201603162015 DSM Supplement 1.pdf

March 15, 2016
2015 ANNUAL REPORT
Supplement 1:
Cost-Effectiveness
Demand-Side Management
Printed on recycled paper
Idaho Power Company Supplement 1: Cost-Effectiveness
Demand-Side Management 2015 Annual Report Page i
List of tabLes
Table 1. 2015 non-cost-effective measures ..................................................................................................7
Table 2. 2015 DSM detailed expenses by program (dollars) .......................................................................8
Table 3. Cost-effectiveness summary by program .....................................................................................12
tabLe of Contents
Supplement 1: Cost-Effectiveness ...............................................................................................................1
Cost-Effectiveness .................................................................................................................................1
Methodology ..........................................................................................................................................2
Assumptions ...........................................................................................................................................3
Conservation Adder ...............................................................................................................................4
Net-to-Gross ...........................................................................................................................................5
Results ....................................................................................................................................................5
2015 DSM Detailed Expenses by Program ...........................................................................................8
Cost-Effectiveness Tables by Program ......................................................................................................13
Easy Savings ........................................................................................................................................13
Educational Distributions .....................................................................................................................15
Energy Efficient Lighting.....................................................................................................................17
Energy House Calls ..............................................................................................................................23
ENERGY STAR® Homes Northwest ...................................................................................................27
Heating & Cooling Efficiency Program/DHP Pilot .............................................................................29
Home Improvement Program ..............................................................................................................33
Rebate Advantage ................................................................................................................................35
See ya later, refrigerator® ....................................................................................................................37
Simple Steps, Smart Savings™/Home Products Program ....................................................................39
Weatherization Assistance for Qualified Customers ............................................................................41
Weatherization Solutions for Eligible Customers ................................................................................43
Building Efficiency ..............................................................................................................................45
Custom Efficiency ................................................................................................................................49
Easy Upgrades .....................................................................................................................................53
Irrigation Efficiency Rewards ..............................................................................................................61
Supplement 1: Cost-Effectiveness Idaho Power Company
Page ii Demand-Side Management 2015 Annual Report
This page left blank intentionally.
Idaho Power Company Supplement 1: Cost-Effectiveness
Demand-Side Management 2015 Annual Report Page 1
suppLement 1: Cost-effeCtiveness
Cost-Effectiveness
Idaho Power considers cost-effectiveness of primary importance in the design, implementation,
and tracking of energy efficiency and demand response programs. Idaho Power’s energy efficiency
and demand response opportunities are preliminarily identified through the Integrated Resource Plan
(IRP) process. Idaho Power uses third-party energy efficiency potential studies to identify achievable
cost-effective energy efficiency potential that is added to the resources included in the IRP. Idaho
Power’s Program Planning Group (PPG) explores new opportunities to expand current demand-
side management (DSM) programs and offerings. Because of Idaho Power’s diversified portfolio of
programs, most of the new potential for energy efficiency in Idaho Power’s service area is based on
additional measures to be added to existing programs rather than developing new programs.
Prior to the actual implementation of energy efficiency or demand response programs, Idaho Power
performs a cost-effectiveness analysis to assess whether a potential program design or measure will be
cost-effective from the perspective of Idaho Power and its customers. Incorporated in these models are
inputs from various sources that use the most current and reliable information available. When possible,
Idaho Power leverages the experiences of other utilities in the region and/or throughout the country to
help identify specific program parameters. This is accomplished through discussions with other utilities’
program managers and researchers. Idaho Power also uses electric industry research organizations, such
as E Source, the Edison Electric Institute (EEI), Consortium for Energy Efficiency (CEE), American
Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE), Advanced Load Control Alliance (ALCA),
and Association of Energy Service Professionals (AESP), to identify similar programs and their results.
Additionally, Idaho Power relies on the results of program impact evaluations and recommendations
from consultants. In 2015, Idaho Power contracted with ADM Associates, Inc. (ADM); Applied Energy
Group (AEG); CLEAResult Consulting, Inc. (CLEAResult); and Tetra Tech, MA for program
evaluations and research.
Idaho Power’s goal is for all programs to have benefit/cost (B/C) ratios greater than one for the total
resource cost (TRC) test, utility cost (UC) test, and participant cost test (PCT) at the program and
measure level where appropriate. If a particular measure or program is pursued even though it will not
be cost-effective from each of the three tests, Idaho Power works with the Energy Efficiency Advisory
Group (EEAG) to get input. If the measure or program is indeed offered, the company explains why
the measure or program was implemented or continued. The company believes this aligns with the
expectations of the Idaho Public Utilities Commission (IPUC) and Public Utility Commission of
Oregon (OPUC).
In the OPUC Order No. 94-590, issued in Utility Miscellaneous (UM) 551, the OPUC outlines specific
cost-effectiveness guidelines for energy efficiency measures and programs managed by program
administrators. It is the expectation of the OPUC that measures and programs pass both the UC and TRC
tests. Measures and programs that do not pass these tests may be offered by a utility if they meet one or
more of the following additional conditions specified by Section 13 of Order No. 94-590.
A. The measure produces significant non-quantifiable non-energy benefits (NEB)
B. Inclusion of the measure will increase market acceptance and is expected to lead to reduced cost
of the measure
Supplement 1: Cost-Effectiveness Idaho Power Company
Page 2 Demand-Side Management 2015 Annual Report
C. The measure is included for consistency with other DSM programs in the region
D. Inclusion of the measure helps increase participation in a cost-effective program
E. The package of measures cannot be changed frequently, and the measure will be cost-effective
during the period the program is offered
F. The measure or package of measures is included in a pilot or research project intended to be
offered to a limited number of customers
G. The measure is required by law or is consistent with OPUC policy and/or direction
If Idaho Power determines a program or measures is not cost-effective but meets one or more of the
exceptions set forth by Order No. 94-590, the company files an exceptions request with the OPUC to
continue offering the measure or program within it its Oregon service area.
Idaho Power endeavors to offer identical programs in both its Oregon and Idaho jurisdictions since
some customers, contractors, and trade allies operate in both states. Program consistency is important
for the participants’ overall satisfaction with the programs. Offering different program designs would
create confusion in the marketplace, could inhibit participation, and would add to administration costs.
In addition, program infrastructure is designed to implement consistent programs across the service area.
Methodology
For its cost-effectiveness methodology, Idaho Power relies on the Electric Power Research Institute
(EPRI) End Use Technical Assessment Guide (TAG); the California Standard Practice Manual and its
subsequent addendum, the National Action Plan for Energy Efficiency’s (NAPEE) Understanding Cost
Effectiveness of Energy Efficiency Programs: Best Practices, Technical Methods, and Emerging Issues
for Policy-Makers; and the National Action Plan on Demand Response. Traditionally, Idaho Power has
primarily used the TRC test and the UC test to develop B/C ratios to determine the cost-effectiveness
of DSM programs. These tests are still used because, as defined in the TAG and California Standard
Practice Manual, they are most similar to supply-side tests and provide a useful basis to compare
demand-side and supply-side resources.
For energy efficiency programs, each program’s cost-effectiveness is reviewed annually from a
one-year perspective. The annual energy-savings benefit value is summed over the life of the measure
or program and is discounted to reflect 2015 dollars. The result of the one-year perspective is shown
in Supplement 1: Cost-Effectiveness. Appendix 4 of the main Demand-Side Management 2015 Annual
Report includes the program cost-effectiveness to-date by including the culmination of actual historic
savings values and expenses as well as the ongoing energy-savings benefit over the life of the measures
included in a program.
The goal of demand response programs is to minimize or delay the need to build new supply-
side resources. Unlike energy efficiency programs, demand response programs must acquire and
retain participants each year to maintain a level of demand reduction capacity for the company.
Demand response programs are expensive and generally have a higher initial investment than energy
efficiency programs.
As part of the public workshops on Case No. IPC-E-13-14, Idaho Power and other stakeholders
agreed on a new methodology for valuing demand response. The settlement agreement, as approved
in IPUC Order No. 32923 and OPUC order No. 13-482, defined the annual cost of operating the three
Idaho Power Company Supplement 1: Cost-Effectiveness
Demand-Side Management 2015 Annual Report Page 3
demand response programs for the maximum allowable 60 hours to be no more than $16.7 million.
This $16.7 million value is the levelized annual cost of a 170-megawatt (MW) deferred resource over a
20-year life. The demand response value calculation will include this value even in years when the IRP
shows no peak-hour capacity deficits. The annual value calculation will be updated with each IRP based
on changes that include, but are not limited to, need, capital cost, or financial assumptions. In 2015,
the cost of operating the three demand response programs was $9 million. Idaho Power estimates that if
the three programs were dispatched for the full 60 hours, the total costs would have been approximately
$12.4 million and would have remained cost-effective.
As in 2014, Idaho Power has consolidated the measure definition for the attic-, floor-, and wall-
insulation and window measures in the Home Improvement Program. The company has also
consolidated the lighting measures in the Easy Upgrades program.
Assumptions
Idaho Power relies on research conducted by third-party sources to obtain savings and cost assumptions
for various measures. These assumptions are routinely reviewed and updated as new information
becomes available. For many of the measures within Supplement 1: Cost-Effectiveness, savings,
costs, and load shapes were derived from either the Regional Technical Forum (RTF) or the Idaho
Power Energy Efficiency Potential Study conducted by EnerNOC Utility Solutions Consulting
Group (EnerNOC) in 2012. In 2013, EnerNOC provided Idaho Power with updated end-use load
shapes. Those updated load shapes have been applied to each program and measure when applicable.
AEG acquired EnerNOC and refreshed the energy efficiency potential analysis in 2014.
The RTF regularly reviews, evaluates, and recommends eligible energy efficiency measures and the
estimated savings and costs associated with those measures. As the RTF updates these assumptions,
Idaho Power applies them to current program offerings and assesses the need to make any program
changes. Idaho Power staff participates in the RTF by attending monthly meetings and contributing to
various sub-committees. Because cost data from the RTF information is in 2006 dollars, measures with
costs from the RTF have been escalated by 13.7 percent in 2015. This percentage is provided by the RTF
at http://rtf.nwcouncil.org/measures/support/files/RTFStandardInformationWorkbook_v2_2_1.xlsx.
Idaho Power also uses a technical reference manual (TRM) developed by ADM for the Building
Efficiency and Easy Upgrades programs. Idaho Power retained ADM as a consultant throughout 2015 to
advise the company and provide updates to the TRM.
Idaho Power also relies on other sources, such as the Northwest Power and Conservation Council
(NWPCC), Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance (NEEA), the Database for Energy Efficiency
Resources (DEER), the Energy Trust of Oregon (ETO), the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA),
third-party consultants, and other regional utilities. Occasionally, Idaho Power will also use internal
engineering estimates and calculations for savings and costs based on information gathered from
previous projects.
The company freezes savings assumptions when the budgets and goals are set for the next calendar
year unless code and standard changes or program updates necessitate a need to use updated savings.
As a general rule, the 2015 energy savings reported for most programs will use the assumption set at the
beginning of the year. These assumptions are discussed in more detail in the cost-effectiveness sections
for each program.
Supplement 1: Cost-Effectiveness Idaho Power Company
Page 4 Demand-Side Management 2015 Annual Report
The remaining inputs used in the cost-effectiveness models are obtained from the IRP process.
Appendix C—Technical Appendix of Idaho Power’s 2013 IRP is the source for the financial assumptions,
including the discount rate and escalation rate. These DSM alternative costs vary by season and
time of day and are applied to an end-use load shape to obtain the value of that particular measure or
program. The DSM alternative energy costs are based on both the projected fuel costs of a peaking unit
and forward electricity prices as determined by Idaho Power’s power supply model, AURORAxmp®
Electric Market Model. The avoided capital cost of capacity is based on a gas-fired, simple-cycle
turbine. In the 2013 IRP, the annual avoided capacity cost is $102 per kilowatt (kW). When multiplied
by the effective load carrying capacity (ELCC) of 93.4 percent, the annual avoided capacity cost is
$95.27/kW. The ELCC reduces the avoided capacity-cost benefit based on the availability of a resource.
As recommended by the NAPEE Understanding Cost-Effectiveness of Energy Efficiency Programs¸
Idaho Power’s weighted average cost of capital (WACC) of 6.77 percent is used to discount future
benefits and costs to today’s dollars. However, determining the appropriate discount rate for participant
cost and benefits is difficult because of the variety of potential discount rates that can be used by the
different participants as described in the TAG. Since the participant benefit is based on the anticipated
bill savings of the customer, Idaho Power believes the WACC is not an appropriate discount rate to use.
Because the customer bill savings is based on Idaho Power’s 2015 average customer segment rate and is
not escalated, the participant bill savings is discounted using a real discount rate of 3.66 percent, which
is based on the 2013 IRP’s WACC of 6.77 percent and an escalation rate of 3 percent.
The formula to calculate the real discount rate is as follows:
((1 + WACC) ÷ (1 + Escalation)) – 1 = Real
Line-loss percentages are applied to the metered-site energy savings to find the energy savings at the
generation level. The Demand-Side Management 2015 Annual Report shows the estimated electrical
savings at the customer meter level. Cost-effectiveness analyses are based on generation-level energy
savings. The demand response program reductions are reported at the generation level with the line
losses. In 2014, Idaho Power reviewed the system loss coefficients from 2012. Based on this study,
the line-loss factors were updated and reduced from 10.9 to 9.6 percent. The summer peak line-loss
factor was reduced from 13 to 9.7 percent.
Conservation Adder
The Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act (Northwest Power Act) states:
…any conservation or resource shall not be treated as greater than that of any non-
conservation measure or resource unless the incremental system cost of such conservation
or resource is in excess of 110 per centum of the incremental system cost of the
nonconservation measure or resource.
As a result of the Northwest Power Act, most utilities in the Pacific Northwest add a 10-percent
conservation adder in energy efficiency cost-effectiveness analyses. In OPUC Order No. 94-590,
the OPUC commission states:
We support the staff’s position that the effect of conservation in reducing uncertainty
in meeting load growth is included in the ten percent cost adder and that no separate
adjustment is necessary.
Idaho Power Company Supplement 1: Cost-Effectiveness
Demand-Side Management 2015 Annual Report Page 5
Additionally, in IPUC Order No. 32788 in Case No. GNR-E-12-01, “Staff noted that Rocky Mountain
Power and Avista use a 10% conservation adder when calculating the cost-effectiveness of all their DSM
programs.” Staff recommended the utilities have the option to use a 10-percent adder, and the IPUC
agreed with the recommendation to allow utilities to use the 10-percent adder in the cost- effectiveness
analyses for low-income programs.
After reviewing the practices of other utilities in the Pacific Northwest as well as the OPUC Order No.
94-590 and IPUC Order 32788, Idaho Power includes the 10-percent conservation adder in all energy
efficiency measure and program cost-effectiveness analyses.
Net-to-Gross
Net-to-gross (NTG), or net-of-free-ridership (NTFR), is defined by NAPEE’s Understanding Cost
Effectiveness of Energy Efficiency Programs: Best Practices, Technical Methods, and Emerging Issues
for Policy-Makers as a ratio that does as follows:
Adjusts the impacts of the programs so that they only reflect those energy efficiency gains
that are the result of the energy efficiency program. Therefore, the NTG deducts energy
savings that would have been achieved without the efficiency program (e.g., ‘free-riders’)
and increases savings for any ‘spillover’ effect that occurs as an indirect result of the
program. Since the NTG attempts to measure what the customers would have done in the
absence of the energy efficiency program, it can be difficult to determine precisely.
Capturing the effects of Idaho Power’s energy efficiency efforts on free-ridership and spillover
is difficult. Due to the uncertainty surrounding NTG percentages, Idaho Power used an NTG of
100 percent for all measure cost-effectiveness analyses. For the program cost-effectiveness analyses,
the B/C ratios shown are based on a 100-percent NTG. A sensitivity analysis was conducted to show
what the minimum NTG percentage needs to be for the program to remain (or become) cost-effective
from either the TRC or UC perspective. These NTG percentages are shown in the program
cost-effectiveness pages of Supplement 1: Cost-Effectiveness.
Results
Idaho Power determines cost-effectiveness on a measure basis, where relevant, and program basis.
As part of Supplement 1: Cost-Effectiveness and where applicable, Idaho Power publishes the cost
effectiveness by measure, calculating the PCT and ratepayer impact measure (RIM) test at the program
level, listing the assumptions associated with cost-effectiveness, and citing sources and dates of metrics
used in the cost-effectiveness calculation.
The B/C ratio from the participant cost perspective is not calculated for Easy Savings,
Educational Distributions, Energy House Calls, See ya later, refrigerator®, Weatherization Assistance
for Qualified Customers (WAQC), and Weatherization Solutions for Eligible Customers programs.
These programs have few or no customer costs. For energy efficiency programs, the cost-effectiveness
models do not assume ongoing participant costs.
For most programs, the Demand-Side Management 2015 Annual Report Appendix 4 contains program
UC and TRC B/C ratios using actual cost information over the life of the program through 2015.
Supplement 1: Cost-Effectiveness contains annual cost-effectiveness metrics for each program using
actual information from 2015 and includes results of the PCT. Current customer energy rates are used in
Supplement 1: Cost-Effectiveness Idaho Power Company
Page 6 Demand-Side Management 2015 Annual Report
the calculation of the B/C ratios from a PCT and RIM perspective. Rate increases are not forecasted or
escalated. A summary of the cost-effectiveness by program can be found in Table 3.
In 2015, most of Idaho Power’s energy efficiency programs were cost-effective, except the
Home Improvement Program and the weatherization programs for income-qualified customers.
The Home Improvement Program has a UC of 1.91 and TRC of 0.67. The RTF reduced savings for
single-family home weatherization projects in 2015. With the changes, average savings estimates per
project were just under 50 percent of 2014 projects. The lower savings were approved by the RTF in
October 2014 and revised in spring 2015. These new savings were a result of the nearly 18-month
RTF process to calibrate residential savings models. As a consequence, four of the six measures
offered in the Home Improvement Program are no longer cost-effective from the TRC perspective.
Idaho Power incorporated the new savings for all 2015 projects. In 2016, the company will evaluate the
non-cost-effective measures and the impact on the program’s cost-effectiveness to determine if these
measures should be modified or removed from the program. Idaho Power will present possible program
modification and seek suggestions from EEAG.
WAQC had a TRC of 0.43, and Weatherization Solutions for Eligible Customers had a TRC of 0.50.
The cost-effectiveness ratios have remained steady compared to 2014. Idaho Power performed a
billing analysis of the 2012 weatherization projects. In 2014 and 2015, Idaho Power claimed annual
1,551 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per home in WAQC. The savings for manufactured homes is 2,568 kWh
per year. The annual savings for non-profits is 1.03 kWh/heated square foot (ft2). For Weatherization
Solutions for Eligible Customers, the billing analysis shows the per-home annual savings increased.
In 2014 and 2015, Idaho Power claimed 2,108 kWh per home. The savings for manufactured homes
increased to 3,426 kWh per year. Idaho Power adopted the following IPUC staff’s recommendations
from Case No. GNR E-12-01 for calculating the programs’ cost-effectiveness:
• Applied a 100-percent NTG.
• Claimed 100 percent of energy savings for each project.
• Included indirect administrative overhead costs. The overhead costs of 4.84 percent were
calculated from the $1,891,042 of indirect program expenses divided by the total DSM
expenses of $39,040,935 as shown in Appendix 3 of the Demand-Side Management 2015
Annual Report.
• Applied the 10-percent conservation preference adder.
• Amortized evaluation expenses over a three-year period.
• Claimed one dollar of NEBs for each dollar of utility and federal funds invested in health,
safety, and repair measures.
Twenty-four individual measures in various programs are shown to not be cost-effective from either the
UC or TRC perspective. These measures will be discontinued, analyzed for additional NEBs, modified
to increase potential per-unit savings, or monitored to examine their impact on the specific program’s
overall cost-effectiveness. For several measures, Idaho Power filed cost-effectiveness exception requests
with the OPUC in compliance with Order No. 94-590. Measures and programs that do not pass these
tests may be offered by the utility if they meet one or more of the additional conditions specified by
Section 13 of Order No. 94-590. These exception requests were approved under Order No. 15-200 on
June 23, 2015. The filings and exception requests are noted below.
Idaho Power Company Supplement 1: Cost-Effectiveness
Demand-Side Management 2015 Annual Report Page 7
Table 1. 2015 non-cost-effective measures
Program
Number of
Measures Notes
Building Efficiency 2 Cost-effectiveness exception request filed and approved with OPUC
Advice No. 14-10. OPUC Order No. 94-590, Section 13. Exceptions A, B, C, and D.
Easy Upgrades 5 Cost-effectiveness exception request filed and approved with OPUC
Advice No. 14-06. OPUC Order No. 94-590, Section 13. Exceptions
A, C, and D.
Energy Efficient Lighting 2 Program is cost-effective with a UC of 4.53 and TRC of 4.23. The two
non-cost-effective measures have a UC range of 4.63 and 9.12 and
a TRC range of 0.82 and 0.94. These bulbs represent 0.5% of overall
bulbs in the program.
Heating & Cooling Efficiency Program 9 Cost-effectiveness exception request for ductless heat pumps (DHP)
filed with the OPUC under UM-1710. OPUC Order No. 94-590,
Section 13. Exceptions A and C. Approved under Order No. 15-200.
Other measures to be reviewed in 2016 pending updates from the RTF.
Home Improvement Program 4 The measures have a UC range of 1.32 and 2.43 and a TRC range
of 0.49 and 0.92. The measures and the program will be reviewed in 2016.
Irrigation Efficiency Rewards 1 Cost-effectiveness exception request filed with the OPUC under
UM-1710. OPUC Order No. 94-590,Section 13. Exceptions A, C,
and D. Approved under Order No. 15-200.
Simple Steps, Smart Savings™/
Home Products Program
1 Non-cost-effective measure removed from the program in 2015.
Total 24
Following the annual program cost-effectiveness results are tables that include measure-level
cost-effectiveness. Exceptions to the measure-level tables are programs that are analyzed at the project
level. These programs include Easy Savings, Custom Efficiency, the custom option of Irrigation
Efficiency Rewards, WAQC, and Weatherization Solutions for Eligible Customers.
The measure-level cost-effectiveness includes inputs of measure life, energy savings, incremental
cost, incentives, program administration cost, and net benefit. Program administration costs include
all non-incentive costs: labor, marketing, training, education, purchased services, and evaluation.
Energy and expense data have been rounded to the nearest whole unit, which may result in minor
rounding differences.
Supplement 1: Cost-Effectiveness Idaho Power Company
Page 8 Demand-Side Management 2015 Annual Report
2015 DSM Detailed Expenses by Program
Included in this supplement is a detailed breakout of program expenses as shown in Appendix 2 of the
Demand Side Management 2015 Annual Report. These expenses are broken out by funding source
major-expense type (incentives, labor/administration, materials, other expenses, and purchased services).
Table 2. 2015 DSM detailed expenses by program (dollars)
Sector/Program Idaho Rider Oregon Rider Idaho Power Total Program
Energy Efficiency/Demand Response
Residential
A/C Cool Credit .......................................................$ 659,471 $ 45,825 $ 443,639 $ 1,148,935
Labor/Administrative Expense ............................ 52,308 3,237 9,254 64,800
Materials and Equipment .................................... (91,953) 4 0 (91,949)
Other Expense .................................................... 29,363 1,545 0 30,909
Purchased Services ............................................ 669,753 35,233 0 704,986
Incentives ............................................................0 5,805 434,385 440,190
Easy Savings ..........................................................0 0 127,477 127,477
Labor/Administrative Expense ............................0 0 2,477 2,477
Materials and Equipment ....................................0 0 125,000 125,000
Educational Distributions ...................................... 432,185 0 0 432,185
Materials and Equipment .................................... 138,492 0 0 138,492
Other Expense .................................................... 293,693 0 0 293,693
Energy Efficient Lighting ....................................... 1,997,292 60,800 5,291 2,063,383
Labor/Administrative Expense ............................ 41,027 2,437 5,291 48,754
Other Expense .................................................... (144,406) (4,832)0 (149,238)
Purchased Services ............................................ 313,585 15,886 0 329,471
Incentives ............................................................ 1,787,086 47,310 0 1,834,396
Energy House Calls ................................................ 194,939 15,057 4,108 214,103
Labor/Administrative Expense ............................ 28,192 1,700 4,108 34,001
Materials and Equipment .................................... 2,258 109 0 2,367
Other Expense .................................................... 12,675 520 0 13,196
Purchased Services ............................................ 151,813 12,727 0 164,540
ENERGY STAR® Homes Northwest ....................... 646,991 2,692 3,990 653,674
Labor/Administrative Expense ............................ 29,759 1,777 3,990 35,526
Materials and Equipment .................................... 26 1 0 28
Other Expense .................................................... 18,551 879 0 19,430
Purchased Services ............................................ 656 35 0 690
Incentives ............................................................ 598,000 0 0 598,000
Heating & Cooling Efficiency Program/DHP Pilot 583,663 25,186 17,520 626,369
Labor/Administrative Expense ............................ 109,960 6,709 17,520 134,188
Other Expense .................................................... 71,457 3,865 0 75,322
Purchased Services ............................................ 141,046 6,113 0 147,159
Incentives ............................................................ 261,200 8,500 0 269,700
Home Energy Audit ................................................ 192,873 0 9,084 201,957
Labor/Administrative Expense ............................ 53,556 0 9,084 62,640
Materials and Equipment .................................... 4,182 0 0 4,182
Other Expense .................................................... 42,232 0 0 42,232
Purchased Services ............................................ 92,902 0 0 92,902
Idaho Power Company Supplement 1: Cost-Effectiveness
Demand-Side Management 2015 Annual Report Page 9
Table 2. 2015 DSM detailed expenses by program (dollars) (continued)
Sector/Program Idaho Rider Oregon Rider Idaho Power Total Program
Home Improvement Program ................................$ 259,898 $0 $ 12,611 $ 272,509
Labor/Administrative Expense ............................ 75,113 0 12,611 87,724
Other Expense .................................................... 49,674 0 0 49,674
Purchased Services ............................................ 8,906 0 0 8,906
Incentives ............................................................ 126,204 0 0 126,204
Oregon Residential Weatherization ......................0 5,341 467 5,808
Labor/Administrative Expense ............................0 3,481 467 3,948
Other Expense ....................................................0 118 0 118
Incentives ............................................................0 1,742 0 1,742
Rebate Advantage .................................................. 80,243 4,351 843 85,438
Labor/Administrative Expense ............................ 6,173 370 843 7,386
Materials and Equipment .................................... 52 3 0 55
Other Expense .................................................... 8,018 379 0 8,397
Purchased Services ............................................ 11,000 600 0 11,600
Incentives ............................................................ 55,000 3,000 0 58,000
See ya later, refrigerator® ....................................... 212,674 11,497 3,007 227,179
Labor/Administrative Expense ............................ 26,241 1,534 3,007 30,782
Materials and Equipment .................................... 7,529 396 0 7,926
Other Expense .................................................... 3,338 5,406 0 8,744
Purchased Services ............................................ 164,346 3,951 0 168,297
Incentives ............................................................ 11,220 210 0 11,430
Shade Tree Program............................................... 99,672 (66) 5,786 105,392
Labor/Administrative Expense ............................ 32,948 (66) 5,786 38,668
Materials and Equipment .................................... 52 0 0 52
Other Expense .................................................... 21,131 0 0 21,131
Purchased Services ............................................ 45,541 0 0 45,541
Simple Steps, Smart Savings™/
Home Products Program .......................................
$ 130,575 $ 6,676 $ 1,845 $ 139,096
Labor/Administrative Expense ............................ 31,812 1,772 1,845 35,428
Other Expense .................................................... (2,018) (216)0 (2,233)
Purchased Services ............................................ 31,883 1,450 0 33,333
Incentives ............................................................ 68,898 3,670 0 72,568
Weatherization Assistance for Qualified Customers 0 0 1,315,032 1,315,032
Labor/Administrative Expense ............................0 0 51,038 51,038
Materials and Equipment ....................................0 0 24 24
Other Expense ....................................................0 0 1,793 1,793
Purchased Services ............................................0 0 1,262,177 1,262,177
Weatherization Solutions for Eligible Customers 1,204,147 0 39,122 1,243,269
Labor/Administrative Expense ............................ 11,022 0 39,122 50,144
Materials and Equipment .................................... 7,784 0 0 7,784
Other Expense .................................................... 28,893 0 0 28,893
Purchased Services ............................................ 1,156,448 0 0 1,156,448
Residential Total .....................................................$ 6,694,624 $ 177,359 $ 1,989,821 $ 8,861,805
Supplement 1: Cost-Effectiveness Idaho Power Company
Page 10 Demand-Side Management 2015 Annual Report
Table 2. 2015 DSM detailed expenses by program (dollars) (continued)
Sector/Program Idaho Rider Oregon Rider Idaho Power Total Program
Commercial/Industrial
Building Efficiency .................................................$ 2,128,309 $ 16,075 $ 17,617 $ 2,162,001
Labor/Administrative Expense ............................ 141,986 8,396 17,617 167,999
Materials and Equipment .................................... 4 0 0 4
Other Expense .................................................... 36,004 1,895 0 37,899
Purchased Services ............................................ 120,689 5,783 0 126,473
Incentives ............................................................ 1,829,626 0 0 1,829,626
Custom Efficiency .................................................. 8,345,435 604,636 62,558 9,012,628
Labor/Administrative Expense ............................ 451,887 27,075 62,558 541,520
Materials and Equipment .................................... 71 4 0 75
Other Expense .................................................... 206,022 4,978 0 211,001
Purchased Services ............................................ 847,491 24,380 0 871,870
Incentives ............................................................ 6,839,963 548,199 0 7,388,162
Easy Upgrades........................................................ 4,155,406 177,713 17,746 4,350,865
Labor/Administrative Expense ............................ 258,420 14,538 17,746 290,704
Other Expense .................................................... 72,500 3,816 0 76,315
Purchased Services ............................................ 712,278 37,489 0 749,766
Incentives ............................................................ 3,112,208 121,871 0 3,234,079
Flex Peak Program ................................................. 86,445 219,654 286,773 592,872
Labor/Administrative Expense ............................ 75,681 4,680 13,291 93,651
Materials and Equipment .................................... 18 0 0 18
Other Expense .................................................... 2,378 159 0 2,537
Purchased Services ............................................ 8,368 440 0 8,809
Incentives ............................................................0 214,375 273,482 487,857
Oregon Commercial Audit .....................................0 4,251 0 4,251
Labor/Administrative Expense ............................0 3,255 0 3,255
Other Expense ....................................................0 996 0 996
Commercial/Industrial Total ..................................$ 14,715,594 $ 1,022,330 $ 384,693 $ 16,122,617
Irrigation
Irrigation Efficiency ................................................ 1,714,399 61,295 60,018 1,835,711
Labor/Administrative Expense ............................ 209,230 12,947 59,162 281,339
Materials and Equipment .................................... 738 39 0 777
Other Expense .................................................... 45,749 2,408 856 49,013
Purchased Services ............................................ 5,094 1,807 0 6,901
Incentives ............................................................ 1,453,588 44,094 0 1,497,682
Irrigation Peak Rewards 1,018,139 222,614 6,018,079 7,258,831
Labor/Administrative Expense ............................ 47,230 2,922 24,682 74,834
Materials and Equipment .................................... 92,306 15 0 92,320
Other Expense .................................................... 4,403 232 0 4,635
Purchased Services ............................................ 874,199 46,116 0 920,315
Incentives ............................................................0 173,330 5,993,396 6,166,726
Irrigation Total .........................................................$ 2,732,537 $ 283,909 $ 6,078,097 $ 9,094,542
Energy Efficiency/Demand Response $ 24,142,755 $ 1,483,597 $ 8,452,611 $ 34,078,964
Market Transformation
NEAA ....................................................................... 2,453,773 129,146 0 2,582,919
Purchased Services ............................................ 2,453,773 129,146 0 2,582,919
Market Transformation Total .................................$ 2,453,773 $ 129,146 $0 $ 2,582,919
Idaho Power Company Supplement 1: Cost-Effectiveness
Demand-Side Management 2015 Annual Report Page 11
Table 2. 2015 DSM detailed expenses by program (dollars) (continued)
Sector/Program Idaho Rider Oregon Rider Idaho Power Total Program
Other Programs and Activities
Residential
Residential Education Initiative ................................$ 127,817 $ 7,391 $ 14,695 $ 149,903
Labor/Administrative Expense ............................ 83,675 5,177 14,695 103,546
Materials and Equipment .................................... 74 4 0 78
Other Expense .................................................... 42,382 2,121 0 44,503
Purchased Services ............................................ 1,686 89 0 1,775
Residential Total .....................................................$ 127,817 $7,391 $ 14,695 $149,903
Commercial/Industrial
Commercial Education........................................... 61,755 3,262 232 65,250
Labor/Administrative Expense ............................ 1,322 82 232 1,635
Other Expense .................................................... 60,434 3,181 0 63,614
Commercial/Industrial Total ..................................$ 61,755 $3,262 $232 $65,250
Other
Energy Efficiency Direct Program Overhead ....... 231,713 12,967 28,179 272,858
Labor/Administrative Expense ............................ 132,378 8,189 28,179 168,745
Materials and Equipment .................................... 30 2 0 31
Other Expense .................................................... 99,305 4,777 0 104,082
Other Total ...............................................................$ 231,713 $12,967 $ 28,179 $272,858
Other Programs and Activities Total $ 421,285 $23,620 $ 43,105 $488,011
Indirect Program Expense
Commercial/Industrial Energy
Efficiency Overhead ...............................................
141,066 11,387 66,558 219,012
Labor/Administrative Expense ............................ 84,390 7,945 66,558 158,893
Materials and Equipment .................................... 73 0 0 73
Other Expense .................................................... 37,103 1,942 0 39,045
Purchased Services ............................................ 19,500 1,500 0 21,000
Energy Efficiency Accounting and Analysis ........ 710,564 41,196 224,299 976,059
Labor/Administrative Expense ............................ 401,673 24,853 219,968 646,494
Materials and Equipment .................................... 17 1 0 18
Other Expense .................................................... 19,287 1,019 4,331 24,637
Purchased Services ............................................ 289,587 15,323 0 304,910
Energy Efficiency Advisory Group 24,976 1,360 857 27,193
Labor/Administrative Expense ............................ 4,878 303 857 6,037
Other Expense .................................................... 20,098 1,058 0 21,156
Residential Energy Efficiency Overhead.............. 584,299 33,036 34,839 652,174
Labor/Administrative Expense ............................ 125,716 8,444 34,839 168,999
Materials and Equipment .................................... 66 3 0 69
Other Expense .................................................... 437,744 23,022 0 460,766
Purchased Services ............................................ 20,773 1,567 0 22,340
Special Accounting Entries ................................... 15,830 775 0 16,605
Special Accounting Entry .................................... 15,830 775 0 16,605
Indirect Program Expenses Total ..........................$ 1,476,734 $87,755 $ 326,553 $ 1,891,042
Totals $ 28,494,548 $ 1,724,118 $ 8,822,269 $ 39,040,935
Supplement 1: Cost-Effectiveness Idaho Power Company
Page 12 Demand-Side Management 2015 Annual Report
Table 3. Cost-effectiveness summary by program
2015 Benefit/Cost (B/C) Tests
Program/Sector Utility Cost (UC)Total Resource Cost (TRC)Ratepayer Impact Measure (RIM)Participant Cost (PCT)
Easy Savings .............................................................................. 2.61 2.95 0.58 N/A
Educational Distributions ............................................................ 2.05 2.60 0.54 N/A
Energy Efficient Lighting ............................................................. 4.53 4.23 0.69 5.39
Energy House Calls .................................................................... 2.81 2.96 0.56 N/A
ENERGY STAR® Homes Northwest ........................................... 2.10 1.04 0.69 1.49
Heating & Cooling Efficiency Program/DHP Pilot ....................... 3.11 1.05 0.79 1.36
Home Improvement Program ..................................................... 1.91 0.67 0.61 1.05
Rebate Advantage ...................................................................... 4.54 3.45 0.66 6.46
See ya later, refrigerator® ........................................................... 1.21 1.53 0.49 N/A
Simple Steps, Smart Savings™/ Home Products Program ............................................................ 3.37 4.83 0.68 6.62
Weatherization Assistance for Qualified Customers ................... 0.54 0.43 0.35 N/A
Weatherization Solutions for Eligible Customers ........................ 0.45 0.50 0.31 N/A
Residential Energy Efficiency Sector ..................................... 2.31 2.11 0.62 3.82
Building Efficiency ...................................................................... 7.63 3.70 1.10 3.56
Custom Efficiency ....................................................................... 4.03 1.77 1.32 1.37
Easy Upgrades ........................................................................... 3.85 2.20 0.96 2.51
Commercial/Industrial Energy Efficiency Sector .................. 4.48 2.13 1.16 1.92
Irrigation Efficiency ..................................................................... 6.00 3.84 1.45 3.59
Irrigation Energy Efficiency Sector......................................... 6.00 3.84 1.45 3.59
Energy Efficiency Portfolio...................................................... 3.57 2.32 1.00 2.61
Idaho Power Company Supplement 1: Cost-Effectiveness
Demand-Side Management 2015 Annual Report Page 13
Cost-effeCtiveness tabLes by program
Easy Savings
Segment: Residential
2015 Program Results
Summary of Cost-Effectiveness Results
Test Benefit Cost Ratio
Utility Cost Test .......................................$ 333,022 $127,477 2.61
Total Resource Cost Test ........................376,636 127,477 2.95
Ratepayer Impact Measure Test .............333,022 576,570 0.58
Participant Cost Test ............................... N/A N/A N/A
Cost Inputs (net present value [NPV])Ref
Program Administration ..........................................................................$127,477
Program Incentives.................................................................................– I
Total Utility Cost ...................................................................................$ 127,477 P
Measure Equipment and Installation (Incremental Participant Cost)...... $ – M
Net Benefit Inputs (NPV)Ref
Resource Savings
2015 Annual Gross Energy (kWh)....................................624,536
NPV Cumulative Energy (kWh) ........................................5,612,433 $302,747
10% Credit (Northwest Power Act)...................................30,275
Total Electric Savings .........................................................$ 333,022 S
Participant Bill Savings
NPV Cumulative Participant Savings ...............................$449,094 B
Other Benefits
Non-Utility Rebates/Incentives .........................................$ –NUI
Non-Energy Benefits ........................................................$43,614 NEB
Benefits and Costs Included in Each Test
Utility Cost Test ....................................= S * NTG = P
Total Resource Cost Test .....................= (S + NUI + NEB) * NTG = P
Ratepayer Impact Measure Test ..........= S * NTG = P + (B * NTG)
Participant Cost Test ............................N/A N/A
Assumptions for Levelized Calculations
Discount Rate
Nominal (Weighted Average Cost of Capital [WACC]) ...................................6.77%
Real ((1 + WACC) / (1 + Escalation)) – 1 .......................................................3.66%
Escalation Rate ...................................................................................................3.00%
Net-to-Gross (NTG) .............................................................................................100%
Minimum NTG Sensitivity ....................................................................................39%
Average Customer Segment Rate/kWh ..............................................................$0.086
Line Losses .........................................................................................................9.60%
Notes: Non-energy benefits include the NPV of water savings from low-flow showerheads and PV of periodic bulb (capital) replacement costs. No participant cost.
Supplement 1: Cost-Effectiveness Idaho Power Company
Page 14 Demand-Side Management 2015 Annual Report
This page left blank intentionally.
Idaho Power Company Supplement 1: Cost-Effectiveness
Demand-Side Management 2015 Annual Report Page 15
Educational Distributions
Segment: Residential2015 Program Results
Summary of Cost-Effectiveness Results
Test Benefit Cost Ratio
Utility Cost Test .......................................$884,615 $432,185 2.05
Total Resource Cost Test ........................1,124,237 432,185 2.60
Ratepayer Impact Measure Test .............884,615 1,632,692 0.54
Participant Cost Test ............................... N/A N/A N/A
Cost Inputs (NPV)Ref
Program Administration ..........................................................................$432,185
Program Incentives.................................................................................– I
Total Utility Cost ...................................................................................$ 432,185 P
Measure Equipment and Installation (Incremental Participant Cost)...... $ – M
Net Benefit Inputs (NPV)Ref
Resource Savings
2015 Annual Gross Energy (kWh)...............................1,669,495
NPV Cumulative Energy (kWh) ...................................15,049,917 $804,195
10% Credit (Northwest Power Act)..............................80,420
Total Electric Savings ....................................................$ 884,615 S
Participant Bill Savings
NPV Cumulative Participant Savings ..........................$1,200,507 B
Other Benefits
Non-Utility Rebates/Incentives ....................................$ –NUI
Non-Energy Benefits ..................................................$239,622 NEB
Benefits and Costs Included in Each Test
Utility Cost Test ....................................= S * NTG = P
Total Resource Cost Test .....................= (S + NUI + NEB) * NTG = P
Ratepayer Impact Measure Test ..........= S * NTG = P + (B * NTG)
Participant Cost Test ............................N/A N/A
Assumptions for Levelized Calculations
Discount Rate
Nominal (WACC) ............................................................................................6.77%
Real ((1 + WACC) / (1 + Escalation)) – 1 .......................................................3.66%
Escalation Rate ...................................................................................................3.00%
Net-to-Gross (NTG) .............................................................................................100%
Minimum NTG Sensitivity ....................................................................................49%
Average Customer Segment Rate/kWh ..............................................................$0.086
Line Losses .........................................................................................................9.60%
Notes: Energy savings as reported by the Resource Action Plan for the 2014 to 2015 student kits. NEBs for kits include NPV of avoided gas.
NEBs for giveaway bulbs include PV of periodic bulb (capital) replacement costs. No participant cost.
Supplement 1: Cost-Effectiveness Idaho Power Company
Page 16 Demand-Side Management 2015 Annual Report
Benefit Cost Benefit/Cost Tests
Measure
Name Measure Descriptions Replacing
Measure
Unit End Use
Measure
Life (yrs)a
Annual
Gross Energy Savings
(kWh/yr)b
NPV Avoided
Costsc
Non-Energy Benefit
(NEB)
Gross Incremental Participant
Costd
Incentive/
Unit
Admin Cost
($/kWh)e UC Ratiof
TRC
Ratiog Source
General Purpose LED
Give away
Efficient Technology: LED
Lamp Type: General Purpose and Dimmable Lumen Category: 665 to 1,439 lumens Space Type: ANY
Baseline bulb Lamp ENRes_SF_Lighting 13 9.00 $6.72 $3.92 – $0.259 2.89 4.57 1
Student
Energy Efficiency
Kit (SEEK) Program
2014–2015 kit offering.
Kits include: high-efficiency
showerhead, showertimer, 13-W CFL, 18-W CFL, 23-W
CFL, FilterTone alarm, digital thermometer,
LED nightlight.
No kit Kit IPC_Student Kits 10 220.33 $129.05 $23.19 – $0.259 2.26 2.67 2
a Average measure life.b Estimated kWh savings measured at the customer’s meter, excluding line losses. c Sum of net present value (NPV) of avoided cost. Based on end-use load shape, measure life, savings including line losses, and alternative costs by pricing period as provided in the 2013 IRP. Includes a 10-percent conservation adder from the Northwest Power Act.
d No participant cost.
e Average program administration and overhead costs to achieve each kWh of savings. Calculated from 2015 actuals.f Utility Cost Ratio = (NPV Avoided Costs) / ((Admin Cost/kWh * kWh Savings) + Incentives)g Total Resource Cost Ratio = (NPV Avoided Costs + NEB) / ((Admin Cost/kWh * kWh Savings) + Incentives + (Incremental Participant Cost - Incentives))
1 RTF. ResLightingCFLandLEDLamps_v3_3.xlsm. 2014.
2 Resource Action Programs. 2014–2015 Idaho Power Energy Wise Program Summary Report. 2015.
Year: 2015 Program: Education Distributions Market Segment: Residential Program Type: Energy Efficiency
Idaho Power Company Supplement 1: Cost-Effectiveness
Demand-Side Management 2015 Annual Report Page 17
Energy Efficient Lighting
Segment: Residential2015 Program Results
Cost Inputs (NPV)Ref
Program Administration ..........................................................................$228,987
Program Incentives................................................................................. 1,834,396 I
Total Utility Cost ...................................................................................$ 2,063,383 P
Measure Equipment and Installation (Incremental Participant Cost)...... $ 4,199,689 M
Net Benefit Inputs (NPV)Ref
Resource Savings
2015 Annual Gross Energy (kWh)............................15,876,117
NPV Cumulative Energy (kWh) ................................135,702,304 $8,500,171
10% Credit (Northwest Power Act)........................... 850,017
Total Electric Savings .................................................$ 9,350,188 S
Participant Bill Savings
NPV Cumulative Participant Savings ........................$11,416,258 B
Other Benefits
Non-Utility Rebates/Incentives .................................$ –NUI
Non-Energy Benefits .................................................$9,401,578 NEB
Benefits and Costs Included in Each Test
Utility Cost Test ....................................= S * NTG = P
Total Resource Cost Test .....................= (S + NUI + NEB) * NTG = P + ((M-I) * NTG)
Ratepayer Impact Measure Test ..........= S * NTG = P + (B * NTG)
Participant Cost Test ............................= B + I + NUI + NEB = M
Assumptions for Levelized Calculations
Discount Rate
Nominal (WACC) ............................................................................................6.77%
Real ((1 + WACC) / (1 + Escalation)) – 1 .......................................................3.66%
Escalation Rate ...................................................................................................3.00%
Net-to-Gross (NTG) .............................................................................................100%
Minimum NTG Sensitivity ....................................................................................22%
Average Customer Segment Rate/kWh ..............................................................$0.086
Line Losses .........................................................................................................9.60%
Notes: NEBs include PV of periodic bulb (capital) replacement costs.
Summary of Cost-Effectiveness Results
Test Benefit Cost Ratio
Utility Cost Test .......................................$9,350,188 $2,063,383 4.53
Total Resource Cost Test ........................18,751,765 4,428,676 4.23
Ratepayer Impact Measure Test .............9,350,188 13,479,641 0.69
Participant Cost Test ...............................22,652,232 4,199,689 5.39
Supplement 1: Cost-Effectiveness Idaho Power Company
Page 18 Demand-Side Management 2015 Annual Report
Benefit Cost Benefit/Cost Tests
Measure
Name Measure Descriptions Replacing
Measure
Unit End Use
Measure
Life (yrs)a
Annual
Gross Energy Savings
(kWh/yr)b
NPV Avoided
Costsc
Non-Energy Benefit
(NEB)
Gross Incremental Participant
Costd
Incentive/
Unit
Admin Cost
($/kWh)e UC Ratiof
TRC
Ratiog Source
Decorative and Mini-base
CFL Retailer
Efficient Technology: Compact Fluorescent
Lamp Type: Decorative and Mini-Base Lumen Category: 250 to 664 lumens Space Type: ANY
Baseline bulb Lamp ENRes_SF_Lighting 9 9.00 $4.80 $9.49 $1.61 $1.71 $0.014 2.61 8.21 (1)
Decorative
and Mini-base CFL
Retailer
Efficient Technology:
Compact Fluorescent Lamp Type: Decorative and
Mini-Base Lumen Category: 665 to 1439 lumens
Space Type: ANY
Baseline
bulb
Lamp ENRes_SF_Lighting 9 16.00 $8.52 $13.66 $0.06 $1.64 $0.014 4.57 78.99 (1)
Decorative and Mini-base
CFL Retailer
Efficient Technology: Compact Fluorescent
Lamp Type: Decorative and Mini-Base Lumen Category: 1440 to 2600 lumens Space Type: ANY
Baseline bulb Lamp ENRes_SF_Lighting 9 20.00 $10.66 $- $0.06 $2.00 $0.014 4.67 31.34 (2)
General
Purpose CFL Retailer
Efficient Technology:
Compact Fluorescent Lamp Type: General
Purpose and Dimmable Lumen Category: 250 to 664 lumens
Space Type: ANY
Baseline
bulb
Lamp ENRes_SF_Lighting 9 8.00 $4.26 $10.05 $0.06 $0.50 $0.014 6.96 84.76 (1)
General Purpose CFL
Retailer
Efficient Technology: Compact Fluorescent
Lamp Type: General Purpose and Dimmable Lumen Category: 665 to 1439 lumens Space Type: ANY
Baseline bulb Lamp ENRes_SF_Lighting 9 8.00 $4.26 $2.80 $0.06 $0.56 $0.014 6.34 41.83 (1)
General
Purpose CFL Retailer
Efficient Technology:
Compact Fluorescent Lamp Type: General
Purpose and Dimmable Lumen Category: 1440 to 2600 lumens
Space Type: ANY
Baseline
bulb
Lamp ENRes_SF_Lighting 8 14.00 $6.65 $2.74 $0.06 $0.50 $0.014 9.55 37.12 (1)
Globe CFL Retailer Efficient Technology: Compact Fluorescent
Lamp Type: Globe Lumen Category: 250 to 664 lumens Space Type: ANY
Baseline bulb Lamp ENRes_SF_Lighting 12 6.00 $4.18 $10.55 $0.06 $1.74 $0.014 2.29 104.54 (1)
Year: 2015 Program: Energy Efficient Lighting Market Segment: Residential Program Type: Energy Efficiency
Idaho Power Company Supplement 1: Cost-Effectiveness
Demand-Side Management 2015 Annual Report Page 19
Benefit Cost Benefit/Cost Tests
Measure Name Measure Descriptions Replacing Measure Unit End Use Measure Life (yrs)a
Annual
Gross Energy
Savings (kWh/yr)b
NPV
Avoided Costsc
Non-Energy
Benefit (NEB)
Gross Incremental
Participant Costd
Incentive/ Unit
Admin
Cost ($/kWh)e UC Ratiof
TRC Ratiog Source
Globe CFL Retailer Efficient Technology: Compact Fluorescent Lamp Type: Globe Lumen Category: 665 to
1439 lumens Space Type: ANY
Baseline bulb Lamp ENRes_SF_Lighting 12 8.00 $5.57 $16.49 $0.06 $1.55 $0.014 3.35 130.63 (1)
Reflectors and
Outdoor CFL Retailer
Efficient Technology:
Compact Fluorescent Lamp Type: Reflectors and Outdoor
Lumen Category: 250 to 664 lumens
Space Type: ANY
Baseline
bulb
Lamp ENRes_SF_Lighting 8 11.00 $5.22 $23.12 $0.06 $1.31 $0.014 3.57 134.42 (1)
Reflectors and Outdoor CFL Retailer
Efficient Technology: Compact Fluorescent Lamp Type: Reflectors and Outdoor Lumen Category: 665 to
1439 lumens Space Type: ANY
Baseline bulb Lamp ENRes_SF_Lighting 7 18.00 $7.48 $20.91 $0.06 $1.82 $0.014 3.61 91.91 (1)
Three-Way
CFL Retailer
Efficient Technology:
Compact Fluorescent Lamp Type: Three-Way Lumen Category: 1440 to
2600 lumens Space Type: ANY
Baseline
bulb
Lamp ENRes_SF_Lighting 8 33.00 $15.67 $29.38 $6.04 $1.99 $0.014 6.39 6.93 (1)
General
Purpose CFL Retailer
Efficient Technology:
Compact Fluorescent Lamp Type: General Purpose and Dimmable Lumen Category: 3860 Lumen
Space Type: ANY
Baseline
bulb
Lamp ENRes_SF_Lighting 8 69.00 $32.76 $29.40 $10.12 $0.50 $0.014 22.35 5.61 (3)
General Purpose CFL
Retailer
Efficient Technology: Compact Fluorescent
Lamp Type: General Purpose and Dimmable Lumen Category: 4200
Lumen Space Type: ANY
Baseline bulb Lamp ENRes_SF_Lighting 8 87.00 $41.30 $27.75 $12.34 $0.50 $0.014 24.04 5.09 (3)
Decorative
and Mini-base LED Retailer
Efficient Technology: LED
Lamp Type: Decorative and Mini-Base Lumen Category: 250 to 664 lumens Space Type: ANY
Baseline
bulb
Lamp ENRes_SF_Lighting 12 13.00 $9.05 $10.48 $8.35 $2.02 $0.014 4.11 2.29 (1)
Supplement 1: Cost-Effectiveness Idaho Power Company
Page 20 Demand-Side Management 2015 Annual Report
Benefit Cost Benefit/Cost Tests
Measure Name Measure Descriptions Replacing Measure Unit End Use Measure Life (yrs)a
Annual
Gross Energy
Savings (kWh/yr)b
NPV
Avoided Costsc
Non-Energy
Benefit (NEB)
Gross Incremental
Participant Costd
Incentive/ Unit
Admin
Cost ($/kWh)e UC Ratiof
TRC Ratiog Source
General Purpose LED Retailer
Efficient Technology: LED Lamp Type: General Purpose and Dimmable Lumen Category: 250 to 664
lumens Space Type: ANY
Baseline bulb Lamp ENRes_SF_Lighting 12 10.00 $6.96 $11.12 $2.48 $2.08 $0.014 3.13 6.90 (1)
General
Purpose LED Retailer
Efficient Technology: LED
Lamp Type: General Purpose and Dimmable Lumen Category: 665 to
1439 lumens Space Type: ANY
Baseline
bulb
Lamp ENRes_SF_Lighting 12 11.00 $7.65 $3.97 $6.98 $2.32 $0.014 3.09 1.63 (1)
General
Purpose LED Retailer
Efficient Technology: LED
Lamp Type: General Purpose and Dimmable Lumen Category: 1440 to 2600 lumens Space Type: ANY
Baseline
bulb
Lamp ENRes_SF_Lighting 12 22.00 $15.31 $3.89 $20.18 $3.00 $0.014 4.63 0.94 (1) (4)
Globe LED
Retailer
Efficient Technology: LED
Lamp Type: Globe Lumen Category: 250 to 664
lumens Space Type: ANY
Baseline
bulb
Lamp ENRes_SF_Lighting 12 8.00 $5.57 $10.55 $4.28 $2.16 $0.014 2.45 3.67 (1)
Reflectors and Outdoor LED Retailer
Efficient Technology: LED Lamp Type: Reflectors and Outdoor Lumen Category: 250 to 664
lumens Space Type: ANY
Baseline bulb Lamp ENRes_SF_Lighting 12 16.00 $11.13 $25.89 $16.44 $2.35 $0.014 4.33 2.22 (1)
Reflectors and
Outdoor LED Retailer
Efficient Technology: LED
Lamp Type: Reflectors and Outdoor Lumen Category: 665 to
1439 lumens Space Type: ANY
Baseline
bulb
Lamp ENRes_SF_Lighting 12 27.00 $18.79 $20.86 $11.53 $3.00 $0.014 5.56 3.33 (1)
Reflectors and
Outdoor LED Retailer
Efficient Technology: LED
Lamp Type: Reflectors and Outdoor Lumen Category: 1440 to 2600 lumens Space Type: ANY
Baseline
bulb
Lamp ENRes_SF_Lighting 12 60.00 $41.75 $43.66 $25.57 $3.00 $0.014 10.87 3.23 (1)
Three-Way
LED Retailer
Efficient Technology: LED
Lamp Type: Three-Way Lumen Category: 665 to
1439 lumens Space Type: ANY
Baseline
bulb
Lamp ENRes_SF_Lighting 17 27.00 $25.61 $- $30.70 $2.43 $0.014 9.12 0.82 (2) (4)
Idaho Power Company Supplement 1: Cost-Effectiveness
Demand-Side Management 2015 Annual Report Page 21
Benefit Cost Benefit/Cost Tests
Measure Name Measure Descriptions Replacing Measure Unit End Use Measure Life (yrs)a
Annual
Gross Energy
Savings (kWh/yr)b
NPV
Avoided Costsc
Non-Energy
Benefit (NEB)
Gross Incremental
Participant Costd
Incentive/ Unit
Admin
Cost ($/kWh)e UC Ratiof
TRC Ratiog Source
Three-Way LED Retailer
Efficient Technology: LED Lamp Type: Three-Way Lumen Category: 1440 to 2600 lumens
Space Type: ANY
Baseline bulb Lamp ENRes_SF_Lighting 17 60.00 $56.92 $- $44.34 $3.00 $0.014 14.82 1.26 (2)
LED Fixture Retailer Efficient Technology: LED Lamp Type: Fixture
Lumen Category: 250 to 664 lumens Space Type: ANY
Baseline bulb Fixture ENRes_SF_Lighting 12 16.00 $11.13 $25.89 $14.46 $5.61 $0.014 1.91 2.52 (1) (5)
LED Fixture Retailer Efficient Technology: LED Lamp Type: Fixture Lumen Category: 665 to
1439 lumens Space Type: ANY
Baseline bulb Fixture ENRes_SF_Lighting 12 27.00 $18.79 $20.86 $10.14 $5.37 $0.014 3.27 3.77 (1) (5)
a Average measure life.
b Estimated kWh savings measured at the customer’s meter, excluding line losses.
c Sum of NPV of avoided cost. Based on end-use load shape, measure life, savings including line losses, and alternative costs by pricing period as provided in the 2013 IRP. Includes 10% conservation adder from the Northwest Power Act.
d Incremental participant cost prior to customer incentives.e Average program administration and overhead costs to achieve each kWh of savings. Calculated from 2015 actuals.
f Utility Cost Ratio = (NPV Avoided Costs) / ((Admin Cost/kWh * kWh Savings) + Incentives)
g Total Resource Cost Ratio = (NPV Avoided Costs + NEB) / ((Admin Cost/kWh * kWh Savings) + Incentives + (Incremental Participant Cost - Incentives))
1 RTF. ResLightingCFLandLEDLamps_v3_3.xlsm. 2014.
2 BPA. Residential_Lighting_Measures_Effective_04_01_2015_retail_corrected. 2015.3 Tetra Tech. Appendix — IPC 2014 EEL Project 20150223.xlsx. 2015.
4 Measure not cost-effective. Will monitor in 2016.
5 RTF Reflectors and Outdoor LED lamp savings applied to LED Reflector fixtures. Tetra Tech. IPC PY2014EEL Savings Development Recommendations. 2015.
Supplement 1: Cost-Effectiveness Idaho Power Company
Page 22 Demand-Side Management 2015 Annual Report
This page left blank intentionally.
Idaho Power Company Supplement 1: Cost-Effectiveness
Demand-Side Management 2015 Annual Report Page 23
Energy House Calls
Segment: Residential2015 Program Results
Summary of Cost-Effectiveness Results
Test Benefit Cost Ratio
Utility Cost Test .......................................$601,642 $214,103 2.81
Total Resource Cost Test ........................633,608 214,103 2.96
Ratepayer Impact Measure Test .............601,642 1,070,276 0.56
Participant Cost Test ...............................N/A N/A N/A
Cost Inputs (NPV)Ref
Program Administration ..........................................................................$214,103
Program Incentives.................................................................................– I
Total Utility Cost ...................................................................................$ 214,103 P
Measure Equipment and Installation (Incremental Participant Cost)...... $ – M
Net Benefit Inputs (NPV)Ref
Resource Savings
2015 Annual Gross Energy (kWh)....................................754,646
NPV Cumulative Energy (kWh) ........................................9,306,552 $546,947
10% Credit (Northwest Power Act)................................... 54,695
Total Electric Savings .........................................................$ 601,642 S
Participant Bill Savings
NPV Cumulative Participant Savings ...............................$856,173 B
Other Benefits
Non-Utility Rebates/Incentives .........................................$ –NUI
Non-Energy Benefits ........................................................$31,966 NEB
Benefits and Costs Included in Each Test
Utility Cost Test .................................= S * NTG = P
Total Resource Cost Test ..................= (S + NUI + NEB) * NTG = P
Ratepayer Impact Measure Test .......= S * NTG = P + (B * NTG)
Participant Cost Test .........................N/A N/A
Assumptions for Levelized Calculations
Discount Rate
Nominal (WACC) ............................................................................................6.77%
Real ((1 + WACC) / (1 + Escalation)) – 1 .......................................................3.66%
Escalation Rate ...................................................................................................3.00%
Net-to-Gross (NTG) .............................................................................................100%
Minimum NTG Sensitivity ....................................................................................36%
Average Customer Segment Rate/kWh ..............................................................$0.086
Line Losses .........................................................................................................9.60%
Notes: No participant cost.
Supplement 1: Cost-Effectiveness Idaho Power Company
Page 24 Demand-Side Management 2015 Annual Report
Benefit Cost Benefit/Cost Tests
Measure
Name Measure Descriptions Replacing
Measure
Unit End Use
Measure Life
(yrs)a
Annual
Gross Energy Savings
(kWh/yr)b
NPV Avoided
Costsc
Non-Energy Benefit
(NEB)
Gross Incremental Participant
Costd
Incentive/
Unit
Admin Cost
($/kWh)e UC Ratiof
TRC
Ratiog Source
PTCS Duct Sealing Single Wide (<= 1000 sq. ft.) Manufactured Home Duct
Tightness - PTCS Duct Sealing - Heating Zone 1 (Electric FAF Heating System w/CAC)
Pre-existing duct leakage Home ENRes_MH_Heater 18 1,496.00 $1,192.34 $– $–$– $0.284 2.81 2.81 (1)
PTCS Duct Sealing Single Wide (<= 1000 sq. ft.) Manufactured Home Duct Tightness - Heating Zone 1
(Electric FAF Heating System w/o CAC)
Pre-existing duct leakage Home ENRes_MH_Heater 18 1,433.00 $1,142.13 $– $–$– $0.284 2.81 2.81 (1)
PTCS Duct
Sealing
Single Wide (<= 1000 sq. ft.)
Manufactured Home Duct Tightness - Heating Zone 1 (Electric Heat Pump Heating System)
Pre-existing
duct leakage
Home ENRes_MH_Heater 18 887.00 $706.96 $– $–$– $0.284 2.81 2.81 (1)
PTCS Duct Sealing Single Wide (<= 1000 sq. ft.) Manufactured Home Duct
Tightness - Heating Zone 2 (Electric FAF Heating System
w/CAC)
Pre-existing duct leakage Home ENRes_MH_Heater 18 2,361.00 $1,881.76 $– $–$– $0.284 2.81 2.81 (1)
PTCS Duct Sealing Single Wide (<= 1000 sq. ft.) Manufactured Home Duct Tightness - Heating Zone 2 (Electric FAF Heating System w/o CAC)
Pre-existing duct leakage Home ENRes_MH_Heater 18 2,290.00 $1,825.18 $– $–$– $0.284 2.81 2.81 (1)
PTCS Duct
Sealing
Single Wide (<= 1000 sq. ft.)
Manufactured Home Duct Tightness - Heating Zone 2
(Electric Heat Pump Heating System)
Pre-existing
duct leakage
Home ENRes_MH_Heater 18 1,664.00 $1,326.24 $– $–$– $0.284 2.81 2.81 (1)
PTCS Duct Sealing Single Wide (<= 1000 sq. ft.) Manufactured Home Duct Tightness - Heating Zone 3 (Electric FAF Heating System
w/CAC)
Pre-existing duct leakage Home ENRes_MH_Heater 18 3,074.00 $2,450.04 $– $–$– $0.284 2.81 2.81 (1)
PTCS Duct Sealing Single Wide (<= 1000 sq. ft.) Manufactured Home Duct
Tightness - Heating Zone 3 (Electric FAF Heating System w/o CAC)
Pre-existing duct leakage Home ENRes_MH_Heater 18 3,023.00 $2,409.39 $– $–$– $0.284 2.81 2.81 (1)
PTCS Duct
Sealing
Single Wide (<= 1000 sq. ft.)
Manufactured Home Duct Tightness - Heating Zone 3
(Electric Heat Pump Heating System)
Pre-existing
duct leakage
Home ENRes_MH_Heater 18 2,324.00 $1,852.27 $– $–$– $0.284 2.81 2.81 (1)
Year: 2015 Program: Energy House Calls Market Segment: Residential Program Type: Energy Efficiency
Idaho Power Company Supplement 1: Cost-Effectiveness
Demand-Side Management 2015 Annual Report Page 25
Benefit Cost Benefit/Cost Tests
Measure Name Measure Descriptions Replacing Measure Unit End Use
Measure
Life (yrs)a
Annual
Gross Energy
Savings (kWh/yr)b
NPV
Avoided Costsc
Non-Energy
Benefit (NEB)
Gross Incremental
Participant Costd
Incentive/ Unit
Admin
Cost ($/kWh)e UC Ratiof
TRC Ratiog Source
PTCS Duct Sealing Other (> 1000 sq. ft.) Manufactured Home Duct Tightness - Heating Zone 1 (Electric FAF Heating System
w/CAC)
Pre-existing duct leakage Home ENRes_MH_Heater 18 1,881.00 $1,499.19 $– $–$– $0.284 2.81 2.81 (1)
PTCS Duct Sealing Other (> 1000 sq. ft.) Manufactured Home Duct
Tightness - Heating Zone 1 (Electric FAF Heating System w/o CAC)
Pre-existing duct leakage Home ENRes_MH_Heater 18 1,799.00 $1,433.84 $– $–$– $0.284 2.81 2.81 (1)
PTCS Duct Sealing Other (> 1000 sq. ft.) Manufactured Home Duct Tightness - Heating Zone 1
(Electric Heat Pump Heating System)
Pre-existing duct leakage Home ENRes_MH_Heater 18 1,093.00 $871.14 $– $–$– $0.284 2.81 2.81 (1)
PTCS Duct
Sealing
Other (> 1000 sq. ft.)
Manufactured Home Duct Tightness - Heating Zone 2 (Electric FAF Heating System
w/CAC)
Pre-existing
duct leakage
Home ENRes_MH_Heater 18 2,898.00 $2,309.76 $– $–$– $0.284 2.81 2.81 (1)
PTCS Duct Sealing Other (> 1000 sq. ft.) Manufactured Home Duct
Tightness - Heating Zone 2 (Electric FAF Heating System w/o CAC)
Pre-existing duct leakage Home ENRes_MH_Heater 18 2,791.00 $2,224.48 $– $–$– $0.284 2.81 2.81 (1)
PTCS Duct Sealing Other (> 1000 sq. ft.) Manufactured Home Duct Tightness - Heating Zone 2
(Electric Heat Pump Heating System)
Pre-existing duct leakage Home ENRes_MH_Heater 18 2,022.00 $1,611.57 $– $–$– $0.284 2.81 2.81 (1)
PTCS Duct
Sealing
Other (> 1000 sq. ft.)
Manufactured Home Duct Tightness - Heating Zone 3 (Electric FAF Heating System w/CAC)
Pre-existing
duct leakage
Home ENRes_MH_Heater 18 3,710.00 $2,956.94 $– $–$– $0.284 2.81 2.81 (1)
PTCS Duct Sealing Other (> 1000 sq. ft.) Manufactured Home Duct
Tightness - Heating Zone 3 (Electric FAF Heating System
w/o CAC)
Pre-existing duct leakage Home ENRes_MH_Heater 18 3,645.00 $2,905.14 $– $–$– $0.284 2.81 2.81 (1)
PTCS Duct Sealing Other (> 1000 sq. ft.) Manufactured Home Duct Tightness - Heating Zone 3
(Electric Heat Pump Heating System)
Pre-existing duct leakage Home ENRes_MH_Heater 18 2,813.00 $2,242.02 $– $–$– $0.284 2.81 2.81 (1)
Supplement 1: Cost-Effectiveness Idaho Power Company
Page 26 Demand-Side Management 2015 Annual Report
Benefit Cost Benefit/Cost Tests
Measure Name Measure Descriptions Replacing Measure Unit End Use
Measure
Life (yrs)a
Annual
Gross Energy
Savings (kWh/yr)b
NPV
Avoided Costsc
Non-Energy
Benefit (NEB)
Gross Incremental
Participant Costd
Incentive/ Unit
Admin
Cost ($/kWh)e UC Ratiof
TRC Ratiog Source
General Purpose LED Direct Install
Efficient Technology: LED Lamp Type: General Purpose and Dimmable Lumen Category: 665 to 1439
lumens Space Type: ANY
Baseline bulb Lamp ENRes_SF_Lighting 12 18.00 $12.53 $17.43 $–$– $0.284 2.45 5.86 (2)
Low flow
faucet aerator
1.0-1.5 gpm kitchen or
bathroom faucet aerator
Non- low
flow faucet aerator
Aerator ENRes_SF_WtrHtr 10 106.00 $62.68 $– $–$– $0.284 2.08 2.08 (3)
Water heater pipe covers Up to 6 feet No existing coverage Pipe wrap ENRes_SF_WtrHtr 15 150.00 $127.29 $– $–$– $0.284 2.99 2.99 (3)
Low flow showerheads 1.75 gpm Primary Shower Electric Water Heating Direct Install
Primary showerhead 2.2 Gpm or
higher
Showerhead ENRes_SF_WtrHtr 10 265.00 $156.69 $24.31 $–$– $0.284 2.08 2.41 (4)
Low flow showerheads 2.0 gpm Primary Shower Electric Water Heating
Direct Install
Primary showerhead
2.2 Gpm or higher
Showerhead ENRes_SF_WtrHtr 10 166.00 $98.15 $15.55 $–$– $0.284 2.08 2.41 (4)
a Average measure life.
b Estimated kWh savings measured at the customer’s meter, excluding line losses.
c Sum of NPV of avoided cost. Based on end-use load shape, measure life, savings including line losses, and alternative costs by pricing period as provided in the 2013 IRP. Includes 10% conservation adder from the Northwest Power Act.
d No participant cost.e Average program administration and overhead costs to achieve each kWh of savings. Calculated from 2015 actuals.
f Utility Cost Ratio = (NPV Avoided Costs) / ((Admin Cost/kWh * kWh Savings) + Incentives)
g Total Resource Cost Ratio = (NPV Avoided Costs + NEB) / ((Admin Cost/kWh * kWh Savings) + Incentives + (Incremental Participant Cost - Incentives))
1 RTF. ResHeatingCoolingDuctSealingMH_v2_4.xlsm. 2012.
2 RTF. ResLightingCFLandLEDLamps_v3_3.xlsm. 2014.3 AEG. Idaho Power Energy Efficiency Potential Study. 2012.
4 RTF. ResShowerheads_v2_1.xlsm. 2011.
Idaho Power Company Supplement 1: Cost-Effectiveness
Demand-Side Management 2015 Annual Report Page 27
ENERGY STAR® Homes Northwest
Segment: Residential2015 Program Results
Summary of Cost-Effectiveness Results
Test Benefit Cost Ratio
Utility Cost Test .....................................$1,371,921 $ 653,674 2.10
Total Resource Cost Test ......................1,462,817 1,412,126 1.04
Ratepayer Impact Measure Test ...........1,371,921 1,991,252 0.69
Participant Cost Test .............................2,026,474 1,356,452 1.49
Cost Inputs (NPV)Ref
Program Administration ..........................................................................$55,674
Program Incentives................................................................................. 598,000 I
Total Utility Cost ...................................................................................$ 653,674 P
Measure Equipment and Installation (Incremental Participant Cost)...... $1,356,452 M
Net Benefit Inputs (NPV)Ref
Resource Savings
2015 Annual Gross Energy (kWh)...............................773,812
NPV Cumulative Energy (kWh) ...................................12,486,002 $1,247,201
10% Credit (Northwest Power Act)..............................124,720
Total Electric Savings ....................................................$ 1,371,921 S
Participant Bill Savings
NPV Cumulative Participant Savings ..........................$1,337,578 B
Other Benefits
Non-Utility Rebates/Incentives ....................................$ –NUI
Non-Energy Benefits ...................................................$90,896 NEB
Benefits and Costs Included in Each Test
Utility Cost Test ..................................= S * NTG = P
Total Resource Cost Test ...................= (S + NUI + NEB) * NTG = P + ((M-I) * NTG)
Ratepayer Impact Measure Test ........= S * NTG = P + (B * NTG)
Participant Cost Test ..........................= B + I + NUI + NEB = M
Assumptions for Levelized Calculations
Discount Rate
Nominal (WACC) ............................................................................................6.77%
Real ((1 + WACC) / (1 + Escalation)) – 1 .......................................................3.66%
Escalation Rate ...................................................................................................3.00%
Net-to-Gross (NTG) .............................................................................................100%
Minimum NTG Sensitivity ....................................................................................92%
Average Customer Segment Rate/kWh ..............................................................$0.086
Line Losses .........................................................................................................9.60%
Notes: 2009 International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) adopted in Idaho in 2011. Oregon Residential Specialty Code adopted in Oregon in 2011.
Supplement 1: Cost-Effectiveness Idaho Power Company
Page 28 Demand-Side Management 2015 Annual Report
Benefit Cost Benefit/Cost Tests
Measure
Name Measure Descriptions Replacing
Measure
Unit End Use
Measure
Life (yrs)a
Annual
Gross Energy Savings
(kWh/yr)b
NPV Avoided
Costsc
Non-Energy Benefit
(NEB)
Gross Incremental Participant
Costd
Incentive/
Unit
Admin Cost
($/kWh)e UC Ratiof
TRC
Ratiog Source
ENERGY
STAR home
Home in Idaho or
Montana with Heat Pump - Heating Zone 1 Cooling Zone 3
Single family home
built to International Energy Conservation Code 2009 Code.
Adopted 2011.
Home Prog_Energy
Star Homes NW
37 3,778.00 $6,801.15 $– $3,870.25 $1,000.00 $0.072 5.35 1.64 (1)
ENERGY STAR home Home in Oregon with Heat Pump. BOP1
Equipment Upgrade - Heating Zone 1 - Cooling Zone 3
New Single Family dwelling up to four
units, permitted in Oregon under the 2011 Oregon
Residential Specialty Code.
Home Prog_Energy Star Homes NW 45 3,234.00 $6,420.20 $1,738.59 $3,610.42 $1,000.00 $0.072 5.21 2.12 (2)
ENERGY
STAR home
Multifamily - Heat
Pump - Heating Zone 1 Cooling Zone 3
Multi-family home
built to International Energy Conservation
Code 2009 Code. Adopted 2011.
Home Prog_Energy
Star Homes NW
36 1,294.00 $2,294.18 $152.89 $2,268.32 $1,000.00 $0.072 2.10 1.04 (3)
a Average measure life.
b Estimated kWh savings measured at the customers meter, excluding line losses.
c Sum of NPV of avoided cost. Based on end-use load shape, measure life, savings including line losses, and alternative costs by pricing period as provided in the 2013 IRP. Includes 10% conservation adder from the Northwest Power Act.
d Incremental participant cost prior to customer incentives.e Average program administration and overhead costs to achieve each kWh of savings. Calculated from 2015 actuals.f Utility Cost Ratio = (NPV Avoided Costs) / ((Admin Cost/kWh * kWh Savings) + Incentives)
g Total Resource Cost Ratio = (NPV Avoided Costs + NEB) / ((Admin Cost/kWh * kWh Savings) + Incentives + (Incremental Participant Cost - Incentives))
1 RTF. ResNewSFEStarWAIDMT_v2_2.xls. 2012.
2 RTF. ResNewSFEStarOR_v3_0.xlsm. 20143 RTF. ResMFEstarHomes2012_v1_1.xlsm. 2012.
Year: 2015 Program: ENERGY STAR Homes Northwest Market Segment: Residential Program Type: Energy Efficiency
Idaho Power Company Supplement 1: Cost-Effectiveness
Demand-Side Management 2015 Annual Report Page 29
Heating & Cooling Efficiency Program/DHP Pilot
Segment: Residential2015 Program Results
Summary of Cost-Effectiveness Results
Test Benefit Cost Ratio
Utility Cost Test .......................................$1,948,565 $626,369 3.11
Total Resource Cost Test ........................2,167,837 2,064,055 1.05
Ratepayer Impact Measure Test .............1,948,565 2,460,570 0.79
Participant Cost Test ...............................2,323,173 1,707,386 1.36
Cost Inputs (NPV)Ref
Program Administration ...........................................................................$356,669
Program Incentives..................................................................................269,700 I
Total Utility Cost ....................................................................................$ 626,369 P
Measure Equipment and Installation (Incremental Participant Cost)....... $1,707,386 M
Net Benefit Inputs (NPV)Ref
Resource Savings
2015 Annual Gross Energy (kWh)...............................1,502,172
NPV Cumulative Energy (kWh) ...................................19,538,483 $1,771,423
10% Credit (Northwest Power Act)..............................177,142
Total Electric Savings ....................................................$ 1,948,565 S
Participant Bill Savings
NPV Cumulative Participant Savings ..........................$1,834,201 B
Other Benefits
Non-Utility Rebates/Incentives .....................................$ –NUI
Non-Energy Benefits ....................................................$219,272 NEB
Benefits and Costs Included in Each Test
Utility Cost Test .................................= S * NTG = P
Total Resource Cost Test ..................= (S + NUI + NEB) * NTG = P + ((M-I) * NTG)
Ratepayer Impact Measure Test .......= S * NTG = P + (B * NTG)
Participant Cost Test .........................= B + I + NUI + NEB = M
Assumptions for Levelized Calculations
Discount Rate
Nominal (WACC) ............................................................................................6.77%
Real ((1 + WACC) / (1 + Escalation)) – 1 .......................................................3.66%
Escalation Rate ...................................................................................................3.00%
Net-to-Gross (NTG) .............................................................................................100%
Minimum NTG Sensitivity ....................................................................................85%
Average Customer Segment Rate/kWh ..............................................................$0.086
Line Losses .........................................................................................................9.60%
Supplement 1: Cost-Effectiveness Idaho Power Company
Page 30 Demand-Side Management 2015 Annual Report
Benefit Cost Benefit/Cost Tests
Measure
Name Measure Descriptions Replacing
Measure
Unit End Use
Measure Life
(yrs)a
Annual
Gross Energy Savings
(kWh/yr)b
NPV Avoided
Costsc
Non-Energy Benefit
(NEB)
Gross Incremental Participant
Costd
Incentive/
Unit
Admin Cost
($/kWh)e UC Ratiof
TRC
Ratiog Source
Evaporative Cooler Evaporative cooler single family Central Air Conditioning Unit ENRes_SF_CAC 12 416.00 $621.80 $– $– $150.00 $0.237 2.50 2.50 (1)
Evaporative
Cooler
Evaporative cooler
manufactured home
Central Air
Conditioning
Unit ENRes_MH_CAC 12 309.00 $507.64 $– $– $150.00 $0.237 2.27 2.27 (1)
Evaporative Cooler Evaporative cooler multi-family Central Air Conditioning Unit ENRes_MF_CAC 12 296.00 $435.10 $– $– $150.00 $0.237 1.98 1.98 (1)
Water source
heat pump
Open loop water source
heat pump for existing and new construction- 14.00
EER 3.5 COP
Electric
resistance/Oil Propane
Unit ENRes_SF_HeatPump 20 8,927.00 $11,578.54 $– $8,037.00 $1,000.00 $0.237 3.72 1.14 (2)
Water source heat pump Open loop water source heat pump - 14.00 EER 3.5 COP
Air source heat pump Unit ENRes_SF_HeatPump 20 2,648.00 $3,434.52 $– $8,505.00 $500.00 $0.237 3.05 0.38 (2) (3)
Heat Pump Conversion Single Family Home HVAC Conversions - Convert to Heat Pump 8.50 HSPF
Heating Zone 1
Forced air furnace w/o central air
conditioning
Unit ENRes_SF_Heater 20 5,306.00 $4,758.12 $– $5,991.00 $800.00 $0.237 2.31 0.66 (3) (4)
Heat Pump Conversion Single Family Home HVAC Conversions - Convert to
Heat Pump 8.50 HSPF Heating Zone 2
Forced air furnace w/o
central air conditioning
Unit ENRes_SF_Heater 20 6,961.00 $6,242.23 $– $5,991.00 $800.00 $0.237 2.55 0.82 (3) (4)
Heat Pump
Conversion
Single Family Home HVAC
Conversions - Convert to Heat Pump 8.50 HSPF Heating Zone 3
Forced air
furnace w/o central air conditioning
Unit ENRes_SF_Heater 20 7,876.00 $7,062.75 $– $5,991.00 $800.00 $0.237 2.65 0.90 (3) (4)
Heat Pump
Conversion
Single Family Home HVAC
Conversions - Convert to Heat Pump 8.50 HSPF
Heating Zone 1 Cooling Zone 3
Forced air
furnace with central air
conditioning
Unit ENRes_SF_HeatPump 20 4,380.00 $5,680.97 $– $3,622.00 $800.00 $0.237 3.09 1.22 (4)
Heat Pump
Conversion
Single Family Home HVAC
Conversions - Convert to Heat Pump 8.50 HSPF Heating Zone 2
Cooling Zone 1
Forced air
furnace with central air conditioning
Unit ENRes_SF_HeatPump 20 6,719.00 $8,714.71 $– $3,622.00 $800.00 $0.237 3.64 1.67 (4)
Heat Pump Conversion Single Family Home HVAC Conversions - Convert to
Heat Pump 8.50 HSPF Heating Zone 2 Cooling Zone 2
Forced air furnace with
central air conditioning
Unit ENRes_SF_HeatPump 20 6,451.00 $8,367.11 $– $3,622.00 $800.00 $0.237 3.59 1.62 (4)
Heat Pump Conversion Single Family Home HVAC Conversions - Convert to Heat Pump 8.50 HSPF
Heating Zone 2 Cooling Zone 3
Forced air furnace with central air
conditioning
Unit ENRes_SF_HeatPump 20 6,035.00 $7,827.55 $– $3,622.00 $800.00 $0.237 3.51 1.55 (4)
Year: 2015 Program: Heating & Cooling Efficiency Program Market Segment: Residential Program Type: Energy Efficiency
Idaho Power Company Supplement 1: Cost-Effectiveness
Demand-Side Management 2015 Annual Report Page 31
Benefit Cost Benefit/Cost Tests
Measure Name Measure Descriptions Replacing Measure Unit End Use
Measure
Life (yrs)a
Annual
Gross Energy
Savings (kWh/yr)b
NPV
Avoided Costsc
Non-Energy
Benefit (NEB)
Gross Incremental
Participant Costd
Incentive/ Unit
Admin
Cost ($/kWh)e UC Ratiof
TRC Ratiog Source
Heat Pump Conversion Single Family Home HVAC Conversions - Convert to Heat Pump 8.50 HSPF Heating Zone 3
Cooling Zone 1
Forced air furnace with central air conditioning
Unit ENRes_SF_HeatPump 20 7,634.00 $9,901.49 $– $3,622.00 $800.00 $0.237 3.79 1.82 (4)
Heat Pump Upgrade Existing Single Family Home Heat Pump -
upgraded to 8.50 HSPF All Climates
Heat pump Unit ENRes_SF_HeatPump 20 2,597.00 $3,368.37 $– $1,499.00 $250.00 $0.237 3.89 1.59 (1)
Heat Pump Upgrade Existing Single Family Home Heat Pump - upgraded to 9.0 HSPF/14 SEER Heating Zone 1
Heat pump Unit ENRes_SF_HeatPump 15 128.00 $128.82 $– $57.99 $– $0.237 4.25 1.46 (5) (6)
Heat Pump
Upgrade
Existing Single Family
Home Heat Pump - upgraded to 9.0 HSPF/14
SEER Heating Zone 2
Heat pump Unit ENRes_SF_HeatPump 15 116.00 $116.75 $– $57.99 $– $0.237 4.25 1.37 (5) (6)
Heat Pump Upgrade Existing Single Family Home Heat Pump - upgraded to 9.0 HSPF/14 SEER Heating Zone 3
Heat pump Unit ENRes_SF_HeatPump 15 115.00 $115.74 $– $57.99 $– $0.237 4.25 1.36 (5) (6)
Ductless Heat Pump No supplemental fuel screen. Heating zone 2,
cooling zone 1.
Zonal Electric Unit ENRes_SF_HeatPump 15 2,585.00 $2,601.66 $517.66 $4,800.00 $750.00 $0.237 1.91 0.58 (7) (8)
Ductless Heat Pump No supplemental fuel screen. Heating zone 3,
cooling zone 1.
Zonal Electric Unit ENRes_SF_HeatPump 15 292.00 $293.88 $2,871.08 $4,800.00 $750.00 $0.237 0.36 0.65 (7) (8)
Ductless Heat Pump No supplemental fuel screen. Heating zone 2,
cooling zone 2.
Zonal Electric Unit ENRes_SF_HeatPump 15 2,746.00 $2,763.70 $692.33 $4,800.00 $750.00 $0.237 1.97 0.63 (7) (8)
Ductless Heat Pump No supplemental fuel screen. Heating zone 1, cooling zone 3.
Zonal Electric Unit ENRes_SF_HeatPump 15 3,131.00 $3,151.18 $1,081.33 $4,800.00 $750.00 $0.237 2.11 0.76 (7) (8)
Ductless Heat Pump No supplemental fuel screen. Heating zone 2, cooling zone 3.
Zonal Electric Unit ENRes_SF_HeatPump 15 3,016.00 $3,035.44 $875.82 $4,800.00 $750.00 $0.237 2.07 0.71 (7) (8)
Prescriptive
Duct Sealing
Duct Tightness - PTCS Duct
Sealing - Average Heating System. Weighted average
of Heating Zones 1-3.
Pre-existing
duct leakage
Unit ENRes_SF_Heater 20 1,588.69 $1,424.65 $– $611.71 $350.00 $0.237 1.96 1.44 (9)
Electronically Commutated
Motor (ECM) Blower Motor
ECM Blower Motor Permanent split
capacitor (PSC) motor
Unit ENRes_SF_HVAC 18 515.00 $609.29 $– $300.00 $50.00 $0.237 3.54 1.44 (10)
Whole House Fan Whole House Fan Displaced forced air dx
cooling
Unit ENRes_SF_CAC 18 446.00 $916.18 $– $700.00 $200.00 $0.237 3.00 1.14 (11)
Supplement 1: Cost-Effectiveness Idaho Power Company
Page 32 Demand-Side Management 2015 Annual Report
a Average measure life.
b Estimated kWh savings measured at the customer’s meter, excluding line losses.
c Sum of NPV of avoided cost. Based on end-use load shape, measure life, savings including line losses, and alternative costs by pricing period as provided in the 2013 IRP. Includes 10% conservation adder from the Northwest Power Act.
d Incremental participant cost prior to customer incentives. Based on median customer costs and RTF survey data.
e Average program administration and overhead costs to achieve each kWh of savings. Calculated from 2015 actuals.f Utility Cost Ratio = (NPV Avoided Costs) / ((Admin Cost/kWh * kWh Savings) + Incentives)
g Total Resource Cost Ratio = (NPV Avoided Costs + NEB) / ((Admin Cost/kWh * kWh Savings) + Incentives + (Incremental Participant Cost - Incentives))
1 Idaho Power Energy Efficiency Potential Study by EnerNOC Utility Solutions Consulting. IPC Residential LoadMAP.
2 Savings from Ecotope, Inc., heat pump sizing specifications and heat pump measure savings estimates. December 2009.
3 Measure not cost-effective. Measure to be monitored in 2016. Measure included in the program to increase participation and to encourage adoption of higher-efficiency equipment.4 Savings from RTF. Res_SFHPConversion_V2_6.xlsm.2012.
5 RTF. ResHeatingCoolingHeatPumpUpgradeSF_v2_8.xlsm.
6 Customers receive incentive for going to an efficiency of at least an 8.5 HSPF heat pump. Incremental savings claimed for projects with an efficiency greater than a 9.0 HSPF. No additional incentive paid.
7 RTF. ResHeatingCoolingDuctlessHeatPumpUpgradeSF_v2_.xlsm. 2014.
8 Measure not cost-effective. Will continue to monitor in 2016.9 RTF. ResHeatingCoolingPrescriptiveDuctSeal_v1_0.xlsm. Weighted average of 2015 program participants in heating zone 1 (45%), heating zone 2 (43%), and heating zone 3 (12%). 2013.
10 Idaho Power engineering calculations based on Integrated Design Lab inputs. 2015.
11 AEG. Idaho Power Energy Efficiency Potential Study. 2012.
Idaho Power Company Supplement 1: Cost-Effectiveness
Demand-Side Management 2015 Annual Report Page 33
Home Improvement Program
Segment: Residential2015 Program Results
Summary of Cost-Effectiveness Results
Test Benefit Cost Ratio
Utility Cost Test ........................................$520,177 $ 272,509 1.91
Total Resource Cost Test .........................596,235 893,731 0.67
Ratepayer Impact Measure Test ..............520,177 852,045 0.61
Participant Cost Test ................................781,798 747,426 1.05
Cost Inputs (NPV)Ref
Program Administration ...........................................................................$146,305
Program Incentives..................................................................................126,204 I
Total Utility Cost ....................................................................................$ 272,509 P
Measure Equipment and Installation (Incremental Participant Cost)....... $747,426 M
Net Benefit Inputs (NPV)Ref
Resource Savings
2015 Annual Gross Energy (kWh)................................303,580
NPV Cumulative Energy (kWh) ....................................5,126,717 $ 472,888
10% Credit (Northwest Power Act)...............................47,289
Total Electric Savings .....................................................$ 520,177 S
Participant Bill Savings
NPV Cumulative Participant Savings ...........................$579,536 B
Other Benefits
Non-Utility Rebates/Incentives .....................................$ –NUI
Non-Energy Benefits ....................................................$76,057 NEB
Benefits and Costs Included in Each Test
Utility Cost Test ..................................= S * NTG = P
Total Resource Cost Test ...................= (S + NUI + NEB) * NTG = P + ((M-I) * NTG)
Ratepayer Impact Measure Test ........= S * NTG = P + (B * NTG)
Participant Cost Test ..........................= B + I + NUI + NEB = M
Assumptions for Levelized Calculations
Discount Rate
Nominal (WACC) ............................................................................................6.77%
Real ((1 + WACC) / (1 + Escalation)) – 1 .......................................................3.66%
Escalation Rate ...................................................................................................3.00%
Net-to-Gross (NTG) .............................................................................................100%
Minimum NTG Sensitivity ....................................................................................N/A
Average Customer Segment Rate/kWh ..............................................................$0.086
Line Losses .........................................................................................................9.60%
Supplement 1: Cost-Effectiveness Idaho Power Company
Page 34 Demand-Side Management 2015 Annual Report
Benefit Cost Benefit/Cost Tests
Measure
Name Measure Descriptions Replacing
Measure
Unit End Use
Measure Life
(yrs)a
Annual
Gross Energy Savings
(kWh/yr)b
NPV Avoided
Costsc
Non-Energy Benefit
(NEB)
Gross Incremental Participant
Costd
Incentive/
Unit
Admin Cost
($/kWh)e UC Ratiof
TRC
Ratiog Source
Multi Family - Attic Insulation Greater than R38. Electric heat. Program
weighted average.
Attic Insulation R20 or less Square Feet ENRes_MF_Heater 45 1.01 $1.63 $– $0.65 $0.15 $0.482 2.56 1.43 (1)
Multi Family - Windows U-Factor of 0.30 or lower. Electric heat.
Program weighted average.
Single pane metal, Single pane wood
or double pane metal.
Square Feet ENRes_MF_Heater 45 13.89 $22.39 $– $23.43 $2.50 $0.482 2.43 0.74 (1) (2) (3)
Single Family - Attic Insulation Greater than R38. Electric heat. Program weighted average.
Attic Insulation R20 or less Square Feet ENRes_SF_Heater 45 0.47 $0.76 $0.16 $0.85 $0.15 $0.482 2.01 0.85 (3) (4)
Single Family - Floor
Insulation
Greater than R30 or fill floor cavity. Electric
heat. Program weighted average.
Floor Insulation R5 or less Square Feet ENRes_SF_Heater 45 0.68 $1.10 $0.23 $1.12 $0.50 $0.482 1.32 0.92 (3) (4)
Single Family -
Wall Insulation
Greater than R11 or
fill wall cavity. Electric heat. Program weighted average.
Wall Insulation R5
or less
Square
Feet
ENRes_SF_Heater 45 1.49 $2.40 $0.51 $1.11 $0.50 $0.482 1.97 1.59 (4)
Single Family - Window U-Factor of 0.30 or lower. Electric heat. Program weighted
average.
Single pane metal, Single pane wood or double pane
metal.
Square Feet ENRes_SF_Heater 45 5.81 $9.36 $2.31 $21.05 $2.50 $0.482 1.77 0.49 (3) (4)
a Average measure life.b Estimated kWh savings measured at the customer’s meter, excluding line losses.
c Sum of NPV of avoided cost. Based on end use load shape, measure life, savings including line losses, and alternative costs by pricing period as provided in the 2013 IRP. Includes 10% conservation adder from the Northwest Power Act.
d Based on average 2015 customer costs.
e Average program administration and overhead costs to achieve each kWh of savings. Calculated from 2015 actuals.f Utility Cost Ratio = (NPV Avoided Costs) / ((Admin Cost/kWh * kWh Savings) + Incentives)g Total Resource Cost Ratio = (NPV Avoided Costs + NEB) / ((Admin Cost/kWh * kWh Savings) + Incentives + (Incremental Participant Cost - Incentives))
1 RTF. Weighted average of savings by heating and cooling zone, heating and cooling system, and insulation level or U-Factor. ResWXMF_v2_2.xls. 2011.
2 RTF. Incremental costs from ResWxMF_v2_2.xls. 2011.
3 Measure not cost-effective. Will monitor in 2016.4 RTF. Weighted average of savings by heating and cooling zone, heating and cooling system, and insulation level or U-Factor. ResWXSF_v3_4.xls. 2015.5 RTF. Incremental costs from ResWxSF_v3_4.xls. 2015.
Year: 2015 Program: Home Improvement Program Market Segment: Residential Program Type: Energy Efficiency
Idaho Power Company Supplement 1: Cost-Effectiveness
Demand-Side Management 2015 Annual Report Page 35
Rebate Advantage
Segment: Residential2015 Program Results
Summary of Cost-Effectiveness Results
Test Benefit Cost Ratio
Utility Cost Test ........................................$388,148 $85,438 4.54
Total Resource Cost Test .........................404,264 117,322 3.45
Ratepayer Impact Measure Test ..............388,148 591,871 0.66
Participant Cost Test ................................580,550 89,884 6.46
Cost Inputs (NPV)Ref
Program Administration ...........................................................................$27,438
Program Incentives..................................................................................58,000 I
Total Utility Cost ....................................................................................$ 85,438 P
Measure Equipment and Installation (Incremental Participant Cost)....... $89,884 M
Net Benefit Inputs (NPV)Ref
Resource Savings
2015 Annual Gross Energy (kWh)....................................358,683
NPV Cumulative Energy (kWh) ........................................5,148,128 $ 352,861
10% Credit (Northwest Power Act)...................................35,286
Total Electric Savings .........................................................$ 388,148 S
Participant Bill Savings
NPV Cumulative Participant Savings ...............................$ 506,433 B
Other Benefits
Non-Utility Rebates/Incentives .........................................$ –NUI
Non-Energy Benefits ........................................................$16,116 NEB
Benefits and Costs Included in Each Test
Utility Cost Test ...................................= S * NTG = P
Total Resource Cost Test ....................= (S + NUI + NEB) * NTG = P + ((M-I) * NTG)
Ratepayer Impact Measure Test .........= S * NTG = P + (B * NTG)
Participant Cost Test ...........................= B + I + NUI + NEB = M
Assumptions for Levelized Calculations
Discount Rate
Nominal (WACC) ............................................................................................6.77%
Real ((1 + WACC) / (1 + Escalation)) – 1 .......................................................3.66%
Escalation Rate ...................................................................................................3.00%
Net-to-Gross (NTG) .............................................................................................100%
Minimum NTG Sensitivity ....................................................................................23%
Average Customer Segment Rate/kWh ..............................................................$0.086
Line Losses .........................................................................................................9.60%
Supplement 1: Cost-Effectiveness Idaho Power Company
Page 36 Demand-Side Management 2015 Annual Report
Year: 2015 Program: Rebate Advantage Market Segment: Residential Program Type: Energy Efficiency
Benefit Cost Benefit/Cost Tests
Measure Name
Measure
Descriptions Replacing
Measure
Unit End Use
Measure Life
(yrs)a
Annual
Gross Energy Savings
(kWh/yr)b
NPV Avoided
Costsc
Non-Energy Benefit
(NEB)
Gross Incremental Participant
Costd
Incentive/
Unit
Admin Cost
($/kWh)e
UC
Ratiof
TRC
Ratiog Source
ENERGY STAR manufactured
home
New Energy Star Manufactured
Home with Heat Pump - Heating
Zone 1 Cooling Zone 3
Manufactured home built
to Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) code.
Home Res_HVAC 23 3,254.00 $5,455.76 $269.93 $1,565.18 $1,000.00 $0.076 4.37 3.16 (1)
ENERGY STAR manufactured
home
New Energy Star Manufactured
Home with Heat Pump - Heating
Zone 2 Cooling Zone 1
Manufactured home built
to Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) code.
Home Res_HVAC 25 4,346.00 $7,737.09 283.34 $1,565.18 $1,000.00 $0.076 5.82 4.23 (1)
ENERGY STAR
manufactured home
New Energy Star
Manufactured Home with Heat Pump - Heating
Zone 2 Cooling Zone 2
Manufactured
home built to Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) code.
Home Res_HVAC 25 4,390.00 $7,815.42 $283.34 $1,565.18 $1,000.00 $0.076 5.86 4.27 (1)
ENERGY STAR
manufactured home
New Energy Star
Manufactured Home with Heat Pump - Heating
Zone 2 Cooling Zone 3
Manufactured
home built to Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) code.
Home Res_HVAC 25 4,472.00 $7,961.40 283.34 $1,565.18 $1,000.00 $0.076 5.94 4.33 (1)
ENERGY STAR
manufactured home
New Energy Star
Manufactured Home with Heat
Pump - Heating Zone 3 Cooling Zone 1
Manufactured
home built to Housing
and Urban Development (HUD) code.
Home Res_HVAC 26 5,516.00 10,089.34 $289.69 $1,565.18 $1,000.00 $0.076 7.11 5.23 (1)
ENERGY STAR
manufactured home
New EcoRated
Manufactured Home with Heat
Pump - Heating Zone 1 Cooling Zone 3
Manufactured
home built to Housing
and Urban Development (HUD) code.
Home Res_HVAC 24 3,619.00 $6,258.85 $276.76 $1,977.35 $1,000.00 $0.076 4.91 2.90 (1)
a Average measure life.
b Estimated kWh savings measured at the customer’s meter, excluding line losses. c Sum of NPV of avoided cost. Based on end use load shape, measure life, savings including line losses, and alternative costs by pricing period as provided in the 2013 IRP. Includes 10% conservation adder from the Northwest Power Act.d Incremental participant cost prior to customer incentives.
e Average program administration and overhead costs to achieve each kWh of savings. Calculated from 2015 actuals.
f Utility Cost Ratio = (NPV Avoided Costs) / ((Admin Cost/kWh * kWh Savings) + Incentives)
g Total Resource Cost Ratio = (NPV Avoided Costs + NEB) / ((Admin Cost/kWh * kWh Savings) + Incentives + (Incremental Participant Cost - Incentives))1 RTF. NewMH_EStar_EcoRated_v1_3.xls. 2013.
Idaho Power Company Supplement 1: Cost-Effectiveness
Demand-Side Management 2015 Annual Report Page 37
See ya later, refrigerator®
Segment: Residential2015 Program Results
Summary of Cost-Effectiveness Results
Test Benefit Cost Ratio
Utility Cost Test ........................................$274,073 $227,179 1.21
Total Resource Cost Test .........................348,456 227,179 1.53
Ratepayer Impact Measure Test ..............274,073 559,929 0.49
Participant Cost Test ................................N/A N/A N/A
Cost Inputs (NPV)Ref
Program Administration ...........................................................................$215,749
Program Incentives..................................................................................11,430 I
Total Utility Cost ....................................................................................$ 227,179 P
Measure Equipment and Installation (Incremental Participant Cost)....... $ – M
Net Benefit Inputs (NPV)Ref
Resource Savings
2015 Annual Gross Energy (kWh)....................................720,208
NPV Cumulative Energy (kWh) ........................................4,154,550 $249,157
10% Credit (Northwest Power Act)...................................24,916
Total Electric Savings .........................................................$ 274,073 S
Participant Bill Savings
NPV Cumulative Participant Savings ...............................$ 332,750 B
Other Benefits
Non-Utility Rebates/Incentives .........................................$ –NUI
Non-Energy Benefits ........................................................$74,382 NEB
Benefits and Costs Included in Each Test
Utility Cost Test ..................................= S * NTG = P
Total Resource Cost Test ...................= (S + NUI + NEB) * NTG = P
Ratepayer Impact Measure Test ........= S * NTG = P + (B * NTG)
Participant Cost Test ..........................N/A N/A
Assumptions for Levelized Calculations
Discount Rate
Nominal (WACC) ............................................................................................6.77%
Real ((1 + WACC) / (1 + Escalation)) – 1 .......................................................3.66%
Escalation Rate ...................................................................................................3.00%
Net-to-Gross (NTG) .............................................................................................100%
Minimum NTG Sensitivity ....................................................................................83%
Average Customer Segment Rate/kWh ..............................................................$0.086
Line Losses .........................................................................................................9.60%
Notes: No participant costs. Program modified in 2015 to remove the participant incentive and to provide light-emitting diode (LED) bulbs to increase cost-effectiveness.
Supplement 1: Cost-Effectiveness Idaho Power Company
Page 38 Demand-Side Management 2015 Annual Report
Year: 2015 Program: See ya later, refrigerator Market Segment: Residential Program Type: Energy Efficiency
Benefit Cost Benefit/Cost Tests
Measure Name
Measure
Descriptions Replacing
Measure
Unit End Use
Measure Life
(yrs)a
Annual
Gross Energy Savings
(kWh/yr)b
NPV Avoided
Costsc
Non-Energy Benefit
(NEB)
Gross Incremental Participant
Costd
Incentive/
Unit
Admin Cost
($/kWh)e UC Ratiof
TRC
Ratiog Source
Freezer Recycling Freezer removal and decommissioning Freezer ENRes_SF_Freezer 5 570.00 $185.95 $50.46 $–$– $0.300 1.09 1.38 (1)
Refrigerator
Recycling
Refrigerator
removal and decommissioning
Refrigerator ENRes_SF_SecRef 6 356.00 $135.46 $41.09 $–$– $0.300 1.27 1.65 (1)
General
Purpose LED Give away
Efficient Technology:
LED Lamp Type: General
Purpose and Dimmable Lumen Category:
665 to 1439 lumens Space Type: ANY
Lamp ENRes_SF_Lighting 13 9.00 $6.72 $3.92 $–$– $0.300 2.49 3.94 (2)
a Average measure life.
b Estimated kWh savings measured at the customer’s meter, excluding line losses.
c Sum of NPV of avoided cost. Based on end-use load shape, measure life, savings including line losses, and alternative costs by pricing period as provided in the 2013 IRP. Includes 10% conservation adder from the Northwest Power Act.d No participant cost.e Average program administration and overhead costs to achieve each kWh of savings. Calculated from 2015 actuals.
f Utility Cost Ratio = (NPV Avoided Costs) / ((Admin Cost/kWh * kWh Savings) + Incentives)
g Total Resource Cost Ratio = (NPV Avoided Costs + NEB) / ((Admin Cost/kWh * kWh Savings) + Incentives + (Incremental Participant Cost - Incentives))
1 RTF. ResFridgeFreezeDecommissioning_v3_1.xlsm. 2014.2 RTF. ResLightingCFLandLEDLamps_v3_3.xlsm. 2014.
Idaho Power Company Supplement 1: Cost-Effectiveness
Demand-Side Management 2015 Annual Report Page 39
Simple Steps, Smart Savings™/Home Products Program
Segment: Residential2015 Program Results
Summary of Cost-Effectiveness Results
Test Benefit Cost Ratio
Utility Cost Test ........................................$ 468,399 $139,096 3.37
Total Resource Cost Test .........................1,621,352 335,464 4.83
Ratepayer Impact Measure Test ..............468,399 693,381 0.68
Participant Cost Test ................................1,779,807 268,936 6.62
Cost Inputs (NPV)Ref
Program Administration ...........................................................................$ 66,528
Program Incentives..................................................................................72,568 I
Total Utility Cost ....................................................................................$ 139,096 P
Measure Equipment and Installation (Incremental Participant Cost)....... $268,936 M
Net Benefit Inputs (NPV)Ref
Resource Savings
2015 Annual Gross Energy (kWh)....................................770,822
NPV Cumulative Energy (kWh) ........................................6,588,709 $425,817
10% Credit (Northwest Power Act)...................................42,582
Total Electric Savings .........................................................$ 468,399 S
Participant Bill Savings
NPV Cumulative Participant Savings ...............................$ 554,286 B
Other Benefits
Non-Utility Rebates/Incentives .........................................$ –NUI
Non-Energy Benefits ........................................................$1,152,953 NEB
Benefits and Costs Included in Each Test
Utility Cost Test ..................................= S * NTG = P
Total Resource Cost Test ...................= (S + NUI + NEB) * NTG = P + ((M-I) * NTG)
Ratepayer Impact Measure Test ........= S * NTG = P + (B * NTG)
Participant Cost Test ..........................= B + I + NUI + NEB = M
Assumptions for Levelized Calculations
Discount Rate
Nominal (WACC) ............................................................................................6.77%
Real ((1 + WACC) / (1 + Escalation)) – 1 .......................................................3.66%
Escalation Rate ...................................................................................................3.00%
Net-to-Gross (NTG) .............................................................................................100%
Minimum NTG Sensitivity ....................................................................................30%
Average Customer Segment Rate/kWh ..............................................................$0.086
Line Losses .........................................................................................................9.60%
Notes: NEBs include the NPV of water savings from low-flow showerheads.
Supplement 1: Cost-Effectiveness Idaho Power Company
Page 40 Demand-Side Management 2015 Annual Report
Benefit Cost Benefit/Cost Tests
Measure
Name Measure Descriptions Replacing
Measure
Unit End Use
Measure Life
(yrs)a
Annual
Gross Energy Savings
(kWh/yr)b
NPV Avoided
Costsc
Non-Energy Benefit
(NEB)
Gross Incremental Participant
Costd
Incentive/
Unit
Admin Cost
($/kWh)e UC Ratiof
TRC
Ratiog Source
Refrigerator ENERGY STAR Refrigerator - Any Baseline refrigerator Refrigerator ENRes_SF_Refrigerator 17 29.00 $29.04 $– $14.51 $30.00 $0.086 0.89 1.71 (1) (2)
Freezer ENERGY STAR freezer
No tiers. Any freezer
Baseline
freezer
Freezer ENRes_SF_Freezer 22 40.00 $51.71 $– $4.26 $20.00 $0.086 2.21 6.71 (3) (4)
Clothes Washer ENERGY STAR Clothes Washer - Any Baseline clothes
washers
Clothes washer ENRes_SF_WtrHtr 14 121.00 $96.79 $80.43 $30.00 $0.086 2.40 1.07 (5)
Low-flow showerhead Low-flow showerhead 2.0 gpm
Any Shower Any Water Heating Retail
Showerhead 2.2 gpm or
higher
Showerhead ENRes_SF_WtrHtr 10 66.78 $39.49 $104.09 $27.29 $7.00 $0.086 3.10 4.35 (6)
Low-flow showerhead Low-flow showerhead 1.75 gpm Any Shower Any Water
Heating Retail
Showerhead 2.2 gpm or higher
Showerhead ENRes_SF_WtrHtr 10 99.77 $58.99 $152.70 $27.29 $7.00 $0.086 3.79 5.90 (6)
Low-flow
showerhead
Low-flow showerhead
1.5 gpm Any Shower Any Water Heating
Retail
Showerhead
2.2 gpm or higher
Showerhead ENRes_SF_WtrHtr 10 129.12 $76.35 $194.11 $27.29 $7.00 $0.086 4.22 7.04 (6)
a Average measure life.b Estimated kWh savings measured at the customer’s meter, excluding line losses.
c Sum of NPV of avoided cost. Based on end-use load shape, measure life, savings including line losses, and alternative costs by pricing period as provided in the 2013 IRP. Includes 10% conservation adder from the Northwest Power Act.
d Incremental participant cost prior to customer incentives.
e Average program administration and overhead costs to achieve each kWh of savings. Calculated from 2015 actuals.f Utility Cost Ratio = (NPV Avoided Costs) / ((Admin Cost/kWh * kWh Savings) + Incentives)g Total Resource Cost Ratio = (NPV Avoided Costs + NEB) / ((Admin Cost/kWh * kWh Savings) + Incentives + (Incremental Participant Cost - Incentives))
1 RTF. ResRefrigerator_v3_1.xls. 2013.
2 Measure not cost-effective. Removed from the program in early 2015.
3 RTF. ResFreezer_v2_2.xlsm. 2012.4 Measure expected to not be cost-effective with new savings. Removed from the program in early 2015.5 BPA. UES_Measure_List_4_1_20151021.xlsx. 2015.
6 RTF. ResShowerheads_v2_1.xlsm. 2011. Adjusted savings by changing Electric Water Heating saturation from 64% to 52% to match Idaho Power mix.
Year: 2015 Program: Simple Steps, Smart Savings/Home Products Program Market Segment: Residential Program Type: Energy Efficiency
Idaho Power Company Supplement 1: Cost-Effectiveness
Demand-Side Management 2015 Annual Report Page 41
Weatherization Assistance for Qualified Customers
Segment: Residential2015 Program Results
Summary of Cost-Effectiveness Results
Test Benefit Cost Ratio
Utility Cost Test ........................................$762,738 $1,403,888 0.54
Total Resource Cost Test .........................945,162 2,208,657 0.43
Ratepayer Impact Measure Test ..............762,738 2,180,476 0.35
Participant Cost Test ................................N/A N/A N/A
Cost Inputs (NPV)Ref
Program Administration ...........................................................................$114,229
Community Action Partnership (CAP) Agency Payments........................1,200,803
Total Program Expenses .......................................................................$ 1,315,032
Add: 2013 Evaluations Expenses (Amortized Year 3) .............................24,044
Total Utility Cost ....................................................................................$ 1,339,076 P
Idaho Power Indirect Overhead Expense Allocation—4.84%.................. $64,811 OH
Additional State Funding .........................................................................804,769 M
Net Benefit Inputs (NPV)Ref
Resource Savings
2015 Annual Gross Energy (kWh)....................................550,021
NPV Cumulative Energy (kWh) ........................................7,894,048 $693,398
10% Credit (Northwest Power Act)...................................69,340
Total Electric Savings .........................................................$ 762,738 S
Participant Bill Savings
NPV Cumulative Participant Savings ...............................$ 776,588 B
Other Benefits
Non-Utility Rebates/Incentives .........................................$ –NUI
Non-Energy Benefits ........................................................
Health and Safety .......................................................153,863
Repair .........................................................................28,562
Other ...........................................................................–
Non-Energy Benefits Total ...............................................$ 182,424 NEB
Benefits and Costs Included in Each Test
Utility Cost Test ...............................= S * NTG = P + OH
Total Resource Cost Test ................= (S + NUI + NEB) * NTG = P + OH + M
Ratepayer Impact Measure Test .....= S * NTG = P + OH + (B * NTG)
Participant Cost Test .......................N/A N/A
Assumptions for Levelized Calculations
Discount Rate
Nominal (WACC) ............................................................................................6.77%
Real ((1 + WACC) / (1 + Escalation)) – 1 .......................................................3.66%
Escalation Rate ...................................................................................................3.00%
Net-to-Gross (NTG) .............................................................................................100%
Minimum NTG Sensitivity ....................................................................................234%
Average Customer Segment Rate/kWh ..............................................................$0.086
Line Losses .........................................................................................................9.60%
Notes: Savings from the billing analysis of the 2012 weatherization projects. Single family/multi-family/townhomes = 1,551 kWh/per home. Manufactured homes = 2,568 kWh/home. Non-profits = 1.03 kWh/heated ft2. Program cost-effectiveness incorporated IPUC staff recommendations from case GNR-E-12-01. Recommendations include: claimed 100% of savings; increased NTG to 100%; added a 10% conservation
preference adder; health, safety, and repair NEBs; and allocation of indirect overhead expenses. No customer participant costs. Costs shown are from the US Department of Energy (DOE) state weatherization assistance program.
Supplement 1: Cost-Effectiveness Idaho Power Company
Page 42 Demand-Side Management 2015 Annual Report
This page left blank intentionally.
Idaho Power Company Supplement 1: Cost-Effectiveness
Demand-Side Management 2015 Annual Report Page 43
Weatherization Solutions for Eligible Customers
Segment: Residential2015 Program Results
Summary of Cost-Effectiveness Results
Test Benefit Cost Ratio
Utility Cost Test ........................................$600,401 $1,328,651 0.45
Total Resource Cost Test .........................661,001 1,328,651 0.50
Ratepayer Impact Measure Test ..............600,401 1,939,955 0.31
Participant Cost Test ................................N/A N/A N/A
Cost Inputs (NPV)Ref
Program Administration ...........................................................................$202,803
Weatherization LLC Payments ................................................................1,040,466
Total Program Expenses .......................................................................$ 1,243,269
Add: 2013 Evaluations Expenses (Amortized Year 3) .............................24,044
Total Utility Cost ....................................................................................$ 1,267,313 P
Idaho Power Indirect Overhead Expense Allocation—4.84%.................. $61,338 OH
Additional State Funding .........................................................................– M
Net Benefit Inputs (NPV)Ref
Resource Savings
2015 Annual Gross Energy (kWh)....................................432,958
NPV Cumulative Energy (kWh) ........................................6,213,929 $ 545,819
10% Credit (Northwest Power Act)...................................54,582
Total Electric Savings .........................................................$ 600,401 S
Participant Bill Savings
NPV Cumulative Participant Savings ...............................$611,304 B
Other Benefits
Non-Utility Rebates/Incentives .........................................$ –NUI
Non-Energy Benefits ........................................................
Health and Safety .......................................................52,303
Repair .........................................................................8,296
Other ...........................................................................–
Non-Energy Benefits Total ...............................................$ 60,599 NEB
Benefits and Costs Included in Each Test
Utility Cost Test ..............................= S * NTG = P +OH
Total Resource Cost Test ...............= (S + NUI + NEB) * NTG = P + OH + M
Ratepayer Impact Measure Test ....= S * NTG = P + OH + (B * NTG)
Participant Cost Test ......................N/A N/A
Assumptions for Levelized Calculations
Discount Rate
Nominal (WACC) ............................................................................................6.77%
Real ((1 + WACC) / (1 + Escalation)) – 1 .......................................................3.66%
Escalation Rate ...................................................................................................3.00%
Net-to-Gross (NTG) .............................................................................................100%
Minimum NTG Sensitivity ....................................................................................221%
Average Customer Segment Rate/kWh ..............................................................$0.086
Line Losses .........................................................................................................9.60%
Notes: Savings from the billing analysis of the 2012 weatherization projects. Single family/multi-family/townhomes = 2,108 kWh/per home. Manufactured homes = 3,426 kWh/home. Program cost-effectiveness incorporated IPUC staff recommendations from Case No. GNR-E-12-01. Recommendations include: claimed 100% of savings; increased NTG to 100%; added a 10% conservation
preference adder; health, safety, and repair NEBs; and allocation of indirect overhead expenses. No customer participant costs.
Supplement 1: Cost-Effectiveness Idaho Power Company
Page 44 Demand-Side Management 2015 Annual Report
This page left blank intentionally.
Idaho Power Company Supplement 1: Cost-Effectiveness
Demand-Side Management 2015 Annual Report Page 45
Building Efficiency
Segment: Commercial2015 Program Results
Summary of Cost-Effectiveness Results
Test Benefit Cost Ratio
Utility Cost Test ....................................$16,504,880 $2,162,001 7.63
Total Resource Cost Test .....................16,504,880 4,463,445 3.70
Ratepayer Impact Measure Test ..........16,504,880 15,021,411 1.10
Participant Cost Test ............................14,689,037 4,131,071 3.56
Cost Inputs (NPV)Ref
Program Administration ...........................................................................$332,374
Program Incentives..................................................................................1,829,626 I
Total Utility Cost ....................................................................................$ 2,162,001 P
Measure Equipment and Installation (Incremental Participant Cost)....... $4,131,071 M
Net Benefit Inputs (NPV)Ref
Resource Savings
2015 Annual Gross Energy (kWh)...........................23,232,017
NPV Cumulative Energy (kWh) ...............................225,023,280 $ 15,004,436
10% Credit (Northwest Power Act)..........................1,500,444
Total Electric Savings ................................................$ 16,504,880 S
Participant Bill Savings
NPV Cumulative Participant Savings ......................$12,859,411 B
Other Benefits
Non-Utility Rebates/Incentives ................................$ –NUI
Non-Energy Benefits ...............................................$ – NEB
Benefits and Costs Included in Each Test
Utility Cost Test .................................= S * NTG = P
Total Resource Cost Test ..................= (S + NUI + NEB) * NTG = P + ((M-I) * NTG)
Ratepayer Impact Measure Test .......= S * NTG = P + (B * NTG)
Participant Cost Test .........................= B + I + NUI + NEB = M
Assumptions for Levelized Calculations
Discount Rate
Nominal (WACC) ............................................................................................6.77%
Real ((1 + WACC) / (1 + Escalation)) – 1 .......................................................3.66%
Escalation Rate ...................................................................................................3.00%
Net-to-Gross (NTG) .............................................................................................100%
Minimum NTG Sensitivity ....................................................................................16%
Average Customer Segment Rate/kWh ..............................................................$0.057
Line Losses .........................................................................................................9.60%
Supplement 1: Cost-Effectiveness Idaho Power Company
Page 46 Demand-Side Management 2015 Annual Report
Benefit Cost Benefit/Cost Tests
Measure Name Measure Descriptions Replacing
Measure
Unit End Use
Measure Life
(yrs)a
Annual
Gross Energy Savings
(kWh/yr)b
NPV Avoided
Costsc
Non-Energy Benefit
(NEB)
Gross Incremental Participant
Costd
Incentive/
Unit
Admin Cost
($/kWh)e UC Ratiof
TRC
Ratiog Source
Lighting Interior Light Load Reduction. Part A: 10-
19.9% below code.
Code standards ft2 ENComm_InsLt 14 0.51 $0.45 $– $0.26 $0.10 $0.014 4.23 1.70 (1)
Lighting Interior Light Load Reduction. Part B: 20-
29.9% below code.
Code standards ft2 ENComm_InsLt 14 1.03 $0.92 $– $0.51 $0.20 $0.014 4.27 1.75 (1)
Lighting Interior Light Load Reduction. Part C: Equal to or greater than 30% below code.
Code standards ft2 ENComm_InsLt 14 2.33 $2.07 $– $0.89 $0.30 $0.014 6.22 2.24 (1)
Lighting Exterior Light Load Reduction. Minimum of
15% below code.
Code standards kW IPC_Outdoor Lighting 15 4,059.00 $2,557.05 $– $168.00 $160.00 $0.014 11.79 11.37 (1)
Lighting Daylight Photo Controls Code standards ft2 ENComm_InsLt 14 0.94 $0.84 $– $0.91 $0.25 $0.014 3.17 0.90 (1) (2)
Lighting Occupancy sensors Code
standards
sensor ENComm_InsLt 8 366.00 $195.53 $– $38.26 $25.00 $0.014 6.49 4.51 (1)
Lighting High Efficiency Exit Signs Code standards sign IPC_8760 16 28.00 $25.38 $– $10.83 $7.50 $0.014 3.22 2.26 (1)
Air conditioning
(AC)
6-11 ton AC unit that
meets CEE Tier 1 12-19 ton AC unit that
meets CEE Tier 1 20-25 ton AC unit that meets CEE Tier 1
(≥ 65,000 Btu/hr & ≤ 300,000 Btu/hr)
Code
standards
tons ENComm_Cooling 15 40.30 $48.81 $– $36.18 $30.00 $0.014 1.60 1.33 (3)
Air conditioning 0-5 ton AC unit that
meets CEE Tier 2 6-11 ton AC unit that meets CEE Tier 2 12-19 ton AC unit that meets CEE Tier 2
20-25 ton AC unit that meets CEE Tier 2 (≤ 300,000 Btu/hr)
Code
standards
tons ENComm_Cooling 15 90.16 $109.20 $– $115.37 $75.00 $0.014 1.43 0.94 (3) (4)
Air conditioning 0-5 ton Heat Pump (HP) unit that meets CEE Tier 1
6-11 ton HP unit that meets CEE Tier 1
12-19 ton HP unit that meets CEE Tier 1 20-25 ton HP unit that
meets CEE Tier 1 (≤ 300,000 Btu/hr)
Code standards tons ENComm_Cooling 15 27.25 $33.01 $– $31.83 $30.00 $0.014 1.09 1.02 (3)
Year: 2015 Program: Building Efficiency Market Segment: Residential Program Type: Energy Efficiency
Idaho Power Company Supplement 1: Cost-Effectiveness
Demand-Side Management 2015 Annual Report Page 47
Benefit Cost Benefit/Cost Tests
Measure Name Measure Descriptions Replacing Measure Unit End Use
Measure
Life (yrs)a
Annual
Gross Energy
Savings (kWh/yr)b
NPV
Avoided Costsc
Non-Energy
Benefit (NEB)
Gross Incremental
Participant Costd
Incentive/ Unit
Admin
Cost ($/kWh)e UC Ratiof
TRC Ratiog Source
Air conditioning 6-11 ton AC VRF unit that meets CEE Tier 1 12-19 ton AC VRF unit that meets CEE Tier 1
20-25 ton AC VRF unit that meets CEE Tier 1 (≥ 65,000 Btu/hr & ≤ 300,000 Btu/hr)
Code standards tons ENComm_Cooling 15 132.60 $160.61 $– $115.37 $75.00 $0.014 2.09 1.37 (3)
Air conditioning 6-11 ton HP VRF unit that meets CEE Tier 1
12-19 ton HP VRF unit that meets CEE Tier 1
20-25 ton HP VRF unit that meets CEE Tier 1 (≥ 65,000 Btu/hr & ≤
300,000 Btu/hr)
Code standards tons ENComm_Cooling 15 332.91 $403.23 $– $95.30 $75.00 $0.014 5.06 4.03 (3)
Air conditioning Air-cooled chiller condenser, IPLV 14.0
EER or higher
Code standards tons ENComm_Cooling 20 472.44 $729.04 $– $86.12 $80.00 $0.014 8.42 7.86 (1)
Air conditioning Water-cooled chiller electronically operated,
reciprocating and positive displacement
Code standards tons ENComm_Cooling 20 212.96 $328.63 $– $38.82 $40.00 $0.014 7.65 7.86 (5)
Air conditioning Airside economizer Code standards ton of cooling ENComm_Cooling 15 344.00 $416.66 $– $81.36 $75.00 $0.014 5.22 4.84 (1)
Air conditioning Direct evaporative cooler Code standards tons ENComm_Cooling 15 399.00 $483.28 $– $364.00 $200.00 $0.014 2.35 1.31 (1)
Building Shell Reflective roof treatment Code standards ft2 roof area ENComm_Cooling 15 0.12 $0.14 $– $0.05 $0.05 $0.014 2.72 2.72 (1)
Controls Energy Management System (EMS) controls. Part A: 2 strategies
Code standards tons of cooling ENComm_Cooling 15 454.00 $549.90 $– $162.49 $70.00 $0.014 7.20 3.26 (1)
Controls EMS controls. Part B: 3 strategies Code standards tons of cooling ENComm_Cooling 15 496.00 $600.77 $– $162.49 $80.00 $0.014 6.91 3.55 (6)
Controls EMS controls. Part C: 4 strategies Code standards tons of cooling ENComm_Cooling 15 498.95 $604.34 $– $162.49 $90.00 $0.014 6.23 3.57 (1)
Controls EMS controls. Part D: 5
strategies
Code
standards
tons of
cooling
ENComm_Cooling 15 511.75 $619.85 $– $162.49 $100.00 $0.014 5.78 3.65 (6)
Controls Guest room energy management system Code standards ton ENComm_HVAC 11 384.00 $305.83 $– $57.50 $50.00 $0.014 5.52 4.86 (1)
Controls Part A. Variable speed
drive on HVAC system applications:
-chilled water pumps -condenser water pumps
-cooling tower fans
Code
standards
HP ENComm_HVAC 15 268.00 $277.85 $– $165.33 $60.00 $0.014 4.36 1.64 (1)
Supplement 1: Cost-Effectiveness Idaho Power Company
Page 48 Demand-Side Management 2015 Annual Report
Benefit Cost Benefit/Cost Tests
Measure Name Measure Descriptions Replacing Measure Unit End Use
Measure
Life (yrs)a
Annual
Gross Energy
Savings (kWh/yr)b
NPV
Avoided Costsc
Non-Energy
Benefit (NEB)
Gross Incremental
Participant Costd
Incentive/ Unit
Admin
Cost ($/kWh)e UC Ratiof
TRC Ratiog Source
Controls Part B. Variable speed drive on HVAC system applications: -supply
-return -outside air -make-up air -hot water pumps
Code standards HP ENComm_HVAC 15 996.00 $1,032.61 $– $142.05 $100.00 $0.014 9.06 6.62 (1)
Appliances with Electric Water
Heating
Efficient Laundry Machines (electric)Code standards unit ENComm_WtrHtr 10 756.00 $466.46 $– $200.00 $125.00 $0.014 3.44 2.22 (1)
Appliances with Electric Water
Heating
ENERGY STAR®
undercounter
(residential style) dishwasher
Code standards machine ENComm_Misc 12 2,210.00 $1,652.76 $243.80 $232.00 $200.00 $0.014 7.16 7.21 (7)
Appliances with
Electric Water Heating
ENERGY STAR
commercial dishwasher
Code
standards
machine ENComm_Misc 12 5,561.00 $4,158.83 $657.52 $3,978.00 $500.00 $0.014 7.20 1.19 (7)
Refrigeration Refrigeration head pressure controls Code standards horsepower ENComm_Refrigeration 16 225.00 $214.94 $– $166.60 $40.00 $0.014 4.98 1.27 (1)
Refrigeration Refrigeration floating suction controls Code standards horsepower ENComm_Refrigeration 16 77.00 $73.56 $– $53.75 $10.00 $0.014 6.64 1.34 (1)
Refrigeration Efficient refrigeration condensers Code standards tons of refrigeration ENComm_Refrigeration 15 114.00 $103.17 $– $35.00 $20.00 $0.014 4.78 2.82 (1)
a Average measure life.
b Estimated kWh savings measured at the customer’s meter, excluding line losses. c Sum of NPV of avoided cost. Based on end-use load shape, measure life, savings including line losses, and alternative costs by pricing period as provided in the 2013 IRP. Includes 10% conservation adder from the Northwest Power Act.
d Incremental participant cost prior to customer incentives.
e Average program administration and overhead costs to achieve each kWh of savings. Calculated from 2015 actuals.
f Utility Cost Ratio = (NPV Avoided Costs) / ((Admin Cost/kWh * kWh Savings) + Incentives)
g Total Resource Cost Ratio = (NPV Avoided Costs + NEB) / ((Admin Cost/kWh * kWh Savings) + Incentives + (Incremental Participant Cost - Incentives))1 Idaho Power TRM prepared by ADM Associates, Inc. 2015.
2 Measure not cost-effective. Measure to remain in the program due to unquantifiable NEBs.
3 Idaho Power TRM prepared by ADM Associates, Inc. 2015. Weighted average of 6–25 ton units.
4 Measure not cost-effective. Measure to be monitored in 2016 to adjust weighted average. Measure included in the program to increase participation in a cost-effective program and to encourage the adoption of higher-efficiency equipment.
5 Idaho Power TRM prepared by ADM Associates, Inc. 2015. Averaged water cooled chillers.6 Idaho Power TRM prepared by ADM Associates, Inc. 2015. Calculated from TRM spreadsheets.
7 Idaho Power TRM prepared by ADM Associates, Inc. 2015. NEBs from water savings from RTF. ComDishwasher_v1_2.xlsm. 2012.
Idaho Power Company Supplement 1: Cost-Effectiveness
Demand-Side Management 2015 Annual Report Page 49
Custom Efficiency
Segment: Industrial2015 Program Results
Summary of Cost-Effectiveness Results
Test Benefit Cost Ratio
Utility Cost Test ....................................$36,315,759 $ $9,012,628 4.03
Total Resource Cost Test .....................36,315,759 20,533,742 1.77
Ratepayer Impact Measure Test ..........36,315,759 27,450,603 1.32
Participant Cost Test ............................25,826,137 18,909,276 1.37
Cost Inputs (NPV)Ref
Program Administration ...........................................................................$1,642,466
Program Incentives.................................................................................. 7,388,162 I
Total Utility Cost ....................................................................................$ 9,012,628 P
Measure Equipment and Installation (Incremental Participant Cost)....... $18,909,276 M
Net Benefit Inputs (NPV)Ref
Resource Savings
2015 Annual Gross Energy (kWh)...........................55,247,192
NPV Cumulative Energy (kWh) ...............................504,683,660 $33,014,326
10% Credit (Northwest Power Act).......................... 3,301,433
Total Electric Savings ................................................$ 36,315,759 S
Participant Bill Savings
NPV Cumulative Participant Savings ......................$ 18,437,975 B
Other Benefits
Non-Utility Rebates/Incentives ................................$ –NUI
Non-Energy Benefits ...............................................$ – NEB
Benefits and Costs Included in Each Test
Utility Cost Test .................................= S * NTG = P
Total Resource Cost Test ..................= (S + NUI + NEB) * NTG = P + ((M-I) * NTG)
Ratepayer Impact Measure Test .......= S * NTG = P + (B * NTG)
Participant Cost Test ..........................= B + I + NUI + NEB = M
Assumptions for Levelized Calculations
Discount Rate
Nominal (WACC) ............................................................................................6.77%
Real ((1 + WACC) / (1 + Escalation)) – 1 .......................................................3.66%
Escalation Rate ...................................................................................................3.00%
Net-to-Gross (NTG) .............................................................................................100%
Minimum NTG Sensitivity ....................................................................................37%
Average Customer Segment Rate/kWh ..............................................................$0.037
Line Losses .........................................................................................................9.60%
Notes: Energy savings are unique by project and are reviewed by Idaho Power engineering staff or third-party consultants. Each project must complete a certification inspection. Green Rewind initiative is available to agricultural, commercial, and industrial customers. Commercial and industrial motor rewinds are paid under Custom Efficiency.
Supplement 1: Cost-Effectiveness Idaho Power Company
Page 50 Demand-Side Management 2015 Annual Report
Benefit Cost Benefit/Cost Tests
Measure Name
Measure
Descriptions Replacing
Measure
Unit End Use
Measure Life
(yrs)a
Annual
Gross Energy Savings
(kWh/yr)b
NPV Avoided
Costsc
Non-Energy Benefit
(NEB)
Gross Incremental Participant
Costd
Incentive/
Unit
Admin Cost
($/kWh)e UC Ratiof
TRC
Ratiog Source
Green Motors Program Rewind:
Motor size 15HP
Green Motors Program Rewind:
Motor size 15HP
Standard rewind practice Motor MF_Motors 8 601.00 $309.46 $– $152.56 $30.00 $0.050 5.15 1.69 (1)
Green Motors Program Rewind:
Motor size 20HP
Green Motors Program Rewind:
Motor size 20HP
Standard rewind practice Motor MF_Motors 8 804.00 $413.98 $– $170.21 $40.00 $0.050 5.16 1.97 (1)
Green Motors Program Rewind: Motor size 25HP
Green Motors Program Rewind: Motor size 25HP
Standard rewind practice Motor MF_Motors 8 1,052.00 $541.68 $– $194.47 $50.00 $0.050 5.28 2.19 (1)
Green Motors Program Rewind: Motor size 30HP
Green Motors Program Rewind: Motor size 30HP
Standard rewind practice Motor MF_Motors 8 1,133.00 $583.39 $– $213.60 $60.00 $0.050 5.00 2.16 (1)
Green Motors Program Rewind: Motor size 40HP
Green Motors Program Rewind: Motor size 40HP
Standard rewind practice Motor MF_Motors 8 1,319.00 $679.16 $– $261.02 $80.00 $0.050 4.65 2.08 (1)
Green Motors
Program Rewind: Motor size 50HP
Green Motors
Program Rewind: Motor size 50HP
Standard rewind
practice
Motor MF_Motors 8 1,418.00 $730.14 $– $288.96 $100.00 $0.050 4.27 2.03 (1)
Green Motors
Program Rewind: Motor size 60HP
Green Motors
Program Rewind: Motor size 60HP
Standard rewind
practice
Motor MF_Motors 9 1,476.00 $851.27 $– $340.79 $120.00 $0.050 4.39 2.05 (1)
Green Motors
Program Rewind: Motor size 75HP
Green Motors
Program Rewind: Motor size 75HP
Standard rewind
practice
Motor MF_Motors 9 1,519.00 $876.07 $– $368.37 $150.00 $0.050 3.88 1.97 (1)
Green Motors Program Rewind:
Motor size 100HP
Green Motors Program Rewind:
Motor size 100HP
Standard rewind practice Motor MF_Motors 9 2,005.00 $1,156.37 $– $456.96 $200.00 $0.050 3.85 2.08 (1)
Green Motors Program Rewind:
Motor size 125HP
Green Motors Program Rewind:
Motor size 125HP
Standard rewind practice Motor MF_Motors 8 2,598.00 $1,337.73 $– $513.21 $250.00 $0.050 3.52 2.08 (1)
Green Motors Program Rewind:
Motor size 150HP
Green Motors Program Rewind:
Motor size 150HP
Standard rewind practice Motor MF_Motors 8 3,089.00 $1,590.54 $– $571.66 $300.00 $0.050 3.50 2.19 (1)
Green Motors Program Rewind:
Motor size 200HP
Green Motors Program Rewind:
Motor size 200HP
Standard rewind practice Motor MF_Motors 8 4,088.00 $2,104.94 $– $688.20 $400.00 $0.050 3.48 2.36 (1)
Green Motors Program Rewind: Motor size 250HP
Green Motors Program Rewind: Motor size 250HP
Standard rewind practice Motor MF_Motors 9 4,972.00 $2,867.56 $– $884.52 $500.00 $0.050 3.83 2.53 (1)
Green Motors Program Rewind: Motor size 300HP
Green Motors Program Rewind: Motor size 300HP
Standard rewind practice Motor MF_Motors 9 5,935.00 $3,422.96 $– $894.08 $600.00 $0.050 3.82 2.87 (1)
Green Motors
Program Rewind: Motor size 350HP
Green Motors
Program Rewind: Motor size 350HP
Standard rewind
practice
Motor MF_Motors 9 6,919.00 $3,990.47 $– $937.09 $700.00 $0.050 3.82 3.11 (1)
Year: 2015 Program: Custom Efficiency—Green Motors Market Segment: Industrial Program Type: Energy Efficiency
Idaho Power Company Supplement 1: Cost-Effectiveness
Demand-Side Management 2015 Annual Report Page 51
Benefit Cost Benefit/Cost Tests
Measure Name Measure Descriptions Replacing Measure Unit End Use
Measure
Life (yrs)a
Annual
Gross Energy
Savings (kWh/yr)b
NPV
Avoided Costsc
Non-Energy
Benefit (NEB)
Gross Incremental
Participant Costd
Incentive/ Unit
Admin
Cost ($/kWh)e UC Ratiof
TRC Ratiog Source
Green Motors Program Rewind: Motor size 400HP
Green Motors Program Rewind: Motor size 400HP
Standard rewind practice Motor MF_Motors 9 7,848.00 $4,526.27 $– $1,046.64 $800.00 $0.050 3.80 3.15 (1)
Green Motors Program Rewind:
Motor size 450HP
Green Motors Program Rewind:
Motor size 450HP
Standard rewind practice Motor MF_Motors 9 8,811.00 $5,081.67 $– $1,144.06 $900.00 $0.050 3.79 3.21 (1)
Green Motors Program Rewind:
Motor size 500HP
Green Motors Program Rewind:
Motor size 500HP
Standard rewind practice Motor MF_Motors 9 9,804.00 $5,654.37 $– $1,235.98 $1,000.00 $0.050 3.79 3.28 (1)
Green Motors Program Rewind:
Motor size 600HP
Green Motors Program Rewind:
Motor size 600HP
Standard rewind practice Motor MF_Motors 7 14,689.00 $6,629.91 $– $1,821.36 $1,200.00 $0.050 3.43 2.59 (1)
Green Motors Program Rewind: Motor size 700HP
Green Motors Program Rewind: Motor size 700HP
Standard rewind practice Motor MF_Motors 7 17,065.00 $7,702.32 $– $1,987.11 $1,400.00 $0.050 3.42 2.71 (1)
Green Motors Program Rewind: Motor size 800HP
Green Motors Program Rewind: Motor size 800HP
Standard rewind practice Motor MF_Motors 7 19,461.00 $8,783.76 $– $2,204.75 $1,600.00 $0.050 3.41 2.76 (1)
Green Motors Program Rewind: Motor size 900HP
Green Motors Program Rewind: Motor size 900HP
Standard rewind practice Motor MF_Motors 7 21,847.00 $9,860.69 $– $2,430.63 $1,800.00 $0.050 3.41 2.80 (1)
Green Motors
Program Rewind: Motor size 1500HP
Green Motors
Program Rewind: Motor size 1500HP
Standard rewind
practice
Motor MF_Motors 7 35,891.00 $16,199.48 $– $3,584.53 $3,000.00 $0.050 2.33 2.15 (1)
a Average measure life.
b Estimated kWh savings measured at the customer’s meter, excluding line losses.
c Sum of NPV of avoided cost. Based on end-use load shape, measure life, savings including line losses, and alternative costs by pricing period as provided in the 2013 IRP. Includes 10% conservation adder from the Northwest Power Act.d Incremental participant cost prior to customer incentives.e Average program administration and overhead costs to achieve each kWh of savings. Calculated from 2015 actuals.
f Utility Cost Ratio = (NPV Avoided Costs) / ((Admin Cost/kWh * kWh Savings) + Incentives)
g Total Resource Cost Ratio = (NPV Avoided Costs + NEB) / ((Admin Cost/kWh * kWh Savings) + Incentives + (Incremental Participant Cost - Incentives))
1 RTF. IndGreenMotorsRewind_v2_0.xlsm. 2013.
Supplement 1: Cost-Effectiveness Idaho Power Company
Page 52 Demand-Side Management 2015 Annual Report
This page left blank intentionally.
Idaho Power Company Supplement 1: Cost-Effectiveness
Demand-Side Management 2015 Annual Report Page 53
Easy Upgrades
Segment: Commercial2015 Program Results
Summary of Cost-Effectiveness Results
Test Benefit Cost Ratio
Utility Cost Test ......................................$16,762,544 $4,350,865 3.85
Total Resource Cost Test .......................16,762,544 7,604,200 2.20
Ratepayer Impact Measure Test ............16,762,544 17,411,028 0.96
Participant Cost Test ..............................16,294,243 6,487,414 2.51
Cost Inputs (NPV)Ref
Program Administration ...........................................................................$1,116,786
Program Incentives..................................................................................3,234,079 I
Total Utility Cost ....................................................................................$ 4,350,865 P
Measure Equipment and Installation (Incremental Participant Cost)....... $6,487,414 M
Net Benefit Inputs (NPV)Ref
Resource Savings
2015 Annual Gross Energy (kWh)..............................23,594,701
NPV Cumulative Energy (kWh) ..................................228,536,205 $15,238,677
10% Credit (Northwest Power Act).............................1,523,868
Total Electric Savings ...................................................$ 16,762,544 S
Participant Bill Savings
NPV Cumulative Participant Savings .........................$13,060,164 B
Other Benefits
Non-Utility Rebates/Incentives ...................................$ –NUI
Non-Energy Benefits ..................................................$ – NEB
Benefits and Costs Included in Each Test
Utility Cost Test .................................= S * NTG = P
Total Resource Cost Test ..................= (S + NUI + NEB) * NTG = P + ((M-I) * NTG)
Ratepayer Impact Measure Test .......= S * NTG = P + (B * NTG)
Participant Cost Test .........................= B + I + NUI + NEB = M
Assumptions for Levelized Calculations
Discount Rate
Nominal (WACC) ............................................................................................6.77%
Real ((1 + WACC) / (1 + Escalation)) – 1 .......................................................3.66%
Escalation Rate ...................................................................................................3.00%
Net-to-Gross (NTG) .............................................................................................100%
Minimum NTG Sensitivity ....................................................................................33%
Average Customer Segment Rate/kWh ..............................................................$0.057
Line Losses .........................................................................................................9.60%
Notes: Measure inputs from Evergreen Consulting Group or the Technical Reference Manual prepared by ADM Associates, Inc., unless otherwise noted.
Supplement 1: Cost-Effectiveness Idaho Power Company
Page 54 Demand-Side Management 2015 Annual Report
Benefit Cost Benefit/Cost Tests
Measure Name Measure Descriptions Replacing Measure unit End Use
Measure Life (yrs)a
Annual Gross Energy Savings (kWh/yr)b
NPV Avoided Costsc
Non-Energy Benefit (NEB)
Gross Incremental Participant Costd
Incentive/ Unit
Admin Cost ($/kWh)e UC Ratiof
TRC Ratiog Source
Standard/High Performance T8 Fluorescents
4-foot T8 4-foot T12 Fixture ENComm_InsLt 11 180.28 $129.78 $– $61.15 $33.21 $0.052 3.05 1.84 (1)
Standard T8 Fluorescents 6-foot T8 6-foot T12 Fixture ENComm_InsLt 11 332.20 $239.15 $– $76.03 $16.00 $0.052 7.19 2.56 (1)
Standard T8 Fluorescents 8-foot T8 8-foot T12 Fixture ENComm_InsLt 11 262.06 $188.66 $– $80.56 $22.75 $0.052 5.19 2.00 (1)
Standard/High Performance T8 Fluorescents
4-foot & 8-foot T8 8-foot T12HO Fixture ENComm_InsLt 11 564.84 $406.63 $– $75.36 $46.18 $0.052 5.38 3.88 (1)
T5 (Non-HO)
Fluorescents
4-foot T5 4-foot T12 Fixture ENComm_InsLt 11 156.85 $112.92 $– $76.21 $36.18 $0.052 2.55 1.34 (1)
T5/T8 High Bay - New Fixture 4-foot T8/T5 Fixture using > 200 input watts Fixture ENComm_InsLt 11 1,194.00 $859.57 $– $216.24 $137.72 $0.052 4.30 3.09 (1)
Relamp T8/
T5HO to Reduced
Wattage T8/T5HO
Reduced wattage T8/T5
re-lamp
Fixture ENComm_InsLt 8 130.58 $69.76 $– $23.07 $1.00 $0.052 8.96 2.34 (1)
Permanent Fixture Removal Permanent Fixture Removal Fixture ENComm_InsLt 8 878.14 $469.14 $– $35.78 $22.73 $0.052 6.86 5.76 (1)
Screw-in CFLs/cold-cathode Screw-in CFLs/cold-cathode Fixture using > 40 input watts Fixture ENComm_InsLt 6 164.23 $66.03 $– $33.23 $5.08 $0.052 4.85 1.58 (1)
Hardwired CFLs Hardwired CFLs Fixture using > 90 input watts Fixture ENComm_InsLt 6 366.94 $147.52 $– $94.75 $50.00 $0.052 2.14 1.30 (1)
LED Replacement Lamps
LED Replacement Lamps Fixture using > 20 input watts Fixture ENComm_InsLt 12 154.10 $119.85 $– $48.66 $24.25 $0.052 3.71 2.11 (1)
Pulse Start/
Electronic Metal Halide
Pulse Start/Electronic
Metal Halide
Fixture using >
170 input watts
Fixture ENComm_InsLt 11 1,091.70 $785.92 $– $153.66 $105.55 $0.052 4.84 3.73 (1)
LED Exit Sign LED Exit Sign Exit sign using ≥
18 watts
Fixture IPC_8760 12 230.68 $163.16 $– $68.69 $40.00 $0.052 3.14 2.02 (1)
Lighting Controls Lighting Controls Manual controls Fixture ENComm_InsLt 10 280.14 $184.93 $– $111.74 $49.02 $0.052 2.91 1.46 (1)
Standard/High Performance T8
Fluorescents
4-foot T8 4-foot T12 Fixture IPC_Outdoor Lighting 11 166.42 $78.94 $– $61.15 $13.80 $0.052 3.52 1.13 (1)
Standard T8 Fluorescents 6-foot T8 6-foot T12 Fixture IPC_Outdoor Lighting 11 386.42 $183.29 $– $76.03 $14.00 $0.052 5.38 1.91 (1)
Standard T8
Fluorescents
8-foot T8 8-foot T12 Fixture IPC_Outdoor Lighting 11 303.92 $144.16 $– $80.56 $19.50 $0.052 4.08 1.50 (1)
Year: 2015 Program: Easy Upgrades Market Segment: Commercial Program Type: Energy Efficiency
Idaho Power Company Supplement 1: Cost-Effectiveness
Demand-Side Management 2015 Annual Report Page 55
Benefit Cost Benefit/Cost Tests
Measure Name Measure Descriptions Replacing Measure unit End Use
Measure Life (yrs)a
Annual Gross
Energy Savings (kWh/yr)b
NPV Avoided Costsc
Non-
Energy Benefit (NEB)
Gross
Incremental Participant Costd
Incentive/ Unit
Admin Cost ($/kWh)e UC Ratiof
TRC Ratiog Source
Standard/High Performance T8 Fluorescents
4-foot & 8-foot T8 8-foot T12HO Fixture IPC_Outdoor Lighting 11 913.16 $433.13 $– $75.36 $21.48 $0.052 6.28 3.53 (1)
T5 (Non-HO) Fluorescents 4-foot T5 4-foot T12 Fixture IPC_Outdoor Lighting 11 181.22 $85.96 $– $76.21 $20.47 $0.052 2.88 1.00 (1)
T5/T8 High Bay - New Fixture 4-foot T8/T5 Fixture using > 200 input watts Fixture IPC_Outdoor Lighting 11 1,643.60 $779.60 $– $216.24 $102.71 $0.052 4.14 2.58 (1)
Permanent Fixture Removal Permanent Fixture Removal Fixture IPC_Outdoor Lighting 8 1,018.40 $352.51 $– $35.78 $14.09 $0.052 5.26 3.97 (1)
Screw-in CFLs/cold-cathode Screw-in CFLs/cold-cathode Fixture using > 40 input watts Fixture IPC_Outdoor Lighting 6 190.46 $48.57 $– $33.23 $5.08 $0.052 3.24 1.13 (1)
Hardwired CFLs Hardwired CFLs Fixture using > 90 input watts Fixture IPC_Outdoor Lighting 6 425.55 $108.52 $– $94.75 $35.00 $0.052 1.90 0.93 (1) (2)
LED Replacement
Lamps
LED Replacement Lamps Fixture using > 20 input watts Fixture IPC_Outdoor Lighting 12 178.71 $91.95 $– $48.66 $19.25 $0.052 3.22 1.59 (1)
Pulse Start/Electronic Metal
Halide
Pulse Start/Electronic Metal Halide Fixture using > 170 input watts Fixture IPC_Outdoor Lighting 11 1,265.40 $600.21 $– $153.66 $45.68 $0.052 5.38 2.73 (1)
Lighting Controls Lighting Controls Manual controls Fixture IPC_Outdoor Lighting 10 255.65 $110.71 $– $111.74 $45.50 $0.052 1.88 0.89 (1) (2)
Refrigeration Case Lighting Case # 1 - T8 fluorescent lighting and electronic
ballast (per lamp)
Case # 1 - T12 fluorescent
lighting
Lamp ENComm_Refrigeration 6 309.31 $119.17 $– $44.70 $15.00 $0.052 3.83 1.96 (3)
Refrigeration Case Lighting Case # 2 - LED display case lighting (per linear
foot)
Case # 2 - T12 fluorescent
lighting
Linear foot ENComm_Refrigeration 8 111.25 $57.04 $17.07 $42.22 $15.00 $0.052 2.74 1.54 (4)
Refrigeration Case Lighting Case # 3 - LED display case lighting (per linear foot)
Case #3 - T8 fluorescent lighting
Linear foot ENComm_Refrigeration 8 77.75 $39.86 $15.83 $43.86 $10.00 $0.052 2.84 1.16 (5)
Air Conditioning (AC) Units 6-11 ton AC unit that meets CEE Tier 1 12-19 ton AC unit that
meets CEE Tier 1 20-25 ton AC unit that
meets CEE Tier 1
Standard 6-11 ton AC unit Standard 12-19
ton AC unit Standard 20-25
ton AC unit
Tons ENComm_Cooling 15 40.30 $48.81 $– $36.18 $30.00 $0.052 1.52 1.28 (6)
AC Units 1-5 ton AC unit that meets CEE Tier 2 6-11 ton AC unit that
meets CEE Tier 2 12-19 ton AC unit that
meets CEE Tier 2 20-25 ton AC unit that meets CEE Tier 2
Standard 1-5 ton AC unit Standard 6-11
ton AC unit Standard 12-19
ton AC unit Standard 20-25 ton AC unit
Tons ENComm_Cooling 15 90.16 $109.20 $– $115.37 $75.00 $0.052 1.37 0.91 (2) (6)
Supplement 1: Cost-Effectiveness Idaho Power Company
Page 56 Demand-Side Management 2015 Annual Report
Benefit Cost Benefit/Cost Tests
Measure Name Measure Descriptions Replacing Measure unit End Use
Measure Life (yrs)a
Annual Gross
Energy Savings (kWh/yr)b
NPV Avoided Costsc
Non-
Energy Benefit (NEB)
Gross
Incremental Participant Costd
Incentive/ Unit
Admin Cost ($/kWh)e UC Ratiof
TRC Ratiog Source
AC Units 6-11 ton AC VRF unit that meets CEE Tier 1 12-19 ton AC VRF unit
that meets CEE Tier 1 20-25 ton AC VRF unit
that meets CEE Tier 1
Standard 6-11 ton AC VRF unit Standard 12-19
ton AC VRF unit Standard 20-25
ton AC VRF unit
Tons ENComm_Cooling 15 132.60 $160.61 $– $115.37 $75.00 $0.052 1.96 1.31 (6)
Heat Pump (HP) units 1-5 ton HP unit that meets CEE Tier 1 6-11 ton HP unit that meets CEE Tier 1 12-19 ton HP unit that
meets CEE Tier 1 20-25 ton HP unit that meets CEE Tier 1
Standard 1-5 ton HP unit Standard 6-11 ton HP unit Standard 12-19
ton HP unit Standard 20-25 ton HP unit
Tons ENComm_Cooling 15 27.25 $33.01 $– $31.83 $30.00 $0.052 1.05 0.99 (2) (6)
HP Units 6-11 ton HP VRF unit that meets CEE Tier 1 12-19 ton HP VRF unit
that meets CEE Tier 1 20-25 ton HP VRF unit
that meets CEE Tier 1
Standard 6-11 ton HP VRF unit Standard 12-19
ton HP VRF unit Standard 20-25
ton HP VRF unit
Tons ENComm_Cooling 15 332.91 $403.23 $– $95.30 $75.00 $0.052 4.37 3.58 (6)
Chillers Air-cooled chiller condenser, IPLV 14.0 EER or higher
Standard air-cooled chiller Tons ENComm_Cooling 20 472.44 $729.04 $– $86.12 $80.00 $0.052 6.97 6.59 (7)
Chillers Water-cooled chiller electronically operated, reciprocating and positive
displacement
Standard water-cooled chiller Tons ENComm_Cooling 20 212.96 $328.63 $– $38.82 $40.00 $0.052 6.43 6.59 (8)
Economizers Airside economizer control addition No prior control Ton of cooling ENComm_Cooling 15 634.00 $767.92 $– $155.01 $100.00 $0.052 5.78 4.09 (7)
Economizers Airside economizer
control repair
Non-functional
economizer
Ton of
cooling
ENComm_Cooling 15 634.00 $767.92 $– $73.65 $50.00 $0.052 9.26 7.20 (7)
Evaporative coolers/Pre-
coolers
Direct evaporative cooler Replacing standard AC unit Tons ENComm_Cooling 15 399.00 $483.28 $– $364.00 $200.00 $0.052 2.19 1.26 (7)
Automated Controls EMS controls with 2 strategies Proposed strategy not
existing (retrofit system)
Tons of cooling ENComm_Cooling 15 918.00 $1,111.91 $– $197.98 $125.00 $0.052 6.44 4.53 (7)
Automated Controls EMS controls with 3 strategies Proposed strategy not existing (retrofit system)
Tons of cooling ENComm_Cooling 15 1,243.00 $1,505.56 $– $197.98 $150.00 $0.052 7.01 5.73 (9)
Automated
Controls
EMS controls with 4
strategies
Proposed
strategy not existing (retrofit
system)
Tons of
cooling
ENComm_Cooling 15 1,251.00 $1,515.25 $– $197.98 $175.00 $0.052 6.31 5.76 (7)
Idaho Power Company Supplement 1: Cost-Effectiveness
Demand-Side Management 2015 Annual Report Page 57
Benefit Cost Benefit/Cost Tests
Measure Name Measure Descriptions Replacing Measure unit End Use
Measure Life (yrs)a
Annual Gross
Energy Savings (kWh/yr)b
NPV Avoided Costsc
Non-
Energy Benefit (NEB)
Gross
Incremental Participant Costd
Incentive/ Unit
Admin Cost ($/kWh)e UC Ratiof
TRC Ratiog Source
Automated Controls EMS controls with 5 strategies Proposed strategy not existing (retrofit
system)
Tons of cooling ENComm_Cooling 15 1,268.00 $1,535.84 $– $197.98 $200.00 $0.052 5.78 5.82 (9)
Automated Controls EMS controls with 2 strategies Proposed strategy not
existing (new system)
Tons of cooling ENComm_Cooling 15 454.00 $549.90 $– $162.49 $70.00 $0.052 5.87 2.95 (7)
Automated
Controls
EMS controls with 3
strategies
Proposed
strategy not existing (new system)
Tons of
cooling
ENComm_Cooling 15 496.00 $600.77 $– $162.49 $80.00 $0.052 5.68 3.19 (9)
Automated Controls EMS controls with 4 strategies Proposed strategy not existing (new
system)
Tons of cooling ENComm_Cooling 15 498.95 $604.34 $– $162.49 $90.00 $0.052 5.21 3.21 (7)
Automated Controls EMS controls with 5 strategies Proposed strategy not
existing (new system)
Tons of cooling ENComm_Cooling 15 511.75 $619.85 $– $162.49 $100.00 $0.052 4.90 3.28 (9)
Automated Controls Lodging room occupancy controls Manual controls Ton ENComm_HVAC 11 430.00 $342.46 $– $150.61 $75.00 $0.052 3.52 1.98 (7)
Premium Windows Low U-value, U-factor of .30 or less Standard windows ft2 window area ENComm_HVAC 25 5.89 $9.35 $– $5.92 $2.50 $0.052 3.33 1.50 (7)
Reflective Roofing Adding reflective roof treatment Non-reflective low pitch roof ft2 roof area ENComm_Cooling 15 0.12 $0.14 $– $0.05 $0.05 $0.052 2.51 2.51 (7)
Wall Insulation Increase to R11 min. insulation Insulation level, R2.5 or less ft2 wall area ENComm_HVAC 25 0.41 $0.66 $– $0.66 $0.40 $0.052 1.56 0.96 (7) (14)
Wall Insulation Increase to R19 min. insulation Insulation level, R2.5 or less ft2 wall area ENComm_HVAC 25 0.47 $0.74 $– $0.66 $0.55 $0.052 1.29 1.08 (7)
Computers PC network power management No central control software in place
Unit ENComm_Office 4 135.00 $33.35 $– $12.00 $10.00 $0.052 1.96 1.75 (7)
Laundry
Machines
High efficiency washer Standard
washer, electric HW
Unit ENComm_WtrHtr 10 756.00 $466.46 $– $200.00 $125.00 $0.052 2.84 1.95 (7)
Stock Tank/
Fountain
Energy free freeze
resistant stock tank
Thermostatically
controlled electric
resistance element freeze protection
Unit Comm_Agriculture 10 1,176.00 $1,024.88 $– $428.36 $100.00 $0.052 6.36 2.09 (10)
Supplement 1: Cost-Effectiveness Idaho Power Company
Page 58 Demand-Side Management 2015 Annual Report
Benefit Cost Benefit/Cost Tests
Measure Name Measure Descriptions Replacing Measure unit End Use
Measure Life (yrs)a
Annual Gross
Energy Savings (kWh/yr)b
NPV Avoided Costsc
Non-
Energy Benefit (NEB)
Gross
Incremental Participant Costd
Incentive/ Unit
Admin Cost ($/kWh)e UC Ratiof
TRC Ratiog Source
Residential-type electric water heater
EF 0.94 or higher, 25-54 gallon EF 0.95 or higher, 45-54
gallon EF 0.93 or higher, 55-74
gallon EF 0.92 or higher, 75-99 gallon
EF 0.85 or higher, 100-119 gallon
Standard electric water heater Unit ENComm_WtrHtr 13 154.14 $120.39 $– $65.70 $50.00 $0.052 2.08 1.63 (11)
Commercial-type
electric water heater
25-34 gallon, standby
loss 157 or lower 35-44 gallon, standby loss 185 or lower 45-54 gallon, standby loss 201 or lower
55-74 gallon, standby loss 238 or lower 75-99 gallon, standby by loss 249 or lower 100-119 gallon, standby
loss 287 or lower
Standard electric
water heater
Unit ENComm_WtrHtr 13 68.17 $53.24 $– $28.78 $20.00 $0.052 2.26 1.65 (12)
Commercial showerhead,
electric water heat
2.0 gpm or less installed in health club/fitness
business
Showerhead using 2.2 gpm or
greater
Unit ENComm_WtrHtr 10 2,431.00 $1,499.97 $– $12.89 $15.00 $0.052 10.61 10.77 (13)
Commercial showerhead, electric water heat
2.0 gpm or less installed in commercial business (non health club/fitness business)
Showerhead using 2.2 gpm or greater
Unit ENComm_WtrHtr 10 129.00 $79.60 $– $12.89 $9.00 $0.052 5.07 4.06 (13)
Refrigeration Add refrigeration line
insulation
No insulation
present
Linear ft ENComm_Refrigeration 11 9.75 $6.74 $– $4.46 $2.00 $0.052 2.69 1.36 (7)
Refrigeration Install auto-closer - walk-in No/damaged auto-closer, low
temp
Door ENComm_Refrigeration 8 2,547.00 $1,305.80 $– $139.32 $125.00 $0.052 5.07 4.80 (7)
Refrigeration Install auto-closer - reach-in Damaged auto-closer, low temp Door ENComm_Refrigeration 8 560.00 $287.10 $– $139.32 $100.00 $0.052 2.22 1.70 (7)
Refrigeration Install auto-closer -
walk-in
No/damaged
auto-closer, med. Temp
Door ENComm_Refrigeration 8 575.00 $294.79 $– $139.32 $100.00 $0.052 2.27 1.74 (7)
Refrigeration Install auto-closer -
reach-in
Damaged auto-
closer, med. Temp
Door ENComm_Refrigeration 8 373.00 $191.23 $– $139.32 $70.00 $0.052 2.14 1.20 (7)
Refrigeration Add anti-sweat heat controls Low/med. Temp case w/out controls
Linear ft ENComm_Refrigeration 8 208.00 $106.64 $– $40.00 $40.00 $0.052 2.10 2.10 (7)
Idaho Power Company Supplement 1: Cost-Effectiveness
Demand-Side Management 2015 Annual Report Page 59
Benefit Cost Benefit/Cost Tests
Measure Name Measure Descriptions Replacing Measure unit End Use
Measure Life (yrs)a
Annual Gross
Energy Savings (kWh/yr)b
NPV Avoided Costsc
Non-
Energy Benefit (NEB)
Gross
Incremental Participant Costd
Incentive/ Unit
Admin Cost ($/kWh)e UC Ratiof
TRC Ratiog Source
Evaporative fans Add evaporative fan controls Low or med.temp. walk-in or reach-in with no
controls
Fan ENComm_Refrigeration 15 408.00 $369.23 $– $161.74 $75.00 $0.052 3.84 2.02 (7)
Evaporative fans Install ECM/PSC evap fan motor Med. or low temp. walk-in Motor ENComm_Refrigeration 15 593.00 $536.65 $– $296.78 $100.00 $0.052 4.10 1.64 (7)
Evaporative fans Install ECM/PSC evap
fan motor
Med. or low
temp. reach-in
Motor ENComm_Refrigeration 15 318.00 $287.78 $– $84.45 $60.00 $0.052 3.76 2.85 (7)
Floating head/suction
pressures
Head pressure controller Standard head pressure control Horsepower ENComm_Refrigeration 16 440.00 $420.33 $– $272.60 $80.00 $0.052 4.09 1.42 (7)
Floating head/suction
pressures
Suction pressure controller Standard suction pressure control Horsepower ENComm_Refrigeration 16 104.00 $99.35 $– $86.91 $20.00 $0.052 3.91 1.08 (7)
Vending machines Non-cooled snack control Vending machine with no sensor
Sensor ENComm_Misc 5 387.00 $123.73 $– $75.00 $50.00 $0.052 1.76 1.30 (7)
Commercial kitchen equipment
ENERGY STAR® undercounter (residential style) dishwasher
Standard dishwasher Machine ENComm_Misc 12 2,210.00 $1,652.76 $243.80 $232.00 $200.00 $0.052 5.25 5.47 (15)
Commercial kitchen equipment
ENERGY STAR commercial dishwasher Standard commercial dishwasher
Machine ENComm_Misc 12 5,561.00 $4,158.83 $657.52 $3,978.00 $500.00 $0.052 5.27 1.13 (15)
Commercial
kitchen equipment
ENERGY STAR listed
electric combination oven (6-14 pans)
Standard electric
oven
Oven ENComm_Cooking 10 12,999.00 $8,554.50 $– $1,620.00 $1,100.00 $0.052 4.82 3.73 (16)
Commercial
kitchen equipment
ENERGY STAR listed
electric combination oven (15-20 pans)
Standard electric
oven
Oven ENComm_Cooking 10 17,877.00 $11,764.66 $– $442.61 $300.00 $0.052 9.57 8.57 (16)
Commercial
kitchen equipment
ENERGY STAR listed
electric convection oven
Standard electric
oven
Oven ENComm_Cooking 10 1,672.00 $1,100.33 $– $915.79 $300.00 $0.052 2.84 1.10 (17)
Commercial kitchen
equipment
ENERGY STAR listed electric fryer Standard fryer Fryer ENComm_Cooking 8 2,671.00 $1,422.28 $– $782.10 $400.00 $0.052 2.64 1.54 (18)
Commercial kitchen
equipment
ENERGY STAR listed electric steamer - 3 pan Standard steamer Steamer ENComm_Cooking 9 21,470.00 $12,803.61 $– $358.34 $80.00 $0.052 10.70 8.68 (19)
Commercial kitchen
equipment
ENERGY STAR listed electric steamer - 4 pan Standard steamer Steamer ENComm_Cooking 9 28,564.00 $17,034.10 $– $136.78 $100.00 $0.052 10.74 10.50 (19)
Commercial kitchen
equipment
ENERGY STAR listed electric steamer - 5 pan Standard steamer Steamer ENComm_Cooking 9 35,659.00 $21,265.20 $– $(267.95) $150.00 $0.052 10.61 13.41 (19)
Supplement 1: Cost-Effectiveness Idaho Power Company
Page 60 Demand-Side Management 2015 Annual Report
Benefit Cost Benefit/Cost Tests
Measure Name Measure Descriptions Replacing Measure unit End Use
Measure Life (yrs)a
Annual Gross
Energy Savings (kWh/yr)b
NPV Avoided Costsc
Non-
Energy Benefit (NEB)
Gross
Incremental Participant Costd
Incentive/ Unit
Admin Cost ($/kWh)e UC Ratiof
TRC Ratiog Source
Commercial kitchen equipment
ENERGY STAR listed electric steamer - 6 pan Standard steamer Steamer ENComm_Cooking 9 42,754.00 $25,496.29 $– $59.32 $175.00 $0.052 10.63 11.17 (19)
Commercial kitchen equipment
ENERGY STAR listed electric steamer -10 pan or larger
Standard steamer Steamer ENComm_Cooking 9 71,133.00 $42,420.07 $– $4,062.08 $200.00 $0.052 10.88 5.47 (19)
Variable speed
controls
Variable speed drive
on HVAC system applications:
-chilled water pumps -condenser water pumps -cooling tower fans
Single speed
HVAC system fan/pump
hp ENComm_HVAC 15 268.00 $277.85 $– $165.33 $60.00 $0.052 3.76 1.55 (7)
Variable speed controls Variable speed drive on HVAC system applications:
-supply -return -outside air -make-up air -hot water pumps
Single speed HVAC system fan/pump
hp ENComm_HVAC 15 996.00 $1,032.61 $– $142.05 $100.00 $0.052 6.80 5.33 (7)
a Average measure life.b Estimated kWh savings measured at the customer’s meter, excluding line losses.
c Sum of NPV of avoided cost. Based on end-use load shape, measure life, savings including line losses, and alternative costs by pricing period as provided in the 2013 IRP. Includes 10% conservation adder from the Northwest Power Act.
d Incremental participant cost prior to customer incentives.
e Average program administration and overhead costs to achieve each kWh of savings. Calculated from 2015 actuals.f Utility Cost Ratio = (NPV Avoided Costs) / ((Admin Cost/kWh * kWh Savings) + Incentives)g Total Resource Cost Ratio = (NPV Avoided Costs + NEB) / ((Admin Cost/kWh * kWh Savings) + Incentives + (Incremental Participant Cost - Incentives))
1 Evergreen Consulting Group, LLC. Idaho Power Lighting Tool. 2014.
2 Measure not cost-effective. Measure to be monitored to adjust weighted average. Measure included in the program to increase participation in a cost-effective program and to encourage adoption of higher-efficiency equipment.
3 Idaho Power Demand-Side Management Potential Study by Nexant, Inc. IPC DSM Potential—Commercial Model 081209.xlsm. 2009.4 RTF. ComGroceryDisplayCaseLEDs_v2_2 and ComGroceryCaseLEDs_v1.1.xls. 2013. T12 to LED. Averaged the measures for less than 4 W/ln ft and 4–8.5 W/ln ft.5 RTF. ComGroceryDisplayCaseLEDs_v2_2 and ComGroceryCaseLEDs_v1.1.xls. 2013. T8 to LED. Averaged the measures for less than 4 W/ln ft and 4–8.5 W/ln ft.
6 Idaho Power TRM prepared by ADM Associates, Inc. 2015. Weighted average of 6–25 ton units.
7 Idaho Power TRM prepared by ADM Associates, Inc. 2015.
8 Idaho Power TRM prepared by ADM Associates, Inc. 2015. Averaged water cooled chillers.9 Idaho Power TRM prepared by ADM Associates, Inc. 2015. Calculated from TRM spreadsheets.10 RTF. AgStockWateringTank_v2_0.xlsm. 2013. Simple average of HZ 1, 2, & 3.
11 RTF. ComDHWEfficientTank_v3_0.xlsm. 2014. Simple average of residential style water heaters.
12 RTF. ComDHWEfficientTank_v3_0.xlsm. 2014. Simple average of commercial style water heaters.
13 RTF. ComDHWShowerhead_v3_0.xlsm. 2013.14 Measure not cost-effective. Measure to remain in the program due to unquantifiable NEBs.15 Idaho Power TRM prepared by ADM Associates, Inc. 2015. NEBs from water savings from RTF. ComDishwasher_v1_2.xlsm. 2012.
16 RTF. ComCookingCombinationOven_v2_0.xlsm. 2013.
17 RTF. ComCookingConvectionOven_v2_0.xlsm. Simple average of half and full-size ovens. 2013.
18 RTF. ComCookingFryer_v2_0.xlsm. 2013.19 RTF. ComCookingSteamer_v2_0.xlsm. 2013.
Idaho Power Company Supplement 1: Cost-Effectiveness
Demand-Side Management 2015 Annual Report Page 61
Irrigation Efficiency Rewards
Segment: Irrigation2015 Program Results
Summary of Cost-Effectiveness Results
Test Benefit Cost Ratio
Utility Cost Test ....................................$11,014,313 $1,835,711 6.00
Total Resource Cost Test .....................38,180,490 9,939,842 3.84
Ratepayer Impact Measure Test ..........11,014,313 7,595,512 1.45
Participant Cost Test .............................34,423,660 9,601,814 3.59
Cost Inputs (NPV)Ref
Program Administration ...........................................................................$338,029
Program Incentives..................................................................................1,497,682 I
Total Utility Cost ....................................................................................$ 1,835,711 P
Measure Equipment and Installation (Incremental Participant Cost)....... $9,601,814 M
Net Benefit Inputs (NPV)Ref
Resource Savings
2015 Annual Gross Energy (kWh).............................14,027,411
NPV Cumulative Energy (kWh) .................................101,698,208 $10,013,012
10% Credit (Northwest Power Act)............................1,001,301
Total Electric Savings ..................................................$ 11,014,313 S
Participant Bill Savings
NPV Cumulative Participant Savings ........................$5,759,801 B
Other Benefits
Non-Utility Rebates/Incentives ...................................$ –NUI
Non-Energy Benefits ..................................................$27,166,177 NEB
Benefits and Costs Included in Each Test
Utility Cost Test ..................................= S * NTG = P
Total Resource Cost Test ...................= (S + NUI + NEB) * NTG = P + ((M-I) * NTG)
Ratepayer Impact Measure Test ........= S * NTG = P + (B * NTG)
Participant Cost Test ..........................= B + I + NUI + NEB = M
Assumptions for Levelized Calculations
Discount Rate
Nominal (WACC) ............................................................................................6.77%
Real ((1 + WACC) / (1 + Escalation)) – 1 .......................................................3.66%
Escalation Rate ...................................................................................................3.00%
Net-to-Gross (NTG) .............................................................................................100%
Minimum NTG Sensitivity ....................................................................................17%
Average Customer Segment Rate/kWh ..............................................................$0.059
Line Losses .........................................................................................................9.60%
Notes: Energy savings are combined for projects under the Custom and Menu program. Savings under each Custom project is unique and individually calculated and assessed. Green Rewind initiative is available to agricultural, commercial, and industrial customers. Agricultural motor rewinds are paid under Irrigation Efficiency.
NEBs including yield, labor, and other benefits reported by the customer.
Supplement 1: Cost-Effectiveness Idaho Power Company
Page 62 Demand-Side Management 2015 Annual Report
Benefit Cost Benefit/Cost Tests
Measure
Namea Measure Descriptions Replacing
Measure
Unit End Use
Measure Life
(yrs)b
Annual
Gross Energy Savings
(kWh/yr)c
NPV Avoided
Costsd
Non-Energy Benefit
(NEB)
Gross Incremental Participant
Coste
Incentive/
Unit
Admin Cost
($/kWh)f UC Ratiog
TRC
Ratioh Sources
Nozzle Replacement New flow-control-type nozzles replacing existing brass
nozzles or worn out flow control nozzles of same flow rate or less.
Brass nozzles or worn out flow
control nozzles of same flow rate or less
Unit IPC_Irrigation 4 40.60 $16.34 $– $6.45 $1.50 $0.024 6.60 2.20 (1)
Nozzle Replacement New nozzles replacing existing worn nozzles of same flow rate or less
Worn nozzle of same flow rate or less
Unit IPC_Irrigation 4 40.60 $16.34 $– $2.41 $0.25 $0.024 13.35 4.83 (1)
Sprinklers Rebuilt or new brass impact sprinklers Unit IPC_Irrigation 5 28.26 $14.22 $– $14.02 $2.75 $0.024 4.15 0.97 (1) (2)
Levelers Rebuilt or new wheel line levelers Unit IPC_Irrigation 5 41.76 $21.01 $– $3.70 $0.75 $0.024 11.99 4.47 (1)
Sprinklers Center pivot/linear move: Install new sprinkler package on an existing system
Unit IPC_Irrigation 5 100.19 $50.41 $– $29.03 $8.00 $0.024 4.84 1.60 (1)
Gasket
Replacement
New gaskets for hand lines,
wheel lines or portable mainline
Unit IPC_Irrigation 5 170.00 $85.53 $– $4.46 $1.00 $0.024 16.84 10.02 (1)
Drain
Replacement
New drains hand lines, wheel
lines or portable mainline
Unit IPC_Irrigation 5 176.25 $88.68 $– $15.54 $3.00 $0.024 12.27 4.48 (1)
Hub Replacement New wheel line hubs Unit IPC_Irrigation 10 73.06 $70.13 $– $56.85 $12.00 $0.024 5.10 1.20 (1)
New Goose
Necks
New goose neck with drop
tube or boomback
Outlet IPC_Irrigation 15 14.50 $19.50 $– $4.74 $1.00 $0.024 14.46 3.83 (1)
Pipe Repair Cut and pipe press or weld repair of leaking hand lines,
wheel lines, and portable mainline
Joint IPC_Irrigation 8 84.48 $66.34 $– $20.47 $8.00 $0.024 6.62 2.95 (1)
Gasket Replacement New center pivot base boot gasket Unit IPC_Irrigation 8 1,456.40 $1,143.62 $– $284.25 $125.00 $0.024 7.15 3.58 (1)
a Available measures in the Irrigation Efficiency Menu Incentive Option. For the Custom Incentive Option, projects are thoroughly reviewed by Idaho Power staff.
b Average measure life.c Estimated peak demand reduction measured at the customer’s meter, excluding line losses.
d Sum of NPV of avoided cost. Based on end-use load shape, measure life, savings including line losses, and alternative costs by pricing period as provided in the 2013 IRP. Includes 10% conservation adder from the Northwest Power Act.
e Incremental participant cost prior to customer incentives.
f Average program administration and overhead costs to achieve each kWh of savings. Calculated from 2015 actuals.
g Utility Cost Ratio = (NPV Avoided Costs) / ((Admin Cost/kWh * kWh Savings) + Incentives)h Total Resource Cost Ratio = (NPV Avoided Costs + NEB) / ((Admin Cost/kWh * kWh Savings) + Incentives + (Incremental Participant Cost - Incentives))
1 RTF. AgIrrigationHardware_v3.xlsm. 2013. Three-year weighted average of western Idaho (13%), eastern Washington and Oregon (4%), and eastern and southern Idaho (83%).
2 Measure not cost-effective. Measure to remain in the program due to unquantifiable NEBs.
Year: 2015 Program: Irrigation Efficiency Rewards Market Segment: Irrigation Program Type: Energy Efficiency
Idaho Power Company Supplement 1: Cost-Effectiveness
Demand-Side Management 2015 Annual Report Page 63
Benefit Cost Benefit/Cost Tests
Measure Name Measure Descriptions Replacing
Measure
Unit End Use
Measure
Life (yrs)a
Annual
Gross Energy Savings
(kWh/yr)b
NPV Avoided
Costsc
Non-Energy Benefit
(NEB)
Gross Incremental Participant
Costd
Incentive/
Unit
Admin Cost
($/kWh)e UC Ratiof
TRC
Ratiog Source
Green Motors Program Rewind:
Motor size 15HP
Green Motors Program Rewind: Motor size 15HP Standard rewind practice Motor IPC_Irrigation 18 317.00 $495.22 $– $152.56 $30.00 $0.050 10.80 2.94 (1)
Green Motors Program Rewind:
Motor size 20HP
Green Motors Program Rewind: Motor size 20HP Standard rewind practice Motor IPC_Irrigation 18 425.00 $663.94 $– $170.21 $40.00 $0.050 10.84 3.47 (1)
Green Motors Program Rewind: Motor size 25HP
Green Motors Program Rewind: Motor size 25HP Standard rewind practice Motor IPC_Irrigation 17 595.00 $886.32 $– $194.47 $50.00 $0.050 11.11 3.95 (1)
Green Motors Program Rewind: Motor size 30HP
Green Motors Program Rewind: Motor size 30HP Standard rewind practice Motor IPC_Irrigation 17 640.00 $953.35 $– $213.60 $60.00 $0.050 10.36 3.88 (1)
Green Motors Program Rewind: Motor size 40HP
Green Motors Program Rewind: Motor size 40HP Standard rewind practice Motor IPC_Irrigation 17 746.00 $1,111.25 $– $261.02 $80.00 $0.050 9.47 3.73 (1)
Green Motors
Program Rewind: Motor size 50HP
Green Motors Program
Rewind: Motor size 50HP
Standard rewind
practice
Motor IPC_Irrigation 17 802.00 $1,194.67 $– $288.96 $100.00 $0.050 8.53 3.63 (1)
Green Motors
Program Rewind: Motor size 60HP
Green Motors Program
Rewind: Motor size 60HP
Standard rewind
practice
Motor IPC_Irrigation 20 765.00 $1,299.67 $– $340.79 $120.00 $0.050 8.21 3.43 (1)
Green Motors
Program Rewind: Motor size 75HP
Green Motors Program
Rewind: Motor size 75HP
Standard rewind
practice
Motor IPC_Irrigation 20 788.00 $1,338.75 $– $368.37 $150.00 $0.050 7.07 3.28 (1)
Green Motors Program Rewind:
Motor size 100HP
Green Motors Program Rewind: Motor size
100HP
Standard rewind practice Motor IPC_Irrigation 20 1,040.00 $1,766.88 $– $456.96 $200.00 $0.050 7.01 3.47 (1)
Green Motors Program Rewind:
Motor size 125HP
Green Motors Program Rewind: Motor size
125HP
Standard rewind practice Motor IPC_Irrigation 20 1,157.00 $1,965.65 $– $513.21 $250.00 $0.050 6.39 3.44 (1)
Green Motors Program Rewind:
Motor size 150HP
Green Motors Program Rewind: Motor size
150HP
Standard rewind practice Motor IPC_Irrigation 20 1,376.00 $2,337.72 $– $571.66 $300.00 $0.050 6.34 3.65 (1)
Green Motors Program Rewind:
Motor size 200HP
Green Motors Program Rewind: Motor size
200HP
Standard rewind practice Motor IPC_Irrigation 20 1,821.00 $3,093.74 $– $688.20 $400.00 $0.050 6.30 3.97 (1)
Green Motors Program Rewind: Motor size 250HP
Green Motors Program Rewind: Motor size 250HP
Standard rewind practice Motor IPC_Irrigation 20 2,823.00 $4,796.05 $– $884.52 $500.00 $0.050 7.48 4.68 (1)
Green Motors Program Rewind: Motor size 300HP
Green Motors Program Rewind: Motor size 300HP
Standard rewind practice Motor IPC_Irrigation 20 3,370.00 $5,725.36 $– $894.08 $600.00 $0.050 7.45 5.39 (1)
Green Motors
Program Rewind: Motor size 350HP
Green Motors Program
Rewind: Motor size 350HP
Standard rewind
practice
Motor IPC_Irrigation 20 3,929.00 $6,675.06 $– $937.09 $700.00 $0.050 7.45 5.89 (1)
Year: 2015 Program: Irrigation Efficiency Rewards—Green Motors Market Segment: Irrigation Program Type: Energy Efficiency
Supplement 1: Cost-Effectiveness Idaho Power Company
Page 64 Demand-Side Management 2015 Annual Report
Benefit Cost Benefit/Cost Tests
Measure Name Measure Descriptions Replacing Measure Unit End Use Measure Life (yrs)a
Annual
Gross Energy
Savings (kWh/yr)b
NPV
Avoided Costsc
Non-Energy
Benefit (NEB)
Gross Incremental
Participant Costd
Incentive/ Unit
Admin
Cost ($/kWh)e UC Ratiof
TRC Ratiog Source
Green Motors Program Rewind: Motor size 400HP
Green Motors Program Rewind: Motor size 400HP
Standard rewind practice Motor IPC_Irrigation 20 4,456.00 $7,570.39 $– $1,046.64 $800.00 $0.050 7.40 5.96 (1)
Green Motors Program Rewind:
Motor size 450HP
Green Motors Program Rewind: Motor size
450HP
Standard rewind practice Motor IPC_Irrigation 20 5,003.00 $8,499.70 $– $1,144.06 $900.00 $0.050 7.39 6.10 (1)
Green Motors Program Rewind:
Motor size 500HP
Green Motors Program Rewind: Motor size
500HP
Standard rewind practice Motor IPC_Irrigation 20 5,567.00 $9,457.89 $– $1,235.98 $1,000.00 $0.050 7.40 6.25 (1)
Green Motors Program Rewind:
Motor size 600HP
Green Motors Program Rewind: Motor size
600HP
Standard rewind practice Motor IPC_Irrigation 20 6,193.00 $10,521.42 $– $1,821.36 $1,200.00 $0.050 6.97 4.94 (1)
Green Motors Program Rewind: Motor size 700HP
Green Motors Program Rewind: Motor size 700HP
Standard rewind practice Motor IPC_Irrigation 20 7,195.00 $12,223.74 $– $1,987.11 $1,400.00 $0.050 6.95 5.21 (1)
Green Motors Program Rewind: Motor size 800HP
Green Motors Program Rewind: Motor size 800HP
Standard rewind practice Motor IPC_Irrigation 20 8,205.00 $13,939.65 $– $2,204.75 $1,600.00 $0.050 6.93 5.33 (1)
Green Motors Program Rewind: Motor size 900HP
Green Motors Program Rewind: Motor size 900HP
Standard rewind practice Motor IPC_Irrigation 20 9,211.00 $15,648.76 $– $2,430.63 $1,800.00 $0.050 6.92 5.41 (1)
Green Motors
Program Rewind: Motor size
1500HP
Green Motors Program
Rewind: Motor size 1500HP
Standard rewind
practice
Motor IPC_Irrigation 20 12,681.00 $21,544.02 $– $3,584.53 $3,000.00 $0.050 4.74 4.20 (1)
a Average measure life.b Estimated kWh savings measured at the customer’s meter, excluding line losses. c Sum of NPV of avoided cost. Based on end-use load shape, measure life, savings including line losses, and alternative costs by pricing period as provided in the 2013 IRP. Includes 10% conservation adder from the Northwest Power Act.
d Incremental participant cost prior to customer incentives.
e Average program administration and overhead costs to achieve each kWh of savings. Calculated from 2015 actuals.
f Utility Cost Ratio = (NPV Avoided Costs) / ((Admin Cost/kWh * kWh Savings) + Incentives)g Total Resource Cost Ratio = (NPV Avoided Costs + NEB) / ((Admin Cost/kWh * kWh Savings) + Incentives + (Incremental Participant Cost - Incentives))1 RTF. AgMotorsRewind_v2_0.xlsm. 2013.