (4)
u Neither clear nor unclear (3)
I Somewhat unclear (2)
w Very unclear (1)
F(\t
l2-b5Elo8oG
\ovlnECo o o(Y)N
S fr +++
E.
o92,E = r\r\r\R,q FTFovE,
-e ssE EHE d55BEr! \BOGE $$\Ft!;9F sdE
CLc
=
f, --.tE B= P::So lE Bo $e *.B* E 6
\E,E' E -E'gE rOC g 9E rOO
c,c==
d$d
sss!t o) o)C\INN
ft9r
EHbEct, ?
=
bos EE9s IEEE2 $go.5
63EI
;F
6tUVt a!-o -cx7 rgE EE
=
!, E9s b; E=- EgEg 2 $go.5
t tCo -c-z, =6CD OEg Es*
-s!9oto
EEbE(t, ?
=
bor EE
EE EooEl
= g-g
6EEx
EE.EE
!tgoCLIO $HHao
t.t H=6C ar" J3 E+e.',o -- -- 1E €€€, oooo oootr =f f
!,oE=9EE to ssso
=b o
o$o 6=6c ar" fE 8 SiP
= 9 i;>
= = ooGO Y !E!k t ooo9 A ooo6 € EEE
t,goCLtO @oro)
bo
!t
ta H=6c ar" lc! = >\E)E ;=eo **ig fff.t ooo)c 5l:,
FNFFFF
$x$
co
ooE
o
=o
oLo
=to
6CLo
CL
=o3o
.gT'
._Eoo6oE.
LoE
Efo0
Et,
-9
E
o3oo-o-cot
oco
oo€
o
.trooo
o1r
tro
oo-c
e
=o
oo
=!,goCIo
CLioEo
6oE
.Eooog
CL
LoE
E
=o
.9,E
Itg
Eo
o
=o
o9et3!,o;
EC,E9EDOPoo-E
-Y :io:d8XOf,,P
$c\r$
o(o(f)
(oooFNN
C.,l r N
F(\F
sf ll) lr)
s9!o
l!coNA
!5rtOs!o!gEcg4
o t G tt*EHOi'B: FT iEE AT F
=tbla=oEo-.ef-E-S 8 Z, E E
T'oL
tE
CLobo,
$
6
=to
*o!lioI
N
I
r!EooI
onlotrt
G!oo3
tlrrl
3o-coPlE.g!t
.s
ooog
CL
LTgE
Eg
=o.0C,6s.CLECoo
l!O:3o=
aeG
o
.C,o
=tiPtro
oo.tPrFosuoo
Lot!
Flex Peak Program Survey
Followlng each event, ldaho Pouver provlded post event porbrmance data for eacfi par$clpating facility. Hov useful was
thle lnbrmaUon in helplng you refine futrre nominatlons forthe program?
Reeponea Reeponle WelghbdPcrcent Count Ragpsrso94.1Vo 16 805.906 1 40.07o 0 00.07o 0 00.0% 0 0
ens*wad qwtbtt 17
skipd quwtlon 2fifunRsWw
Anewer Opffons
Very useful (5)
Somewhat useful (4)
Neither useful nor useless (3)
Somewhat useless (2)
Very useless (1)
How usefulwas the post-event performance data ldaho Power
provided in helping you refine future nominations for the program?
Somewhat useful (4),
Flex Peak Program Survey
Dld you contact ldaho Power wlth any quesilons
regardlng the Flex Peak Program?
Anemropuons RorPoncc RaePoneePercent ComtYes 58.8% 10No 41.2% 7*pradqffin 17std@OrcAron 2
Did you contact ldaho Power with any questions regarding the
Flex Peak Program?
Flex Peak Program Survey
lf you contaaed Eaho Power, hoy helpful wae ldaho Powerwlth any quesdons you had regadlrlg the Flex
Peak Program?
Ansv$er Opdons
Very helpful (5)
Somewhat helptul (4)
Neither helptul nor unhelptul (3)
Somewhat unhelpful(2)
Very unhelptul(1)
Recponae Reepmca WolghtedPercont Count Reeponee70.0Yo 7 3520.0Yo 2 810.0olo 1 30.0% 0 00.0% 0 0&MqNq, 10ski@qtrctun IffutRapw 't.6
How helpful was ldaho Power with any questions you had
regarding the Flex Peak Program?
Flex Peak Program Survey
How satsfed ar€ you wlth the dmellness of reelvlng your lnenUve payment?
AruurerOpdons
Very satisfied (5)
Somewhat satisfied (4)
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied (3)
Somewhat dissatisfied (2)
Very dissatisfied (1)
Reponre
P.rc.nt
70.6%
29.4%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%gaM,
slcl@qu*don
Raponcc Ws[&OCount Rcponee12 60520000000
17
2*boMw
How satisfied are you with the timeliness of receiving your
incentive payment?
1.7
Flex Peak Program Survey
Hm sEdsfed are you wttr your lnendve amounfil
Anewer Op$ons
Very satisfied (5)
Somewhat satisfied (4)
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied (3)
Somewhat dissatisfied (2)
Very dissatisfied (1)
Rccponae RccponscPorcont Count29.4Yo 558.8% 10' 11.8% 20.0% 00.0% 0qrcaw 17ekl@quxilot 2il@tRaptw
Wdgltcd
Rerponce
25
40
6
0
0
1.2
How satisfied are you with your incentive amount?
Flex Pek Program Survey
Hov sadsfied ar6 you with your overal! elperlenca wlth the Flex Peak Prcgram?
Answer Opdons
Very satisfied (5)
Somewhat satisfied (4)
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied (3)
Somewhat dissatisfied (2)
Very dissatisfied (1)
Recponce
Pscent
56.3%
37.5%
6.3%
0.0%
0.0%
otpttaradWtloa
ski@qtrcilon
Rccporc
Count
9
6
1
0
0
16
3*tut@w
Wdghted
Rerponae
45
24
3
0
0
tl.5
How satisfied are you with your overall experience with the Flex Peak
Program?
Neither satisfted nor
dissatisfied (3),6.3%
Flex Peak Program Survey
How llkely would you be to re.enroll ln tte Flex Peak Program ln the future?
Answsr OpUons
Very likely (5)
Somewhat likely (4)
Neither likely nor unlikely (3)
Somewhat unlikely (2)
Very unlikely (1)
Recponse
Percent
93.8%
6.3%
0.lYo
0.0%
0.ivoarffiqu*iut
sklpd qu*ton
Reaponse
Count
15
1
0
0
0
16
3ManRapw
Welghted
Response
75
4
0
0
0
4.9
How likely would you be to re-enrollin the Flex Peak Program in the
Somewhat likely (4),
Flex Peak Program Survey
Please provlde any addltonal comments about ldaho Powe/s Flex Peak Program.
fuisrver Ofllons
answwedqt*tion
skipedqu*tion
Response
Count
5
5
14
ext
I understand that the program does not want to give more than two hours notice, but it would be very
useful to have more advance notice of an impending event. The more notice the better.
Overall Mean
Zeke was verv heloful and knowledqeable.
Just need to work on notification qliche.
ldaho's peak program was easy to enroll, performance reports made available timely after each event,
easy to make changes to nominations in between events. The support team was outstanding in their
management and communications for the program. They provide detail information needed to review with
other levels of OD manaqement. We look fonrard to next season.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on the 23d day of February 20161 served a true and
correct copy the FLEX PEAK PROGRAM ONE-TIME REPORT upon the following
named parties by the method indicated below, and addressed to the following:
Commission Staff
Karl T. Klein
Deputy Attorney General
!daho Public Utilities Commission
472 West Washington (83702)
P.O. Box 83720
Boise, ldaho 83720-007 4
lndustrial Customerc of ldaho Power
Peter J. Richardson
Gregory M. Adams
RICHARDSON ADAMS, PLLC
515 North 27th Street (83702)
P.O. Box 7218
Boise, ldaho 83707
Dr. Don Reading
6070 Hill Road
Boise, ldaho 83703
ldaho Conservation League
Benjamin J. Otto
ldaho Conservation League
710 North 6th Street (83702)
P.O. Box 844
Boise, ldaho 83701
X Hand Delivered
U.S. Mail
Overnight Mail
FAXX Email [e-mail]
_Hand Delivered
U.S. Mail
Overnight Mail
FAXX Email [e-mail]
q reo@ richardsonadams. com
Hand Delivered
U.S. Mail
Overnight Mail
FAXX Email [e-mail]
_Hand Delivered
U.S. Mail
Overnight Mail
FAXX Email [e-mail]
Ot^r4N
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE - 1