201603162015 DSM Supplement 2.pdf

March 15, 2016
2015 ANNUAL REPORT
Demand-Side Management
Supplement 2:
Evaluation
Printed on recycled paper
Idaho Power Company Supplement 2: Evaluation
Demand-Side Management 2015 Annual Report Page i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table of Contents ......................................................................................................................................... i
List of Tables ............................................................................................................................................... i
Evaluation and Research Summary .............................................................................................................1
Evaluation Plan ............................................................................................................................................3
Energy Efficiency Advisory Group Minutes ...............................................................................................5
NEEA Market Effects Evaluations ............................................................................................................45
Integrated Design Lab ................................................................................................................................47
Research/Surveys .....................................................................................................................................193
Evaluations ...............................................................................................................................................641
Success Stories .........................................................................................................................................813
Weatherization Assistance for Qualified Customers 2014 Annual Report .............................................819

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. 2015 NEEA Market Effects Evaluations ...........................................................................45
Table 2. 2015 Integrated Design Lab ...............................................................................................47
Table 3. 2015 Research/Surveys ....................................................................................................193
Table 4. 2015 Evaluations ..............................................................................................................641
Table 5. 2015 Success Stories ........................................................................................................813

Supplement 2: Evaluation Idaho Power Company
Page ii Demand-Side Management 2015 Annual Report
This page left blank intentionally.

Evaluation and Research Summary
Idaho Power Company Supplement 2: Evaluation
Demand-Side Management 2015 Annual Report Page 1
EVALUATION AND RESEARCH SUMMARY
Idaho Power considers program evaluation and research an essential part of its demand-side
management (DSM) operational activities. The company contracts with third-party contractors to
conduct impact, process, and other evaluations on a scheduled and as-required basis.
Third-party contracts are generally awarded using a competitive bid process and are managed by
Idaho Power’s Strategic Sourcing department. In some cases, research and analysis is conducted
internally and administered by Idaho Power’s Customer Relations and Analysis team. Third-party
evaluations are specifically managed by the company’s Energy Efficiency Evaluator.
Idaho Power uses industry-standard protocols for its internal and external evaluation efforts, including the National Action Plan for Energy Efficiency—Model Energy Efficiency Program
Impact Evaluation Guide, the California Evaluation Framework, the International Performance
Measurement and Verification Protocol, the Database for Energy Efficiency Resources,
National Renewable Energy Laboratory report1, and the Regional Technical Forum’s (RTF) evaluation protocols.
The company also supports regional and national studies to promote ongoing cost-effectiveness of
programs, validation of energy savings and demand reduction, and the efficient management of its
programs. Idaho Power considers primary and secondary research, cost-effectiveness analyses,
potential assessments, impact and process evaluations, and customer surveys important resources
in providing accurate and transparent program savings estimates. Recommendations and findings from evaluations and research are used to continuously refine its DSM programs.
In 2015, Idaho Power completed program impact and process evaluations of the Home Improvement,
See ya later, refrigerator® and Ductless Heat Pump programs using third-party contractor Applied
Energy Group. CLEAResult was chosen to provide impact evaluations for the A/C Cool Credit,
Flex Peak, and Irrigation Peak Rewards programs.
Idaho Power administered surveys on several programs in 2015 to measure program satisfaction.
Participant surveys were conducted for Easy Upgrades, Home Energy Audit, Shade Tree Project,
Weatherization Assistance for Qualified Customers (WAQC), and Weatherization Solutions for
Eligible Customers.
In addition to these program satisfaction surveys, Idaho Power sent energy efficiency-related surveys to its online community of residential customers. Energy efficiency-related survey topics in 2015
included residential laundry habits, recall of the spring 2015 energy efficiency marketing campaign,
and holiday lighting.
Throughout 2015, ADM Associates, Inc. (ADM) made several small revisions to the technical
reference manual (TRM) for Building Efficiency and Easy Upgrades. These revisions include additional system types to the heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) controls section and
expanding the description of eligible equipment for air conditioning and heat pump systems.
1 “Whole Building Retrofit with Consumption Data Analysis Evaluation Protocol” published in April 2013 by the U.S.
Department of Energy (energy.gov/eere/about-us/ump-protocols).
Supplement 2: Evaluation Idaho Power Company
Page 2 Demand-Side Management 2015 Annual Report
Additionally, ADM updated the savings for measures impacted by the International Energy
Conservation (IECC) 2012 code.
Final reports from all evaluations, research, and surveys completed in 2015 and an evaluation
schedule are provided in this supplement. The evaluation schedule is intended to be used as a guide and may be changed periodically based on need, timing, or other relevant factors.

Evaluation Plan
Idaho Power Company Supplement 2: Evaluation
Demand-Side Management 2015 Annual Report Page 3
EVALUATION PLAN
Customer Relations and Energy Efficiency 2012–2016 Program Evaluation Plan

Supplement 2: Evaluation Idaho Power Company
Page 4 Demand-Side Management 2015 Annual Report
This page left blank intentionally.

Energy Efficiency Advisory Group Minutes
Idaho Power Company Supplement 2: Evaluation
Demand-Side Management 2015 Annual Report Page 5
ENERGY EFFICIENCY ADVISORY GROUP MINUTES
The following pages include minutes from EEAG meetings held on February 19, May 6, August 26,
and November 5, 2015.
Supplement 2: Evaluation Idaho Power Company
Page 6 Demand-Side Management 2015 Annual Report
This page left blank intentionally.

1
Energy Efficiency Advisory Group (EEAG) Meeting Notes February 19th, 2015
Present:
Catherine Chertudi–City of Boise, Public Works Dept. Don Strickler–Simplot
Ken Robinette–South Central Comm. Action Partnership Lynn Young–AARP
Stacey Donohue–Idaho Public Utilities Commission John Chatburn–Office of Energy Resources
Diego Rivas–Northwest Energy Coalition Sid Erwin–Idaho Irrigation Pumpers Association
Tami White–Idaho Power
Ben Otto-Idaho Conservation League
Kent Hanway-CSHQA
Quentin Nesbitt*–Idaho Power

Not Present:
Tom Eckman–Northwest Power & Conservation Council
Michael Breish-Public Utility Commission of Oregon

Guests and Presenters*:
Pete Pengilly*–Idaho Power Todd Greenwell–Idaho Power
Gary Grayson–Idaho Power Theresa Drake–Idaho Power
Shelley Martin–Idaho Power Andrea Simmonsen–Idaho Power
Zeke VanHooser–Idaho Power Ken Miller-Snake River Alliance
Robert Everett–Idaho Power Cheryl Paoli-Idaho Power
Jay Jeffries-Resource Action Programs Patti Best-Idaho Power
Mindi Shodeen-Idaho Power
Darlene Nemnich*-Idaho Power
Julie Stutts-Baker-Idaho Power
Susan Klein-Idaho Power
Krista West-Idaho Power
Denise Humphreys-Idaho Power
Roberta Rene-Idaho Power
Ty Hardin- Idaho Public Utilities Commission

Andy Healy-CLEAResults
Becky Arte-Howell-Idaho Power
Kevin Winslow-Idaho Power
Anne Alenskis-Idaho Power
Donn English-Idaho Public Utilities Commission
Sheree Willhite-Idaho Power
Bill Shawver*-Idaho Power
Randy Thorn-Idaho Power

Meeting Facilitator:
Rosemary Curtin (RBCI)
Recording Secretary:
Shawn Lovewell (Idaho Power) with Kathy Yi* (Idaho Power)
Meeting Convened at 9:30am
2
Quentin introduced Rosemary Curtin, who is the new EEAG Facilitator, to the group. She gave an overview of
her professional background and then asked each EEAG member to introduce themselves and state the reason(s)
why they participate in this group. Quentin then introduced Diego Rivas of Northwest Energy Coalition as a new EEAG member replacing Nancy Hirsh. The notes from the November EEAG meeting were reviewed and there
was one clarification requested regarding the bullet point on the top of page 4. There was agreement that the
November meeting notes will be updated to reflect the clarification. A few members commented that the new format and summarization of the meeting notes makes them easier and quicker to review.
9:45am-2014 Portfolio Financial/Savings Picture (Preliminary)—Pete Pengilly
Pete reviewed the 2014 preliminary DSM expenses to be included in Appendix 1& 2 of the Demand-Side-Management 2014 Annual Report. He also presented charts from the report showing portfolio saving and expense
categories.
Key points presented:
 Appendix 1 highlights the Idaho and Oregon Rider balances and the Northwest Energy Efficiency
Alliance (NEEA) payment amounts for 2014. Appendix 2 highlights 2014 DSM expenses by funding source (dollars).
 As of January, there was a $1.8 million positive balance in the Idaho Rider. There was a $3.9 million negative balance in the Oregon Rider.
 The presentation highlighted how the DSM funds were spent and the energy savings for the year in comparison to the Integrated Resource Planning (IRP) targets from a portfolio perspective.
There were questions and discussion about:
 What is the comparison of funding allocation to geographic area in regards to the NEEA savings? Idaho Power answered that it is a close comparison.
 Do any NEEA savings carry over from the previous year or does it start at zero each time? Idaho Power responded that NEEA provides an annual and cumulative look at savings. NEEA is still counting savings
from the first funding cycle if it believes that the savings are still applicable.
 In regards to Demand Response, how much of the difference in cost savings from 2012 to 2014 is due to
reduced participation or improved metrics? Idaho Power responded that the difference is primarily due to
lower incentives and a drop in participation for irrigation customers.

10:08am-Commercial/Industrial/Irrigation Programs—Quentin Nesbitt
Quentin highlighted savings and participation for the commercial, industrial, and irrigation programs. He presented a comparison of 2013 and 2014 participation and savings.
Key points presented:
 The Easy Upgrades Program shows overall energy savings are about the same even though participation
is lower for 2014.
 Irrigation Efficiency had higher participation in 2014 with about the same energy savings.
3
 Building Efficiency participation increased in 2014 and Custom Efficiency has had a large increase in
participation as well as energy savings.
There were questions and discussion about:
 Whether participation numbers were by participant or by measure. Idaho Power stated that it is by project.
 If the big jump in participation for Custom Efficiency was because some of the larger projects were
finally completed. Idaho Power answered that is part of the reason, but that a lot of those increases have
to do with the new Custom Efficiency Streamlined offering. These are smaller in savings but there are a lot of them. Idaho Power then explained what the streamlined offering is and how the company works
with Cascade Energy to identify these projects. Cascade Energy provides the measurement and
verification along with project management and then submits them to Idaho Power. It would be interesting to see a trend over numerous years instead of just a year to year. There are some great lessons
to be learned here, especially with this streamlined offering. Maybe this could be applied to the other
programs by having a dedicated person to drive projects to Idaho Power, reaching out to the trade allies. This would allow Idaho Power employees to focus on doing what they do best. One EEAG member noted
that he has received feedback from clients that the Building Efficiency process can be cumbersome. If the
process was streamlined it could be helpful for customers.
 What the level of participation was for the Waste Water Energy Efficiency Cohort (WWEEC)? Idaho
Power stated that for the cohort it was limited to the larger cities. One EEAG member mentioned that the feedback she has received was that initially there was some skepticism around whether or not they would
learn anything. After the operators had gone through the cohort training they realized there was much to learn and it has been very helpful. She stated that something like this could be really impactful for the smaller cities as well.
Quentin asked the group for feedback in combining the commercial & industrial programs. The idea is to have a
single application to make it easier for customers to participate in these programs. This has already been done for lighting and customers seem to like it.
 Three EEAG members stated that they like the idea of one application. Having multiple applications can be confusing for participants, so having one application to market internally would be nice. Additionally,
more assistance that can be provided to the small business the better.
 One EEAG member suggested having applications that target the different commercial customer
segments.
 Idaho Power noted that from a reporting perspective it might look a little different. It would be bundled
for savings and goal setting so the numbers wouldn’t be broken out by program.
10:40am-Residential Programs—Billie McWinn
Before the presentation, Billie recognized the effort and hard work her staff put in to these programs. She then highlighted the energy savings and participation by program for 2013-2014.
Key points presented:
 Idaho Power is looking to add new measures to the Energy House Calls (EHC) program. These ideas
came from the New Ideas Team. These items would be LED’s, showerheads, faucet aerators, and water heater pipe wrap for the first three feet.
4
 The new tool has been launched for Weatherization Solutions and recommendations from previous
meetings and evaluations have been incorporated. There will be a 10% cost share with landlords and they have agreed to not raise tenant rent for a year. Marketing efforts are being increased with emphasis on publications targeting senior citizens.
 Billie went over the Simple Steps (Appliances) options that are being evaluated. The upstream and midstream incentive model look the most promising.
There were questions and discussion about:
 If Idaho Power has received feedback from the EHC contractors on installing or implementing these new
measures. The concern is the showerheads and water pipe wrap. The plumbing in some of the older and
low income homes is not the greatest and you could see a decline in those items being installed because of the liability of the leaky pipe. Also, Idaho Power should continue to buy showerheads from Niagara
because they are high quality and customers seem to like them. One EEAG member asked why Idaho
Power isn’t wrapping the water heater. Another EEAG member answered that most tanks are already insulated and wrapping them can damage the newer ones.
 What about CFL disposal and how are the contractors handling that? Idaho Power explained that contractors are targeting incandescent bulbs, but that contractors are responsible for proper disposal if
they change out a CFL.
 When will this program become obsolete because it is at about 50% market penetration? Idaho Power
stated that it will watch trends and as long as it is cost-effective it will continue to offer the program.
 Discussion around the Weatherization Solutions program and the landlord cost-sharing. It will be interesting to see how this works out. One EEAG member stated that the landlord cannot raise tenants
rent because of the weatherization work, but they can raise rents for other reasons like taxes.
 The feedback on the Simple Steps Appliance options is that filling the marketplace with high quality
products is great, but getting the customer to purchase these items will be the challenge. Upstream
manufacturer option just fills the pipeline but doesn’t incent the customer to purchase. The direct customer incentive is probably better. One EEAG member stated that in her experience with working for
a water utility, if an incentive was given to the customer it forced the retailer to stock that item. The retailer would put the savings sticker on the appliance then they would sell more of that appliance. It changed what the retailer emphasized and drove customers to the more efficient machines. Another
EEAG member added that in Montana the manufacturer option failed.

11:17am- Break

11:24am-Bill Shawver & Roberta Rene—Marketing presentation
Bill started off by introducing the support staff in the Corporate Communication Department and thanked them
for the hard work they do on a daily basis. He then passed around a binder that contained marketing collateral sent out to customers during the period of November 19th 2014 thru February 19th, 2015. He stated that in previous
EEAG meetings the company heard from members that it wasn’t doing a great job at marketing. The company
wants to look forward and wants feedback from EEAG in this area.
5
Key points presented:
 Idaho Power opted out of some of the NEEA marketing initiatives which will save around $794,000 over the 5 year contract term. NEEA’s 2015 marketing plan for the Ductless Heat Pump will be out later this month
 The marketing tactics and 2014 integrated campaign results were shared with the group along with the integrated campaign plan for 2015.
 Bill will come back to EEAG and share marketing strategies by program. The recent video’s and the KTVB earned media spots were shown to the group.

There were questions and discussion about:
 How dates for marketing the programs are chosen along with questions around the print ads in the major
daily newspapers. Idaho Power explained that it is a coordinated effort between the Program Specialists and the Marketing Specialists. Marketing all the programs at once is avoided, but rather look at what
makes the most sense for each program taking into consideration the potential high bill months. Having a
presence throughout the year for a program such as DHP is important. Customer’s usually purchase these items when they breakdown, not before. Each program has its own marketing plan and each plan has its
own target audience. Idaho Power addressed the newspaper ads and explained that in the last few years,
the company has reduced the number of ads run in the rural areas. However, the company has since realized that these areas rely more on these papers instead of digital, it is their version of social media.
 Clarification on the video shown for the Home Improvement Program. The impression was that it was for new construction. Idaho Power explained that in the video they were just using a cleaner space to make it
more obvious what was being done.
 One EEAG member stated that she doesn’t disagree with general marketing as it can be very useful and
effective. Her concern is around behavioral change and how marketing needs to be more targeted and
focused in order to achieve that. Idaho Power stated that the trick to marketing is having it be present when the motivation to purchase an item occurs.
 There was discussion about the recent JD Power Small Business survey and the Residential survey that is currently being conducted. A question was asked about how that information would look on a trend line and if it is improving if you go back 5 years. Idaho Power answered that they would provide that
information to the group later.
12:18pm Lunch
1:00pm Meeting Reconvened
1:00pm-New Program Ideas Update—Billie McWinn/Quentin Nesbitt
Billie and Quentin provided an update on the new ideas that have been discussed at prior meetings and the status of each.
Key points presented:
6
 Heating & Cooling Efficiency-Idaho Power took the feedback from EEAG and the whole house fan,
prescriptive duct sealing, and the ECM residential blower motor will be under the Heating & Cooling Efficiency program. These will be launched in quarter 2 so that there is just one change to forms, the website and regulatory filings.
 LED’s as Promotional Giveaways-Originally the issue for this was cost-effectiveness. The feedback from EEAG was positive and to move forward. Some of the issues being worked through are the regulatory
considerations, fairness and perception. The company is trying to determine how to file this in Oregon.
 Energy Efficiency Kits-CLEAResult came to Idaho Power to discuss the mail by request kits. Customers
would go to Idaho Power’s website, fill out a form, and a kit would be mailed to them. The contents of
the kit are predetermined but other options are being explored. Idaho Power is soliciting feedback and ideas from EEAG as to what other ala carte options could be included in those kits.
 The drying rack was displayed. This came out of the New Ideas team and is similar to the LED’s as a giveaway. The idea is that there is an opportunity to give these out and educate people about energy
savings. The agreement would be that customers would provide Idaho Power with an email address and
take a short survey. This would probably remain as an event type giveaway to promote behavioral changes.
 Smart Thermostat technology, installation options, and eligibility options were discussed.
 Some of the small business options that Idaho Power is looking into were presented and Idaho Power
asked for feedback on how best to reach these customers.
There were questions and discussion about:
 Provide kits to low income residents that have electrically heated homes. These customers will come in
for high bill and heating assistance, go through some education and receive their kit. A crew will go into their homes 6-8 months later and the kit will still be sitting on their table. This EEAG member likes the
ala carte option because if a customer is ordering something they want, then they will be more likely to
use those items.
 A suggestion to have some sort of post card in the kit for the customer to mail back to Idaho Power once
the items have been installed. It would be a sort of accountability to Idaho Power.
 Will there be any follow-up with customers if they received the kit or have any questions or issues with
installation? That might be something to consider doing.
 Would Idaho Power be measuring the energy savings received from the kits? Idaho Power answered that
there would be energy savings assumptions attached to the kits, but that a QA follow up could be done.
 If a teacher advisory group has been formed for the high school kits. One EEAG member stated that
educator’s would know the best way to deliver these in a way that causes the most behavioral changes.
Idaho Power answered that this will happen in the spring. Another EEAG member suggested Idaho Power not limit these kits just high schools, but could also look at College of Western Idaho.
 Use social media as way to get customers engaged. Have them take a picture of the installations and tag Idaho Power. Another EEAG member added that City of Boise does that with the Curb It Program and
there is a theme associated with it: “I Make a Difference by….”and then post to Facebook.
7
 Consider having a YouTube video on how to install a showerhead or some other item in the kit.
 One EEAG member likes the idea of the drying racks. It brings to mind that we do in fact use a dryer and that uses electricity, it gets people thinking. Another EEAG member followed-up and stated that this is a
very powerful message of not just using less energy, but using no energy.
 The City of Boise distributes compost bins which are even bulkier than the drying rack. They use the “fire
sale” approach. People have to sign up and come down during a specified day and time to pick them up.
 There was some discussion around a follow-up survey after the drying racks are distributed and how that
could be structured.
 The company was encouraged to look at the thermostats that make programming easy for the customers.
 A few of the EEAG members suggested looking at both models; DIY and using a contractor. There are a
few issues such as wiring or mercury in the older thermostats that could require a contractor. If the company required that a contractor install it might alienate those folks that like the “do-it-yourself”
option. Idaho Power was commended for looking into this program.
 It was noted that time is a factor in reaching the small business customers. The initial engagement is very
important. Getting incentives to these customers faster is important since many of them rely on month to
month cash flow. One EEAG member stated that as a small business owner himself, he likes the idea of Idaho Power showing up at a business to talk about options for energy efficiency improvements.
 Finding ways to dispel the barriers that it is complicated to receive an incentive is something that could be looked at. Another EEAG member added that she is glad Idaho Power is looking at ways to target the small businesses. Streamlining these processes with other programs might free up some head room on the
cost effectiveness.
2:05pm Shade Tree/Home Energy Audit Process Evaluation—Dr Katherine Johnson
Dr. Katherine Johnson of Johnson Consulting Group presented the results of process evaluations that were
performed on the Shade Tree project and Home Energy Audit program. Dr. Johnson noted that process evaluations are most helpful when transitioning from a pilot to a full program. Idaho Power is in line with best
practices. Both of these programs are doing very well.
Key points presented:
 Dr Johnson gave examples of marketing materials, customer messaging, and the online process for the
Shade Tree project.
 Overall program operations are smooth and effective. Customers liked the project and love the education.
 Key recommendations would be to streamline the database, standardize the program evaluation questionnaires, develop a pre-screening tool for maximum energy savings potential, and implement a QA
process to provide ongoing tracking of the trees. The Idaho Power Program Specialist commented on
some of the things that are being done to address these recommendations.
 The Home Energy Audit program is a gateway program to help customers move on to larger energy
efficient measures and improvements. An overview of program processes, marketing materials and key findings were presented.
8
 Key recommendations were to reconsider the program term “audit”, review current measure mix to make
sure it is still cost-effective, conduct formal customer survey’s to assess satisfaction, develop a protocol for reaching out to customers and encouraging them to follow up on recommendations, review the CAKE software, reevaluate the role of the auditors. The Idaho Power Program Specialist commented on some of
the things that are being done to address these recommendations.
3:15 pm-Time of Day—Darlene Nemnich
Darlene presented the final results of the Time of Day (TOD) impact study. She provided an overview of the basic
structure of the TOD pricing plan. The primary goal of the study was to evaluate how the TOD pilot pricing plan impacted energy consumption.
There were questions and discussion about:
 If the customers that participated in the program were given any type of coaching or strategies. Idaho Power answered that in the original pilot solicitation, information was provided to direct customers to
Idaho Power’s website. Every year before the summer season a postcard or packet of information is provided reminding them that their TOD rates will change on June 1st. Clings and tip cards have also
been provided
 If this will now be an opt-in plan for customers. Idaho Power answered that yes, it is an open plan and customers can choose to participate.
3:43 pm-Online Residential Community—Kathy Yi
Kathy explained that Idaho Power is launching an online community called Empowered Community.
Key points presented:
 The target is to have around 1500 Idaho Power customers made up of a representative sample from across the company’s service area that will participate in monthly surveys.
 The goal is to have easily accessible and reliable respondents that can quickly provide feedback for smaller research projects.
 This community was launched this month and as of today there are around 340 participants.
 Primary recruitment is via bill insert. This method was chosen because it is the lowest cost option. Small
subsets of customers do not receive a paper bill, so a postcard was sent.
 The web portal landing page that explains how customers can join was presented. This also serves as
verification to customers that this is a legitimate web page and not a scam.
 This is funded by rider and base rates. The surveys will not just be energy efficiency related. There will
be two $100 incentives awarded to randomly selected community members that participated in monthly
research projects.

At the conclusion of the presentation, the meeting facilitator asked for EEAG member feedback on today’s
meeting and if there were any final thoughts, questions or concerns. EEAG member feedback was as follows:
9

 The opening remarks were appreciated and Idaho Power has heard the interest in looking forward on new programs.
 This is probably the best EEAG meeting one EEAG member has attended. Another EEAG member also
stated that this was the best meeting he has been to.
 It was a great meeting with a lot of information. However, having a couple less agenda items would be
helpful because the agenda was very full.
 One EEAG member commented that she is impressed and it appears that the company is moving in the
right direction.
 Another EEAG member enjoyed hearing the evaluation results.
Kent McCarthy then introduced himself and his role in the company. He will be providing information on the company’s newest fleet of Electric Vehicles.
4:06 Meeting Adjourned

1
Energy Efficiency Advisory Group (EEAG) Meeting Notes dated May 6th, 2015
Present:
Quentin Nesbitt*-Idaho Power Don Sturtevant–Simplot
Ken Robinette–South Central Comm. Action Partnership Lynn Young–AARP
Stacey Donohue–Idaho Public Utilities Commission John Chatburn–Office of Energy Resources
Diego Rivas–Northwest Energy Coalition Sid Erwin–Idaho Irrigation Pumpers Association
Tami White–Idaho Power Kent Hanway-CSHQA
Ben Otto-Idaho Conservation League
Michael Breish-Public Utility Commission of Oregon

Not Present:
Tom Eckman–Northwest Power & Conservation Council
Catherine Chertudi–City of Boise, Public Works Dept

Guests and Presenters*:
Pete Pengilly*–Idaho Power Cory Read–Idaho Power
Chellie Jensen–Idaho Power Theresa Drake–Idaho Power
Shelley Martin–Idaho Power Diana Echeverria*–Idaho Power
Sheree Willhite–Idaho Power Ken Miller–Snake River Alliance
Gary Grayson–Idaho Power Zeke VanHooser–Idaho Power
Darlene Nemnich–Idaho Power Patti Best–Idaho Power
Cheryl Paoli–Idaho Power
Billie McWinn*-Idaho Power
Mindi Shodeen-Idaho Power
Nick Bengston*-CLEAResult
Jeff Brooks-Tetra Tech
Todd Greenwell-Idaho Power
Bill Shawver*-Idaho Power

Becky Arte-Howell–Idaho Power
Chris Pollow-Idaho Power
Roberta Rene*-Idaho Power
Peter Richardson-Richardson Adams, PLLC
Kevin Lauckner-Franklin Energy
Jay Jeffries-Resource Action Programs
Denise Humphreys-Idaho Power
Meeting Facilitator:
Rosemary Curtin (RBCI)
Recording Secretary:
Shawn Lovewell (Idaho Power) with Kathy Yi (Idaho Power)
Meeting Convened at 9:30am
Rosemary and Quentin started the meeting with introductions of guests and members. The February EEAG meeting notes had been provided to members in advance of the meeting for their review. There were no comments or concerns regarding the February meeting notes.
2
9:36am-Regulatory Update—Tami White
Tami reviewed the current regulatory filings that have a DSM touch-point. There were no questions or comments
from members.
9:42-2015 Financials/2014 DSM Annual Report—Pete Pengilly
Pete presented Appendix 1: Idaho Rider, Oregon Rider, and NEEA payment amounts (Jan-Mar 2015), 2015 DSM
Actual Expenses by Program (Jan-Mar 2015), and highlights from other areas of the 2014 DSM Annual Report
Key points presented:
 Noted that overall on a portfolio level, energy savings are up approximately 21% through April of 2015.
 Brought attention to other items highlighted in the DSM Annual Report such as: Energy Efficiency
Guides, Student Energy Efficiency Kits, Integrated Design Lab, and the Local Energy Efficiency Funds.
 Pointed out that for the first time the DSM cost-effectiveness ratios were also added into the introduction
of the main report.
 Highlighted that the majority of Idaho Power’s buildings have been upgraded to be more energy efficient.
The corporate headquarters building also participates in the Flex Peak Program (without the incentive
component).

There were questions and discussion about:
 What is the projected Idaho rider balance at the end of 2015? The forecast for the Idaho rider is about
$16 million dollars balance by the end of 2015.
 What are the company’s plans for moving the Oregon rider balance back to a collected status? In Oregon, Idaho Power knows that the rider percentage needs adjusting, but there aren’t any definitive
plans on when a filing will be made to request an adjustment to the rate of collection.
 There was much discussion about the projected Idaho Rider balance and what the approach should be to
reduce the amount projected to be in the account at year-end 2015. There were suggestions for looking at
a long term projection to determine what the appropriate percentage should be, not reducing the percentage but figuring out ways to spend it, and looking into what other utilities are doing to manage
their rider balances. Overall, the general consensus was that frequent rider percentage changes can have negative impacts on customers.
 EEAG members would like to see Idaho Power bring more attention to its corporate responsibility by
talking about what is being done in the energy efficiency arena. The Just Drive campaign is a good example of that.
 Is there a way to gauge customer feedback on the distribution of the Energy Efficiency guides and through what channels were they distributed? Both the Energy Efficiency guide and 30 Simple Things are
available for customers to request online. When a new customer signs up for service, this guide could be
sent to them. This guide could be provided to the stores that sell energy efficient lights. The company has checked with the box store retailers about leaving the Energy Efficiency guides at the stores. There are
3
some challenges with that concept. Some stores don’t allow the leaving of materials and some will, but
won’t keep track of fulfillment.
 Tami stated that she would follow up on whether there is a new customer packet provided to customers when they first request service from Idaho Power and, if so, what is in the packet.
 Simplot encourages their employees to practice energy efficiency in the home as well as at work. They are interested in obtaining the Energy Efficiency kits for their employees. Pete stated that the company
might be able to put them in touch with the supplier of those kits or Simplot’s employees could individually contact Idaho Power to obtain them.

10:36-Commercial/Industrial/Irrigation Update—Quentin Nesbitt
Quentin presented information highlighting the commercial and irrigation programs.
Key points presented:
 Building Efficiency program will far exceed its goals this year because of one very large project that was completed.
 Easy Upgrades program is tracking closely to last year. The company is developing a customer follow up survey in order to improve customer satisfaction. The company is also looking at potential measure
additions and changes.
 Custom Efficiency program projects are up, but savings are down. The company is not overly concerned
about this because there are many projects in the pipeline. The Water Supply Cohort workshop will be
started. Industrial trainings are now being done internally at a lower cost than what NEEA was able to provide.
 Irrigation Efficiency projects and savings are down slightly. This could be due to farm commodity prices being lower.
 Irrigation Peak Rewards enrollment is 102% compared to last year.
 Idaho Power filed to administer the Flex Peak program internally. This has been approved in Oregon and
we are waiting for an order from Idaho. The company will not officially enroll participants until approval
has been received from the IPUC.

11:00-Break
11:10-Residential Program Update—Billie McWinn
Billie presented a brief overview of the residential programs performance through the first trimester of 2015
compared to the first trimester of 2014. She highlighted the Shade Tree program and Energy Efficient Lighting
(Simple Steps-Lighting and Showerheads). She solicited feedback and suggestions from the group regarding Weatherization Solutions (WX Sol), See ya later, refrigerator® (SYLR) and Home Products-Simple Steps.
Key points presented:
4
 The challenge with WX Sol is finding income eligible customers in two of the four regions; Capital and
Eastern.
 Qualifying income levels for this program are 175-200% of the federal poverty level. The number of
people living in the home influences the calculation of the income levels to qualify for the program.
 The program manager works closely with outside agencies and contractors to make this program available
to eligible customers.
 The challenge with the SYLR® is the removal of the financial incentive and low participation. Idaho
Power is researching low or no cost outreach ideas.
 Simple Steps appliances is a BPA promotion based program that includes clothes washers, refrigerators, and freezers. It will be aligned with major buying timeframes and the incentive structure will vary. Some
of the models may or may not be cost-effective.
There were questions and discussion about:
Weatherization Solutions
 South Central Community Action Partnership (SCCAP) has a pipeline of applications that takes them into late summer, early fall. They will be doing marketing mid to late summer. Maybe Idaho Power’s
Education Reps could provide flyers at the schools that students could take home to their parents?
 Senior citizens tend to worry about taking advantage of programs that might prevent someone else from
being able to participate. They may rather see someone else get help then take it themselves. If there is a
cost to participate, it will be a barrier for them. If they understand that saving energy helps everyone they may be more likely to participate so that could be a way to market this program more effectively to them.
 The faith based community might be an area to market to, as a point of contact for seniors. Seniors might go to a pastor for help. If a pastor in a church makes the statement that WX Sol is a good program, it
might make an impact to those who are listening. The pastor could be a very powerful spokesman in the
communities.
 Parrish nurses could be another trusted source that seniors would listen to. Having a multifaceted
approach to reaching seniors is good. This segment of our population is very cautious about being scammed.
 In regards to an incentive. The company could enter everyone who participates into a drawing to win a gift card. This could be a low cost way to encourage people to participate. This is another program where marketing is challenging due to cost-effectiveness concerns. Over arching energy efficiency is good.
Maybe shift some of the marketing costs from the program level to the portfolio level.
See Ya Later, Refrigerator®
 Work with the BLM offices. When they do their television and radio spots they could mention that Idaho
Power will come pickup their units for free.
Simple Steps
 Joint messaging with the water companies could be beneficial for the Simple Steps program.
5
 Since it is up to the retailer to determine how the incentive rolls out once the contract is signed, will Idaho
Power know what that will be? Yes, the company will know what it will be.
 The general consensus of the group is that it sounds like a good program and the company should move
forward. Might be worthwhile to look at this as a pilot program for one year to determine how much this
moved the market and drove sales.

12:20 Lunch
Due to a full agenda and time constraints, the Program Planning presentation was given during lunch. Billie updated the group on Heating & Cooling Efficiency (H&CE), drying racks, Energy Efficiency Kits for High
Schools, and LED’s as promotional giveaways. Two new residential ideas that are being explored are Smart thermostats and residential demand education.
Key points presented:
 The New Ideas name was changed to Program Planning. The initial task was to come up with “ideas” but the intent of this group is to gather new ideas and turn them into program offerings.
 The measures for the H&CE program are on track to launch June 30th. The filing for Oregon is being finalized and should be filed in the next few weeks.
 Highlighted the offering structure, eligible systems, qualifying products, installation and incentive of the Smart Thermostat pilot. Would like feedback from EEAG.
 Discussed that if Idaho Power were to propose modified rate design to introduce demand charges for residential and small general service customers, that could relate to DSM activities in terms of helping customers to manage/reduce their demand. Idaho Power would like input from the EEAG about how best
to educate residential customers regarding their demand and ways to help them manage their demand.
There were questions and discussion about:
Smart Thermostats
 Are these thermostats being looked at for demand response or just energy efficiency? Billie answered that even though they have the capability for demand response, the area of focus is energy efficiency.
 Since they have the capability of demand response, the company might want to consider designing the program up front so it has that ability for demand response growth down the road.
 Will this be a stand-alone program or a measure? Billie answered that hasn’t been decided yet. It could be its own program, or could be a pilot offering with the H&CE program.
 There was discussion about the qualifying installation options; direct install and the DIY install. Idaho Power spoke with many other utilities and those utilities recommend having contractors install these thermostats.
 The general consensus of the group is to start this out as a pilot. A few members would like to see the DIY option down the road. A few members like the idea of packaging this with other programs. There
6
were a couple of suggestions regarding incenting the contractor to install and have them market these
thermostats to customers. The contractor who does the install could give a free tune up as part of the
package.
Residential Demand Education
 The subject of demand is huge and it is a large part of what drives costs. Educating residential customers will have to be made from a very broad perspective, the big picture. Maybe focus on what customers can do at home to reduce their demand.
 The company could do a focus group with customers who participate in A/C Cool Credit. They might
already have an understanding of demand.
 Irrigation customers pay demand charges, so they understand demand, but the average residential customer probably won’t. The company will have to start small and keep it simple in order for customers
to understand this concept. Put a line item on the bill called Demand with no number so people will start
asking questions. You have to think about the people who pay their bill online and never see a paper copy, how will the company communicate this to them?
 When designing rates, there needs to be workshops.
 Customers require context when talking about numbers in order to understand the impact.
 The whole context of future rate design was initiated by concerns about the Fixed Cost Adjustment (FCA). The Company should start small and have analogies that resonate with customers.
1:30 -2014 Impact Evaluation Results for A/C Cool Credit & Peak Rewards—Nick Bengston- CLEAResult
Nick gave an overview of CLEAResult and his role in the company.
Key Points presented:
 Highlighted the Irrigation Peak Rewards program, reviewed the methodology in determining counterfactual realization rate (what would have happened if an event was called), and the goals and
findings of this evaluation.
 The counterfactual realization rate is some of the best information from this evaluation.
 Highlighted the A/C Cool Credit program, the evaluation goals, and using these results to update the predictive calculator that was built in 2012.

2:30 -Marketing Presentation—Bill Shawver, Diana Echeverria, Roberta Rene, and Anne Alenskis
Bill thanked members for calling out the Just Drive Campaign and for recognizing how challenging it is to inform
and educate customers. He gave an overview of marketing and provided his email address to everyone. If anyone
hears, see’s, or has any ideas about ways to market Idaho Power’s programs, please feel free to contact him. Bill also gave the members a homework assignment to be thinking about any marketing tactics that they hear or see
that they think are particularly effective (or in-effective) and he would like to go around the room at the next
meeting to get input and ideas.
7
Key points presented:
 Idaho Power and NEEA meet via conference call once a month to share what campaigns they are working on.
 Highlighted the current marketing tactics; Boise airport signage in concourse B and the baggage carousel,
Boise city bus signage, and Energy Efficiency radio spots.
 Highlighted social media’s role in marketing efforts.
 A new television commercial along with an E-News video was shown to the group.
 Idaho Power and KTVB have put together news segments that highlight energy efficiency.
3:30 -C&I Program Combination Discussion—Quentin Nesbitt
Quentin reviewed the current commercial and industrial program processes. He described each program and how
they are administered and their respective applications.
Key points presented:
 The pros and cons of having a combined program for all three commercial/industrial programs.
 The three different options proposed for combining these programs:
1. Have one program for retrofits & new construction with one application, three supplemental
applications
2. Two programs: one for retrofit with prescriptive measures and custom options and one for new
construction with prescriptive and custom options
3. Keep three programs but have the application and processes the same for all three.
There was feedback from EEAG members about:
 From our past discussions about this a potential issue was customer confusion, not knowing which program they are applying for.
 Has the company conducted surveys to see what customers would like? Not formally, it is more anecdotal information. Customers commenting about how much paperwork there is or why do they have to submit this. Idaho Power has to be able to verify that the work was done.
 Maybe applications could be designed for different customer segments; large and small businesses.
 Marketing should be segmented but the program would be just one. The customer shouldn’t have to be
aware of the mechanics piece.

Rosemary asked the group for parting comments:
8
 It is clear that the company is trying to change program delivery and the way these meetings are run. It
has been a good discussion today.
 Appreciate the company’s attention to detail.
 Appreciate the company asking for specific feedback on the options presented. It allows members to give more useful and helpful ideas.
 This group is spending more time in honest discussion on programs and how they work.

4:00 Meeting Adjourned

1
Energy Efficiency Advisory Group (EEAG) Notes dated August 26th, 2015
Present:
Catherine Chertudi–City of Boise, Public Works Dept. Don Strickler–Simplot
Ken Robinette–South Central Comm. Action Partnership Lynn Young–AARP
Stacey Donohue–Idaho Public Utilities Commission John Chatburn–Office of Energy Resources
Diego Rivas–Northwest Energy Coalition Sid Erwin–Idaho Irrigation Pumpers Association
Quentin Nesbitt–Idaho Power Kent Hanway-CHSQA
Tina Jayaweera–Northwest Power & Conservation
Council
Ben Otto-Idaho Conservation League
Tami White–Idaho Power
Michael Breish-Public Utility Commission of Oregon (via phone)
Guests and Presenters*:
Pete Pengilly*–Idaho Power Cory Read–Idaho Power
Bill Shawver*–Idaho Power Theresa Drake–Idaho Power
Shelley Martin–Idaho Power Andrea Simmonsen–Idaho Power
Mary Hacking–Idaho Power Todd Greenwell–Idaho Power
Darlene Nemnich–Idaho Power Jenny Fraser–Evergreen Economics
Gary Grayson–Idaho Power Ken Miller–Snake River Alliance
Amanda Richards–Honeywell
Mike Youngblood-Idaho Power
Shirley Lindstrom- Northwest Power & Conservation
Council
Kevin Winslow*-Idaho Power
Mark Rogers-Idaho Public Utilities Commission
Becky Arte-Howell-Idaho Power
Denise Humphreys-Idaho Power
Chellie Jensen-Idaho Power
Dennis Merrick-Idaho Power
Patti Best-Idaho Power
Don Reading-ICIP
Anne Alenskis-Idaho Power
Donn English–Idaho Public Utilities Commission
Rick Haener-Idaho Power
Billie McWinn*-Idaho Power
Krista West-Idaho Power
Roberta Rene*-Idaho Power
Robert Everett-Idaho Power
Cheryl Paoli-Idaho Power
Randy Thorn-Idaho Power
Sheree Willhite-Idaho Power
Mindi Shodeen-Idaho Power
Brenda Tominaga-Idaho Pumpers Association
Jennifer Pope-Office of Energy Resources
Mark Stokes*-Idaho Power

Meeting Facilitator:
Rosemary Curtin-RSCI
Recording Secretary:
Shawn Lovewell (Idaho Power) with Kathy Yi (Idaho Power)
Meeting Convened at 9:30am
2
Rosemary and Quentin started the meeting with introductions of guests and members. Two new members have
joined the group. Tina Jayaweera from the NW Power & Conservation Council will be replacing Tom Eckman
and Don Strickler of J.R. Simplot will be replacing Don Sturtevant. Rosemary asked members to review the Summary of EEAG Member Interviews. Several of the recommendations from the interviews will be
implemented at the November EEAG meeting. Rosemary stated that she is discussing additional
recommendations with Idaho Power. The May EEAG meeting notes had been provided to members in advance of the meeting for review. There were no comments or concerns regarding the notes.
9:40 -2015 Financials—Pete Pengilly
Pete presented Appendix 1: The overall status of the Idaho Rider, Oregon Rider, and NEEA payment amounts (January-July 2015) and 2015 DSM Actual Expenses and Preliminary Energy Savings by Program (Jan-July).
There were questions and discussions about:
 In regards to the NEEA payments, do they provide a report regarding their activities? Pete answered that
Idaho Power receives an annual report from NEEA. Idaho Power has a representative on the NEEA Board
of Directors. Additionally many people in the Customer Relations and Energy Efficiency department are part of NEEA advisory committees and are actively involved with them.
 Is there a snapshot of what the Rider funding is now vs. a year ago at this time? Pete answered that he didn’t have an exact number but that he thinks expenses seem to be on track, and he can find out.
9:51- DSM Preliminary Energy Savings by Program—Billie McWinn & Quentin Nesbitt
Billie reviewed the 2015 Year-to-Date Preliminary Savings Residential spreadsheet and Quentin reviewed the 2015 Year-to-Date Preliminary Savings Commercial/Industrial/Irrigation spreadsheet. Billie explained that she
would only be discussing the programs that fell below 90% of year-to-date savings of the same time last year.
Key points presented for the residential portion:
 The Heating & Cooling Efficiency (H&CE) numbers won’t match the financial information by program
that Pete had presented earlier because Ductless Heat Pump has been combined with H&CE.
 EE Lighting is at 89% when compared to savings at the same time last year, but that is due to timing
issues around invoice reconciliation.
 Home Improvement savings were only at 34% of last year at our May meeting. Since that time Idaho
Power has increased marketing efforts; both online and direct mail, the Program Specialist visited with trade allies in the regions and met with Customer Reps on ways to help market the program.
 In order to keep the See ya later, refrigerator® (SYLR) program cost effective, the incentive was
removed. Participation has gone down, but later Billie discussed what is being done to address that.
 The savings numbers for the Student EE Kits can vary due to timing because of the way school year
semesters work. Teachers have a choice of which semester to participate in. Typically fall semester participation is higher so the 2015 savings numbers aren’t reflected in this spreadsheet.
 Billie is looking at a better way to show savings numbers for the Home Products program in the future. 2014 savings included refrigerators & freezers, but those have since been removed. 2015 savings include
3
residual savings from those two items, but now also include showerheads. It isn’t an apple to apples
comparison right now, but moving forward it should be more comparable.
There were questions and discussion about:
 On EE Lighting, does Idaho Power know the breakdown comparison between the CFL vs. LED
incentives? Billie answered that final sales numbers are not available yet, but Idaho Power can provide those to the group at a later time.
 Last year we heard that there were problems in locating eligible homes for the low income program, but the savings numbers show that isn’t the case now. Billie explained that it is a timing issue and how the contractors have allocated their work so the savings is still low.
 In regards to the Home Improvement program, has the company seen that the extra marketing has been effective compared to prior years? Billie stated that the final numbers are still being evaluated.
 There are quite a few programs that are doing really well; the company shouldn’t only focus on the negative. Billie stated that she wanted to make sure the company addressed any concerns that the group
might have.
 Are the 2015 IRP Energy Efficiency goals similar to2014? Pete answered that they are pretty close.
Key points presented for commercial/industrial/irrigation portion:
 Building Efficiency looks very good on a per project basis. The energy savings reflect how just one large project can affect those numbers.
 Easy Upgrades savings are on track. The company is looking to add new measures to the current prescriptive list. Streamlining the customer process for the commercial and industrial programs is still in
development. The company is also continually looking for ways to engage the small businesses.
 The Custom Efficiency program savings are lower than last year right now, but with this program it is a
timing issue. There are some large projects that are expected to come in by the end of the year.
 Irrigation Efficiency is on track. There is some lag with the Custom projects but there aren’t any issues
with the program. BPA is doing a large research study and looking at irrigation scheduling. Idaho Power
hasn’t seen details or costs but is very engaged and ready to participate.
 A workshop for the Municipal Water Supply Cohort will be held late September. It will give prospective
participants detailed information about the program. There will be 4-5 workshops for participants after that. Quentin explained that one of the biggest ways for this type of customer to save energy is through pressure zones. Through this cohort each municipal water system will be analyzed with software
developed by our consultant to identify energy saving potential.
10:13-Break
10:23 -2015 Demand Response Update—Quentin Nesbitt
Quentin updated the group on the three Demand Response (DR) programs.
Key points presented for Irrigation Peak Rewards:
4
 Participants are split into 4 groups so as not to create large divots in the system load.
 The company is moving away from the cell phone devices and going to the AMI system.
 Reductions are lower later in the year as grain comes off irrigation and lower reductions are expected.
There were questions and discussion about:
 Regarding the 62MW of manual irrigation demand response, is that customer preferred and is there any
way to encourage them to move to dispatchable? Quentin explained that manual is allowed if that service point has 1000 hp of connected load. Those customers will nominate an amount that they will shut off. There is no encouragement from Idaho Power to move towards dispatchable. Customers are resistant to
have that type of device on those pumps. These pump stations cannot be turned all the way off.
 Does Idaho Power have data on the average total of manual MW that is participating? Quentin answered
that interval data is available on each customer and they are paid according to their actual reduction. They receive a monthly payment.
 What was the overall realization rate? Quentin stated that it is still being calculated, but it is looking to be
around 70%.
Key Points presented for Flex Peak:
 Preliminary results show a 25 MW reduction for 2 events and 15 MW reduction for the 3rd event.
 Most of the same Flex Peak customers from 2014 enrolled in the program for 2015. Idaho Power would
like feedback and suggestions from EEAG on ideas to increase participation in Flex Peak; especially for the smaller commercial customers.
There were questions and discussion about:
 There was quite a bit of discussion and questions around the type of messaging that is currently being used to market Flex Peak. There were suggestions on changing the messaging so that it is more specific
for the smaller customer vs. the larger customer.
 What type of smaller customer is Idaho Power targeting for this program? Would customers with large
refrigeration be a potential candidate? Quentin answered that the tariff states that the customer would
need to provide 20 kW so it has to be realistic for the customer. Customers who have large refrigeration systems typically won’t participate on the hottest day due to the nature of their business.
 It was suggested that having a “town hall” type meeting or workshop for the small business customer might help with enrollment. Is it possible for the smaller customers to group together to nominate the
20kw? Quentin answered that it is possible for a single customer to combine service locations to do that.
 It was emphasized that someone from Idaho Power should have a peer to peer visit with the state agencies
to explain how Flex Peak has worked for Idaho Power here at the Corporate Building. Explain to the
agencies that it has not been an imposition on employees. He explained that a plaque will be presented to the Parks and Recreation on their recent energy efficiency work at Bruneau State Park. He offered to help
Idaho Power identify the contacts at these state agencies and help with any messaging that might be
needed.
5
 It was suggested that adding testimonials within the marketing mailers could help promote enrollment.
Having a dollar amount savings associated with the amount of kW nominated could also help.
Key points presented for A/C Cool Credit:
 Participation is down since 2013. As directed by the Demand Response Settlement Agreement, Idaho
Power markets to participants who move and customers who have moved into a home that has a switch already installed.
 Idaho Power would like suggestions and feedback from EEAG about marketing to additional groups. Per the Demand Response Settlement Agreement, the company stated that it would meet with EEAG to talk
about participation and marketing of this program.
There were questions and discussion about:
 Are customers who have dropped out of the program being asked why they leave? Quentin answered yes
along with trying to convince them to remain enrolled in the program. Customers usually answer that they are too hot.
 How many customers have dropped out because they have purchased a higher efficiency a/c unit? The Program Specialist answered that there aren’t very many customers that cite that as a reason.
 Looks like it might be time to increase marketing to maintain previous participation levels.
 Marketing to new customers or first time homebuyers could be a good opportunity.
11:30 Program Planning—Billie McWinn
Billie explained the updates to existing programs and the new offerings. The topics listed in red on the slides are where she would like specific feedback from EEAG.
Key points presented:
 There are three new measures that have been incorporated into the Heating & Cooling Efficiency
(H&CE) program. There is a participating contractor list and there are currently four contractors signed
up. A bill insert will be mailed out in September. At the next EEAG meeting more information on participation should be available.
 The company is now using LED’s as a giveaway when picking up refrigerators for the SYLR program. This started in June and since then a bill insert along with a television ad have run. There isn’t any measurable data yet, but by the next EEAG meeting there should be something to report.
 At a previous meeting EEAG members provided feedback on whether or not Idaho Power should participate in the promotion based activity, Simple Steps. One of the target dates was July 4th, but Sears
opted out due to internal changes. Sears will participate in the Labor Day promotion and they are the only participant for that date. Best Buy is no longer participating in the Black Friday event and Lowe’s is hesitant. They want to see how it works before they commit. Idaho Power is providing point of purchase
material and CLEAResult is doing the majority of the marketing.
 The new offerings and new opportunities; Energy Savings Kits, Smart Thermostats, Home Improvement,
and Home Energy Audit were discussed and EEAG members were asked for feedback.
6
There were questions and discussion about:
 Energy Savings Kits
- Is cost effectiveness of each measure or the whole kit being looked at? Billie answered that both are being evaluated.
- Will there be a way to follow up with customers after the kit is delivered to see if the contents were actually installed? Billie stated that it she is looking into that but nothing is in place yet.
- When will these kits be ready for customers? Billie stated that the company is looking at the end
of quarter one, 2016.
 Smart Thermostats
- How much would the installation for this measure be? The installation could range between $100-$300 for product and labor.
- When a smart thermostat is purchased, customers can buy them with or without a contract for
ongoing data sharing service. Customer would provide their data to the provider and the provider would then provide prompts. Idaho Power would like feedback from EEAG on the concept of the
service provider data sharing.
- Would Idaho Power require this of customers who participate? Billie answered that right now, the inclination of the company is to not require this.
- Someone suggested that the company could offer a higher incentive for the customers who
choose to sign up with the service provider vs. those who don’t.
- Since this is a pilot, it might be good to have the two groups to evaluate what the savings
differences are.
- Could Idaho Power be the third party provider for customers? Pete answered that it would be hard to obtain the data since it is proprietary to the manufacturer. The Program Specialist added that
the function the third party performs would require a separate business unit.
- Under a pilot designation, the company would have more flexibility in a two tiered approach.
- The option of choice is important for customers.
- Would the pilot have participation limits? Billie answered that it will be available throughout the company’s service territory with no limitations on the number of customers.
- Does the company have a goal for participation or amounts? Billie stated that those haven’t been
determined.
12:05 Lunch
12:52-Meeting Reconvened. Program planning presentation continued.
 Home Improvement Program
7
- Billie asked the group for feedback on whether or not Idaho Power should actively market to
multifamily especially with the uncertainty around the Regional Technical Forum (RTF) savings
numbers in the future.
- What is the definition of a multifamily building? The Program Specialist answered that it is four
stories or higher.
- Most of the tenants in a multifamily building are renters so the building owner would need to be targeted, not the tenant. It was emphasized to not put this out as a marketing piece but rather just
go directly to building owners.
- One member stated that she didn’t think the RTF multifamily savings applies to high rises but that it’s for the garden style buildings. Another member stated that this should be followed up
with RTF to confirm the right application.
 Home Energy Audit
- Billie asked for feedback if Idaho Power should offer this to gas-heated customers and not just the
all-electric customer.
- Even though it might not be cost-effective, it can increase awareness and participation in all
programs. This is one of the best ways to reach customers. Has reached out to the local gas
company to see if they want to partner in this? Billie stated that the company hasn’t yet reached out.
- This would be an excellent service to provide. This could be a great opportunity to get people to change their behavior and I commend Idaho Power for considering this.
- Idaho Power will need to educate the auditors about which customers can and cannot participate
in incentive programs.
- This is a great idea. There is electric savings in gas homes that hasn’t been obtained and this could be a great way to get it.

Tami gave a brief update on the residential demand education. Since the last EEAG meeting, this has continued to be evaluated. There hasn’t been any decisions made on this, but Idaho Power plans on gauging customer reaction
and acceptance to a three part rate design. This will include stakeholder discussion and customer focus groups. This would happen before any decision by Idaho Power is made. One member asked if the demand charge would
replace the Fixed Cost Adjustment (FCA). Tami answered that as more of the collection of fixed costs is moved
out of the energy charge and into the demand charge the FCA would reduced accordingly.
1:18-C&I Custom Efficiency Evaluation—Jenny Fraser/Evergreen Economics
Evergreen Economics performed a process and impact evaluation on the Custom Efficiency program. Today’s
presentation will focus on the impact evaluation.
Key points presented:
 The evaluation was for the 2013 program year and the incentive values are from 2013 as well.
8
 73 total projects were looked at. No lighting projects were selected for site visits because Idaho Power
already had documented inspections on a large portion of projects
 The process evaluation focused on the streamlined offering, the wastewater cohort, and the refrigerator
operator cohort. The high level conclusion is that participants have a high level of satisfaction. The
networking aspect for participants of the cohorts was a side benefit that wasn’t initially expected but they are happy with those results.
There were questions and discussion about:
 Were the original savings estimates based on preliminary or final applications? Jenny answered that the
energy savings is based on final applications.
 Did Idaho Power already include the HVAC interactions in their calculations? Jenny stated that the
calculator Idaho Power was using did not include those.
 During the site visits, how was baseline data collected? Jenny answered that there was some baseline information in the documentation but most of it was confirmed with the facility through discussions with
site personnel in order to verify savings.
 How does this evaluation for Idaho Power compare to other utilities’ evaluations? Jenny stated that you
want to see as close to 100% realization rate as possible. With Idaho power there was great
documentation and overall in relation to other utilities the results are very good.

1:55-Program Marketing—Bill Shawver
Bill highlighted what would be covered during his presentation. He emphasized to the group again about emailing him with ideas on marketing throughout the year and not just during the EEAG meetings.
Key points presented:
 Idaho Power is in the early stages of revamping its website.
 Looking into sub-branding the energy efficiency portfolio. Idaho Power doesn’t want the sub brand to become the brand but rather enhance it. Would like feedback from EEAG on the concept of sub branding.
 Social media and marketing efforts were presented along with some radio and television ads.

There were questions and discussion about:
 The idea of a sub brand is a good idea, but caution was given in choosing its name. The name is one of
the most important aspects of drawing people to the brand and takes a lot of planning and research.
9
 With the Curb It sub brand, the City of Boise has learned that the program is the same in its’ gut whether
or not you are at home, work, school, or play. What you can do at home for recycling you can do anywhere. That brand brings everyone to the program and it can be touched in different ways.
 Has research been done on what types of wording and images people respond to for the marketing pieces
and if so, where does that information come from? The Marketing Specialist answered that people respond to the words; “saving money” and “comfort.” That information has come from E Source, JD
Power, Burke, using the empowered community, and in talking with other utilities.
 A suggestion was made that people respond better to a dollar sign than a percentage sign. Telling people
that they would save 2-3% on their energy bill might not resonate strongly with customers since the cost
of energy is inexpensive here in Idaho. Finding a different way to get that message across might have more impact.

3:07 -IRP Discussion—Mark Stokes
Mark thanked those that participated in the Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) process and appreciates everyone
sticking around for this presentation.
Key points presented:
 The IRP is a regulatory requirement and it is updated every 2 years.
 The purpose of the IRP is so that utilities can plan how they expect to provide service to customers for the
next 20 years.
There were questions and discussion about:
 There has been a lot of talk about demand response at today’s meeting. The discussions we have in these
meetings play out in the IRP process. The current portfolio counts on the company getting a certain level of energy efficiency and demand response.
3:42-Wrap up—Rosemary Curtin
Rosemary asked EEAG members for parting comments.
 It was a good meeting, but it was pretty full so please provide more time in the agenda for discussion.
Appreciated the red highlighted questions in the presentations. Really enjoyed the IRP discussion.
 Liked the tie to the IRP discussion
 Maybe mic the presenter so the person on the phone could hear the presentation.
 It was a great meeting. I learned a lot.
 Appreciated Quentin’s presentation. It’s nice to see the longer picture and broader trends. It was nice to see affirmation that realization rates for the Custom Efficiency program were so good.
10
 Would like to see follow-up on the MOU and where it is in the timeline. Maybe at the next meeting we
can get an update.
 Appreciate that 44% of advertising is focused on energy efficiency.
 Excited to see the new programs/offerings roll out.
 This meeting was improved from the last one I attended remotely, I could hear well. Quentin’s
presentation was good, but we only had 10 minutes to discuss program participation. Felt like we should have had more time on that for productive discussion.
Rosemary thanked everyone for their comments and stated that the next EEAG Meeting would be held on
November 5th.
3:47 Meeting Adjourned

1
Energy Efficiency Advisory Group (EEAG) Notes dated November 5th, 2015
Present:
Catherine Chertudi–City of Boise, Public Works Dept. Don Strickler–Simplot
Ken Robinette–South Central Comm. Action Partnership Ben Otto-Idaho Conservation League
Stacey Donohue–Idaho Public Utilities Commission John Chatburn–Office of Energy Resources
Diego Rivas–Northwest Energy Coalition Sid Erwin–Idaho Irrigation Pumpers Association
Tami White–Idaho Power
Michael Breish-Public Utility Commission of Oregon
Tina Jayaweera (via phone)–Northwest Power & Conservation Council
Kent Hanway-CSHQA

Quentin Nesbitt*–Idaho Power

Not Present:
Lynn Young–AARP

Guests and Presenters*:
Pete Pengilly*–Idaho Power Cory Read–Idaho Power
Lisa Nordstrom–Idaho Power Theresa Drake–Idaho Power
Shelley Martin–Idaho Power Roberta Rene*–Idaho Power
Phil Devol–Idaho Power Lynn Tominaga-Idaho Irrigation Pumpers Association
Bill Shawver*–Idaho Power Brenda Tominaga–Idaho Irrigation Pumpers Assoc.
Shirley Lindstrom–Northwest Power & Conservation
Council
Aaron Jarr–Franklin Energy
Denise Humphreys-Idaho Power
Don Reading–ICIP
Peter Richardson-ICIP
Susan Klein-Idaho Power
Mary Hacking-Idaho Power
Tracey Burtch-Idaho Power
Cheryl Paoli-Idaho Power
Connie Aschenbrenner-Idaho Power
Matt Larkin-Idaho Power
Barb Ryan*-Applied Energy Group Inc (via phone)
Donn English–Idaho Public Utilities Commission
Darlene Nemnich-Idaho Power
Anne Alenskis-Idaho Power
Zeke VanHooser-Idaho Power
Billie McWinn*-Idaho Power
Robert Everett-Idaho Power
Mindi Shodeen-Idaho Power
Craig Williamson*-Applied Energy Group Inc
Chad Worth-Energy Solutions

Meeting Facilitator:
Rosemary Curtin (RBCI)
Recording Secretary:
Shawn Lovewell (Idaho Power) with Kathy Yi (Idaho Power)
2
Meeting Convened at 9:32am
Rosemary and Quentin started the meeting with introductions of guests and members. There were no comments or
questions on the notes from the August meeting. Rosemary passed out a comment sheet to members. If there was something that didn’t get addressed during the meeting, she asked that they add it to the comment sheet and it
would get picked up after the meeting.
Tami addressed the group regarding a follow up item from the August meeting. There had been a question about what was included in a new customer information packet. She passed out a copy of the letter that Idaho Power
sends to new and existing customers that move to a new address. A copy of this letter was sent to Tina Jayaweera
because she participated in the meeting by phone. Tami also followed up the topic of rate design. Idaho Power is continuing to evaluate, looking at system capabilities and engaging with stakeholders. No final decisions have
been made on this. The last follow up item is regarding the status of the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). Idaho Power met with staff at the Idaho Public Utilities Commission (IPUC), Avista, and Rocky Mountain Power in July. It was concluded that rather than update the current MOU, the IPUC staff would prepare a memo to the
utilities on how prudency would be evaluated and determined. Stacey added that this memo is circulating at the
commission.
Theresa updated the group regarding reply comments that Idaho Power filed on the Integrated Resource Plan. The
comments did not include a citation which led to stakeholder confusion on Idaho Power’s commitment to pursuing all cost effective energy efficiency. Theresa wanted to clarify and reaffirm that the company’s commitment to pursue all cost effective energy efficiency has not changed. Ben indicated that what concerned
him was the statement that there was no potential beyond the achievable. He felt that was incorrect and stated that Idaho Power has gotten above achievable and remained cost effective. Theresa thanked him for calling attention
to what was missing in the comments. Ben encouraged the group to look at the ACEEE document that was cited.
9:44 a.m.-2015 Financials—Pete Pengilly
Pete presented Appendix 1: The overall status of the Idaho Rider, Oregon Rider, and NEEA payment amounts
(Jan-Sept 2015), Appendix 2: 2015 DSM Actual Expenses and Preliminary Energy Savings by program (Jan-
Sept), and DSM Expenses by Program.
There were questions and discussions about:
 In regards to Appendix 2, what part of Flex Peak is in base rates? Pete answered that it is the Idaho incentives. In Oregon the incentives come out of the rider. In Idaho demand response program incentives
are included in base rates and tracked through the annual Power Cost Adjustment (PCA).
 In regards to the DSM Expenses by Program slide, the group would like to see the energy savings included on this sheet but realizes there’s a lot on the sheet.
9:58 a.m.-Commercial Program Performance YTD—Quentin Nesbitt
Quentin updated the group on the commercial, industrial and irrigation programs.
Key points presented for the commercial and industrial portion:
 The commercial and industrial programs are at 155% YTD savings compared to last year. There aren’t as many big projects in the pipeline so November and December will not be as big as last year.
 The current lighting tool will be updated once Easy Upgrades, Building Efficiency & Custom Efficiency are combined into one program.
3
 Quentin asked the group for input and feedback in coming up with a new name for the
Commercial/Industrial Program Combination. Idaho Power has not decided on a name yet. He showed slide 11 which had some word concepts that the company has brainstormed.
There were questions and discussions about:
 If there is variability in these programs and they are hard predict, does it make sense to do a 2 year trend line so you capture some of that variability? It might help with planning and rollout. Quentin answered
that in the last few years it has been consistent in the Custom Efficiency program whereas Building Efficiency has had more variability. There is a lot of overlap so maybe looking at each program individually isn’t the best. It is one of the reasons the company is looking at combining these programs.
 In regards to the Easy Upgrades program and the new measures being looked at for the combined program, are the deemed savings based on Idaho Power doing its own calculations and then making the
decision? Quentin answered yes and in addition to that, the company reviews the Technical Resource
Manual that a third party developed for Idaho Power and asks for measures to be evaluated and added but does not necessarily always wait on the addition in order to make a decision.
 There was discussion about extra effort required by contractors in the current lighting tool when LED options are chosen. Quentin stated that proposed program modifications will fix this issue. LED project
savings will be easier to calculate and review once these changes take place. In the past, there have not
been all the options for LED’s that we are seeing now.
 It was suggested, on the Custom Efficiency slide (9), that it would be more helpful to show a percentage
of the year instead of a year to date comparison.
 In regards to coming up with a new program name, one member suggested Energy Strategies @work. The
name might imply more than just incentives and include an educational component. Another member stated that for commercial/industrial customers, “energy efficiency” is a big term. He also liked the term
“@work” because it was all encompassing. He didn’t like the term “Institutional.” Quentin stated that if
any of the members had other ideas or suggestions to email him.
Key points presented for the irrigation portion:
 Irrigation Efficiency is at 81% of YTD 2014 savings. Commodity prices could be a factor. There are a number of crops that irrigators grow that aren’t worth what they were in the past. Idaho Power still conducts workshops, marketing, and customer knowledge seems to be high. There will be more
workshops and the company will continue to do newsletters.
 Quentin asked for input and feedback from the group on a potential tariff change for Irrigation Peak
Rewards program to move customers to a one-way option. The one way option is more cost efficient as
the annual fees for cell devices exceeds new AMI device cost. The manual option would be allowed when communication is not available.
There were questions and discussion about:
 Commodity prices could have something to do with the lack of participation in Irrigation Efficiency, but
some of the non-participants are waiting to see if the program actually works before they sign up.
 Do you think that focusing on the success stories would help those that don’t participate to see that it does
work? Quentin stated that the company uses that strategy, especially in the workshops.
4
 In regards to the different options in Irrigation Peak, one member said the two way option should be
eliminated. These pumps can be accessed remotely and irrigators can drive out and access them directly. He is also in favor of moving to the AMI devices.
 With the one-way option, would Idaho Power get information on the pumps that it turns off? Quentin
answered that the AMI data shows that the pump is shut down. With the cell phone system, it logs that the pump was shut off. The company has to request a query from the third party and then sift through that
data.
 It would seem that the two-way option offers benefits to the irrigator. Maybe they should pay some
incremental costs if they want to keep the cell phone system.
 Does Idaho Power know what the cost savings is? Quentin stated that it would depend on how many
devices would need to stay on cell service. The contract has a base amount so there is not a flat per device
savings.
11:02 a.m-Residential Planning Update/Discussion—Billie McWinn
Billie provided information on year-to-date savings and participation for all residential programs and a detailed
look at the Home Improvement program, A/C Cool Credit, and See ya later, refrigerator® (SYLR).
Key points presented:
 Billie reported that the residential programs are doing well this year; overall year-to-date savings at 107% of 2014.
 SYLR has experienced a decline in participation despite an increased effort in marketing and a concentrated digital campaign. The Regional Technical Forum (RTF) updated savings numbers that have lowered even further. Idaho Power has reached out to another recycling company for competitive pricing
information.
 At the end of 2014 the federal tax credit expired which could be one of the reasons why the Home
Improvement program has experienced a decrease in participation in 2015. The marketing for this
program has increased substantially in 2015 and will continue. Members of EEAG provided feedback at the last meeting to include multifamily in the marketing materials.
 Current participation in the A/C Cool Credit program is down to less than 30,000 customers. At the August EEAG meeting, the company solicited members for feedback on marketing and program
participation. Although the settlement agreement precludes us from actively marketing to new customers, there is a group of customers that dropped out of the program between suspension and settlement that we are now marketing to. Billie passed around examples of a postcard campaign.
There were questions and discussion about:
 Make sure that the multifamily buildings that are being marketed to in Home Improvement haven’t
already been weatherized in either WAQC or Weatherization Solutions. Billie stated that while there
could be potential for overlap, the Program Specialists for Home Improvement and Weatherization are working together to ensure there is no duplication.
 Is there a way for Idaho Power to include in the new customer letter, a pamphlet about the A/C Cool Credit program? Could those customers be isolated according to the guidelines and restrictions of the
5
settlement? Billie answered that Idaho Power knows which customers fall within the settlement
restrictions and they have been sent marketing information. Revisiting the settlement boundaries and
marketing to new customers is encouraged, at least from the Oregon side. Quentin stated that in regards to the 390 MW of DR included in the Integrated Resource Plan (IRP), it is really causing surpluses for
multiple years in the future. The primary purpose of the settlement was to include a minimum amount of
DR even when there isn’t a need identified in the IRP.
11:30 a.m.-Program Planning Update/Discussion—Billie McWinn
Billie presented an update on the new offerings for the Heating & Cooling Efficiency program (H&CE) and the
drying racks. The areas in blue on the slides are where she would like discussion and feedback from the group.
Key points presented:
 The new offerings for H&CE were incorporated in June of this year. The contractor network list for Single Family Home Duct Sealing has six contractors enrolled. Once the contractor network is more fully
developed the marketing push will start.
 The implementation of smart thermostats will be first quarter of 2016. There will be a qualifying products
list and will require contractor installation.
 The drying racks have arrived, fifteen pallets in Boise and ten pallets in Pocatello. Interested customers have signed up to be notified when the racks will be available. Idaho Power will send out a notification of
the time and place and it will be on a first-come-first-served basis. Billie asked for feedback on whether the company should follow up with customers in six months or one year. She explained the pros and cons of both.
 The company is looking into an “opt-out” option for the Energy Savings Kits (ESK) for a small number of customers. A postcard would be sent to them and if it was returned then they wouldn’t get the kit.
Billie is asking for feedback from the group.
 Billie explained the Multi-family offering that is being considered and asked the group for feedback on
contractor install vs. facilities install.
There were questions and discussion about:
 Because the company is asking people to change behavior by using a drying rack, sending out frequent
prompts would be helpful. It might be better to wait longer on the survey in order to collect better data.
 Waiting six months to do a survey should be adequate. Having prompts would be a good idea.
 The key with the ESK’s is getting customers to install the items that that they receive, so focus on the best way to make that happen.
 The opt-out option programmatically has higher savings while the opt-in provides better per unit savings. One member stated that they favored the “opt- out” approach.
 Avista had something similar a few years ago where customers could opt-out. It was pretty successful with a lot of savings associated with it.
6
 Just sending it to customers hoping they install isn’t a good idea. The company should do either opt-in or
opt-out to help insure installation.
 Including a postcard that has messaging about potential money savings if installed might be helpful. Even
something on the outside of the box to grab their attention.
 The opt-out option gets these items into the hands of customers who might not try this on their own.
 There have been other utilities that have these types of programs that are successful. It might be a good idea to look at those to make informed decisions.
 There was discussion concerning the multi-family direct install and whether the measures should be installed by building facility personnel or a contractor. Tenants might be more willing to participate in the facility install approach as they trust the building owners and landlords who already have a key to the
unit.
 There might be a better success rate if the property manager is involved instead of a facility manager.
They typically have more than one facility to manage, so coordination could be an issue.
 Both options could be available. If the property doesn’t have someone on-site to do the installs, a
contractor could be used instead.
 QA could be done by a third party to ensure that the items have been installed.
12:00- Lunch
1:00 Meeting Reconvened
1:00 p.m.-Residential Program Evaluations—Craig Williamson and Barb Ryan (via phone), Applied Energy Group (AEG)
Craig presented the results of the Residential Programs Evaluation. The programs that were evaluated were the Ductless Heat Pump (DHP) Pilot, Home Improvement Program (HIP), and See Ya Later, Refrigerator® (SYLR).
This is a historical look at what the savings were and how the programs operated in 2014.
Key Points Presented for DHP:
 Both an Impact and Process evaluations were performed on all three programs.
 Results for both evaluations of the DHP Pilot were favorable. A few adjustments were needed on the Non-Electric Benefits (NEBs). The cost of money calculations were done differently than specified by the
RTF. Also, savings depends on different climate zones. Because some zip codes have more than one climate zone, a few customers were assigned to an incorrect climate zone which resulted in a reduction of savings.
 Customers were not surveyed for these evaluations.
 Idaho Power is already doing the majority of the standard best practices and has implemented some of the
recommendations since the evaluation was completed.
There were questions and discussion about:
7
 What are examples of NEBs? Craig answered that NEBs are what the RTF says they are. They are usually
things not related directly to energy savings but rather health and comfort.
 Does AEG get any more granular to find out if certain low income customers are not pursuing incentives?
Craig stated that they didn’t go to that level of detail. That would require intensive surveying and it
wasn’t part of the scope of this evaluation.
 How common are DHP’s in new construction? Craig stated that they are not a huge part of the energy
efficiency portfolio across the country. They are more common in the Northwest due to the RTF. Barb added that a utility in Maine and Connecticut offer DHPs for new construction.
 DHP’s could be extremely beneficial in multi-family development. Most of these housing types use baseboard heat because it is the cheapest to install.
Key points presented for HIP:
 This program more than doubled its savings goal. Most utilities have a goal; they meet this goal and then stop which translates to missed opportunities. Idaho Power didn’t do this, they doubled their goal.
 In the past, the RTF did not quantify NEB’s but Idaho Power will use them if available.
Key points presented for SYLR:
 This program surpassed its goals and achieved a 100% realization rate. It is a very well run program and complies with most of the best practices in the industry.
 It is easy to come up with recommendations for a poorly run program, but can be a challenge for exceptionally well run programs such as this. One recommendation is to decrease the time it takes to pick up a unit. This could be done by looking at different promotional ideas.
There were questions and discussion about:
 Are NEBs included in the cost analysis? Yes, if available. The information used for this evaluation was
from 2014 which didn’t have NEBs included in some RTF workbook.
 Marketing material could demonstrate how a customer could save money by not dumping their
refrigerator at the landfill.
 A neighborhood blitz could be organized. Customers could be informed that Jaco will be in their
neighborhood on a certain date to pick up old units. Barb stated that could be worth considering, but there
are specific requirements on having someone home when Jaco comes to pick up.
2:04 –Program Marketing—Bill Shawver
Bill introduced the new Marketing Specialist, Tracey Burtch. Bill thanked one of the EEAG members for his
ongoing communications with him and referenced a comment made by another EEAG member earlier about the increase in dollars spent for the residential programs. This was due to an increase in marketing activities.
Key points presented:
 In early 2016 the company will take a deeper dive into behavioral motivators and campaign messaging.
8
 Utilities are moving away from “apps” and moving toward adaptive and responsive web presence so the
web can adapt to the device a customer is using.
 An exchange of ideas and information is encouraged so please contact Corporate Communications if you
have something to share.
 The marketing for energy efficiency awareness campaigns, online panel findings and 2016 planning were
reviewed. The EEAG members were asked for campaign ideas.
There were questions and discussion about:
 Has Idaho Power done movie theater ads? Roberta answered that the company did some about two years
ago for HIP.
 In the past there has been advertising in stores, such as a cling, directing people to look at the more energy
efficient products. Roberta stated that is something the company is looking at. It can be a challenge to work with the big box stores to allow outside marketing.
 There could be a positive spillover by utilizing the smaller stores even if you aren’t able to get into the
larger box stores.
 Look at church or community groups.
 The key to behavioral motivators isn’t what customers say, but what is actually motivating them to action.
Usually the revealed preference is completely different that what really motivated them to act. Bill stated
that the company would be looking at the best practices and what is happening on a national level.
 In response to slide 11 (Consistent Look and Feel), for residential customers, the company should find a
core message and value that it wants them to focus on instead of targeting each program.
 For example, for recycling we say, “We want you to know that you can do the same thing at home, work,
and play.”
2:45-Break.
3:00-Future EE Measure Savings, IRP Avoided Costs & Cost Effectiveness—Kathy Yi
Kathy presented program and measure cost effectiveness assumptions, cost effectiveness tests, changes to the
savings assumptions for measures in the current programs, and anticipated savings changes impacting 2017. This presentation is to get these issues on the radar.
Key points presented:
 For the current 2015 program year, 2013 IRP DSM Alternative costs are being used.
 A Technical Reference Manual (TRM) was developed by a third party for use by the commercial programs on items that the RTF doesn’t look at.
 Version 1.7 of the TRM will have different savings for new construction and major renovation projects
that fall under the 2009 International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) and 2012 IECC.
9
 Idaho Power freezes savings and cost assumptions during budgets. The 2016 budgets were set in August.
The RTF has met twice since August and has approved changes on a few measures which will impact planning for 2017
There were questions and discussion about:
 I found this presentation very useful to look out in the future as to what to expect for programs.
 This was very helpful in allowing stakeholders to see what utilities have to deal with when planning
programs.
3:25-Open Discussion—Quentin Nesbitt
 At the last EEAG meeting, the company asked for input and ideas from members on how to increase participation in the Flex Peak program. Could Idaho Power offer coaching opportunities to the facilities
that participate? Quentin stated that Idaho Power does provide some coaching to facilities after an event.
 One EEAG member shared that the coaching that EnerNOC provided was not well received within certain facilities. Receiving multiple emails and calls wasn’t working and facility staff stated that if they
kept getting that type of “coaching” they would no longer participate in the program. Prior to the demand response season, the different facilities receive an email discussing the Flex Peak program and a review of the prior season.
 Having other companies that currently participate in Flex Peak, share their lessons learned could be a valuable coaching opportunity.
 It would be interesting to learn about Idaho Power’s budget setting process. Quentin gave a high level summary of how the Customer Relations & Energy Efficiency department plans its budget.
Rosemary asked for parting comments:
 I like the open discussion portion of the meeting. I like that we stayed with the agenda and like that the
lunch was brought in. Kudos to the marketing department on Weatherization Solutions. One suggestion
for the marketing material, if there is a way to make it clearer that this program is for electrically heated homes that would save on some unnecessary phone calls.
 Appreciate having the open discussion, enjoyed Kathy’s presentation on what is happening in savings going forward. I liked the clarification on a few items. Programs look good and exceeding goals, company is doing a good job.
 Congratulations to Quentin and Zeke in successfully implementing and managing the Flex Peak program.
 It was a great meeting. The topics that Billie and Quentin cover should have more time and flexibility
built in for more discussion.
 Liked the number of topics. It was a full agenda but not over filled. The company does a good job at
soliciting feedback from members, but there needs to be a more concise way to hear what is done with that feedback.
 Like the meeting format change and will continue to stress the multi family issue. Earlier in the year the company did a good job presenting on new ideas and next steps. Would like to continue seeing that.
10
 I liked all the comments and open discussion. Maybe focus less on trying to fit everything in on the
agenda.
 I enjoyed the program evaluations. It’s a reality check of how the programs are doing and if they are
running as they are supposed to.
 Would like to hear more about the evaluation plan in the future.
Rosemary stated that dates for the 2016 EEAG Meetings will be sent out in the next few weeks.
4:02 Meeting Adjourned

Supplement 2: Evaluation Idaho Power Company
Page 44 Demand-Side Management 2015 Annual Report
This page left blank intentionally.

NEEA Market Effects Evaluations
Idaho Power Company Supplement 2: Evaluation
Demand-Side Management 2015 Annual Report Page 45
NEEA MARKET EFFECTS EVALUATIONS
Table 1. 2015 NEEA Market Effects Evaluations
Report Title Sector Analysis Performed by Study Manager Study/Evaluation Type
2013–2014 Northwest Residential Lighting Long-Term Tracking Study Residential DNV GL-Energy NEEA Assessment
2014 Energy Savings for the Commercial Real Estate Strategic Energy Management Cohorts Commercial Cadmus NEEA Impact
2014–2015 Northwest Residential Lighting Long-Term Market Tracking Study Residential DNV GL-Energy NEEA Market Assessment
Agricultural Irrigation Initiative: Data Exchange
Standards
Irrigation Next Chapter Marketing NEEA Assessment
Agricultural Irrigation Initiative: Grower Experience Irrigation Next Chapter Marketing NEEA Assessment
Agricultural Irrigation Initiative: Instrumentation and Hardware Best Practices in Precision Agriculture Irrigation Western AgTech Solutions NEEA Assessment
Agricultural Irrigation Initiative: Overview Irrigation Next Chapter Marketing NEEA Assessment
Agricultural Irrigation Initiative: Overview of Center Pivot Irrigation Systems Irrigation New Chapter Marketing NEEA Overview
Agricultural Irrigation Initiative: Pivot Evaluation Best Practices Irrigation Western AgTech Solutions NEEA Assessment
Agricultural Irrigation Initiative: Precision Water Application Test Irrigation Oregon State University NEEA Assessment
Agricultural Irrigation Initiative: Soil Science and the Basics of Irrigation Management Irrigation Western AgTech Solutions NEEA Assessment
Agricultural Irrigation Initiative: The Future of Agricultural Irrigation Irrigation Irrigation for the Future NEEA Assessment
Agricultural Irrigation Initiative: Using Soil Electrical Conductivity Mapping for Precision Irrigation in the Columbia Basin
Irrigation Oregon State University NEEA Assessment
BOC—Expansion Initiative Market Progress Evaluation Report #2 Commercial Research Into Action NEEA Market Assessment
BOC—Expansion Initiative Market Progress Evaluation Report #3 Commercial Research Into Action NEEA Market Assessment
Business Case, Economic Modeling, and Market Channel Improvements Irrigation Next Chapter Marketing NEEA Assessment
Commercial Real Estate (CRE) Market Test Assessment: Understanding Delivery, Partnership Strategies and Program Channels
Commercial New Buildings Institute NEEA Market Assessment
Commercial Real Estate Participant Cohorts Market Progress Report Commercial Cadmus Group NEEA Market Assessment
Consumer Messaging for Ductless Heat Pumps and Heat Pump Water Heaters Residential ILLUME Advising, LLC NEEA Assessment
CRES Initiative Market Test Assessment Final Report Commercial Research Into Action NEEA Impact
Establishing the Market Baseline for Super-Efficient Dryers Residential Cadmus Group NEEA Market Baseline
Evaluation of Key Alliance Cost Effectiveness Model
Assumptions for Commissioning
Commercial Cadmus Group NEEA Model Assessment
Evaluation of Key Alliance Cost Effectiveness Model Assumptions for Motor Rewinds Industrial Cadmus Group NEEA Model Assessment
Existing Building Renewal Montana and Idaho Savings Validation 2014 Results Commercial Navigant NEEA Impact
Heat Pump Water Heater Model Validation Study Residential Ecotope, Inc. NEEA Assessment
Hospitals and Healthcare Initiative Market Progress Evaluation Report #7 Commercial Evergreen Economics NEEA Market Assessment
Supplement 2: Evaluation Idaho Power Company
Page 46 Demand-Side Management 2015 Annual Report
Influence Assessment: Establishing Data Exchange Standards Among Irrigation Manufacturers Irrigation Cadmus Group NEEA Influence Assessment
Laboratory Assessment of GE GEH50DFEJSRA Heat Pump Water Heater Residential Ecotope, Inc. NEEA Lab Assessment
Next Step Home Builder Focus Groups Residential Curtis Research Associates NEEA Assessment
Northwest Ductless Heat Pump Initiative: Market Progress Evaluation Report #4 Residential ILLUME Advising, LLC NEEA Market Assessment
Northwest Food Processors Association Energy Savings Model Review Commercial Energy 350 NEEA Impact
Northwest Heat Pump Water Heater Initiative Market Progress Evaluation Report #1 Residential Evergreen Economics NEEA Market Assessment
Reduced Watt Lamp Replacement Market Characterization and Baseline
Commercial Cadeo Group NEEA Baseline Assessment
Reduced Wattage Lamp Replacement Market Test Assessment Report Commercial Opinion Dynamics NEEA Market Assessment
Television Initiative MPER #4 Residential Research Into Action NEEA Market Assessment
For NEEA reports, see the CD included at the back of this supplement.

Integrated Design Lab
Idaho Power Company Supplement 2: Evaluation
Demand-Side Management 2015 Annual Report Page 47
INTEGRATED DESIGN LAB
Table 2. 2015 Integrated Design Lab
Report Title Sector Analysis Performed by Study Manager Type
2015 Task 1: Foundational Services Summary of Projects Commercial Integrated Design Lab Idaho Power Summary
2015 Task 1.8: Heat Pump Calculator Summary of Progress Residential/Commercial Integrated Design Lab Idaho Power Summary
2015 Task 2: Lunch and Learn Summary of Effort and Outcomes Commercial/Industrial Integrated Design Lab Idaho Power Summary
2015 Task 3: Commercial Real Estate Support Summary of Efforts and Outcomes Commercial Integrated Design Lab Idaho Power Summary
2015 Task 4: BSUG Summary of Effort and Outcomes
Commercial Integrated Design Lab Idaho Power Summary
2015 Task 5: Building Efficiency Verifications Summary of Projects Commercial/Industrial Integrated Design Lab Idaho Power Summary
2015 Task 6: Tool Loan Library Summary of Effort and Outcomes Commercial Integrated Design Lab Idaho Power Summary
2015 Task 7: Building Metrics Labeling Summary of Effort and Outcomes Commercial Integrated Design Lab Idaho Power Summary
2015 Task 9: Technical Assistance Whole House Fan Residential Integrated Design Lab Idaho Power Analysis
2015 Task 10: IBOA/IFMA Support
Summary of Effort and Outcomes
Commercial/Industrial Integrated Design Lab Idaho Power Summary

Supplement 2: Evaluation Idaho Power Company
Page 48 Demand-Side Management 2015 Annual Report
This page left blank intentionally.

    Report Number: 1501_001‐01 

2015 TASK 1: FOUNDATIONAL SERVICES
SUMMARY OF PROJECTS
IDAHO POWER COMPANY EXTERNAL YEAR-END
REPORT

December 31, 2015

Prepared for:
Idaho Power Company

Author:
Elizabeth Cooper

ii 

This page left intentionally blank.

iii 

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

IDL Director:
Elizabeth Cooper

Author:
Elizabeth Cooper

Prepared for:
Idaho Power Company

Contract Number:
5277

Please cite this report as follows: Cooper, E. (2015). 2015
TASK 1: Foundational Services – Summary of Projects
(1501_001-01). University of Idaho Integrated Design Lab,
Boise, ID.

iv 

DISCLAIMER
While the recommendations in this report have been
reviewed for technical accuracy and are believed to be
reasonably accurate, the findings are estimates and actual
results may vary. All energy savings and cost estimates
included in the report are for informational purposes only and
are not to be construed as design documents or as
guarantees of energy or cost savings. The user of this
report, or any information contained in this report, should
independently evaluate any information, advice, or direction
provided in this report.
THE UNIVERSITY OF IDAHO MAKES NO
REPRESENTATIONS, EXTENDS NO WARRANTIES OF
ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING
BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY, AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR
PURPOSE WITH RESPECT TO THE INFORMATION,
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY
RECOMMEDATIONS OR FINDINGS, CONTAINED IN THIS
REPORT. THE UNIVERSITY ADDITIONALLY DISCLAIMS
ALL OBLIGATIONS AND LIABILITIES ON THE PART OF
UNIVERSITY FOR DAMAGES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT
LIMITED TO, DIRECT, INDIRECT, SPECIAL AND
CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES, ATTORNEYS’ AND
EXPERTS’ FEES AND COURT COSTS (EVEN IF THE
UNIVERSITY HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBLITIY
OF SUCH DAMAGES, FEES OR COSTS), ARISING OUT
OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE MANUFACTURE,
USE OR SALE OF THE INFORMATION, RESULT(S),
PRODUCT(S), SERVICE(S) AND PROCESSES PROVIDED
BY THE UNIVERSITY. THE USER ASSUMES ALL
RESPONSIBILITY AND LIABILITY FOR LOSS OR
DAMAGE CAUSED BY THE USE, SALE, OR OTHER
DISPOSITION BY THE USER OF PRODUCT(S),
SERVICE(S), OR (PROCESSES) INCORPORATING OR
MADE BY USE OF THIS REPORT, INCLUDING BUT NOT
LIMITED TO DAMAGES OF ANY KIND IN CONNECTION
WITH THIS REPORT OR THE INSTALLATION OF
RECOMMENDED MEASURES CONTAINED HEREIN.

v 

This page left intentionally blank.

vi 

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Introduction ................................................................................................................. 1
2. Project Summary ......................................................................................................... 2

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
AIA American Institute of Architects
ASHRAE American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air-conditioning
Engineers
BEQ Building Energy Quotient
BOMA Building Owners and Managers Association
EMS Energy Management System
HID High Intensity Discharge
IDL Integrated Design Lab
IPC Idaho Power Company
LED Light Emitting Diode
LEED Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design
Op-Ed Opinion Editorial
TI Tenant Improvement
UI University of Idaho
Integrated Design Lab | Boise    1 
2015 Task 1: Foundational Services‐ Idaho Power Company External Year‐End Report 
(Report #1501_001‐01) 

1. INTRODUCTION
The University of Idaho Integrated Design Lab (UI-IDL) provided technical
assistance in 2015 for energy efficiency building projects through the Foundational
Services task. This program, supported by Idaho Power Company (IPC), offered three
phases of assistance for customers to choose from. A marketing flyer outlining the three
phases is shown below. In 2015, the budget limits of the phases was changed such that
Phase I includes projects with budgets less than $2,000, Phase II is limited to projects
from $2,000 to $4,000, and Phase III is any project with a budget greater than $4,000.

Figure 1: Foundational Services Flyer Outlining Phases
Integrated Design Lab | Boise    2 
2015 Task 1: Foundational Services‐ Idaho Power Company External Year‐End Report 
(Report #1501_001‐01) 

The Foundational Services program was marketed at numerous events and to
multiple organizations in 2015, which included all IDL Lunch and Learn series
presentations, local architect and engineering firms, ASHRAE, AIA, BOMA, and local
government.
2. PROJECT SUMMARY
Fifty-five projects received technical assistance through the Foundational
Services program in 2015. Projects ranged from short phone call consultations to
detailed building simulations. Building owners, property managers, building operators,
architects, design engineers, utility customer representatives, government staff, energy
management staff, program administrators, and contractors contacted the IDL. In total,
there were forty-seven Phase I projects, two Phase II projects and one Phase III project.
The full list of projects is shown in the appendix below. Details on Phase 2 and Phase 3
projects are included in the individual project reports submitted to IPC. Five projects are
in early stages and the full scope of work has yet to be determined. Seventeen of the
projects were for work to be completed in existing buildings, and twenty were for new
construction projects. The remaining projects are not building specific, or the scope has
yet to be defined.
Table 1: 2015 Foundational Services Project Summary
Project
Approximate
Area (ft2) (if applicable
and known)
New or Existing Location
Phase 1
1 School building scoping study Existing Boise
2 EEM communications -- -- --
3 Multi-family central plant cost analysis -- -- --
4 Analysis of commonly available modeling tools -- -- --
Integrated Design Lab | Boise    3 
2015 Task 1: Foundational Services‐ Idaho Power Company External Year‐End Report 
(Report #1501_001‐01) 

5 Facility lighting design assistance >100,000 Existing Boise
6 Energy modeling of chiller system -- New Boise
7 Daylighting design assistance ±5,000 New Boise
8 Daylighting design assistance ±5,000 New Boise
9 Office energy efficiency upgrades inquiry 19,000 Existing Boise
10 Energy modeling technical assistance Existing Boise
11 State of technology in LED -- -- --
12 Non energy benefit review for hotels -- -- --
13 Specialty facility energy analysis ±20,000 Existing Boise
14 Church energy efficiency measures inquiry Existing Boise
15 Prospective net-zero government building support ±45,000 New Ketchum
16 Net zero facility design support New Boise
17 Energy efficiency goals and communications -- -- Boise
18 Energy conference planning meetings/support -- -- --
19 District scale energy benchmarking analysis -- -- Boise
20 Municipal building energy efficiency design support -- Existing Boise
21 Green building code stakeholders meetings -- -- --
22 Prospective net zero facility inquiry 16,000 New Boise
23 Daylighting inquiry
24 Lighting upgrades inquiry Existing Boise
25 Guest presentation by EE expert -- -- --
26 Specialty facility energy analysis ±10,000 New Garden City
27 School building energy performance 6 schools Existing Boise
28 LED lighting analysis -- --
29 Office facility lighting analysis
30 School building energy efficiency support Existing Boise
31 Mixed use energy efficiency design support New Boise
32 Office facility lighting analysis Boise
33 Lighting incentives inquiry 5,000 New Twin Falls
34 Energy modeling technical support Existing Boise
35 Office TI daylighting analysis Existing Boise
36 Hotel energy efficiency design assistance inquiry New Mt. Home
37 Hotel energy efficiency design assistance inquiry New
38 Facility daylighting analysis Ketchum
39 Specialty facility technical assistance Hailey
40 Hotel energy efficiency design assistance inquiry New Garden City
41 Specialty facility energy analysis Boise
42 Specialty facility assistance inquiry New Twin Falls
43 Office facility technical assistance inquiry New Boise
44 Campus benchmarking and technical assistance --
45 Retail design assistance inquiry Existing Boise
46 Recreation facility daylight inquiry
47 Mixed-use technical assistance inquiry Existing Boise
Phase 2
Integrated Design Lab | Boise    4 
2015 Task 1: Foundational Services‐ Idaho Power Company External Year‐End Report 
(Report #1501_001‐01) 

48 Religious building facility daylighting study 6,000 Existing Boise
49 Specialty facility technical and planning support Existing Boise
Phase 3
50 Office building energy management and lighting
design assistance 268,000 New Boise
Phase to be determined
51 Education facility New Boise
52 Healthcare/Education facility New Boise
53 School buildings 46,000 New Meridian
54 Healthcare facility New Boise
55 Healthcare facility >500,000 New/Ex Boise
TOTAL: >1,045,000

Integrated Design Lab | Boise    5 
2015 Task 1: Foundational Services‐ Idaho Power Company External Year‐End Report 
(Report #1501_001‐01) 

3. APPENDICES
Appendix A: Project Identification
Project Contact
Approx.
Area (ft2)
(if known)
New or Existing Location
Phase 1
1 Boise Schools Chris Wendrowski Existing Boise
2 Dashboard Template Haley Falconer -- -- --
3 LCA on Central Plant for multi-family Mike Brown -- -- --
4 Revit energy tools review IDL -- -- --
5 Boise Main Library Steve Trout & Denise McNealy >100,000 Existing Boise
6 Chiller curve EnergyPlus Josh Norhbryn -- New Boise
7 Fire Station #4 Stan Cole & Rob Bousfield ±5,000 New Boise
8 Fire Station #8 Stan Cole & Rob Bousfield ±5,000 New Boise
9 Happy Family Brands 19,000 Existing Boise
10 Idaho Water Center Stephanie Fox & Coby Barlow Existing Boise
11 LED vs. Fluorescent Comparison IDL/IPC -- -- --
12 Non Energy Benefit Lit Review Haley Falconer -- -- --
13 Payette Brewing Mike Francis ±20,000 Existing Boise
14 Red Rock Christian Church Everald Penzel Existing Boise
15 Ketchum City Hall Mike Simmonds & Lance Fish ±45,000 New Ketchum
16 Boise TMFS New Boise
17 City of Boise (General) Steve Burgos -- -- Boise
18 Energy Conference Planning Leon Duce -- -- Boise
19 LIV District City/USGBC -- -- Boise
20 Boise City Hall bEQ Beth Baird -- Existing Boise
21 Boise Green Building Code IPC -- -- --
22 Bown Library Branch Ian Gelbrich & Rob Bousfield 16,000 New Boise
23 Greenhouse solar
Integrated Design Lab | Boise    6 
2015 Task 1: Foundational Services‐ Idaho Power Company External Year‐End Report 
(Report #1501_001‐01) 

24 IHFA Existing Boise
25 Molly McCabe Visit -- -- -- --
26 Powder Haus Brewing Lisa Schmidt ±10,000 New Garden City
27 School Building Performance Pete Pearson 6 schools Existing Boise
28 Simply LED
29 SOVRN Joe Rice
30 St. Mary’s Existing Boise
31 The Roost Mixed Use New Boise
32 TigerProp Max Coursey Boise
33 Twin Fall Chamber of Commerce 5,000 New Twin Falls
34 Wells Fargo Musgrove Support Existing Boise
35 Erstad office TI Andy Erstad Existing Boise
36 Capitol and Broad Hotel Jared Smith New Boise
37 Inn at 500 Capitol Obie Development (Brian Obie) New Boise
38 Mountain Home AFB Joseph Armstrong Mt Home
39 Lost Grove Brewing
40 Limelight Hotel Jeff Hanle New Ketchum
41 Sawtooth Brewing Paul Hailey
42 Telaya Winery Earl Sullivan New Garden City
43 Ada County Dispatch Selena O'Neal New Boise
44 CSI master planning CTA -- Twin Falls
45 George's Cycles Existing Boise
46 Tennis courts -
47 Water Cooler David Ruby and Local Construct Existing Boise
Phase 2
48 Islamic Center of Boise Matt Rhees 6,000 Existing Boise
49 YMCA
Phase 3
50 Simplot HQ The Dons, Tiffany Curtis 268,000 New Boise
Phase to be determined
Integrated Design Lab | Boise    7 
2015 Task 1: Foundational Services‐ Idaho Power Company External Year‐End Report 
(Report #1501_001‐01) 

51 BSU (Multiple) Tony Roark (BSU) Scott Henson
(LCA) New Boise
52 Project Pocatello Gunnar Gladics New Boise
53 Holy Apostles School Pete Rockwell 46,000 New Meridian
54 St. Luke's orthopedic clinic Gunnar Gladics/Brandon Taylor New Boise
55 St. Luke's Addition and Renovation Gunnar Gladics >500,000 New/Ex Boise

Report Number: 1501_010-08

2015 TASK 1.8: HEAT PUMP CALCULATOR
SUMMARY OF PROGRESS
IDAHO POWER COMPANY EXTERNAL YEAR-END REPORT

December 31, 2015

Prepared for:
Idaho Power Company

Authors:
Katie Leichliter
Damon Woods
Elizabeth Cooper

ii

This page left intentionally blank.
iii

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

IDL Director:
Elizabeth Cooper

Authors:
Katie Leichliter
Damon Woods
Elizabeth Cooper

Prepared for:
Idaho Power Company

Contract Number:
5277

Please cite this report as follows: Leichliter, K., Woods, D.,
Cooper, E. (2015). 2015 TASK 8: Heat Pump Calculator– Summary
of Projects (1501_010-08). University of Idaho Integrated Design
Lab, Boise, ID.
iv

DISCLAIMER
While the recommendations in this report have been reviewed for
technical accuracy and are believed to be reasonably accurate,
the findings are estimates and actual results may vary. All energy
savings and cost estimates included in the report are for
informational purposes only and are not to be construed as
design documents or as guarantees of energy or cost savings. The
user of this report, or any information contained in this report,
should independently evaluate any information, advice, or
direction provided in this report.
THE UNIVERSITY OF IDAHO MAKES NO REPRESENTATIONS,
EXTENDS NO WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESS OR
IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY, AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE
WITH RESPECT TO THE INFORMATION, INCLUDING BUT NOT
LIMITED TO ANY RECOMMENDATIONS OR FINDINGS, CONTAINED
IN THIS REPORT. THE UNIVERSITY ADDITIONALLY DISCLAIMS ALL
OBLIGATIONS AND LIABILITIES ON THE PART OF UNIVERSITY FOR
DAMAGES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DIRECT, INDIRECT,
SPECIAL AND CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES, ATTORNEYS’ AND
EXPERTS’ FEES AND COURT COSTS (EVEN IF THE UNIVERSITY HAS
BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES, FEES OR
COSTS), ARISING OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE
MANUFACTURE, USE OR SALE OF THE INFORMATION, RESULT(S),
PRODUCT(S), SERVICE(S) AND PROCESSES PROVIDED BY THE
UNIVERSITY. THE USER ASSUMES ALL RESPONSIBILITY AND
LIABILITY FOR LOSS OR DAMAGE CAUSED BY THE USE, SALE, OR
OTHER DISPOSITION BY THE USER OF PRODUCT(S), SERVICE(S), OR
(PROCESSES) INCORPORATING OR MADE BY USE OF THIS REPORT,
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO DAMAGES OF ANY KIND IN
CONNECTION WITH THIS REPORT OR THE INSTALLATION OF
RECOMMENDED MEASURES CONTAINED HEREIN.

v

This page left intentionally blank.

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 1
2. Beta Version Revisions and Support ........................................................................................... 1
3. Residential Use ............................................................................................................................ 2
4. Climate Design Tools ................................................................................................................... 3
5. Feedback and Next Steps ............................................................................................................ 4
6. References .................................................................................................................................. 5

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
GSHP Ground-Source Heat Pump
HP Heat Pump
IDL Integrated Design Lab
IPC Idaho Power Company
UI University of Idaho
VRF Variable Refrigerant Flow
WSHP Water-Source Heat Pump

Integrated Design Lab | Boise 1
2015 Task 1.8: Heat Pump Calculator- Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report #1501_010-)

1. INTRODUCTION
The 2015 Heat Pump (HP) Calculator task was a continuation of work done by the
University of Idaho Integrated Design Lab (UI-IDL) for Idaho Power Company (IPC) that was
begun in 2013 and continued through 2014. A Heat Pump Energy Savings Calculator (HePESC)
spreadsheet was developed in 2013, which was capable of hourly load calculations, energy
consumption estimates using regression curves from simulation, and simple cost calculations.
Details on 2013 effort, progress, and methods can be found in the IDL technical report number
1301_010-01, “2013 Heat Pump Calculator – Development and Methodology.” The scope in
2014 focused on improving the tool by means of verification and user feedback. The 2015 work
included further revisions, outreach, the completion of adding a residential space-type, and the
incorporation of several climate design tools. Details of this and the tool improvements are
outlined in this report.
2. BETA VERSION REVISIONS AND SUPPORT
The IDL team did some reformatting of the tool for the sake of simplicity and ease of
use. During this process, many of the comments and instructions throughout the tool were
edited for grammar and clarity. Different types of information are represented by different
formats in the tool. These classifications are described in the color legend of the introduction
sheet. This legend initially included eight formats for eight different types of information.
During beta testing, this was found to be somewhat confusing, and so the color legend was
reduced from eight types to four. The four remaining classifications of cells are: user input
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 2
2015 Task 1.8: Heat Pump Calculator- Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report #1501_010-)

(gold background), default value (blue background), hyperlinks (orange text), and instructional
(flagged).
The IDL also offered user support and outreach through a presentation open to both
Idaho Power and the public. Katie Leichliter delivered the lecture on July 22nd to the Building
Simulators User Group (BSUG). The presentation, which was also available as a webcast focused
on use of the tool and how it compared to other detailed simulation tools. The audience
included IPC representatives, several architects and engineers in Boise as well as 17 viewers
online. The audience found the tool’s ability to explain load calculations line by line to be very
helpful, as was the comparison offered between eQuest and EnergyPlus.
3. RESIDENTIAL USE
One of the major additions from 2014-2015, was the inclusion of a residential space-
type in the tool. Initially, the tool was set up to analyze large commercial buildings of nine
different usage types including offices, warehouses, and retail. Now, appearing in the “Building
Use” dropdown menu is a tenth type: “Residence.” One of the difficulties of adding a residential
usage is that residences have very different, and smaller, types of equipment than large
commercial buildings. They also have schedules and lighting loads that are quite unlike those
typically associated with commercial buildings. In order to add residential equipment into the
tool, the IDL added new schedules, equipment curves, pricing, and plug load information to the
tool.
Once the residential space-type is selected in the tool, a new entry appears under the
general building info section: number of bedrooms. The number of bedrooms is used to
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 3
2015 Task 1.8: Heat Pump Calculator- Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report #1501_010-)

approximate plug loads, lighting, and occupancy. The residential loads were selected based on
the NREL 2014 Building America House Simulation Protocols, which was developed from
residential survey data (Wilson). In addition to using the standard plug loads associated with
residences, the user has the option to add large, uncommon loads, such as an extra refrigerator
or gas fireplace.
In order to include residential HVAC equipment, new performance curves had to be
developed. During 2014, the IDL ran over 1,500 simulations in BEopt for residential HVAC
systems including DX units, gas and electric furnaces, and heat pumps all of various efficiencies.
The staff at IDL compiled this data and added the resulting performance curves into the tool
just as the commercial systems had been. A complete list of the residential systems and
regression curves added to the tool can be found in Appendix A. The staff also compiled cost
data for each of these systems by requesting quotes from different manufacturers. This data
has been incorporated into the latest version of the HP Calculator tool, nearly doubling the
system selection that had been available when the tool was used only for commercial buildings
4. CLIMATE DESIGN TOOLS
The IDL has developed several different climate design tools that existed as separate
spreadsheets in the past. These tools included passive cooling with thermal mass and natural
ventilation, cross ventilation, stack ventilation, and night flush strategies. These tools are now
compiled within the HP Calculator tool under the “Advanced Design” tab. One of the climate
design tools, the balance point calculator, was not added, because this already exists within the
normal “Loads Results” tab of the HP Calculator within the more detailed energy signature
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 4
2015 Task 1.8: Heat Pump Calculator- Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report #1501_010-)

analysis. These tools are now much faster to use than when they had existed as standalone
spreadsheets, because many of the inputs needed for these separate calculations are already
entered into the first sheet of the HP calculator. These features are shown in Appendix B:
Climate Design Tools.
5. FEEDBACK AND NEXT STEPS
Since the tool has become much more than a simple estimator of heat pump savings, a
new name for the tool is under consideration: HVAC Analysis and Loads Tool (or “HAL” if an
acronym is required). The earth tube and passive solar climate design tools still need to be
incorporated into the Advanced Design portion of the HP Calculator. Further development of
the tool could be to include other building types, such as multifamily. Given the pace of
innovation, there are many new products on the market now that were not available during the
creation of the tool. In order to include these additional HVAC systems, the IDL would need to
increase the data simulation set. It would also be beneficial to the integrity of the tool to
include more iterations of current and baseline conditions to allow for better interpolation
between efficiencies for the performance curves in the tool. The IDL could also hold a training
program either specific to IPC or open to the public on the use of this tool as well as the climate
design tools that are included in the calculator.

Integrated Design Lab | Boise 5
2015 Task 1.8: Heat Pump Calculator- Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report #1501_010-)

6. REFERENCES
ASHRAE. (2013). Chapter 18: Nonresidential cooling and heating load calculations. In Ashrae
handbook: Fundamentals. Atlanta, GA: ASHRAE.
Back-of-the-Envelope Calculator Version 2.0 (n.d.). Retrieved February 21, 2014 from Energy
Center of Wisconsin website: http://www.ecw.org/project.php?workid=1&resultid=286.
Masy, G. (2008). Definition and Validation of a Simplified Multizone Dynamic Building Model
Connected to a Heating System and HVAC Unit (Doctoral Thesis). Retrieved from
website: http://bictel.ulg.ac.be/ETD-db/collection/available/ULgetd-11052008-145605/
(ULgetd-11052008-145605).
Mendon, V., & Taylor, T. (2014). Development of Residential Prototype Building Models and
Analysis System for Large-Scale Energy Efficiency Studies Using EnergyPlus. Building
Simulation Conference (pp. 457-464). Atlanta: ASHRAE/IBPSA-USA
Wilson, E., Metzger, D., Hrowitz, S., and Hendron, R. (2014). 2014 Building America House
Simulation Protocols. National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Technical Reprot
NREL/TP-5500-60988

Report Number: 1501_002-01

2015 TASK 2: LUNCH AND LEARN
SUMMARY OF EFFORT AND OUTCOMES
IDAHO POWER COMPANY INTERNAL YEAR-END REPORT

December 31, 2015

Prepared for:
Idaho Power Company

Authors:
Dylan Agnes
Katie Leichliter

ii

This page left intentionally blank.

iii

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

IDL Director:
Elizabeth Cooper

Authors:
Dylan Agnes
Katie Leichliter

Prepared for:
Idaho Power Company

Contract Number:
#5277

Please cite this report as follows: Agnes, D., Leichliter, K. (2015).
2015 TASK 2: Lunch and Learn – Summary of Effort and Outcomes
(1501_002-01). University of Idaho Integrated Design Lab, Boise,
ID.

iv

DISCLAIMER
While the recommendations in this report have been reviewed for
technical accuracy and are believed to be reasonably accurate,
the findings are estimates and actual results may vary. All energy
savings and cost estimates included in the report are for
informational purposes only and are not to be construed as
design documents or as guarantees of energy or cost savings. The
user of this report, or any information contained in this report,
should independently evaluate any information, advice, or
direction provided in this report.
THE UNIVERSITY OF IDAHO MAKES NO REPRESENTATIONS,
EXTENDS NO WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESS OR
IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY, AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE
WITH RESPECT TO THE INFORMATION, INCLUDING BUT NOT
LIMITED TO ANY RECOMMEDATIONS OR FINDINGS, CONTAINED
IN THIS REPORT. THE UNIVERSITY ADDITIONALLY DISCLAIMS ALL
OBLIGATIONS AND LIABILITIES ON THE PART OF UNIVERSITY FOR
DAMAGES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DIRECT, INDIRECT,
SPECIAL AND CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES, ATTORNEYS’ AND
EXPERTS’ FEES AND COURT COSTS (EVEN IF THE UNIVERSITY HAS
BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBLITIY OF SUCH DAMAGES, FEES OR
COSTS), ARISING OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE
MANUFACTURE, USE OR SALE OF THE INFORMATION, RESULT(S),
PRODUCT(S), SERVICE(S) AND PROCESSES PROVIDED BY THE
UNIVERSITY. THE USER ASSUMES ALL RESPONSIBILITY AND
LIABILITY FOR LOSS OR DAMAGE CAUSED BY THE USE, SALE, OR
OTHER DISPOSITION BY THE USER OF PRODUCT(S), SERVICE(S), OR
(PROCESSES) INCORPORATING OR MADE BY USE OF THIS REPORT,
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO DAMAGES OF ANY KIND IN
CONNECTION WITH THIS REPORT OR THE INSTALLATION OF
RECOMMENDED MEASURES CONTAINED HEREIN.

v

This page left intentionally blank.

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. 2015 Summary and Cumulative Analysis .................................................................................... 9
2. Session Summaries ................................................................................................................... 14
2.1 Session 1: Deep Retrofits on Historic Projects (3/12/15) ................................................... 14
2.2 Session 2: Daylight in Buildings – Getting the Details Right (3/19/15) ............................... 15
2.3 Session 3: Adding to Zero: Chemeketa Community College’s Path to Net Zero (6/4/15) .. 15
2.4 Session 4: IECC 2012 for Industrial Building (7/20/15) ....................................................... 16
2.5 Session 5: Daylight in Buildings – Schematic Design Methods (7/22/15) ........................... 16
2.6 Session 6: Occupant Cx: Learning from Occupants to Improve Building Design (8/06/15) 17
2.7 Session 7: Daylight in Buildings Getting the Details Right (8/17/15) .................................. 18
2.8 Session 8: Daylight Sensing Electric Light Controls (8/18/15) ............................................ 18
2.9 Session 9: Architectural HVAC Integration Strategies (8/18/15) ........................................ 19
2.10 Session 10: Architectural HVAC Integration Strategies (8/19/15) .................................... 19
2.11 Session 11: Daylight in Buildings Getting the Details Right (8/26/15) .............................. 20
2.12 Session 12: Daylight Sensing Electric Light Controls (8/27/15) ........................................ 21
2.13 Session 13: Operations and Maintenance Strategies (9/5/15) ......................................... 21
2.14 Session 14: Radiant Design Considerations (9/15/15) ...................................................... 22
2.15 Sessions 15 : Benchmarking and Energy Goal Setting (9/17/15) ...................................... 22
2.16 Session 16: Boise Green Building Code & Idaho Power Efficiency Programs (9/29/15) .. 23
2.17 Session 17: Benchmarking and Energy Goal Setting (10/13/15) ...................................... 24
2.18 Session 18: Integrated Design Principles (10/13/15) ........................................................ 24
2.19 Session 19: Integrated Design Principles (11/11/15) ........................................................ 25
2.20 Session 20: The Importance of Building Performance Modeling for Architects (12/08/15)
................................................................................................................................................... 25
3. Future Work .............................................................................................................................. 26
4. Appendices ................................................................................................................................ 27
4.1.2 Session 1: Deep Retrofits on Historic Projects (3/12/15) ............................................. 27
4.1.3 Session 2: Daylight in Buildings – Getting the Details Right (3/19/15) ........................ 28

vii

4.1.4 Session 3: Adding to Zero: Chemeketa Community College’s Path to Net Zero (6/4/15)
............................................................................................................................................... 29
4.1.5 Session 4: IECC 2012 for Industrial Building (7/20/15) ................................................ 30
4.1.6 Session 5: Daylight in Buildings – Schematic Design Methods (7/22/15) .................... 31
4.1.7 Session 6: Occupant Cx: Learning from Occupants to Improve Building Design
(8/06/15) ................................................................................................................................ 32
4.1.8 Session 7: Daylight in Buildings Getting the Details Right (8/17/15) ........................... 33
4.1.9 Session 8: Daylight Sensing Electric Light Controls (8/18/15) ...................................... 34
4.1.10 Session 9: Architectural HVAC Integration Strategies (8/18/15) ............................... 35
4.1.11 Session 10: Architectural HVAC Integration Strategies (8/19/15) ............................. 36
4.1.12 Session 11: Daylight in Buildings Getting the Details Right (8/26/15) ....................... 38
4.1.13 Session 12: Daylight Sensing Electric Light Controls (8/27/15) .................................. 39
4.1.14 Session 13: Operations and Maintenance Strategies (9/5/15) .................................. 40
4.1.15 Session 14: Radiant Design Considerations (9/15/15) ............................................... 41
4.1.16 Sessions 15 : Benchmarking and Energy Goal Setting (9/17/15) ............................... 42
4.1.17 Session 16: Boise Green Building Code & Idaho Power Efficiency Programs (9/29/15)
............................................................................................................................................... 43
4.1.18 Session 17: Benchmarking and Energy Goal Setting (10/13/15) ............................... 44
4.1.19 Session 18: Integrated Design Principles (10/13/15) ................................................. 45
4.1.20 Session 19: Integrated Design Principles (11/11/15) ................................................. 46
4.1.21 Session 20: The Importance of Building Performance Modeling for Architects
(12/08/15).............................................................................................................................. 47

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
AIA American Institute of Architects
Arch Architect(ure)
ASHRAE American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air-Conditioning Engineers
BCGCC Boise Green Building Code
BESF Building Energy Simulation Forum (Energy Trust of Oregon)

viii

Bldg. Building
BOMA Building Owners and Managers Association
CSI Construction Specifications Institute
Cx Customer Experience
Elec. Electrical
EUI Energy Use Intensity
GSHP Ground Source Heat Pump
HVAC Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning
IBOA Intermountain Building Operators Association
IBPSA International Building Performance Simulation Association
IDL Integrated Design Lab
IECC International Energy Conservation Code
IPC Idaho Power Company
LEED Leadership in Energy & Environmental Design
LED Light Emitting Diode
M&V Measurement and Verification
Mech. Mechanical
Mgmt. Management
NCARB National Council of Architectural Registration Boards
TBD To Be Determined
UI University of Idaho
USGBC U.S. Green Building Council
WBS WELL Building Standard

9

1. 2015 SUMMARY AND CUMULATIVE ANALYSIS
Table 1: 2015 Lunch and Learn Summary
Date Title Presenter Group / Location Attendees
1 3/12 Deep Retrofits on Historic Projects Energy Trust of Oregon Commercial Real Estate Firm- Boise 7
2 3/19 Daylight in Buildings - Getting the Details
Right
Kevin Van Den Wymelenberg Architecture Organization 1 - Pocatello 5
3 6/4 Adding to Zero: Chemeketa Community
College’s Path to Net Zero
Energy Trust of Oregon Commercial Real Estate Firm- Boise 13
4 7/20 IECC 2012 for Industrial Building Ken Baker / Kevin Van Den
Wymelenberg
Industry Organization 2 - Boise 17
5 7/22 Daylight in Buildings - Schematic Design Kevin Van Den Wymelenberg Architecture Firm 2 - Boise 6
6 8/6 Occupant Cx Energy Trust of Oregon (Julia
Day)
Commercial Real Estate Firm- Boise 11
7 8/17 Daylight in Buildings - Getting the Details
Right
Kevin Van Den Wymelenberg Engineering Firm 2 - Boise 17
8 8/18 Daylight Sensing Electric Light Controls Kevin Van Den Wymelenberg Architectural Organization 2 – Ketchum 12
9 8/18 Architectural HVAC Integration Strategies Kevin Van Den Wymelenberg Architectural Organization 2 – Ketchum 7
10 8/19 Architectural HVAC Integration Strategies Kevin Van Den Wymelenberg Engineering Firm 1 - Boise 11
11 8/26 Daylight in Buildings - Getting the Details
Right
Kevin Van Den Wymelenberg Architecture Firm 2 - Boise 4
12 8/27 Daylight Sensing Electric Light Controls Kevin Van Den Wymelenberg Engineering Firm 1 - Boise 5
13 9/8 Operations and Maintenance Strategies Brad Acker Engineering Firm 2 - Boise 12
14 9/15 Radiant Design Considerations Damon Woods Architecture Firm 1 - Boise 9
15 9/17 Benchmarking and Energy Goal Setting Elizabeth Cooper Architecture Organization 1 – Idaho Falls 5
16 9/29 Boise Green Building Code & Idaho Power
Efficiency Programs
Jason Blais, Katie Leichliter,
Sheree Willhite
Industry Organization 3 - Boise 55
17 10/13 Integrated Design Case Principles Katie Leichliter Architecture Organization 3 - Boise -
18 10/13 Benchmarking and Energy Goal Setting Elizabeth Cooper Architecture Firm 1 - Boise 20
19 11/11 Integrated Design Case Principles Elizabeth Cooper Architecture Firm 3 – Boise 4
20 12/08 The Importance of Building Performance
Modeling for Architects
Elizabeth Cooper Architecture Firm 3 - Boise 3

10

Table 1 above summarizes all Lunch and Learn presentations given in 2015. Eighteen presentations were slated to
specific organizations or companies during the project planning phase of the task. Two additional sessions were left open to be filled
by request. Twenty sessions were held in 2015. The statistics in this section are cumulative for the first 20 presentations. At each
presentation participants were asked to sign in and fill out an evaluation form. Presentations were judged on a scale of 1 to 5, please
see table 2, however, participants were given the opportunity to provide hand written responses.

Table 2: Evaluation Form Scale
Evaluation 1 2 3 4 5
In general, today’s presentation was: Not Useful Somewhat Useful Very Useful
The content of the presentation was: Too Basic About Right Too Advanced
Please rate the following parts of the presentation:
Organization, Clarity, Opportunity for Questions, Instructor’s
Knowledge of Subject Matter, and Delivery of Presentation
Needs Improvement Good Excellent

Table 3: Overall Attendance Breakdown
Architect: 176 Electrician:
Engineer: 9 Contractor:
Mech. Engineer: 16 Other: 80
Elec. Engineer: 5 None Specified: 35
Total (In-Person): 321

11

Figure 1: Attendee Profession
Architect
58%
Engineer
3%
Mech.
Engineer
5%
Elec. Engineer
1%
Contractor
0%
Other
21%
None Specified
12%

12

Figure 2: Attendee Count by Title and Session

13
11
7
5
55
5
6
12
7
17
18
12
9
3
11
20
17
5
4
4
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Adding to Zero: Chemeketa Community College’s Path to Net Zero
Occupant Cx
Architectural HVAC Integration Strategies
Benchmarking and Energy Goal Setting
Boise Green Building Code & Idaho Power Efficiency Programs
Daylight in Buildings - Getting the Details Right
Daylight in Buildings - Schematic Design
Daylight Sensing Electric Light Controls
Deep Retrofits on Historic Projects
IECC 2012 for Industrial Building
Integrated Design Case Principles
Operations and Maintenance Strategies
Radiant Design Considerations
The Importance of Building Performance Modeling for Architects
Session 1 Session 2 Session 3

13

Figure 3: Average Evaluations by Session Title

Figure 4: Overall Averages of Evaluations for all Sessions
0
1
2
3
4
5
Deep Retrofits on
Historic Projects
IECC 2012 for Industrial
Building
Occpant Cx Daylight Sensing Electric
Light Controls
Radiant Design
Considerations
Boise Green Building
Code & Idaho Power
Efficiency Programs
The Importance of
Building Performance
Modeling for Architects
In general, today's presentation was:Rate organization:
Rate clarity:Rate opportunity for questions:
Rate instructor's knowledge of the subject matter:Rate delivery of presentation:
The content of the presentation was:
4.39 4.42 4.40 4.50 4.76 4.50
3.42
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
Average of In
general, today's
workshop was:
Average of The
content of the
workshop was:
Average of Rate
organization:
Average of Rate
clarity:
Average of Rate
opportunity for
questions:
Average of Rate
instructor's
knowledge of
subject matter:
Average of Rate
delivery of
presentation:

14

2. SESSION SUMMARIES
At the conclusion of each lunch and learn session, an evaluation form was requested
from each participant. The feedback was used to improve future sessions. The feedback
received from participants is generally constructive criticism used to keep sessions updated but
also to propose other potential topics and questions to the Integrated Design Lab.
2.1 Session 1: Deep Retrofits on Historic Projects (3/12/15)
Title: Deep Retrofits on Historic Projects
Description: Deep retrofits go well beyond a system-by-system approach to existing building equipment
upgrades. They require a holistic building redesign that incorporates infrastructure, mechanical and
electrical systems, building skin, renewable energy, and energy analysis and management. Unlike new
construction projects, deep retrofits have the added complexity of working through constraints inherent
in the existing structure that designers and contractors must resolve.
This course will present how the owner, developer, design teams, and general contractor approached
the conversion and deep retrofit of the former Meier & Frank warehouse into a high-performance office
building that serves as the North American headquarters for Vestas. The project is LEED® Platinum
certified and has achieved an Energy Star score of 99 through post occupancy energy analysis
verification.
Presentation Info:

–

Attendance:

7

15

2.2 Session 2: Daylight in Buildings – Getting the Details Right (3/19/15)
Title: Daylight in Buildings: Getting the Details Rights
Description: The second talk in a sequence intended to instruct on the process of creating high quality
and comfortable daylit spaces focuses on getting the details right. After the schematic design is formed
to appropriately deliver daylight to the important surfaces within a space, there are several details that
can make or break the overall success of the project. This presentation discussed several details ranging
from interior surface colors and reflectances, to interior space layouts, furniture design, window details
including glazing specifications and shading strategies. The presentation introduces concepts of lighting
control systems to ensure that energy is saved from the inclusion of daylight.
Presentation Info:

Attendance:

5

2.3 Session 3: Adding to Zero: Chemeketa Community College’s Path to Net Zero (6/4/15)
Title: Adding to Zero: Chemeketa Community College’s Path to Net Zero
Description: The Chemeketa Community College Health Science Complex (HSC) in Salem, Oregon was
one of thirteen projects that participated in Energy Trust of Oregon's Path to Net Zero (PTNZ) pilot. This
pilot allowed the project team to analyze and utilize energy-reducing features including natural
ventilation, dedicated heat recovery with demand control ventilation, hydronic heating, passive cooling,
photovoltaics, and a control system for integrated mechanical and electrical system operation. The HSC
also has an exceptionally integrated lighting design. The Owner was committed to designing a passive
building that would operate within a limited extended range of comfort, and providing detailed room-
level metering.
Through this training, we will explore the project’s design concept, development and construction. The
building has been operating for nearly three years, and the project team will be able to share room-level
data that is available to demonstrate building performance. In addition, Energy Trust’s team will
introduce to the new PTNZ program, which is available starting 2015.

Presentation Info:

16

–
–

Attendance:

13

2.4 Session 4: IECC 2012 for Industrial Building (7/20/15)
Title: IECC 2012 for Industrial Building
Description: Come see how the IDL can benefit your buildings and your business! The IDL is dedicated
to the development of high performance, energy efficient buildings. It is a collaboration of architecture
and engineering staff and students working with building owners, managers, and operators, as well as
professional design and construction teams to transform practice for reduced energy use. The resources
available through the IDL help design buildings that are more comfortable, require less energy to
maintain and operate, and enhance the health and productivity of occupants. At this talk, we will be
discussing the resources available through the IDL and how they can benefit your bottom line. These
resources include energy audits, energy benchmarking, tool loan library, technical assistance, deep
energy retrofits, simulation capabilities, daylighting potential, available funding for low-cost or no-cost
analysis, and more.

Presentation Info:

Attendance:

15

2.5 Session 5: Daylight in Buildings – Schematic Design Methods (7/22/15)
Title: Daylight in Buildings – Schematic Design Methods

17

Description: High quality daylighting design is a lost art. Several generations of designers and engineers
have been trained to rely on electrically illuminated spaces in order to meet minimum lighting criteria
for functional environments occupied by humans. This presentation is the first in a sequence intended
to revive the lost art of daylighting design. It teaches concepts of designing in the overcast sky as well as
under sunny skies. The concept of providing useable work plane illumination is delivered while the
importance of creating visually comfortable and balanced daylit spaces is stressed. This presentation
highlights the architectural form generators as well concepts of interior surface brightness to produce
high quality and comfortable daylit spaces.

Presentation Info:

Attendance:

6

2.6 Session 6: Occupant Cx: Learning from Occupants to Improve Building Design (8/06/15)
Title: Occupant Cx: Learning from Occupants to Improve Building Design
Description: Both passive design and high performance building strategies offer a wealth of potential
benefits to both occupants and owners, such as increased satisfaction, employee productivity, and
building energy and cost savings. However, negative occupation patterns often compromise these
benefits, especially if end users do not have the knowledge to properly manage and take advantage of
these efficient building systems. Understanding how occupants interact with high-performance buildings
can help inform designers to implement better strategies that foster positive energy outcomes as well as
an improved occupant experience. Research from case studies showing insights gained from existing
high performance and net-zero buildings will be presented. This course will also offer common design
and construction issues to avoid with their lessons learned and suggestions for better educating
occupants to take advantage of energy-savings design strategies such as daylighting and natural
ventilation.

Presentation Info:

Attendance:

18

8

2.7 Session 7: Daylight in Buildings Getting the Details Right (8/17/15)
Title: Daylight in Buildings Getting the Details Right
Description: The second talk in a sequence intended to instruct on the process of creating high quality
and comfortable daylit spaces focuses on getting the details right. After the schematic design is formed
to appropriately deliver daylight to the important surfaces within a space, there are several details that
can make or break the overall success of the project. This presentation discussed several details ranging
from interior surface colors and reflectances, to interior space layouts, furniture design, window details
including glazing specifications and shading strategies. The presentation introduces concepts of lighting
control systems to ensure that energy is saved from the inclusion of daylight.

Presentation Info:
Date: 8/17/2015
Location: Engineering Firm 2 - Boise
Presenter: Kevin Van Den Wymelenberg

Attendance:
Architect: 6 Electrician:
Engineer: Contractor:
Mech. Engineer: Other:
Elec. Engineer: None Specified: 5
Total (In-Person):
2.8 Session 8: Daylight Sensing Electric Light Controls (8/18/15)
Title: Daylight Sensing Electric Light Controls
Description: Daylighting alone does not necessarily save energy. While a good daylighting design will
optimize the envelope to minimize unnecessary heat gain and heat loss, the bulk of the energy savings
from spaces with the significant inclusion of daylight comes from dimming or switching off electric
lighting systems. There have been several examples of successful daylighting-sensing lighting controls
systems and even more tough lessons learned from systems that did not perform adequately. The
general concepts of various daylight harvesting strategies will be presented. Then, the seven most
common challenges to creating functional daylight-sensing lighting control systems will be reviewed in
detail. Finally, several successful examples will be highlighted to promote more successful applications in
future projects.

Presentation Info:
Date: 8/18/2015

19

–

Attendance:

12

2.9 Session 9: Architectural HVAC Integration Strategies (8/18/15)
Title: Architectural HVAC Integration Strategies
Description: The relationship between architecture and mechanical systems design is often one of
neglect, dysfunction, and sometimes even abuse. It has not always been like this, nor does it have to be
moving forward. Aesthetic meaning and design concept can be derived from the interdependent
relationship between architecture and mechanical engineering, distribution system and interior design,
or even equipment and facade expression. Sometimes the most profound architectural moments are
deeply informed by their integration with how the building delivers comfort to its occupants. A
successful marriage of these concepts can even lead to reduced energy bills, lower capital costs, and,
most importantly of all, occupants who love the building. This presentation will focus on breaking down
exemplary case studies of architecture's courtship of both passive and active systems.

Presentation Info:
Date: 8/18/2015
Location: Architectural Organization 2 - Ketchum
Presenter: Kevin Van Den Wymelenberg

Attendance:
Architect: 7 Electrician:
Engineer: Contractor:
Mech. Engineer: Other:
Elec. Engineer: None Specified:
Total (In-Person): 7

2.10 Session 10: Architectural HVAC Integration Strategies (8/19/15)
Title: Architectural HVAC Integration Strategies
Description: The relationship between architecture and mechanical systems design is often one of
neglect, dysfunction, and sometimes even abuse. It has not always been like this, nor does it have to be

20

moving forward. Aesthetic meaning and design concept can be derived from the interdependent
relationship between architecture and mechanical engineering, distribution system and interior design,
or even equipment and facade expression. Sometimes the most profound architectural moments are
deeply informed by their integration with how the building delivers comfort to its occupants. A
successful marriage of these concepts can even lead to reduced energy bills, lower capital costs, and,
most importantly of all, occupants who love the building. This presentation will focus on breaking down
exemplary case studies of architecture's courtship of both passive and active systems.

Presentation Info:
Date: 8/9/2015
Location: Engineering Firm 1 - Boise
Presenter: Kevin Van Den Wymelenberg

Attendance:
Architect: Electrician:
Engineer: Contractor:
Mech. Engineer: 3 Other: 8
Elec. Engineer: None Specified:
Total (In-Person): 11

2.11 Session 11: Daylight in Buildings Getting the Details Right (8/26/15)
Title: Daylight in Buildings Getting the Details Right
Description: The second talk in a sequence intended to instruct on the process of creating high quality
and comfortable daylit spaces focuses on getting the details right. After the schematic design is formed
to appropriately deliver daylight to the important surfaces within a space, there are several details that
can make or break the overall success of the project. This presentation discussed several details ranging
from interior surface colors and reflectances, to interior space layouts, furniture design, window details
including glazing specifications and shading strategies. The presentation introduces concepts of lighting
control systems to ensure that energy is saved from the inclusion of daylight.

Presentation Info:
Date: 8/26/2015
Location: Architecture Firm 2 – Boise
Presenter: Kevin Van Den Wymelenberg

Attendance:
Architect: 4 Electrician:
Engineer: Contractor:
Mech. Engineer: Other:
Elec. Engineer: None Specified:
Total (In-Person): 4

21

2.12 Session 12: Daylight Sensing Electric Light Controls (8/27/15)
Title: Daylight Sensing Electric Lighting Controls
Description: Daylighting alone does not necessarily save energy. While a good daylighting design will
optimize the envelope to minimize unnecessary heat gain and heat loss, the bulk of the energy savings
from spaces with the significant inclusion of daylight comes from dimming or switching off electric
lighting systems. There have been several examples of successful daylighting-sensing lighting controls
systems and even more tough lessons learned from systems that did not perform adequately. The
general concepts of various daylight harvesting strategies will be presented. Then, the seven most
common challenges to creating functional daylight-sensing lighting control systems will be reviewed in
detail. Finally, several successful examples will be highlighted to promote more successful applications in
future projects.

Presentation Info:
Date: 8/27/2015
Location: Engineering Firm 1 – Boise
Presenter: Kevin Van Den Wymelenberg

Attendance:
Architect: Electrician:
Engineer: Contractor:
Mech. Engineer: Other*: 5
Elec. Engineer: None Specified:
Total (In-Person): 5
*Other included: Structural Engineer, Elec. Designer

2.13 Session 13: Operations and Maintenance Strategies (9/5/15)
Title: Operations and Maintenance Strategies
Description: An often overlooked step of the integrated design process, operations and maintenance
strategies, can make or break the efficiency of a high performance project. Through our existing building
research and consulting, the UI-IDL has experienced first-hand how important operations can be on the
energy efficiency of all buildings. This lunch and learn topic revolves around presenting the impact of
operations on multiple building types and the effect on energy consumption, simulation calibration, and
occupant comfort. Local examples from the recent Kilowatt Crackdown competition will be presented.
The talk also touches on some free resources developed by Betterbricks to aid building operators in
understanding, diagnosing, and maintaining their projects.

Presentation Info:
Date: 9/5/2015
Location: Engineering Firm 2 – Boise

22

Attendance:

13

2.14 Session 14: Radiant Design Considerations (9/15/15)
Title: Radiant Design Considerations
Description: Designing for radiant systems and thermally active surfaces represents a key opportunity
for integrated design and high performance buildings. While radiant systems can be inherently more
energy efficient than air-based systems, their success requires close collaboration between architects
and engineers to ensure that the building facade reduces loads to levels achievable by radiant
systems. This integration between the disciplines has a direct relationship to the performance of the
system and comfort of the building, which is not always so closely related in more typical forced-air
systems. Key design decisions must be made early in the design process to ensure the feasibility and
performance of radiant systems down the road. A wide spectrum of configurations and types of radiant
systems are available for designers, with each having different strengths, capacities, and complexities
according to their setup. This presentation will cover some general rules of thumb to consider for
radiant systems, as well as provide an overview of the key architectural and engineering design
decisions associated with each system configuration.

Presentation Info:

–

Attendance:

9

2.15 Sessions 15 : Benchmarking and Energy Goal Setting (9/17/15)
Title: Benchmarking and Energy Goal Setting

23

Description: Learning the language and tools of the energy engineering field is critical to reaching real
energy reductions in buildings. This presentation discusses several methods for establishing energy goals
and targets in the pre-design phase and what the implications are for generating ideas to approach
serious reductions in usage. Local examples will be highlighted. Measuring the performance of existing
and new projects is critical to long term success because, you can't improve what you don't measure.

Presentation Info:

–

Attendance:

5
2.16 Session 16: Boise Green Building Code & Idaho Power Efficiency Programs (9/29/15)
Title: Boise Green Building Code & Idaho Power Efficiency Programs
Description:
Jason Blais, City of Boise, Building Division - highlights about the City of Boise's new voluntary Green
Building Code. This code serves as another option for sustainable building design that focuses on site
development and land us, material resource conservation, water conservation, energy conservation,
indoor environmental quality, and building commissioning. Sheree Willhite, Building Efficiency Program -
will review cash incentives for energy efficient design on new construction projects and major remodels.
Katie Leichliter of the UI - Integrated Design Lab will be available to discuss technical assistance and
other resources the IDL can provide to advance your projects.

Presentation Info:

–

Attendance:

53

24

2.17 Session 17: Benchmarking and Energy Goal Setting (10/13/15)
Title: Benchmarking and Energy Goal Setting
Description: Learning the language and tools of the energy engineering field is critical to reaching real
energy reductions in buildings. This presentation discusses several methods for establishing energy goals
and targets in the pre-design phase and what the implications are for generating ideas to approach
serious reductions in usage. Local examples will be highlighted. Measuring the performance of existing
and new projects is critical to long term success because, you can't improve what you don't measure.

Presentation Info:

Attendance:

20

2.18 Session 18: Integrated Design Principles (10/13/15)
Title: Integrated Design Principles
Description: The discussion will include a brief overview of the 2030 challenge, the status of current
building stock, and its relationship to code. Most of the discussion will be centered on the process of
design and the associated inputs of climate, building use, site design, and building design. The creation
of loads by the necessary inputs will be addressed as an element to be reduced in order to mitigate
system size and energy use. The aim is to provide an example of what can happen when we reduce
energy loads through climate and use responsive design. Additionally, the presentation will cover some
of the tools and techniques used to help guide decisions in the integrated design process.

Presentation Info:

–

Attendance:

25

4
2.19 Session 19: Integrated Design Principles (11/11/15)
Title: Integrated Design Principles

Description: The discussion will include a brief overview of the 2030 challenge, the status of current
building stock, and its relationship to code. Most of the discussion will be centered on the process of
design and the associated inputs of climate, building use, site design, and building design. The creation
of loads by the necessary inputs will be addressed as an element to be reduced in order to mitigate
system size and energy use. The aim is to provide an example of what can happen when we reduce
energy loads through climate and use responsive design. Additionally, the presentation will cover some
of the tools and techniques used to help guide decisions in the integrated design process.

Presentation Info:

–

Attendance:

4

2.20 Session 20: The Importance of Building Performance Modeling for Architects (12/08/15)
Title: The Importance of Building Performance Modeling for Architects
Description: The process of integrated design can blur the traditional line between the various design
trades. People often talk about borrowing budget from the mechanical systems to improve architectural
elements that will, in turn, lessen the mechanical needs due to small energy loads. What are the step
and strategies involved in putting real numbers to the value of these smaller loads? The session will
cover the use of energy modeling and life cycle cost valuing to provide quantifiable data to various
strategies in order to understand the feasibility of energy improvements to projects.

Presentation Info:

–

Attendance:

26

3

3. FUTURE WORK
Feedback was gathered from the 224 Lunch and Learn evaluations received throughout
2015. The comments from these were valuable in defining possible future Lunch and Learn
topics and informed the list of suggestions below.
Potential Future Topics:
 Building management (integrated)
o Benchmarking
o Training on M&V tools
o Real-time performance measurements
 Mechanical systems
o Building HVAC System
o HVAC controls and programming
o Passive heating/cooling/ventilation
 Codes
o Advances in insulation systems
o Energy Efficient Envelopes (Think this fits here)
 Modeling/Simulation
o Details about models programs use (heat transfer models)
o EnergyPlus, OpenStudio, Revit
 Lighting/Daylighting
o Daylight calculations process and refresher course
o Revit Daylighting and export
o Energy consumption
o Human Comfort

With the Lunch and Learn task, attendance at each session is determined mainly by the
size of the firm or organization that is hosting. However, there may still be opportunities for
increasing attendance. One suggestion would be to encourage the hosting entity to invite
others who would find the information relevant such as, consultants or owners they work with.

Report Number: 1501_03-01

2015 TASK 3: COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE SUPPORT
SUMMARY OF EFFORT AND OUTCOMES
IDAHO POWER COMPANY EXTERNAL YEAR-END REPORT

December 31, 2015

Prepared for:
Idaho Power Company

Author:
Elizabeth Cooper

ii

This page left intentionally blank.
iii

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

IDL Director:
Elizabeth Cooper

Author:
Elizabeth Cooper

Prepared for:
Idaho Power Company

Contract Number:
5277

Please cite this report as follows: Cooper, E. (2015). 2015 TASK 3:
Commercial Real Estate Support – Summary of Effort and
Outcomes (1501_03-01). University of Idaho Integrated Design
Lab, Boise, ID.
iv

DISCLAIMER
While the recommendations in this report have been reviewed for
technical accuracy and are believed to be reasonably accurate,
the findings are estimates and actual results may vary. All energy
savings and cost estimates included in the report are for
informational purposes only and are not to be construed as
design documents or as guarantees of energy or cost savings. The
user of this report, or any information contained in this report,
should independently evaluate any information, advice, or
direction provided in this report.
THE UNIVERSITY OF IDAHO MAKES NO REPRESENTATIONS,
EXTENDS NO WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESS OR
IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY, AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE
WITH RESPECT TO THE INFORMATION, INCLUDING BUT NOT
LIMITED TO ANY RECOMMEDATIONS OR FINDINGS, CONTAINED
IN THIS REPORT. THE UNIVERSITY ADDITIONALLY DISCLAIMS ALL
OBLIGATIONS AND LIABILITIES ON THE PART OF UNIVERSITY FOR
DAMAGES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DIRECT, INDIRECT,
SPECIAL AND CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES, ATTORNEYS’ AND
EXPERTS’ FEES AND COURT COSTS (EVEN IF THE UNIVERSITY HAS
BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBLITIY OF SUCH DAMAGES, FEES OR
COSTS), ARISING OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE
MANUFACTURE, USE OR SALE OF THE INFORMATION, RESULT(S),
PRODUCT(S), SERVICE(S) AND PROCESSES PROVIDED BY THE
UNIVERSITY. THE USER ASSUMES ALL RESPONSIBILITY AND
LIABILITY FOR LOSS OR DAMAGE CAUSED BY THE USE, SALE, OR
OTHER DISPOSITION BY THE USER OF PRODUCT(S), SERVICE(S), OR
(PROCESSES) INCORPORATING OR MADE BY USE OF THIS REPORT,
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO DAMAGES OF ANY KIND IN
CONNECTION WITH THIS REPORT OR THE INSTALLATION OF
RECOMMENDED MEASURES CONTAINED HEREIN.

v

This page left intentionally blank.

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 1
2. Task Summary ............................................................................................................................. 1
3. Appendices ................................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
Appendix: Project Details ............................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.

vii

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
ASHRAE American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air-Conditioning Engineers
BCA Building Contractors Association
BOC Boise Operations Center (Idaho Power Company)
BOMA Building Owners and Managers Association
CDD Cooling Degree Day
COC Canyon Operations Center (Idaho Power Company)
Com Commercial
CR(s) Customer Representative(s) (Idaho Power Company)
DDC Direct Digital Controls
EE Energy Efficiency
EMS Energy Management System
EUI Energy Use Intensity
HDD Heating Degree Day
HVAC Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning
IBOA Intermountain Building Operators Association
IT Information Technology
PE Professional Engineer
POC Pocatello Operations Center (Idaho Power Company)
Res Residential
RTU(s) Rooftop Unit(s)
TFOC Twin Falls Operations Center (Idaho Power Company)
USGBC U.S. Green Building Council
VAV Variable Air Volume
WSHP(s) Water-Source Heat Pump(s)
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 1
2015 Task 3: Commercial Real Estate Support- Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report #1501_03-01)

1. INTRODUCTION
The Commercial Real Estate task was new within the University of Idaho Integrated Design
Lab (UI-IDL) scope of work in 2015. Idaho Power Company requested that the UI-IDL
support and collaborate with GreenSteps to implement energy efficiency measures in select
commercial properties in the Idaho Power Company territory. The support and planning
was based on common energy efficiency opportunities seen during the UI-IDL’s involvement
with energy efficiency scoping audits for the Boise Kilowatt Crackdown Program held in
2013. The UI-IDL’s role included: building audits, providing audit reports, providing technical
support at follow up meetings, working with building staff to properly specify energy
efficiency projects to vendors, and ENERGY STAR certification to eligible buildings. The
scope of work aimed to continue the support of the GreenSteps team or other tasks as
directed by Idaho Power in the area of commercial real estate. The GreenSteps team
remained the direct contact with the building owners and managers; UI-IDL assisted
GreenSteps as requested.

2. TASK SUMMARY
The IDL worked with GreenSteps on several projects in 2015 providing a variety of
technical assistance in the support of commercial energy efficiency projects. The following is a
summary of activities associated with this task:
• Meetings were held on a quarterly basis with GreenSteps and building owners or
representatives to discuss energy efficiency opportunities and strategies
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 2
2015 Task 3: Commercial Real Estate Support- Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report #1501_03-01)

• GreenSteps asked the IDL to provide technical assistance for six buildings
• UI-IDL staff performed multiple site visits and building audits as requested by
GreenSteps
• Two buildings attained, or are in the process of attaining, first time ENERGY STAR®
certification
• One building achieved ENERGY STAR renewal
• A natural ventilation plan for one building was provided to the building owner for
distribution to the building tenants and occupants
• UI-IDL has scheduled to place CO2 loggers and measure air flow in one building in 2016
• One owners plans a major mechanical system upgrade as a result of technical design
assistance from UI-IDL
• One owner plans to pursue exterior lighting efficiency upgrades in 2016
• Multiple contacts were made with building owners and operators who indicated an
interest in pursuing ENERGY STAR certification or energy efficiency upgrades

    Report Number: 1501_004‐01 

2015 TASK 4: BSUG 
SUMMARY OF EFFORT AND OUTCOMES 
IDAHO POWER COMPANY EXTERNAL YEAR‐END REPORT 

December 31, 2015 

Prepared for: 
Idaho Power Company 

Author: 
Katie Leichliter 
Dylan Agnes 

This page left intentionally blank.   
Prepared by: 
University of Idaho Integrated Design Lab | Boise 
306 S 6th St. Boise, ID 83702 USA 
www.uidaho.edu/idl 

IDL Director: 
Elizabeth Cooper 

Author: 
Katie Leichliter 
Dylan Agnes 

Prepared for: 
Idaho Power Company 

Contract Number: 
5277 

Please cite this report as follows: Leichliter, K. (2015). 2015 TASK 
4: BSUG – Summary of Effort and Outcomes (1501_004‐01). 
University of Idaho Integrated Design Lab, Boise, ID.  
DISCLAIMER 
While the recommendations in this report have been reviewed for 
technical accuracy and are believed to be reasonably accurate, 
the findings are estimates and actual results may vary. All energy 
savings and cost estimates included in the report are for 
informational purposes only and are not to be construed as 
design documents or as guarantees of energy or cost savings. The 
user of this report, or any information contained in this report, 
should independently evaluate any information, advice, or 
direction provided in this report. 
THE UNIVERSITY OF IDAHO MAKES NO REPRESENTATIONS, 
EXTENDS NO WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESS OR 
IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF 
MERCHANTABILITY, AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE 
WITH RESPECT TO THE INFORMATION, INCLUDING BUT NOT 
LIMITED TO ANY RECOMMEDATIONS OR FINDINGS, CONTAINED 
IN THIS REPORT.  THE UNIVERSITY ADDITIONALLY DISCLAIMS ALL 
OBLIGATIONS AND LIABILITIES ON THE PART OF UNIVERSITY FOR 
DAMAGES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DIRECT, INDIRECT, 
SPECIAL AND CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES, ATTORNEYS’ AND 
EXPERTS’ FEES AND COURT COSTS (EVEN IF THE UNIVERSITY HAS 
BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBLITIY OF SUCH DAMAGES, FEES OR 
COSTS), ARISING OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE 
MANUFACTURE, USE OR SALE OF THE INFORMATION, RESULT(S), 
PRODUCT(S), SERVICE(S) AND PROCESSES PROVIDED BY THE 
UNIVERSITY.  THE USER ASSUMES ALL RESPONSIBILITY AND 
LIABILITY FOR LOSS OR DAMAGE CAUSED BY THE USE, SALE, OR 
OTHER DISPOSITION BY THE USER OF PRODUCT(S), SERVICE(S), OR 
(PROCESSES) INCORPORATING OR MADE BY USE OF THIS REPORT, 
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO   DAMAGES OF ANY KIND IN 
CONNECTION WITH THIS REPORT OR THE INSTALLATION OF 
RECOMMENDED MEASURES CONTAINED HEREIN. 

This page left intentionally blank.  

TABLE OF CONTENTS 
1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 3 
2. 2015 Summary and Cumulative Analysis .................................................................................... 3 
2.1 2015 Attendance ................................................................................................................... 4 
2.2 2015 Evaluations ................................................................................................................... 5 
3. Session Summaries ..................................................................................................................... 6 
3.1 Session 1: Performance – Based Wall Design using THERM ................................................. 6 
3.2 Session 2: Annual Energy & Daylight Impacts of Blind Control Patterns through Simulation
 ..................................................................................................................................................... 7 
3.3 Session 3: Simulation Engine Loads Comparison and Heat Pump Calculator Preview ......... 8 
3.4 Session 4: Using Post‐Occupancy evaluation to Develop Data Driven Design Process 
(9/3/15) ....................................................................................................................................... 9 
3.5 Session 5: Integrating Building Performance Simulation at a Design Firm – Trials and 
Tribulations................................................................................................................................ 10 
3.6 Session 6: Using Energy Models to Commission Controls .................................................. 11 
4. Website Maintenance and Statistics ........................................................................................ 12 
5. Other Activities and Suggestions for Future Improvements .................................................... 15 
6. Appendices ................................................................................................................................ 17 
Appendix A: BSUG 2015 Attendees (In‐Person) ........................................................................ 17 
Appendix B: BSUG 2015 Evaluations ......................................................................................... 18 

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS 
AIA    American Institute of Architects 
App    Application 
ARUP    London based multi‐discipline firm  
ASHRAE  American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air‐Conditioning Engineers 
BCVTP   Building Controls Virtual Test‐Bed 
BEMP    Building Energy Modeling Professional 
BESF    Building Energy Simulation Forum (Energy Trust of Oregon) 
Integrated Design Lab | Boise    2 
BIM    Building Information Modeling 
BOMA   Building Owners and Managers Association 
BSME     Bachelor of Science in Mechanical Engineering 
BSUG    Building Simulation Users’ Group 
CBECS    Commercial Building Energy Consumption Survey 
Comm   Commercial 
CTA    CTA Architects Engineers 
EDR    Eskew+Dumez+Ripple 
Elec.    Electrical   
eQUEST  Quick Energy Simulation Tool 
GBXML   Green Building Extensible Markup Language 
HePESC  Heat Pump Energy Savings Calculator 
HVAC    Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning 
IBPSA    International Building Performance Simulation Association 
IDL    Integrated Design Lab 
IPC    Idaho Power Company 
LBNL    Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory 
LEED    Leadership in Energy & Environmental Design 
M. Arch  Masters of Architecture 
ME    Mechanical Engineer(ing) 
Mech.    Mechanical 
MEP    Mechanical, Electrical, and Plumbing 
MS Arch   Masters of Science Architecture 
NCARB   National Council of Architectural Registration Boards 
RDA    Revit Daylighting Analysis  
TMY    Typical Meteorological Year 
THERM 
UDC    Urban Design Center 
UI    University of Idaho 
USGBC   U.S. Green Building Council 
Integrated Design Lab | Boise    3 
1.  INTRODUCTION 
The 2015 Idaho Power scope of work for the Building Simulation Users’ Group (BSUG) task included planning, organization 
hosting six monthly meetings, recording attendance and evaluations, archiving video of the presentations, and maintaining the BSUG 
2.0 website.  
2.  2015 SUMMARY AND CUMULATIVE ANALYSIS 
In 2015, six sessions were coordinated and hosted. Sessions are summarized below with details in the following sections. 
Table 1: Overall Summary of Sessions
     Presenter 
Company 
RSVPs  Attendees 
Date Title Presenter In‐person  Online  In‐person  Online 
1/28  Performance – Based Wall Design using THERM  Gunnar Gladics  Hummel  24 131  27  66 
2/25  Annual Energy and Daylight Impacts of Blind Control 
Patterns through Simulation 
Amir 
Nezamdoost & 
Alen Mahic 
IDL  11 60  11 35 
7/22  Simulation Engine Loads Comparison and Heat Pump 
Calculator Preview 
Katie Leichliter   IDL  9  33  7 17 
9/3  Using Post Occupancy evaluation to Develop Data Driven 
Design Process 
Corey Squire  Lake Flato 
Architects 
12  27  12  14 
10/7  Integrating Building Performance Simulation at a Design 
Firm 
Jacob Dunn  EDR + APO  31  100  17  61 
10/28  High Density, Low Cost: The Development of Accessible 
Building Monitoring 
Roderick Bates  Kieran 
Timberlake 
12  43  5  22 
11/18  Using Energy Models for Commission Controls  Damon Woods  IDL 7  50  9 28 
     Total:  106  444  86  230 
       550  316 
Integrated Design Lab | Boise    4 
2.1  2015 Attendance 

Figure 1: Attendee Count by Session and Type

Table 2: Overall Attendance Breakdown
Architect:  37 Electrician:  
Engineer:  13 Contractor: 2 
Mech. Engineer: 19 Other: 23 
 Elec. Engineer: 3 None Specified: 219 
 Total (In‐Person): 86       
 Total (Online): 230  
 Total (Combined): 316  

27
11
7
12
17
5
9
66
35
17
14
61
22
28
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Performance – Based Wall Design using THERM
Annual Energy and Daylight Impacts of Blind Control Patterns
through Simulation
Simulation Engine Loads Comparison and Heat Pump
Calculator Preview
Using Post Occupancy evaluation to Develop Data Driven
Design Process
Integrating Building Performance Simulation at a Design Firm
High Density, Low Cost: The Development of Accessible
Building Monitoring
Using Energy Models for Commission Controls
Number of Attendees In‐Person Online

Figure 2: Attendee Profession Breakdown

Figure 3: Attendee Type Breakdown
Architect
38%
Engineer
13%
Mech. 
Engineer
20%
Elec. 
Engineer
3%
Contractor
2%
Other
24%In‐Person
27%
Online
73%
Integrated Design Lab | Boise    5 
2.2  2015 Evaluations 

Figure 4: Average Evaluations by Session
Figure 5: Average Evaluation Scores for All Sessions
0
1
2
3
4
5
Performance – Based 
Wall Design using THERM
Annual Energy and
Daylight Impacts of Blind
Control Patterns through
Simulation
Simulation Engine Loads
Comparison and Heat
Pump Calculator Preview
Using Post Occupancy
evaluation to Develop
Data Driven Design
Process
Integrating Building
Performance Simulation
at a Design Firm
High Density, Low Cost:
The Development of
Accessible Building
Monitoring
Using Energy Models for
Commission Controls
Average Evaluation Scores By Session
Average of In general, today's workshop was:Average of The content of the workshop was:
Average of Rate organization:Average of Rate clarity:
Average of Rate opportunity for questions:Average of Rate instructor's knowledge of subject matter:
Average of Rate delivery of presentation:
4.1 4.3 4 4.4 4.5 4.2
3.4
0
1
2
3
4
5
Average of In
general, today's
workshop was:
Average of The
content of the
workshop was:
Average of Rate
organization:
Average of Rate
clarity:
Average of Rate
opportunity for
questions:
Average of Rate
instructor's
knowledge of
subject matter:
Average of Rate
delivery of
presentation:
Integrated Design Lab | Boise    6 
3.  SESSION SUMMARIES  
3.1  Session 1: Performance – Based Wall Design using THERM  
Title:  Performance – Based Wall Design using THERM  
Date: 1/28/15 
Description: Gunnar Gladics will be sharing the process of using THERM for performance‐based wall 
design. Specifically, he will discuss how the program can be used to determine thermal bridging within a 
wall, how it might affect energy use and comfort, and strategies to minimize it. He will also discuss the 
program’s capabilities assisting with moisture mitigation and code compliance. 
From the THERM website:  “THERM is a state‐of‐the‐art, Microsoft Windows™‐based computer program 
developed at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) for use by building component 
manufacturers, engineers, educators, students, architects, and others interested in heat transfer. Using 
THERM, you can model two‐dimensional heat‐transfer effects in building components such as windows, 
walls, foundations, roofs, and doors; appliances; and other products where thermal bridges are of 
concern. THERM's heat‐transfer analysis allows you to evaluate a product’s energy efficiency and local 
temperature patterns, which may relate directly to problems with condensation, moisture damage, and 
structural integrity.”   
Presenter: Gunnar Gladics has recently joined the Hummel team to bring additional experience in 
building performance and sustainable design. He has a strong background in building science, working at 
the University of Idaho’s Integrated Design Lab as an architectural research scientist for five years prior 
to joining Hummel. Gunnar has consulted on energy and sustainability issues on hundreds of projects in 
the Northwest and across the country. 

Attendance: 
  Architect:  13  Electrician:  0 
  Engineer:  1  Contractor:  1 
  Mech. Engineer:  4  Other*:  6 
  Elec. Engineer:  2  None Specified:  66 
  Total (In‐Person): 27         
  Total (Online): 66      
  *If 'Other' was noted:  Designer, IPC Programs, Consultant, IPC Customer Rep. 

Evaluation Highlights (What attendees found most valuable): 
• Already understood benefit of thermal de‐coupling but concerned about water vapor. 
• Good overview. Not too basic or advanced. 
• Difference between design R value & actual achieved R‐value. 
• Directed to resources applicable to everyday work. 
Integrated Design Lab | Boise    7 
3.2  Session 2: Annual Energy & Daylight Impacts of Blind Control Patterns through Simulation   
Title:  Annual Energy and Daylight Impacts of Blind Control Patterns through Simulation 
Date: 2/25/15 
Description:  Manual blind controls are typically not included in energy modelling and often are not 
considered in daylight modelling. This is in part because there is no consensus in the research or practice 
community about the way users operate manual blinds. However, researchers have recently proposed 
multiple algorithms for this purpose. Blind control patterns affect the energy consumption (interior 
lighting loads and space heating and cooling loads) of buildings but a deeper understanding of the range 
of effects is needed before widespread adoption of manual blind control algorithms in daylighting and 
energy simulation will occur or consensus about appropriate algorithms reached. Preliminary results 
show annual lighting end‐use variances up to more than 6% and other end‐uses up to more than 20% 
depending on the blind control algorithm. This presentation will briefly discuss and compare the 
proposed algorithms, and describe the process for inclusion of blind control within the simulation 
programs EnergyPlus and Radiance. 
Presenters:  Alen Mahic joined the University of Idaho Integrated Design Lab in Boise three years ago 
and has been heavily focused on daylighting technical assistance and education. With a strong 
understanding of the Radiance daylighting tool, he has helped the Lab expand on its digital simulation 
capabilities through scripted automation of advanced simulation techniques. Alen is an M.Arch graduate 
from the University of Idaho. 
Amir Nezamdoost is currently a research assistant at the IDL and is pursuing his M.S.Arch through the U 
of I, focusing on performance of manual blind control patterns in daylighting and energy simulation. He 
received his B.Arch with concentration on energy efficient buildings from Azad University (Mashhad, 
Iran) in 2010 and worked in professional architecture studios there for two years. To continue his 
professional experience in the U.S., Amir joined the IDL in 2013. His work at the IDL has included 
daylighting design and simulation on multiple projects as well as developing building simulations in 
EnergyPlus, OpenStudio, and Radiance. 

Attendance: 
Architect: 3 Contractor:  1 
Mech. Engineer:  3 Other*:  3 
Elec. Engineer:  1 None Specified:  35 
  Total (In‐Person): 11       
  Total (Online): 35       
  *If 'Other' was noted:  IPC Programs (3)   

Integrated Design Lab | Boise    8 
Evaluation Highlights (What attendees found most valuable):   
    • That cooling load was not greatly affected by blind use. The combination of programs used to 
do simulation. 
    • Learning about how the workflow was handled between the EnergyPlus and Radiance. 
    • Discussion of influencing factors on blinds 

3.3  Session 3: Simulation Engine Loads Comparison and Heat Pump Calculator Preview  
Title:  Simulation Engine Loads Comparison and Heat Pump Calculator Preview 
Date: 7/22/15 
Description: A macro‐free, single zone Heat Pump Energy Savings Calculator (HePESC) workbook is 
currently under development by the Integrated Design Lab in Boise, Idaho. As part of the calculator 
vetting process, an in‐depth loads analysis was done comparing the heat gain results with those from 
EnergyPlus and eQuest. Comparisons were made for lighting, plug loads, infiltration, glazing solar heat 
gain, zone temperature, and overall building loads. Through these comparisons, it is obvious the 
simulations use differing calculation methods which result in varying final outputs. This presentation will 
give a brief overview of the heat pump calculator project and progress, then further discuss the loads 
results from the simulation studies and possible next steps. 

Presenter:  Katie Leichliter is a Research Scientist at the University of Idaho – Integrated Design Lab in 
Boise. She conducts energy efficiency field work, measurement and verification, and operational and 
investment grade audits. Katie also conducts simulation research for energy efficiency in existing 
building renewal projects, and has developed stand‐alone energy analysis tools. She has given multiple 
presentations on building efficiency opportunities to building design and operation professionals. Katie 
graduated with a Bachelors and Masters of Science in Mechanical Engineering from the University of 
Idaho and spent three years in a private mechanical design practice specializing in BIM, building 
simulation, and HVAC design. Katie serves on the board of governors of the Idaho ASHRAE Chapter. 
Attendance: 
Architect: 2 Electrician:   
Engineer: 5 Contractor:   
Mech. Engineer:  5 Other*:  1 
  Elec. Engineer:   None Specified:  10 
  Total (In‐Person): 7         
  Total (Online): 16   
*If 'Other' was noted:  Post IPE  

Evaluation Highlights (What attendees found most valuable): 
    • Interesting to see this tool…looking forward to trying it out myself 
    • Cool tool, will be helpful 
    • About the simulation energy tools 
Integrated Design Lab | Boise    9 
    • The comparison with eQuest & e+ and the central ventilation 
    • Explaining the load calcs, line by line 
3.4  Session 4: Using Post‐Occupancy evaluation to Develop Data Driven Design Process 
(9/3/15) 
Title:  Using Post Occupancy evaluation to Develop Data Driven Design Process  
Date: 9/3/15 
Description:   Established in 1984, Lake|Flato believes in architecture that is rooted to its place, 
responds to the natural environment and merges with the landscape. With a palette of regional 
materials, we create buildings that are tactile and modern, environmentally responsible and well‐
crafted. The firm has been honored with over 200 design awards, including the American Institute of 
Architects Firm of the Year Award in 2004, eight Committee on the Environment Top Ten Project 
Awards, and the Global Award for Sustainable Architecture in 2015. 
While we have been setting sustainability goals and simulating energy performance for years, we 
recently revamped our process and began implementing a more thorough, methodical approach to 
tracking and analyzing the actual energy performance of our residential projects. By installing energy 
monitoring devices to collect real time, circuit by circuit energy data, we have been able to drill down 
and find out precisely where every kilowatt‐hour is being spent. The results have surprised us and 
caused us to rethink the way we simulate performance and the way we design. 
Presenter:  Corey Squire, LEED AP O+M is the Sustainability Coordinator at Lake|Flato. Corey works with 
all Lake|Flato teams to establish sustainability goals, analyze designs with simulation software, and 
collect post‐occupancy performance data. He received a Bachelor of Arts in Environmental Studies from 
Oberlin College and a Master of Architecture from Tulane University. In 2012, Corey was awarded the 
Eskew+Dumez+Ripple Research Fellowship to study building post‐occupancy energy performance and 
sustainable design processes. Corey’s research on post occupancy evaluation in custom residential 
projects has been an instrumental contribution to Lake|Flato’s innovative approach toward analyzing 
energy performance. 
Attendance: 
Architect: 6 Electrician:   
Engineer:  Contractor:   
Mech. Engineer:  3 Other*:  3 
  Elec. Engineer:   None Specified:  27 
  Total (In‐Person): 12         
  Total (Online): 27   
*If 'Other' was noted:  IPC Programs  

Evaluation Highlights (What attendees found most valuable): 
    • Case studies were interesting 
Integrated Design Lab | Boise    10 
    • “Pool” load types 
    • The comparison and monitoring equipment 
    • Comparisons and experiments, as well as the honesty. 

3.5  Session 5: Integrating Building Performance Simulation at a Design Firm – Trials and 
Tribulations  
Title:  Integrating Building Performance Simulation at a Design Firm – Trials and Tribulations 
Date: 10/7/15 
Description:   In‐house architecture simulation services. Is this an achievable and worthwhile prospect? 
Does building performance simulation add value to an architecture practice? Is it worth the time and 
trouble? These are examples of the questions that Jacob Dunn has been grappling with since leaving the 
University of Idaho Integrated Design Lab over a year ago to bring architectural simulation to 
Eskew+Dumez+Ripple (EDR), a New Orleans‐based, design‐first practice and AIA Firm of the Year 
recipient in 2015. Over the past year, Jacob has worked with their director of Building Performance and 
Sustainability, Z Smith, to integrate performance‐driven design throughout their studio. This 
presentation will cover the trials and tribulations of this task, while proposing frameworks and initiatives 
firms can use that encourage performance based design and building simulation in practice. Jacob will 
discuss the need for the redefinition of the way firms think about design, how they structure project 
teams, and how they implement new technologies and tools at every stage of the design process, 
Finally, Jacob will present EDR implementation case studies and initiatives piloted by the firm to provide 
insight into the difficulty and value that simulation can provide to design and sustainability. 
Presenter:  Jacob Dunn grew up in the Boise, Idaho in the Pacific Northwest (ASHRAE Climate Zone 5B) 
before recently moving to his new home in New Orleans (ASHRAE Climate Zone 2A). He holds a Master's 
Degree in Architecture from the University of Idaho and his professional background has pivoted 
between research, sustainability consulting, education, and architecture.  After working for about a year 
in London for ARUP's Foresight Innovation and Incubation group, Jacob finished his degree and started 
working at the University of Idaho's Integrated Design Lab (IDL).  At the IDL, he specialized in consulting 
through architectural simulation, conducted research on energy efficiency, and taught various graduate‐
level architecture courses.  Jacob used simulation on a daily basis for both architectural and engineering 
analysis, and across a broad spectrum of building types in both new and existing structures.  After four 
years of being a Research Scientist, he was recruited out of Idaho to Eskew+Dumez+Ripple (EDR) and 
tasked with enabling evidenced‐based design and simulation analysis to their award‐winning design 
firm.  At EDR, Jacob currently works with design teams to explore the link between aesthetics and 
performance through simulation and a scientific approach to sustainability. 
Integrated Design Lab | Boise    11 
Attendance: 
Architect: 8 Electrician:   
Engineer:  Contractor:   
Mech. Engineer:  1 Other*: 8 
  Elec. Engineer:   None Specified:  60 
  Total (In‐Person): 17         
  Total (Online): 60   
*If 'Other' was noted:  EIT, Prof, Eng, ID 

Evaluation Highlights (What attendees found most valuable): 
    • Evaluation of design software + use/abilities of software 
    • Good synopsis of Revit tools, consulting experiences 
    • Points along the process where it makes most sense to incorporate which tools/analysis + tips on 
Revit extensions 
• Organization was excellent – really great to see multiple project phases and in relation to energy 
analysis 
• Use in Practice/Real world issues  

3.6  Session 6: Using Energy Models to Commission Controls  
Title:  Using Energy Models to Commission Controls 
Date: 11/18/15 
Description:  Accurate, effective and thorough commissioning of building controls is often neglected or 
incomplete due to several factors; fear of occupant complaints, equipment damage, cost and time all 
contribute to a lack of proper commissioning. Building Controls Virtual Test‐Bed (BCVTB), a free software 
available from Lawrence Berkeley National Lab, enables a user to connect their energy simulation to 
elements in the real world. It can be used to incorporate real‐time weather, sensor outputs, or even 
pieces of control hardware. The research team at IDL implemented this process for a large campus 
building currently in operation, by physically connecting one of its controllers to an energy model 
developed in OpenStudio. This approach enabled identification and correction of operating parameters, 
including economizer control settings. By tuning just a few operational settings, this project had a 
potential to save up to 12% of the building’s energy per year. This lecture will cover how the IDL 
successfully connected OpenStudio/EnergyPlus models to physical controllers. 
Presenters:  Damon Woods is a PhD student at the University of Idaho and has been with the Integrated 
Design Lab since 2012. His research focus is on increasing the energy efficiency of buildings by using 
modeling and predictive control of radiant systems. Damon received a BS in Mechanical Engineering 
from Montana State University and an MS in Mechanical Engineering from Boise State University in 
2013. 
Attendance: 
Integrated Design Lab | Boise    12 
Architect: 3 Electrician:   
Engineer: 7 Contractor:   
Mech. Engineer:  2 Other*:  3 
  Elec. Engineer:   None Specified:  20 
  Total (In‐Person): 9         
  Total (Online): 26   
*If 'Other' was noted:  Professor, Energy Manager, Utility Rep 

Evaluation Highlights (What attendees found most valuable): 
• Inspiration on the potential of modeling 
• Concept 
• Details on the graphic that showed integration of EnergyPlus and the fact that commissioning 
should never stop. 
• Economizer example 

4.  WEBSITE MAINTENANCE AND STATISTICS 
The Google site “BSUG 2.0” was maintained and updated monthly. Each month, details 
about the upcoming presentation were posted to the ‘UPCOMING EVENTS’ page. These pages 
also included links to both webinar and in‐person registration. Monthly emails linked to these 
pages as well as directly to the registration sites. If the monthly session included a webinar 
recording, the video was edited and posted to the YouTube channel with a link from the BSUG 
2.0 website.  
Between January 1, 2015 and November 25, 2015, total page views summed to 166 with 
unique page views at 147 for 313 total sessions at the site. Of the 313 sessions, 114 (36%) of 
the sessions were by users in Idaho.  Below are charts showing a summary of website activity 
for the most popular pages, as well as for the site as a whole. 
Integrated Design Lab | Boise    13 

Figure 6: Number of Page Views for the Ten Most Popular Pages in 2015

835
151 144 124 115 108 101 93 74 64
808
151 122 111 89 86 83 74 67 54
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
Most Popular Pages
Pageviews Unique Pageviews
Integrated Design Lab | Boise    14 

Figure 7: Monthly Site-Wide Statistics

Figure 8: Heat Map of All U.S. Sessions in 2015
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
Site‐Wide Statistics
Page Views Unique Page Views Avg. Time on Page (sec)Sessions Users
Integrated Design Lab | Boise    15 

Figure 9: Bubble Maps of All Sessions and Idaho in 2015

5.  OTHER ACTIVITIES AND SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE IMPROVEMENTS 
2015 was a successful year for the BSUG task with 6 sessions completed and 331 total 
attendees – 86 in‐person and 230 online.  Feedback was provided by attendees via the 
evaluation forms, 89 of which were collected. These offered a starting point for determining 
future improvements to the program.  
A brainstorming session was held at the end of the last BSUG – Session 6. At the last 
session, discussion centered on potential topics for 2016 as well as general improvements and 
Integrated Design Lab | Boise    16 
ways to increase attendance. Below is a short summary of main takeaways from the last session 
as well as the feedback from the evaluations.  
Potential Topics: 
 Google Flux 
 Business Case for Modeling 
 Modeling at different levels of accuracy/time 
 CBECS LBL Calibrated Models 
 Meteorologist 

Potential Speakers: 
 TBD 

Attendance and Marketing: 
 Try to hold joint meetings with other organizations (such as ASHRAE, AIA, BOMA, and 
others) 
 Include calendar invitations on any notices or reminders 
 Market toward eastern Idaho and other remote locations 
 Attendance prizes 

Report Number: 1501_005-01

2015 TASK 5: BUILDING EFFICIENCY VERIFICATIONS
SUMMARY OF PROJECTS
IDAHO POWER COMPANY EXTERNAL YEAR-END REPORT

December 31, 2015

Prepared for:
Idaho Power Company

Authors:
Robert Galarza
Katie Leichliter

ii

This page left intentionally blank.

iii

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

IDL Director:
Elizabeth Cooper

Authors:
Robert Galarza
Katie Leichliter

Prepared for:
Idaho Power Company

Contract Number:
3094

Please cite this report as follows: Galarza, R., Leichliter, K. (2015).
2015 TASK 5: Building Efficiency Verifications – Summary of
Projects (1501_005-01). University of Idaho Integrated Design Lab,
Boise, ID.

iv

DISCLAIMER
While the recommendations in this report have been reviewed for
technical accuracy and are believed to be reasonably accurate,
the findings are estimates and actual results may vary. All energy
savings and cost estimates included in the report are for
informational purposes only and are not to be construed as
design documents or as guarantees of energy or cost savings. The
user of this report, or any information contained in this report,
should independently evaluate any information, advice, or
direction provided in this report.
THE UNIVERSITY OF IDAHO MAKES NO REPRESENTATIONS,
EXTENDS NO WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESS OR
IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY, AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE
WITH RESPECT TO THE INFORMATION, INCLUDING BUT NOT
LIMITED TO ANY RECOMMEDATIONS OR FINDINGS, CONTAINED
IN THIS REPORT. THE UNIVERSITY ADDITIONALLY DISCLAIMS ALL
OBLIGATIONS AND LIABILITIES ON THE PART OF UNIVERSITY FOR
DAMAGES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DIRECT, INDIRECT,
SPECIAL AND CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES, ATTORNEYS’ AND
EXPERTS’ FEES AND COURT COSTS (EVEN IF THE UNIVERSITY HAS
BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBLITIY OF SUCH DAMAGES, FEES OR
COSTS), ARISING OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE
MANUFACTURE, USE OR SALE OF THE INFORMATION, RESULT(S),
PRODUCT(S), SERVICE(S) AND PROCESSES PROVIDED BY THE
UNIVERSITY. THE USER ASSUMES ALL RESPONSIBILITY AND
LIABILITY FOR LOSS OR DAMAGE CAUSED BY THE USE, SALE, OR
OTHER DISPOSITION BY THE USER OF PRODUCT(S), SERVICE(S), OR
(PROCESSES) INCORPORATING OR MADE BY USE OF THIS REPORT,
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO DAMAGES OF ANY KIND IN
CONNECTION WITH THIS REPORT OR THE INSTALLATION OF
RECOMMENDED MEASURES CONTAINED HEREIN.

v

This page left intentionally blank.
Integrated Design Lab | Boise vi
2015 Task 5: Building Efficiency Verifications - Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report #1501_005-01)

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 1
2. 2015 Building Efficiency Verification Projects ............................................................................ 1
3. 2015 Photo Controls Review Projects ......................................................................................... 4

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
AC Air Conditioning
BEV Building Efficiency Verification
HVAC Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning
IDL Integrated Design Lab
IPC Idaho Power Company
UI University of Idaho
VRF Variable Refrigerant Flow

Integrated Design Lab | Boise 1
2015 Task 5: Building Efficiency Verifications- Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report #1501_005-01)

1

1. INTRODUCTION
The University of Idaho Integrated Design Lab (UI-IDL) had two roles for the Building
Efficiency Verification (BEV) task in 2015. The primary role was to conduct on-site verification
reports for approximately 10%, typically seven to eight, of projects that participated in Idaho
Power Company’s (IPC) Building Efficiency Program. The verified projects were randomly
selected from the entire pool of projects, and at least two projects were required to be outside
the Boise area. The secondary role was to review the photo controls design and function for
every project whose application included incentive L3: Daylight Photo Controls within the
Building Efficiency Program. Once each review was concluded, a letter of support for the
incentive was submitted to Idaho Power. This review and letter were intended to increase
energy savings and quality of design through the inclusion of additional design and
commissioning recommendations.
2. 2015 BUILDING EFFICIENCY VERIFICATION PROJECTS
The UI-IDL completed nine Building Efficiency Verification projects in 2015. A detailed
report for each project was submitted to IPC, including claimed and actual installation for each
specific incentive the project applied for. With the exception of one, all of the projects
reviewed in 2015 were completed under the new Building Efficiency’s 2014 Program which
supersedes the Building Efficiency’s 2011 Program. The specific incentives for these programs
are outlined in Table 1 and Table 2. Notable changes included the addition of the ‘Appliances
with Electric Water Heating’ and ‘Refrigeration’ sections in the 2014 program.

Integrated Design Lab | Boise 2
2015 Task 5: Building Efficiency Verifications- Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report #1501_005-01)

2

Table 1: 2011 Build Efficiency Program Specific Incentives
Lighting L1 Interior Light Load Reduction
L2 Exterior Light Load Reduction
L3 Daylight Photo Controls
L4 Occupancy Sensors
L5 High Efficiency Exit Signs
Air Conditioning (HVAC) A1 Premium Efficiency HVAC Units
A2 Additional HVAC Efficiency Unit Efficiency Bonus
A3 Efficient Chillers
A4 Air Side Economizers
Building Shell B1 Reflective Roof Treatment
B2 High Performance Windows and Skylights
Controls C1 Energy Management Control System
C2 Demand Control Ventilation
C3 Variable Speed Drives

Table 2: 2014 Build Efficiency Program Specific Incentives
Lighting L1 Interior Light Load Reduction
L2 Exterior Light Load Reduction
L3 Daylight Photo Controls
L4 Occupancy Sensors
L5 High Efficiency Exit Signs
Air Conditioning A1 Efficient Air-Cooled AC & Heat Pump Units
A2 Efficient VRF Units
A3 Efficient Chillers
A4
A5
Air Side Economizers
Direct Evaporative Coolers
Building Shell B1 Reflective Roof Treatment
Controls C1 Energy Management Control System
C2 Guest Room Energy Management System
C3 HVAC Variable Speed Drives
Appliances with Electric Water
Heating
W1
D1
D2
Efficient Laundry Machines
EnergyStar Undercounter Dishwashers
EnergyStar Commercial Dishwasher
Refrigeration R1
R2
R3
Head Pressure Controls
Floating Suction Controls
Efficient Condensers

To streamline writing project reports, a detailed template in spreadsheet form was
created. This template is quick and easy to use allowing the user to focus on reviewing project
specifics and less time on formatting and organizing. It contains all necessary incentive
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 3
2015 Task 5: Building Efficiency Verifications- Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report #1501_005-01)

3

information neatly organized in one file. Figure 1 shows how the each incentive is separated
into tabs, which are color coded for working efficiently. Figure 2 is representative of the look
and feel of each tab, containing information about the project and requirements for the
incentive.

Figure 1: Workflow from left to right with tabs for each incentive.

Figure 2: Example of the general layout of each tab with project and incentive information.
Table 3 below summarizes the nine projects and respective qualified incentive measures
which were verified by UI-IDL. The new template was used to write the reports for these
projects.
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 4
2015 Task 5: Building Efficiency Verifications- Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report #1501_005-01)

4

Table 3: BEV Project Summary
IPC Project
#
Facility
Description Location Incentive
Measures
UI-IDL
Site-Visit Date
11-348 Industrial - Large Pocatello, ID C3 10/29/15
14-006 Retail (non-food) Twin Falls, ID A1, C1 10/28/15
14-033 Warehouse American Falls, ID L1 10/28/15
14-071 Paramedic Station Boise, ID L1, L2, L4, L5, A1,
A5, B1, W1, D1 12/08/15
14-101 Hospital Boise, ID L1, L4, R3 06/19/15
14-105 Retail (non-food) Nampa, ID A1 06/12/15
14-140 Industrial - Large Jerome, ID L2 10/28/15
14-143 College/University Nampa, ID L1, L3, L4, L5, A1,
A4, B1, C1, 12/09/15
14-149 Retail (non-food) Twin Falls, ID L1, L4, A1, 10/28/15

3. 2015 PHOTO CONTROLS REVIEW PROJECTS
In 2015, the UI-IDL received at least seven inquiries regarding the Building Efficiency
photo controls incentive review. Documentation was received and final letters of support were
submitted to IPC for photo controls incentive applications for four of these projects including a
warehouse, a government facility, an office, and a manufacturing facility. Reviews were not
completed for two government facilities and a university library since the requested necessary
documentation was not received by the UI-IDL. Follow-up may be necessary on these projects.

    Report Number: 1501_006‐05 

2015 TASK 6: TOOL LOAN LIBRARY 
SUMMARY OF EFFORT AND OUTCOMES 
IDAHO POWER COMPANY EXTERNAL YEAR‐END REPORT 

December 31, 2015 

Prepared for: 
Idaho Power Company 

Authors: 
Tyler Noble  
Katie Leichliter 
Brad Acker 

ii 

This page left intentionally blank.   

iii 

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

IDL Director: 
Elizabeth Cooper 

Authors: 
Tyler Noble 
Katie Leichliter 
Brad Acker 

Prepared for: 
Idaho Power Company 

Contract Number: 
5277 

Please cite this report as follows: Noble, T., Leichliter, K., Acker, B. 
(2015). 2015 TASK 6: Tool Loan Library – Summary of Effort and 
Outcomes (1501_006‐05). University of Idaho Integrated Design 
Lab, Boise, ID.  

iv 

DISCLAIMER 
While the recommendations in this report have been reviewed for 
technical accuracy and are believed to be reasonably accurate, 
the findings are estimates and actual results may vary. All energy 
savings and cost estimates included in the report are for 
informational purposes only and are not to be construed as 
design documents or as guarantees of energy or cost savings. The 
user of this report, or any information contained in this report, 
should independently evaluate any information, advice, or 
direction provided in this report. 
THE UNIVERSITY OF IDAHO MAKES NO REPRESENTATIONS, 
EXTENDS NO WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESS OR 
IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF 
MERCHANTABILITY, AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE 
WITH RESPECT TO THE INFORMATION, INCLUDING BUT NOT 
LIMITED TO ANY RECOMMEDATIONS OR FINDINGS, CONTAINED 
IN THIS REPORT.  THE UNIVERSITY ADDITIONALLY DISCLAIMS ALL 
OBLIGATIONS AND LIABILITIES ON THE PART OF UNIVERSITY FOR 
DAMAGES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DIRECT, INDIRECT, 
SPECIAL AND CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES, ATTORNEYS’ AND 
EXPERTS’ FEES AND COURT COSTS (EVEN IF THE UNIVERSITY HAS 
BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBLITIY OF SUCH DAMAGES, FEES OR 
COSTS), ARISING OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE 
MANUFACTURE, USE OR SALE OF THE INFORMATION, RESULT(S), 
PRODUCT(S), SERVICE(S) AND PROCESSES PROVIDED BY THE 
UNIVERSITY.  THE USER ASSUMES ALL RESPONSIBILITY AND 
LIABILITY FOR LOSS OR DAMAGE CAUSED BY THE USE, SALE, OR 
OTHER DISPOSITION BY THE USER OF PRODUCT(S), SERVICE(S), OR 
(PROCESSES) INCORPORATING OR MADE BY USE OF THIS REPORT, 
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO   DAMAGES OF ANY KIND IN 
CONNECTION WITH THIS REPORT OR THE INSTALLATION OF 
RECOMMENDED MEASURES CONTAINED HEREIN. 

v 

This page left intentionally blank.  

vi 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 
1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 8 
2. Marketing .................................................................................................................................... 9 
3. Tool Calibration Plan ................................................................................................................. 11 
4. 2015 Summary Of Loans ........................................................................................................... 12 
5. Appendices ................................................................................................................................ 18 

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS 
AC    Air Conditioning 
AIA    American Institute of Architects 
AHU    Air Handling Unit 
Amp    Ampere 
ASHRAE  American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air‐Conditioning Engineers 
BOMA   Building Owners and Managers Association 
BSU    Boise State University 
CO2    Carbon Dioxide 
CT    Current Transducer 
Cx    Commissioning 
DCV    Demand Control Ventilation 
EE    Energy Efficiency 
EEM(s)   Energy Efficiency Measure(s) 
fc    Foot‐Candle 
HVAC    Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning 
IAC    Industrial Assessment Center 
IBOA    Intermountain Building Operators Association 
IDL    Integrated Design Lab 
Int.    International 
IPC    Idaho Power Company 
kW    Kilowatt 
kWh    Kilowatt‐Hour 
M&V    Measurement and Verification 
OSA    Outside Air 

vii 

PG&E    Pacific Gas and Electric Company 
PPM    Parts Per Million 
RPM    Rotations Per Minute 
RTU    Rooftop Unit 
TLL    Tool Loan Library 
TPS    Third Party Service 
UI    University of Idaho 
USGBC   U.S. Green Building Council 
Verif.    Verification 
VOC    Volatile Organic Compound 

Integrated Design Lab | Boise    8 
2015 Task 6: Tool Loan Library ‐ Idaho Power Company External Year‐End Report 
 (Report #1501_006‐05) 

1.  INTRODUCTION 
The Tool Loan Library (TLL) is a resource supported by Idaho Power Company (IPC) and managed by the University of Idaho 
Integrated Design Lab (UI‐IDL). The TLL at the UI‐IDL is modeled after the Lending Library at the Pacific Energy Center, which is 
supported by Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E). In the past years interest in these type of libraries have grown. Recently the Smart 
Building Center which is a project of the Northwest Energy Efficiency Council has started a lending library and they list other lending 
libraries spanning a large range of tools, not just energy efficiency focused tools.  
The primary goal of the TLL is to help customers with energy efficiency (EE) needs, through the use of sensors and loggers 
deployed in buildings of various types. Loans are provided to individuals or businesses at no charge to the customer. Over 900 
individual pieces of equipment are available for loan through the TLL. The equipment is focused on measurement parameters to 
quantify key factors related to building and equipment energy use, and factors which can affect worker productivity.  
The loan process is started when a customer fills out the tool loan proposal form, which is found on the TLL webpage 
(www.idlboise.com/tool‐loan‐library). When completing a tool loan proposal, the customer includes basic background information, 
project and data measurement requirements, and goals. When a proposal is submitted, UI‐IDL staff members are alerted of a 
pending proposal via email. The customer and a staff member communicate to verify and finalize equipment needs. Tools are picked 
up at the UI‐IDL or shipped at the customer’s expense. 
Integrated Design Lab | Boise    9 
2015 Task 6: Tool Loan Library ‐ Idaho Power Company External Year‐End Report 
 (Report #1501_006‐05) 

2.  MARKETING 
Marketing for the TLL was done at various UI‐IDL and IPC activities throughout 2015, as well as on the UI‐IDL website. Five 
hundred tool loan flyers were printed in March of 2015 for distribution by IPC and UI‐IDL staff. The flyer layout was unchanged from 
2013: it is in Figure 1 and Figure 2 below. The TLL was promoted in presentations given by the UI‐IDL staff, including the Lunch and 
Learn series and lectures to professional organizations such as American Institute of Architects (AIA), International Building 
Operators Association (IBOA), City of Boise, Building Owners and Operators Association (BOMA), and the Idaho Green Energy and 
Building Conference.  
The TLL flyer and program slides point potential users to the TLL website for more information about the library. The main UI‐
IDL website hosts the TLL portal where customers can submit proposals and request tools, all online. In 2015, the TLL home page had 
3,160 visitors.  
Integrated Design Lab | Boise    10 
2015 Task 6: Tool Loan Library ‐ Idaho Power Company External Year‐End Report 
 (Report #1501_006‐05) 

Figure 1: TLL Flyer Front

Figure 2: TLL Flyer Back

Integrated Design Lab | Boise    11 
2015 Task 6: Tool Loan Library ‐ Idaho Power Company External Year‐End Report 
 (Report #1501_006‐05) 

3.  TOOL CALIBRATION PLAN 
Equipment items included in the tool loan program are typically distributed with a 
manufacturer guaranteed calibration period between 1 and 3 years. The vast majority of items 
are beyond this guaranteed period of calibration. While many items may stay within calibration 
for years after the guaranteed calibration period ends, re‐verifying the item is within calibration 
and re‐calibrating if necessary is highly recommended. Calibration services are available on 
most tools either from the manufacturer or various certified calibration services nationwide. 
While IDL suggests that every tool should be kept 100% up‐to‐date on calibration, several 
inquiries and other research suggests doing so is not without substantial cost.  
Appendix C is a summary of calibration status of the tool loan inventory and includes the 
current best estimate for implementation of an annual calibration program.  Calibration is a 
time intensive endeavor, generally requiring expensive test equipment. Ideally recalibration 
would be performed by the original manufacturer factory and would typically be outsourced to 
a third party service (TPS) when factory recalibration services are unavailable.  
In lieu of certified calibration, there are occasionally measures that IDL can take to 
ensure items are within calibration tolerances. There are a few equipment types, for instance, 
that can be cross‐checked against other equipment for accuracy. Some sensors, like carbon 
dioxide or volatile organic compound sensors, test procedures may be followed to ensure 
accuracy of readings.  
Integrated Design Lab | Boise    12 
2015 Task 6: Tool Loan Library ‐ Idaho Power Company External Year‐End Report 
 (Report #1501_006‐05) 

4.  2015 SUMMARY OF LOANS 
In 2015, loan requests totaled 56 with 42 loans completed. The second and third 
quarters equally had the highest volume of loans at 14 total. Loans were made to 24 different 
locations and 31 unique users. A wide range of tools was borrowed, as listed in Figure 7. The 
majority of tools were borrowed for principle investigations or audits, although loans were also 
made for determining baselines before EEMs were implemented. Tools were borrowed to 
verify these EEMs as well. Table 1 and the following figures outline the usage analysis for TLL in 
2015. 
Table 1: Project and Loan Summary
 Request Date  Location 

Project  Type of Loan 
# of 
Tools 
Loaned 

1 1/7/2015  Boise  ID  OB1  Audit  7 
2 1/14/2015 Twin Falls ID OB2 Audit 12 
3 1/20/2015  Garden City  ID  OB3 Audit 3 
4 2/2/2015 Boise ID MB1 Audit 12 
5 2/3/2015  Shoshone  ID  Dairy1 Verification 
of EEMs 
15 
6 2/12/2015 Nampa ID Home1 Audit 1 
7 2/13/2015  Boise  ID  WWTP1 Verification 
of EEMs 
1 
8 2/17/2015 Burley ID Plant1 Verification 
of EEMs 
1 
9 2/17/2015  Twin Falls  ID  OB4  Verification 
of EEMs 
7 
10 2/18/2015 Boise ID School Audit 1 
11 3/11/2015  Boise  ID  Plant2 Audit 7 
12 3/30/2015 Boise ID Plant3 Audit 1 
13 4/6/2015  Weiser  ID  WWTP2 Verification 
of EEMs 
1 
14 4/10/2015 Nampa ID OB5 Audit 11 
15 4/16/2015  Boise  ID  WWTP3 Audit 15 
16 4/17/2015 Boise ID Plant4 Audit 1 
Integrated Design Lab | Boise    13 
2015 Task 6: Tool Loan Library ‐ Idaho Power Company External Year‐End Report 
 (Report #1501_006‐05) 

17 4/27/2015  Shoshone  ID  Dairy2  Verification 
of EEMs 
37 
18 5/5/2015 Boise ID Theater Verification 
of EEMs 
4 
19 5/5/2015  Meridian  ID  OB6  Audit  7 
20 5/6/2015 Caldwell ID Plant5 Verification 
of EEMs 
1 
21 5/6/2015  Burley  ID  Plant6  Verification 
of EEMs 
9 
22 5/8/2015 Sun Valley ID Lodge1 Verification 
of EEMs 
1 
23 5/11/2015  Boise  ID  OB7  Audit  2 
24 5/21/2015 Boise ID Bank1 Verification 
of EEMs 
5 
25 5/29/2015  Boise  ID  Home2  Audit  1 
26 6/30/2015 Boise ID Lab1 Audit 23 
27 7/6/2015  Ontario  OR  Medical1 Verification 
of EEMs 
4 
28 7/15/2015 Boise ID OB8 Verification 
of EEMs 
5 
29 7/21/2015  Boise  ID  Dairy3  Audit  1 
30 7/23/2015 Burley ID Plant7 Verification 
of EEMs 
16 
31 7/24/2015  Spokane  WA  Audit1  Audit  7 
32 7/30/2015 Boise ID Freezers Audit 1 
33 7/31/2015  Nampa  ID  OB9 Audit 21 
34 8/4/2015 Twin Falls ID OB10 Audit 5 
35 8/5/2015  Nampa  ID  OB11 Audit 7 
36 8/6/2015 Boise ID OB12 Audit 3 
37 8/19/2015  Boise  ID  Plant9 Audit 38 
38 9/4/2015 Twin Falls ID OB12 Verification 
of EEMs 
9 
39 9/19/2015  Boise  ID  Library1  Verification 
of EEMs 
1 
40 9/23/2015 Meridian  ID OB13 Audit 2 
41 10/1/2015  Boise  ID  Home3 Audit 6 
42 10/2/2015 Boise ID OB14 Verification 
of EEMs 
2 
43 10/12/2015  Boise  ID  OB15  Verification 
of EEMs 
1 
44 10/14/2015 Nampa ID OB16 Audit 1 
45 11/6/2015  Boise  ID  OB17 Verification 
of EEMs 
1 
46 11/16/2015 Boise ID WWTP4 Audit 8 
47 11/18/2015  Pocatello  ID  OB18 Audit 7 
Integrated Design Lab | Boise    14 
2015 Task 6: Tool Loan Library ‐ Idaho Power Company External Year‐End Report 
 (Report #1501_006‐05) 

48 11/18/2015 Boise ID OB19 Audit 1 
49 11/20/2015  Burley  ID  Plant10 Audit 3 
50 11/25/2015 Boise ID Plant11 Audit 1 
51 12/7/2015  Kuna  ID  OB20 Audit 1  
52 12/15/2015 Durkee OR Plant12 Verification 
of EEMs 
1 
53 12/17/2015  Meridian  ID  Plant13  Audit  1 
54 12/18/2015 Twin Falls ID Plant14 Verification 
of EEMs 
1 
55 12/22/2015  Boise  ID  OB21  Verification 
of EEMs 
1 
56 12/29/2015 Boise ID Home4 Verification 
of EEMs 
1 
Integrated Design Lab | Boise    15 
2015 Task 6: Tool Loan Library ‐ Idaho Power Company External Year‐End Report 
 (Report #1501_006‐05) 

Figure 3: Loans by Type Figure 4: Number of Loans per Quarter

Figure 5: Number of Loans per Month
8
1 3
7
7
9
5
12
2
2
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
1. Preliminary Investigation /
Audit / Study to Identify Energy
Efficiency Measures (EEMs)
2. Pre‐implementation /
Baseline Measurements of
Particular EEMs
3. Post‐implementation /
Verification Measures of
Particular EEMs
Loans by Type
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
12
14 14
16
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
Number of Loans per Quarter
3
7
2
5
8
1
7
4 3 4
6 6
0
2
4
6
8
10
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Number of Loans per Month
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
Integrated Design Lab | Boise    16 
2015 Task 6: Tool Loan Library ‐ Idaho Power Company External Year‐End Report 
 (Report #1501_006‐05) 

Figure 6: Number of Loans by Location

Figure 7: Number of Loans by User
9
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
18
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
8
2
2
1
1
1
1
16
1
0
1
1
2
1
2
2
1
1
1
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Boise
Eagle
Garden City
Gooding
Idaho Falls
Ketchum
Kuna
McCall
Nampa
Pocatello
Shoshone
Twin Falls
Sun Valley
Undisclosed
Caldwell
Burley
Meridian
Weiser
Int.
Missoula
Ontario
Durkee
Ogden
Spokane
ID
In
t
.

M
T

O
R

U
T

W
A
Loans by Location
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
1
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
29
31
Loans by User
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
Integrated Design Lab | Boise    17 
2015 Task 6: Tool Loan Library ‐ Idaho Power Company External Year‐End Report 
 (Report #1501_006‐05) 

TOTAL TOOLS LOANED: 317 Q1=66  Q2=111  Q3=113  Q4= 27 

Figure 7: Summary of Tools Loaned
11
6
1
7
16
8
7
1
2
1
5
1
1
9
4
7
7
28
4
7
3
7
4
1
1
8
8
4
3
3
1
1
4
2
10
1
43
1
4
5
18
4
6
5
6
1
2
1
2
3
8
1
1
8
4
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Veris Industries Hawkeye Current Switch
Split‐Core Mini CT, 50 Amp
Split‐core CT, 200 Amp
Sensor, CT, Split‐Core, 0‐100 Amp
Office, Computer, Laptop
Monarch RHTemp Track‐It Logger
Light Meter
HOBO U12‐013 Data Logger
HOBO U12‐012 Data Logger
HOBO U12‐008 Data Logger
HOBO U12‐006 Data Logger
HOBO Temperature Sensor
HOBO Current Transformer 50 Amp
HOBO Current Transformer 200 Amp
HOBO Current Transformer 20 Amp
HOBO Current Transformer 100 Amp
Fluke 43B Handheld Instrument
FLIR E50bx
FLEX.US Ultrasound Leak Detector
Extech Light Meter
ElitePro, Standard Memory (512K) Logger,  Amps, Volts,…
Dent RoCoil Flexible CT
Dent MAGlogger
Dent Flexible AC Current Probe, 3000A
Dent ElitePro Energy Logger, High Memory, Line Power
Dent CONTACTlogger
Continental Control Systems, LLC ACT Split‐Core CT
CEM Sound Level Meter
Carbon Dioxide and Temperature Monitor
Tool Summary
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4

Report Number: 1501_007-01

2015 TASK 7: BUILDING METRICS LABELING
SUMMARY OF EFFORT AND OUTCOMES
IDAHO POWER COMPANY YEAR-END REPORT

December 31, 2015

Prepared for:
Idaho Power Company

Author:
Elizabeth Cooper

ii

This page left intentionally blank.
iii

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

IDL Director:
Elizabeth Cooper

Author:
Elizabeth Cooper

Prepared for:
Idaho Power Company

Contract Number:
5277

Please cite this report as follows: Cooper, E. (2015). 2015 TASK 7:
Building Metrics Labeling – Summary of Efforts and Outcomes
(1501_007-01). University of Idaho Integrated Design Lab, Boise,
ID.
iv

DISCLAIMER
While the recommendations in this report have been reviewed for
technical accuracy and are believed to be reasonably accurate,
the findings are estimates and actual results may vary. All energy
savings and cost estimates included in the report are for
informational purposes only and are not to be construed as
design documents or as guarantees of energy or cost savings. The
user of this report, or any information contained in this report,
should independently evaluate any information, advice, or
direction provided in this report.
THE UNIVERSITY OF IDAHO MAKES NO REPRESENTATIONS,
EXTENDS NO WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESS OR
IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY, AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE
WITH RESPECT TO THE INFORMATION, INCLUDING BUT NOT
LIMITED TO ANY RECOMMEDATIONS OR FINDINGS, CONTAINED
IN THIS REPORT. THE UNIVERSITY ADDITIONALLY DISCLAIMS ALL
OBLIGATIONS AND LIABILITIES ON THE PART OF UNIVERSITY FOR
DAMAGES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DIRECT, INDIRECT,
SPECIAL AND CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES, ATTORNEYS’ AND
EXPERTS’ FEES AND COURT COSTS (EVEN IF THE UNIVERSITY HAS
BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBLITIY OF SUCH DAMAGES, FEES OR
COSTS), ARISING OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE
MANUFACTURE, USE OR SALE OF THE INFORMATION, RESULT(S),
PRODUCT(S), SERVICE(S) AND PROCESSES PROVIDED BY THE
UNIVERSITY. THE USER ASSUMES ALL RESPONSIBILITY AND
LIABILITY FOR LOSS OR DAMAGE CAUSED BY THE USE, SALE, OR
OTHER DISPOSITION BY THE USER OF PRODUCT(S), SERVICE(S), OR
(PROCESSES) INCORPORATING OR MADE BY USE OF THIS REPORT,
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO DAMAGES OF ANY KIND IN
CONNECTION WITH THIS REPORT OR THE INSTALLATION OF
RECOMMENDED MEASURES CONTAINED HEREIN.

v

This page left intentionally blank.

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 1
2. Summary of Progress .................................................................................................................. 1
2.1 Website Progress................................................................................................................... 1
2.2 Marketing .............................................................................................................................. 1
3. Next Steps ................................................................................................................................... 4

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
App Application
BOMA Building Owners and Operators Association
BSUG Building Simulation Users’ Group
CREW Commercial Real Estate Women (Network)
EUI Energy Use Intensity
IDL Integrated Design Lab
IMG Intermountain Gas
IPC Idaho Power Company
KWCD Kilowatt Crackdown
UI University of Idaho
USGBC United States Green Building Council

Integrated Design Lab | Boise 1
2015 Task 7: Building Metrics Labeling- Idaho Power Company Year-End Report
(Report #1501_007-0)

1. INTRODUCTION
The Building Metrics Labeling (BML) task was a continuation of work done by the
University of Idaho Integrated Design Lab (UI-IDL) for Idaho Power Company (IPC) beginning in
2012. A stand-alone energy specific label was developed in 2012 and a web-portal was created
in 2013 so the label could be automatically generated once information was submitted by
users. In 2014 the work focused on providing user support, general promotion of the tool, and
tool debugging with minor functionality improvements. The task in 2015 was a continuation of
the support, promotion and improvement of the tool that was started in 2014.
2. SUMMARY OF PROGRESS
2.1 Website Progress
The majority of the progress made in 2015 was maintenance and support. No additional
content was added.
2.2 Marketing
The UI-IDL created a two-sided flyer that was used as the main method for marketing in
2014, this flyer was distributed widely in 2015 and a second printing was made. The flyer can be
seen in the figures on the following pages.
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 2
2015 Task 7: Building Metrics Labeling- Idaho Power Company Year-End Report
(Report #1501_007-0)

Figure 1: BML Flyer Front
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 3
2015 Task 7: Building Metrics Labeling- Idaho Power Company Year-End Report
(Report #1501_007-0)

Figure 2: BML Flyer Back
During 2015, the tool was discussed and/or the flyer was distributed at multiple
events, listed below.
• 20 Lunch and Learn presentations to architecture or engineering firms and
organizations (flyers and a slide before the main presentation)
• Multiple Central Addition planning meetings hosted by USGBC
• Six BSUG events
• A presentation to the Mayor and Planning and Development Services staff at the
City of Boise (4/30/2015)
• A presentation to a, including brokers and managers
• A presentation to a commercial real estate management company, and building
owners, followed up with a link emailed to property managers
• Multiple emails to commercial real estate management companies, including a
link, marketing materials and follow up

One-on-one marketing and support was also available when requested. In 2015, three
requests for information were made; two by local development firms, one by an architectural
firm.
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 4
2015 Task 7: Building Metrics Labeling- Idaho Power Company Year-End Report
(Report #1501_007-0)

3. NEXT STEPS
In preparation for additional marketing and community engagement in 2016, the UI-IDL
will create a list of potential users and stakeholders. The list will be comprised of approximately
12 individuals, organizations, and businesses to contact in 2016.
To improve the tools usability and promote its wider use, other potential future work
was identified and is listed below. The feasibility and value of each of these items will need to
be determined before implementation.
• Develop additional website functionality
o Progress bar to option ”goal” markers
o Dynamic average walkability for areas outside Boise
o Dynamic EUI averages for other areas and building-type specifics
• Add automation from ENERGYSTAR® if capabilities become available
• Develop a new database of comparable building utility usages
• Solicit targeted users for feedback
• Coordinate with IPC and IMG to pursue increased automation of data flow
directly to building owners and real estate agents

Report Number: 1408-031-01

2015 TASK #9: TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE
WHOLE HOUSE FAN
REPORT

October 14, 2015

Prepared for:
Idaho Power Company

Author:
Brad Acker, Robert Galarza

ii

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

IDL Interim Director:
Elizabeth Cooper

Author:
Brad Acker, Robert Galarza

Prepared for:
Idaho Power Company

Please cite this report as follows: Brad A., Robert G. (2015) 2015
Task 9: Whole House Fan (1408-031-01). University of Idaho
Integrated Design Lab, Boise, ID.
iii

DISCLAIMER
While the recommendations in this report have been reviewed for
technical accuracy and are believed to be reasonably accurate,
the findings are estimates and actual results may vary. All energy
savings and cost estimates included in the report are for
informational purposes only and are not to be construed as
design documents or as guarantees of energy or cost savings. The
user of this report, or any information contained in this report,
should independently evaluate any information, advice, or
direction provided in this report.
THE UNIVERSITY OF IDAHO MAKES NO REPRESENTATIONS, -
EXTENDS NO WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESS OR
IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY, AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE
WITH RESPECT TO THE INFORMATION, INCLUDING BUT NOT
LIMITED TO ANY RECOMMENDATIONS OR FINDINGS, CONTAINED
IN THIS REPORT. THE UNIVERSITY ADDITIONALLY DISCLAIMS ALL
OBLIGATIONS AND LIABILITIES ON THE PART OF UNIVERSITY FOR
DAMAGES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DIRECT, INDIRECT,
SPECIAL AND CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES, ATTORNEYS’ AND
EXPERTS’ FEES AND COURT COSTS (EVEN IF THE UNIVERSITY HAS
BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES, FEES OR
COSTS), ARISING OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE
MANUFACTURE, USE OR SALE OF THE INFORMATION, RESULT(S),
PRODUCT(S), SERVICE(S) AND PROCESSES PROVIDED BY THE
UNIVERSITY. THE USER ASSUMES ALL RESPONSIBILITY AND
LIABILITY FOR LOSS OR DAMAGE CAUSED BY THE USE, SALE, OR
OTHER DISPOSITION BY THE USER OF PRODUCT(S), SERVICE(S), OR
(PROCESSES) INCORPORATING OR MADE BY USE OF THIS REPORT,
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO DAMAGES OF ANY KIND IN
CONNECTION WITH THIS REPORT OR THE INSTALLATION OF
RECOMMENDED MEASURES CONTAINED HEREIN.

iv

This page left intentionally blank.

v

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 1
2. Methods ...................................................................................................................................... 2
3. Results ......................................................................................................................................... 9
4. Discussion .................................................................................................................................. 14

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
A/C Air Conditioning
CFM Cubic Feet per Minute
CLG Cooling
COP Coefficient of Performance
DX Direct Expansion
ECM Energy Conservation Measure
EER Energy-Efficiency Ratio
IAT Outdoor Air Temperature
IDL Integrated Design Lab
IPC Idaho Power Company
M&V Measurement and Verification
OAT Outdoor Air Temperature
SHR Sensible Heat Ratio
TMY Typical Meteorological Year
UI University of Idaho
WHF Whole House Fan
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 1
2015 Task #9: Technical ASSISTANCE- Report
(Report #1408-031-01)

1. INTRODUCTION
The following work has been conducted to analyze the energy impact of installing a whole
house fan (WHF) for cooling. EnergyPlus simulation software was utilized to perform this
analysis. A WHF is one which draws air from the home’s living space and exhausts it typically to
an attic space. These fans are best installed in a central location in the home so as to provide air
exchange from all locations of the home. Exterior windows need to be open by the residents to
draw in cool air to provide the home with cooling. These fans are typically not automated to turn
on or off on their own due to the fact that windows need to be manually opened. Running a WHF
with windows closed can have the potential to cause safety concerns with back drafting
combustion appliances. Due to the behavioral control aspect of this technology a wide range of
energy models were developed to inform program designers. The energy model is based on a
DOE prototype model house (US DOE, 2013). Two baseline single-family home models were
developed, one single story and one two-story home comprised of typical 2006 residential
construction (Mendon & Taylor, 2014) with a single zone and net conditioned area of 1,200 ft2
and 2,400 ft2 respectively. Further details on equipment sizing and model characteristics are
provided below. Using typical meteorological year (TMY) weather for Boise Idaho for an annual
simulation, all models were simulated without a WHF and with a WHF having two fan design flow
rates. This report summarizes the major differences in cooling energy between the different
conditions.
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 2
2015 Task #9: Technical ASSISTANCE- Report
(Report #1408-031-01)

2. METHODS
In this study, energy use was determined for a baseline model compared to the same home
with a WHF. In this study home size and WHF flow rate parameters were variable so a range of
energy use characters could be explored. This resulted in a total of six EnergyPlus models: two
baseline models and two WHF models for each baseline. Three of the models were 1200 ft2, one
story homes, which will be referred to as One Story, and three of the models were 2400 ft2, two
story homes, which will be referred to as Two Story. Each model contains one conditioned zone
(main living area), an attic, and a basement as well as similar physical construction and geometry,
a typical DX split fan coil cooling system, and no heating system. Two flow rates of the WHF were
investigated for each home size, 1 CFM/ ft2 and 2 CFM/ ft2. The home cooling set point was set
to 78°F. If the outdoor air was at 78°F or below, the WHF was allowed to cool the space. If the
outdoor air was above 78°F the DX cooling cooled the space. Space sub-cooling effects or impacts
of thermal storage were not investigated. Table 1 gives an overview of the simulations discussed
in the following sections.
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 3
2015 Task #9: Technical ASSISTANCE- Report
(Report #1408-031-01)

Table 1 Summary of six models showing house type, size, and WHF model flow rates
Model House Type House Size WHF Flow Rate
Baseline One Story 1200 ft2 N/A
Baseline Two Story 2400 ft2 N/A
WHF One Story 1200 ft2 1 CFM/ ft2
WHF One Story 1200 ft2 2 CFM/ ft2
WHF Two Story 2400 ft2 1 CFM/ ft2
WHF Two Story 2400 ft2 2 CFM/ ft2

Baseline Models
The EnergyPlus models developed are based on the DOE prototype model homes (US
DOE, 2013). Two baseline models were developed, one single story and one two story. Figure 1
shows the SketchUp physical model illustrating the features of each house, mainly the shape and
levels. Table 2 describes the model’s physical characteristics as well as the cooling equipment
input parameters.
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 4
2015 Task #9: Technical ASSISTANCE- Report
(Report #1408-031-01)

Figure 1 (left) One Story: 1200 ft2 with 2.5 tons of cooling (right) Two Story: 2400 ft2 with 3.5 tons of cooling

Table 2 Summary of input parameters
One Story Two Story
Net Conditioned Area 1200 ft2 2400 ft2
Levels 1 2
Gross Rated Total Cooling Capacity
Tons [kW]
2.5 [8.792] 3.5 [12.309]
Gross Rated SHR (Sensible Heat Ratio) 0.72 0.71
COP 3.37 3.37
Rated Air Flow CFM [m3/s] 1,000 [0.472] 1,375 [0.649]
Model CLG Coil Electric kW Usage 1.814 3.081
Model Blower Electric kW Usage 0.348 0.581

The house cooling set point was established at 78F. For the cooling system, equipment
characteristics typical air conditioner specifications were estimated from Rheem’s Classic Series
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 5
2015 Task #9: Technical ASSISTANCE- Report
(Report #1408-031-01)

of Air Conditioners (A/Cs) using an A/C system with 2.5 nominal tons and 3.5 nominal tons of
cooling capacity for One Story and Two Story, respectively. Inputs needed by EnergyPlus are
‘Gross Rated Total Cooling Capacity’ in wattage, ‘Gross Rated Sensible Heat Ratio’ (SHR), ‘COP’,
and ‘Rated Air Flow Rate’ (Table 2).
Similarly rated products were referenced in order to guide model cooling equipment
inputs, which are recorded in Table 3. Based on referenced system performance parameters,
equivalent EnergyPlus cooling equipment values were estimated. Model inputs for the total
cooling capacity were idealized, directly converting nominal tonnages to wattages. This resulted
in an EnergyPlus input wattage increase of 4.7% for One Story and 1.2% for Two Story from
product specifications due to products being slightly smaller than nominal sizes. The gross rated
SHR was calculated from product specifications as follows:
𝑆𝐻𝑅 =𝑆𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑏𝑙𝑒 𝐶𝑜𝑜𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝐶𝑎𝑝𝑎𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑦
𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝐶𝑜𝑜𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝐶𝑎𝑝𝑎𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑦
The COP was calculated using the Energy-Efficiency Ratio (EER) and conversion factor:
𝐶𝑂𝑃 =𝐸𝐸𝑅
3.41214
Indoor rated air flow rate was simply converted from CFM to m3/s, because EnergyPlus requires
metric units for its calculations.
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 6
2015 Task #9: Technical ASSISTANCE- Report
(Report #1408-031-01)

Table 3 Rheem Classic Series A/C specifications
2.5 Ton (One Story) 3.5 Ton (Two Story)
Total Capacity Btuh [kW] 28,600 [8.4] 41,500 [12.2]
Net Sensible Btuh [kW] 20,500 [6.0] 29,300 [8.6]
EER 11.5 11.5
Indoor CFM 1000 1375

WHF Models
The EnergyPlus run model schedule was modified to use a WHF for ventilated cooling in
lieu of typical DX cooling. Fan control conditions were established based on inside and outside
temperature conditions. Table 4 shows the thermostat set point and WHF control structure. The
WHF operates when the IAT is between the minimum and maximum points and when the
outdoor air temperature (OAT) is between its minimum and maximum points. This allows for a
control to use outdoor air when it is cool and use DX when it is warm outdoors. If the IAT and
OAT are outside of their operational ranges and the zone temperature is above the thermostat
set point, then the WHF shuts OFF, and cooling is performed by the DX coil and blower fan.
A heating system is not active. During early energy model testing the heating system
interfered with WHF operation, ultimately increasing cooling energy use. Before deactivation,
the house heating set point was established at 72F. During heating mode, the WHF introduced
50F outside air into the zone. This caused the heating system to constantly and unnecessarily
counteract the WHF, and vice versa. In a realistic situation, however, household operators would
not run the WHF while requiring heat. Thus, for modeling simplicity, it was removed.
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 7
2015 Task #9: Technical ASSISTANCE- Report
(Report #1408-031-01)

Table 4 Cooling system control structure
Cooling Setpoints
Thermostat Set Point (DX)
Cooling: 78F
No Heating
WHF IAT
Max: 122F
Min: 78F
WHF OAT (Supply)
Max: 78F
Min: 32F

For each house size, design air flow rates of 1 CFM/ ft2 and 2 CFM/ ft2 were used, resulting
in a 1200 CFM fan at 279 W, 2400 CFM fan at 400 W, and 4800CFM fan at 600 W. The WHF
power usages were approximated from available commercial products. The less efficient belt-
driven fans allowed for the desired CFM/ ft2. Although direct drive fans are able to move more
air with less electrical power input, the selection was strictly limited to belt-driven fans for fair
model comparison. Other fan details are shown in Table 5.
Table 5 WHF types and characteristics
Design Flow Rate
1200 CFM
(0.566 m3/s)
2400 CFM
(1.133 m3/s)
4800 CFM
(2.265 m3/s)
Power 279 W 400 W 600 W
Pressure Rise
320 Pa
(1.28” H2O)
230 Pa
(0.92” H2O)
172 Pa
(0.69” H2O)
Total Efficiency 65% 65% 65%
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 8
2015 Task #9: Technical ASSISTANCE- Report
(Report #1408-031-01)

Table 6 shows the power usages for each model and their cooling components. Values
for component power are EnergyPlus outputs. Based on model input parameters and equipment
characteristics, calculations were made by EnergyPlus resulting in shown power usages. The
compressor power and blower fan power were dependent on cooling equipment properties
(Table 2) and house load (return temperature from the house). With regards to the WHF, WHF
power consumptions were calculated based on simple fan characteristic relationships shown in
Table 5. Note that the compressor power (DX CLG kW) is slightly different in the baseline and
the WHF models. This difference is due to the difference in the return air temperatures. Cooler
return temperatures are experienced for a time around switching from WHF to DX cooling,
resulting in lower DX circuit power use.
Table 6 Summary of model power usages
One Story Two Story
BASELINE MODELS
DX CLG kW 1.814 3.081
Blower Fan kW 0.348 0.581
WHF MODELS
WHF CFM 1200 2400 2400 4800
DX CLG kW 1.933 1.793 3.137 3.133
Blower Fan kW 0.432 0.401 0.689 0.689
WHF kW 0.279 0.400 0.400 0.600
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 9
2015 Task #9: Technical ASSISTANCE- Report
(Report #1408-031-01)

3. RESULTS
Model parameters were broken down into each cooling system component: the WHF; the
blower/central supply fan; and the DX cooling coil, which includes the compressor and outside
condenser fan. Typical annual hours of operation and total annual energy consumption of both
the individual cooling components and the whole cooling system energy characteristics were
tabulated for performance comparison and model behavior. The impact a WHF has on the usage,
operational runtime and energy, of the A/C system is also summarized. Overall results in the
tables are highlighted in yellow.
To gain an understanding of any potential offset a WHF could ideally provide the runtime and
energy usage below 78°F OAT was quantified. Based on the control sequence, the WHF would
operate when outside conditions were met, OAT below 78°F, and the house called for cooling,
IAT above 78°F. Capturing this window of time, and equivalent energy use, in the baseline models
provided insight to the achievable offsets in the WHF models (Table 7). The A/C system usage
(runtime and energy) offset is about 30% for One Story and Two Story.
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 10
2015 Task #9: Technical ASSISTANCE- Report
(Report #1408-031-01)

Table 7 Potential A/C system offsets from baseline models based on control conditions
One Story Two Story
Total Hours of Cooling 1126 1125
Cooling Hours Below 78F OAT 343 342
% of Cooling Hours Below 78F OAT 30.4% 30.4%
Total Cooling Energy [kWh] 1156 1956
Potential Cooling kWh Savings Below 78F OAT 346 584
Potential % Energy Offset 29.9% 29.9%

After implementing the WHF into the baseline model and analyzing the hours of
operation (Table 8), operating runtime for the A/C system (DX CLG Coil + Blower Fan) decreased
by an average of 39% over all cases from the baselines to the WHF models (Table 9). This is about
9% higher than the percentage of cooling hours below 78F OAT as realized in the baseline
potential. Because WHF operation is also dependent on the IAT, it is reasonable to conclude that
the WHF actually shifted the A/C system cooling load. The amount of time the system called for
cooling increased during times of the day where the OAT was below 78F, decreasing DX cooling
runtime by about 9% more than the maximum potential and utilizing the WHF. Comparing the
WHF types, 1 CFM/ft2 and 2CFM/ ft2, the 2 CFM/ft2 fan operated an average of 150 hours less
than the 1 CFM/ft2 case. To more clearly visualize the differences, Figure 2 shows a histogram
comparing annual average hours of WHF use for the 1 CFM/ft2 and 2CFM/ ft2 cases for each
outside air temperature bin.

Integrated Design Lab | Boise 11
2015 Task #9: Technical ASSISTANCE- Report
(Report #1408-031-01)

Figure 2 WHF average usages for each fan type

Considering the performance of the WHF types based on overall energy consumption
(referring to Table 8 and Table 9) shows that 150 hours correlates to a 4 kWh difference, or a
total WHF energy consumption difference that is slightly greater than 1%. A 39% average
reduction of A/C runtime and WHF implementation resulted in an overall average of 21% energy
decrease across all cases. This percent energy difference from baseline can be graphically seen
in Figure 3. The data below the 78F mark of the distribution highlights the energy offset the
WHF achieves. Also note for the WHF models that there is a slight decrease in total cooling
energy use above 81F, which illustrates the 9% A/C system cooling load reduction previously
discussed.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77
Ti
m
e

[
H
R
S
]
Outside Air Temperature [F]
1 CFM/sqft Avg
2 CFM/sqft Avg
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 12
2015 Task #9: Technical ASSISTANCE- Report
(Report #1408-031-01)

Table 8 Model outputs for each house
House Size
DX CLG Coil Use [hrs]
Blower Use [hrs]
TOT CLG HRS
(DX+Blower)
DX CLG Coil [kWh]
Blower [kWh]
TOT CLG Energy
(DX+Blower) [kWh]
TOT CLG EUI [kWh/sqft]
WHF Type 1200 CFM 2400 CFM 2400 CFM 4800 CFM
DX CLG Coil Use [hrs]339 362 355 353
Blower Use [hrs]319 341 335 332
WHF Use [hrs]543 368 493 330
DX + Blower HRS 658 703 690 685
TOT CLG HRS
(DX+Blower+WHF)1201 1071 1183 1015
DX CLG Coil [kWh]647 641 1101 1093
Blower [kWh]136 135 228 226
WHF [kWh]152 147 197 198
DX + Blower Energy
[kWh]783 776 1329 1319
TOT CLG Energy (DX +
Blower + WHF) [kWh]934 924 1526 1517
TOT CLG EUI [kWh/sqft] 0.79 0.78 0.64 0.64
528 528
1200 sqft 2400 sqft
BASELINE
WHF
598 597
1126 1125
950 1611
206 344
1156 1956
0.97 0.82

Integrated Design Lab | Boise 13
2015 Task #9: Technical ASSISTANCE- Report
(Report #1408-031-01)

Table 9 Cooling energy savings and differences from baseline due to WHF
WHF Type 1200 CFM 2400 CFM 2400 CFM 4800 CFM
DX CLG Coil Savings [kWh]303 309 510 518
Blower Savings [kWh]70 71 116 118
DX CLG Coil + Blower Savings [kWh]373 380 627 637
TOT CLG Energy
(DX + Blower + WHF) Savings [kWh]222 232 430 439
DX (Compressor) Energy Diff. (%)32% 33% 32% 32%
Blower Energy Diff. (%)34% 34% 34% 34%
DX CLG Coil + Blower Energy Diff. (%)32% 33% 32% 33%
% Energy Diff. from Baseline 19% 20% 22% 22%
A/C System Usage Decrease (%)42% 38% 39% 39%
1200 sqft 2400 sqft

Figure 3 Total cooling energy comparisons for the One Story
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
50 52 54 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70 72 74 76 78 80 82 84 86 88 90 92 94 96 98
10
0
En
e
r
g
y

C
o
n
s
u
m
p
t
i
o
n

[
k
W
h
]
Outdoor Air Temperature [F]
Baseline WHF+DX@1200CFM WHF+DX @2400CFM
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 14
2015 Task #9: Technical ASSISTANCE- Report
(Report #1408-031-01)

4. DISCUSSION
The applications of WHF can result in significant energy savings. Existing DX system size and
the type / size of WHF installed will all play into the ultimate savings achieved. Simulation results
highlight the importance of monitoring and reducing WHF hours of operation along with the
importance of installing the most efficient fan possible, which is typically a direct drive ECM
model. In addition the simulations show sensitivity of saving as it relates to CFM/ft2 of home size,
again relating back to the power use of the fan. These findings would best be informed by field
studies or data. Such data was not reviewed as part of this study.

1. WORKS CITED
Mendon, V., & Taylor, T. (2014). Development of Residential Prototype Building Models and Analysis
System for Large-Scale Energy Efficiency Studies Using EnergyPlus. Building Simulation
Conference (pp. 457-464). Atlanta: ASHRAE/IBPSA-USA.
US DOE. (2013, July 11). Residential Prototype Building Models. Retrieved from Building Energy Codes
Program: https://www.energycodes.gov/development/residential/iecc_models

Report Number: 1501_001-10

2015 TASK 10: IBOA/IFMA SUPPORT
SUMMARY OF EFFORT AND OUTCOMES
IDAHO POWER COMPANY EXTERNAL YEAR-END REPORT

December 31, 2015

Prepared for:
Idaho Power Company

Author:
Elizabeth Cooper

ii

This page left intentionally blank.
iii

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

IDL Director:
Elizabeth Cooper

Author:
Elizabeth Cooper

Prepared for:
Idaho Power Company

Contract Number:
5277

Please cite this report as follows: Cooper, E. (2015). 2015 TASK
10: IBOA/IFMA Support– Summary of Efforts and Outcomes
(1501_001-10). University of Idaho Integrated Design Lab, Boise,
ID.
iv

DISCLAIMER
While the recommendations in this report have been reviewed for
technical accuracy and are believed to be reasonably accurate,
the findings are estimates and actual results may vary. All energy
savings and cost estimates included in the report are for
informational purposes only and are not to be construed as
design documents or as guarantees of energy or cost savings. The
user of this report, or any information contained in this report,
should independently evaluate any information, advice, or
direction provided in this report.
THE UNIVERSITY OF IDAHO MAKES NO REPRESENTATIONS,
EXTENDS NO WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESS OR
IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY, AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE
WITH RESPECT TO THE INFORMATION, INCLUDING BUT NOT
LIMITED TO ANY RECOMMEDATIONS OR FINDINGS, CONTAINED
IN THIS REPORT. THE UNIVERSITY ADDITIONALLY DISCLAIMS ALL
OBLIGATIONS AND LIABILITIES ON THE PART OF UNIVERSITY FOR
DAMAGES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DIRECT, INDIRECT,
SPECIAL AND CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES, ATTORNEYS’ AND
EXPERTS’ FEES AND COURT COSTS (EVEN IF THE UNIVERSITY HAS
BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBLITIY OF SUCH DAMAGES, FEES OR
COSTS), ARISING OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE
MANUFACTURE, USE OR SALE OF THE INFORMATION, RESULT(S),
PRODUCT(S), SERVICE(S) AND PROCESSES PROVIDED BY THE
UNIVERSITY. THE USER ASSUMES ALL RESPONSIBILITY AND
LIABILITY FOR LOSS OR DAMAGE CAUSED BY THE USE, SALE, OR
OTHER DISPOSITION BY THE USER OF PRODUCT(S), SERVICE(S), OR
(PROCESSES) INCORPORATING OR MADE BY USE OF THIS REPORT,
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO DAMAGES OF ANY KIND IN
CONNECTION WITH THIS REPORT OR THE INSTALLATION OF
RECOMMENDED MEASURES CONTAINED HEREIN.

v

This page left intentionally blank.

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 1
2. Summary of Work ....................................................................................................................... 1

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
ASHRAE American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers
bEQ (ASHRAE) Building Energy Quotient
BOC Building Operator Certification
BOMA Building Owners and Operators Association
EUI Energy Use Intensity
IBOA Intermountain Building Operators Association
IDL Integrated Design Lab
IFMA International Facility Management Association
IMG Intermountain Gas
IPC Idaho Power Company
UI University of Idaho
USGBC United States Green Building Council

Integrated Design Lab | Boise 1
2015 Task 10: IBOA/IFMA Support- Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report #1501_001-10)

1. INTRODUCTION
The objective of this task was to help the local IBOA organization succeed and meet
their goals and to address the barriers as identified by NEEA and stakeholders. These barriers
included; Lack of time to attend, Lack of funds/willingness to pay, Lack of awareness, Lack of a
compelling business case, Lack of product performance (ANSI certification)
Additionally, UI-IDL worked with the leadership of IBOA to determine their needs. The
barriers and needs on which the UI-IDL can have an impact are; the lack of product awareness
and the development of a compelling business case for employee certification and involvement
in IBOA. This was accomplished by conducting research, providing technical support and
education, attending coordination meetings, and helping with marketing efforts.
2. SUMMARY OF WORK
The two major deliverables for this task were to 1) provide technical support and
education, and 2) Support IBOA initiatives. The following is a summary of the activities
associated with these deliverable:
Provide technical support and education:

• Develop “Tech Talks” via lunch and learn format for BOC certification continuing
education
• One “Tech Talk” was developed and delivered to IBOA in January. Another
talk was scheduled for IFMA on Economic Analyses of Efficiency Projects,
but was canceled due to low enrollment.

Integrated Design Lab | Boise 2
2015 Task 10: IBOA/IFMA Support- Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report #1501_001-10)

Support IBOA initiatives:

• Attended quarterly conference calls:
• January 21st- updates on BOC 1003, 1004, 212
• May 21st- (Topic unknown)
• November 5th- IEQ, Water Efficiency and O&M for Sustainable Buildings
• Attended coordination meetings on specific knowledge sectors:
• May 7 – HVAC Systems – standard and high performance
• June 4 – Lighting Equipment & Controls
• Sept 3 – Building Controls and Preventive Maintenance
• Oct 1 – Electrical Systems, Diagnostics and Motors
• Nov 5 – IEQ, Water Efficiency and O&M for Sustainable Buildings
• Dec 3 – Building Scoping and Building Commissioning
• Attended IFMA Northern Rockies Annual conference
• Marketed the BOC certification at trainings/classes in Salt Lake City, Boise, Missoula,
and Idaho Falls.

Research/Surveys
Idaho Power Company Supplement 2: Evaluation
Demand-Side Management 2015 Annual Report Page 193
RESEARCH/SURVEYS
Table 3. 2015 Research/Surveys
Report Title Program or Sector Analysis Performed by Study Manager Study/Evaluation Type
2015 Idaho Power Easy Upgrades Program Customer Survey Commercial/Industrial Idaho Power Idaho Power Survey
Easy Savings Program Survey Response Summary 2014–2015 Residential Idaho Power Idaho Power Survey
Energy Efficiency Campaign Awareness Survey Residential Idaho Power Idaho Power Survey
Flex Peak 2015 Survey Results Commercial/Industrial Idaho Power Idaho Power Survey
Holiday Lighting Residential Idaho Power Idaho Power Survey
Home Energy Audit Program Survey Residential Idaho Power Idaho Power Survey
Idaho Power–CAPAI Survey Report 2016 Residential Idaho Power Idaho Power Survey
Idaho Power Energy Wise Program Summary Report Residential Research Action Programs Idaho Power Program Summary
Idaho Power Shade Tree Survey Residential Idaho Power Idaho Power Survey
Idaho Power Weatherization Assistance Program Residential Idaho Power Idaho Power Survey
Idaho Power Weatherization Programs Residential Idaho Power Idaho Power Survey
Residential Laundry Habits Survey Residential Idaho Power Idaho Power Survey
Technical Reference Manual 1.7 Commercial/Industrial ADM Idaho Power Research

Supplement 2: Evaluation Idaho Power Company
Page 194 Demand-Side Management 2015 Annual Report
This page left blank intentionally.

Powered by
2015 Idaho Power Easy
Upgrades Program
Customer Survey
Monday, February 01, 2016
92
Total Responses
Complete Responses: 88
Q1: How did you first learn about the Easy Upgrades program?
Answered: 92 Skipped: 0
Q2: Overall how satisfied are you with the Easy Upgrades program?
Answered: 92 Skipped: 0
Q4: For each of the following statements indicate the level to which you agree or
disagree.
Answered: 90 Skipped: 2
Q5: Please rate the contractor you used for your Easy Upgrades project in the
following areas:
Answered: 89 Skipped: 3
Q6: How likely would you be to recommend this contractor to a business
associate?
Answered: 87 Skipped: 5
Q8: Please indicate which of the following types of equipment you received an
Easy Upgrades incentive for. (Check all that apply)
Answered: 88 Skipped: 4
Q10: How would you like to receive energy efficiency information from Idaho
Power in the future?(Check all that apply)
Answered: 84 Skipped: 8
Q11: Would you like an Idaho Power program representative to follow up with you
on any questions you have regarding the program?
Answered: 88 Skipped: 4
Easy Savings 1

Question % Answered Qty Answered Total Answered
1. How much would you like to save?120
18%21
2. Have you (or will you) lower your heat during the day?124
3. Have you (or will you) lower your heat at night?122
4. Did you place the Thermostat Temperature Sticker near your thermostat?122
EASY SAVINGS PROGRAM
Survey Response Summary 9/30/15
Easy Savings 2
5. Did you (or will you) install the 11.5-watt Light Emitting Diode (LED)?123
6. Did you (or will you) install the Limelight Night Light?124
7. Did you (or will you) install the Draft Stoppers?124
8. Did you place the Turn Off Light Sticker near a light switch that was often left on?123
9. Do you turn off lights in empty rooms more often now?124
10. Did you install the High-Efficiency Showerhead?118
Easy Savings 3
11. Did you install the Kitchen Faucet Aerator?121
12. Do you use cold water when you do your laundry?123
13. Did you place the Wash in Cold Water Magnet on your washing machine? 120
14. Did you use the Digital Thermometer to check the temperature of your water?117
15. Did you (or will you) change the temperature setting of your water heater?120
Easy Savings 4
16. Did you check the temperature of your refrigerator(s) and freezer(s)?119
17. Did you (or will you) adjust the temperature of your refrigerator(s) and freezer(s)?118
18. Did you unplug your old or unused refrigerator(s) and freezer(s)?123
19. Did you recycle your old or unused refrigerator(s) and freezer(s)?124
20. Did you place the Turn Your Computer Off Sticker on your computer?122
Easy Savings 5
21. How many items from your Easy Savings® Kit did you install?120
22. How effective was the Easy Savings® Quick Start Guide in helping you become more energy
efficient?121
23. Now that you have completed the Easy Savings® Quick Start Guide, how much have you learned
about saving energy and money in your home?123
Energy Efficiency Campaign Awareness Survey Results
June 2015
QUESTION TOTAL:588
NO RESPONSE:0
TOTAL
O1 167
O2 421
Yes 28.40%
Do you remember seeing or hearing one or more of these ads?
OPTIONS PERCENT
No 71.60%
28.40%
71.60%
Yes
No
QUESTION TOTAL:167
NO RESPONSE:0
TOTAL
O1 41
O2 40
O3 121
O4 76
O5 85
Refrigerator 45.51%
Which of the following ad themes do you recall seeing or hearing before taking this
survey?
OPTIONS PERCENT
Insulation 24.55%
(asked only of respondents who said they recalled seeing the ads before taking the survey)
Caulking 23.95%
Thermostat 72.46%
Light bulb 50.90%
24.55%
23.95%
72.46%
45.51%
50.90%
Insulation
Caulking
Thermostat
Refrigerator
Light bulb
QUESTION TOTAL:167
NO RESPONSE:0
TOTAL
O1 90
O2 15
O3 45
O4 53
Where did you see, or hear, the ad(s) before taking this survey?
OPTIONS PERCENT
(asked only of respondents who said they recalled seeing the ads before taking the survey)
Radio 8.98%
Newspaper 26.95%
Online 31.74%
Television 53.89%
53.89%
8.98%
26.95%
31.74%
Television
Radio
Newspaper
Online
QUESTION TOTAL:167
NO RESPONSE:0
TOTAL
O1 160
O2 6
O3 1
How well would you say you understood the message in the ad(s)?
OPTIONS PERCENT
(asked only of respondents who said they recalled seeing the ads before taking the survey)
Sort of understood the message 3.59%
Didn't understand the message at all 0.60%
Completely understood the message 95.81%
95.81%
3.59%
0.60%
Completely understood the message
Sort of understood the message
Didn't understand the message at all
QUESTION TOTAL:167
NO RESPONSE:0
TOTAL
O1 132
O2 34
O3 1
Overall, how did you feel about the ad(s) you saw or heard?
OPTIONS PERCENT
(asked only of respondents who said they recalled seeing the ads before taking the survey)
Neutral 20.36%
Negative 0.60%
Positive 79.04%
79.04%
20.36%
0.60%
Positive
Neutral
Negative
QUESTION TOTAL:132
NO RESPONSE:0
Total
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
What is it about the ad(s) that gave you a positive feeling?
Verbatim Responses
(asked only of respondents who said they had a positive feeling about the ad(s) they
recalled)
An understanding of what you could save by cleaning the coils on
your fridge
Because the message resonates with me.
clear consise to the point colorful eye catching
Common sense reminder
Conservation is necessary and helps keep the cost of power down
Conservation of energy and saving money.
Simple and to the point
$$ Savings per degree warmer thermostat
a company that was showing us how to save energy in a laid back
easy format
A demonstration on saving energy that is easy to do.
A good plan for most people.
Always want to save on energy bills.
Easy concept to get & easy to do!
Easy fix.
Easy to read and the graphics correlated with the written message.
easy to understand and direct and to the point
Encouraged me to follow some if not all of the suggestions.
encouragement of saving energy and money
contemporary use of illustration style, simplr/direct message
cut my bills, conserver
Cute drawings
cutting power usage
Direct to the point. Self explanatory.
don't know
Encouragement to save energy, and help cut costs.
Encourages all to try to save.
Engaging art work and provides a quick, easy, and free way to act.
felt it was a good reminder on ways to reduce energy costs.
felt like I understood the message and appreciated it too.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Fun graphics, simple concise message heading even if I didn't
read the entire text.
glad you are informing the public so energy can be saved for the
good of the environment
good advise
Good color
Good for saving energy and good for environment.
good information
For the most part, all the messages are showing that anyone can
save money, and help the environment.
Happy to see public education about energy conservation.
I enjoyed the color and whimsical design.
I feel the best way to answer this is by saying I am conscience of
saving power , but to so many they just don't care.
I felt like I really wanted to participate in being better about
conserving energy in my home. I was inspired to buy light bulbs.
I'm also going to contact Idaho Power to see what I qualify for in I felt reassured that I am doing what I can to save energy
I keep my thermostat at that already so it reenforced behavior
Good information. Easy to understand. Like the nostalgic look of
the photos.
good message
good program
got the point across easily. liked the color
got your attention
Great reminders to pay attention.
Idaho Power is working to help consumers be smarter with power
use and savings
in that they reflect my knowledge and belief.
IPC is interested in me
It was a positive message that was implemented a wonderful way.
It came from Idaho Power
It helped me to remember to adjust my thermostat, not only in cool
weather, but also in hot weather
I like any ads that promote environmental conservation.
I like our area doing more to stay green & make less pollution.
I never really thought of a second appliance in the house. It made
me stop and think, do I really need that appliance.
I understood the old refrigerator in the garage ad, but I don't think
many people received that message.
I was glad that Idaho Power is trying to help their customers
conserve energy and save money.
I was wondering what would be the best temp for my ac and this is
how i found out.
It is every ones job to save energy.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
It was a great reminder on where to set the thermostat, I like to get
reminders like that
It was to improve my home...
it will help people understand how to save power
It's nice that Idaho Power wants to help it's customers use
electricity more efficiently
Letting people know that something so simple can make a
difference.
Light bulbs fascinate me. So I paid more attention to it.
It is something I do already it made me feel like I was making a
difference.
It made sense.
It reminded me to check for leaks around windows and doors.
It reminds folks that wasting energy carries a price
It suggests a practical step to save energy and money.
Positive message, easy to accomplish energy savings, message
completely delivered in graphic.POssible and easy to save energy and save money.
Promotion of conservation and mindfulness. Information to educate
self and others
Recycling message, money for old fridge
Reminder that LED bulbs are out there
Saving energy is always a good idea!
Like the colors, thought it was funny when somebody said goodbye
to their old refrigerator like it was an old friend.
Made me realize how I can save energy.
made you think and question if you have done any of those
suggestions, and make you want to mark calendar and get those maybe lowering power bill with temp contol
NIce to built on what I already know and to affirm that it actually
does make a difference. LIghtbulbs are expensive.
picture
large heading
Showed a simple idea to save energy. Simple to do and relatively
pain free.
Showed the ease of how to achieve the best for your home.
Showed ways to conserve energy
Simple
simple and easy to understand not too preachy
Simple and straight forward. Nice art work.
Saving energy is always good!
Saving energy is important.
saving money
savings
Seeing the number on the thermostat gave me the idea to do
better and set mine at 76....
short, to the point, upbeat, easy to understand the message
Simple easy to understand message
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
That following the ads would help to keep my electric bill down.
that saving energy doesn't have to be expensive or complicated.
that anyone can do their part
The ad gave specific information on how to conserve energy
The ads confirmed for us that we're doing our best to save energy.
The ads were very specific and easy to follow. I got the point. Not
too complicated.The amount you can save by adjusting your thermostat.
Simple graphics with a simple message, but one that we all need
to be reminded of every once in a while!
Simple message with eye-catching simple graphics
Simple positive message.
Simple to understand and clear.
simple, less "noise", direct
We all can save energy
We are comfortable at 78-80 degrees. We're saving money!!
We need to conserve energy, it is good to get a reminder.
Would reduce expenses
You would have to know me to completely understand, but I could
almost write a book in answer to this question. But simply put, in
my opinion, these simple ads should wake up simple minds to the
they tell it like it is == good thinking
They were easy to understand with a clear message.
They were helpful and clear.
They were written in language that was understandable to most
people.
Turning down your thermostat saves energy.
Very much needed with our energy situation.
There were small things that I could do.
They all let me know what I can do to help.
They are all simple things that can be done to save energy!
They are clear, concise and get the point across! Plus the ideas
they are conveying are easy to achieve.
They are simple ways to save energy
They make sense and are easy to understand.
the graphics were nice and casual, and I felt like we are not the
only home with insulation issues, everyone can do well to look at
energy saving solutions.The message to conserve energy.
The rhyme in the refrigerator ad is catchy and memorable; the
lightbulb ad just makes sense, changing to energy efficient bulbs.
The visuals are cute ad clever.the theme
The theme and the message.
There is something to be done that will save energy and have little
effect on me
QUESTION TOTAL:1
NO RESPONSE:0
Total
1I can't stand to be too warm, especially when I'm pregnant. So the
idea of turning up the thermostat to save money will not work for
me. It annoys me when I hear it suggested. If the thermostat is at
(asked only of respondents who said they had a negative feeling about the ad(s) they recalled)
What is it about the ad(s) that gave you a negative feeling?
Verbatim Responses
QUESTION TOTAL:167
NO RESPONSE:0
TOTAL
O1 65
O2 76
O3 15
O4 11
How likely are you to make any energy saving changes in your home after seeing
or hearing these ads?
OPTIONS PERCENT
(asked only of respondents who said they recalled seeing the ads before taking the survey)
Somewhat likely 45.51%
Not very likely 8.98%
Not likely at all 6.59%
Very likely 38.92%
38.92%
45.51%
8.98%
6.59%
Very likely
Somewhat likely
Not very likely
Not likely at all
QUESTION TOTAL:141
NO RESPONSE:0
TOTAL
O1 19
O2 20
O3 39
O4 96
O5 92
O6 18
What energy saving changes are you most likely to make after seeing or hearing
these ads?
OPTIONS PERCENT
(asked only of respondents who said they recalled seeing the ads before taking the survey)
Turn up the thermostat on your air conditioner 65.25%
Other (Please specify)12.77%
Get rid of an old or second refrigerator or freezer 14.18%
Put more caulking or weatherstripping around 27.66%
Replace old light bulbs with LED light bulbs 68.09%
Install more insulation 13.48%
13.48%
14.18%
27.66%
68.09%
65.25%
12.77%
Install more insulation
Get rid of an old or second refrigerator or
freezer
Put more caulking or weatherstripping
around windows or doors
Replace old light bulbs with LED light bulbs
Turn up the thermostat on your air
conditioner
Other (Please specify)
QUESTION TOTAL:421
NO RESPONSE:0
TOTAL
O1 243
O2 168
O3 10
Now that you have seen them, overall, how did you feel about these ad(s) ?
OPTIONS PERCENT
(asked only of respondents who said they did not recall seeing the ads before taking the
survey)
Neutral 39.90%
Negative 2.38%
Positive 57.72%
57.72%
39.90%
2.38%
Positive
Neutral
Negative
QUESTION TOTAL:243
NO RESPONSE:0
Verbatim Responses Total
Colorful 2
saving money 2
A good way to remind people of saving money and resources if they
can follow suggestions
1
Any attempt to spread the word about conservation is good. :)1
artistic, easy to read, and positive messages about energy savings 1
attractive, put positive spin on RE 1
Bright and colorful, short concise captions 1
bright colors and simple graphics. concise message.1
Bright colors, fun, contemporary graphic elements 1
Bright colors, simple illustrations of the point, positive, not pushing
guilt.
1
Bright colors, simple message 1
Bright, sounded friendly, focused on both conservation and helping
people lower power bills
1
Cartoonie light. Specific suggestions provided. Dialing it in was not
clear.
1
catchy colors. hip. etc.1
Catchy, quick to the message. Graphics tie in w the message.1
Changing a light bulb is easy and saves energy. Giving up a fridge is
probably not easy for a lot of people.
1
Changing a lightbulb and dial it in r the only good memorable ones 1
Clean, informative and attractive.1
Clever sayings. Suggested actions are all easy to implement.1
Color choice. Short statment. Picture makes it easy to understand.1
color, graphics and catchy phrases 1
colorful and good ideas 1
Colorful!!1
colorful, noticeable, short, to the point, common sense-able, easy to
incorporate
1
Colorful, simple 1
Colors and graphics made me want to read the entire ad.1
colors and they are friendly 1
(asked only of respondents who said they did not recall seeing the ads before taking the
survey but had a positive feeling towards the ads after seeing them)
What is it about the ad(s) that gave you a positive feeling?
common sense 1
common sense reminders 1
Concrete actions to take. That's always good. Any time a problem
is brought up or mentioned, it is great to have attached to it, what
YOU can do about it. Thanks.
1
Concrete ideas for saving energy and thus saving money (and
helping the global warming environment by having less of a carbon
footprint.)
1
Conservation and efficiency 1
conserving energy 1
Conveys a simple message, clearly.1
Cute, colorful, good ideas 1
Cutting energy use 1
different ways to save electricity 1
Doing something good about your energy usage 1
easy on eyes, colorful, simple thinks to safe.1
Easy steps to make a difference 1
Easy tips and information about programs that could be useful.1
Easy tips, fun hip design 1
Easy to read and good graphics - also it makes this tips seem simple
and positive to do.
1
Easy to read and understand the message.1
Easy to read, not cluttered. Not preachy. They don't make me feel
guilty.
1
Easy to relate to offering simple fixes that anyone can do.1
easy to understand 1
Easy to understand and apply to dait life and they also conveyed the
impact these changes would make.
1
easy to understand what to do and nice graphics 1
Easy to understand, familiar catch-phrases 1
Easy ways to conserve energy. Little things we can all do. I have
heard "see you later, refrigerator " but not in this particular ad
campaign.
1
Educational in nature.1
Encouraging households to use less energy!1
Energy conservation ideas is always helpful.1
Energy saving 1
Energy saving tips 1
Eye catching and informative 1
eye catching designs with simple, easy to understand messages
about saving energy and money
1
Friendly graphics, simple message 1
Fun, simple, bright.1
Gave examples of how to be energy efficient in the summer.1
Gentle reminders of simple things we can do to save energy.1
Good advice with easy and fast information 1
Good advice.1
Good ideas to think about on saving energy and money.1
Good information 1
Good message to conserve energy & money 1
good pictures, simple messages, good color schemes.1
good reminders 1
Good reminders, easy to read and understand 1
Good suggestions and colorful 1
Good, simple, messages.1
graphics 1
Graphics and messages were catchy and didn't feel "preachy".1
graphics are friendly, and the text emphasizes easy things to do 1
Happy graphics.1
helpful information 1
I can be part of the change to save energy into home 1
I enjoy the conservative illustrations, catchy slogans, and to the point
messages...
1
I like saving money. The ads reminded me to check into options I'd
saving energy which equals saving money.
1
I like that customers and Idaho Power are learning about energy
efficiency.
1
I like the colors and the font.1
I like the content and the reminder of ways to conserve energy.1
I like the design. Ads are straightforward and easy to understand.1
I like the emphasis on saving energy.1
I like the idea of people not only saving $, but of being
environmentally conscious.
1
I like the message that saving energy is easy and can make one's
life more comfortable.
1
I like the one about keep warm air in cold air out or vise versa.
Refers to need of insulation
1
I like the ones with specific details...like 3% saved on the bill for each
degree on thermostat!
1
I like the suggestions on ways to help save energy 1
I liked the fact that they were cartoons, something original and
different from the norm.
1
I really like the designs.1
Idaho power is doing something to help the environment and the
community
1
Ideas for saving money are always a good thing.1
Ideas on how to be more energy efficient. Idaho Power is a willing
partner to help homeowners increase their efficiency
1
Ideas to save money 1
It is easy to make small changes.1
It was easy to get the message of the ads because of the simplicity
of the colors and drawings. The message was short and straight
forward.
1
It's an educational step. :)1
Just easy ways to save energy.1
Just the idea of thinking about simple things we can do to save
energy and $$$$.
1
Like how clear the energy savings were displayed 1
Looks of adds draw attention to energy savings which saves
money.
1
message and artistic delivery was non confrontational 1
Most had some sort of assistance offered for all electric homes
which I have.
1
N/A 1
New look, graphic makes the point of the ad.1
Nice graphics, bright and colorful, positive.1
not complicated. The average person should understand them all.1
Options to save energy 1
Positive & good information 1
positive approach to keep control of my power bill 1
positive message about saving energy 1
Practical ideas but why not promote solar hot water heating and
solar electric to reduce reliance on fossil fuels
1
Proactive efforts bring positive results.1
Promoting conservation 1
quick message 1
Quick short things that can be done to save energy which equates to
saving money, which helps the environment.
1
relative to the current situation, especially with this upcoming heat
wave. Always nice to have specific ideas on how to save energy
and stay comfortable.
1
reminding me to check lights, filters, windows and doors for leaks 1
Retro graphics are great.1
Saving energy always give me a positive feeling 1
Saving energy by sealing out the hot air 1
Saving energy is a no brainer, but I feel most people don't care or
just don't know how. This seems to make it easy to do.
1
Saving energy IS easy 1
Saving energy is good for everyone.1
Saving energy is important. The illustrations were very cute.1
Saving energy is VERY IMPORTANT 1
saving energy, education, cute images, nice vivid colors 1
Saving energy, money and addressing climate change were doable
with some simple steps.
1
Saving energy=saving money
Nice cartoonish ads
1
saving engergy 1
saving money and energy 1
Saving money and/or energy and it seems easy to do 1
saving money.1
Short and informative. Good graphics-modern and illustrative of
message.
1
Short, quick messaging 1
simple actions to take to save energy 1
simple and common sense 1
Simple and cute.1
Simple and true 1
Simple attractive graphics. Conservation message 1
Simple bright colors, fun 1
Simple ideas 1
simple message, colorful graphics 1
Simple message, message fits graphic, message is action oriented.1
Simple message. Simple drawings.1
simple statements that hit home 1
Simple things anyone can do to conserve energy.1
Simple, actionable steps I can take to reduce energy consumption.1
Simple. Colorful. Easy to understand.1
Simplicity 1
simplicity and power savings awareness 1
Simplicity of message on ways to save.1
Some are not practical (or likely to happen) for the average
homeowner... insulation/caulking, but a few are easily doable for the
average homeowner. These are the ones that caught my eye. We've
already replaced most of our bulbs with LED's (spendy though) and
raised the thermostat setting. Also, for many, ditching the garage
refer. is not an option. I know we always use ours. Just hope there's
not a long term power outage.
1
Specific and friendly messages that promote conservation.1
Specific problem to solve. Ad nice and clean.1
Specific ways to save energy and money.1
Straightforward language and simple actions that anyone can do.1
Suggestions that saving energy and money is doable.1
Supportive message. Cute pictures. Fun colors.1
Sustainability 1
That Idaho Power is making efforts to educate folks about energy
saving.
1
That there are ways to save electricity and many aren't too difficult.1
That we could save energy 1
That we should do our best to save energy and money and that
Idaho Power cares about that.
1
The are obviously designed by someone who wants to catch
attention. The portray a message quickly.
1
The artwork used and the information presented.1
The bright colors caught my eye. The message to save money is
motivational.
1
The bright, fun colors and fun graphics with easy to read messages.1
The cartoons make it easier and more fun to read.1
The catchy phrase and fun picture we good to pull me and and the
information on the bottom was simple, easy to understand, and they
all seemed like doable ideas.
1
the colorful pictures 1
The coloring of the ads and the sayings tend to click more. It had a
nice simple feeling to it making me feel that I can do simple things to
save me some money on my utility bills.
1
The colors were bright and eye catching and the captions were
encouraging about ways to save power and money.
1
the colors.1
The indicate things you can do to cut energy use.1
the layout.1
The look (cartoonish)1
The look and colors. Also the short message 1
The message 1
The phrases captured my interest and then I was able to read the
details.
1
The priority of energy conservation 1
The simple design, the clear messages, the HOW TO do something
to help with costs.
1
The style makes it look like it is simple to make the change 1
The suggestion that someone might not of thought of. They are
bright and catch your eye
1
Their simple, and show that saving energy can be pretty simple too.1
There are number of ways to save energy 1
These are very mild. They could have a larger impact.1
They all encourage saving energy, reducing dependence of existing
generating and delivery infrastructure and saving money.
1
They appear happy.1
they are "upbeat" rather thn threatening or warning.1
They are attractive and send a message 1
They are colorful, easy to read.1
they are cute with the rhyming 1
They are encouraging people to be responsible about conserving
energy.
1
they are just a reminder and we all need reminded once in a while 1
They are things that we are already doing.1
they are upbeat, generally light and great content 1
They are visually appealing and easy to read.1
They are visually please and have a simple, straight-forward
message.
1
they are well presented and give me a lot of "food for thought"1
They gave an action that I can choose to do and why its go to do it.1
They gAve examples of steps to take.1
They gave great tips on saving energy 1
They give information about specific things people can do to save
energy, which is a good thing.
1
They give solutions and options to problems.1
They give you something you can do.1
They had a good message. I feel the "cartoon" design made them
more fun and worth looking at.
1
They identify positive steps that are easy to understand.1
They look good and gave good advise 1
They make simple suggestions and explanations on saving electrical
energy.
1
They might remind some people, who weren't already thinking about
it, of some simple ways to conserve energy.
1
They present easy, and practical ways to reduce energy use and
costs.
1
They seem friendly and provide clear suggestions to save energy.1
They urge people to be more proactive when it comes to energy use.1
They were all helpful, non-intrusive tips that could be relevant to
various customers.
1
They were cheerful and colorful 1
They were short and simple and applied one positive thing about
electrical use.
1
They were simple, easy & quick to read, and gave great tips that
would benefit me.
1
They were simple, easy to get the message 1
They were very clear about some easy options I could consider to
save energy and money.
1
They're all about conserving energy costs.1
They're bright, catchy phrases and good information 1
They're colorful 1
They're cute and easy to read and understand.1
They're eye catching and have a good and simple message 1
To help the environment 1
Upbeat 1
Very educational and helpful ways to lower your electric bill.1
Very straightforward and simple ways to save energy 1
Very young and kid-dish in presentation, cartoon-like = fun.1
visual 1
Ways to save electricity as well as money.1
ways to save energy and stay cooler 1
We all like saving money on the electric bill.1
We all want to save energy 1
We always need reminders even if we are familiar with the
messages the ads give. These ads were simple, easy to read,
straight to the point, and if followed can save money.
1
we are reducing our dependence on burning fossil fuels 1
well done, helpful hints and reminders 1
You care about us customers saving energy 1
QUESTION TOTAL:10
NO RESPONSE:0
Total
Absolute waste of money. If someone wants to save energy, they
can look on a web site somewhere or do research.
I'd rather the money spent on said ads be given back to customers,
thus...saving us actual money!
1
Cartoons are not interesting. I see enough with my kids.1
I don't like that they are cartoons.1
Idaho power should be investing more resources in renewable
generation rather than investing money in advertising conservation
1
The cost .1
The font of the text is ugly. The graphics are simplistic as is the
message. The ads are not specific and don't provide enough
information.
1
They strike me as childish and aimed at someone who wouldn't get
the point.
1
They're ugly. Hate the font.1
To childish.1
You are spending profit I have to pay for. Where else can I buy
power, you put a boat load of PSA in with every bill. Maybe you
could lower my monthly annual power adjustment cost if you weren't
spending thousands or millions of bucks on ada.
1
(asked only of respondents who said they did not recall seeing the ads before taking the
survey but had a negative feeling towards the ads after seeing them)
Verbatim Responses
What is it about the ad(s) that gave you a negative feeling?
QUESTION TOTAL:588
NO RESPONSE:0
TOTAL
O1 359
O2 203
O3 22
O4 4
Strongly agree 61.05%
How much would you agree, or disagree, that Idaho Power encourages energy
efficiency and saving energy with its customers?
OPTIONS PERCENT
Somewhat agree 34.52%
Somewhat disagree 3.74%
Strongly disagree 0.68%
61.05%
34.52%
3.74%
0.68%
Strongly agree
Somewhat agree
Somewhat disagree
Strongly disagree
QUESTION TOTAL:26
NO RESPONSE:0
Verbatim Responses Total
Coupons, free inspections done by Idaho Power, other types of
incentives.
1
Don't have any good ideas. The apathy of the consuming public is
the reason for many of the world's problems.
1
Encourage renewables, stop coal generated purchases, encourage
solar at both a personal and commercial level.
1
Encourage the use of renewables. Encourage the construction of
renewable sources by retaining the 20 year contract provision.
1
Evolve from fossil fuels or become part of the problem 1
Fully embrace the AC Cool Credit and repeal the rollback.
Incentives/penalties for utilizing power at peak times. Reward
instead of discouraging roof top solar and other distributed
generation.
1
Get more wind and solar energy moving in Idaho and use
sustainable and renewable sources NOW!
1
Have a time of day program, help with low cost loans for windows,
doors and insulation and not just for needy families but for houses
that use alot of energy.
1
Help customers convert from electric heating to gas heating.
Help customers install solar panels or other green power.
1
I don't see active programs anymore for doing energy audits and
home retrofitting. Idaho Power also appears to be fighting alternate
energy methods that it does not benefit from.
1
I saw no ads. Most effective advertising now is on the internet, and
they certainly weren't there.
1
I think that you have to go out and actively recruit customers. Also
the incentives/help need to not be pathetic.
1
I would focus more on the actual approximate monetary savings. 3%
doesn't sound worth the trouble.
1
Improve targeting and marketing to customers 1
Incorporate the extent to which Idaho Power believes that more
energy efficiency reduces the need for dirty generation. People want
e-e, no question, but getting rid of fossil fuels is a motivator.
1
it's all about money, show examples of savings 1
Monetary incentives 1
More of the energy saving education. With statistics, it's compelling 1
(asked only of respondents who said theysomewhat or strongly disagreed that Idaho
power encourages energy efficiency)
What could Idaho Power do differently to encourage customers to be more energy efficient
or to save energy?
More promos with a dedicated separate websites for upgrading
appliances, insulation and simple upgrades like LED bulbs and
smart power strips.
1
Most energy use at this point is realistically fixed. You're not going
to cook less, or lower the heat below what's comfortable, or bother to
run climate control at all unless it makes you ...comfortable.
1
Offer incentives and rebates. I recently looked to see if there were
any rebates for replacing old air conditioning units or furnaces and
there was only a rebate for a heat pump. Our old city used to offer a
lot of rebates to get people to upgrade units to more energy efficient
models
1
Offer larger financial incentives for efficiency. Also, actively
developing renewable sources of energy rather than putting money
into coal and gas plants.
1
Promote promote promote 1
reduce rates for reduced consumption 1
reward energy efficiency with cash rewards; like washing dishes at
11 pm instead of 6 pm, recommending best times to run appliances,
what to do with hot water heaters when going out of town
1
The best way to encourage efficiency is to increase the price of
electricity. The second best way would be to show people their real
time energy use with a monitor most likely placed in their kitchen.
1
QUESTION TOTAL:588
NO RESPONSE:0
TOTAL
O1 253
O2 242
O3 64
O4 29
Very interested 43.03%
How interested would you be in getting more information from Idaho Power about
energy saving programs for your home?
OPTIONS PERCENT
Somewhat interested 41.16%
Not very interested 10.88%
Not interested at all 4.93%
43.03%
41.16%
10.88%
4.93%
Very interested
Somewhat interested
Not very interested
Not interested at all
4.4
4.9
4.2
4.9
4.6
4.7
4.2
4.5
4.9
Overall Program Average 4.6
Flex Peak Program Summary
How much do you agree, or disagree, with the following statements about the application process and operation of the
program:
Mean Response
How likely would you be to re-enroll in the Flex Peak Program in the future?
Mean Response
Mean Response
How clear were the notification messages for the Flex Peak Program events?
Following each event, Idaho Power provided post event performance data for each participating facility. How useful was
this information in helping you refine future nominations for the program?
If you contacted Idaho Power, how helpful was Idaho Power with any questions you had regarding the Flex Peak Program?
How satisfied are you with the timeliness of receiving your incentive payment?
How satisfied are you with your incentive amount?
Mean Response
Mean Response
Mean Response
Mean Response
How satisfied are you with your overall experience with the Flex Peak Program?
For each of the events Idaho Power called this summer, please indicate how prepared were you for the event?
Mean Response
Mean Response
Answer Options Response
Percent
Response
Count
Facilities Director/Manager/Supervisor 26.3%5
Maintenance Director/Manager/Supervisor 21.1%4
Operations Director/Manager/Supervisor 15.8%3
Plant Director/Manager/Supervisor 21.1%4
Other (please specify)15.8%3
19
0
Other (please specify)
Energy Engineer
Master Electrician
Lead Water Tech.
skipped question
What is your role at your company?
answered question
Flex Peak Program Survey
26.3%
21.1%
15.8%
21.1%
15.8%
What is your role at your company?
Facilities Director/Manager/Supervisor
Maintenance
Director/Manager/Supervisor
Operations
Director/Manager/Supervisor
Plant Director/Manager/Supervisor
Other (please specify)
Answer Options Strongly
agree (5)
Somewhat
agree (4)
Neither
agree nor
disagree (3)
Somewhat
disagree (2)
Strongly
disagree (1)
Not
applicable
Response
Count
The application form was easy to complete.10 7 0 0 0 0 17
If we needed to, it was easy to change the kW amount my 6 8 2 0 0 1 17
If we needed to, it was easy to opt-out of an event.7 6 3 0 0 1 17
Overall, the application process was easy to understand.10 6 1 0 0 0 17
17
2
Overall Mean
Weighted Weighted Weighted Weighted Weighted
Answer Options Strongly
agree (5)
Somewhat
agree (4)
Neither
agree nor
disagree (3)
Somewhat
disagree (2)
Strongly
disagree (1)
Response
Count
Mean
Response
The application form was easy to complete.50 28 0 0 0 17 4.6
If we needed to, it was easy to change the kW amount my
company committed to.30 32 6 0 0 16 4.3
If we needed to, it was easy to opt-out of an event.35 24 9 0 0 16 4.3
Overall, the application process was easy to understand.50 24 3 0 0 17 4.5
4.4
Answer Options Strongly
agree (5)
Somewhat
agree (4)
Neither
agree nor
disagree (3)
Somewhat
disagree (2)
Strongly
disagree (1)
Not
applicable
Response
Count
The application form was easy to complete.59%41%0%0%0%0%17
If we needed to, it was easy to change the kW amount my 35%47%12%0%0%6%17
If we needed to, it was easy to opt-out of an event.41%35%18%0%0%6%17
Overall, the application process was easy to understand.59%35%6%0%0%0%17
17
2
answered question
skipped question
How much do you agree, or disagree, with the following statements:
Overall Mean
Flex Peak Program Survey
How much do you agree, or disagree, with the following statements:
skipped question
answered question
How much do you agree, or disagree, with the following statements:
59%
35%
41%
59%
41%
47% 35%
35%
12%
18%
6%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
The application form was easy
to complete.
If we needed to, it was easy to
change the kW amount my
company committed to.
If we needed to, it was easy to
opt-out of an event.
Overall, the application
process was easy to
understand.
How much do you agree, or disagree, with the following statements?
Strongly disagree (1)
Somewhat disagree (2)
Neither agree nor disagree (3)
Somewhat agree (4)
Strongly agree (5)
Answer Options Response
Percent
Response
Count
Too much 29.4%5
Right amount 70.6%12
Too little 0.0%0
17
2
Overall Mean
skipped question
Idaho Power notified customers of an event by contacting them three times by email or by phone.
Which of the following statements best describes your thoughts on the number of notifications
received?
answered question
Flex Peak Program Survey
Too much, 29.4%
Right amount, 70.6%
Which of the following statements best describes your thoughts
on the number of notifications received?
Answer Options Response
Percent
Response
Count
Weighted
Response
Very clear (5)88.2%15 75
Somewhat clear (4)11.8%2 8
Neither clear nor unclear (3)0.0%0 0
Somewhat unclear (2)0.0%0 0
Very unclear (1)0.0%0 0
17
2
4.9
Flex Peak Program Survey
Mean Response
How clear were the notification messages for the Flex Peak Program events?
skipped question
answered question
Very clear (5), 88.2%
Somewhat clear (4),
11.8%
How clear were the notification messages for the Flex Peak
Program events?
Very clear (5)
Somewhat clear (4)
Neither clear nor unclear (3)
Somewhat unclear (2)
Very unclear (1)
Answer Options Very prepared
(5)
Somewhat
Prepared (4)
Neither
prepared nor
unprepared (3)
Somewhat
unprepared (2)
Very
unprepared (1)Not applicable Response
Count
Tuesday, June 30 8 4 1 2 1 1 17
Tuesday, July 21 9 5 2 1 0 0 17
Tuesday, August 4 9 5 1 2 0 0 17
17
2
Weighted Weighted Weighted Weighted Weighted
Answer Options Very prepared
(5)
Somewhat
Prepared (4)
Neither
prepared nor
unprepared (3)
Somewhat
unprepared (2)
Very
unprepared (1)
Response
Count
Mean
Response
Tuesday, June 30 40 16 3 4 1 16 4.0
Tuesday, July 21 45 20 6 2 0 17 4.3
Tuesday, August 4 45 20 3 4 0 17 4.2
4.2
Answer Options Very prepared
(5)
Somewhat
Prepared (4)
Neither
prepared nor
unprepared (3)
Somewhat
unprepared (2)
Very
unprepared (1)Not applicable Response
Count
Tuesday, June 30 47%24%6%12%6%6%17
Tuesday, July 21 53%29%12%6%0%0%17
Tuesday, August 4 53%29%6%12%0%0%17
17
2
Flex Peak Program Survey
For each of the events Idaho Power called this summer, please indicate how prepared were you for the event?
answered question
answered question
skipped question
skipped question
Overall Mean
Overall Mean
For each of the events Idaho Power called this summer, please indicate how prepared were you for the event?
47% 53% 53%
24%
29% 29%
6%
12%
6% 12%
6%
12%
6%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Tuesday, June 30 Tuesday, July 21 Tuesday, August 4
For each of the events Idaho Power called this summer, please indicate how prepared
you were for the event.
Very unprepared (1)
Somewhat unprepared (2)
Neither prepared nor unprepared (3)
Somewhat Prepared (4)
Very prepared (5)
Answer Options Response
Percent
Response
Count
Weighted
Response
Very useful (5)94.1%16 80
Somewhat useful (4)5.9%1 4
Neither useful nor useless (3)0.0%0 0
Somewhat useless (2)0.0%0 0
Very useless (1)0.0%0 0
17
2
4.9
Flex Peak Program Survey
Mean Response
Following each event, Idaho Power provided post event performance data for each participating facility. How useful was
this information in helping you refine future nominations for the program?
skipped question
answered question
Very useful (5), 94.1%
Somewhat useful (4),
5.9%
How useful was the post-event performance data Idaho Power
provided in helping you refine future nominations for the program?
Answer Options Response
Percent
Response
Count
Yes 58.8%10
No 41.2%7
17
2skipped question
Did you contact Idaho Power with any questions
regarding the Flex Peak Program?
answered question
Flex Peak Program Survey
Yes, 58.8%
No, 41.2%
Did you contact Idaho Power with any questions regarding the
Flex Peak Program?
Answer Options Response
Percent
Response
Count
Weighted
Response
Very helpful (5)70.0%7 35
Somewhat helpful (4)20.0%2 8
Neither helpful nor unhelpful (3)10.0%1 3
Somewhat unhelpful (2)0.0%0 0
Very unhelpful (1)0.0%0 0
10
9
4.6
Flex Peak Program Survey
Mean Response
If you contacted Idaho Power, how helpful was Idaho Power with any questions you had regarding the Flex
Peak Program?
skipped question
answered question
Very helpful (5),
70.0%
Somewhat helpful (4),
20.0%
Neither
helpful nor
unhelpful (3),
10.0%
How helpful was Idaho Power with any questions you had
regarding the Flex Peak Program?
Answer Options Response
Percent
Response
Count
Weighted
Response
Very satisfied (5)70.6%12 60
Somewhat satisfied (4)29.4%5 20
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied (3)0.0%0 0
Somewhat dissatisfied (2)0.0%0 0
Very dissatisfied (1)0.0%0 0
17
2
4.7
Flex Peak Program Survey
How satisfied are you with the timeliness of receiving your incentive payment?
Mean Response
skipped question
answered question
Very satisfied (5), 70.6%
Somewhat satisfied (4),
29.4%
How satisfied are you with the timeliness of receiving your
incentive payment?
Answer Options Response
Percent
Response
Count
Weighted
Response
Very satisfied (5)29.4%5 25
Somewhat satisfied (4)58.8%10 40
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied (3)11.8%2 6
Somewhat dissatisfied (2)0.0%0 0
Very dissatisfied (1)0.0%0 0
17
2
4.2
Flex Peak Program Survey
Mean Response
How satisfied are you with your incentive amount?
skipped question
answered question
Very satisfied (5), 29.4%
Somewhat satisfied (4),
58.8%
Neither satisfied
nor dissatisfied (3),
11.8%
How satisfied are you with your incentive amount?
Answer Options Response
Percent
Response
Count
Weighted
Response
Very satisfied (5)56.3%9 45
Somewhat satisfied (4)37.5%6 24
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied (3)6.3%1 3
Somewhat dissatisfied (2)0.0%0 0
Very dissatisfied (1)0.0%0 0
16
3
4.5
Flex Peak Program Survey
How satisfied are you with your overall experience with the Flex Peak Program?
Mean Response
skipped question
answered question
Very satisfied (5),
56.3%
Somewhat satisfied (4),
37.5%
Neither satisfied nor
dissatisfied (3), 6.3%
How satisfied are you with your overall experience with the Flex Peak
Program?
Answer Options Response
Percent
Response
Count
Weighted
Response
Very likely (5)93.8%15 75
Somewhat likely (4)6.3%1 4
Neither likely nor unlikely (3)0.0%0 0
Somewhat unlikely (2)0.0%0 0
Very unlikely (1)0.0%0 0
16
3
4.9
Flex Peak Program Survey
Mean Response
How likely would you be to re-enroll in the Flex Peak Program in the future?
skipped question
answered question
Very likely (5), 93.8%
Somewhat likely (4),
6.3%
How likely would you be to re-enroll in the Flex Peak Program in the
future?
Answer Options Response
Count
5
answered question 5
skipped question 14
Response Text
I understand that the program does not want to give more than two hours notice, but it would be very
useful to have more advance notice of an impending event. The more notice the better.
Overall Mean
Zeke was very helpful and knowledgeable.
Just need to work on notification gliche.
Idaho's peak program was easy to enroll, performance reports made available timely after each event,
easy to make changes to nominations in between events. The support team was outstanding in their
management and communications for the program. They provide detail information needed to review with
other levels of OD management. We look forward to next season.
Please provide any additional comments about Idaho Power's Flex Peak Program.
Flex Peak Program Survey
Holiday Lighting Survey Results
December 2015
QUESTION TOTAL:445
NO RESPONSE:0
TOTAL
O1 309
O2 136
Yes 69.44%
Do you use holiday lighting at your home?
OPTIONS PERCENT
No 30.56%
69.44%
30.56%
Yes
No
QUESTION TOTAL:309
NO RESPONSE:0
TOTAL
O1 83
O2 11
O3 215
Where do you use holiday lighting?
OPTIONS PERCENT
(asked only of respondents who said they use holiday lighting)
Outdoors 3.56%
Both indoors and outdoors 69.58%
Indoors 26.86%
26.86%
3.56%
69.58%
Indoors
Outdoors
Both indoors and outdoors
QUESTION TOTAL:309
NO RESPONSE:0
TOTAL
O1 261
O2 85
O3 29
O4 49
O5 46
O6 8
O7 45
O8 2
O9 32
Total
9
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Mini lights 84.47%
(asked only of respondents who said they use holiday lighting)
What type of holiday lights do you use?
OPTIONS PERCENT
Medium bulb lights 27.51%
Large bulb lights 9.39%
Icicle lights 15.86%
Rope lights 14.89%
Laser light(s)2.59%
Other outdoor lighted decorations 14.56%
Don't know 0.65%
Other (please specify)10.36%
battery candles
bubble lights
colored spots
Halloween lights tooo
Verbatim Responses
LED
LEDs
solar lights
What type of holiday lights do you use? Other (please specify).
led and led spotlight
LED candles battery
LED lights
all led lights
All Mini or Medium LED's
84.47%
27.51%
9.39%
15.86%
14.89%
2.59%
14.56%
0.65%
10.36%
Mini lights
Medium bulb lights
Large bulb lights
Icicle lights
Rope lights
Laser light(s)
Other outdoor lighted decorations
Don't know
Other (please specify)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1we didn't use any this year but we
normally put up mini lights in the
LED Spotlights
nativity scene
Small LED lights inside of large
glass bulbsSolar string lights
spot light
Traditional incandescent lights
LED mini lights
Led outdoors
Led rope
QUESTION TOTAL:309
NO RESPONSE:0
TOTAL
O1 179
O2 111
O3 19
Yes 57.93%
(asked only of respondents who said they use holiday lighting)
Are any of your holiday lights LED lights?
OPTIONS PERCENT
No 35.92%
Not sure 6.15%
57.93%
35.92%
6.15%
Yes
No
Not sure
QUESTION TOTAL:179
NO RESPONSE:0
TOTAL
O1 47
O2 43
O3 38
O4 34
O5 11
O6 6
100%26.26%
(asked only of respondents who said they use LED lights)
What proportion of your holiday lights are LED's?
OPTIONS PERCENT
75% - 99%24.02%
50% - 74%21.23%
25% - 49%18.99%
Less than 25%6.15%
Not sure 3.35%
26.26%
24.02%
21.23%
18.99%
6.15%
3.35%
100%
75% - 99%
50% - 74%
25% - 49%
Less than 25%
Not sure
Powered by
Home Energy Audit
Program Survey
Monday, February 01, 2016
140
Total Responses
Complete Responses: 120
Q1: How easy was it for you to apply for the Home Energy Audit program?
Answered: 140 Skipped: 0
Q3: Please identify the auditor that you used for your home audit.
Answered: 103 Skipped: 37
Q4: Please rate your home auditor on each of the following:
Answered: 127 Skipped: 13
Q6: How did you receive your Home Energy Audit report?
Answered: 121 Skipped: 19
Q7: How difficult was it for you to access the report online?
Answered: 123 Skipped: 17
Q8: How much did the audit influence you to reduce the amount of electricity you
consume?
Answered: 124 Skipped: 16
Q9: As a result of the Home Energy Audit program, please indicate how strongly
you agree or disagree with the following statements.
Answered: 125 Skipped: 15
Q10: After receiving your audit through the Home Energy Audit program, please
indicate if you have taken any of the following actions:
Answered: 120 Skipped: 20
Q11: Since receiving your audit through the Home Energy Audit program, please
indicate when, or if, you will complete any of the following improvements:
Answered: 121 Skipped: 19
Q13: What benefits did you experience from the Home Energy Audit program?
(Check all that apply)
Answered: 118 Skipped: 22
Q14: What barriers do you encounter in making energy savings changes in your
home? (Check all that apply)
Answered: 118 Skipped: 22
Q15: The most effective method for Idaho Power to provide information about
energy efficiency is to: (Check all that apply)
Answered: 117 Skipped: 23
Q16: How much do you agree with the following statements:
Answered: 117 Skipped: 23
Q18: Please identify your age in the ranges below:
Answered: 119 Skipped: 21
Q19: What is the highest level of education you completed?
Answered: 117 Skipped: 23
Q20: May we use your name and comments in Idaho Power's communication
efforts?
Answered: 119 Skipped: 21
Q21: Do you have any issues or concerns you would like us to contact you about?
Answered: 116 Skipped: 24
IDAHO POWER
ENERGY WISE® PROGRAM
SUMMARY REPORT

SUBMITTED BY:
RESOURCE ACTION PROGRAMS®
Submitted by:
August 2015
Idaho Power Energy Wise®
Program Summary Report
2014-2015
Made possible by:
Idaho Power Energy Wise® Program Summary Report2
““My son came home very excited to
test the products. He had a lot of fun
and has learned a lot. The kit was
very easy to use. We were done in 15
minutes to test everything out.”
Jan Merrill, Parent
Ellis Elementary School
Resource Action Programs®3
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ......................................................................................5
Program Overview ........................................................................................9
Program Materials .......................................................................................11
Program Implementation ...........................................................................15
Program Team ..............................................................................................17
Program Impact ...........................................................................................19
A. Home Survey ....................................................................................19
B. Pre-Program and Post-Program Tests ..........................................24
C. Home Activities ...............................................................................26
D. Teacher Program Evaluation ..........................................................27
E. Parent/Guardian Program Evaluation ..........................................28
F. Student Letters ................................................................................29
Appendix A ..................................................................................................36
Projected Savings from Showerhead Retrofit ...................................36
Projected Savings from FilterTone® Alarm Installation ....................37
Projected Savings from 13-watt CFL Retrofit ....................................38
Projected Savings from 18-watt CFL Retrofit ....................................39
Projected Savings from 23-watt CFL Retrofit ....................................40
Projected Savings from LED Night Light Retrofit .............................41
Appendix B ...................................................................................................42
Home Check-Up......................................................................................42
Home Activities ......................................................................................45
Appendix C ...................................................................................................49
Participant List .......................................................................................49
Appendix D ..................................................................................................60
Teacher Program Evaluation Data .......................................................60
Appendix E ...................................................................................................61
Parent/Guardian Program Evaluation Data ........................................61
Idaho Power Energy Wise® Program Summary Report4Executive Summary
“I liked having my son do the
calculations to learn how much was
being saved with new light bulbs.”
Ann Waibel, Parent
Washington Elementary
Resource Action Programs®5Executive Summary
Resource Action Programs® (RAP) is pleased to present this Program
Summary Report to Idaho Power, which summarizes the 2014-2015
Idaho Power Energy Wise® Program. The program was implemented
in the Idaho Power service area in the state of Idaho by 6,699
teachers, students, and their families.
The following pages provide an overview of the program and
materials, outline of program implementation, introduction to the
program team, description of program enhancements, impact of
the program, and summary of results from the home activities. In
addition to this information, evaluations, letters, and comments
are provided for a glimpse into actual participant feedback. Lastly,
projected savings from the individual measures found within the
Energy Wise Kit are also included.
Participant Satisfaction
A successful program excites and engages participants. Students,
parents, and teachers are asked to evaluate the program and
provide personal comments. A sample of the feedback is given in
the margin. 
Executive Summary
100+0+F
Teachers who indicated
parents supported
the program.
100%
100+0+F
Teachers who indicated
they would recommend
this program to
other colleagues.
100%
100+0+F
Teachers who indicated
they would conduct this
program again.
100%
A summary of responses can be found
in Appendix D.
Idaho Power Energy Wise® Program Summary Report6Executive Summary
Knowledge Gained
Identical tests were administered to the students prior to the
program and again upon program completion to measure
knowledge gained. Scores and subject knowledge improved from
60% to 75%.
Measures Installed
Students completed take-home activities as part of the program
and reported on the kit measures they installed in their homes.
A summary of responses can be found in Appendix B.48+52+F
Students who reported
they installed the High-
Efficiency Showerhead.
48%76+24+F
Students who
reported they used the
Shower Timer.
76%85+15+F
Students who indicated
they installed the LED
Night Light.
85%
55+45+F
Students who reported
they installed the
13-watt CFL.
55%43+57+F
Students who reported
they installed the
23-watt CFL.
43%48+52+F
Students who reported
they installed the
18-watt CFL.
48%
_______________________100
_______________________95
_______________________90
_______________________85
_______________________80
_______________________75
_______________________70
_______________________65
_______________________60
_______________________55
_______________________50
_______________________45
_______________________40
_______________________35
_______________________30
_______________________25
_______________________20
_______________________15
_______________________10
_______________________5
_______________________0Pr
e
-
P
r
o
g
r
a
m

S
c
o
r
e

60
%
Po
s
t
-
P
r
o
g
r
a
m

S
c
o
r
e

75
%
Resource Action Programs®7Executive Summary
Energy and Water Savings Results
In addition to educating students and their parents, a primary program goal is to generate
cost-effective energy and water savings. Student home surveys not only provided the data
used in the savings projections, but also reinforced the learning benefits.
Projected Resource Savings
A list of assumptions and formulas used for these calculations can be found in Appendix A.
PROJECTED ANNUAL SAVINGS
11,448,794 gallons of water saved
1,476,013 kWh of electricity saved
46,187 therms of gas saved
11,448,794 gallons of wastewater saved
PROJECTED ANNUAL SAVINGS
PER HOME
1,709 gallons of water saved
220 kWh of electricity saved
7 therms of gas saved
1,709 gallons of wastewater saved
PROJECTED LIFETIME SAVINGS
114,487,937 gallons of water saved
14,651,467 kWh of electricity saved
461,874 therms of gas saved
114,487,937 gallons of wastewater saved
PROJECTED LIFETIME SAVINGS
PER HOME
17,090 gallons of water saved
2,187 kWh of electricity saved
69 therms of gas saved
17,090 gallons of wastewater saved
Total Capital Canyon Eastern Southern Western
Participants 6,699 1,423 2,484 1,014 982 796
Surveys Received 4,885 919 1,951 814 606 595
Percent Response 73%65% 79% 80% 62% 75%
Student Survey Response by Region
Idaho Power Energy Wise® Program Summary Report8Program Overview
“Our daughter taught us
so much. We didn’t know
some of these items existed.
We will buy more shower
heads and timers. We
appreciate learning more
about saving energy and are
grateful for your sponsorship.
Thank you!”
Jodi Erickson, Parent
Greenacres Elementary School
Resource Action Programs®9Program Overview
The Idaho Power Energy Wise® Program, a
school-based energy efficiency education
program, is designed to generate immediate
and long-term resource savings by bringing
interactive, real-world education home to
students and their families. The 2014-2015
program was taught in grades 3-6 throughout
the Idaho Power service area.
The Idaho Power Community Education
Representative program team identifies and
enrolls students and teachers within the
designated service area. The program physically
begins with classroom discussions in a Student
Guide that provide the foundations of using
energy and water efficiently, followed by
hands-on, creative, problem solving activities
led by the classroom teacher.
All program materials support state and
national academic standards to allow the
program to fit easily into a teacher’s existing
curriculum and requirements. The participating
classroom teachers follow the Teacher Book
and lesson plan. Information is given to guide
lessons throughout the program in order to
satisfy each student’s individual needs, whether
they are visual, auditory, or kinesthetic learners.
The Energy Wise Kit and Student Workbook
comprise the take-home portion of the program.
Students receive a kit containing high-
efficiency measures they use to install within
their homes. With the help of their parents/
guardians, students install the kit measures and
complete a home survey. The act of installing
and monitoring new energy efficiency devices
in their homes allows students to put their
learning into practice. Here, participants and
their parents/guardians realize actual water and
energy savings within their home, benefitting
two generations.
A critical element of RAP program design is
the use of new knowledge through reporting.
At the end of the program, the Idaho Power
program team tabulates all participant
responses—including home survey information,
teacher responses, student letters, and
parent feedback—and generates this Program
Summary Report.
Program Overview
Idaho Power Energy Wise® Program Summary Report10Program Materials
“They liked all aspects of this course.
I was pleased with the level of
engagement they demonstrated.”
Fred Anderson, Teacher
Groveland Elementary
Resource Action Programs®11Program Materials
Each participant in the Idaho Power Energy Wise® Program receives classroom materials and energy
efficiency kits containing high-efficiency measures to perform the program’s take-home activities.
Program materials for students, parents/guardians, and teachers are outlined below.
Program Materials
Each Student & Teacher Receives
Student Guide
Student Workbook
Parent/Guardian Program Introduction Letter*
Student Survey Form
Certificate of Achievement
Energy Wise Kit Containing:
• High-Efficiency Showerhead*
• Shower Timer
• LED Night Light
• 13-watt Compact Fluorescent Lamp
• 18-watt Compact Fluorescent Lamp
• 23-watt Compact Fluorescent Lamp
• FilterTone® Alarm*
• Digital Thermometer*
• Reminder Stickers and Magnet Pack
• Flow Rate Test Bag
• Natural Resource Fact Chart
• Parent/Guardian Program Evaluation
• Installation DVD
Idaho Power “Get Wise” Wristband
Website Access at:
http://www.idahopower.com/wise
Toll-Free HELP Line
Each Teacher/Classroom Receives
Teacher Book
Step-by-Step Program Checklist
Lesson Plans
Idaho State and National Academic
Standards Chart
Extra Activities
Teacher Program Evaluation
Pre/Post Student Survey Answer Keys
Electricity Poster
Self-Addressed Postage-Paid Envelope
* Materials / Installation Instructions provided in English and Spanish
Idaho Power Energy Wise® Program Summary Report12Program Materials
Custom Branding
In addition to increasing resource awareness and efficiency, the
program has been designed to strengthen bonds between Idaho
Power and the community. One of the steps taken to ensure the
greatest possible exposure is to feature the Idaho Power logo
throughout each Energy Wise Kit. In addition to the kit, the Teacher
Program Evaluation and Parent/Guardian Program Introduction
Letter also feature Idaho Power branding. Further, a custom
Teacher Solicitation Flyer was created for Community Education
Representatives’ program promotion and a cross-marketing
Residential Energy Efficiency promotional brochure included to
promote other energy-efficiency programs.
_______________________100
_______________________95
_______________________90
_______________________85
_______________________80
_______________________75
_______________________70
_______________________65
_______________________60
_______________________55
_______________________50
_______________________45
_______________________40
_______________________35
_______________________30
_______________________25
_______________________20
_______________________15
_______________________10
_______________________5
_______________________0Te
a
c
h
e
r
s

w
h
o

l
i
k
e
d

t
h
e

p
r
o
g
r
a
m

10
0
%
Pa
r
e
n
t
s

w
h
o

l
i
k
e
d

t
h
e

p
r
o
g
r
a
m

10
0
%
When you enroll, you will be asked to provide a student count
and the month you would like to receive your materials.
Idaho Power’s Energy Wise Program provides
4th – 6th grade students in schools served by
Idaho Power with quality, age-appropriate
instruction regarding the wise use of electricity.
Each student that participates receives
a take-home kit containing products to
encourage energy savings at home and engage
families in activities that support and reinforce
the concepts taught at school.
For more information, contact:
Continued on back
Participate in Idaho Power’s 4th – 6th grade
Energy Wise Program
2014-2015 Idaho Power Energy Wise® Program
© 2014 Resource Action Programs®
1322
Liz Haugee208.736.3466
[e-mail]
Each Student/Teacher Receives:Each Teacher/Classroom Receives:
Student Guide
Student Workbook
Program Introduction Letter to Parent/Guardian
Scantron formCertificate of Achievement
Energy Wise Kit:• LED night light• 13-watt compact fluorescent lamp
• 18-watt compact fluorescent lamp
• 23-watt compact fluorescent lamp
• Shower timer
• Digital thermometer
• FilterTone® Alarm• Water Flow Rate Test Bag
• High-efficiency shower head
• Natural Resource Fact Chart
• Parent/Guardian Program Evaluation
“Get Wise” wristband reward
Unlimited access to program website
Toll-free HELP Line
Teacher Book with lesson plans included
Step-by-step program checklist
Teacher Materials Folder:
• State education standard correlation charts
• Pre/post scantron survey answer keys
• Extra Activities booklet
• Electricity poster for classroom
• Mini-grant requirements
• Teacher program welcome letter/evaluation form
• Self-addressed postage-paid envelope
Installation video (DVD)
Website access for additional program activities
Toll-Free telephone support
Mini-grant of up to $100 (see back for details)
There is no cost to participate
Teachers who participate September–
N
o
v
e
m
b
e
r

w
i
l
l

b
e

e
l
i
g
i
b
l
e

f
o
r

a

m
i
n
i
-
g
r
a
n
t

o
f

u
p

t
o

$
1
0
0

w
h
e
n

t
h
e
y

r
e
t
u
r
n

their Student Survey forms in the postage-
p
a
i
d

e
n
v
e
l
o
p
e

b
y

December 31, 2014. Spring participa
n
t
s

a
r
e

e
l
i
g
i
b
l
e

when surveys are returned before Ma
y

1
5
,

2
0
1
5
.

M
i
n
i
-
g
r
a
n
t
s

w
i
l
l

b
e

m
a
i
l
e
d

2
-
3

w
e
e
k
s

a
f
t
e
r

r
e
c
e
i
p
t

o
f

t
h
e

completed Student Survey forms.
Idaho Power Energy Wise Program R
e
s
u
l
t
s
1:• Of teachers, 97% indicate they would conduct the p
r
o
g
r
a
m

a
g
a
i
n

a
n
d

1
0
0
%

s
a
y

t
h
e
y

w
o
u
l
d

r
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d

t
h
e

program to colleagues.• Of parents, 100% say the program was easy to use and 97% would like to see t
h
i
s

p
r
o
g
r
a
m

c
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d

in local schools.• Those who participated in the sprin
g

2
0
1
4

p
r
o
g
r
a
m

a
l
o
n
e

a
r
e

p
r
o
j
e
c
t
e
d

t
o

s
a
v
e

e
n
o
u
g
h

e
l
e
c
t
r
i
c
i
t
y

e
a
c
h

y
e
a
r

t
o

power 81.1 average-sized homes and en
o
u
g
h

w
a
t
e
r

t
o

f
i
l
l

o
v
e
r

1
0

O
l
y
m
p
i
c
-
s
i
z
e
d

s
w
i
m
m
i
n
g

p
o
o
l
s
.
1
Return Rate Mini-Grant Award80-100 percent
$10065-79 percent
$7550-64 percent
$5025-49 percent
$25
1Results derived from the Program Summary Report pr
o
d
u
c
e
d

b
y

Resource Action Programs, spring 2014.
Resource Action Programs®13Program Materials
Program Materials
STUDENT GUIDE
107239
976 United Circle Sparks, NV 89431www.resourceaction.com  [phone]©2014 Resource Action Programs®
Energy Wise® is a registered trademark of Resource Action Programs
Energy Wise® is developed by:
107239 Idaho Power EW Student Guide Cover_PRINT.pdf 1 9/3/14 8:05 AM
STUDENT WORKBOOK
107249
976 United Circle Sparks, NV 89431www.resourceaction.com  [phone]©2014 Resource Action Programs®
Energy Wise® is a registered trademark of Resource Action Programs
Energy Wise® is developed by:
107249 Idaho Power EW Student Workbook Cover_PRINT.pdf 1 9/3/14 8:01 AM
TEACHER BOOK
N30205 1322
976 United Circle Sparks, NV 89431www.resourceaction.com  [phone]©2014 Resource Action Programs®
Energy Wise® is a registered trademark of Resource Action Programs
Energy Wise® is developed by:
1322 N30205 Idaho Power EW Teacher Book Cover.pdf 1 9/11/14 5:08 PM
PLEASE FILL IN THE CIRCLE THAT BEST DESCRIBES YOUR OPINION:
1. The materials were clearly written and well organized.m Strongly Agree m Agree m Disagree m Strongly Disagree
2. The products in the Kit were easy for students to use.m Strongly Agree m Agree m Disagree m Strongly Disagree
3. Which classroom activities did you complete? (Mark all that apply)m Biomass to Biogas m Conservation Cookie m Global Candysm Heat From Light Bulbs m How Much Do We Use? m Mini Water Cyclem School Survey m Solar Power At Work m Expanding Gas
4. Students indicated that their parents supported the program.m Yes m No
5. Would you conduct this program again?m Yes m No
6. Would you recommend this program to other colleagues?m Yes m No
7. Would you be willing to participate on a local Teacher Advisory Board?m Yes m No
8. If my school is eligible for participation next year, I would like to enroll.m Yes m No
9. What did students like best about the program? Explain.
10. What did you like best about the program? Explain.
11. What would you change about the program? Explain.
TEACHER EVALUATION FORM
Date: �������������������������������������
School: �����������������������������������Teacher name: ������������������������������
E-mail: ������������������������������������
Number of Student Survey Forms returned: ������
Teacher Signature: ��������������������������
By submitting this survey I hereby waive any fee or other compensation from Resource Action Programs® for the use of said quotation in any republication, reprint, transcription, electronic medium, or recording of the article containing said quotations. © 2014 Resource Action Programs®
Please assess the LivingWise® Program by filling out this Teacher Evaluation Form. Upon completion, return
this evaluation, your Student Survey Forms, student thank-you notes, and a letter from you to Idaho Power in the postage-paid return envelope provided.
Program brought to you by:
GET UP TO $100.00 MINI GRANT!
Return the following by December 31, 2014 (fall), May 15, 2015 (spring)• 80% of Student
Survey Forms• This evaluation form• Student thank-you notes• A letter from you
If you don’t have 80%, return the following percentages and earn these Mini Grants:
65-79% $7550-64% $5025-49% $25
QUESTIONS? • 1-888-GET-WISE • www.idahopower.com/wise
PARENTS
SIGN INSTALL
=+
CONGRATULATIONS! Your child’s class has been selected to participate in the exciting Energy Wise® Program. The Program is designed to teach your child the importance of using resources, like energy and water, wisely and responsibly. This Program is being provided by Idaho Power at no additional cost to you, your child’s school or the school district.
The average U.S. household pays at least $2,000 per year in utility bills and can often reduce these costs with just a few simple changes. Your child will be given a kit, valued at over $60, which includes free, high-quality products that will help you and your family make these changes and become more
energy efficient. To participate, please do the following:
n Have your child talk to you about the ways they would like to save energy and water and complete the Pledge Form located on the next page. n Watch the installation DVD included in your kit. n Install all of the kit items. You and your child can do most of the activities in less than 15 minutes. If you need additional help installing the kit items, visit www.idahopower.com/wise to view installation videos, see the printed instruction booklet or call 1-888-GET-WISE. n Work with your child to answer all of the survey questions in the Student Workbook.
We hope the Energy Wise® Program will be an easy and fun experience for your entire family and will provide an opportunity for your child to be a leader in your home and community. Thank you for your participation.
LET’S GET STARTED!
N30249 1322
$$$Pledging to save energy and water is an important step in conserving our natural r
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s

a
n
d

w
i
l
l

save your family money on utility bills. As you go through the Li
v
i
n
g
W
i
s
e

P
r
o
g
r
a
m
,

y
o
u

w
i
l
l

l
e
a
r
n

w
h
y

it is important to conserve energy and water. The Program will teach you simple w
a
y
s

t
o

s
a
v
e

e
n
e
r
g
y
,

water, and money. Taking the Pledge shows that you want to b
e

m
o
r
e

e
n
e
r
g
y

a
n
d

w
a
t
e
r

e
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t

t
o

reduce your family’s utility bills.
STUDENTS
PLEDGE FORM
TAKE THE PLEDGE

We have helped you out by writing your first pledge. All you
h
a
v
e

t
o

d
o

t
o

c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e

t
h
e

f
i
r
s
t

p
l
e
d
g
e

is install the items from your Kit. Now, write two more pledges describing how

y
o
u

w
i
l
l

b
e

m
o
r
e

e
n
-
ergy and water efficient at home. Remember, a pledge is a promise.
I pledge to do my part by installing all of the items in my Kit to save energy and

water as well as reduce my family’s utility bills.1.2.
3.
Name:Date:
School:Teacher:
©2012 Resource Action Programs®Developed by:I have written and reviewed my pledges above and by signing this

f
o
r
m
,

I

p
r
o
m
i
s
e

t
o

u
s
e

e
n
e
r
g
y

a
n
d

water more efficiently at home.

Student Signature
Parent Signature
Comprometerse a ahorrar energía y agua es un paso importa
n
t
e

p
a
r
a

c
o
n
s
e
r
v
a
r

n
u
e
s
t
r
o
s

r
e
c
u
r
s
o
s

naturales y le ahorrará dinero a su familia en las facturas de servicios públicos.
A

m
e
d
i
d
a

q
u
e

a
t
r
a
v
i
e
s
a

por el Programa LivingWise, aprenderá por qué es importan
t
e

a
h
o
r
r
a
r

e
n
e
r
g
í
a

y

a
g
u
a
.

E
l

P
r
o
g
r
a
m
a

l
e

enseñará formas sencillas de ahorrar energía, agua y dinero. Asumir el Compro
m
i
s
o

m
u
e
s
t
r
a

q
u
e

u
s
t
e
d

quiere ahorrar más energía y agua para reducir las facturas
d
e

l
o
s

s
e
r
v
i
c
i
o
s

p
ú
b
l
i
c
o
s

d
e

s
u

f
a
m
i
l
i
a
.
ESTUDIANTES
FORMULARIO DE COMPROMISO
ASUMIR EL COMPROMISO

Usted ha ayudado escribiendo su primer compromiso. Todo lo que tiene qu
e

h
a
c
e
r

p
a
r
a

c
o
m
p
l
e
t
a
r

el primer compromiso es instalar los artículos de su Kit. A
h
o
r
a
,

e
s
c
r
i
b
a

d
o
s

c
o
m
p
r
o
m
i
s
o
s

m
á
s

q
u
e

describan cómo ahorrará energía y agua en el hogar. Recuerde, un compro
m
i
s
o

e
s

u
n
a

p
r
o
m
e
s
a
.
Me comprometo a hacer mi parte instalando todos los artículos de mi Kit pa
r
a

ahorrar energía y agua así como para reducir las facturas de s
e
r
v
i
c
i
o
s

p
ú
b
l
i
c
o
s

d
e

mi familia.1.2.
3.
Nombre:Fecha:
Escuela:
Docente:
©2012 Resource Action Programs®
Developed by:
FIRMAR EL COMPROMISO
He escrito y revisado mis anteriores compromisos y a
l

f
i
r
m
a
r

e
s
t
e

f
o
r
m
u
l
a
r
i
o
,

p
r
o
m
e
t
o

u
s
a
r

l
a

e
n
e
r
g
í
a

y el agua de manera más eficiente en casa.
Firma del Estudiante
Firma del Padre
La clase de su hijo ha sido seleccionada para participar en el fascinante Programa Energy Wise®. El Programa está diseñado para enseñarle a su hijo la importancia del uso de los recursos, como la energía y el agua, con sabiduría y responsabilidad. Este Programa lo provee Idaho Power sin costo para usted, la escuela de su hijo ni el distrito escolar.
La vivienda promedio estadounidense paga por la mínima $2,000 por año en facturas de servicios públicos y puede reducir a menudo estos costos simplemente con algunos cambios sencillos. A su hijo se le dará un kit que tiene un valor de más de $60 y incluye productos gratuitos de alta calidad que le ayudarán a usted y a su familia a hacer estos cambios y ser más eficientes energéticamente. Para participar, por favor haga lo siguiente:
nHaga que su hijo hable con usted sobre las formas en las que le gustaría ahorrar agua y energía y complete el Formulario de Compromiso ubicado en la próxima página. nMire el DVD de instalación incluido en su kit. nInstale todos los artículos del kit. Usted y su hijo pueden hacer la mayoría de las actividades en menos de 15 minutos. Si necesita ayuda adicional con la instalación de los artículos del kit, visite www.idahopower.com/wise para ver videos de instalación, vea el manual de instrucciones de instalación o llame al 1-888-GET-WISE. nTrabaje con su hijo para responder todas las preguntas de la encuesta en el Libro de Trabajo del Estudiante.
Esperamos que el Programa Energy Wise® sea una experiencia fácil y divertida para toda la familia y sea una oportunidad para que su hijo sea un líder en su hogar y comunidad. Gracias por su participación.
¡COMENCEMOS!
SAVE
Pledging to save energy and water is an important step in conserv
i
n
g

o
u
r

n
a
t
u
r
a
l

r
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s

a
n
d

w
i
l
l

save your family money on utility bills. As you go through the LivingWise Program, y
o
u

w
i
l
l

l
e
a
r
n

w
h
y

it is important to conserve energy and water. The Program will tea
c
h

y
o
u

s
i
m
p
l
e

w
a
y
s

t
o

s
a
v
e

e
n
e
r
g
y
,

water, and money. Taking the Pledge shows that you want to be more energy and w
a
t
e
r

e
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t

t
o

reduce your family’s utility bills.
STUDENTS
PLEDGE FORM
TAKE THE PLEDGE

We have helped you out by writing your first pledge. All you have to do to compl
e
t
e

t
h
e

f
i
r
s
t

p
l
e
d
g
e

is install the items from your Kit. Now, write two more pledges
d
e
s
c
r
i
b
i
n
g

h
o
w

y
o
u

w
i
l
l

b
e

m
o
r
e

e
n
-
ergy and water efficient at home. Remember, a pledge is a promise.
I pledge to do my part by installing all of the items in my Kit to sav
e

e
n
e
r
g
y

a
n
d

water as well as reduce my family’s utility bills.1.2.
3.
Name:Date:
School:Teacher:
©2012 Resource Action Programs®
Developed by:
SIGN THE PLEDGE
I have written and reviewed my pledges above and

b
y

s
i
g
n
i
n
g

t
h
i
s

f
o
r
m
,

I

p
r
o
m
i
s
e

t
o

u
s
e

e
n
e
r
g
y

a
n
d

water more efficiently at home.
Student Signature

Parent Signature
Comprometerse a ahorrar energía y agua es un paso importante para conser
v
a
r

n
u
e
s
t
r
o
s

r
e
c
u
r
s
o
s

naturales y le ahorrará dinero a su familia en las facturas d
e

s
e
r
v
i
c
i
o
s

p
ú
b
l
i
c
o
s
.

A

m
e
d
i
d
a

q
u
e

a
t
r
a
v
i
e
s
a

por el Programa LivingWise, aprenderá por qué es importante ahorrar energ
í
a

y

a
g
u
a
.

E
l

P
r
o
g
r
a
m
a

l
e

enseñará formas sencillas de ahorrar energía, agua y dine
r
o
.

A
s
u
m
i
r

e
l

C
o
m
p
r
o
m
i
s
o

m
u
e
s
t
r
a

q
u
e

u
s
t
e
d

quiere ahorrar más energía y agua para reducir las facturas de los servicios
p
ú
b
l
i
c
o
s

d
e

s
u

f
a
m
i
l
i
a
.
ESTUDIANTES
FORMULARIO DE COMPROMISO
ASUMIR EL COMPROMISO

Usted ha ayudado escribiendo su primer compromiso. T
o
d
o

l
o

q
u
e

t
i
e
n
e

q
u
e

h
a
c
e
r

p
a
r
a

c
o
m
p
l
e
t
a
r

el primer compromiso es instalar los artículos de su Kit. Ahora, escriba do
s

c
o
m
p
r
o
m
i
s
o
s

m
á
s

q
u
e

describan cómo ahorrará energía y agua en el hogar. R
e
c
u
e
r
d
e
,

u
n

c
o
m
p
r
o
m
i
s
o

e
s

u
n
a

p
r
o
m
e
s
a
.
Me comprometo a hacer mi parte instalando todos los artículos de mi Kit para
ahorrar energía y agua así como para reducir las facturas de servicios públ
i
c
o
s

d
e

mi familia.1.2.
3.
Nombre:Fecha:
Escuela:Docente:
©2012 Resource Action Programs®Developed by:He escrito y revisado mis anteriores compromisos y al firmar este for
m
u
l
a
r
i
o
,

p
r
o
m
e
t
o

u
s
a
r

l
a

e
n
e
r
g
í
a

y el agua de manera más eficiente en casa.

Firma del Estudiante
Firma del Padre
Pledging to save energy and water is an important step in conserving our natural resources and will save your family money on utility bills. As you go through the Program, you will learn why it is important to conserve energy and water. The Program will teach you simple ways to save energy, water, and money. Taking the Pledge shows that you want to be more energy and water efficient to reduce your family’s utility bills.
STUDENTS
PLEDGE FORM
TAKE THE PLEDGE

We have helped you out by writing your first pledge. All you have to do to complete the first pledge is install the items from your kit. Now, write two more pledges describing how you will be more en-ergy and water efficient at home. Remember, a pledge is a promise.
1.
2.
3.
Name:Date:
School:Teacher:
These Kits are made possible by:Developed by:
SIGN THE PLEDGE
I have written and reviewed my pledges above and by signing this form, I promise to use energy and water more efficiently at home.
Student Signature

Parent Signature
Comprometerse a ahorrar energía y agua es un paso importante para conservar nuestros recursos naturales y le ahorrará dinero a su familia en las facturas de servicios públicos. A medida que atraviesa por el Programa, aprenderá por qué es importante ahorrar energía y agua. El Programa le enseñará formas sencillas de ahorrar energía, agua y dinero. Asumir el Compromiso muestra que usted quiere ahorrar más energía y agua para reducir las facturas de los servicios públicos de su familia.
ESTUDIANTES
FORMULARIO DE COMPROMISO
ASUMIR EL COMPROMISO

Usted ha ayudado escribiendo su primer compromiso. Todo lo que tiene que hacer para completar el primer compromiso es instalar los artículos de su kit. Ahora, escriba dos compromisos más que de-scriban cómo ahorrará energía y agua en el hogar. Recuerde, un compromiso es una promesa.
1.
2.
3.
Nombre:Fecha:
Escuela:Docente:
Estos Kits son posibles gracias a:Developed by:
FIRMAR EL COMPROMISO
He escrito y revisado mis anteriores compromisos y al firmar este formulario, prometo usar la energía y el agua de manera más eficiente en casa.

Firma del Estudiante

Firma del Padre
I pledge to do my part by installing all of the items in my kit to save energy and
water as well as reduce my family’s utility bills.
Me comprometo a hacer mi parte instalando todos los artículos de mi kit para ahorrar
energía y agua así como para reducir las facturas de servicios públicos de mi familia.

©2014 Resource Action Programs®
CERTIFICATE OF ACHIEVEMENTAwarded to
for making a difference in your community by successfully
completing the Energy Wise® program.
N30265 1322
©2014 Resource Action Programs®
Energy Wise® is developed by:
Diane Sumner, Ed.D., Director of Education
Teacher BookStudent Guide Student Workbook
Teacher Evaluation Form Parent Letter/Pledge Form
Certificate of Achievement Kit Box
Idaho Power Energy Wise® Program Summary Report14Program Implementation
“The students liked trying all the
new materials. They enjoyed
installing them.”
Meko Myers, Teacher
Valley View Elementary School
Resource Action Programs®15Program Implementation
The 2014-2015 Idaho Power Energy Wise® Program followed this comprehensive
implementation schedule:
1. Identification of Idaho state and national academic standards & benchmarks
2. Curriculum development and refinement (completed annually)
3. Curriculum correlation to Idaho state and national academic standards & benchmarks
4. Materials modification to incorporate Idaho Power branding
5. Incentive program development
6. Teacher outreach and program introduction by Idaho Power CERs
7. Teachers enrolled in the program individually by Idaho Power CERs
8. Implementation dates scheduled with teachers by Idaho Power CERs
9. Program material delivered to coincide with desired implementation date
10. Delivery confirmation
11. Periodic contact to ensure implementation and teacher satisfaction
12. Program completion incentive offered
13. Results collection
14. Program completion incentive delivered to qualifying teachers
15. Thank you cards sent to participating teachers
16. Data analysis
17. Program Summary Report generated and distributed
Participating teachers are free to implement the program to coincide with their lesson plans and class
schedules. Appendix C provides a comprehensive list of classrooms in grades 3-6 that participated
during the 2014-2015 school year.
Program Implementation
Idaho Power Energy Wise® Program Summary Report16Program Team
For more than 22 years, Resource Action Programs (RAP) has
designed and implemented Measure-Based Education® programs
that inspire change in household energy and water use while
delivering significant, measurable resource savings. All RAP
programs feature a proven blend of innovative education,
comprehensive implementation services, and hands-on activities
to put efficiency knowledge to work in students’ homes.
RAP has a strong reputation for providing a high level of client
service as part of a wide range of energy efficiency education
solutions for utilities, municipalities, states, community agencies,
corporations, and more. In 2013, RAP was the only conservation
services provider honored by the American Council for an
Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE) and the Alliance for Water
Efficiency (AWE) as one of 12 top programs that provides sustained
achievement. RAP was honored for market penetration, innovative
design, and its ability to achieve substantial/sustained energy and
water savings.
Resource Action Programs®17Program Team
RAP implements nearly 300 individual programs
that serve more than 400,000 households each
year. All-inclusive program delivery occurs in
its 80,000 square-foot Nevada Program Center
where implementation teams and support
departments work together to provide:
• 1:1 teacher support
• Curriculum development
• Customized materials
• Data tracking and reporting
• Energy and water efficiency measures
• Graphic and web design
• Kit assembly
• Marketing communications
• Shipping
• Printing
• Program management
• Participant enrollment
• Warehousing
The Implementation Team
For the Idaho Power Energy Wise® Program,
RAP assigned a specific implementation team
to Idaho Power made up of a PMP®-designated
Program Manager, CEM®-designated energy
analyst, graphic designer, outreach personnel,
educator, and administrative staff. This team
immersed themselves into the Idaho Power
brand, and handled all program implementation
for Idaho Power. Idaho Power also received the
benefit of fully staffed support departments,
which worked with the implementation team
to define success for Idaho Power. These
departments include education, marketing,
information technology, and warehouse/
logistics.
Continuous Improvement
In addition to successful implementation of the
Idaho Power Energy Wise Program, RAP engages
in continuous program improvement, as well as
enhancements to educational materials, with
modifications based on emerging technology,
industry trends, and EM&V findings.
As part of this plan, RAP utilizes an extensive
network of educators for program feedback. This
feedback ensures that educational components
meet the changing needs of educators, keep
information relevant to students, and, in turn,
provide increased water and energy literacy
amongst program participants.
Program Team
Idaho Power Energy Wise® Program Summary Report18Program Impact
“They loved working through the
different components of the kit with
their parents. I heard how much fun
it was.”
Anthony Haskett, Teacher
Ronald Reagan Elementary School
Resource Action Programs®19Program Impact
The Idaho Power Energy Wise® Program has had a significant impact within the community. As
illustrated below, the program successfully educated participants about energy and water efficiency
while generating resource savings through the installation of efficiency measures in homes. Home
survey information was collected to track projected savings and provide household consumption and
demographic data. Program evaluations and comments were collected from teachers, students, and
parents. The following program elements were used to collect this data:
A. Home Survey for Capital Region
Participating teachers were asked to return their students’ completed home check-up and home
activities results. Of the 49 participating teachers in the Capital region, 40 (82%) returned survey results
for the program. Students were asked to install the kit measures and complete the home activities
with parent assistance. Of the 1,374 participating children in the Capital region, 919 (67%) returned
completed surveys.
Did your family install the 13-watt Compact Fluorescent Lamp (CFL)? Yes - 51%
Did your family install the new High-Efficiency Showerhead? Yes - 42%
Did your family change the way they use energy? Yes - 70%
Program Impact
51+49+F
Students who indicated they installed the
13-watt Compact Fluorescent Lamp.
51% Yes
49% No 42+58+F
Students who indicated they installed the
High-Efficiency Showerhead.
42% Yes
58% No 70+30+F
Students who indicated their family
changed the way they use energy.
70% Yes
30% No
Idaho Power Energy Wise® Program Summary Report20Program Impact
Home Survey for Canyon Region
Participating teachers were asked to return their students’ completed home check-up and home
activities results. Of the 83 participating teachers in the Canyon region, 75 (90%) returned survey
results for the program. Students were asked to install the kit measures and complete the home
activities with parent assistance. Of the 2,401 participating children in the Canyon region, 1,951 (81%)
returned completed surveys.
Did your family install the 13-watt Compact Fluorescent Lamp (CFL)? Yes - 58%
Did your family install the new High-Efficiency Showerhead? Yes - 51%
Did your family change the way they use energy? Yes - 73%58+42+F
Students who indicated they installed the
13-watt Compact Fluorescent Lamp.
58% Yes
42% No 51+49+F
Students who indicated they installed the
High-Efficiency Showerhead.
51% Yes
49% No 73+27+F
Students who indicated their family
changed the way they use energy.
73% Yes
27% No
Resource Action Programs®21Program Impact
Home Survey for Eastern Region
Participating teachers were asked to return their students’ completed home check-up and home
activities results. Of the 39 participating teachers in the Eastern region, 35 (90%) returned survey
results for the program. Students were asked to install the kit measures and complete the home
activities with parent assistance. Of the 975 participating children in the Eastern region, 814 (83%)
returned completed surveys.
Did your family install the 13-watt Compact Fluorescent Lamp (CFL)? Yes - 54%
Did your family install the new High-Efficiency Showerhead? Yes - 48%
Did your family change the way they use energy? Yes - 64%54+46+F
Students who indicated they installed the
13-watt Compact Fluorescent Lamp.
54% Yes
46% No 48+52+F
Students who indicated they installed the
High-Efficiency Showerhead.
48% Yes
52% No 64+36+F
Students who indicated their family
changed the way they use energy.
64% Yes
36% No
Idaho Power Energy Wise® Program Summary Report22Program Impact
Home Survey for Southern Region
Participating teachers were asked to return their students’ completed home check-up and home
activities results. Of the 35 participating teachers in the Southern region, 23 (66%) returned survey
results for the program. Students were asked to install the kit measures and complete the home
activities with parent assistance. Of the 947 participating children in the Southern region, 606 (64%)
returned completed surveys.
Did your family install the 13-watt Compact Fluorescent Lamp (CFL)? Yes - 59%
Did your family install the new High-Efficiency Showerhead? Yes - 51%
Did your family change the way they use energy? Yes - 76%59+41+F
Students who indicated they installed the
13-watt Compact Fluorescent Lamp.
59% Yes
41% No 51+49+F
Students who indicated they installed the
High-Efficiency Showerhead.
51% Yes
49% No 76+24+F
Students who indicated their family
changed the way they use energy.
76% Yes
24% No
Resource Action Programs®23Program Impact
Home Survey for Western Region
Participating teachers were asked to return their students’ completed home check-up and home
activities results. Of the 20 participating teachers in the Western region, 17 (85%) returned survey
results for the program. Students were asked to install the kit measures and complete the home
activities with parent assistance. Of the 776 participating children in the Western region, 595 (77%)
returned completed surveys.
Did your family install the 13-watt Compact Fluorescent Lamp (CFL)? Yes - 51%
Did your family install the new High-Efficiency Showerhead? Yes - 46%
Did your family change the way they use energy? Yes - 61%51+49+F
Students who indicated they installed the
13-watt Compact Fluorescent Lamp.
51% Yes
49% No 46+54+F
Students who indicated they installed the
High-Efficiency Showerhead.
46% Yes
54% No 61+39+F
Students who indicated their family
changed the way they use energy.
61% Yes
39% No
Idaho Power Energy Wise® Program Summary Report24Program Impact
B. Pre-Program and Post-Program Tests
Students were asked to complete a 10-question test before the program was introduced and then again
after it was completed to determine the knowledge gained through the program. The average student
answered 6.0 questions correctly prior to being involved in the program and then improved to answer
7.5 questions correctly following participation. Of the 6,473 students participating, 4,885 returned
survey responses.
Scores improved from 60% to 75%.
Pre-Program Score 60%
Post-Program Score 75%
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100
Pre-Program and Post-Program Test Questions
1 Which layer of Earth do we live on?Pre Post
Crust 69%87%
Mantle 6%3%
Inner Core 7%3%
Outer Core 17%7%
2 Non-Potable water is safe to drink.
True 23%13%
False 77%87%
3 Which of these is not a renewable resource?
Wind 19%11%
Plants 5%3%
Gold 59%77%
Animals 16%9%
Resource Action Programs®25Program Impact
4 Saving water saves energy.
True 86%95%
False 14%5%
5 Which are fossil fuels?
Coal 21%17%
Oil 11%6%
Natural Gas 14%8%
All of the above 54%69%
6 Which type of energy is created in the process of Photosynthesis?
Nuclear Energy 20%15%
Thermal Energy 25%20%
Chemical Energy 32%54%
Electric Energy 24%11%
7 Which kit item will save the most natural resources?
Compact Fluorescent Lamp 19%15%
High-Efficiency Showerhead 35%59%
FilterTone® Alarm 18%9%
LED Night Light 28%16%
8 Which major appliance uses the most energy?
Dishwasher 19%15%
Refrigerator 62%67%
Dryer 20%18%
9 A Compact Fluorescent Lamp (CFL) uses more energy than an incandescent bulb.
True 41%25%
False 59%75%
10 On-peak time is the best time to play video games.
True 28%18%
False 72%82%
Idaho Power Energy Wise® Program Summary Report26Program Impact
C. Home Activities—Summary
As part of the program, parents and students installed resource efficiency measures in their homes.
They also measured the pre-existing devices to calculate savings that they generated. Using the family
habits collected from the home survey as the basis for this calculation, 6,699 households are expected
to save the following resource totals. Savings from these actions and new behaviors will continue for
many years to come. Of the 6,473 students participating, 4,885 returned survey responses.
Projected Resource Savings
A list of assumptions and formulas used for these calculations can be found in Appendix A.
Number of Participants:6,699
Annual Lifetime
Projected reduction from Showerhead retrofit:11,448,794 114,487,937 gallons
Product Life: 10 years 729,102 7,291,025 kWh
38,730 387,305 therms
Projected reduction from 13-watt Compact Fluorescent Lamp (CFL):172,519 1,682,047 kWh
Product Life: 10,000 hours
Projected reduction from 18-watt Compact Fluorescent Lamp (CFL):140,646 1,371,283 kWh
Product Life: 10,000 hours
Projected reduction from 23-watt Compact Fluorescent Lamp (CFL):121,333 1,182,989 kWh
Product Life: 10,000 hours
Projected reduction from LED Night Light retrofit:161,910 1,619,103 kWh
Product Life: 10,000 hours
Projected reduction from FilterTone® installation:150,502 1,505,021 kWh
Product Life: 10 years 7,457 74,569 therms
TOTAL PROGRAM SAVINGS:11,448,794 114,487,937 gallons
1,476,013 14,651,467 kWh
46,187 461,874 therms
TOTAL PROGRAM SAVINGS PER HOUSEHOLD: 1,709 17,090 gallons
220 2,187 kWh
7 69 therms
Resource Action Programs®27Program Impact
D. Teacher Program Evaluation
Program improvements are based on participant feedback received. One of the types of feedback
obtained is from participating teachers via a Teacher Program Evaluation Form. They are asked to
evaluate relevant aspects of the program and each response is reviewed for pertinent information. The
following is feedback from the Teacher Program Evaluation for the Idaho Power Energy Wise Program.
Of the 226 participating teachers, 157 returned teacher program evaluation surveys.
Teacher Response
(A summary of responses and regional data can be found in Appendix D)
100% of participating teachers indicated they would conduct the program again given the opportunity.
100% of participating teachers indicated they would recommend the program to their colleagues.
What did students like best about the program? Explain.
“Taking the kits home and installing the items and then sharing their experiences with the class.”
Heather Tucker, Desert Springs Elementary School
“They liked all aspects of this course. I was pleased with the level of engagement they demonstrated.”
Fred Anderson, Groveland Elementary
“They liked learning about different ways they could save energy to save money. They also liked that they kit
allowed them to include their families in this activity.”
Katie Strawser, Desert Springs Elementary School
“The students liked the energy-saving kits. They enthusiastically and conscientiously applied all the products
they could.”
Petra Vawter, Marsing Middle School
“The kits! We talked about them nearly every day!”
Amy Mattei, West Canyon Elementary
“The night light was a big hit. The student guide as it brought about good peer to peer discussions.”
John Harlan, Central Elementary School
“They loved having their own booklets and the activities that came with the reading.”
Maggie Mahler, Whittier Elementary School
What did you like best about the program? Explain.
“It created conversation about energy and what we use. It goes along well with our electricity unit.”
Glen Kershaw, Mill Creek Elementary School
Idaho Power Energy Wise® Program Summary Report28Program Impact
E. Parent/Guardian Program Evaluation
Parent involvement with program activities and their children is of paramount interest to both utilities
and teachers in the program. When parents take an active role in their child’s education it helps the
schools and strengthens the educational process considerably. When students successfully engage
their families in retrofit, installation, and home energy efficiency projects, efficiency messages are
powerfully delivered to two generations in the same household. The program is a catalyst for this
family interaction, which is demonstrated by feedback from Parent/Guardian Program Evaluations
in each program. The following is feedback from the Parent/Guardian Program Evaluations for the
Idaho Power Energy Wise Program. Of the 6,473 participating families, 107 parents returned program
evaluation surveys.
Parent Response
(A summary of responses and regional data can be found in Appendix E)
98% of participating parents indicated that the program was easy to use.
99% of participating parents indicated they would continue to use the kit items after the completion
of the program.
99% of participating parents indicated they would like to see this program continued in local schools.
As a parent, which aspect of the program did you like best?
“I liked having my son do the calculations to learn how much was being saved with new light bulbs.”
Ann Waibel, Washington Elementary
“The children learn how much water and power is required to do normal day activities.”
Ellen Makinster, Lake Ridge Elementary School
“I liked the shower head and timer the most. My kids shower way too long, so I think they will make a difference.”
Steven Fisher, Indian Creek & Ross Elementary School
“That the kids learn the importance of using resources wisely and are taught ways to do so.”
Kari Whitney, Filer Intermediate School
“I like that you are educating kids on the importance of saving energy.”
Alexis Jimenez, Birch Elementary School
Are there any comments you would like to express to your child’s program sponsor?
“This is an awesome program! I’m glad Idaho Power is taking an initiative to teach our young generations how to
conserve resources. Way to go!”
Kari Whitney, Filer Intermediate School
Resource Action Programs®29Program Impact
F. Student Letters
Idaho Power Energy Wise® Program Summary Report30Program Impact
Student Letters
Resource Action Programs®31Program Impact
Student Letters
Idaho Power Energy Wise® Program Summary Report32Program Impact
Student Letters
Resource Action Programs®33Program Impact
Student Letters
Idaho Power Energy Wise® Program Summary Report34Appendices
“They liked learning about different
ways they could save energy to save
money. They also liked that the kit
allowed them to include their families
in this activity.”
Katie Strawser, Teacher
Desert Springs Elementary School
Resource Action Programs®35Appendices
Appendix A
Projected Savings from Showerhead Retrofit ..................................36
Projected Savings from FilterTone® Alarm Installation ....................37
Projected Savings from 13-watt CFL Retrofit...................................38
Projected Savings from 18-watt CFL Retrofit...................................39
Projected Savings from 23-watt CFL Retrofit...................................40
Projected Savings from LED Night Light Retrofit .............................41
Appendix B
Home Check-Up ....................................................................................42
Home Activities ......................................................................................45
Appendix C
Participant List ......................................................................................49
Appendix D
Teacher Program Evaluation Data ......................................................60
Appendix E
Parent/Guardian Program Evaluation Data .......................................61
Appendices
Idaho Power Energy Wise® Program Summary Report36Appendix A
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x

A
Showerhead Retrofit Inputs and Assumptions:
Average household size: 5.09 people1
Average number of full bathrooms per home:2.00 full bathrooms per home1
% of water heated by gas:51.49%1
% of water heated by electricity:48.47%1
Installation / participation rate of:48.48%1
Average Showerhead has a flow rate of:2.01 gallons per minute1
Retrofit Showerhead has a flow rate of:1.32 gallons per minute1
Number of participants: 6,699 1
Shower duration:8.20 minutes per day2
Showers per day per person:0.67 showers per day2
Product life:10 years3
Projected Water Savings:
Showerhead retrofit projects an annual reduction of:11,448,794 gallons4
Showerhead retrofit projects a lifetime reduction of:114,487,937 gallons5
Projected Electricity Savings:
Showerhead retrofit projects an annual reduction of:729,102 kWh2,6
Showerhead retrofit projects a lifetime reduction of:7,291,025 kWh2,7
Projected Natural Gas Savings:
Showerhead retrofit projects an annual reduction of:38,730 therms2,8
Showerhead retrofit projects a lifetime reduction of:387,305 therms2,9
1 Data Reported by Program Participants.
2 (March 4, 2010). EPA WaterSense® Specification for Showerheads Supporting Statement. Retrieved from http://www.epa.gov/WaterSense/docs/showerheads_
finalsuppstat508.pdf
3 Provided by manufacturer.
4 [(Average Household Size x Shower Duration x Showers per Day per Person) ÷ Average Number of Full Bathrooms per Home] x (Average Showerhead Flow Rate - Retrofit
Showerhead Flow Rate ) x Number of Participants x Installation Rate x 365 days
5 [(Average Household Size x Shower Duration x Showers per Day per Person) ÷ Average Number of Full Bathrooms per Home] x (Average Showerhead Flow Rate - Retrofit
Showerhead Flow Rate ) x Number of Participants x Installation Rate x 365 days x Product Life
6 Projected Annual Water Savings x Percent of Water that is Hot Water x 0.18 kWh/gal x % of Water Heated by Electricity
7 Projected Annual Water Savings x Percent of Water that is Hot Water x 0.18 kWh/gal x % of Water Heated by Electricity x Product Life
8 Projected Annual Water Savings x Percent of Water that is Hot Water x 0.009 Therms/gal x % of Water Heated by Natural Gas
9 Projected Annual Water Savings x Percent of Water that is Hot Water x 0.009 Therms/gal x % of Water Heated by Natural Gas x Product Life
Projected Savings from Showerhead Retrofit
Resource Action Programs®37Appendix A
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x

A
FilterTone® Installation Inputs and Assumptions:
Annual energy (electricity) use by a central air conditioner:4,467 kWh1
Annual energy (natural gas) use by a central space heating or furnace:421 therms1
Projected increase in efficiency (electricity):1.75%2
Projected increase in efficiency (natural gas):0.92%2
Product life:10 years3
Installation / participation rate of:28.74%4
Number of participants:6,699 4
Projected Electricity Savings:
The FilterTone installation projects an annual reduction of:150,502 kWh5
The FilterTone installation projects a lifetime reduction of:1,505,021 kWh6
Projected Natural Gas Savings:
The FilterTone installation projects an annual reduction of:7,457 therms7
The FilterTone installation projects a lifetime reduction of:74,569 therms8
1 U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration 2005 Residential Energy Consumption Web site for Mountain West States: http://www.eia.gov/
consumption/residential/data/2005/
2 Reichmuth P.E., Howard. (1999). Engineering Review and Savings Estimates for the ‘Filtertone’ Filter Restriction Alarm.
3 Provided by manufacturer.
4 Data reported by program participants.
5 Annual energy (electricity) use by a central air conditioner, heat pump or furnace x Projected increase in efficiency (electricity) x Installation rate x Number of participants
6 Annual energy (electricity) use by a central air conditioner, heat pump or furnace x Projected increase in efficiency (electricity) x Installation rate x Number of participants
x Product life
7 Annual energy (natural gas) use by a central air conditioner, heat pump or furnace x Projected increase in efficiency (natural gas) x Installation rate x Number of
participants
8 Annual energy (natural gas) use by a central air conditioner, heat pump or furnace x Projected increase in efficiency (natural gas) x Installation rate x Number of
participants x Product life
Projected Savings from FilterTone® Alarm Installation
Idaho Power Energy Wise® Program Summary Report38Appendix A
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x

A
CFL Retrofit Inputs and Assumptions:
Product life:10,000 hours1
Watts used by the compact fluorescent light bulb:13 watts1
Hours of operation per day:2.81 hours per day2
Watts used by the replaced incandescent light bulb:58.37 watts3
Installation / participation rate of:55.34%3
Number of participants: 6,699 3
Projected Electricity Savings:
The CFL retrofit projects an annual reduction of:172,519 kWh2,4
The CFL retrofit projects a lifetime reduction of:1,682,047 kWh2,5
1 Provided by manufacturer.
2 Frontier Associates. (2011). Oncor’s LivingWise Program: Measurement & Verification Update.
3 Data reported by program participants.
4 {[(Wattage of incandescent light bulb replaced - Wattage of compact fluorescent light bulb) x Hours of operation per day x 365 Days] ÷ 1,000} x Number of participants x
Installation rate
5 {[(Wattage of incandescent light bulb replaced - Wattage of compact fluorescent light bulb) x Product Life] ÷ 1,000} x Number of participants x Installation rate
Projected Savings from 13-watt CFL Retrofit
Resource Action Programs®39Appendix A
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x

A
CFL Retrofit Inputs and Assumptions:
Product life:10,000 hours1
Watts used by the compact fluorescent light bulb:18 watts1
Hours of operation per day:2.81 hours per day2
Watts used by the replaced incandescent light bulb:60.64 watts3
Installation / participation rate of:48.01%3
Number of participants: 6,699 3
Projected Electricity Savings:
The CFL retrofit projects an annual reduction of:140,646 kWh2,4
The CFL retrofit projects a lifetime reduction of:1,371,283 kWh2,5
1 Provided by manufacturer.
2 Frontier Associates. (2011). Oncor’s LivingWise Program: Measurement & Verification Update.
3 Data reported by program participants.
4 {[(Wattage of incandescent light bulb replaced - Wattage of compact fluorescent light bulb) x Hours of operation per day x 365 Days] ÷ 1,000} x Number of participants x
Installation rate
5 {[(Wattage of incandescent light bulb replaced - Wattage of compact fluorescent light bulb) x Product Life] ÷ 1,000} x Number of participants x Installation rate
Projected Savings from 18-watt CFL Retrofit
Idaho Power Energy Wise® Program Summary Report40Appendix A
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x

A
CFL Retrofit Inputs and Assumptions:
Product life:10,000 hours1
Watts used by the compact fluorescent light bulb:23 watts1
Hours of operation per day:2.81 hours per day2
Watts used by the replaced incandescent light bulb:64.02 watts3
Installation / participation rate of:43.05%3
Number of participants: 6,699 3
Projected Electricity Savings:
The CFL retrofit projects an annual reduction of:121,333 kWh2,4
The CFL retrofit projects a lifetime reduction of:1,182,989 kWh2,5
1 Provided by manufacturer.
2 Frontier Associates. (2011). Oncor’s LivingWise Program: Measurement & Verification Update.
3 Data reported by program participants.
4 {[(Wattage of incandescent light bulb replaced - Wattage of compact fluorescent light bulb) x Hours of operation per day x 365 Days] ÷ 1,000} x Number of participants x
Installation rate
5 {[(Wattage of incandescent light bulb replaced - Wattage of compact fluorescent light bulb) x Product Life] ÷ 1,000} x Number of participants x Installation rate
Projected Savings from 23-watt CFL Retrofit
Resource Action Programs®41Appendix A
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x

A
Energy Efficient Night Light Retrofit Inputs and Assumptions:
Average length of use: 4,380 hours per year1
Average night light uses:7 watts
Retrofit night light uses:0.5 watts
Product life:10 years2
Energy saved per year:28 kWh per year
Energy saved over life expectancy:285 kWh
Installation / participation rate of:84.89%3
Number of participants:6,699 3
Projected Electricity Savings:
The Energy Efficient Night Light retrofit projects an annual
reduction of:
161,910 kWh
The Energy Efficient Night Light retrofit projects a lifetime
reduction of:
1,619,103 kWh
1 Assumption (12 hours per day)
2 Product life provided by manufacturer
3 Data reported by program participants
Projected Savings from LED Night Light Retrofit
Idaho Power Energy Wise® Program Summary Report42Appendix B
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x

B
Home Check-Up
Due to rounding of numbers, percentages may not add up to 100%
Total Capital Canyon Eastern Southern Western
1 What type of home do you live in?
Single Family Home (Mobile)9%8%9%12%9%8%
Single Family Home (Manufactured)8%3%6%11%11%14%
Single Family Home (Built)67%77%67%59%64%67%
Multi-Family (2-4 units)11%9%11%13%10%9%
Multi-Family (5-20 units)4%3%5%4%5%2%
Multi-Family (21+ units)1%1%1%1%2%0%
2 Was your home built before 1992?
Yes 40%36%30%59%46%51%
No 60%64%70%41%54%49%
3 Is your home owned or rented?
Owned 68%73%66%68%63%72%
Rented 32%27%34%32%37%28%
4 How many kids live in your home (age 0-17)?
1 12%12%11%11%13%13%
2 29%35%28%28%27%29%
3 28%28%28%28%29%25%
4 16%13%17%18%15%19%
5+15%11%15%14%17%15%
Total Capital Canyon Eastern Southern Western
Participants 6,699 1,423 2,484 1,014 982 796
Surveys Received 4,885 919 1,951 814 606 595
Percent Response 73%65% 79% 80% 62% 75%
Resource Action Programs®43Appendix B
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x

B
Home Check-Up
(continued)
Due to rounding of numbers, percentages may not add up to 100%
Total Capital Canyon Eastern Southern Western
5 How many adults live in your home (age 18+)?
1 12%11%11%14%12%11%
2 69%73%71%65%69%67%
3 12%11%11%14%13%13%
4 4%4%4%4%3%6%
5+2%1%3%2%3%2%
6 Does your home have a programmable outdoor sprinkler system?
Yes 65%84%73%48%55%40%
No 35%16%27%52%45%60%
7 Does your home have a programmable thermostat?
Yes 73%82%79%66%67%60%
No 26%18%21%34%33%40%
8 What is the main source of heating in your home?
Natural Gas 48%62%55%42%34%22%
Electric Heater 38%30%35%38%48%51%
Propane 4%1%2%7%6%7%
Heating Oil 1%1%1%1%2%1%
Wood 5%2%3%7%6%14%
Other 4%4%4%5%4%6%
9 What type of air conditioning unit do you have?
Central Air Conditioner 70%83%79%48%55%62%
Evaporative Cooler 6%4%4%8%8%7%
Room Unit 14%9%11%20%18%19%
Don’t Have One 11%4%6%24%18%12%
10 Does your home have a dishwasher?
Yes 84%96%88%74%73%77%
No 16%4%12%26%27%23%
Idaho Power Energy Wise® Program Summary Report44Appendix B
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x

B
Home Check-Up
(continued)
Total Capital Canyon Eastern Southern Western
11 How many half-bathrooms are in your home?
0 66%59%61%77%71%76%
1 29%36%34%19%21%20%
2 3%3%3%2%6%2%
3 1%1%1%1%2%1%
4+1%1%0%1%0%0%
12 How many full bathrooms are in your home?
1 23%15%18%32%31%32%
2 58%56%67%45%53%53%
3 16%24%12%20%13%11%
4 3%4%2%2%2%3%
5+1%1%1%1%1%1%
13 How many toilets are in your home?
1 17%10%13%26%23%25%
2 46%35%48%46%52%51%
3 29%41%33%21%18%16%
4 6%11%5%6%5%6%
5+2%3%2%2%1%3%
14 How is your water heated?
Natural Gas 51%65%59%46%38%25%
Electricity 48%35%41%54%62%75%
Due to rounding of numbers, percentages may not add up to 100%
Resource Action Programs®45Appendix B
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x

B
Home Activities
Due to rounding of numbers, percentages may not add up to 100%
Total Capital Canyon Eastern Southern Western
1 What is the flow rate of your old showerhead?
0 - 1.0 GPM 11%7%12%12%11%14%
1.1 - 1.5 GPM 18%16%18%20%20%20%
1.6 - 2.0 GPM 22%22%23%24%20%21%
2.1 - 2.5 GPM 22%27%20%20%23%21%
2.6 - 3.0 GPM 16%16%16%15%17%16%
3.1+ GPM 11%12%12%9%9%8%
2 Did you install the new High-Efficiency Showerhead?
Yes 48%42%51%48%51%46%
No 51%58%49%52%49%54%
3 If you answered “yes” to question 2, what is the flow rate of your new showerhead?
0 - 1.0 GPM 22%19%22%24%22%22%
1.1 - 1.5 GPM 40%41%39%39%41%41%
1.6 - 2.0 GPM 38%40%40%37%37%37%
4 Did you use the Shower Timer?
Yes 76%74%79%74%78%69%
No 24%26%21%26%22%31%
5 Did your family install the 13-watt Compact Fluorescent Lamp (CFL)?
Yes 55%51%58%54%59%51%
No 45%49%42%46%41%49%
Total Capital Canyon Eastern Southern Western
Participants 6,699 1,423 2,484 1,014 982 796
Surveys Received 4,885 919 1,951 814 606 595
Percent Response 73%65% 79% 80% 62% 75%
Idaho Power Energy Wise® Program Summary Report46Appendix B
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x

B
Home Activities
(continued)
Due to rounding of numbers, percentages may not add up to 100%
Total Capital Canyon Eastern Southern Western
6 If you answered “yes” to question 5, what is the wattage of the incandescent bulb you replaced?
40-watt 20%17%22%21%22%18%
60-watt 41%46%40%39%39%39%
75-watt 14%15%12%15%15%14%
100-watt 9%9%10%9%7%9%
Other 16%14%16%17%16%20%
7 Did your family install the 18-watt Compact Fluorescent Lamp (CFL)?
Yes 48%45%50%47%51%45%
No 52%55%50%53%49%55%
8 If you answered “yes” to question 7, what is the wattage of the incandescent bulb you replaced?
40-watt 15%14%14%19%14%16%
60-watt 34%39%33%35%35%30%
75-watt 22%21%23%19%24%23%
100-watt 10%12%10%8%8%10%
Other 18%14%19%19%19%20%
9 Did your family install the 23-watt Compact Fluorescent Lamp (CFL)?
Yes 43%40%45%41%47%39%
No 57%60%55%59%53%61%
10 If you answered “yes” to question 9, what is the wattage of the incandescent bulb you replaced?
40-watt 14%11%13%15%16%14%
60-watt 28%32%26%31%29%22%
75-watt 18%17%17%16%20%20%
100-watt 21%25%23%14%16%22%
Other 21%15%21%25%20%21%
11 Did your family install the FilterTone® Alarm?
Yes 29%27%31%24%30%28%
No 71%73%69%76%70%72%
Resource Action Programs®47Appendix B
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x

B
Home Activities
(continued)
Due to rounding of numbers, percentages may not add up to 100%
Total Capital Canyon Eastern Southern Western
12 How much did your family turn down the thermostat in winter for heating?
1 - 2 Degrees 18%20%20%14%20%13%
3 - 4 Degrees 19%18%21%16%19%17%
5+ Degrees 14%14%15%13%12%15%
Didn’t Adjust Thermostat 49%47%45%56%49%55%
13 How much did your family turn up the thermostat in summer for cooling?
1 - 2 Degrees 15%20%16%14%11%12%
3 - 4 Degrees 18%18%20%14%17%18%
5+ Degrees 15%15%16%12%13%18%
Didn’t Adjust Thermostat 52%47%48%61%59%52%
14 Did you install the LED Night Light?
Yes 85%84%86%83%87%84%
No 15%16%14%17%13%16%
15 Did your family lower your water heater settings?
Yes 26%23%30%22%29%22%
No 74%77%70%78%71%78%
16 Did your family raise the temperature on your refrigerator?
Yes 17%14%21%11%18%15%
No 83%85%79%89%82%85%
17 Did you complete the optional online energy use activity?
All of it 7%6%9%5%6%8%
Some of it 17%15%20%15%21%12%
None 75%80%71%80%72%80%
18 Did you work with your family on this Program?
Yes 71%73%73%67%74%63%
No 29%27%27%33%26%37%
19 Did your family change the way they use water?
Yes 63%64%65%57%69%57%
No 37%36%35%43%31%43%
Idaho Power Energy Wise® Program Summary Report48Appendix B
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x

B
Home Activities
(continued)
Due to rounding of numbers, percentages may not add up to 100%
Total Capital Canyon Eastern Southern Western
20 Did your family change the way they use energy?
Yes 70%70%73%64%76%61%
No 30%30%27%36%24%39%
21 How would you rate the Idaho Power Energy Wise® Program?
Great 48%51%51%47%42%45%
Pretty Good 33%34%33%30%39%31%
Okay 15%13%14%19%15%19%
Not So Good 3%3%2%3%4%5%
Resource Action Programs®49Appendix C
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x

C
Participant List
Note: “T” represents number of teachers and “S” represents number of students
REGION SCHOOL TEACHER T S SURVEYS
RETURNED
Canyon Birch Elementary School 1 27 Yes
Canyon Birch Elementary School 1 25 Yes
Canyon Birch Elementary School 1 26 Yes
Canyon Birch Elementary School 1 26 Yes
Canyon Central Canyon Elementary School 1 28 Yes
Canyon Central Elementary School 1 25 No
Canyon Central Elementary School 1 23 Yes
Canyon Central Elementary School 1 23 Yes
Canyon Crimson Point Elementary 1 32 Yes
Canyon Crimson Point Elementary 1 32 Yes
Canyon Crimson Point Elementary 1 28 Yes
Canyon Crimson Point Elementary 1 28 Yes
Canyon Crimson Point Elementary 1 25 Yes
Canyon Crimson Point Elementary 1 25 Yes
Canyon Crimson Point Elementary 1 25 Yes
Canyon Crimson Point Elementary 1 31 Yes
Canyon Desert Springs Elementary School 1 26 Yes
Canyon Desert Springs Elementary School 1 27 Yes
Canyon Desert Springs Elementary School 1 27 Yes
Canyon Desert Springs Elementary School 1 28 Yes
Canyon Endeavor School 1 103 Yes
Canyon Greenhurst Elementary School 1 29 No
Idaho Power Energy Wise® Program Summary Report50Appendix C
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x

C
REGION SCHOOL TEACHER T S SURVEYS
RETURNED
Canyon Greenhurst Elementary School 1 28 Yes
Canyon Idaho Arts Charter School 1 29 Yes
Canyon Idaho Arts Charter School 1 30 Yes
Canyon Idaho Arts Charter School 1 30 Yes
Canyon Idaho Arts Charter School 1 30 Yes
Canyon Iowa Elementary 1 31 Yes
Canyon Iowa Elementary 1 3 Yes
Canyon Iowa Elementary 0 27 Yes
Canyon Iowa Elementary 1 28 Yes
Canyon Lake Ridge Elementary 1 33 Yes
Canyon Lake Ridge Elementary 1 33 Yes
Canyon Lake Ridge Elementary 1 33 Yes
Canyon Lakevue Elementary School 1 27 Yes
Canyon Lakevue Elementary School 1 27 Yes
Canyon Lakevue Elementary School 1 27 Yes
Canyon Lakevue Elementary School 1 28 Yes
Canyon Lewis & Clark Elementary 1 24 Yes
Canyon Lewis & Clark Elementary 1 23 Yes
Canyon Lewis & Clark Elementary 1 22 Yes
Canyon Mill Creek Elementary School 1 31 Yes
Canyon Mill Creek Elementary School 1 31 Yes
Canyon Mill Creek Elementary School 1 31 Yes
Participant List
(continued)
Note: “T” represents number of teachers and “S” represents number of students
Resource Action Programs®51Appendix C
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x

C
Note: “T” represents number of teachers and “S” represents number of students
REGION SCHOOL TEACHER T S SURVEYS
RETURNED
Canyon Owyhee Elementary 1 29 Yes
Canyon Owyhee Elementary 1 29 Yes
Canyon Owyhee Elementary 1 29 Yes
Canyon Reed Elementary 1 27 Yes
Canyon Reed Elementary 1 22 No
Canyon Reed Elementary 1 21 Yes
Canyon Reed Elementary 1 23 Yes
Canyon Ronald Reagan Elementary School 1 31 No
Canyon Ronald Reagan Elementary School 1 33 Yes
Canyon Ronald Reagan Elementary School 1 31 No
Canyon Roosevelt Elementary School 1 37 No
Canyon Roosevelt Elementary School 1 36 Yes
Canyon Roosevelt Elementary School 1 37 Yes
Canyon Ross Elementary School 1 27 No
Canyon Ross Elementary School 1 23 No
Canyon Sacajawea Elementary School 1 29 Yes
Canyon Sacajawea Elementary School 1 29 Yes
Canyon Sacajawea Elementary School 1 29 Yes
Canyon Silver Trail Elementary School 1 28 Yes
Canyon Silver Trail Elementary School 1 26 Yes
Canyon Silver Trail Elementary School 0 2 Yes
Canyon Silver Trail Elementary School 1 28 Yes
Participant List
(continued)
Idaho Power Energy Wise® Program Summary Report52Appendix C
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x

C
Note: “T” represents number of teachers and “S” represents number of students
REGION SCHOOL TEACHER T S SURVEYS
RETURNED
Canyon Teed Elementary 1 33 Yes
Canyon Teed Elementary 1 33 Yes
Canyon Teed Elementary 1 33 Yes
Canyon Vallivue Middle School 1 15 Yes
Canyon Washington Elementary School 1 27 Yes
Canyon Washington Elementary School 1 27 Yes
Canyon Washington Elementary School 1 27 Yes
Canyon West Canyon Elementary 1 33 Yes
Canyon West Canyon Elementary 1 34 Yes
Canyon West Canyon Elementary 1 33 Yes
Canyon Willow Creek Elementary 1 28 Yes
Canyon Willow Creek Elementary 1 31 Yes
Canyon Willow Creek Elementary 1 31 Yes
Canyon Willow Creek Elementary 1 28 Yes
Canyon Wilson Elementary School 1 18 Yes
Canyon Wilson Elementary School 1 24 Yes
Canyon Wilson Elementary School 1 17 Yes
Canyon Wilson Elementary School 1 24 Yes
Canyon Wilson Elementary School 1 24 Yes
Capital Amity Elementary School 1 28 Yes
Capital Amity Elementary School 1 29 Yes
Capital Amity Elementary School 1 28 Yes
Participant List
(continued)
Resource Action Programs®53Appendix C
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x

C
Note: “T” represents number of teachers and “S” represents number of students
Participant List
(continued)
REGION SCHOOL TEACHER T S SURVEYS
RETURNED
Capital Barbara Morgan STEM Academy 1 29 No
Capital Barbara Morgan STEM Academy 1 29 Yes
Capital Barbara Morgan STEM Academy 1 29 Yes
Capital Cecil Andrus Elementary 1 27 Yes
Capital Cecil Andrus Elementary 1 27 Yes
Capital Cecil Andrus Elementary 1 32 No
Capital Cecil Andrus Elementary 1 28 No
Capital Cecil Andrus Elementary 1 27 Yes
Capital Cynthia Mann Elementary School 1 24 Yes
Capital Cynthia Mann Elementary School 1 25 Yes
Capital Cynthia Mann Elementary School 1 12 Yes
Capital Eliza Hart Spalding Elementary School 1 31 No
Capital Eliza Hart Spalding Elementary School 1 31 Yes
Capital Eliza Hart Spalding Elementary School 1 31 Yes
Capital Eliza Hart Spalding Elementary School 1 31 Yes
Capital Hunter Elementary School 1 29 Yes
Capital Hunter Elementary School 1 29 Yes
Capital Hunter Elementary School 1 29 Yes
Capital Hunter Elementary School 1 29 Yes
Capital Hunter Elementary School 1 29 Yes
Capital Longfellow Elementary School 1 25 Yes
Capital Longfellow Elementary School 1 26 Yes
Idaho Power Energy Wise® Program Summary Report54Appendix C
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x

C
Participant List
(continued)
Note: “T” represents number of teachers and “S” represents number of students
REGION SCHOOL TEACHER T S SURVEYS
RETURNED
Capital Mary McPherson Elementary School 1 28 Yes
Capital Mary McPherson Elementary School 1 28 Yes
Capital Mary McPherson Elementary School 1 28 Yes
Capital Meridian Elementary 1 30 Yes
Capital Meridian Elementary 1 30 Yes
Capital Ponderosa Elementary School 1 30 Yes
Capital Ponderosa Elementary School 1 30 No
Capital Ponderosa Elementary School 1 31 Yes
Capital Prospect Elementary 1 30 No
Capital Prospect Elementary 1 30 Yes
Capital Prospect Elementary 1 30 No
Capital Prospect Elementary 1 29 Yes
Capital St. Joseph’s Catholic School 1 26 Yes
Capital St. Joseph’s Catholic School 1 27 Yes
Capital Ustick Elementary School 1 24 Yes
Capital Ustick Elementary School 1 23 Yes
Capital Ustick Elementary School 1 22 Yes
Capital Valley View Elementary School 1 32 Yes
Capital Valley View Elementary School 1 32 Yes
Capital Washington Elementary 1 30 No
Capital Washington Elementary 1 30 Yes
Capital Whittier Elementary School 1 23 No
Resource Action Programs®55Appendix C
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x

C
Participant List
(continued)
Note: “T” represents number of teachers and “S” represents number of students
REGION SCHOOL TEACHER T S SURVEYS
RETURNED
Capital Whittier Elementary School 1 26 Yes
Capital Whittier Elementary School 1 31 Yes
Eastern American Falls Intermediate School 1 11 No
Eastern Claude A. Wilcox Elementary School 1 22 Yes
Eastern Claude A. Wilcox Elementary School 1 22 Yes
Eastern Claude A. Wilcox Elementary School 1 22 Yes
Eastern Claude A. Wilcox Elementary School 1 22 Yes
Eastern Donald D. Stalker Elementary School 1 20 Yes
Eastern Donald D. Stalker Elementary School 1 20 Yes
Eastern Donald D. Stalker Elementary School 1 20 Yes
Eastern Ellis Elementary School 1 30 Yes
Eastern Ellis Elementary School 1 30 No
Eastern Ellis Elementary School 1 30 Yes
Eastern Grace Lutheran School 1 26 Yes
Eastern Greenacres Elementary School 1 25 Yes
Eastern Greenacres Elementary School 1 25 Yes
Eastern Groveland Elementary 1 23 Yes
Eastern Groveland Elementary 1 24 Yes
Eastern Indian Hills Elementary 1 26 Yes
Eastern Indian Hills Elementary 1 26 Yes
Eastern Indian Hills Elementary 1 26 Yes
Eastern Indian Hills Elementary 1 26 Yes
Idaho Power Energy Wise® Program Summary Report56Appendix C
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x

C
Participant List
(continued)
Note: “T” represents number of teachers and “S” represents number of students
REGION SCHOOL TEACHER T S SURVEYS
RETURNED
Eastern Jefferson Elementary 1 18 Yes
Eastern Jefferson Elementary 1 18 Yes
Eastern Jefferson Elementary 1 18 Yes
Eastern Lewis and Clark Elementary 1 27 Yes
Eastern Lewis and Clark Elementary 1 26 Yes
Eastern Lewis and Clark Elementary 1 27 Yes
Eastern Ridge Crest Elementary School 1 30 Yes
Eastern Ridge Crest Elementary School 1 29 Yes
Eastern Ridge Crest Elementary School 1 28 Yes
Eastern Rockland Elementary School 1 18 No
Eastern Rockland Elementary School 1 11 No
Eastern Salmon Middle/High School 1 36 Yes
Eastern Salmon Middle/High School 1 36 Yes
Eastern Snake River Middle School 1 80 Yes
Eastern Stoddard Elementary School 1 20 Yes
Eastern Stoddard Elementary School 1 20 Yes
Eastern Stoddard Elementary School 1 20 Yes
Eastern Washington Elementary School 1 19 Yes
Eastern Washington Elementary School 1 18 Yes
Southern Alturas Elementary (Woodside)1 17 Yes
Southern Alturas Elementary (Woodside)1 15 Yes
Southern Alturas Elementary (Woodside)1 16 Yes
Resource Action Programs®57Appendix C
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x

C
Participant List
(continued)
Note: “T” represents number of teachers and “S” represents number of students
REGION SCHOOL TEACHER T S SURVEYS
RETURNED
Southern Alturas Elementary (Woodside)1 15 No
Southern Canyonside Christian School 1 12 Yes
Southern Filer Intermediate 1 29 No
Southern Filer Intermediate 1 29 No
Southern Filer Intermediate 1 29 No
Southern Filer Intermediate 1 30 Yes
Southern Heritage Academy 1 20 No
Southern I.B. Perrine Elementary 1 26 No
Southern I.B. Perrine Elementary 1 33 Yes
Southern I.B. Perrine Elementary School 1 33 Yes
Southern I.B. Perrine Elementary School 1 33 Yes
Southern I.B. Perrine Elementary School 1 33 No
Southern Kimberly Elementary 1 28 Yes
Southern Kimberly Elementary 1 28 Yes
Southern Kimberly Elementary 1 28 No
Southern Kimberly Elementary 1 28 No
Southern Lighthouse Christian School 1 11 Yes
Southern Lighthouse Christian School 1 14 No
Southern Summit Elementary 1 29 Yes
Southern Summit Elementary 1 27 No
Southern Summit Elementary 1 29 Yes
Southern Summit Elementary 1 27 Yes
Idaho Power Energy Wise® Program Summary Report58Appendix C
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x

C
Participant List
(continued)
Note: “T” represents number of teachers and “S” represents number of students
REGION SCHOOL TEACHER T S SURVEYS
RETURNED
Southern Summit Elementary 1 28 No
Southern Summit Elementary 1 28 Yes
Southern Summit Elementary 1 28 Yes
Southern Summit Elementary 1 27 Yes
Southern Summit Elementary 1 27 Yes
Southern Summit Elementary 1 27 Yes
Southern Summit Elementary 1 27 Yes
Southern Valley Elementary 0 1 Yes
Southern Valley Elementary 1 24 Yes
Southern Valley Elementary 1 26 Yes
Southern Wendell Middle School 1 85 Yes
Western Donnelly Elementary 1 21 Yes
Western Emmett Middle School 1 65 Yes
Western Emmett Middle School 1 60 Yes
Western Emmett Middle School 1 68 Yes
Western Fruitland Elementary School 1 26 No
Western Fruitland Elementary School 1 26 No
Western Fruitland Elementary School 1 26 Yes
Western Fruitland Elementary School 1 26 Yes
Western Fruitland Elementary School 1 30 Yes
Western Homedale Elementary 1 22 Yes
Western Homedale Elementary 1 95 Yes
Resource Action Programs®59Appendix C
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x

C
Participant List
(continued)
Note: “T” represents number of teachers and “S” represents number of students
REGION SCHOOL TEACHER T S SURVEYS
RETURNED
Western Marsing Elementary School 1 18 Yes
Western Marsing Middle School 1 75 Yes
Western Park Intermediate 1 22 Yes
Western Park Intermediate 1 23 Yes
Western Park Intermediate 1 24 Yes
Western Park Intermediate 1 26 Yes
Western Park Intermediate 1 25 Yes
Western Parma Middle School 1 90 Yes
Western Pleasant Valley School 1 8 No
TOTALS 226 6,473
TOTAL PARTICIPANTS 6,699
Idaho Power Energy Wise® Program Summary Report60Appendix D
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x

D
Teacher Program Evaluation Data
Total Capital Canyon Eastern Southern Western
Participants 226 49 83 39 35 20
Surveys Received 157 26 67 33 17 14
Percent Response 69%53% 81% 85% 49% 70%
Percent Number
1 The materials were clearly written and well organized.
Strongly Agree 62%96
Agree 37%58
Disagree 1%1
Strongly Disagree 0%0
2 The products in the kit were easy for students to use.
Strongly Agree 43%66
Agree 56%87
Disagree 1%2
Strongly Disagree 0%0
3 Students indicated that their parents supported the program.
Yes 96%149
No 4%7
4 Would you conduct this program again?
Yes 97%151
No 3%4
5 Would you recommend this program to other colleagues?
Yes 99%153
No 1%2
6 If my school is eligible for participation next year, I would like to enroll.
Yes 95%147
No 5%8
Due to rounding of numbers, percentages may not add up to 100%
Resource Action Programs®61Appendix E
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x

E
Total Capital Canyon Eastern Southern Western
Participants 6473 1374 2401 975 947 776
Surveys Received 107 14 38 18 33 4
Percent Response 2%1% 2% 2% 3% 1%
Percent Number
1 Was the program easy for you and your child to use?
Yes 98%105
No 2%2
2 Will you continue to use the kit items after the completion of the program?
Yes 99%105
No 1%1
3 Would you like to see this program continued in local schools?
Yes 99%105
No 1%1
Parent/Guardian Program Evaluation Data
Due to rounding of numbers, percentages may not add up to 100%
©2015 Resource Action Programs
976 United Circle • Sparks, NV 89431
www.resourceaction.com • [phone]
©2015 Resource Action Programs®
Powered by
Idaho Power Shade Tree
Survey
Monday, February 01, 2016
859
Total Responses
Complete Responses: 821
Q1: How did you hear about Idaho Power's Shade Tree Project?
(Check all that apply)
Answered: 859 Skipped: 0
Q2: What was the primary reason you participated in the program?
(Mark one)
Answered: 859 Skipped: 0
Q3: What kept you from planting a tree prior to the Shade Tree Project?
(Mark one)
Answered: 855 Skipped: 4
Q4: Where would you typically purchase a new tree? (Mark one)
Answered: 847 Skipped: 12
Q5: How long did you spend on the online enrollment tool? (Mark one)
Answered: 852 Skipped: 7
Q6: Overall, how easy was it for you to use the online enrollment tool?
Answered: 849 Skipped: 10
Q7: How many trees did you pick up at the Shade Tree event?
Answered: 853 Skipped: 6
Q8: When did you plant your shade tree?
Answered: 247 Skipped: 612
Q9: On which side of your home did you plant your shade tree?
Answered: 239 Skipped: 620
Q10: How far from the home did you plant your shade tree?
Answered: 240 Skipped: 619
Q11: How many shade trees did you plant?
Answered: 606 Skipped: 253
Q12: When did you plant your shade tree?
Answered: 10 Skipped: 849
Q13: On which side of your home did you plant your shade tree?
Answered: 10 Skipped: 849
Q14: How far from the home did you plant your shade tree?
Answered: 10 Skipped: 849
Q15: When did you plant your shade trees?
Answered: 580 Skipped: 279
Q16: On which side of your home did you plant your shade trees?
Answered: 547 Skipped: 312
Q17: How far from the home did you plant your shade trees?
Answered: 562 Skipped: 297
Q18: How satisfied are you with the information you received on the planting and
care of your shade tree?
Answered: 841 Skipped: 18
Q19: What information did you find most valuable?
Answered: 832 Skipped: 27
Q20: How much do you agree with the following statements:
Answered: 835 Skipped: 24
Q22: May we use your name and comments in Idaho Power's communication
efforts?
Answered: 828 Skipped: 31
Q23: May we follow up with you if we have any questions regarding your
responses to the survey questions?
Answered: 826 Skipped: 33
Q25: When was this residence originally built? (Select when the building was
originally constructed, not when it was remodeled, added to, or converted.)
Answered: 826 Skipped: 33
Q26: What one fuel is most often used to heat this residence? (Mark one)
Answered: 826 Skipped: 33
Q27: What type of air conditioning system is used at this residence?
(Check all that apply)
Answered: 826 Skipped: 33
Q28: What is your gender?
Answered: 813 Skipped: 46
Q29: Which of the following best describes your age?
Answered: 815 Skipped: 44
Q30: What is the highest level of education you have completed?
Answered: 817 Skipped: 42
Powered by
Idaho Power Weatherization
Assistance Program
Sunday, January 24, 2016
211
Total Responses
Complete Responses: 211
Q2: Agency/Contractor Name:
Answered: 211 Skipped: 0
Q4: Idaho Power program name:
Answered: 211 Skipped: 0
Q5: How did you learn about the weatherization program(s)?
Answered: 204 Skipped: 7
Q6: What was your primary reason for participating in the weatherization program?
Answered: 206 Skipped: 5
Q7: If you received any energy efficiency equipment upgrade as part of the weatherization, how
well was the equipment's operation explained to you?
Answered: 197 Skipped: 14
Q8: Which of the following did you learn about from the auditor or crew during the
weatherization process? (Check all that apply)
Answered: 201 Skipped: 10
Q9: Based on the information you received from the agency/contractor about energy use, how
likely are you to change your habits to save energy?
Answered: 200 Skipped: 11
Q10: How much of the information about energy use have you shared with other members of
your household?
Answered: 185 Skipped: 26
Q11: Based on the energy use information you shared with other members of your household,
how likely do you think your household overall will change habits to save energy?
Answered: 195 Skipped: 16
Q12: What habits are you and other members of your household most likely to change to save
energy? (check all that apply)
Answered: 198 Skipped: 13
Q13: How much do you think the weatherization you received will affect the comfort of your
home?
Answered: 202 Skipped: 9
Q14: Rate the Agency/Contractor based on your interactions with them.
Answered: 203 Skipped: 8
Q15: Were you aware of Idaho Power's role in the weatherization of your home?
Answered: 202 Skipped: 9
Q16: Overall how satisfied are you with the weatherization program you participated in?
Answered: 203 Skipped: 8
Q17: How has your opinion of Idaho Power changed as a result of its role in the weatherization
program?
Answered: 202 Skipped: 9
Q18: How many people beside yourself live in your home year-round?
Answered: 148 Skipped: 63
Q19: How long have you been an Idaho Power customer?
Answered: 205 Skipped: 6
Q20: Please select the category below that best describes your age:
Answered: 203 Skipped: 8
Q21: Select the response below that best describes the highest level of education you have
attained:
Answered: 202 Skipped: 9
Powered by
Idaho Power
Weatherization Programs
Tuesday, January 26, 2016
133
Total Responses
Complete Responses: 133
Q2: Agency/Contractor Name:
Answered: 133 Skipped: 0
Q4: Idaho Power program name:
Answered: 133 Skipped: 0
Q5: How did you learn about the weatherization program(s)?
Answered: 129 Skipped: 4
Q6: What was your primary reason for participating in the weatherization program?
Answered: 131 Skipped: 2
Q7: If you received any energy efficiency equipment upgrade as part of the weatherization, how
well was the equipment's operation explained to you?
Answered: 99 Skipped: 34
Q8: Which of the following did you learn about from the auditor or crew during the
weatherization process? (Check all that apply)
Answered: 123 Skipped: 10
Q9: Based on the information you received from the agency/contractor about energy use, how
likely are you to change your habits to save energy?
Answered: 123 Skipped: 10
Q10: How much of the information about energy use have you shared with other members of
your household?
Answered: 121 Skipped: 12
Q11: Based on the energy use information you shared with other members of your household,
how likely do you think your household overall will change habits to save energy?
Answered: 120 Skipped: 13
Q12: What habits are you and other members of your household most likely to change to save
energy? (check all that apply)
Answered: 120 Skipped: 13
Q13: How much do you think the weatherization you received will affect the comfort of your
home?
Answered: 127 Skipped: 6
Q14: Rate the Agency/Contractor based on your interactions with them.
Answered: 126 Skipped: 7
Q15: Were you aware of Idaho Power's role in the weatherization of your home?
Answered: 125 Skipped: 8
Q16: Overall how satisfied are you with the weatherization program you participated in?
Answered: 127 Skipped: 6
Q17: How has your opinion of Idaho Power changed as a result of its role in the weatherization
program?
Answered: 126 Skipped: 7
Q18: How many people beside yourself live in your home year-round?
Answered: 114 Skipped: 19
Q19: How long have you been an Idaho Power customer?
Answered: 128 Skipped: 5
Q20: Please select the category below that best describes your age:
Answered: 129 Skipped: 4
Q21: Select the response below that best describes the highest level of education you have
attained:
Answered: 126 Skipped: 7
Residential Laundry Habits Survey Results
April 2015
QUESTION TOTAL:608
NO RESPONSE:0
TOTAL
O1 591
O2 8
O3 9
Yes, in a common area for use by more than 1.32%
No 1.48%
Do you use a clothes washer at your home?
OPTIONS PERCENT
Yes, in the home for private use 97.20%
97.20%
1.32%
1.48%
Yes, in the home for private use
Yes, in a common area for use by more than one
household
No
QUESTION TOTAL:591
NO RESPONSE:0
TOTAL
O1 209
O2 224
O3 92
O4 30
O5 18
O6 18
(asked only of respondents who use a clothes washer at their home)
Over 20 years old 3.05%
Don't know 3.05%
5-10 years old 37.90%
11-15 years old 15.57%
16-20 years old 5.08%
Approximately how old is the clothes washer used at your home?
OPTIONS PERCENT
Less than 5 years old 35.36%
35.36%
37.90%
15.57%
5.08%
3.05%
3.05%
Less than 5 years old
5-10 years old
11-15 years old
16-20 years old
Over 20 years old
Don't know
QUESTION TOTAL:599
NO RESPONSE:0
TOTAL
O1 134
O2 324
O3 117
O4 24
(asked only of respondents who use a clothes washer at their home)
On average, how many washer loads of laundry do you do per week?
3-5 54.09%
6-10 19.53%
More than 10 4.01%
OPTIONS PERCENT
2 or fewer 22.37%
22.37%
54.09%
19.53%
4.01%
2 or fewer
3-5
6-10
More than 10
QUESTION TOTAL:599
NO RESPONSE:0
TOTAL
O1 257
O2 318
O3 21
O4 3
(asked only of respondents who use a clothes washer at their home)
What water temperature do you use most often to wash your laundry?
Warm 53.09%
Hot 3.51%
Don't know 0.50%
OPTIONS PERCENT
Cold 42.90%
42.90%
53.09%
3.51%
0.50%
Cold
Warm
Hot
Don't know
QUESTION TOTAL:599
NO RESPONSE:0
TOTAL
O1 506
O2 81
O3 4
O4 8
(asked only of respondents who use a clothes washer at their home)
What water temperature do you use most often to rinse your laundry?
Warm 13.52%
Hot 0.67%
Don't know 1.34%
OPTIONS PERCENT
Cold 84.47%
84.47%
13.52%
0.67%
1.34%
Cold
Warm
Hot
Don't know
QUESTION TOTAL:608
NO RESPONSE:0
TOTAL
O1 578
O2 8
O3 22
Yes, in a common area for use by more than 1.32%
No 3.62%
Do you use a clothes dryer at your home?
OPTIONS PERCENT
Yes, in the home for private use 95.07%
95.07%
1.32%
3.62%
Yes, in the home for private use
Yes, in a common area for use by more than one
household
No
QUESTION TOTAL:578
NO RESPONSE:0
TOTAL
O1 524
O2 42
O3 9
O4 3
Total
3
Verbatim Responses
Propane
What type of fuel does the clothes dryer at your home use? Other (please specify)
(asked only of respondents who use a clothes dryer at their home)
Natural gas 7.27%
Don't know 1.56%
Other (please specify)0.52%
What type of fuel does the clothes dryer at your home use?
OPTIONS PERCENT
Electricity 90.66%
90.66%
7.27%
1.56%
0.52%
Electricity
Natural gas
Don't know
Other (please specify)
QUESTION TOTAL:578
NO RESPONSE:0
TOTAL
O1 182
O2 203
O3 116
O4 34
O5 25
O6 18
(asked only of respondents who use a clothes dryer at their home)
Approximately how old is the clothes dryer that is used at your home?
Over 20 years old 4.33%
Don't know 3.11%
5-10 years old 35.12%
11-15 years old 20.07%
16-20 years old 5.88%
OPTIONS PERCENT
Less than 5 years old 31.49%
31.49%
35.12%
20.07%
5.88%
4.33%
3.11%
Less than 5 years old
5-10 years old
11-15 years old
16-20 years old
Over 20 years old
Don't know
QUESTION TOTAL:586
NO RESPONSE:0
TOTAL
O1 196
O2 288
O3 67
O4 35
(asked only of respondents who use a clothes dryer at their home)
75-99%49.15%
50-74%11.43%
less than 50%5.97%
What percent of your laundry do you dry in a dryer?
OPTIONS PERCENT
100%33.45%
33.45%
49.15%
11.43%
5.97%
100%
75-99%
50-74%
less than 50%
QUESTION TOTAL:390
NO RESPONSE:0
TOTAL
O1 81
O2 153
O3 272
O4 6
Total
2
1
1
1
1
lay flat to dry
FENCE
Lay flat
Lay out
Shower rod near washer
How do you dry the laundry that is not dried in a dryer? Other (Please specify)
(asked only of respondents who dry less than 100% of their clothes in a dryer)
Verbatim Responses
Drying rack 39.23%
Hang to dry 69.74%
Other (Please specify)1.54%
How do you dry the laundry that is not dried in a dryer?
OPTIONS PERCENT
Clothes line 20.77%
20.77%
39.23%
69.74%
1.54%
Clothes line
Drying rack
Hang to dry
Other (Please specify)
QUESTION TOTAL:237
NO RESPONSE:0
TOTAL
O1 80
O2 82
O3 59
O4 16
(asked only of respondents who dry less than 100% of their clothes in a dryer and did not say they
currently use a drying rack)
If you had a drying rack that you could use indoors to dry some, or all, of your laundry how likely
would you be to use it?
Somewhat likely 34.60%
Not very likely 24.89%
Not likely at all 6.75%
OPTIONS PERCENT
Very likely 33.76%
33.76%
34.60%
24.89%
6.75%
Very likely
Somewhat likely
Not very likely
Not likely at all
QUESTION TOTAL:608
NO RESPONSE:0
TOTAL
O1 399
O2 209No 34.38%
Are you aware that Idaho Power offers a variety of energy efficiency programs for residential
customers?
OPTIONS PERCENT
Yes 65.63%
65.63%
34.38%
Yes
No
QUESTION TOTAL:209
NO RESPONSE:44
Total
5
3
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
What could Idaho Power do to increase your awareness of its energy efficiency programs?
Email!
email, include them in monthly bill online
email, newsletter, mailings.
Email, text message
Email. Facebook
Email me about it. Send a story to local newspapers. Put it in your newsletter.
Email or letter
Email the info to me please. [e-mail]
Email the info.
Email the link
Email with short descriptions
e-mail
Email about rebates and promotions.
email and / or physical mailers
Email communication and possibly mailed flyers
email info to me or post on facebook. mailed flyers end up in the trash.
Email me
advertise more
Detailed email
direct mail
e mail me with new updates/put the information in the monthly bill
Educate the sheeple (HaHa good luck) The majority of the energy wasters are the uneducated.
Unfortunately, they are all so the majority receiving assistance. If you were given free gas or
subsidized for your gas consumption, would you even think about the MPGs of the vehicle you are
driving. People only change if it affects their bottom line.
Either postal mail or email
1 quit making me pay the $5 meter fee.
2 quit making me pay a annual adjustment every month,a flyer with a list of them (in the mail with the statement)
a link thru a social network, online 'n TV ads...include info in emailed/usps sent bills
A mailer or an email
advertise
advertise it
Verbatim Responses
Email
emails
Don't know
I don't know
newsletter
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I try to be as conservative as possible. I dry everything except better clothing, only till the wrinkles
are out then hang to dry on a hanger. In bad weather, I string a cord in the house to dry
sheets,sox,work clothes. I pick a day when the weather is better to wash sheets and towels. If
there is more I can do, I am happy to learn about it.
If emailed to me I could check to see if any would work for us. That would give me the information
and possibly a link to enroll That would be a convenient and efficient way for anyone to gain the
information and enroll.
I'm not sure.
I'm not sure. Maybe an email with just one topic.
I'm sure you do plenty to raise awareness. I use bill pay and do not receive any paper from you as
a result. This may be why I am not aware of some of your programs as I should be.
I do not know
I don't know. offer a good rack?
I have no ideA.
I have seen flyer in my billing statement. Also commercials on TV. However, I am not sure these
apply for me. I think my appliances are all energy efficent at this time.
I know they have a program for refrigerators but I wasn't aware of other ones. Did I miss it in your
monthly newsletter? If so list them again in another issue.
I like mailings but they have to visually grab my attention. Email communication is also good.
Give rebate
have the link identified in the circular inserted in my bill
I am a renter, not a home owner----yet i pay my power bills and have to deal with a tremendously
OLD and inefficient lighting, wood stove, and laundry machines. What opportunities are in place
for many many limited income people like myself, who want to increase our energy efficiency but
are limited by not owning their home? I have yet to see any real incentives for people like myself.
I am not aware of any although I new they existed I thought they were customer initiated.
I believe flyers are a great idea. If it's sent with the bill, it tends to get over looked.
I do not have air conditioning and that seems to be the only energy option I have ever seen.
Fliers, ads on tv and radio
flyers in with the electricity bills
Flyers with the Power Bill.
Get my attention.
give more info on the variety of programs and the cost
Give more information about them without having to call or search for the information
Emails and mailings to customers
Emails or info on our statements.
emails to residential users
Emails with programs that are currently running and way to be more efficient.
emails? I'm more of an email reader than a pamphlet reader.
Facebook info
Emails and fliers
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Perhaps, identify which programs I could qualify for an notify me of them.
Probably by adding a pamphlet with the bill.
Newspaper article, insert in bill, email
Not sure. E-mail would probably be best.
Nothing
offer energy audits
Offer incentives? I guess I am not interested in them because I assume they all involve big costs,
like replacing major appliances or windows. I can't afford anything like that.
Online advertising
More promotional emails
more specific and unique mailings to our home -- not part of the bills
More surveys like this
N/A
na
news letters,e-mails, or texts
Mailings
make it appealing, I hate my new kenmore water saver waher, it runs for twice as long as my old
one
Maybe inserts for people with paper bills and email for the rest of us.
Maybe mention it once in a while, in your advertising.
Mention it in the on line billing system.
more advertising - television, local newspaper
Letters, email, customer service rep calls
List it on my bill
mail
mail information
mail me the info
mailers or email
Info in bills
inform me about the different programs
Insert in bill, e-mail.
just keep reminding us with the bill
Keep putting it with the bill. Just found out about duct work and applied.
Let us pore people win the $100 to try and buy a newer washers or dryers.
Include an informative flier with the bill on a regular basis such as once every 4 or 6 months.
Include in ON-LINE billing statement.
include info via email since on e-billing
Include info with my bill
include information with mailed bill
Indicate in the mailing what the energy efficiency programs are, cost, include, etc
In a flyer with the bill
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1Send out newsletters in the mail or by email
send more information through the mail
Send notice with bills once a season or year? Doesn't help me when I primarily use ebills, though.
Send notices or have a website to learn about the energy efficiency programs
send out and explain in e-mails
Send out flyer
Send out flyers in the mail with Titles in big letters, "Idaho power wants you to know about their
energy efficiency programs" "Helping you save on your electrical costs today, helps us save
resources for you grand children's grand children tomorrow.
send me an email or letter about it with the bill. something different from the newsletter.
send me an email, or nice brochure in the mail. I like brochures better.
send me information on the programs offered
Send me information.
Send me some material in the mail separate from the bill.
send more info with the power bills. not just tips,but about programs to help needy with no cost
efficient homes
Send emails or mail flyers
send flyers
Send info in monthly bill
Send information via mail or email
send it in the mail
Send me an e-mail listing the energy efficiency programs offered, with links to additional
information on each program such as criteria for participating in the program and anticipated
benefits and costs for a program participant.
send email and links in the emails of how to be energy efficent
send E-mail of the different energy saving that may help a person.
send emails
Send e-mails
Send emails about programs and rebates. Thanks.
Send emails about them
Send a direct link to a website with a summary of the programs available.
send a personal letter to the home.
send an e-mail, or paper
send brochure for all programs for private residency to homes
Send brochures with monthly bills.
send either an email or normal mail information
Provide information for energy efficiency programs that include customers that have natural gas as
a heating source. All the programs I have checked into are available for customers that only use
electricity. Energy efficiency should include all Idaho Power customers.
Provide some incentive to utilize the efficiency upgrades.
Put offers in with the bill, with a notice on the envelope - "Special Offers Inside".
Run TV commercials detailing the programs. Run radio commercials as well
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1What you are doing is fine
Tell me what they are: what is the program name, how it works, how do I access it, and what I
should expect if I participate. Focus on one type of program at a time. Too much information given
at the same time overwhelms me and I don't have time for that.
Maybe you can rotate - one program high lighted at a time, and rotate the location area so you are tell us ways to save on the items we use everyday. Put inserts that specifically address the most
common waste of energy in our bill even on line.
TV ad
Tv commercials
We receive our bill and pay on computer. I don't get any information about Idaho Power unless
you send me messages on internet
What I've seen is for low income or remove an old appliance programs so the "availability" limited
to the rest of us.
Separate mailings from bill inserts. I don't get those as I pay online through mycheckfree.
Special mailings.
Survey's like this. Fliers in the mail. E-mail, text, website, etc.
Tell me about them
Tell me about them - offer a specific program at a time.
Tell me about them somehow, email, newsletter, etc.
Send out specific information or a call number where you could ask for that information. I think it is
time that people need to be able to have an energy audit and then have it redone to see if they
were able to fix the problems. Was at the Spring Fair in March, I was told I would be contacted by
someone from Idaho power about my large power bill. That someone would go over my bills and
my audit, that I paid for and get back with me with some help. I have not heard or been contacted
as of this time. I'm quite disappointed. I did talk to 3 different people at the fair, each with the
same solution. Give me your information and we will have one of our best people review and get
back to you. Well???
Send program information through the mail.
send them by email
send them to me or refer me to a place to review
sent information through email or mail. I've tried to save energy to lower the cost but it seems like
I couldn't figure out what? We did have a program few months back to save AC energy but that
program was shutted down which is sad because it saved me money.
Chapter Title i
Technical Reference Manual 1.7

Prepared for
Idaho Power Company

Prepared by:

ADM Associates, Inc.
3239 Ramos Circle
Sacramento, CA 95827
[phone]

i
Table of Contents
1. Overview and Purpose of Deemed Savings Method ....................................................12
1.1. Purpose ....................................................................................................................12
1.2. Methodology and Framework ....................................................................................12
1.3. Weather Data Used for Weather Sensitive Measures ...............................................13
1.4. Peak Demand Savings and Peak Demand Window Definition ..................................15
1.5. Description of Prototypical Building Simulation Models .............................................16
1.6. Application of Stacking Effects in the TRM ................................................................17
2. Commercial and Industrial Deemed Savings Measures ..............................................20
2.1. Efficient Interior Lighting and Controls (New Construction) .......................................21
2.2. Exterior Lighting Upgrades (New Construction).........................................................36
2.3. Efficient Vending Machines .......................................................................................39
2.4. Vending Machine Controls ........................................................................................42
2.5. Efficient Washing Machines ......................................................................................47
2.6. Wall Insulation ..........................................................................................................50
2.7. Ceiling Insulation .......................................................................................................58
2.8. Reflective Roof..........................................................................................................66
2.9. Efficient Windows ......................................................................................................70
2.10. HVAC Controls..........................................................................................................79
2.11. Hotel/Motel Guestroom Energy Management Systems .............................................96
2.12. High Efficiency Air Conditioning .............................................................................. 100
2.13. High Efficiency Heat Pumps .................................................................................... 109
2.14. High Efficiency Chillers ........................................................................................... 118
2.15. Evaporative Coolers (Direct and Indirect) ................................................................ 125
2.16. Evaporative Pre-Cooler (For Air-Cooled Condensers) ............................................. 129
2.17. Variable Frequency Drives (For HVAC Applications) .............................................. 132
2.18. Water-Side Economizers ........................................................................................ 141
2.19. Kitchen: Refrigerators/Freezers .............................................................................. 143
2.20. Kitchen: Ice Machines ............................................................................................. 149
2.21. Kitchen: Efficient Dishwashers ................................................................................ 153

ii
2.22. Refrigeration: Efficient Refrigerated Cases ............................................................. 158
2.23. Refrigeration: ASH Controls .................................................................................... 161
2.24. Refrigeration: Auto-Closer ....................................................................................... 164
2.25. Refrigeration: Condensers ...................................................................................... 167
2.26. Refrigeration: Controls ............................................................................................ 169
2.27. Refrigeration: Door Gasket ..................................................................................... 173
2.28. Refrigerator: Evaporator Fans ................................................................................. 176
2.29. Refrigeration: Insulation .......................................................................................... 187
2.30. Refrigeration: Night Covers ..................................................................................... 190
2.31. Refrigeration: No-Heat Glass .................................................................................. 192
2.32. PC Management Software ...................................................................................... 194
2.33. Variable Frequency Drives (Process Applications) .................................................. 196
3. Appendix A: Document Revision History ................................................................... 200

iii
List of Figures
Figure 1-1 Map of Idaho Power Company Service Territory .....................................................13
Figure 1-2 Map Illustrating ASHRAE Weather Zones ...............................................................14
Figure 1-3 Comparison of Monthly Average Temperatures ......................................................14
Figure 1-4 Hypothetical Hourly Savings Profile Used to Illustrate Calculation of Coincidence
Factor ...............................................................................................................................15

iv
List of Tables
Table 1-1 Stacking Effect Discount Factors ..............................................................................18
Table 2-1 Typical Savings Estimates for 10% Interior Lighting LPD Improvement (New
Construction) ....................................................................................................................21
Table 2-2 Typical Savings Estimates for 20% Interior Lighting LPD Improvement ....................21
Table 2-3 Typical Savings Estimates for >= 30% Interior Lighting LPD Improvement ...............22
Table 2-4 Typical Savings Estimates for Daylighting Controls (New Construction) ...................22
Table 2-5 Typical Savings Estimates for Occupancy Sensors (New Construction) ...................22
Table 2-6 Typical Savings Estimates for Efficient Exit Signs.....................................................23
Table 2-7 Stipulated Lighting Hours of Use (HOU) by Building Type ........................................26
Table 2-8 Baseline Lighting Power Densities By Building Type – Building Area Method ...........27
Table 2-9 Baseline LPD For Common Spaces - Space-by-Space Method ...............................28
Table 2-10 Baseline LPD for Specific Spaces - Space-by-Space Method.................................30
Table 2-11 Heating and Cooling Interactive Factors by Building Type and Weather Zone ........32
Table 2-12 Peak Demand Coincidence Factors by Building Type ............................................33
Table 2-13 Controls Savings Factors by Building and Control Type .........................................34
Table 2-14 Stipulated Fixture Wattages for Various LED Exit Signs .........................................35
Table 2-15 Typical Savings Estimates for 15% Exterior Lighting LPD Improvement (New
Construction) ....................................................................................................................36
Table 2-16 Baseline Power Densities for Exterior Lighting – Tradable Surfaces .......................38
Table 2-17 Baseline Power Densities for Exterior Lighting – Non-Tradable Surfaces ...............38
Table 2-18 Typical Savings Estimates for Efficient Vending Machines .....................................39
Table 2-19 Unit Energy Savings for Efficient Vending Machines - Retrofit ................................41
Table 2-20 Unit Energy Savings for Efficient Vending Machines – New Construction ...............41
Table 2-21 Summary Deemed Savings Estimates for Beverage Vending Machine Controls ....42
Table 2-22 Summary Deemed Savings Estimates for Other Cold Product Vending Machine
Controls ............................................................................................................................42
Table 2-23 Summary Deemed Savings Estimates for Non-Cooled Snack Vending Machine
Controls ............................................................................................................................43
Table 2-24 Unit Energy Savings for Uncooled Vending Machine Controls ................................44
Table 2-25 Unit Energy Savings for Retrofit Class A & B Cold Beverage Vending Machine
Controls ............................................................................................................................45

v
Table 2-26 Unit Energy Savings for New Construction Class A Cold Beverage Vending Machine
Controls ............................................................................................................................45
Table 2-27 Unit Energy Savings for New Construction Class B Cold Beverage Vending Machine
Controls ............................................................................................................................45
Table 2-28 Unit Incremental Cost for Retrofit and New Construction Uncooled Vending Machine
Controls ............................................................................................................................46
Table 2-29 Summary Deemed Savings Estimates for Efficient Washing Machines ..................47
Table 2-30 Unit Energy Savings for Laundromat Efficient Washing Machines ..........................49
Table 2-31 Unit Energy Savings for Multifamily Efficient Washing Machines ............................49
Table 2-32 Typical Savings Estimates for Wall Insulation (Cooling Only) .................................50
Table 2-33 Typical Savings Estimates for Wall Insulation (Cooling & Heating) .........................51
Table 2-34 Deemed Energy Savings for Wall Insulation - Retrofit ............................................53
Table 2-35 Deemed Energy Savings for Wall Insulation – New Construction ...........................53
Table 2-36 Wall Insulation: Code Minimum R-values for Nonresidential Buildings in Zone 5 ....54
Table 2-37 Wall Insulation: Code Minimum R-values for Nonresidential Buildings in Zone 6 ....54
Table 2-38 Stipulated Heating and Cooling Degree Days by Building Type ..............................55
Table 2-39 HVAC Coincidence Factors by Building Type .........................................................56
Table 2-40 Heating and Cooling Equivalent Full Load Hours (EFLH) by Building Type ............57
Table 2-41 Typical Savings Estimates for Ceiling Insulation (Cooling Only) .............................58
Table 2-42 Typical Savings Estimates for Ceiling Insulation (Cooling & Heating) .....................59
Table 2-43 Deemed Energy Savings for Ceiling Insulation - Retrofit .........................................61
Table 2-44 Deemed Energy Savings for Ceiling Insulation – New Construction .......................61
Table 2-45 ASHRAE Baseline R–values for Nonresidential Buildings in Zone 5 .......................62
Table 2-46 ASHRAE Baseline R–values for Nonresidential Buildings in Zone 6 .......................62
Table 2-47 Base Heating and Cooling Degree Days by Building Type .....................................63
Table 2-48 HVAC Coincidence Factors by Building Type .........................................................64
Table 2-49 Stipulated Equivalent Full Load Hours (EFLH) by Building Type .............................65
Table 2-50 Summary Deemed Savings Estimates for Low-Slope Roof (2:12 or less) Reflective
Roof ..................................................................................................................................66
Table 2-51 Summary Deemed Savings Estimates for Steep-Slope Roof (>2:12) Reflective Roof
..........................................................................................................................................66
Table 2-52 Unit Energy Savings for Low-Slope (<= 2:12) Reflective Roof ................................68
Table 2-53 Unit Energy Savings for Steep-Slope (> 2:12) Reflective Roof ...............................69

vi
Table 2-54 Typical Savings Estimates for Efficient Windows (Cooling Only) ............................70
Table 2-55 Typical Savings Estimates for Efficient Windows (Heating and Cooling) .................71
Table 2-56 Typical Savings Estimates for Premium Windows (Cooling Only) ...........................71
Table 2-57 Typical Savings Estimates for Premium Windows (Cooling and Heating) ...............71
Table 2-58 Retrofit Deemed Savings per Sq. Ft. ......................................................................73
Table 2-59 New Construction Deemed Savings per Sq. Ft. ......................................................74
Table 2-60 Calculated Heating/Cooling Eti for each Building Type ...........................................75
Table 2-61 Baseline U-Factor and SHGC for Each Building .....................................................76
Table 2-62 Average Heating/Cooling COP ...............................................................................76
Table 2-63 Stipulated Equivalent Full Load Hours (EFLH) by Building Type .............................77
Table 2-64 HVAC Coincidence Factors by Building Type .........................................................78
Table 2-65 Typical Savings Estimates for Air-Side Economizer Only (New and Repair) ...........79
Table 2-66 Typical Savings Estimates for Demand Controlled Ventilation Only ........................80
Table 2-67 Typical Deemed Savings Estimates for EMS Controls w/ 2 Strategies Implemented
..........................................................................................................................................80
Table 2-68 Typical Deemed Savings Estimates for EMS Controls w/ 4 Strategies Implemented
..........................................................................................................................................80
Table 2-69 HVAC System Types ..............................................................................................81
Table 2-70 EMS Measures .......................................................................................................81
Table 2-71 Energy Savings for Retrofit EMS Controls Climate Zone 5 .....................................84
Table 2-72 Energy Savings for New Construction EMS Controls Climate Zone 5 .....................86
Table 2-73 Energy Savings for Retrofit EMS Controls Climate Zone 6 .....................................88
Table 2-74 Energy Savings for New Construction EMS Controls Climate Zone 6 .....................90
Table 2-75 Energy Savings for Retrofit Economizer Controls Only Climate Zone 5 ..................92
Table 2-76 Energy Savings for New Construction Economizer Controls Only Climate Zone 5 ..92
Table 2-77 Energy Savings for Retrofit Economizer Controls Only Climate Zone 6 ..................93
Table 2-78 Energy Savings for New Construction Economizer Controls Only Climate Zone 6 ..93
Table 2-79 Energy Savings for Retrofit DCV Only Climate Zone 5 ...........................................94
Table 2-80 Energy Savings for New Construction DCV Only Climate Zone 5 ...........................94
Table 2-81 Energy Savings for Retrofit DCV Only Climate Zone 6 ...........................................95
Table 2-82 Unit Energy Savings for New Construction DCV Only Climate Zone 6 ....................95
Table 2-83 Typical Savings Estimates for GREM (w/o Housekeeping Set-Backs) ....................96

vii
Table 2-84 Typical Savings Estimates for GREM (With Housekeeping Set-Backs) ..................96
Table 2-85 Typical Savings Estimates for GREM (Average) .....................................................97
Table 2-86 Unit Energy Savings for GREM Systems - Retrofit .................................................98
Table 2-87 Unit Energy Savings for GREM Systems – New Construction ................................99
Table 2-88 Typical Savings Estimates for High Efficiency Air Conditioning – Base to CEE Tier 1
........................................................................................................................................ 100
Table 2-89 Typical Savings Estimates for High Efficiency Air Conditioning – CEE Tier 1 to CEE
Tier 2 .............................................................................................................................. 100
Table 2-90 Deemed Savings for High Efficiency A/C – Retrofit Baseline to CEE Tier 1 .......... 103
Table 2-91 Deemed Savings for High Efficiency A/C – New Construction (IECC 2009) Baseline
to CEE Tier 1 .................................................................................................................. 103
Table 2-92 Deemed Savings for High Efficiency A/C – New Construction (IECC 2009) Baseline
to CEE Tier 1 .................................................................................................................. 104
Table 2-93 Deemed Savings for High Efficiency A/C – CEE Tier 1 to CEE Tier 2 ................... 104
Table 2-94 Stipulated Equivalent Full Load Cooling and Heating Hours (EFLH) by Building Type
........................................................................................................................................ 105
Table 2-95 HVAC Coincidence Factors by Building Type ....................................................... 106
Table 2-96 CEE Minimum Efficiencies by Unit Type for All Tiers ............................................ 107
Table 2-97 Typical Savings Estimates for High Efficiency Heat Pumps - Base to CEE Tier 1
(Cooling Only) ................................................................................................................. 109
Table 2-98 Typical Savings Estimates for High Efficiency Heat Pumps - Base to CEE Tier 1
(Heating Only) ................................................................................................................. 109
Table 2-99 Typical Savings Estimates for High Efficiency Heat Pumps - Base to CEE Tier 1
(Heating And Cooling) ..................................................................................................... 110
Table 2-100 Typical Savings Estimates for High Efficiency Heat Pumps - CEE Tier 1 to Tier 2
(Cooling Only) ................................................................................................................. 110
Table 2-101 Typical Savings Estimates for High Efficiency Heat Pumps - CEE Tier 1 to Tier 2
(Heating Only) ................................................................................................................. 110
Table 2-102 Typical Savings Estimates for High Efficiency Heat Pumps - CEE Tier 1 to Tier 2
(Heating and Cooling) ..................................................................................................... 111
Table 2-103 Deemed Energy Savings for Efficient Heat Pumps – Retrofit base to CEE Tier 1
........................................................................................................................................ 113
Table 2-104 Deemed Energy Savings for Efficient Heat Pumps – New Construction base to
CEE Tier 1 ...................................................................................................................... 114
Table 2-105 Deemed Energy Savings for Efficient Heat Pumps – CEE Tier 1 to Tier 2 .......... 115

viii
Table 2-106 Stipulated Equivalent Full Load Hours (EFLH) by Building Type ......................... 115
Table 2-107 HVAC Coincidence Factors by Building Type ..................................................... 116
Table 2-108 CEE Baseline Efficiency by Unit Type ................................................................ 117
Table 2-109 Typical Savings Estimates for High Efficiency Chillers ........................................ 118
Table 2-110 Deemed Measure Savings for Retrofit ................................................................ 120
Table 2-111 Deemed Measure Savings for New Construction ................................................ 120
Table 2-112 Minimum Efficiency Requirements ...................................................................... 121
Table 2-113 Stipulated Equivalent Full Load Hours (EFLH) by Building Type ......................... 122
Table 2-114 HVAC Coincidence Factors by Building Type ..................................................... 123
Table 2-115 Code Baseline COP and IPLV by Unit Type ....................................................... 124
Table 2-116 Typical Savings Estimates for Evaporative Coolers (All) ..................................... 125
Table 2-117 Typical Savings Estimates for Evaporative Coolers (Direct) ............................... 126
Table 2-118 Typical Savings Estimates for Evaporative Coolers (Indirect) ............................. 126
Table 2-119 Unit Energy Savings for Evaporative Coolers – Weather Zone 5 ........................ 127
Table 2-120 Unit Energy Savings for Evaporative Coolers – Weather Zone 6 ........................ 128
Table 2-121 Typical Savings Estimates for Evaporative Pre-Cooler (Installed on Chillers) ..... 129
Table 2-122 Typical Savings Estimates for Evaporative Pre-Cooler (Installed on Refrigeration
Systems) ......................................................................................................................... 129
Table 2-123 Unit Energy Savings for Evaporative Pre-Cooler (For Air-Cooled Condensers) .. 131
Table 2-124 Summary Deemed Savings Estimates for VFDs Installed on Chilled Water Pumps,
Condensing Water Pumps, and Cooling Tower Fans ...................................................... 132
Table 2-125 Summary Deemed Savings Estimates for VFDs Installed on Fans & Hot Water
Pumps ............................................................................................................................ 132
Table 2-126 Stipulated Hours of Use for Commercial HVAC Motors ...................................... 135
Table 2-127 Stipulated Energy Savings Factors (ESF) for Commercial HVAC VFD Installations
........................................................................................................................................ 138
Table 2-128 Typical Savings Estimates for Water-Side Economizers ..................................... 141
Table 2-129 Water Side Economizer Savings ........................................................................ 142
Table 2-130 Typical Savings Estimates for ENERGY STAR Refrigerators (< 30 ft3) ............... 143
Table 2-131 Typical Savings Estimates for ENERGY STAR Refrigerators (30 to 50 ft3) ......... 143
Table 2-132 Typical Savings Estimates for ENERGY STAR Freezers (< 30 ft3) ..................... 144
Table 2-133 Typical Savings Estimates for ENERGY STAR Freezers (30 to 50 ft3) ............... 144
Table 2-134 Unit Energy and Demand Savings for Units 15 to 30 cu.ft .................................. 146

ix
Table 2-135 Unit Energy and Demand Savings for Units 30 to 50 cu.ft. ................................. 146
Table 2-136 List of Incremental Cost Data For Refrigerators and Freezers. ........................... 147
Table 2-137 List of Materials Cost Data for Refrigerators and Freezers. ................................ 148
Table 2-138 Typical Savings Estimates for Ice Machines (<200 lbs/day) ................................ 149
Table 2-139 Typical Savings Estimates for Ice Machines (>200 lbs/day) ................................ 149
Table 2-140 Unit Energy Savings for Ice Machine .................................................................. 151
Table 2-141 Unit Incremental Cost for Ice Machines .............................................................. 152
Table 2-142 Typical Savings Estimates for Efficient Commercial Dishwashers (All Electric)... 153
Table 2-143 Typical Savings Estimates for Efficient Commercial Dishwashers (Gas Heater with
Electric Booster) .............................................................................................................. 153
Table 2-144 Typical Savings Estimates for Efficient Residential Dishwashers (All Electric) .... 154
Table 2-145 Typical Savings Estimates for Efficient Residential Dishwashers (Gas Heater with
Electric Booster) .............................................................................................................. 154
Table 2-146 Idle Rate Requirements for Low Temperature Dishwashers ............................... 154
Table 2-147 Idle Rate Requirements for High Temperature Dishwashers .............................. 155
Table 2-148 Coincidence Factor for Kitchen: Efficient Dishwashers 118 ................................ 156
Table 2-149 Unit Energy Savings and Incremental Costs for All Electric Kitchen: Efficient
Dishwashers ................................................................................................................... 156
Table 2-150 Unit Energy Savings and Incremental Costs for Gas Heater with Electric Booster
Kitchen: Efficient Dishwashers ........................................................................................ 157
Table 2-151 Typical Savings Estimates for Efficient Refrigerated Cases ............................... 158
Table 2-152 Unit Energy Savings for Efficient Refrigerated Cases ......................................... 160
Table 2-153 Typical Savings Estimates for ASH Controls ...................................................... 161
Table 2-154 Connected Load for Typical Reach-In Case ....................................................... 163
Table 2-155 Typical Savings Estimates for Auto-Closers (Walk-In, Low-Temp)...................... 164
Table 2-156 Typical Savings Estimates for Auto-Closers (Walk-In, Med-Temp) ..................... 164
Table 2-157 Typical Savings Estimates for Auto-Closers (Reach-In, Low-Temp) ................... 165
Table 2-158 Typical Savings Estimates for Auto-Closers (Reach-In, Med-Temp) ................... 165
Table 2-159 Unit Energy and Demand Savings Estimates ..................................................... 166
Table 2-160 Summary Deemed Savings Estimates for Efficient Refrigeration Condenser ...... 167
Table 2-161 Unit Energy Savings for Efficient Refrigeration Condenser ................................. 168
Table 2-162 Typical Savings Estimates for Floating Suction Pressure Controls (Only) ........... 170
Table 2-163 Typical Savings Estimates for Floating Head Pressure Controls (Only) .............. 170

x
Table 2-164 Typical Savings Estimates for Floating Head and Suction Pressure Controls ..... 170
Table 2-165 Unit Energy and Demand Savings estimates for Retrofit Projects ....................... 172
Table 2-166 Unit Energy and Demand Savings estimates for New Construction Projects ...... 172
Table 2-167 Typical Savings Estimates for Door Gaskets ...................................................... 173
Table 2-168 Unit Energy Savings for Door Gaskets ............................................................... 175
Table 2-169 Typical Savings Estimates for Reach-in and Walk-in Evaporator Fan Controls ... 176
Table 2-170 Typical Savings Estimates for Walk-in Evaporator Fan Motors ........................... 176
Table 2-171 Typical Savings Estimates for Reach-in Evaporator Fan Motors ......................... 177
Table 2-172 Evaporator Fan Motor Output and Input Power for Reach-ins............................. 179
Table 2-173 Un-Weighted Baseline kWh Savings for Reach-ins ............................................ 180
Table 2-174 Average Savings and Incremental Cost by Evaporator Fan Motor Type for Reach-
ins ................................................................................................................................... 180
Table 2-175 Evaporator Fan Motor Output and Input Power for Walk-ins ............................... 181
Table 2-176 Un-Weighted Baseline kWh Savings for Walk-ins ............................................... 182
Table 2-177 Average Savings and Incremental Cost by Evaporator Fan Motor Type for Walk-ins
........................................................................................................................................ 183
Table 2-178 Un-Weighted Baseline kWh Savings for Walk-in Evaporator Fan Controls ......... 184
Table 2-179 Average Savings and Incremental Cost by Evaporator Fan Motor Type for Walk-in
Evaporator Fan Controls ................................................................................................. 186
Table 2-180 Typical Savings Estimates for Suction Line Insulation for Medium-Temperature
Coolers ........................................................................................................................... 187
Table 2-181 Typical Savings Estimates for Suction Line Insulation for Low-Temperature
Freezers.......................................................................................................................... 187
Table 2-182 Unit Energy Savings for Suction Line Insulation.................................................. 189
Table 2-183 Typical Savings Estimates for Night Covers ....................................................... 190
Table 2-184 Unit Energy Savings for Refrigeration: Night Covers .......................................... 191
Table 2-185 Typical Savings Estimates for Low/No Heat Doors ............................................. 192
Table 2-186 Stipulated Energy and Demand Savings Estimates for “No-Heat Glass” ............ 193
Table 2-187 Typical Savings Estimates for PC Power Management Software ....................... 194
Table 2-188 Unit Energy Savings for PC Power Management Software ................................. 195
Table 2-189 Variable Frequency Drives (Process Applications) ............................................. 196
Table 2-190 Deemed Per/HP savings values ......................................................................... 198
Table 2-191 Coefficients for Process Loading Factors (Fi) Curve-Fits .................................... 198

xi
Table 2-192 Coincidence Factors ........................................................................................... 199
Table 3-1Document Revision History ..................................................................................... 201

Overview and Purpose of Deemed Savings Method 12
1. Overview and Purpose of Deemed Savings Method
This Technical Reference Manual (TRM) is a compilation of stipulated algorithms and values for
various energy efficiency measures implemented by Idaho Power Company's commercial
demand side management programs and serves the Building Efficiency and Easy Upgrades
programs by providing up to date savings estimates for the energy efficiency measures offered
by the programs. This manual is intended to facilitate the cost effectiveness screening, planning,
tracking, and energy savings reporting for the Building Efficiency and Easy Upgrades Energy
Efficiency incentive programs. While the algorithms and stipulated values contained in this TRM
are derived using best practices, the stipulated values should be reviewed and revised
according to relevant industry research and impact evaluation findings as necessary to ensure
that they remain accurate for the Building Efficiency and Easy Upgrades programs. The
following sections describe many of the processes and cross-cutting assumptions used to
derive the measure level savings estimates found in Section 2.
1.1. Purpose
This manual is intended to facilitate the cost effectiveness screening, planning, tracking, and
energy savings reporting for the Building Efficiency and Easy Upgrades energy efficiency
incentive programs. This document is intended to be a living document in which the stipulated
values are revised according to relevant industry research and impact evaluation findings.
1.2. Methodology and Framework
The algorithms and stipulated values contained in this TRM are derived using current industry
standard engineering best practices. Current relevant research, recent impact evaluations, and
Technical Reference Manuals developed for other states and/or regions are referenced where
appropriate. All energy savings algorithms in this TRM are designed to be applied using the
simple engineering formulas defined for each measure in conjunction with the included
stipulated values.
Each measure is presented first with a summary of the technology and typical expected (per
unit) energy savings, expected useful life, and incremental cost estimates. The ‘typical’ per unit
values leverage basic assumptions regarding the geographic distribution of program participants
(e.g. weather zone) as well as participant demographics (for example distribution of building
types, efficiency of current building stock, etc.). Each measure is accompanied by a
spreadsheet calculator containing live formulas and all weights used to derive the typical per-
unit estimates. It is expected that as better information is made available regarding program
participants, or as program designs are adjusted these numbers will be updated accordingly.
Following the measure summary information, each measure section provides a description of its
scope and the spectrum of eligible projects/equipment to which the algorithms and values apply.
When applicable, a discussion of code compliance topics (for new construction projects) is
included.

Overview and Purpose of Deemed Savings Method 13
1.3. Weather Data Used for Weather Sensitive Measures
The service territory for Idaho Power Company covers much of southern Idaho and stretches
into eastern Oregon. This is illustrated in Figure 1-1.In order to normalize expected annual
energy savings and peak demand reductions for annual variations in weather patterns, all
stipulated values for weather sensitive measures were derived using the industry standard
Typical Meteorological Year (TMY3) weather data. While there are many weather stations in
Idaho for which TMY3 data is available, it was determined that averaging the TMY3 weather
across stations in two ASHRAE weather zones (zones 5 and 6) provided sufficient resolution
without adding too many separate variations for stipulated values reported in the TRM.

Figure 1-1 Map of Idaho Power Company Service Territory1
All stipulated values for weather sensitive measures (e.g. Equivalent Full Load Cooling Hours)
are based on ‘typical’ weather data and provided separately for each of these two weather
zones. A map of the ASHRAE weather zones is provided in Figure 1-2. When separate savings
estimates are provided for different weather zones, the project location should be used to
determine which of the values are applicable. The ‘typical’ energy savings values reported at the
beginning of each measure’s section assumes a weighted average between the two weather
zones using weights of 80% and 20% for Zones 5 and 6 respectively.

1 Map represents service territory at the time of this publication.

Overview and Purpose of Deemed Savings Method 14

Figure 1-2 Map Illustrating ASHRAE Weather Zones2

While reviewing the weather data it was noted that while both weather zones are 'heating
dominated' Weather Zone 6 is on average cooler that Weather Zone 5. Therefore, energy
conservation measures targeting heating efficiency tend to perform much better in Zone 6.
However; measures which result in a heating penalty tend to perform better in Zone 5. Monthly
average dry bulb temperatures are compared for both weather zones in

Figure 1-3 Comparison of Monthly Average Temperatures

2 Note how Idaho is bisected by Zones 5 and 6

Overview and Purpose of Deemed Savings Method 15
1.4. Peak Demand Savings and Peak Demand Window Definition
Where applicable peak demand savings estimates are derived using Idaho Power Company's
peak period definition of: weekdays from 12:00 PM to 8:00 PM, June 1 through August 31.
Hourly savings estimates are averaged over the aforementioned time period to report peak
savings.
Coincidence Factors for Lighting
Coincidence factors are defined as the percentage of the demand savings which occur during
Idaho Power Company’s peak period (defined above). When hourly data are available these are
calculated by averaging the hourly demand savings over the peak period definition. This is
exemplified in Figure 1-4 which illustrates a hypothetical hourly savings profile. The highlighted
region bounds the peak period definition and the CF is calculated by taking the average demand
reduction during that period divided by the max demand reduction

Figure 1-4 Hypothetical Hourly Savings Profile Used to Illustrate Calculation of Coincidence
Factor
Thus in the example above let’s suppose that the maximum Demand savings are 10 kW and the
average kW reduction in the shaded area is 6 kW. The coincidence factor is calculated as
follows: 𝐶𝑜𝑖𝑛𝑐𝑖𝑑𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 𝐹𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑜𝑟= 𝐴𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝑅𝑒𝑑𝑢𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑀𝑎𝑥 𝑅𝑒𝑑𝑢𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛= 6 𝑘𝑊10 𝑘𝑊= .6

0
2
4
6
8
10
12
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
De
m
a
n
d

R
e
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

(
k
W
)
Hour Of The Day
Maximum Demand Savings
Peak Demand Window

Overview and Purpose of Deemed Savings Method 16
1.5. Description of Prototypical Building Simulation Models
The estimated energy impacts for many of the measures in this TRM were developed using the
help of building energy simulation modeling. All of the building simulations were performed
using the DOE2.2 simulation software to simulation prototypical building models developed for
the Database for Energy Efficiency Resources (DEER). A complete description of these models
can be found in the DEER final report – though some aspects will be heighted here as they
relate to the TRM.3
5 different vintages of 23 non-residential prototypical building models were developed for the
DEER. These models include the following:
 Assembly,
 Education – Primary School,
 Education – Secondary School,
 Education – Community College,
 Education – University,
 Education – Relocatable Classroom,
 Grocery,
 Health/Medical – Hospital,
 Health/Medical – Nursing Home,
 Lodging – Hotel,
 Lodging – Motel,
 Manufacturing – Bio/Tech,
 Manufacturing – Light Industrial,
 Office – Large,
 Office – Small,
 Restaurant – Sit-Down,
 Restaurant – Fast-Food,
 Retail – 3-Story Large,
 Retail – Single-Story Large,
 Retail – Small,
 Storage – Conditioned,
 Storage – Unconditioned, and
 Storage – Refrigerated Warehouse.
A complete set of these models was pulled from the DEER for use in simulating various weather
sensitive measures (including heating and cooling interactive factors for lighting). All simulations
were run using the (2) Idaho specific weather data-set described in Section 1.3 for the buildings
for which a measure was applicable. The hourly results were then compiled and typically
normalized using the building conditioned area (ft2) or installed cooling/heating capacity (Tons).
3 Southern California Edision, Database for Energy Efficiency Resources (DEER) Update Study. 2005

Overview and Purpose of Deemed Savings Method 17
Note that the newest vintage of a building type was selected for simulating impacts for new
construction while the most applicable vintage was selected for retrofit.4
1.6. Application of Stacking Effects in the TRM
Often energy conservation projects involve ‘packages’ of measures implemented together. As
measures are ‘stacked’ on top of one another the each add to the overall project energy
savings, however; individual measure impacts are not always directly additive. This is because,
unless otherwise noted, the ‘typical’ savings values reported within this TRM assume that the
measure is implemented on its own, and do not presuppose the presence of other measures
which may interact with the measure(s) installed (or simply improve the baseline equipment
onto which the measure is installed). For example; let’s assume that a particular project involved
the following energy conservation measures:
Order Implemented Measure Expected Savings End-Use
2 High Efficiency Chilled 3% Pumps & Auxiliary
The first thing to note is that the first and third measures both impact the same end-use
(cooling) while the second measure impacts the pumps & auxiliary end-use. This is important
because measures generally interact with other measures applied to the same end-use. Thus, it
is often safe to add energy savings for measures impacting different end-uses but problematic
to add energy savings for measures impacting the same. In our example the waterside
economizer interacts directly with the high efficiency chiller but less so with the pumps. When
assessing the overall energy impacts for this project we must presuppose the presence of the
high efficiency chiller in our baseline for the waterside economizer. This would look something
like the following: 𝐸𝑛𝑒𝑟𝑔𝑦 𝑆𝑎𝑣𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑠𝑀𝑒𝑎𝑠𝑢𝑟𝑒1 =𝑘𝑊ℎ𝐵𝑎𝑠𝑒𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑒∗𝑆𝑎𝑣𝑀𝑒𝑎𝑠𝑢𝑟𝑒1 𝐸𝑛𝑒𝑟𝑔𝑦 𝑆𝑎𝑣𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑠𝑀𝑒𝑎𝑠𝑢𝑟𝑒2 = 𝑘𝑊ℎ𝑃𝑢𝑚𝑝𝑠 & 𝐴𝑢𝑥 𝐵𝑎𝑠𝑒𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑒∗𝑆𝑎𝑣𝑀𝑒𝑎𝑠𝑢𝑟𝑒2 𝐸𝑛𝑒𝑟𝑔𝑦 𝑆𝑎𝑣𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑠𝑀𝑒𝑎𝑠𝑢𝑟𝑒3 =(𝑘𝑊ℎ𝐶𝑜𝑜𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝐵𝑎𝑠𝑒∗𝑆𝑎𝑣𝑀𝑒𝑎𝑠𝑢𝑟𝑒1)∗𝑆𝑎𝑣𝑀𝑒𝑎𝑠𝑢𝑟𝑒3
Notice how the energy savings calculations for Measure 3 (the waterside economizer) subtract
out the impacts of Measure 1 (the high efficiency chiller) before applying SavMeasure3. This must
be done for all interacting measures in a project in order to prevent double counting energy
impacts. One thing to note in this example is that had the waterside economizer been installed
on a completely separate chiller (and one which was not impacted by the first measure) then the
considerations discussed would not be needed as the two measures no longer interact. It is also
important to note that while the measures provided in this example only impact a single end-use
some measures have non-negligible impacts on multiple end-uses that must be considered. An
4 The specific vintage selected was a function of the expected distribution of buildings of that type in the Idaho Power Service
Territory.

Overview and Purpose of Deemed Savings Method 18
example of such a measure is HVAC – Controls. Measures of this nature, where included in this
TRM, have been designed to account for their interactions implicitly within the algorithms listed
in the measure chapter. Measures for which interactive effects are already accounted are:
1) High efficiency lighting and lighting controls
2) HVAC Controls
All other measures in this TRM have been assigned an end-use which represents its primary
impact. The user should be cognizant of these end-uses and only add measure savings (in
projects involving multiple measures) when the end-uses are different or it is know with certainty
that the measures impact totally separate pieces of equipment on that end-use. If n measures
are identified to be installed and will impact the same equipment on the same end-use the
following equation shall be used: 𝐸𝑆𝑎𝑣=𝑘𝑊ℎ𝐵𝑎𝑠𝑒∗(1 −(1 −𝑆𝑎𝑣1)∗(1 −𝑆𝑎𝑣2)∗…∗(1 −𝑆𝑎𝑣1)
Where: 𝑘𝑊ℎ𝐵𝑎𝑠𝑒 Baseline annual energy use of the affected equipment 𝑆𝑎𝑣1,2,3,…,𝑛 The relative savings (% reduction) expected from the energy efficiency measure
If the relative measure savings (% reduction) or the baseline annual energy use is unknown and
the above equation cannot be used then the following conservative discount factors should be
applied (multiplied) to the savings estimates for each measure according to the order
implemented.
Table 1-1 Stacking Effect Discount Factors
Order Discount
1 1
2 .85
3 .74
4 .67
5 .62
6 .59

Application of Table 1-1 can be illustrated using the (3) measure example project discussed at
the beginning of this section. For this example let’s assume that the individual measure savings
(as calculated by the TRM chapters) are as follows:

Overview and Purpose of Deemed Savings Method 19

Order Measure Relative
Savings End-Use
Individual
Energy Table 1-1
Factor
Stacked
Energy
1 High Efficiency 10% Cooling 300,000 kWh 1 300,000 kWh
2 High Efficiency Chilled Water 3% Pumps &
Auxiliary 25,000 kWh 1 25,000 kWh
3 Water-side 5% Cooling 50,000 kWh .85 42,500 kWh
Project Total :

Commercial and Industrial Deemed Savings Measures 20
2. Commercial and Industrial Deemed Savings
Measures
This chapter contains the protocols and stipulated values for commercial and industrial
measures covered by this TRM. Spreadsheets were developed for each measure and contain
any calculations used to derive stipulated values (or deemed savings estimates). Each measure
is presented first with a summary of the technology and typical expected (per unit) energy
savings, expected useful life, and incremental cost estimates. The ‘typical’ per unit values
leverage basic assumptions regarding the geographic distribution of program participants (e.g.
weather zone) as well as participant demographics (for example distribution of building types,
efficiency of current building stock, etc.) and are intended for use in cost effectiveness screening
– not as deemed savings estimates (given their generality). Where applicable, deemed savings
estimates are provided for various scenario in tables at the end of each measure’s section.
Each measure is accompanied by a spreadsheet calculator containing live formulas and all
weights used to derive the typical per-unit estimates. It is expected that as better information is
made available regarding program participants, or as program designs are adjusted these
numbers will be updated accordingly. Following the measure summary information, each
measure section provides a description of its scope and the spectrum of eligible
projects/equipment to which the algorithms and values apply. When applicable, a discussion of
code compliance topics (for new construction projects) is included. It should also be noted that
while savings estimates are provided for a multitude of measures (both for retrofit and new
construction) a custom engineering analysis should be preferred for significantly large projects
when possible. This is particularly true for projects involving VFDs, HVAC controls, and/or large
‘packages’ of multiple measures.

Efficient Interior Lighting and Controls (New Construction) 21
2.1. Efficient Interior Lighting and Controls (New Construction)
The following algorithms and assumptions are applicable to interior lighting systems installed in
commercial and industrial spaces which are more efficient than required by prevailing codes
and standards. This measure applies only to projects which represent new construction or major
renovations.5 The following tables summarize the ‘typical’ expected (per ft2) energy impacts for
lighting power density improvements and controls additions. Typical values are based on the
algorithms and stipulated values described below and data from past program participants. 6
Table 2-1 Typical Savings Estimates for 10% Interior Lighting LPD Improvement (New
Construction)
Retrofit New Construction
Deemed Savings Unit n/a ft2
Average Unit Energy Savings n/a .51 kWh
Average Unit Peak Demand Savings n/a .11 W
Expected Useful Life n/a 14.3 Years
Average Incremental Cost n/a $0.26
Stacking Effect End-Use n/a

Table 2-2 Typical Savings Estimates for 20% Interior Lighting LPD Improvement
Retrofit New Construction
Deemed Savings Unit n/a ft2
Average Unit Energy Savings n/a 1.03 kWh
Average Unit Peak Demand Savings n/a .23 W
Expected Useful Life n/a 14.3 Years
Average Incremental Cost n/a $0.51
Stacking Effect End-Use n/a

5 Major renovations are defined to be any renovation or facility expansion project in which building permits were required and the
lighting system had to be demonstrated to comply with a particular code or standard.
6 See spreadsheet “1-TypicalCalcs_HighEffLight.xlsx” for assumptions and calculations used to estimate the typical unit energy
savings and incremental costs.

Efficient Interior Lighting and Controls (New Construction) 22
Table 2-3 Typical Savings Estimates for >= 30% Interior Lighting LPD Improvement7
Retrofit New Construction
Deemed Savings Unit n/a ft2
Average Unit Energy Savings n/a 2.33 kWh
Average Unit Peak Demand Savings n/a .52 W
Expected Useful Life n/a 14.3 Years
Average Incremental Cost n/a $0..89
Stacking Effect End-Use n/a

Table 2-4 Typical Savings Estimates for Daylighting Controls (New Construction)8
Retrofit New Construction
Deemed Savings Unit n/a ft2
Average Unit Energy Savings n/a .94 kWh
Average Unit Peak Demand Savings n/a .24 W
Expected Useful Life n/a 14.3 Years
Average Incremental Cost n/a $0.91
Stacking Effect End-Use n/a

Table 2-5 Typical Savings Estimates for Occupancy Sensors (New Construction)9
Retrofit New Construction
Deemed Savings Unit n/a Sensor
Average Unit Energy Savings n/a 366 kWh
Average Unit Peak Demand Savings n/a 87 W
Expected Useful Life n/a 8 Years
Average Incremental Cost n/a $38.26
Stacking Effect End-Use n/a

7 Note that the values listed for this measure assume the “typical” improvement in this category is a 45% reduction in interior LPD.
This is based on observed lighting load reductions from past program participants. Note that an average % reduction was taken for
participants whose LPD reduction fell within this category.
8 Assumes that the half of the projects will also have a 10% reduction in the lighting power densities which reduce the savings
potential for this measure.
9 See previous footnote

Efficient Interior Lighting and Controls (New Construction) 23
Table 2-6 Typical Savings Estimates for Efficient Exit Signs
Retrofit New Construction
Deemed Savings Unit n/a Sign
Average Unit Energy Savings n/a 28 kWh
Average Unit Peak Demand Savings n/a 3.6 W
Expected Useful Life n/a 16 Years
Average Incremental Cost n/a $10.83
Stacking Effect End-Use n/a
2.1.1. Definition of Eligible Equipment
All above-code interior lighting systems (fixtures, lamps, ballasts, etc.) are eligible. Eligibility is
determined by calculating the lighting power density (LPD) for the installed system. If the LPD is
at least 10% lower than allowed by code (see Section 2.1.2) then the system is eligible. Efficient
equipment may include florescent fixtures, LED lamps, LED exit signs, compact florescent light
bulbs, high intensity discharge lamps, etc.
In addition to efficient lighting fixtures, lighting controls are eligible under this measure. Eligible
controls include: occupancy sensors (wall mounted and fixture mounted), daylighting controls,
dimmers, and bi-level switches. Lighting controls are only eligible when not already required by
the building code standard to which a project is permitted.
2.1.2. Definition of Baseline Equipment
There are two possible project baseline scenarios – retrofit and new construction. This measure
currently only addresses the new construction scenario.
Retrofit (Early Replacement)
n/a
New Construction (Includes Major Remodel & Replace on Burn-Out)
Baseline equipment for this measure is defined as an installed lighting system with a maximum
allowable LPD. The maximum allowable LPD is defined by the building code according to which
the project was permitted. Current applicable standards are defined by ASHRAE 90.1-2004 and
90.1-2007.
Two paths are available for code compliance – the Building Area Method (ASHRAE 90.1,
Section 9.5) and the Space-by-Space Method (ASHRAE 90.1, Section 9.6). Either can be used
to determine baseline power density provided it is consistent with the method used by the
project for code compliance.
Code Compliance Considerations for Lighting Controls
Section 9.4.1 Of the ASHRAE 90.1 Standard specifys mandatory automatic lighting controls for
buildings greater than 5000 ft2 and in certain space types (See Section 9.4.1.2). If the building

Efficient Interior Lighting and Controls (New Construction) 24
or space is not exempt from these mandatory provisions then the least efficient mandatory
control strategy shall be assumed as baseline equipment. Note that prescriptive lighting control
requirements are the same between the 2004 and 2007 versions of Standard 90.1.
2.1.3. Algorithms
Two sets of algorithms are provided for this measure. The first are algorithms for Lighting Power
Density (LPD) reductions and/or for the addition of lighting controls. The second set of
algorithms are included for high efficiency exit signs (which are treated separately by ASHRAE
90.1):
Algorithm 1 (Lighting Power Density Reduction and Controls Additions):
The above equations for ΔkWh and ΔkW can be simplified the following if a project involves only
a lighting power density reduction or lighting controls addition:
Power density reduction only: ΔkWh = ASF * [LPDbase - LPDInstalled] * HOU * HCIFEnergy
Controls installation only: ΔkWh = ASF * LPDInstalled * CSF * HOU * HCIFEnergy

Algorithm 2 (High Efficiency Exit Signs):
= * 8760 *
= * NSigns
2.1.4. Definitions
ΔkWh Expected energy savings between baseline and installed equipment.
ΔkW Expected demand reduction between baseline and installed equipment.
HOU Annual operating hours for the lighting system. Values for various building
types are stipulated in Table 2-7. When available, actual system hours of
LPD Lighting power density baseline (base) and installed (meas) systems. This is defined as the total lighting system connected load divided by the lighted

Efficient Interior Lighting and Controls (New Construction) 25
Table 2-8. When using the Space-By-Space method the LPD is defined by Error! Reference source not found.
W Exit Sign base and installed wattage. Note that the base wattage is defined
by ASHRAE 90.1 to be 5 watts. See

CF Peak coincidence factor. Represents the % of the connected load reduction which occurs during Idaho Power’s peak period.
HCIF Heating and Cooling Interactive Factors. These account for the secondary impacts reductions in internal loads effect on HVAC systems by
representing the expected “typical’ impacts a reduction in the lighting power density will effect on electric space conditioning equipment.
CSF Controls Savings Fachours of use (HOU) due do installed lighting controls. Stipulated values for
kWh/UnitTypical
kWh/Unitbuilding, i Typical measure savings for building type i on a per unit basis. Uses the
baseline LPD for building type i as defined in
Table 2-8. Measure LPD for building i is defined as the average installed
Wbuilding,i Population weight for building type i. This is defined footage of building type i in past program participants divided by the total
2.1.5. Sources
 ASHRAE, Standard 90.1-2004.
 ASHRAE, Standard 90.1-2007.
 Regional Technical Forum, draft Standard Protocol Calculator for Non-Residential
Lighting improvements,
http://rtf.nwcouncil.org/subcommittees/comlighting/Lighting%20Calculator_version%201
2-6-2012.xlsx
 California DEER Prototypical Simulation models (modified), eQUEST-DEER 3-5.10
 California DEER Effective Useful Life worksheets: EUL_Summary_10-1-08.xls
 Acker, B., Van Den Wymelenberg, K., 2010. Measurement and Verification of
Daylighting Photocontrols; Technical Report 20090205-01, Integrated Design Lab,
University of Idaho, Boise, ID.
10 Prototypical building energy simulations were used to generate Idaho specific Heating and Cooling Interactive Factors and
Coincidence factors for various building and heating fuel types.

Efficient Interior Lighting and Controls (New Construction) 26
2.1.6. Stipulated Values
The following tables stipulate allowable values for each of the variables in the energy and
demand savings algorithms for this measure.
Table 2-7 Stipulated Lighting Hours of Use (HOU) by Building Type 11
Building Type Hours of Use
Automotive Repair 4,056
College or University 2,300
Exterior 24 Hour Operation 8,760
Hospital 5,000
Industrial Plant with One Shift 2,250
Industrial Plant with Two Shifts 4,500
Industrial Plant with Three Shifts 8,400
Library 3,748
Lodging 3,000
Manufacturing 3,300
Office <20,000 sf 2,600
Office 20,000 to 100,000 sf 3,200
Office >100,000 sf 3,500
Other Health, Nursing, Medical Clinic 3,600
Parking Garage 4,368
Restaurant 4,800
Retail Mini Mart 6,500
Retail Boutique <5,000 sf 3,400
Retail 5,000 to 50,000 sf 3,900
Retail Supermarket 6,500
Retail Big Box >50,000 sf One-Story 4,800
Retail Anchor Store >50,000 sf Multistory 4,000
School K-12 2,200

11 The values in this table are based on the most recent Regional Technical Forum draft Standard Protocol Calculator for Non-
Residential Lighting improvements: http://rtf.nwcouncil.org/subcommittees/comlighting/Lighting%20Calculator_version%2012-6-
2012.xlsx

Efficient Interior Lighting and Controls (New Construction) 27
Table 2-8 Baseline Lighting Power Densities By Building Type – Building Area Method 12
Building Area Type 2004 LPD (W/ft2) 2007 LPD (W/ft2)
Automotive facility 0.9 0.9
Convention center 1.2 1.2
Courthouse 1.2 1.2
Dining: bar lounge/leisure 1.3 1.3
Dining: cafeteria/fast food 1.4 1.4
Dining: family 1.6 1.6
Dormitory 1 1
Exercise center 1 1
Gymnasium 1.1 1.1
Health-care clinic 1 1
Hospital 1.2 1.2
Hotel 1 1
Library 1.3 1.3
Manufacturing facility 1.3 1.3
Motel 1 1
Motion picture theater 1.2 1.2
Multifamily 0.7 0.7
Museum 1.1 1.1
Office 1 1
Parking garage 0.3 0.3
Penitentiary 1 1
Performing arts theater 1.6 1.6
Police/fire station 1 1
Post office 1.1 1.1
Religious building 1.3 1.3
Retail 1.5 1.5
School/university 1.2 1.2
Sports arena 1.1 1.1
Town hall 1.1 1.1
Transportation 1 1
Warehouse 0.8 0.8
Workshop 1.4 1.4

12 These values are from Tables 9.5.1 in ASHRAE 90.1 for the Building Area method. Note that values for both 2004 and 2007
versions of Standard 90.1 are included.

Efficient Interior Lighting and Controls (New Construction) 28
Table 2-9 Baseline LPD For Common Spaces - Space-by-Space Method
Common Space Type 13 LPD (W/ft2)
Office-Enclosed 1.1
Office-Open Plan 1.1
Conference/Meeting/Multipurpose 1.3
Classroom/Lecture/Training 1.4
For Penitentiary 1.3
Lobby 1.3
For Hotel 1.1
For Performing Arts Theater 3.3
For Motion Picture Theater 1.1
Audience/Seating Area 0.9
For Gymnasium 0.4
For Exercise Center 0.3
For Convention Center 0.7
For Penitentiary 0.7
For Religious Buildings 1.7
For Sports Arena 0.4
For Performing Arts Theater 2.6
For Motion Picture Theater 1.2
For Transportation 0.5
Atrium—First Three Floors 0.6
Atrium—Each Additional Floor 0.2
Lounge/Recreation 1.2
For Hospital 0.8
Dining Area 0.9
For Penitentiary 1.3
For Hotel 1.3
For Motel 1.2
For Bar Lounge/Leisure Dining 1.4
For Family Dining 2.1
Food Preparation 1.2
Laboratory 1.4
Restrooms 0.9
Dressing/Locker/Fitting Room 0.6
Corridor/Transition 0.5
For Hospital 1
For Manufacturing Facility 0.5
Stairs—Active 0.6
Active Storage 0.8
13 In cases where both a common space type and a building specific type are listed, the building specific space type shall apply.

Efficient Interior Lighting and Controls (New Construction) 29
Common Space Type 13 LPD (W/ft2)

Efficient Interior Lighting and Controls (New Construction) 30
Table 2-10 Baseline LPD for Specific Spaces - Space-by-Space Method
Building Specific Space Types LPD (W/ft2)
Playing Area 1.4
Exercise Area 0.9
Courtroom 1.9
Confinement Cells 0.9
Judges Chambers 1.3
Fire Station Engine Room 0.8
Sleeping Quarters 0.3
Post Office-Sorting Area 1.2
Convention Center-Exhibit Space 1.3
Card File and Cataloging 1.1
Stacks 1.7
Reading Area 1.2
Emergency 2.7
Recovery 0.8
Nurse Station 1
Exam/Treatment 1.5
Pharmacy 1.2
Patient Room 0.7
Operating Room 2.2
Nursery 0.6
Medical Supply 1.4
Physical Therapy 0.9
Radiology 0.4
Laundry—Washing 0.6
Automotive—Service/Repair 0.7
Low (<25 ft Floor to Ceiling Height) 1.2
High (>25 ft Floor to Ceiling Height) 1.7
Detailed Manufacturing 2.1
Equipment Room 1.2
Control Room 0.5
Hotel/Motel Guest Rooms 1.1
Dormitory—Living Quarters 1.1
General Exhibition 1
Restoration 1.7
Bank/Office—Banking Activity Area 1.5
Worship Pulpit, Choir 2.4
Fellowship Hall 0.9
Sales Area 1.7
Mall Concourse 1.7
Ring Sports Area 2.7

Efficient Interior Lighting and Controls (New Construction) 31
Building Specific Space Types LPD (W/ft2)

Efficient Interior Lighting and Controls (New Construction) 32
Table 2-11 Heating and Cooling Interactive Factors by Building Type and Weather Zone14
Building Type kWh kW kWh kW
Primary School 1.04 1.2 1.03 1.17
Secondary School 1.04 1.14 1.02 1.12
Community College 1.11 1.16 1.08 1.15
University 1.13 1.14 1.14 1.14
Hospital 1.09 1.04 1.08 1.06
Nursing Home 1.09 1.29 1.08 1.26
Hotel 1.15 1.16 1.14 1.15
Motel 15 0.74 1.29 0.66 1.28

14 Factors generated using DOE2.2 simulations based on the prototypical building models developed for the California Database for
Energy Efficiency Resources using weather data based on the two Idaho weather zones. The values in this table make assumptions
regarding ‘typical’ fuel sources and efficiencies for heating and cooling equipment. These numbers represent the expected “typical’
impacts a reduction in the lighting power density will effect on electric space conditioning equipment.
15 Note that these figures assume Motel HVAC systems are either heat-pumps or use electric resistance heating. If it is known that a
particular motel uses gas heating then use the values for Hotel instead.

Efficient Interior Lighting and Controls (New Construction) 33

Table 2-12 Peak Demand Coincidence Factors by Building Type16
Building Type CF

16 Factors generated using prototypical lighting schedules found in the DEER building models and the definition for the Idaho Power
Company’s peak period (12 pm to 8 pm on weekdays between June 1st and August 31st).

Efficient Interior Lighting and Controls (New Construction) 34
Table 2-13 Controls Savings Factors by Building and Control Type 17
Space Type Occupancy
Sensor
Daylight
Sensor
Bi-level
Switching
Dimmers, Wireless
on/off
Occupancy
& Daylight
Assembly 36% 36% 6% 6% 40%
Break Room 20% 20% 6% 6% 40%
Classroom 18% 68% 6% 6% 34%
Computer Room 35% 18% 6% 6% 34%
Conference 35% 18% 35% 35% 40%
Dining 35% 18% 6% 6% 40%
Gymnasium 35% 35% 6% 6% 40%
Hallway 15% 15% 6% 6% 34%
Hospital Room 45% 63% 6% 6% 35%
Industrial 45% 72% 35% 35% 40%
Kitchen 30% 0% 6% 6% 34%
Library 15% 18% 6% 6% 34%
Lobby 25% 18% 6% 6% 40%
Lodging (Guest Rooms) 45% 0% 35% 35% 40%
Open Office 22% 29% 35% 35% 40%
Parking Garage 15% 18% 35% 0% 0%
Private Office 22% 29% 35% 35% 40%
Process 45% 0% 6% 6% 34%
Public Assembly 36% 36% 6% 6% 40%
Restroom 40% 0% 6% 6% 40%
Retail 15% 29% 6% 6% 34%
Stairs 25% 0% 0% 0% 18%
Storage 45% 0% 6% 6% 40%
Technical Area 35% 18% 6% 6% 34%
Warehouses 31% 31% 35% 35% 40%
Other 7% 18% 6% 6% 34%

17 The values in this table are based on the most recent Regional Technical Forum draft Standard Protocol Calculator for Non-
Residential Lighting improvements: http://rtf.nwcouncil.org/subcommittees/comlighting/Lighting%20Calculator_version%2012-6-
2012.xlsx

Efficient Interior Lighting and Controls (New Construction) 35
Table 2-14 Stipulated Fixture Wattages for Various LED Exit Signs
Fixture Description Base Fixture Installed Fixture
LED Exit Sign, 0.5 Watt Lamp, Single Sided 5 W 0.5 W
LED Exit Sign, 1.5 Watt Lamp, Single Sided 5 W 1.5 W
LED Exit Sign, 2 Watt Lamp, Single Sided 5 W 2 W
LED Exit Sign, 3 Watt Lamp, Single Sided 5 W 3 W
LED Exit Sign, 0.5 Watt Lamp, Double Sided 10 W 1 W
LED Exit Sign, 1.5 Watt Lamp, Double Sided 10 W 3 W
LED Exit Sign, 2 Watt Lamp, Double Sided 10 W 4 W
LED Exit Sign, 3 Watt Lamp, Double Sided 10 W 6 W
Other/Unknown LED 5 W 2 W

Exterior Lighting Upgrades (New Construction) 36
2.2. Exterior Lighting Upgrades (New Construction)
The following algorithms and assumptions are applicable to exterior lighting systems installed in
commercial and industrial spaces which are more efficient than required by prevailing codes
and standards. This measure applies only to projects which represent new construction or major
renovations.18 The following table summarizes the ‘typical’ expected (per ft2) energy impacts for
lighting power density improvements and controls additions. Typical values are based on the
algorithms and stipulated values described below and data from past program participants.19
Table 2-15 Typical Savings Estimates for 15% Exterior Lighting LPD Improvement (New
Construction)
Retrofit New Construction
Deemed Savings Unit n/a kW (reduced)
Average Unit Energy Savings n/a 4,059 kWh
Average Unit Peak Demand Savings n/a 0 W
Expected Useful Life n/a 15 Years
Average Material & Labor Cost n/a n/a
Average Incremental Cost n/a $ 168
Stacking Effect End-Use Exterior Light
2.2.1. Definition of Eligible Equipment
All above-code Exterior lighting systems (fixtures, lamps, ballasts, etc.) are eligible. Eligibility is
determined by calculating the lighting power density (LPD) for the installed system. If the LPD is
at least 15% lower than allowed by code (see Table 2-16 and Table 2-17) then the system is
eligible. Efficient equipment may include florescent fixtures, LED lamps, LED exit signs,
compact florescent light bulbs, high intensity discharge lamps, etc.
2.2.2. Definition of Baseline Equipment
There are two possible project baseline scenarios – retrofit and new construction. This measure
currently only addresses the new construction scenario.
Retrofit (Early Replacement)
n/a
New Construction (Includes Major Remodel & Replace on Burn-Out)
Baseline equipment for this measure is defined as an installed lighting system with a maximum
allowable LPD. The maximum allowable LPD is defined by the building code according to which
18 Major renovations are defined to be any renovation or facility expansion project in which building permits were required and the
lighting system had to be demonstrated to comply with a particular code or standard.
19 See spreadsheet “2-TypicalCalcs_ExtLight.xlsx” for assumptions and calculations used to estimate the typical unit energy savings
and incremental costs.

Exterior Lighting Upgrades (New Construction) 37
the project was permitted. Current applicable standards are defined by ASHRAE 90.1-2004 and
90.1-2007.
Code Compliance Considerations for Lighting Controls
Sections 9.4.4 and 9.4.5 of the ASHRAE 90.1 Standard specify energy efficiency and lighting
power density requirements for non-exempt exterior lighting. 20 Table 9.4.5 lists the power
density requirements for various building exteriors.
2.2.3. Algorithms
The following energy and demand savings algorithms are applicable for this measure:
ΔkWh = kWhbase – kWhmeas
= ASF * [LPDbase - LPDmeas * (1 – CSF) ] * HOU
ΔkW = 0
kWh/UnitTypical =Σ (ΔkWh/Unitbuilding i * Wbuilding i)
2.2.4. Definitions
ΔkWh Expected energy savings between baseline and installed equipment.
ΔkW Expected demand reduction between baseline and installed equipment.
HOU Stipulated to be 4,059 hours.21
LPD Lighting power density baseline (base) and installed (meas) systems. This
is defined as the total lighting system connected load divided by the lighted area (or as defined by code). See Table 2-16 and Table 2-17
kWh/UnitTypical Typical measure savings on a per unit basis.
Wbuilding,i Population weight for application type i. This is defined to be the % of application type i in past program participants.
2.2.5. Sources
 ASHRAE, Standard 90.1-2004.
 ASHRAE, Standard 90.1-2007.
2.2.6. Stipulated Values
The following tables stipulate allowable values for each of the variables in the energy and
demand savings algorithms for this measure.
20 Note that both Section 9.1 and Section 9.4.5 list applicable exemptions.
21 Value is sourced from https://www.idahopower.com/AboutUs/RatesRegulatory/Tariffs/tariffPDF.cfm?id=39

Exterior Lighting Upgrades (New Construction) 38

Table 2-16 Baseline Power Densities for Exterior Lighting – Tradable Surfaces 22
Area Type Location LPD Units
Uncovered Parking Parking Lots and Drives 0.2 W/Ft2
Building Grounds
Building Entrances
and Exits
Main entries 30 W/ Linear Foot of Door
Other Doors 20 W/ Linear Foot of Door
Canopies and Canopies (free standing and attached 1.3 W/Ft2
Outdoor Sales Street frontage for vehicle sales lots in 20 W/ Linear Foot

Table 2-17 Baseline Power Densities for Exterior Lighting – Non-Tradable Surfaces 23
Area Type LPD
Building Facades
Automated teller machines and night 270 W per location plus 90 W per additional ATM per
Entrances and gatehouse inspection
stations at guarded facilities the "Canopies and Overhangs" section of "Tradable
ambulances and other emergency service the "Canopies and Overhangs" section of "Tradable

22 Lighting power densities for uncovered parking areas, building grounds, building entrances and exits, canopies and overhangs
and outdoor sales areas may be traded.
23 Lighting power density calculations can be used only for the specific application and cannot be traded between surfaces or with
other exterior lighting. The following allowances are in addition to any allowances otherwise permitted in the "Tradable Surfaces"
section of this table.

Efficient Vending Machines 39
2.3. Efficient Vending Machines
ENERGY STAR qualified new and rebuilt vending machines incorporate more efficient
compressors, fan motors, and lighting systems as well as low power mode option that allows the
machine to be placed in low-energy lighting and/or low-energy refrigeration states during times
of inactivity.
Table 2-18 summarizes the ‘typical’ expected (per machine) energy impacts for this measure.
Typical values are based on the algorithms and stipulated values described below.
Table 2-18 Typical Savings Estimates for Efficient Vending Machines24
Retrofit New Construction
Deemed Savings Unit Machine Machine
Average Unit Energy Savings 2,299 kWh 217 kWh
Average Unit Peak Demand Savings 2.39 kW 0.22 kW
Expected Useful Life 14 Years 14 Years
Average Material & Labor Cost
2.3.1. Definition of Eligible Equipment
The eligible equipment is a new or rebuilt refrigerated vending machine that meets the ENERGY
STAR 3.0 specifications which include low power mode. Each completed ENERGY STAR
qualified machine shall receive a “refurbishment label/sticker” that includes the following
information to indicate that the machine has been upgraded to ENERGY STAR performance
levels:
- A new and discrete model number that is representative of that machine and rebuilding
kit combination
- The date of rebuilding
- The ENERGY STAR certification mark
2.3.2. Definition of Baseline Equipment
Baseline equipment for this measure is determined by the nature of the project. There are two
possible scenarios: retrofit (early replacement) or new construction.
Retrofit (Early Replacement)

24 See spreadsheet “3-TypicalCalcs_EffVndMcn.xlsx” for assumptions and calculations used to estimate the typical unit energy
savings and incremental costs.
25
http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?fuseaction=find_a_product.showProductGroup&pgw_code=VMC
26 Cadmus Group: http://rtf.nwcouncil.org/meetings/2006/09/RTF%20091806%20-%20Vending%20Final-2.ppt
27 See previous footnote

Efficient Vending Machines 40
The baseline condition for retrofit is a refrigerated beverage vending machine that isn’t qualified
as Energy Star 3.0.
New Construction (Includes Major Remodel & Replace on Burn-Out)
The baseline condition for new construction is a machine that complies with the Department of
Energy's (DOE) energy conservation standards for refrigerated beverage vending machines
since 2012.
2.3.3. Algorithms
The following energy and demand savings algorithms are applicable for this measure:
ΔkWh = kWh/Unit * NUnits
kWh/UnitTypical =Σ (ΔkWh/Unit i * Wi)
ΔkW = kW/Unit * NUnits
kW/UnitTypical =Σ (ΔkW/Unit i * Wi)
2.3.4. Definitions
ΔkWh Expected energy savings between baseline and installed equipment.
ΔkW Expected demand reduction between baseline and installed equipment.
kWh/Unit Per unit energy savings as stipulated in Table 2-19 and Table 2-20.
kWh/UnitTypical Typical measure savings on a per unit basis.
ΔkWh/Uniti Unit savings for combination i of equipment types.
kW/Unit Per unit demand savings as stipulated in Table 2-19 and Table 2-20.
kW/UnitTypical Typical measure demand savings on a per unit basis.
ΔkW/Uniti Unit demand savings for combination i of equipment types.
W,i Population weight for each ΔkWh/Uniti and ΔkW/Uniti.
NUnits Number of Units
2.3.5. Sources
1. LBNL 2007: http://enduse.lbl.gov/info/LBNL-62397.pdf
2. Cadmus Energy Star Report:
http://rtf.nwcouncil.org/meetings/2006/09/RTF%20091806%20-%20Vending%20Final-
2.ppt
3. ENERGY STAR Calculator:
http://search.energystar.gov/search?q=cache:4rntJv_yaV8J:www.energystar.gov/ia/busi
ness/bulk_purchasing/bpsavings_calc/Calc_Vend_MachBulk.xls+xls&access=p&output=

Efficient Vending Machines 41
xml_no_dtd&ie=UTF-
8&client=default_frontend&site=default_collection&proxystylesheet=default_frontend&oe
=UTF-8&c4d7-9284
2.3.6. Stipulated Values
The following tables stipulate allowable values for each of the variables in the energy and
demand savings algorithms for this measure.
Table 2-19 Unit Energy Savings for Efficient Vending Machines - Retrofit 28
Vending
Machine
kW Savings Per kW Savings Per
<500 1,848 1.677 1,602 1.453
500 2,567 2.765 2,299 2.476
699 2,162 2.101 1,883 1.83
799 2,712 2.833 2,409 2.516
800+ 1,909 1.447 1,625 1.232

Table 2-20 Unit Energy Savings for Efficient Vending Machines – New Construction
Vending Machine kW Savings Per kW Savings Per
<500 66 0.06 168 0.152
500 269 0.289 180 0.194
699 279 0.271 185 0.18
799 304 0.317 199 0.208
800+ 284 0.215 188 0.143

28 See spreadsheet “3-TypicalCalcs_EffVndMcn.xlsx” for assumptions and calculations used to estimate the typical unit energy
saving.

Vending Machine Controls 42
2.4. Vending Machine Controls
This measure relates to the installation of new controls on refrigerated beverage vending
machines, non-refrigerated snack vending machines, and glass front refrigerated coolers.
Controls can significantly reduce the energy consumption of vending machine and refrigeration
systems. Qualifying controls must power down these systems during periods of inactivity but, in
the case of refrigerated machines, must always maintain a cool product that meets customer
expectations. This measure relates to the installation of a new control on a new or existing unit.
This measure should not be applied to ENERGY STAR qualified vending machines, as they
already have built-in controls.
Table 2-21 through Table 2-23 summarizes the ‘typical’ expected (per machine controlled)
energy impacts for this measure. Typical values are based on the algorithms and stipulated
values described below.29
Table 2-21 Summary Deemed Savings Estimates for Beverage Vending Machine Controls
Retrofit New Construction
Deemed Savings Unit Machine Controlled Machine Controlled
Average Unit Energy Savings 519 kWh 222 kWh
Average Unit Peak Demand Savings 0 kW 0 kW
Expected Useful Life 5 Years 5 Years
Average Material & Labor Cost $ 215.50 n/a
Average Incremental Cost n/a $ 180
Stacking Effect End-Use Miscellaneous Loads

Table 2-22 Summary Deemed Savings Estimates for Other Cold Product Vending Machine
Controls
Retrofit New Construction
Deemed Savings Unit Machine Controlled Machine Controlled
Average Unit Energy Savings 519 kWh 222 kWh
Average Unit Peak Demand Savings 0 kW 0 kW
Expected Useful Life 5 Years 5 Years
Average Material & Labor Cost $ 215.50 n/a
Average Incremental Cost n/a $ 180
Stacking Effect End-Use Miscellaneous Loads

29 The Savings estimates provided in the summary tables are only given for a quick cost effectiveness test. The estimates are based
on assumed weights for equipment types. See spreadsheet “4-TypicalCalcs_VndMcnCntrl.xlsx” for assumptions and calculations
used to estimate the typical unit energy savings, EUL, and incremental costs.

Vending Machine Controls 43
Table 2-23 Summary Deemed Savings Estimates for Non-Cooled Snack Vending Machine
Controls
Retrofit New Construction
Deemed Savings Unit Machine Controlled Machine Controlled
Average Unit Energy Savings 387 kWh 387 kWh
Average Unit Peak Demand Savings 0 kW 0 kW
Expected Useful Life 5 Years 5 Years
Average Material & Labor Cost $ 108 n/a
Average Incremental Cost n/a $ 75
Stacking Effect End-Use Miscellaneous Loads

2.4.1. Definition of Eligible Equipment
The eligible equipment is a non-Energy Star qualified refrigerated beverage vending machine,
non-refrigerated snack vending machine, or glass front refrigerated cooler with a control system
capable of powering down lighting and refrigeration systems during periods of inactivity. The
controls must be equipped with a passive infrared occupancy sensor, a duplex receptacle, and
a power cord for connecting the device to 120V power.
2.4.2. Definition of Baseline Equipment
Baseline equipment for this measure is determined by the nature of the project. There are two
possible scenarios: retrofit (early replacement) or new construction.
Retrofit (Early Replacement)
The baseline condition for retrofit is a non-Energy Star qualified refrigerated beverage vending
machine, non-refrigerated snack vending machine, or glass front refrigerated cooler without a
control system capable of powering down lighting and refrigeration systems during periods of
inactivity.
New Construction (Includes Major Remodel & Replace on Burn-Out)
The baseline condition for new construction is a machine without a control system that complies
with the Department of Energy's (DOE) 2012 energy conservation standards for refrigerated
beverage vending machines.
2.4.3. Algorithms
The following energy and demand savings algorithms are applicable for this measure:
i base RR
kWhbase base,i

Vending Machine Controls 44
code,class A
code,class B

2.4.4. Definitions
ΔkWh Expected energy savings between baseline and installed equipment
ΔkWh/Unit Stipulated per unit energy savings
ΔkW Defined to be zero for this measure as it is assumed that controls are only
kWhbase Annual energy consumption of baseline equipment for the ith combination of
code, Class A/B
RR
Units
2.4.5. Sources
1. DEER2011 EUL Summary
http://www.deeresources.com/deer0911planning/downloads/EUL_Summary_10-1-08.xls
2. DEER2011 Cost Data
3. http://www.deeresources.com/deer0911planning/downloads/DEER2008_Costs_ValuesA
ndDocumentation_080530Rev1.zip
4. SCE Work Paper, SCE13CS005: Beverage Merchandise Controller
5. DEER2005 UpdateFinalReport_ItronVersion.pdf
6. LBNL 2007: http://enduse.lbl.gov/info/LBNL-62397.pdf
7. Cadmus Energy Star Report:
http://rtf.nwcouncil.org/meetings/2006/09/RTF%20091806%20-%20Vending%20Final-
2.ppt
2.4.6. Stipulated Values
The following tables stipulate allowable values for each of the variables in the energy and
demand savings algorithms for this measure.
Table 2-24 Unit Energy Savings for Uncooled Vending Machine Controls 30
Equipment kWh Savings Per Machine
Uncooled Vending Machine 387

30 Applies to both Retrofit and New Construction

Vending Machine Controls 45

Table 2-25 Unit Energy Savings for Retrofit Class A & B Cold Beverage Vending Machine
Controls
Vending Machine Capacity (cans) kWh Savings Per Machine
<500 519
500 653
699 592
799 700
800+ 553
Weighted 632

Table 2-26 Unit Energy Savings for New Construction Class A Cold Beverage Vending Machine
Controls
Vending Machine Capacity (cans) kWh Savings Per Machine
<500 222
500 270
699 278
799 298
800+ 282
Weighted 134

Table 2-27 Unit Energy Savings for New Construction Class B Cold Beverage Vending Machine
Controls
Vending Machine Capacity (cans) kWh Savings Per Machine
<500 280
500 300
699 309
799 331
800+ 314
Weighted 151

Vending Machine Controls 46
Table 2-28 Unit Incremental Cost for Retrofit and New Construction Uncooled Vending Machine
Controls
Measure Case Description
Cold Drink Vending $180.00 $35.50 $215.50

Efficient Washing Machines 47
2.5. Efficient Washing Machines
This protocol discusses the calculation methodology and the assumptions regarding baseline
equipment, efficient equipment, and usage patterns used to estimate annual energy savings
expected from the replacement of a standard clothes washer with an ENERGY STAR or high
efficiency clothes washer.
Table 2-29 summarizes the ‘typical’ expected (per machine) energy impacts for this measure.
Typical values are based on the algorithms and stipulated values described below.
Table 2-29 Summary Deemed Savings Estimates for Efficient Washing Machines 31
Retrofit New Construction
Deemed Savings Unit Machine Machine
Average Unit Energy Savings 1,727 kWh 756 kWh
Average Unit Peak Demand Savings 0.86 kW 0.38 kW
Expected Useful Life 10.7 Years 10.7 Years
Average Material & Labor Cost
2.5.1. Definition of Eligible Equipment
The eligible equipment is clothes washers meeting ENERGY STAR or better efficiency in small
commercial applications that have both electric water heating (DHW) and electric dryers. The
minimum efficiency is Modified Energy Factor (MEF) of ≥2.2 (ft3/kWh/cycle) and Water Factor
(WF) ≤ 4.5 (gal/ft3/cycle). Currently, only front-loading clothes washers meet the ENERGY
STAR standards.
2.5.2. Definition of Baseline Equipment
Baseline equipment for this measure is determined by the nature of the project. There are two
possible scenarios: retrofit (early replacement) or new construction.
Retrofit (Early Replacement)
The retrofit baseline condition is a standard efficiency washing machine. The RTF sources the
latest CEC database which has non ENERGY STAR machine MEF ranging from 1.26 to 2.45
with an average of 1.63.
31 See spreadsheet “5-TypicalCalcs_EffWshMcn.xlsx” for assumptions and calculations used to estimate the typical unit energy
savings, EUL, and incremental costs. There isn’t a difference between new construction and retrofit because RTF specifies the
measure for new and existing construction.
32
http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?fuseaction=find_a_product.showProductGroup&pgw_code=VMC
33 Cadmus Group: http://rtf.nwcouncil.org/meetings/2006/09/RTF%20091806%20-%20Vending%20Final-2.ppt
34 See previous footnote

Efficient Washing Machines 48
New Construction (Includes Major Remodel & Replace on Burn-Out)
For new construction the baseline is the Federal efficiency standard MEF ≥1.60 (ft3/kWh/cycle)
and WF ≤ 8.5 (gal/ft3/cycle) for Top Loading washers and MEF ≥2.0 (ft3/kWh/cycle)/ (kWh) and
WF ≤ 5.5 (gal/ft3/cycle) for Front Loading washers. The RTF designates the baseline using
MEF ranging from 1.65 to 2.45 with an average of 2.04 and WF ranging from 3.7 to 8.4 with an
average of 5.99.
2.5.3. Algorithms
The following energy and demand savings algorithms are applicable for this measure:
Units
Typical = (∆kWh/Uniti * Wi)
i,Intalled
Water heat P Water Elec Cycles
kWh Cycles
Units
Typical = ∑ (∆kW/Uniti * UF * Wi)
2.5.4. Definitions
∆ kWh Expected energy savings between baseline and installed equipment.
∆ kW Demand energy savings between baseline and installed equipment.
∆ kWh/Unit Per unit energy savings as stipulated in Table 2-30 and Table 2-31
∆i,Installed
∆
∆
∆
∆kW/UnitTypical Typical measure demand savings on a per unit basis.
Wi Population weight for each ∆kWh/Uniti and ∆kW/Uniti. Values used are from DOE's Commercial Clothes Washers Final Rule Technical Support
Document
UF Utilization Factor. This is defined to be 0.00049935
Units
Cycles
3
35 See spreadsheet “5-TypicalCalcs_EffWshMcn.xlsx” for assumptions and calculations used to estimate the UF.

Efficient Washing Machines 49
36
P
M
Elec

2.5.5. Sources
1. Regional Technical Forum measure workbook:
http://rtf.nwcouncil.org/measures/com/Com ClothesWasher_v2_0
2. Department of Energy (DOE ) Technical Support Document, 2009:
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/product.aspx/productid/46
2.5.6. Stipulated Values
The following tables stipulate allowable values for each of the variables in the energy and
demand savings algorithms for this measure.
Table 2-30 Unit Energy Savings for Laundromat Efficient Washing Machines 37
Measure Program Type kWh/Unit kW/Unit
Energy Star Commercial Clothes Washer w/MEF 2.2 and New 828 0.413
Energy Star Commercial Clothes Washer w/MEF 2.2 and Retrofit 38 1,891 0.944

Table 2-31 Unit Energy Savings for Multifamily Efficient Washing Machines
Measure Program Type kWh/Unit kW/Unit
Energy Star Commercial Clothes Washer w/MEF 2.2 and New 469 0.234
Energy Star Commercial Clothes Washer w/MEF 2.2 and Retrofit 1072 0.535

36 From Regional Technical Forum measure workbook
37 See spreadsheet “5-TypicalCalcs_EffWshMcn.xlsx” for assumptions and calculations used to estimate the typical unit energy
savings.
38 Retrofit refers to early retirement (ER). For replace on burnout (ROB) use New Construction.

Wall Insulation 50
2.6. Wall Insulation
The following algorithms and assumptions are applicable to wall insulation installed in
commercial spaces which are more efficient than existing insulation or prevailing codes and
standards.
Wall insulation is rated by its R-value. An R-value indicates its resistance to heat flow – the
higher the R-value, the greater the insulating effectiveness. The R-value depends on the type of
insulation including its material, thickness, and density. When calculating the R-value of a
multilayered installation, add the R-values of the individual layers.
Table 2-32 and Table 2-33 summarize the ‘typical’ expected (per insulation ft2 square foot)
energy impacts for this measure for cooling only and cooling + heating impacts respectively.
Typical and deemed values are based on the algorithms and stipulated values described
below.39 The typical and deemed values reported in this chapter are based on a weighted
average across multiple building types. The cooling savings assume either DX or Hydronic
cooling (depending on what is considered ‘typical’ for that building type) while the heating
component assumes DX air-cooled heat pumps.
Table 2-32 Typical Savings Estimates for Wall Insulation (Cooling Only)
Retrofit New Construction
Deemed Savings Unit Insulation ft2 Insulation ft2
Average Unit Energy Savings 0.044 kWh 0.003 kWh
Average Unit Peak Demand Savings 0.028 W 0.002 W
Average Gas Impacts 40 .022 Therms .001 Therms
Expected Useful Life 25 Years 25 Years
Average Material & Labor Cost $ 0.66 n/a
Average Incremental Cost n/a $ 0.12
Stacking Effect End-Use Cooling

39 See spreadsheet “6-TypicalCalcs_WallInsul.xlsx” for assumptions and calculations used to estimate the typical unit energy
savings and incremental costs for cooling savings.
40 Note that the reported gas impacts assume that if savings are being claimed for cooling only the facility is gas heated. If the facility
is electrically heated then these gas impacts are not applicable and savings should be based on the following table.

Wall Insulation 51
Table 2-33 Typical Savings Estimates for Wall Insulation (Cooling & Heating)
Retrofit New Construction
Deemed Savings Unit Insulation ft2 Insulation ft2
Average Unit Energy Savings 0.414 kWh 0.028 kWh
Average Unit Peak Demand Savings 0.028 W 0.002 W
Expected Useful Life 25 Years 25 Years
Average Material & Labor Cost $ 0.66 n/a
Average Incremental Cost n/a $ 0.12
Stacking Effect End-Use Heating, Cooling
2.6.1. Definition of Eligible Equipment
Eligible wall area is limited to the treated wall area of exterior walls (gross wall area, less
window and door) where the insulation has been installed to the proposed R-value. Insulation
must be installed in buildings, or portions of buildings, with central mechanical air conditioning or
PTAC/PTHP systems. Qualifying wall insulation can be rigid foam, fiberglass bat, blown-in
fiberglass or cellulose, assuming it meets or exceeds the required R-value. Radiant barriers will
not be allowed as a substitute for insulation. The savings estimates for retrofit projects assume
the baseline building has no wall insulation (e.g. an empty cavity).
2.6.2. Definition of Baseline Equipment
Baseline equipment for this measure is determined by the nature of the project. There are two
possible scenarios: retrofit (early replacement) or new construction. Note that heating savings
are only applicable for facilities with electric heating.
Retrofit (Early Replacement)
If the project is retrofitting pre-existing insulation and the project does not represent a major
renovation then the baseline efficiency is defined by the pre-existing insulation.
New Construction (New Construction, Replace on Burnout)
For New Construction, the baseline efficiency is defined as the minimum allowable R-value by
the prevailing building energy code or standard according to which the project was permitted.
Current applicable standards are defined by ASHRAE 90.1-2004 and 90.1-2007.
2.6.3. Algorithms
The following energy and demand savings algorithms are applicable for this measure:
∆kWh = ∆kWhcool + ∆kWhheat
∆kWhcool = A * (CDD * 24)/(SEER * 1000) * (1/Rbase meas
∆kWhheat = A * (HDD * 24)/(HSPF * 3413) * (1/Rbase – 1/Rmeas)
∆kWpeak = ∆kWhcool / EFLHcool X CF

Wall Insulation 52
2.6.4. Definitions
A Area of the insulation that was installed in square feet
HDD Heating degree days, refer to Table 2-38 for typical heating degree days for different buildings. When possible, actual base temperatures should be used to calculate the HDD
CDD Cooling degree days refer to Table 2-38 for typical cooling degree days for different buildings. When possible, actual base temperatures should be
used to calculate the CDD.
Rbase
meas
for various building types are stipulated in Table 2-40
as the ratio of the Annual cooling provided by the air conditioner (in BTUs),
to the total electrical input (in Watts). Note that the IEER is an appropriate
following formula to estimate from the EER: 41
2
(described above) as applied to Heat Pumps in heating mode. If only the heat pump COP is available then use the following: 2
∆kWh/UnitRetrofit Typical measure savings on a per unit basis.
∆kWhNew Const efficient qualifying unit representing a conservative savings estimate

2.6.5. Sources
1. ASHRAE, Standard 90.1-2004.
2. ASHRAE, Standard 90.1-2007.
3. California DEER Prototypical Simulation models (modified), eQUEST-DEER 3-5.42
4. California DEER Effective Useful Life worksheets: EUL_Summary_10-1-08.xls43
41 Note that this formula is an approximation and should only be applied to EER values up to 15 EER.
42 Prototypical building energy simulations were used to generate Idaho specific Heating and Cooling Interactive Factors and
Coincidence factors for various building and heating fuel types.
43 After reviewing the sources feeding into the DEER value of 20 years it was found that the 20 year determination was based on a
DEER policy for maximum EUL. Since DEER sources supported a higher EUL the higher EUL is used here.

Wall Insulation 53
2.6.6. Stipulated Values
The following tables stipulate allowable values for each of the variables in the energy and
demand savings algorithms for this measure.
Table 2-34 Deemed Energy Savings for Wall Insulation - Retrofit 44
W/ft2 kWh/ft2 Cost/ft2
R-2.5 to R-11
Cooling .028 .044 $0.66
Heating 0 .370
Cooling & Heating .028 .414
R-2.5 to R-19
Cooling .032 .050 $0.92
Heating 0 .416
Cooling & Heating .032 .465

Table 2-35 Deemed Energy Savings for Wall Insulation – New Construction 45
W/ft2 kWh/ft2 Cost/ft2
R-13 to R-19
Cooling .002 .003 $0.12
Heating 0 .025
Cooling & Heating .002 .028
R-13 to R-21
Cooling .003 .004 $0.16
Heating 0 .030
Cooling & Heating .003 .033

44 See spreadsheet “6-TypicalCalcs_WallInsul.xlsx” for assumptions and calculations used to estimate the deemed unit energy
savings.
45 See spreadsheet “6-TypicalCalcs_WallInsul.xlsx” for assumptions and calculations used to estimate the deemed unit energy
savings.

Wall Insulation 54
Table 2-36 Wall Insulation: Code Minimum R-values for Nonresidential Buildings in Zone 546
Climate Zone Opaque Element ASHRAE 90.1 2004 Insulation ASHRAE 90.1 2007 Insulation
Walls, Above-
Grade Wood-Framed R-13.0 R-13.0 + R-3.8 ci
Wall, Below-Below-Grade Wall NR R-7.5 ci

Table 2-37 Wall Insulation: Code Minimum R-values for Nonresidential Buildings in Zone 647
Climate Zone
6 Opaque Element
Walls, Above-Grade Wood-Framed R-13.0 R-13.0 + R-7.5 ci
Wall, Below-Below-Grade Wall NR R-7.5 ci

46 Values stipulated from Table 5.5-5 ASHRAE 2004 and 2007. c.i. = continuous insulation, NR = no requirement
47 Values stipulated from Table 5.5-6 in ASHRAE 2004 and 2007. c.i. = continuous insulation, NR = no requirement

Wall Insulation 55
Table 2-38 Stipulated Heating and Cooling Degree Days by Building Type 48
Zone 5 Zone 6
Building Type HDD CDD HDD CDD
Assembly 256 104 274 91
Community College 229 116 214 101
Conditioned Storage 256 73 290 72
Fast Food Restaurant 258 103 284 81
Full Service Restaurant 273 88 289 76
High School 253 112 290 75
Hospital 272 93 293 94
Hotel 225 140 268 97
Large Retail 1 Story 240 122 264 101
Large Retail 3 Story 242 103 274 90
Large Office 229 131 247 121
Light Manufacturing 241 121 271 94
Medical Clinic 280 85 293 72
Motel 199 166 285 80
Multi Family 219 121 247 72
Nursing Home 300 65 300 79
Primary School 250 115 286 79
Small Office 226 131 256 106
Small Retail 244 117 271 94
University 229 131 247 109

48 Values obtained from simulations of the DEER input models using eQuest to obtain typical baseline temperatures for each
building. TMY3 weather data was collected and averaged over the ASHRAE weather Zones 5 and 6 to create heating and cooling
degree days using the typical baseline temperatures.

Wall Insulation 56
Table 2-39 HVAC Coincidence Factors by Building Type
Building Type Coincidence Factor
Assembly 0.47
Education - Community College 0.54
Education - Primary School 0.1
Education - Secondary School 0.1
Education - University 0.53
Grocery 0.54
Health/Medical - Hospital 0.82
Health/Medical - Nursing Home 0.49
Lodging - Hotel 0.67
Lodging - Motel 0.63
Manufacturing - Light Industrial 0.46
Office - Large 0.58
Office - Small 0.51
Restaurant - Fast-Food 0.48
Restaurant - Sit-Down 0.46
Retail - 3-Story Large 0.66
Retail - Single-Story Large 0.56
Retail - Small 0.49
Storage - Conditioned 0.41

Wall Insulation 57
Table 2-40 Heating and Cooling Equivalent Full Load Hours (EFLH) by Building Type49
Zone 5 Zone 6
Building Type EFLH Cooling EFLH Heating EFLH Cooling EFLH Heating
Assembly 879 966 758 1059
Education - Primary School 203 299 173 408
Education - Secondary School 230 406 196 514
Education - Community College 556 326 530 456
Education - University 697 341 721 449
Grocery 3437 1825 3762 2011
Health/Medical - Hospital 1616 612 1409 679
Health/Medical - Nursing Home 1049 1399 884 1653
Lodging - Hotel 1121 621 1075 780
Lodging - Motel 978 682 937 796
Manufacturing - Light Industrial 530 699 415 1088
Office - Large 746 204 680 221
Office - Small 607 256 567 360
Restaurant - Sit-Down 811 624 716 709
Restaurant - Fast-Food 850 722 734 796
Retail - 3-Story Large 765 770 644 998
Retail - Single-Story Large 724 855 576 998
Retail - Small 726 886 619 1138
Storage - Conditioned 335 688 242 989

49 Prototypical building energy simulations were used to generate Idaho specific heating and cooling equivalent full load hours for
various buildings.

Ceiling Insulation 58
2.7. Ceiling Insulation
The following algorithms and assumptions are applicable to ceiling insulation installed in
commercial spaces which are more efficient than existing insulation or prevailing codes and
standards.
Ceiling insulation is rated by its R-value. An R-value indicates its resistance to heat flow (where
a higher the R-value indicates a greater insulating effectiveness). The R-value depends on the
type of insulation including its material, thickness, and density. When calculating the R-value of
a multilayered installation, add the R-values of the individual layers.
Table 2-41 summarizes the ‘typical’ expected (per insulation ft2 square foot) energy impacts for
this measure. Table 2-42 summarizes the deemed energy savings for the specific insulation
upgrade cited. Typical and deemed values are based on the algorithms and stipulated values
described below. The typical and deemed values reported in this chapter are based on a
weighted average across multiple building types. The cooling savings assume either DX or
Hydronic cooling (depending on what is considered ‘typical’ for that building type) while the
heating component assumes DX air-cooled heat pumps.
Table 2-41 Typical Savings Estimates for Ceiling Insulation (Cooling Only)50
Retrofit New Construction
Deemed Savings Unit Insulation ft2 Insulation ft2
Average Unit Energy Savings .006 kWh .0007 kWh
Average Unit Peak Demand Savings .005 W .0005 W
Average Gas Impacts .003 Therms 0 Therms51
Expected Useful Life 25 Years 25 Years
Average Material & Labor Cost $ 1.38 n/a
Average Incremental Cost n/a $ 0.20
Stacking Effect End-Use Cooling

50 See spreadsheet “7-TypicalCalcs_CeilingInsul.xlsx” for assumptions and calculations used to estimate the typical unit energy
savings and incremental costs for cooling savings. Note that the reported gas impacts assume that if savings are being claimed for
cooling only the facility is gas heated. If the facility is electrically heated then these gas impacts are not applicable and savings
should be based on the following table.
51 While the therms impact for this measure is technically non-zero it is sufficiently small as to be considered negligible.

Ceiling Insulation 59
Table 2-42 Typical Savings Estimates for Ceiling Insulation (Cooling & Heating)52
Retrofit New Construction
Deemed Savings Unit Insulation ft2 Insulation ft2
Average Unit Energy Savings .035 kWh .007 kWh
Average Unit Peak Demand Savings .002 W .005 W
Expected Useful Life 25 Years 25 Years
Average Material & Labor Cost $ 1.38 n/a
Average Incremental Cost n/a $ 0.20
Stacking Effect End-Use Heating, Cooling

2.7.1. Definition of Eligible Equipment
Eligible roof/ceiling area is limited to buildings or potions of buildings with central mechanical air
conditioning or PTAC systems. Qualifying ceiling insulation can be rigid foam, fiberglass bat, or
blown-in fiberglass or cellulose a long as material is eligible, assuming it meets or exceeds the
required R-value. The insulation must upgrade from R11 or less to a minimum of R24 or from
R19 or less to a minimum of R38.
2.7.2. Definition of Baseline Equipment
Baseline equipment for this measure is determined by the nature of the project. There are two
possible scenarios: retrofit (early replacement) or new construction.
Retrofit (Early Replacement)
If the project is retrofitting pre-existing insulation then the baseline efficiency is defined by the
pre-existing insulation.
New Construction (New Construction, Replace on Burnout)
For New Construction, the baseline efficiency is defined as the minimum allowable R-value by
the prevailing building energy code or standard according to which the project was permitted.
Current applicable standards are defined by ASHRAE 90.1-2004 and 90.1-2007.
2.7.3. Algorithms
The following energy and demand savings algorithms are applicable for this measure:
∆∆∆
∆
∆
∆∆
52 See spreadsheet “7-TypicalCalcs_CeilingInsul.xlsx” for assumptions and calculations used to estimate the typical unit energy
savings and incremental costs for cooling and heating savings.

Ceiling Insulation 60
2.7.4. Definitions
A Area of the insulation that was installed in square feet
HDD Heating degree days, refer to Table 2-47 for typical heating degree days for different buildings. When possible, actual base temperatures should be
base
meas
Values for various building types are stipulated in Table 2-49
as the ratio of the Annual cooling provided by the air conditioner (in BTUs),
to the total electrical input (in Watts). Note that the IEER is an appropriate
following formula to estimate from the EER:
53 2
(described above) as applied to Heat Pumps in heating mode. If only the heat pump COP is available then use the following: 2
∆kWh/UnitRetrofit Typical measure savings on a per unit basis.
∆kWhNew Const efficient qualifying unit representing a conservative savings estimate
2.7.5. Sources
1. ASHRAE, Standard 90.1-2004.
2. ASHRAE, Standard 90.1-2007.
3. California DEER Prototypical Simulation models (modified), eQUEST-DEER 3-5.54
4. California DEER Effective Useful Life worksheets: EUL_Summary_10-1-08.xls55
53 Note that this formula is an approximation and should only be applied to EER values up to 15 EER.
54 Prototypical building energy simulations were used to generate Idaho specific Heating and Cooling Interactive Factors and
Coincidence factors for various building and heating fuel types.
55 After reviewing the sources feeding into the DEER value of 20 years it was found that the 20 year determination was based on a
DEER policy for maximum EUL. Since DEER sources supported a higher EUL the higher EUL is used here.

Ceiling Insulation 61
2.7.6. Stipulated Values
The following tables stipulate allowable values for each of the variables in the energy and
demand savings algorithms for this measure.
Table 2-43 Deemed Energy Savings for Ceiling Insulation - Retrofit56
Insulation
Values Cooling Heating Cooling Heating
R-11 to R-24 0.005 0.000 0.005 0.007 0.059 0.066
R-11 to R-38 0.006 0.000 0.006 0.009 0.077 0.087
R-11 to R-49 0.006 0.000 0.006 0.010 0.084 0.094
R-19 to R-38 0.002 0.000 0.002 0.004 0.032 0.035
R-19 to R-49 0.003 0.000 0.003 0.005 0.039 0.043
Weighted: 0.005 0.000 0.005 0.006 0.053 0.059

Table 2-44 Deemed Energy Savings for Ceiling Insulation – New Construction 57
W/ft2 kWh/ft2
R-38 to R-49
Cooling .0005 .0007
Heating 0 .006
Cooling & Heating .0005 .007

56 See spreadsheet “7-TypicalCalcs_CeilingInsul.xlsx” for assumptions and calculations used to estimate the deemed unit energy
savings.
57 See spreadsheet “7-TypicalCalcs_CeilingInsul.xlsx” for assumptions and calculations used to estimate the deemed unit energy
savings.

Ceiling Insulation 62
Table 2-45 ASHRAE Baseline R–values for Nonresidential Buildings in Zone 5 58
Zone 5 Nonresidential 2004 Nonresidential 2007
Opaque Element Insulation Min. R-Value Insulation Min. R-Value
Insulation Entirely above Deck R-15.0 c.i. R-20.0 c.i.
Metal Building R-19.0 R-19.0
Attic and Other R-30.0 R-38.0

Table 2-46 ASHRAE Baseline R–values for Nonresidential Buildings in Zone 6 59
Zone 6 Nonresidential 2004 Nonresidential 2007
Opaque Element Insulation Min. R-Value Insulation Min. R-Value
Insulation Entirely above Deck R-15.0 c.i. R-20.0 c.i.
Metal Building R-19.0 R-19.0
Attic and Other R-38.0 R-38.0

58 Values stipulated from ASHRAE 90.1 2004 and 2007 Table 5.5-5
59 Values stipulated from ASHRAE 90.1 2004 and 2007 Table 5.5-6

Ceiling Insulation 63
Table 2-47 Base Heating and Cooling Degree Days by Building Type 60
Zone 5 Zone 6
Building Type HDD CDD HDD CDD
Assembly 256 104 274 91
Community College 229 116 214 101
Conditioned Storage 256 73 290 72
Fast Food Restaurant 258 103 284 81
Full Service Restaurant 273 88 289 76
High School 253 112 290 75
Hospital 272 93 293 94
Hotel 225 140 268 97
Large Retail 1 Story 240 122 264 101
Large Retail 3 Story 242 103 274 90
Large Office 229 131 247 121
Light Manufacturing 241 121 271 94
Medical Clinic 280 85 293 72
Motel 199 166 285 80
Multi Family 219 121 247 72
Nursing Home 300 65 300 79
Primary School 250 115 286 79
Small Office 226 131 256 106
Small Retail 244 117 271 94
University 229 131 247 109

60 Values obtained from simulations of the DEER input models using eQuest to obtain typical baseline temperatures for each
building. TMY3 weather data was collected and averaged over the ASHRAE weather Zones 5 and 6 to create heating and cooling
degree days using the typical baseline temperatures.

Ceiling Insulation 64
Table 2-48 HVAC Coincidence Factors by Building Type
Building Type Coincidence Factor
Assembly 0.47
Education - Community College 0.54
Education - Primary School 0.10
Education - Secondary School 0.10
Education - University 0.53
Grocery 0.54
Health/Medical - Hospital 0.82
Health/Medical - Nursing Home 0.49
Lodging - Hotel 0.67
Lodging - Motel 0.63
Manufacturing - Light Industrial 0.46
Office - Large 0.58
Office - Small 0.51
Restaurant - Fast-Food 0.48
Restaurant - Sit-Down 0.46
Retail - 3-Story Large 0.66
Retail - Single-Story Large 0.56
Retail - Small 0.49
Storage - Conditioned 0.41

Ceiling Insulation 65
Table 2-49 Stipulated Equivalent Full Load Hours (EFLH) by Building Type 61
Zone 5 Zone 6
Building Type EFLH Cooling EFLH Heating EFLH Cooling EFLH Heating
Assembly 879 966 758 1059
Education - Primary School 203 299 173 408
Education - Secondary School 230 406 196 514
Education - Community College 556 326 530 456
Education - University 697 341 721 449
Grocery 3437 1825 3762 2011
Health/Medical - Hospital 1616 612 1409 679
Health/Medical - Nursing Home 1049 1399 884 1653
Lodging - Hotel 1121 621 1075 780
Lodging - Motel 978 682 937 796
Manufacturing - Light Industrial 530 699 415 1088
Office - Large 746 204 680 221
Office - Small 607 256 567 360
Restaurant - Sit-Down 811 624 716 709
Restaurant - Fast-Food 850 722 734 796
Retail - 3-Story Large 765 770 644 998
Retail - Single-Story Large 724 855 576 998
Retail - Small 726 886 619 1138
Storage - Conditioned 335 688 242 989

61 Prototypical building energy simulations were used to generate Idaho specific heating and cooling equivalent full load hours for
various buildings.

Reflective Roof 66
2.8. Reflective Roof
This section covers installation of “cool roof” roofing materials in commercial buildings. Energy
and demand saving are realized through reductions in the building cooling loads. The approach
utilizes DOE-2.2 simulations on a series of commercial DEER prototypical building models.
Table 2-50 and Table 2-51 summarize the ‘typical’ expected (per ft2) energy impacts for this
measure. Typical values are based on the algorithms and stipulated values described below.
Table 2-50 Summary Deemed Savings Estimates for Low-Slope Roof (2:12 or less) Reflective
Roof
Retrofit New Construction
Deemed Savings Unit ft2 ft2
Average Unit Energy Savings 0.116 kWh 0.116 kWh
Average Unit Peak Demand Savings 0.095 W 0.095 W
Expected Useful Life 15 Years 15 Years
Average Material & Labor Cost

Table 2-51 Summary Deemed Savings Estimates for Steep-Slope Roof (>2:12) Reflective Roof
Retrofit New Construction
Deemed Savings Unit ft2 ft2
Average Unit Energy Savings 0.021 kWh 0.021 kWh
Average Unit Peak Demand Savings 0.017 W 0.017 W
Expected Useful Life 15 Years 15 Years
Average Material & Labor Cost $ 7.90 n/a
Average Incremental Cost n/a $0.11
Stacking Effect End-Use Cooling
2.8.1. Definition of Eligible Equipment
Eligible equipment includes all reflective roofing materials when applied to the roof above a
space with central mechanical air conditioning or PTAC systems. The roof treatment must be
Energy Star rated or tested through a Cool Roof Rating Council (CRRC) accredited laboratory.
For low-slope (2:12 or less) roofs, the roof products must have an solar reflectivity of at least
62 From 2008 Database for Energy-Efficiency Resources (DEER), Version 2008.2.05, “Effective/Remaining Useful Life Values”,
California Public Utilities Commission, December 16, 2008
63 Labor costs from 2005 Database for Energy-Efficiency Resources (DEER), Version 2005.2.01, “Technology and Measure Cost
Data”, California Public Utilities Commission, October 26, 2005
64 Material costs from common roof types found in EPA’s Reducing Urban Heat Islands: Compendium of Strategies:
http://www.epa.gov/heatisld/resources/pdf/CoolRoofsCompendium.pdf

Reflective Roof 67
0.70 and thermal emittance of 0.75. For steep slope(greater than 2:12) roofs, minimum solar
reflectance is 0.25. Note that facilities with pre-existing cool roofs are not eligible for this
measure.
2.8.2. Definition of Baseline Equipment
There are two possible project baseline scenarios – retrofit and new construction.
Retrofit (Early Replacement)
The baseline equipment for retrofit projects is the pre-existing (non-cool roof) roofing material.
New Construction (Includes Major Remodel & Replace on Burn-Out)
The baseline for new construction projects is established by the constructions and materials
typically employed for similar new construction buildings and roof constructions. For the
purposes of calculating typical energy savings for this measure it is assumed that the baseline
roofing material has a reflectance of 0.15.65
2.8.3. Algorithms
The following energy and demand savings algorithms are applicable for this measure:
∆∆
∆∆
2.8.4. Definitions
∆kWh Expected energy savings between baseline and installed equipment.
∆kW Expected demand reduction between baseline and installed equipment.
∆kWh/Unit Per unit energy savings as stipulated in Table 2-52 and Table 2-53 according to
∆kW/Unit Per unit demand reduction as stipulated in Table 2-52 and Table 2-53 according
2
2.8.5. Sources
1. ASHRAE, Standard 90.1-2004.
2. ASHRAE, Standard 90.1-2007.
3. California DEER Prototypical Simulation models, eQUEST-DEER 3-5.66
4. ASHRAE. 2006. Weather data for building design standards. ANSI/ASHRAE Standard
169-2006.
65 Value derived using common roof types performance specifications found in the EPA publication Reducing Urban Heat Islands:
Compendium of Strategies: http://www.epa.gov/heatisld/resources/pdf/CoolRoofsCompendium.pdf
66 Prototypical building energy simulation models were used to obtain U-Factor and SHGC values for each building type.

Reflective Roof 68
2.8.6. Sources
1. 2004-2005 Database for Energy Efficiency Resources (DEER) Update Study. December
2005
2. 2008 Database for Energy-Efficiency Resources (DEER), Version 2008.2.05,
“Effective/Remaining Useful Life Values”, California Public Utilities Commission,
December 16, 2008
3. 2005 Database for Energy-Efficiency Resources (DEER), Version 2005.2.01,
“Technology and Measure Cost Data”, California Public Utilities Commission, October
26, 2005
2.8.7. Stipulated Values
The following tables stipulate allowable values for each of the variables in the energy and
demand savings algorithms for this measure.
Table 2-52 Unit Energy Savings for Low-Slope (<= 2:12) Reflective Roof67
Building Type kWh W kWh W
Primary School 0.082 0.076 0.062 0.059
Secondary School 0.088 0.060 0.052 0.046
Community College 0.392 0.075 0.449 0.068
University 0.148 0.092 0.141 0.083
Hospital 0.086 0.050 0.076 0.052
Nursing Home 0.120 0.096 0.101 0.087
Hotel 0.137 0.054 0.124 0.049
Motel 0.099 0.152 -0.014 0.135
Light Manufacturing 0.078 0.069 0.062 0.062
Small Office 0.102 0.089 0.089 0.083
Large Office 0.202 0.227 0.167 0.183
Full Service Restaurant (Sit-Down) 0.119 0.098 0.092 0.084
Fast Food 0.072 0.046 0.053 0.041
Small Retail 0.117 0.099 0.095 0.084
Large 1-story Retail 0.140 0.112 0.112 0.095
3-story Retail 0.087 0.057 0.098 0.049
Conditioned Storage 0.049 0.051 0.018 0.014

67 See spreadsheet “8-TypicalCalcs_CoolRoof.xlsx” for assumptions and calculations used to estimate the typical unit energy
savings.

Reflective Roof 69
Table 2-53 Unit Energy Savings for Steep-Slope (> 2:12) Reflective Roof68
Building Type kWh W kWh W
Primary School 0.015 0.014 0.012 0.011
Secondary School 0.015 0.012 0.009 0.009
Community College 0.076 0.013 0.071 0.011
University 0.027 0.016 0.021 0.014
Hospital 0.014 0.008 0.013 0.008
Nursing Home 0.022 0.017 0.019 0.016
Hotel 0.026 0.009 0.028 0.008
Motel 0.017 0.026 -0.002 0.024
Light Manufacturing 0.014 0.012 0.011 0.011
Small Office 0.018 0.016 0.016 0.015
Large Office 0.037 0.038 0.032 0.030
Full Service Restaurant (Sit-Down) 0.021 0.017 0.017 0.015
Fast Food 0.013 0.008 0.010 0.007
Small Retail 0.021 0.018 0.017 0.015
Large 1-story Retail 0.025 0.020 0.020 0.017
3-story Retail 0.013 0.011 0.018 0.009
Conditioned Storage 0.010 0.012 0.006 0.005

68 See spreadsheet “8-TypicalCalcs_CoolRoof.xlsx” for assumptions and calculations used to estimate the typical unit energy
savings.

Efficient Windows 70
2.9. Efficient Windows
The following algorithm and assumptions are applicable to efficient windows in commercial
spaces which provide a lower U-value than existing windows or prevailing codes and standards.
Savings will be realized through reductions in the buildings cooling and heating loads. Note that
window films and windows with too low an SHGC value can for many buildings increase the
heating loads (unless the building has a significant internal load as is the case for example in
hospitals and/or data centers). In a heating dominated climate such as Idaho the increase in
heating loads can negate any reduction in the cooling loads. Energy impacts for this measure
are largely due to the improved U-Value and care should be taken when selecting windows to
ensure that the SHGC values are appropriate for the building and climate.
Table 2-54 and Table 2-55 summarize the ‘typical’ expected (per window ft2) energy impacts for
this measure. Typical values are based on the algorithms and stipulated values described
below. 69
Table 2-54 Typical Savings Estimates for Efficient Windows (Cooling Only)
Retrofit New Construction
Deemed Savings Unit ft2 Window Glass ft2 Window Glass
Average Unit Energy Savings 1.51 kWh n/a
Average Unit Peak Demand Savings 1.11 W n/a
Average Gas Impacts70 0.13 Therms n/a
Expected Useful Life 25 Years n/a
Average Material & Labor Cost $ 20.66 n/a
Average Incremental Cost n/a n/a
Stacking Effect End-Use Cooling

69 Average unit energy and peak demand cooling savings are based on a weighted average of electric resistance and heat pump
savings only. Average unit energy and peak demand cooling savings are based on a weighted average of chiller and dx cooling
only. See spreadsheet “9-TypicalCalcs_Windows.xlsx” for additional assumptions and calculations, EUL, and incremental cost.
70 Note that the reported gas impacts assume that if savings are being claimed for cooling only the facility is gas heated. If the facility
is electrically heated then these gas impacts are not applicable and savings should be based on the following table.

Efficient Windows 71
Table 2-55 Typical Savings Estimates for Efficient Windows (Heating and Cooling)
Retrofit New Construction
Deemed Savings Unit ft2 Window Glass ft2 Window Glass
Average Unit Energy Savings 8.47 kWh n/a
Average Unit Peak Demand Savings 1.11 W n/a
Expected Useful Life 25 Years n/a
Average Material & Labor Cost $ 20.66 n/a
Average Incremental Cost n/a n/a
Stacking Effect End-Use Heating, Cooling

Table 2-56 Typical Savings Estimates for Premium Windows (Cooling Only)
Retrofit New Construction
Deemed Savings Unit ft2 Window Glass ft2 Window Glass
Average Unit Energy Savings 2.12 kWh 0.40 kWh
Average Unit Peak Demand Savings 1.55 W 0.32 W
Average Gas Impacts71 0.16 Therms 0.10 Therms
Expected Useful Life 25 Years 25 Years
Average Material & Labor Cost $ 22.08 n/a
Average Incremental Cost n/a $ 5.92
Stacking Effect End-Use Cooling

Table 2-57 Typical Savings Estimates for Premium Windows (Cooling and Heating)
Retrofit New Construction
Deemed Savings Unit ft2 Window Glass ft2 Window Glass
Average Unit Energy Savings 10.6 kWh 5.89 kWh
Average Unit Peak Demand Savings 1.55 W 0.32 W
Expected Useful Life 25 Years 25 Years
Average Material & Labor Cost $ 22.08 n/a
Average Incremental Cost n/a $ 5.92
Stacking Effect End-Use Heating, Cooling

71 Note that the reported gas impacts assume that if savings are being claimed for cooling only the facility is gas heated. If the facility
is electrically heated then these gas impacts are not applicable and savings should be based on the following table.

Efficient Windows 72
2.9.1. Definition of Eligible Equipment
In order to be considered eligible equipment windows must be independently tested and
certified according to the standards established by the National Fenestration Rating Council
(NFRC). While the NFRC does provide such testing and certification - any NFRC-licensed
independent certification and inspection agency can provide certification. One example of such
a body is the American Architectural Manufacturers Association (AAMA). In addition, eligible
windows must meet or exceed the following performance ratings:
Efficient Windows: SHGC = any and U-factor <= 0.42
Premium Windows: SHGC <= any and U-factor <= 0.3
Window films and shades are not eligible under this measure as they reduce the SHGC without
providing an appreciable improvement in the U-Value and in many circumstances their addition
would result in an increased heating load which negates or exceeds the reduction in cooling
loads.
2.9.2. Definition of Baseline Equipment
Baseline equipment for this measure is determined by the nature of the project. There are two
possible scenarios: retrofit (early replacement) or new construction.
Retrofit (Early Replacement)
If the project is retrofitting pre-existing equipment than the baseline efficiency is defined by the
pre-existing windows.
New Construction (Includes Major Remodel & Replace on Burn-Out)
For new construction, the baseline efficiency is defined as the minimum allowable window
performance in the prevailing building energy code or standard to which the project was
permitted. Current standards are defined by ASHRAE 90.1-2004 and 90.1-2007.
2.9.3. Algorithms
The following energy and demand savings algorithms are applicable for this measure:
Heating + Cooling
= ΔkWHeating * EFLH ΔkWCooling * EFLH
Heating out in t,Heating Heating
Cooling t,Cooling Cooling
peak Cooling

2.9.4. Definitions
ΔkWh Expected energy savings between baseline and installed equipment.
ΔkWpeak Expected demand reduction between baseline and installed equipment.

Efficient Windows 73
Heating/Cooling Heating Cooling
in
out
t
COP Coefficient of performance found in Table 2-62.
COP = EER / 3.412
types are stipulated in Table 2-63. When available, actual system hours of
which occurs during Idaho Power’s peak period which can be found in Table

2.9.5. Stipulated Values
The following tables stipulate allowable values for each of the variables in the energy and
demand savings algorithms for this measure.
Table 2-58 Retrofit Deemed Savings per Sq. Ft.
Orientation Savings Type kWh/sq. ft. kW/sq. ft. kWh/sq. ft. kW/sq. ft.
North
South
West
East
Average

Efficient Windows 74
Table 2-59 New Construction Deemed Savings per Sq. Ft.
Orientation Savings Type kWh/sq. ft. kW/sq. ft.
North
South
West
East
Average

Efficient Windows 75
Table 2-60 Calculated Heating/Cooling Eti for each Building Type 72
Weather Zone 5 Weather Zone 6
Heating Cooling Heating Cooling
Building Type Electric Heat Chiller DX Electric Heat Chiller DX
Education - - 43.3 - 124.06 - 47.41 - 143.21
Health/Medical - 44.95 - 131.78 - 48.23 - 133.79 -
Manufacturing - Light 41.7 - 119.09 - 44.25 - 132.94 -
Retail - Single-Story 41.7 - 117.66 - 42.73 - 128.46 -
Storage - Conditioned - 43.94 - 144.43 - 47.41 - 144.24

72 See spreadsheet “9-TypicalCalcs_Windows.xlsx” for assumptions and calculations used to estimate the typical unit energy
savings and incremental costs.

Efficient Windows 76
Table 2-61 Baseline U-Factor and SHGC for Each Building73
Building U-Factor North Facing Non-North Facing
Assembly 0.81 0.70 0.65
Education - Primary School 0.81 0.70 0.65
Education - Secondary School 0.81 0.70 0.65
Education - Community College 0.81 0.70 0.64
Education - University 1.04 0.83 0.84
Grocery 0.81 0.71 0.70
Health/Medical - Hospital 0.81 0.70 0.65
Health/Medical - Nursing Home 0.81 0.70 0.64
Lodging - Hotel 0.81 0.70 0.64
Lodging - Motel 0.81 0.70 0.64
Manufacturing - Bio/Tech 0.81 0.71 0.70
Manufacturing - Light Industrial 0.81 0.71 0.70
Office - Large 0.81 0.71 0.70
Office - Small 0.81 0.71 0.70
Restaurant - Sit-Down 0.81 0.71 0.70
Restaurant - Fast-Food 0.81 0.71 0.70
Retail - 3-Story Large 0.81 0.71 0.70
Retail - Single-Story Large 0.81 0.71 0.70
Retail - Small 0.81 0.71 0.70
Storage - Conditioned 0.81 0.71 0.70
Storage - Unconditioned 0.81 0.71 0.70
Warehouse - Refrigerated 0.81 0.71 0.70

Table 2-62 Average Heating/Cooling COP 74
Heating Cooling
Electric Resistance Heat Pump Chiller DX
2.6 3.6 5.1 2.9

73 See spreadsheet “9-TypicalCalcs_Windows.xlsx” for assumptions and calculations used to estimate the typical unit energy
savings and incremental costs.
74 Average COP by heating/cooling type stipulated in ASHRAE 90.1 2004 and 2007 code baseline efficiencies.

Efficient Windows 77
Table 2-63 Stipulated Equivalent Full Load Hours (EFLH) by Building Type 75
Zone 5 Zone 6
Building Type EFLH Cooling EFLH Heating EFLH Cooling EFLH Heating
Assembly 879 966 758 1059
Education - Primary School 203 299 173 408
Education - Secondary School 230 406 196 514
Education - Community College 556 326 530 456
Education - University 697 341 721 449
Grocery 3437 1825 3762 2011
Health/Medical - Hospital 1616 612 1409 679
Health/Medical - Nursing Home 1049 1399 884 1653
Lodging - Hotel 1121 621 1075 780
Lodging - Motel 978 682 937 796
Manufacturing - Light Industrial 530 699 415 1088
Office - Large 746 204 680 221
Office - Small 607 256 567 360
Restaurant - Sit-Down 811 624 716 709
Restaurant - Fast-Food 850 722 734 796
Retail - 3-Story Large 765 770 644 998
Retail - Single-Story Large 724 855 576 998
Retail - Small 726 886 619 1138
Storage - Conditioned 335 688 242 989

75 Prototypical building energy simulations were used to generate Idaho specific heating and cooling equivalent full load hours for
various buildings.

Efficient Windows 78
Table 2-64 HVAC Coincidence Factors by Building Type
Building Type CF
Assembly 0.47
Education - Community College 0.54
Education - Primary School 0.1
Education - Secondary School 0.1
Education - University 0.53
Grocery 0.54
Health/Medical - Hospital 0.82
Health/Medical - Nursing Home 0.49
Lodging - Hotel 0.67
Lodging - Motel 0.63
Manufacturing - Light Industrial 0.46
Office - Large 0.58
Office - Small 0.51
Restaurant - Fast-Food 0.48
Restaurant - Sit-Down 0.46
Retail - 3-Story Large 0.66
Retail - Single-Story Large 0.56
Retail - Small 0.49
Storage - Conditioned 0.41

Building Energy Management Controls 79
2.10. HVAC Controls
This section covers the implementation of HVAC controls in commercial buildings. HVAC
controls include economizers, demand controlled ventilation (DCV), and EMS controls. The
discussion of eligible equipment provides more detail regarding the individual measures. HVAC
controls garner energy savings by optimizing the algorithms by which HVAC equipment are
operated. The approach used in this TRM to estimate energy impacts from such measures is
based on DOE-2.2 simulations of prototypical commercial building models.76
The controls measures included in this chapter do not encompass equipment optimization,
retro-commissioning, or commissioning. Such projects are demonstrated to have significant
variance in energy impacts and short measure lives (lack of persistence). They are more
suitable for a custom approach and are not included in the TRM. Measures of this nature
include temperature set-point and equipment staging optimization, thermostat set-back
overrides, and behavioral or maintenance oriented measures.
Table 2-65 though Table 2-67 summarize ‘typical’ expected (per ton of cooling) energy impacts
for this measure. Typical values are based on the algorithms and stipulated values described
below. 77
Table 2-65 Typical Savings Estimates for Air-Side Economizer Only (New and Repair)
Retrofit New Construction
Deemed Savings Unit Ton of cooling Ton of cooling
Average Unit Energy Savings 285 kWh 190 kWh
Average Unit Peak Demand Savings .0144 kW .0129 kW
Average Unit Gas Savings 0 Therms 0 Therms
Expected Useful Life 15 Years 15 Years
Average Material & Labor Cost $ 155.01 (New) n/a

76 The prototypical building models are sourced from the DEER 2008.
77 See spreadsheet “10-TypicalCalcs_HVACcntrls.xlsx” for assumptions and calculations used to estimate the typical unit energy
savings and incremental costs. Also note that the savings figures represented in these tables give equal weight to the four HVAC
system types discussed later in this chapter

Building Energy Management Controls 80
Table 2-66 Typical Savings Estimates for Demand Controlled Ventilation Only
Retrofit New Construction
Deemed Savings Unit CFM of Air Controlled CFM of Air Controlled
Average Unit Energy Savings 0.82 kWh 0.34 kWh
Average Unit Peak Demand Savings 0.08 W 0.03 W
Average Unit Gas Savings 0.04 Therms 0.02 Therms
Expected Useful Life 15 Years 15 Years
Average Material & Labor Cost $0.44 n/a
Average Incremental Cost n/a $0.30
Stacking Effect End-Use n/a

Table 2-67 Typical Deemed Savings Estimates for EMS Controls w/ 2 Strategies Implemented78
Retrofit New Construction
Deemed Savings Unit Ton of cooling Ton of cooling
Average Unit Energy Savings 636 kWh 418 kWh
Average Unit Peak Demand Savings .11 kW .07 kW
Average Unit Gas Savings 6 Therms 6 Therms
Expected Useful Life 15 Years 15 Years
Average Material & Labor Cost $197.98 n/a
Average Incremental Cost n/a $162.49
Stacking Effect End-Use n/a

Table 2-68 Typical Deemed Savings Estimates for EMS Controls w/ 4 Strategies Implemented79
Retrofit New Construction
Deemed Savings Unit Ton of cooling Ton of cooling
Average Unit Energy Savings 794 kWh 484 kWh
Average Unit Peak Demand Savings .13 kW .08 kW
Average Unit Gas Savings 17 Therms 9 Therms
Expected Useful Life 15 Years 15 Years
Average Material & Labor Cost $197.98 n/a
Average Incremental Cost n/a $162.49
Stacking Effect End-Use n/a

78 Assumes that (2) controls measures are implemented on average.
79 Assumes that (2) controls measures are implemented on average.

Building Energy Management Controls 81
2.10.1. Definition of Eligible Equipment
Eligible equipment is based on applicable HVAC system type (note that any building with a
system type that isn’t included in Table 2-69 should follow a custom path) and appropriately
implementing the controls measures listed in Table 2-70. Note that evaporative cooling
equipment is not eligible for this measure.
Table 2-69 HVAC System Types
Item System Type
1 VAV with chilled water coils
2 Packaged Variable Air Volume System (PVAVS)
3 Packaged Variable Air Volume System (PVAVS) Gas Heat
4 Packaged Variable Air Volume System (PVAVS) Electric Reheat
5 Packaged Variable Volume and Temperature (PVVT)
6 Packaged Variable Volume and Temperature (PVVT) Heat Pump
7 Water Source Heat Pump (WSHP)
8 Ground Source Heat Pump (GSHP)
9 Packaged Rooftop Unit / Split System
10 Packaged Rooftop Heat Pump Unit
Note that detailed descriptions for each of the above system types can be found in ASHRAE
Handbook – Systems. A summary of the system types, their typical configurations, and how
they are modeled in eQuest80 can be found in Building Energy Use and Cost Analysis Program
Volume 3: Topics.81
Table 2-70 EMS Measures
Item Measure
1 Optimum Start/Stop
2 Economizer Controls
3 Demand Controlled Ventilation (DCV)
4 Supply Air Reset
5 Chilled Water Reset
6 Condenser Water Reset
Eligibility requirements for each of the control strategies listed above are as follows:
Optimum Start/Stop needed to meet the desired zone temperatures. The fan stop time is
Economizer Controls
80 The software package used to simulate energy impacts for this measure.
81 http://doe2.com/download/DOE-22/DOE22Vol3-Topics.pdf

Building Energy Management Controls 82
Demand Controlled Ventilation (DCV)
Supply Air Reset
Chilled Water Reset
Condenser Water Reset
2.10.2. Definition of Baseline Equipment
Baseline equipment for this measure is determined by the nature of the project. There are two
possible scenarios: retrofit (early replacement) or new construction.
Retrofit (Early Replacement)
The baseline equipment for retrofit projects is an existing mechanical HVAC system (see list in
Table 2-69 for eligible systems) that has not implemented the control strategy (or strategies)
claimed in the project. See Table 2-70 for a list of eligible control strategies. Note that
evaporative cooling equipment is not eligible for this measure.
New Construction (Includes Major Renovations)
The baseline equipment for new construction projects is an HVAC system (see list in Table 2-69
for eligible systems) that meets the local building energy codes and standards.
Code Compliance Considerations for HVAC Controls
Some of the EMS measures in Table 2-70 are required by code for certain buildings and HVAC
systems.
2.10.3. Algorithms
The following energy and demand savings algorithms are applicable for this measure:
∆∆
∆∆
2.10.4. Definitions
∆kWh Expected energy savings between baseline and installed equipment.
∆kW Expected demand reduction between baseline and installed equipment.
∆kWh/ton Energy savings on a per unit basis as stipulated in Table 2-71 though
∆kW/ton Demand reduction on a per unit basis as stipulated in Table 2-71 though
Cap

Building Energy Management Controls 83

2.10.5. Sources
1. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics: http://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm
2. Database for Energy Efficiency Resources (DEER) 2008.

Building Energy Management Controls 84
2.10.6. Stipulated Values
The following tables stipulate allowable values for each of the variables in the energy and
demand savings algorithms for this measure.
Table 2-71 Energy Savings for Retrofit EMS Controls Climate Zone 5
# of Measures HVAC System Type kWh/Ton kW/Ton
1 VAV with chilled water coils 514 0.078
2
3 VAV with chilled water coils 1,758 0.255
4 VAV with chilled water coils 1,783 0.273
VAV with chilled water coils 1,851 0.317
6
1 Packaged Variable Air Volume System (PVAVS) 362 0.155
2 Packaged Variable Air Volume System (PVAVS) 769 0.157
3 Packaged Variable Air Volume System (PVAVS) 810 0.172
4
5 Packaged Variable Air Volume System (PVAVS) n/a n/a
6 Packaged Variable Air Volume System (PVAVS) n/a n/a
1 Packaged Variable Air Volume System (PVAVS) Gas Heat 227 0.102
2
3 Packaged Variable Air Volume System (PVAVS) Gas Heat 349 0.110
4 Packaged Variable Air Volume System (PVAVS) Gas Heat 349 0.110
Packaged Variable Air Volume System (PVAVS) Gas Heat n/a n/a
6
1 Packaged Variable Air Volume System (PVAVS) Electric Reheat 966 0.101
2 Packaged Variable Air Volume System (PVAVS) Electric Reheat 1,077 0.102
3 Packaged Variable Air Volume System (PVAVS) Electric Reheat 1,642 0.108
4
5 Packaged Variable Air Volume System (PVAVS) Electric Reheat n/a n/a
6 Packaged Variable Air Volume System (PVAVS) Electric Reheat n/a n/a
1 Packaged Variable Volume and Temperature (PVVT) 225 0.105
2 Packaged Variable Volume and Temperature (PVVT) 417 0.107
3 Packaged Variable Volume and Temperature (PVVT) 421 0.117
4 Packaged Variable Volume and Temperature (PVVT) 421 0.117
5 Packaged Variable Volume and Temperature (PVVT) n/a n/a
6
1 Packaged Variable Volume and Temperature (PVVT) Heat Pump 382 0.105

Building Energy Management Controls 85
# of Measures HVAC System Type kWh/Ton kW/Ton
2 Packaged Variable Volume and Temperature (PVVT) Heat Pump 575 0.107
3 Packaged Variable Volume and Temperature (PVVT) Heat Pump 694 0.117
4 Packaged Variable Volume and Temperature (PVVT) Heat Pump 694 0.117
5 Packaged Variable Volume and Temperature (PVVT) Heat Pump n/a n/a
6
1 Water Source Heat Pump (WSHP) 258 0.104
2 Water Source Heat Pump (WSHP) 506 0.106
3 Water Source Heat Pump (WSHP) 566 0.116
5 Water Source Heat Pump (WSHP) n/a n/a
6 Water Source Heat Pump (WSHP) n/a n/a
1 Ground Source Heat Pump (GSHP) 239 0.077
2
3
4
5
6
Packaged Rooftop Unit / Split System 476 0.119
3 Packaged Rooftop Unit / Split System 476 0.119
Packaged Rooftop Unit / Split System 476 0.119
5 Packaged Rooftop Unit / Split System n/a n/a
6 Packaged Rooftop Unit / Split System n/a n/a
Packaged Rooftop Heat Pump Unit 626 0.119
Packaged Rooftop Heat Pump Unit 758 0.125
4 Packaged Rooftop Heat Pump Unit 758 0.125
Packaged Rooftop Heat Pump Unit n/a n/a
6 Packaged Rooftop Heat Pump Unit n/a n/a

Building Energy Management Controls 86
Table 2-72 Energy Savings for New Construction EMS Controls Climate Zone 5
# of Measures HVAC System Type kWh/Ton kW/Ton
1 VAV with chilled water coils 167 0.012
VAV with chilled water coils 550 0.013
VAV with chilled water coils 580 0.027
VAV with chilled water coils 583 0.027
VAV with chilled water coils 634 0.064
VAV with chilled water coils 660 0.077
Packaged Variable Air Volume System (PVAVS) 231 0.099
Packaged Variable Air Volume System (PVAVS) 543 0.100
Packaged Variable Air Volume System (PVAVS) 592 0.116
Packaged Variable Air Volume System (PVAVS) 592 0.116
Packaged Variable Air Volume System (PVAVS) n/a n/a
Packaged Variable Air Volume System (PVAVS) n/a n/a
Packaged Variable Air Volume System (PVAVS) Gas Heat 179 0.068
Packaged Variable Air Volume System (PVAVS) Gas Heat 283 0.069
Packaged Variable Air Volume System (PVAVS) Gas Heat 283 0.079
Packaged Variable Air Volume System (PVAVS) Gas Heat 283 0.079
Packaged Variable Air Volume System (PVAVS) Gas Heat n/a n/a
Packaged Variable Air Volume System (PVAVS) Gas Heat n/a n/a
Packaged Variable Air Volume System (PVAVS) Electric Reheat 468 0.068
Packaged Variable Air Volume System (PVAVS) Electric Reheat 570 0.069
Packaged Variable Air Volume System (PVAVS) Electric Reheat 776 0.069
Packaged Variable Air Volume System (PVAVS) Electric Reheat 776 0.069
Packaged Variable Air Volume System (PVAVS) Electric Reheat n/a n/a
Packaged Variable Air Volume System (PVAVS) Electric Reheat n/a n/a
Packaged Variable Volume and Temperature (PVVT) 137 0.072
Packaged Variable Volume and Temperature (PVVT) 306 0.074
Packaged Variable Volume and Temperature (PVVT) 311 0.085
Packaged Variable Volume and Temperature (PVVT) 311 0.085
Packaged Variable Volume and Temperature (PVVT) n/a n/a
Packaged Variable Volume and Temperature (PVVT) n/a n/a
Packaged Variable Volume and Temperature (PVVT) Heat Pump 271 0.072
Packaged Variable Volume and Temperature (PVVT) Heat Pump 441 0.074
Packaged Variable Volume and Temperature (PVVT) Heat Pump 559 0.086
Packaged Variable Volume and Temperature (PVVT) Heat Pump 559 0.086
Packaged Variable Volume and Temperature (PVVT) Heat Pump n/a n/a
Packaged Variable Volume and Temperature (PVVT) Heat Pump n/a n/a
Water Source Heat Pump (WSHP)

Building Energy Management Controls 87
# of Measures HVAC System Type kWh/Ton kW/Ton
2 320 0.013
3 380 0.024
4 380 0.024
5 n/a n/a
6 n/a n/a
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6

Building Energy Management Controls 88
Table 2-73 Energy Savings for Retrofit EMS Controls Climate Zone 6
# of Measures HVAC System Type kWh/Ton kW/Ton
1 VAV with chilled water coils 502 0.076
2 VAV with chilled water coils 1,212 0.085
4 VAV with chilled water coils 1,728 0.259
5 VAV with chilled water coils 1,806 0.302
6 VAV with chilled water coils 1,827 0.313
2 Packaged Variable Air Volume System (PVAVS) 677 0.137
3 Packaged Variable Air Volume System (PVAVS) 749 0.151
4 Packaged Variable Air Volume System (PVAVS) 749 0.151
6 Packaged Variable Air Volume System (PVAVS) n/a n/a
1 Packaged Variable Air Volume System (PVAVS) Gas Heat 209 0.078
2 Packaged Variable Air Volume System (PVAVS) Gas Heat 308 0.083
4 Packaged Variable Air Volume System (PVAVS) Gas Heat 308 0.089
5 Packaged Variable Air Volume System (PVAVS) Gas Heat n/a n/a
6 Packaged Variable Air Volume System (PVAVS) Gas Heat n/a n/a
2 Packaged Variable Air Volume System (PVAVS) Electric Reheat 1,142 0.091
3 Packaged Variable Air Volume System (PVAVS) Electric Reheat 1,663 0.092
4 Packaged Variable Air Volume System (PVAVS) Electric Reheat 1,663 0.092
6 Packaged Variable Air Volume System (PVAVS) Electric Reheat n/a n/a
1 Packaged Variable Volume and Temperature (PVVT) 203 0.082
2 Packaged Variable Volume and Temperature (PVVT) 373 0.099
4 Packaged Variable Volume and Temperature (PVVT) 376 0.106
5 Packaged Variable Volume and Temperature (PVVT) n/a n/a
6 Packaged Variable Volume and Temperature (PVVT) n/a n/a
Packaged Variable Volume and Temperature (PVVT) Heat Pump 601 0.099
Packaged Variable Volume and Temperature (PVVT) Heat Pump 769 0.106
Packaged Variable Volume and Temperature (PVVT) Heat Pump 769 0.106
Packaged Variable Volume and Temperature (PVVT) Heat Pump n/a n/a

Building Energy Management Controls 89
# of Measures HVAC System Type kWh/Ton kW/Ton
6
1
2 Water Source Heat Pump (WSHP)
3 Water Source Heat Pump (WSHP)
4 Water Source Heat Pump (WSHP)
6 Water Source Heat Pump (WSHP)
1 Ground Source Heat Pump (GSHP) 246 0.065
2 Ground Source Heat Pump (GSHP) 397 0.075
3 Ground Source Heat Pump (GSHP)
4 Ground Source Heat Pump (GSHP) 472 0.077
6 Ground Source Heat Pump (GSHP)
1 Packaged Variable Air Volume (VAV) Unit
2 Packaged Variable Air Volume (VAV) Unit
3 Packaged Variable Air Volume (VAV) Unit
4 Packaged Variable Air Volume (VAV) Unit
5 Packaged Variable Air Volume (VAV) Unit n/a n/a
2 Packaged Rooftop Unit / Split System
3 Packaged Rooftop Unit / Split System
4 Packaged Rooftop Unit / Split System
5 Packaged Rooftop Unit / Split System n/a n/a
6 Packaged Rooftop Unit / Split System n/a n/a

Building Energy Management Controls 90
Table 2-74 Energy Savings for New Construction EMS Controls Climate Zone 6
# of Measures HVAC System Type kWh/Ton kW/Ton
1 VAV with chilled water coils 166 0.014
2 VAV with chilled water coils 551 0.018
3 VAV with chilled water coils 574 0.028
4 VAV with chilled water coils 577 0.028
5 VAV with chilled water coils 628 0.067
6 VAV with chilled water coils 655 0.081
1 Packaged Variable Air Volume System (PVAVS) 206 0.083
2 Packaged Variable Air Volume System (PVAVS) 480 0.089
3 Packaged Variable Air Volume System (PVAVS) 578 0.101
4 Packaged Variable Air Volume System (PVAVS) 578 0.101
5 Packaged Variable Air Volume System (PVAVS) n/a n/a
6 Packaged Variable Air Volume System (PVAVS) n/a n/a
1 Packaged Variable Air Volume System (PVAVS) Gas Heat 164 0.057
2 Packaged Variable Air Volume System (PVAVS) Gas Heat 247 0.061
3 Packaged Variable Air Volume System (PVAVS) Gas Heat 247 0.069
4 Packaged Variable Air Volume System (PVAVS) Gas Heat 247 0.069
5 Packaged Variable Air Volume System (PVAVS) Gas Heat n/a n/a
6 Packaged Variable Air Volume System (PVAVS) Gas Heat n/a n/a
1 Packaged Variable Air Volume System (PVAVS) Electric Reheat 506 0.057
2 Packaged Variable Air Volume System (PVAVS) Electric Reheat 588 0.061
3 Packaged Variable Air Volume System (PVAVS) Electric Reheat 772 0.061
4 Packaged Variable Air Volume System (PVAVS) Electric Reheat 772 0.061
5 Packaged Variable Air Volume System (PVAVS) Electric Reheat n/a n/a
6 Packaged Variable Air Volume System (PVAVS) Electric Reheat n/a n/a
1 Packaged Variable Volume and Temperature (PVVT) 125 0.059
2 Packaged Variable Volume and Temperature (PVVT) 269 0.072
3 Packaged Variable Volume and Temperature (PVVT) 272 0.080
4 Packaged Variable Volume and Temperature (PVVT) 272 0.080
5 Packaged Variable Volume and Temperature (PVVT) n/a n/a
6 Packaged Variable Volume and Temperature (PVVT) n/a n/a
1 Packaged Variable Volume and Temperature (PVVT) Heat Pump 300 0.059
2 Packaged Variable Volume and Temperature (PVVT) Heat Pump 444 0.072
3 Packaged Variable Volume and Temperature (PVVT) Heat Pump 607 0.080
4 Packaged Variable Volume and Temperature (PVVT) Heat Pump 607 0.080
5 Packaged Variable Volume and Temperature (PVVT) Heat Pump n/a n/a
6 Packaged Variable Volume and Temperature (PVVT) Heat Pump n/a n/a
Water Source Heat Pump (WSHP) 170 0.112

Building Energy Management Controls 91
# of Measures HVAC System Type kWh/Ton kW/Ton
2
3
4
5
6

Building Energy Management Controls 92
Table 2-75 Energy Savings for Retrofit Economizer Controls Only Climate Zone 5
HVAC System Type kWh/Ton kW/Ton
VAV with chilled water coils 857 0.0031
Packaged Variable Air Volume System (PVAVS) 462 0.0020
Packaged Variable Air Volume System (PVAVS) Gas Heat 134 0.0020
Packaged Variable Air Volume System (PVAVS) Electric Reheat 125 0.0020
Water Source Heat Pump (WSHP) 279 0.0060
Ground Source Heat Pump (GSHP) 191 0.0060
Packaged Rooftop Unit / Split System 267 0.0929

Table 2-76 Energy Savings for New Construction Economizer Controls Only Climate Zone 5
HVAC System Type kWh/Ton kW/Ton
VAV with chilled water coils 448 0.0013
Packaged Variable Air Volume System (PVAVS) 353 0.0020
Packaged Variable Air Volume System (PVAVS) Gas Heat 115 0.0020
Packaged Variable Volume and Temperature (PVVT) 171 0.0040
Packaged Variable Volume and Temperature (PVVT) Heat Pump 171 0.0040
Water Source Heat Pump (WSHP) 170 -0.0550
Ground Source Heat Pump (GSHP) 127 0.0020
Packaged Rooftop Unit / Split System 194 0.0045

Building Energy Management Controls 93
Table 2-77 Energy Savings for Retrofit Economizer Controls Only Climate Zone 6
HVAC System Type kWh/Ton kW/Ton
VAV with chilled water coils 901 0.0122
Packaged Variable Air Volume System (PVAVS) 415 0.0070
Packaged Variable Air Volume System (PVAVS) Gas Heat 109 0.0070
Packaged Variable Air Volume System (PVAVS) Electric Reheat 104 0.0060
Packaged Variable Volume and Temperature (PVVT) 183 0.0190
Packaged Variable Volume and Temperature (PVVT) Heat Pump 183 0.0190
Water Source Heat Pump (WSHP)

Table 2-78 Energy Savings for New Construction Economizer Controls Only Climate Zone 6
HVAC System Type kWh/Ton kW/Ton
VAV with chilled water coils 453 0.0041
Packaged Variable Air Volume System (PVAVS) 311 0.0070
Packaged Variable Air Volume System (PVAVS) Gas Heat 95 0.0060
Packaged Variable Air Volume System (PVAVS) Electric Reheat 90 0.0060
Packaged Variable Volume and Temperature (PVVT) 148 0.0160

Building Energy Management Controls 94
Table 2-79 Energy Savings for Retrofit DCV Only Climate Zone 5
HVAC System Type kWh/CFM W/CFM
VAV with chilled water coils 2.75 0.57
Packaged Variable Air Volume System (PVAVS) 0.11 0.07
Packaged Variable Air Volume System (PVAVS) Gas Heat -0.06 0.03
Packaged Variable Air Volume System (PVAVS) Electric Reheat 2.25 0.01
Packaged Variable Volume and Temperature (PVVT) 0.02 0.03
Packaged Variable Volume and Temperature (PVVT) Heat Pump 0.57 0.03
Water Source Heat Pump (WSHP)

Table 2-80 Energy Savings for New Construction DCV Only Climate Zone 5
HVAC System Type kWh/CFM W/CFM
VAV with chilled water coils 0.09 0.035
Packaged Variable Air Volume System (PVAVS) 0.13 0.069

Ground Source Heat Pump (GSHP) 0.55 0.022

Building Energy Management Controls 95
Table 2-81 Energy Savings for Retrofit DCV Only Climate Zone 6
HVAC System Type kWh/CFM W/CFM
VAV with chilled water coils 2.79 0.592
Packaged Variable Air Volume System (PVAVS) 0.22 0.060
Packaged Variable Air Volume System (PVAVS) Gas Heat -0.15 0.019
Packaged Variable Air Volume System (PVAVS) Electric Reheat 2.09 -0.013
Packaged Variable Volume and Temperature (PVVT) 0.004 0.019
Packaged Variable Volume and Temperature (PVVT) Heat Pump 0.80 0.018
Water Source Heat Pump (WSHP) 0.93 0.053
Ground Source Heat Pump (GSHP) 0.73 0.029
Packaged Rooftop Unit / Split System -0.10 0.005
Packaged Rooftop Heat Pump Unit 0.94 0.004

Table 2-82 Unit Energy Savings for New Construction DCV Only Climate Zone 6
HVAC System Type kWh/CFM W/CFM
VAV with chilled water coils 0.05 0.028
Packaged Variable Air Volume System (PVAVS) 0.29 0.052
Packaged Variable Air Volume System (PVAVS) Gas Heat -0.59 0.019
Packaged Variable Air Volume System (PVAVS) Electric Reheat 0.88 -0.027
Packaged Variable Volume and Temperature (PVVT) 0.004 0.017

Building Energy Management Controls 96

2.11. Hotel/Motel Guestroom Energy Management Systems
The following algorithms and assumptions are applicable to occupancy based Guest Room
Energy Management Systems (GREM) installed in motel and hotel guest rooms. These systems
use one or more methods to determine whether or not the guest room is occupied. If the room is
un-occupied for a predetermined amount of time (typically 15 - 30 min) the thermostat set-point
is set-back.
Table 2-83 through Table 2-85 summarize the ‘typical’ expected (per Ton) energy impacts for
this measure. Typical values are based on the algorithms and stipulated values described below
and data from past program participants.82
Table 2-83 Typical Savings Estimates for GREM (w/o Housekeeping Set-Backs)
Retrofit IECC 2009 IECC 2012
Deemed Savings Unit Ton Ton Ton
Average Unit Energy Savings 1,095 kWh 965 kWh 951 kWh
Average Unit Peak Demand Savings 0 kW 0 kW 0 kW
Expected Useful Life 11 Years 11 Years 11 Years
Average Material & Labor Cost $150.61 - -
Average Incremental Cost - $57.50 $57.50
Stacking Effect End-Use Heating, Cooling

Table 2-84 Typical Savings Estimates for GREM (With Housekeeping Set-Backs)
Retrofit IECC 2009 IECC 2012
Deemed Savings Unit Ton Ton Ton
Average Unit Energy Savings 235 kWh 196 kWh 194 kWh
Average Unit Peak Demand Savings 0 kW 0 kW 0 kW
Expected Useful Life 11 Years 11 Years 11 Years
Average Material & Labor Cost $150.61 - -
Average Incremental Cost - $57.50 $57.50
Stacking Effect End-Use Heating, Cooling

82 See spreadsheet “11-TypicalCalcs_GREM.xlsx” for assumptions and calculations used to estimate the typical unit energy savings
and incremental costs. Note that due to the limited savings available for gas heated facilities the numbers in these tables account
only for electric heating fuel system types (e.g. heat-pumps and electric resistance coils).

Hotel/Motel Guestroom Energy Management Systems 97
Table 2-85 Typical Savings Estimates for GREM (Average)83
Retrofit IECC 2009 IECC 2012
Deemed Savings Unit Ton Ton Ton
Average Unit Energy Savings 665 kWh 581 kWh 572 kWh
Average Unit Peak Demand Savings 0 kW 0 kW 0 kW
Expected Useful Life 11 Years 11 Years 11 Years
Average Material & Labor Cost $150.61 - -
Average Incremental Cost - $57.50 $57.50
Stacking Effect End-Use Heating, Cooling

2.11.1. Definition of Eligible Equipment
Eligible systems include any occupancy based thermostatic set-back controls controlling an
electrically heated system. Systems can be centralized or local controls. Systems must set-back
room space temperatures by a minimum of 8 degrees F when the room is determined to be
unoccupied. Temperature set-back must occur no longer than 30 minutes after the room is
determined unoccupied. Eligible systems include, thermostat based controls, room key-card
controls, and system check-in/check-out controls.
2.11.2. Definition of Baseline Equipment
There are two possible project baseline scenarios – retrofit and new construction. However;
there are currently no building energy code requirements (as defined in ASHRAE 90.1) which
mandate installation of Guestroom Occupancy Control Systems. As such the baseline for retrofit
and new construction projects only differ in the efficiency of the existing HVAC systems and
building envelope.
Retrofit (Early Replacement)
Baseline equipment for this measure is defined as a non-occupant based room thermostat
(either manual or programmable) installed in the existing room.
New Construction (Includes Major Remodel)
Baseline equipment for this measure is defined as a non-occupant based room thermostat
(either manual or programmable) installed in the designed room. Recently Idaho adopted IECC
2012 as the energy efficiency standard for new construction. Given the recent adoption the
programs are expected to see participants permitted to either of these standards and savings
for both are provided.
83 The savings represented in this table give equal weight to the two prevailing baseline conditions (e.g. with and without a
housekeeping set-back).

Hotel/Motel Guestroom Energy Management Systems 98
2.11.3. Algorithms
The following energy and demand savings algorithms are applicable for this measure:
ΔkWh = kWh/Unit * NUnits
ΔkWhUnittypical = Σ(ΔkWh/Uniti * Wi)
2.11.4. Definitions
ΔkWh Expected energy savings between baseline and installed equipment.
ΔkWh/Unit Per unit energy savings as stipulated in Table 2-86 and Table 2-87 according to case temperatures.
ΔkWh/Unittypical Typical measure savings on a per unit basis.
ΔkWh/Uniti housekeeping practices, weather zone, and heating fuel source.
Wi Population weight for each ΔkWh/Uniti. Calculated by dividing the expected number of participants with ΔkWh/Uniti by the total number of
expected participants.
2.11.5. Sources
1. Prototypical hotel and motel simulation models were developed in EnergyPlus by ADM
Associates Inc. for this measure.
2. U.S. Department of Energy Report on PTAC and PTHP energy use in Lodging facilities:
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/commercial/pdfs/ptac_pthps
_tsd_ch7_09-30-08.pdf
3. Kidder Mathews, Real Estate Market Review (Seattle Hotel). 2010
2.11.6. Stipulated Values
The following tables stipulate allowable values for each of the variables in the energy and
demand savings algorithms for this measure.84
Table 2-86 Unit Energy Savings for GREM Systems - Retrofit
Housekeeping
Setback
Weather Zone 5 Weather Zone 6
Heat-Gas Electric Heat-Gas Electric

84 Savings values are based on an assumed 46% annual average guestroom vacancy rate. This assumption is based on real estate
market research for Boise, Idaho Falls, and Post Falls in 2010.

Hotel/Motel Guestroom Energy Management Systems 99
Table 2-87 Unit Energy Savings for GREM Systems – New Construction (IECC 2009)
Housekeeping Setback
Weather Zone 5 Weather Zone 6
Heat-Gas Electric Heat-Gas Electric

Table 2-88 Unit Energy Savings for GREM Systems – New Construction (IECC 2012)
Housekeeping Setback
Weather Zone 5 Weather Zone 6
Heat-Gas Electric Heat-Gas Electric

High Efficiency Air Conditioning 100
2.12. High Efficiency Air Conditioning
The following algorithms and assumptions are applicable to energy efficient air conditioning
units installed in commercial spaces. This measure applies to projects which represent either
equipment retrofit or new construction (including major renovations).
Table 2-88 and Table 2-89 summarizes the ‘typical’ expected (per ton) unit energy impacts for
this measure.85 Typical values are based on algorithms and stipulated values described below
and data from past program participants. Note that Table 2-89 reports the incremental savings
and costs associated with going from CEE Tier 1 to CEE Tier 2 and are therefore additive with
those reported in Table 2-88.
Table 2-89 Typical Savings Estimates for High Efficiency Air Conditioning – Base to CEE Tier 1
Retrofit IECC 2009 IECC 2012
Average Unit Peak Demand Savings 0.15 kW .06 kW .07 kW
Average Incremental Cost n/a $ 144.49 $ 158.83

Table 2-90 Typical Savings Estimates for High Efficiency Air Conditioning – CEE Tier 1 to CEE
Tier 2
Retrofit IECC 2009 IECC 2012
Deemed Savings Unit Tons Tons Tons
Average Unit Energy Savings 48 kWh 48 kWh 48 kWh
Average Unit Peak Demand Savings 0.03 kW .03 kW .03 kW
Expected Useful Life 15 Years 15 Years 15 Years
Average Material & Labor Cost n/a n/a n/a
Average Incremental Cost $ 98.54 $ 98.54 $ 98.54
Stacking Effect End-Use Cooling

2.12.1. Definition of Eligible Equipment
All commercial unitary and split air conditioning system are eligible (This includes Package
Terminal Air Conditioners) provided the installed equipment meets or exceeds current
85 See spreadsheet “11-TypicalCalcs_GREM.xlsx” for assumptions and calculations used to estimate the typical unit energy savings
and incremental costs.

High Efficiency Air Conditioning 101
Consortium for Energy Efficiency (CEE) Tier 1 efficiencies. High efficiency chillers are not
eligible under this measure, but are included as a separate measure in this document. Note that
projects replacing pre-existing heat-pump units with A/C only are eligible under this measure –
though no impacts are considered for the heating component. Eligibility is determined by
calculating the EER, SEER, and/or the IEER for the installed unit.
2.12.2. Definition of Baseline Equipment
Baseline equipment for this measure is determined by the nature of the project. There are two
possible scenarios: retrofit (early replacement) or new construction.
Retrofit (Early Replacement)
If the project is retrofitting pre-existing equipment in working condition then the baseline
efficiency is defined by the pre-existing equipment. If the equipment being replaced is not in
working order, then this is considered “replace on burn-out” and the baseline becomes new
construction. Note that units replacing window/wall mounted air-conditioners, room air-
conditioners, and/or evaporative cooling are not eligible for early replacement and are
considered “New Construction.”
New Construction (Includes Major Remodel & Replace on Burn-Out)
For New Construction, the baseline efficiency is defined as the minimum allowable EER by the
prevailing building energy code or standard according to which the project was permitted.
Current applicable standards are defined by ASHRAE 90.1-2004 and 90.1-2007. Recently Idaho
adopted IECC 2012 as the energy efficiency standard for new construction. Given the recent
adoption the programs are expected to see participants permitted to either of these standards
and savings for both are provided. Note that this only impacts the savings for CEE Tier 1 units.
The baseline efficiency for Tier 1 units is CEE Tier 0 (or code as applicable) while the baseline
efficiency for Tier 2 units is CEE Tier 1.
2.12.3. Algorithms
The following energy and demand savings algorithms are applicable for this measure:
ΔkWh = Cap * (1/SEERbase – 1/SEERInstalled) / 1000 * EFLH
ΔkW = Cap * (1/EERbase – 1/EERInstalled) / 1000 * CF
2.12.4. Definitions
ΔkWh Expected energy savings between baseline and installed equipment.
ΔkWpeak Expected peak demand savings.
EFLH Equivalent full load cooling hours of. Idaho specific EFLH are by weather zone and
building in Table 2-94.

High Efficiency Air Conditioning 102
CF Peak coincidence factor. Represents the % of the connected load reduction which occurs during Idaho Power’s peak period.
EER Energy Efficiency Ratio for base and installed systems. This is defined as the ratio of
the cooling capacity of the air conditioner in British Thermal Units per hour, to the total electrical input in watts. Since ASHRAE does not provide EER requirements for air-
cooled air conditioners < 65,000 Btu/h, assume the following conversion:
EER ≈ -0.02 * SEER2 + 1.12 * SEER
SEER Seasonal Energy efficiency ratio of the air conditioning unit. This is defined as the
ratio of the Annual cooling provided by the air conditioner (in BTUs), to electrical input (in Watts). SEER or IEER are unknown or unavailable use the following formula to estimate from
the EER: 86
2
Cap Nominal cooling capaity in kBTU/Hr (1 ton = 12,000BTU/Hr)
2.12.5. Sources
1. ASHRAE, Standard 90.1-2004.
2. ASHRAE, Standard 90.1-2007.
3. California DEER Prototypical Simulation models (modified), eQUEST-DEER 3-5.87
4. California DEER Effective Useful Life worksheets: EUL_Summary_10-1-08.California
DEER Incremental Cost worksheets: Revised DEER Measure Cost Summary
(05_30_2008) Revised (06_02_2008).xls
5. 2012 CEE building efficiency standards
2.12.6. Stipulated Values
The following tables stipulate allowable values for each of the variables in the energy and
demand savings algorithms for this measure.

86 Note that this formula is an approximation and should only be applied to EER values up to 15 EER.
87 Prototypical building energy simulations were used to generate Idaho specific Heating and Cooling Interactive Factors and
Coincidence factors for various building and heating fuel types.

High Efficiency Air Conditioning 103

Table 2-91 Deemed Savings for High Efficiency A/C – Retrofit Baseline to CEE Tier 1
Measure Description Expected Savings Expected Savings Measure Cost [$/Ton]
Standard 5 ton or less unit – 11.8 SEER 0.08 176.5 $1,390.27
Standard 5-11 ton AC unit – 11.6 EER 0.12 181.1 $845.26
Standard 11-19 ton AC unit – 11.6 EER 0.13 170.0 $745.21
Standard 19-64 ton AC unit – 10.4 EER 0.13 179.7 $847.79
Standard 64 ton or greater unit – 9.8 EER 0.14 230.3 $781.57
Standard 5 ton or less unit – Water Cooled 14 EER 0.15 326.1 $855.23
Standard 5-11 ton AC unit – Water Cooled 13.9 EER 0.19 268.4 $767.93
Standard 11 ton or greater unit – Water Cooled 13.9 EER 0.21 286.8 $1,481.90
Standard All Capacities - PTAC 0.10 145.1 $1,020.09
Standard 5 ton or less VRF - 14 SEER 0.09 176.5 $1,142.71
Standard 5-11 ton VRF - 11.7 EER 0.23 268.8 $644.93
Standard 11-19 ton VRF - 11.7 EER 0.22 264.6 $634.98
Standard 19-64 ton VRF - 10.5 EER 0.24 283.2 $805.76

Table 2-92 Deemed Savings for High Efficiency A/C – New Construction (IECC 2009) Baseline
to CEE Tier 1
Measure Description Savings Savings Incremental
Cost [$/Ton]
Standard 5 ton or less unit – 11.8 SEER 0.03 50.9 $106.50
Standard 5-11 ton AC unit – 11.6 EER 0.03 47.4 $43.83
Standard 11-19 ton AC unit – 11.6 EER 0.02 31.4 $16.93
Standard 19-64 ton AC unit – 10.4 EER 0.02 30.6 $69.30
Standard 64 ton or greater unit – 9.8 EER 0.04 67.3 $136.63
Standard 5 ton or less unit – Water Cooled 14 EER 0.13 200.9 $207.12
Standard 5-11 ton AC unit – Water Cooled 13.9 EER 0.09 137.5 $278.96
Standard 11 ton or greater unit – Water Cooled 13.9 EER 0.10 148.2 $266.83
Standard All Capacities - PTAC 0.10 145.1 $188.16
Standard 5 ton or less VRF - 14 SEER 0.04 50.9 $271.18
Standard 5-11 ton VRF - 11.7 EER 0.13 137.5 $127.28
Standard 11-19 ton VRF - 11.7 EER 0.13 128.5 $93.51
Standard 19-64 ton VRF - 10.5 EER 0.14 137.2 $180.02

High Efficiency Air Conditioning 104
Table 2-93 Deemed Savings for High Efficiency A/C – New Construction (IECC 2012) Baseline
to CEE Tier 1
Measure Description Savings Savings Incremental
Cost [$/Ton]
Standard 5 ton or less unit – 11.8 SEER 0.03 50.9 $106.50
Standard 5-11 ton AC unit – 11.6 EER 0.07 101.6 $87.65
Standard 11-19 ton AC unit – 11.6 EER 0.06 87.4 $44.03
Standard 19-64 ton AC unit – 10.4 EER 0.06 99.2 $207.91
Standard 64 ton or greater unit – 9.8 EER 0.07 112.8 $222.02
Standard 5 ton or less unit – Water Cooled 14 EER 0.09 137.8 $107.76
Standard 5-11 ton AC unit – Water Cooled 13.9 EER 0.10 149.8 $298.89
Standard 11 ton or greater unit – Water Cooled 13.9 EER 0.07 105.0 $200.12
Standard All Capacities - PTAC 0.03 36.4 $87.75
Standard 5 ton or less VRF - 14 SEER 0.04 50.9 $271.18
Standard 5-11 ton VRF - 11.7 EER 0.13 190.7 $171.11
Standard 11-19 ton VRF - 11.7 EER 0.13 183.6 $120.60
Standard 19-64 ton VRF - 10.5 EER 0.14 204.4 $318.63

Table 2-94 Deemed Savings for High Efficiency A/C – CEE Tier 1 to CEE Tier 288
Base Description Savings Savings Incremental Cost
Standard 5 ton or less unit – 12.3 SEER 0.028 44.1 $106.50
Standard 5-11 ton AC unit – 12.1 EER 0.033 51.6 $54.78
Standard 11-19 ton AC unit – 12.1 EER 0.026 39.9 $23.71
Standard 19-64 ton AC unit – 10.7 EER 0.043 67.7 $173.26
Standard 64 ton or greater unit – 10.3 EER 0.023 36.6 $85.39
Standard 5 ton or less VRF - 14 SEER 0.02 44.1 $285.03

88 Note that CEE Tier 2 savings are the incremental savings (and cost) between Tier 1 and Tier 2.

High Efficiency Air Conditioning 105
Table 2-95 Stipulated Equivalent Full Load Cooling and Heating Hours (EFLH) by Building
Type 89
Zone 5 Zone 6
Building Type
Assembly 879 966 758 1059
Education - Primary School 203 299 173 408
Education - Secondary School 230 406 196 514
Education - Community College 556 326 530 456
Education - University 697 341 721 449
Grocery 3437 1825 3762 2011
Health/Medical - Hospital 1616 612 1409 679
Health/Medical - Nursing Home 1049 1399 884 1653
Lodging - Hotel 1121 621 1075 780
Lodging - Motel 978 682 937 796
Manufacturing - Light Industrial 530 699 415 1088
Office - Large 746 204 680 221
Office - Small 607 256 567 360
Restaurant - Sit-Down 811 624 716 709
Restaurant - Fast-Food 850 722 734 796
Retail - 3-Story Large 765 770 644 998
Retail - Single-Story Large 724 855 576 998
Retail - Small 726 886 619 1138

89 Prototypical building energy simulations were used to generate Idaho specific heating and cooling equivalent full load hours for
various buildings.

High Efficiency Air Conditioning 106
Table 2-96 HVAC Coincidence Factors by Building Type
Building Type Coincidence Factor
Assembly 0.47
Education - Community College 0.54
Education - Primary School 0.1
Education - Secondary School 0.1
Education - University 0.53
Grocery 0.54
Health/Medical - Hospital 0.82
Health/Medical - Nursing Home 0.49
Lodging - Hotel 0.67
Lodging - Motel 0.63
Manufacturing - Light Industrial 0.46
Office - Large 0.58
Office - Small 0.51
Restaurant - Fast-Food 0.48
Restaurant - Sit-Down 0.46
Retail - 3-Story Large 0.66
Retail - Single-Story Large 0.56
Retail - Small 0.49
Storage - Conditioned 0.41

High Efficiency Air Conditioning 107
Table 2-97 CEE Minimum Efficiencies by Unit Type for All Tiers90
Equipment Size Heating Subcategory Tier 0 Tier 1 Tier 2
Air Conditioners,
Air Cooled (Cooling Mode)
<65,000
Btu/h All
Split System
Single Package
≥65,000 Btu/h and
<135,000 Btu/h
Electric Res.
Or None
Split System and
Single Package
All Other Split System and
Single Package
≥135,000 Btu/h and
<240,000 Btu/h
Electric Res.
Or None
Split System and
Single Package
All Other Split System and
Single Package
≥240,000 Btu/h and
<760,000 Btu/h
Electric Res.
Or None
Split System and
Single Package
All Other Split System and
Single Package
≥760,000
Btu/h
Electric Res.
Or None
Split System and
Single Package
All Other Split System and
Single Package
Air
Conditioners, Water Cooled
<65,000 All Split System and NA 14.0 EER NA*
≥65,000 Btu/h and
<135,000 Btu/h
Electric Res.
Or None
Split System and
Single Package
All Other Split System and
Single Package
≥135,000
Btu/h
Electric Res.
Or None
Split System and
Single Package
All Other Split System and
Single Package
VRF Air Cooled
(Cooling Mode)
<65,000
Btu/h All Multisplit System NA 14.0 SEER 15.0 SEER
≥65,000 Btu/h and <135,000 Electric Res.
Or None Multisplit System NA 11.7 EER
14.9 IEER NA
90 Values obtained from 2012 CEE building efficiency standards for unitary air conditioning units.

High Efficiency Air Conditioning 108
Equipment
Type
Size
Category
Heating
Section Type Subcategory Tier 0 Tier 1 Tier 2
≥135,000
Btu/h and <240,000 Electric Res. Or None Multisplit System NA 11.7 EER
14.4 IEER NA
≥240,000 Electric Res.
Or None Multisplit System NA 10.5 EER NA

High Efficiency Pumps 109
2.13. High Efficiency Heat Pumps
The following algorithms and assumptions are applicable to energy efficient heat pump units
installed in commercial spaces. This measure applies to projects which represent either
equipment retrofit or new construction (including major renovations).
Table 2-97 through Table 2-99 summarize the ‘typical’ expected (per ton) unit energy impacts
for this measure. Typical values are based on algorithms and stipulated values described below
and data from past program participants. 91 Note that the values listed the tables below are
averaged across each of the system efficiency and tonnage categories offered by the program.
Table 2-103 through Table 2-108 at the end of this section provide individual savings and
materials/labor costs.
Table 2-98 Typical Savings Estimates for High Efficiency Heat Pumps - Base to CEE Tier 1
(Cooling Only)
Retrofit IECC 2009 IECC 2012
Deemed Savings Unit Tons Tons Tons
Average Unit Energy Savings 213 kWh 79 kWh 87 kWh
Average Unit Peak Demand Savings 0.15 kW .06 kW .05 kW
Expected Useful Life 15 Years 15 Years 15 Years
Average Material & Labor Cost $ 1,103 n/a n/a
Average Incremental Cost n/a $ 339 $ 339
Stacking Effect End-Use Cooling

Table 2-99 Typical Savings Estimates for High Efficiency Heat Pumps - Base to CEE Tier 1
(Heating Only)
Retrofit IECC 2009 IECC 2012
Deemed Savings Unit Tons Tons Tons
Average Unit Energy Savings 1,098 kWh 685 kWh 245 kWh
Average Unit Peak Demand Savings 0 kW 0 kW 0 kW
Expected Useful Life 15 Years 15 Years 15 Years
Average Material & Labor Cost $ 1,103 n/a n/a
Average Incremental Cost n/a $ 339 $ 335
Stacking Effect End-Use Heating

91 See spreadsheet “14-TypicalCalcs_HeatPumps_v2.xlsx” for assumptions and calculations used to estimate the typical unit energy
savings and incremental costs.

High Efficiency Pumps 110
Table 2-100 Typical Savings Estimates for High Efficiency Heat Pumps - Base to CEE Tier 1
(Heating And Cooling)
Retrofit IECC 2009 IECC 2012

Table 2-101 Typical Savings Estimates for High Efficiency Heat Pumps - CEE Tier 1 to Tier 2
(Cooling Only)
Retrofit New Construction
Deemed Savings Unit Tons Tons
Average Unit Energy Savings 44 kWh 44 kWh
Average Unit Peak Demand Savings .03 kW .03 kW
Expected Useful Life 15 Years 15 Years
Average Material & Labor Cost n/a n/a
Average Incremental Cost $ 83 $ 83
Stacking Effect End-Use Cooling

Table 2-102 Typical Savings Estimates for High Efficiency Heat Pumps - CEE Tier 1 to Tier 2
(Heating Only)
Retrofit New Construction
Deemed Savings Unit Tons Tons
Average Unit Energy Savings 60 kWh 60 kWh
Average Unit Peak Demand Savings 0 kW 0 kW
Expected Useful Life 15 Years 15 Years
Average Material & Labor Cost n/a n/a
Average Incremental Cost $ 83 $ 83
Stacking Effect End-Use Heating

High Efficiency Pumps 111
Table 2-103 Typical Savings Estimates for High Efficiency Heat Pumps - CEE Tier 1 to Tier 2
(Heating and Cooling)
Retrofit New Construction
Deemed Savings Unit Tons Tons
Average Unit Energy Savings 104 kWh 104 kWh
Average Unit Peak Demand Savings .03 kW .03 kW
Expected Useful Life 15 Years 15 Years
Average Material & Labor Cost n/a n/a
Average Incremental Cost $ 83 $ 83
Stacking Effect End-Use Cooling, Heating

2.13.1. Definition of Eligible Equipment
All heat pump systems are eligible provided the installed equipment meets or exceeds current
Consortium for Energy Efficiency (CEE) Tier 1 efficiencies. Note that projects replacing pre-
existing A/C only units with heat-pump units are eligible under this measure. In such project the
heating component must use a new construction baseline whereas the cooling component can
use either (retrofit or new construction) baselines as deemed appropriate. Eligibility is
determined by calculating the EER, SEER, IEER, and/or HSPF as appropriate for the installed
unit.
2.13.2. Definition of Baseline Equipment
Baseline equipment for this measure is determined by the nature of the project. There are two
possible scenarios: retrofit (early replacement) or New construction.
Retrofit (Early Replacement)
If the project is retrofitting pre-existing equipment in working condition then the baseline
efficiency is defined by the pre-existing equipment. If the equipment being replaced is not in
working order, then this is considered “replace on burn-out” and the baseline becomes new
construction.
New Construction (Includes Major Remodel & Replace on Burn-Out)
For New Construction, the baseline efficiency is defined as the minimum allowable EER by the
prevailing building energy code or standard according to which the project was permitted.
Current applicable standards are defined by ASHRAE 90.1-2004 and 90.1-2007. Recently Idaho
adopted IECC 2012 as the energy efficiency standard for new construction. Given the recent
adoption the programs are expected to see participants permitted to either of these standards
and savings for both are provided. Note that this only impacts the savings for CEE Tier 1 unit.

High Efficiency Pumps 112
2.13.3. Algorithms
The following energy and demand savings algorithms are applicable for this measure:
ΔkWh = ΔkWhCool + ΔkWhHeat
= Cap * (1/EERbase, cool – 1/SEERInstalled, cool) / 1000 * EFLHCool +
Cap * (1/EERbase, Heat – 1/HSPFInstalled, Heat) / 1000 * EFLHHeat
ΔkWpeak = Cap * (1/EERbase, cool – 1/EERInstalled, cool) / 1000 * CF
2.13.4. Definitions
ΔkWh Expected energy savings between baseline and installed equipment.
ΔkWpeak Expected peak demand savings.
EFLH Equivalent full load cooling hours of. Idaho specific EFLH are by weather zone
and building in Table 2-106.
CF
which occurs during Idaho Power’s peak period.
EER Energy Efficiency Ratio for base and installed systems in cooling and heating modes. This is defined as the ratio of the cooling capacity of the air conditioner in
ASHRAE does not provide EER requirements for air-cooled air conditioners < 65,000 Btu/h, assume the following conversion:
EER ≈ -0.02 * SEER2 + 1.12 * SEER
SEER Seasonal Energy efficiency ratio of the air conditioning unit. This is defined as the ratio of the Annual cooling provided by the air conditioner (in BTUs), to the total
electrical input (in Watts). Note that the IEER is an appropriate equivalent. If the
SEER or IEER are unknown or unavailable use the following formula to estimate from the EER: 92

SEER = .0507 * EER2 + .5773 * EER + .4919
HSPF Heating Season Performance Factor. This is identical to the SEER (described above) as applied to Heat Pumps in heating mode. If only the heat pump COP is
available then use the following:

2
Cap Nominal cooling capaity in kBTU/Hr (1 ton = 12,000BTU/Hr)
92 Note that this formula is an approximation and should only be applied to EER values up to 15 EER.

High Efficiency Pumps 113
2.13.5. Sources
1. ASHRAE, Standard 90.1-2004.
2. ASHRAE, Standard 90.1-2007.
3. California DEER Prototypical Simulation models (modified), eQUEST-DEER 3-5.93
4. California DEER Effective Useful Life worksheets: EUL_Summary_10-1-08.California
DEER Incremental Cost worksheets: Revised DEER Measure Cost Summary
(05_30_2008) Revised (06_02_2008).xls
2.13.6. Stipulated Values
The following tables stipulate allowable values for each of the variables in the energy and
demand savings algorithms for this measure.
Table 2-104 Deemed Energy Savings for Efficient Heat Pumps – Retrofit base to CEE Tier 1 94
Measure Description Savings -
Cooling
Savings -
Cooling
Savings -
Heating
Savings -
All
Measure
Cost
Standard 5 ton or less unit – 14 SEER 0.13 176 274 450 $1,365
Standard 5-11 ton HP unit – 11.1 EER 0.11 161 1,599 1,760 $810
Standard 11-19 ton HP unit – 10.7 EER 0.12 163 1,869 2,032 $734
Standard 19-64 ton HP unit – 10.1 EER 0.16 237 1,869 2,105 $669
Standard 1.5 ton or less Water Source HP - 14 EER 0.20 275 642 918 $1,056
Standard 1.5-5 ton Water Source HP - 14 EER 0.16 215 751 966 $1,056
Standard 5-11 ton Water Source HP - 14 EER 0.16 215 852 1,068 $1,056
Groundwater-source HP Less than 11 Tons - 16 EER 0.28 371 844 1,215 $1,622
Groundsource HP Less than 11 Tons - 13 EER 0.20 327 1,605 1,932 $5,381
Package Terminal Heat Pump - 10.8 EER 0.10 134 397 530 $1,449
Standard 5 ton or less VRF - 14 SEER 0.15 181 246 427 $1,471
Standard 5-11 ton VRF - 11.2 EER 0.12 274 820 1,094 $879
Standard 11-19 ton VRF - 10.8 EER 0.12 274 790 1,063 $805
Standard greater than 19 ton VRF - 10.2 EER 0.17 355 790 1,145 $736

93 Prototypical building energy simulations were used to generate Idaho specific Heating and Cooling Interactive Factors and
Coincidence factors for various building and heating fuel types.
94 Heating COP was assumed to be 15% less efficient than the cooling EER after converting. The value was obtained from
comparing ASHRAE code standards for heating and cooling efficiencies. See spreadsheet “14-TypicalCalcs_HeatPumps_v3.xlsx”
for assumptions and calculations used to estimate the typical unit energy savings and incremental costs.

High Efficiency Pumps 114
Table 2-105 Deemed Energy Savings for Efficient Heat Pumps – New Construction (IECC
2009) Base to CEE Tier 1
Measure Description Demand Savings - Cooling Savings - Cooling Savings - Heating Savings - All Incr.Cost
Standard 5 ton or less unit – 14 SEER 0.04 51 74 125 $90
Standard 5-11 ton HP unit – 11.1 EER 0.01 19 1,038 1,058 $16
Standard 11-19 ton HP unit – 10.7 EER 0.02 21 1,245 1,266 $10
Standard 19-64 ton HP unit – 10.1 EER 0.05 70 1,245 1,315 $139
Standard 1.5 ton or less Water Source HP - 14 EER 0.11 145 345 490 $455
Standard 1.5-5 ton Water Source HP - 14 EER 0.07 96 430 526 $455
Standard 5-11 ton Water Source HP - 14 EER 0.07 96 510 606 $455
Groundwater-source HP Less than 11 Tons - 16 EER 0.18 238 539 777 $443
Groundsource HP Less than 11 Tons - 13 EER 0.11 185 1,014 1,199 $4,441
Package Terminal Heat Pump - 10.8 EER n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
Standard 5 ton or less VRF - 14 SEER 0.06 56 61 117 $216
Standard 5-11 ton VRF - 11.2 EER 0.02 133 259 391 $85
Standard 11-19 ton VRF - 10.8 EER 0.02 131 166 298 $81
Standard greater than 19 ton VRF - 10.2 EER 0.06 188 166 355 $206

Table 2-106 Deemed Energy Savings for Efficient Heat Pumps – New Construction (IECC
2012) Base to CEE Tier 1
Measure Description Demand Savings -
Cooling
Energy Savings -
Cooling
Energy Savings -
Heating
Energy Savings -
All Incr.Cost
Standard 5 ton or less unit – 14 SEER 0.04 51 74 125 $90
Standard 5-11 ton HP unit – 11.1 EER 0.01 13 317 329 $11
Standard 11-19 ton HP unit – 10.7 EER 0.01 82 283 365 $7
Standard 19-64 ton HP unit – 10.1 EER 0.04 109 283 392 $121
Standard 1.5 ton or less Water Source HP - 14 EER 0.11 145 281 426 $455
Standard 1.5-5 ton Water Source HP - 14 EER 0.07 96 281 377 $455
Standard 5-11 ton Water Source HP - 14 EER 0.07 96 281 377 $455
Groundwater-source HP Less than 11 Tons - 16 EER 0.08 106 107 213 $436
Groundsource HP Less than 11 Tons - 13 EER 0.09 206 146 352 $4,433
Package Terminal Heat Pump - 10.8 EER n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
Standard 5 ton or less VRF - 14 SEER 0.04 48 68 115 $216
Standard 5-11 ton VRF - 11.7 EER 0.04 52 79 52 $80
Standard 11-19 ton VRF – 11.3 EER 0.04 58 84 142 $78
Standard greater than 19 ton VRF – 10.1 EER 0.04 65 84 149 $188

High Efficiency Pumps 115
Table 2-107 Deemed Energy Savings for Efficient Heat Pumps – CEE Tier 1 to Tier 2
Measure Description Demand Savings - Cooling
Energy Savings - Cooling
Energy Savings - Heating
Energy Savings - All
Incr. Cost
Standard 5 ton or less unit – 14 SEER 0.028 44.1 60.4 104.5 $75
Standard 5 ton or less VRF - 14 SEER 0.02 39.4 56.8 96.2 $236

Table 2-108 Stipulated Equivalent Full Load Hours (EFLH) by Building Type 95
Building Type
Assembly 879 966 758 1059
Education - Primary School 203 299 173 408
Education - Secondary School 230 406 196 514
Education - Community College 556 326 530 456
Education - University 697 341 721 449
Grocery 3437 1825 3762 2011
Health/Medical - Hospital 1616 612 1409 679
Health/Medical - Nursing Home 1049 1399 884 1653
Lodging - Hotel 1121 621 1075 780
Lodging - Motel 978 682 937 796
Manufacturing - Light Industrial 530 699 415 1088
Office - Large 746 204 680 221
Office - Small 607 256 567 360
Restaurant - Sit-Down 811 624 716 709
Restaurant - Fast-Food 850 722 734 796
Retail - 3-Story Large 765 770 644 998
Retail - Single-Story Large 724 855 576 998
Retail - Small 726 886 619 1138
Storage - Conditioned 335 688 242 989

95 Prototypical building energy simulations were used to generate Idaho specific heating and cooling equivalent full load hours for
various buildings.

High Efficiency Pumps 116
Table 2-109 HVAC Coincidence Factors by Building Type
Building Type Coincidence Factor
Assembly 0.47
Education - Community College 0.54
Education - Primary School 0.1
Education - Secondary School 0.1
Education - University 0.53
Grocery 0.54
Health/Medical - Hospital 0.82
Health/Medical - Nursing Home 0.49
Lodging - Hotel 0.67
Lodging - Motel 0.63
Manufacturing - Light Industrial 0.46
Office - Large 0.58
Office - Small 0.51
Restaurant - Fast-Food 0.48
Restaurant - Sit-Down 0.46
Retail - 3-Story Large 0.66
Retail - Single-Story Large 0.56
Retail - Small 0.49
Storage - Conditioned 0.41

High Efficiency Pumps 117
Table 2-110 CEE Baseline Efficiency by Unit Type 96
Equipment
Type
Size
Category
Heating Section Subcategory Tier 0 Tier 1 Tier 2
Air Conditioners, Air Cooled (Cooling Mode)
<65,000 Btu/h All
Split System NA
Single Package NA
≥65,000
Btu/h and <135,000
Btu/h
Electric
Resistance
Split System
and Single 11.4 IEER 12.3 IEER NA*
All Other
Split System and Single 11.2 IEER 12.1 IEER NA*
≥135,000
Btu/h and <240,000
Btu/h
Electric
Resistance
Split System
and Single 11.0 IEER 11.9 IEER NA*
All Other
Split System and Single 10.8 IEER 11.7 IEER NA*
≥240,000
Btu/h and <760,000
Btu/h
Electric Resistance Split System and Single 10.4 IEER 10.9 IEER NA*
All Other
Split System
and Single 10.2 IEER 10.7 IEER NA*
Air Cooled (Heating Mode)
<65,000 Btu/h - Single Package NA 8.0 HSPF 8.5 HSPF
≥65,000
Btu/h and <135,000
Btu/h
- 47oF db/43oF NA 3.4 COP NA*
- 17oF db/15oF NA 2.4 COP NA*
≥135,000 Btu/h
- 47oF db/43oF NA 3.2 COP NA*
- 17oF db/15oF No Spec. 2.1 COP NA*
Water Source <135,000 All 86oF Entering No Spec. 14.0 EER NA*
Water Source <135,000 - 68oF Entering No Spec. 4.6 COP NA*

96 These values are from 2012 CEE

High Efficiency Chillers 118
2.14. High Efficiency Chillers
The following algorithms and assumptions are applicable to Electric Chillers installed in
commercial spaces. This measure applies to projects which represent either equipment retrofit
or new construction (including major renovations).
Table 2-109 summarizes the ‘typical’ expected unit energy impacts for this measure. Typical
values are based on algorithms and stipulated values described below and data from past
program participants. Note that the values listed in the table below are averaged across each of
the system efficiency and tonnage categories offered by the program. Table 2-110 through
Table 2-115 at the end of this section provide individual savings and materials/labor costs.
Table 2-111 Typical Savings Estimates for High Efficiency Chillers97
Retrofit New Construction
Deemed Savings Unit Tons Tons
Expected Useful Life 20 Years 20 Years
Stacking Effect End-Use Cooling
2.14.1. Definition of Eligible Equipment
All commercial chiller units are eligible provided the installed equipment meets or exceeds
current federal minimum efficiencies. Eligibility is determined by calculating the Integrated Part
Load Value (IPLV) for the installed unit. The algorithms and stipulated assumptions stipulated
for High Efficiency Chillers apply only to like-for-like chiller replacements and are not suited for
addition of variable speed drives (VSDs) or plant optimization.
Only primary chillers will qualify. Chillers intended for backup service only are not eligible. Air-
cooled chiller efficiencies must include condenser-fan energy consumption. Efficiency ratings for
IPLV must be based on ARI standard rating conditions per ARI-550-98 & ARI-590-98.
2.14.2. Definition of Baseline Equipment
Baseline equipment for this measure is determined by the nature of the project. There are two
possible scenarios: retrofit (early replacement) or new construction.
Retrofit (Early Replacement)
If the project is retrofitting pre-existing equipment in working condition then the baseline
efficiency is defined by the pre-existing equipment. If the equipment being replaced is not in
97 See spreadsheet “11-TypicalCalcs_GREM.xlsx” for assumptions and calculations used to estimate the typical unit energy savings
and incremental costs.

High Efficiency Chillers 119
working order, then this is considered “replace on burn-out” and the baseline becomes new
construction.
New Construction (Includes Major Remodel & Replace on Burn-Out)
For New Construction, the baseline efficiency is defined as the minimum allowable COP and
IPLV by the prevailing building energy code or standard according to which the project was
permitted. Current applicable standards are defined by ASHRAE 90.1-2004 and 90.1-2007.
2.14.3. Algorithms
The following energy and demand savings algorithms are applicable for this measure:
ΔkWh = Cap * (IPLVbase – IPLVmeas) * EFLH
ΔkW = Cap * (IPLVbase – IPLVmeas) * CF
ΔkWh/Uniti = (IPLVbase – IPLVmeas) * EFLHi
2.14.4. Definitions
ΔkWh Expected energy savings between baseline and installed equipment.
ΔkW Expected peak demand savings.
IPLV 98 Efficiency of high efficiency equipment expressed as Integrated Part Load Value in units of kW/Ton
Cap Chiller nominal cooling capacity in units of Tons
CF Peak coincidence factor. Represents the % of the connected load reduction which occurs during Idaho Power’s peak period.
EFLH Annual Equivalent Full Load cooling hours for chiller. Values for various building
types are stipulated in Table 2-113. When available, actual system hours of use should be used.
ΔkWh/Uniti Typical measure savings on a per unit basis per kBTU/hr.
2.14.5. Sources
1. ASHRAE, Standard 90.1-2004.
2. ASHRAE, Standard 90.1-2007.
3. California DEER Prototypical Simulation models (modified), eQUEST-DEER 3-5.99
98 Integrated Part Load Value is a seasonal average efficiency rating calculated in accordance with ARI Standard 550/590. It may be
presented using one of several sets of units: EER, kW/ton, or COP.
99 Prototypical building energy simulations were used to generate Idaho specific heating and cooling equivalent full load hours for
various buildings.

High Efficiency Chillers 120
4. California DEER Effective Useful Life worksheets: EUL_Summary_10-1-08.xls
5. California DEER Incremental Cost worksheets: Revised DEER Measure Cost Summary
(05_30_2008) Revised (06_02_2008).xls
2.14.6. Stipulated Values
The following tables stipulate allowable values for each of the variables in the energy and
demand savings algorithms for this measure.
Table 2-112 Deemed Measure Savings for Retrofit
Deemed Savings kW/Ton kWh/Ton Measure Cost
Air Cooled, with Condenser, Electronically All Sizes 0.258 622.26 $571.57
Water Cooled, Electrically Operated, Positive
Displacement (Reciprocating) 0.148 357.28 $582.74
Water Cooled, Electrically Operated, Centrifugal >150 and 0.088 211.2 $626.09

Table 2-113 Deemed Measure Savings for New Construction
Deemed Savings kW/Ton kWh/Ton Incremental Cost
Air Cooled, with Condenser, Electronically All Sizes 0.196 472.44 $86.12
Water Cooled, Electrically Operated, Positive
Displacement (Reciprocating)
>150 and 0.113 271.67 $49.52
Water Cooled, Electrically Operated, Centrifugal >150 and 0.056 135.62 $24.72

High Efficiency Chillers 121
Table 2-114 Minimum Efficiency Requirements
Equipment Type Size Category Minimum Efficiency
Air-Cooled Chiller with Condenser
< 150 Tons IPLV: 14.0 EER or
≥ 150 Tons IPLV: 14.0 EER or
Water Cooled Chiller electronically operated, reciprocating & positive displacement
< 75 Tons IPLV: 0.52 or less
≥ 75 and < 150 IPLV: 0.52 or less
≥ 150 and < 300 IPLV: 0.49 or less
≥ 300 Tons IPLV: 0.49 or less
Water Cooled Chiller electronically operated, centrifugal
< 150 Tons IPLV: 0.52 or less
≥ 150 and < 300 IPLV: 0.52 or less
≥ 300 and < 600 IPLV: 0.45 or less

High Efficiency Chillers 122
Table 2-115 Stipulated Equivalent Full Load Hours (EFLH) by Building Type 100
Zone 5 Zone 6
Assembly 879 966 758 1059
Education - Primary School 203 299 173 408
Education - Secondary School 230 406 196 514
Education - Community College 556 326 530 456
Education - University 697 341 721 449
Grocery 3437 1825 3762 2011
Health/Medical - Hospital 1616 612 1409 679
Health/Medical - Nursing Home 1049 1399 884 1653
Lodging - Hotel 1121 621 1075 780
Lodging - Motel 978 682 937 796
Manufacturing - Light Industrial 530 699 415 1088
Office - Large 746 204 680 221
Office - Small 607 256 567 360
Restaurant - Sit-Down 811 624 716 709
Restaurant - Fast-Food 850 722 734 796
Retail - 3-Story Large 765 770 644 998
Retail - Single-Story Large 724 855 576 998
Retail - Small 726 886 619 1138
Storage - Conditioned 335 688 242 989
Warehouse - Refrigerated 5096 79 5049 71

100 Prototypical building energy simulations were used to generate Idaho specific heating and cooling equivalent full load hours for
various buildings.

High Efficiency Chillers 123
Table 2-116 HVAC Coincidence Factors by Building Type
Building Type Coincidence Factor
Assembly 0.47
Education - Community College 0.54
Education - Primary School 0.10
Education - Secondary School 0.10
Education - University 0.53
Grocery 0.54
Health/Medical - Hospital 0.82
Health/Medical - Nursing Home 0.49
Lodging - Hotel 0.67
Lodging - Motel 0.63
Manufacturing - Light Industrial 0.46
Office - Large 0.58
Office - Small 0.51
Restaurant - Fast-Food 0.48
Restaurant - Sit-Down 0.46
Retail - 3-Story Large 0.66
Retail - Single-Story Large 0.56
Retail - Small 0.49
Storage - Conditioned 0.41

High Efficiency Chillers 124
Table 2-117 Code Baseline COP and IPLV by Unit Type 101
Equipment Type Size Minimum Efficiency Minimum Efficiency
Air Cooled, with Condenser, All Capacities 102
Air Cooled, without Condenser, All Capacities
Water Cooled, Electrically Operated, Positive Displacement All Capacities 5.05 IPLV 5.05 IPLV
Water Cooled, Electrically Operated,
Positive Displacement (Rotary and Scroll)
< 150 tons
≥ 150 tons and
≥ 300 tons
Water Cooled, Electrically Operated, Centrifugal
< 150 tons
≥ 150 tons and
≥ 300 tons
Water-Cooled Absorption Single All Capacities 0.70 COP 0.70 COP
Absorption Double Effect, Indirect-All Capacities
Absorption Double Effect, Direct-All Capacities
Equipment Type Size Minimum Efficiency Minimum Efficiency
Air Cooled, with Condenser, All Capacities 2.80
Air Cooled, without Condenser, All Capacities

101 These values are from Tables 6.8.1 in ASHRAE 90.1 for the unit type method. Note that values for both 2004 and 2007 versions
of Standard 90.1 are included. The chiller equipment requirements do not apply for chillers in low-temperature applications where
the design leaving fluid temperature is < 40oF. COP refers to the full load efficiency and IPLV refers to the part time load efficiency.
102 Note that all IPLV values are in units of COP which need to be converted to kW/Ton using the following formula: kW/Ton =
12/(COP*3.412)

Evaporative Coolers (Direct and Indirect) 125
2.15. Evaporative Coolers (Direct and Indirect)
Evaporative coolers provide an effective space cooling alternative to direct expansion units in
dry climates such as found in Idaho. Evaporative coolers can be designed in direct and indirect
configurations.
A direct evaporative cooler represents the simplest and most efficient approach by pulling air
directly through a wetted media to cool the air before dispersing it into the space. A direct
evaporative cooler will also humidify the incoming air which, depending on the ambient
conditions, can lead to high indoor humidity levels.
Indirect evaporative coolers employ heat exchangers to cool dry outside air on one side with
evaporatively cooled moist air on the other. The two air streams are kept separate and the moist
air exhausted outside while the dry cool air is supplied indoors. These systems are more
complex and often much larger than direct systems because they require more space for heat
large exchangers. However; indirect coolers do not increase the indoor humidity levels.103
Table 2-116 through Table 2-118 summarize the ‘typical’ expected unit energy impacts for this
measure. Typical values are based on the algorithms and stipulated values described below.
Table 2-118 Typical Savings Estimates for Evaporative Coolers (All)104
Retrofit IECC 2009 IECC 2012
Deemed Savings Unit Ton Ton Ton
Average Unit Energy Savings 392 kWh 353 kWh 342 kWh
Average Unit Peak Demand Savings 0.28 kW 0.26 kW 0.25 kW
Expected Useful Life 15 Years 15 Years 15 Years
Average Material & Labor Cost $1,654 - -
Average Incremental Cost - $840 $840
Stacking Effect End-Use Cooling

103 Except by the normal relationship between temperature and relative humidity.
104 Note that these figures assume a weighted average between direct and indirect evaporative coolers in both weather zones. See
spreadsheet “16-TypicalCalcs_EvapDirectIndirect.xlsx” for assumptions and calculations used to estimate the typical unit energy
savings and incremental costs.

Evaporative Coolers (Direct and Indirect) 126
Table 2-119 Typical Savings Estimates for Evaporative Coolers (Direct)105
Retrofit IECC 2009 IECC 2012
Deemed Savings Unit Ton Ton Ton
Average Unit Energy Savings 443 kWh 399 kWh 386 kWh
Average Unit Peak Demand Savings 0.32 kW 0.29 kW 0.28 kW
Expected Useful Life 15 Years 15 Years 15 Years
Average Material & Labor Cost $1,178 - -
Average Incremental Cost - $364 $364
Stacking Effect End-Use Cooling

Table 2-120 Typical Savings Estimates for Evaporative Coolers (Indirect)106
Retrofit IECC 2009 IECC 2012
Deemed Savings Unit Ton Ton Ton
Average Unit Energy Savings 316 kWh 285 kWh 276 kWh
Average Unit Peak Demand Savings 0.23 kW 0.21 kW 0.20 kW
Expected Useful Life 15 Years 15 Years 15 Years
Average Material & Labor Cost $2,367 - -
Average Incremental Cost - $1,553 $1,553
Stacking Effect End-Use Cooling
2.15.1. Definition of Eligible Equipment
Eligible equipment includes any direct or indirect evaporative cooler systems used to supplant
direct expansion (DX) system of equivalent size (or greater). Evaporatively pre-cooled DX
systems do not qualify under this measure.
2.15.2. Definition of Baseline Equipment
Baseline equipment for this measure is determined by the nature of the project. There are two
possible scenarios: retrofit (early replacement) or new construction.
Retrofit (Early Replacement)
Baseline equipment for retrofit projects is the pre-existing DX system.
New Construction (Includes Major Remodel)
Baseline equipment for New Construction projects is a new DX system meeting federal or local
building energy code (whichever is applicable) minimum efficiency requirements. Recently
105 Ibid. Note that these values are for Direct Evaporative units only.
106 Ibid. Note that these values are for Indirect Evaporative units only.

Evaporative Coolers (Direct and Indirect) 127
Idaho adopted IECC 2012 as the energy efficiency standard for new construction. Given the
recent adoption the programs are expected to see participants permitted to either of these
standards and savings for both are provided.
2.15.3. Algorithms
The following energy and demand savings algorithms are applicable for this measure:
ΔkWh = kWh/Unit * Cap
ΔkW = kW/Unit * Cap
2.15.4. Definitions
ΔkWh Expected energy savings between baseline and installed equipment.
ΔkW Expected peak demand savings between baseline and installed equipment.
Cap Nominal capacity (in Tons) of the air-cooled equipment
kWh/Unit Per unit energy savings as stipulated in Table 2-119 and Table 2-120.
kW/Unit Per unit demand savings as stipulated in Table 2-119 and Table 2-120.
2.15.5. Sources
1. California Energy Commission. Advanced Evaporative Cooling White Paper. 2004
2. Southwest Energy Efficiency Project & UC Davis Western Cooling Efficiency Center.
SWEEP / WCEC Workshop On Modern Evaporative Cooling Technologies. 2007
3. 3012-14 Non-DEER Ex Ante measure work papers submitted by Southern California
Edison and Pacific Gas and Electric. http://www.deeresources.com/
2.15.6. Stipulated Values
The following tables stipulate allowable values for each of the variables in the energy and
demand savings algorithms for this measure.
Table 2-121 Unit Energy Savings for Evaporative Coolers – Weather Zone 5
Retrofit
Measure kWh / Unit kW / Unit kWh / Unit kW / Unit kWh / Unit kW / Unit
Direct Evaporative 456 kWh 0.32 kW 410 kWh 0.29 kW 397 kWh 0.28 kW
326 kWh 0.23 kW 293 kWh 0.21 kW 284 kWh 0.20 kW

Evaporative Coolers (Direct and Indirect) 128
Table 2-122 Unit Energy Savings for Evaporative Coolers – Weather Zone 6
Retrofit
Measure kWh / Unit kW / Unit kWh / Unit kW / Unit kWh / Unit kW / Unit
Direct Evaporative 391 kWh 0.32 kW 352 kWh 0.29 kW 341 kWh 0.28 kW
Indirect Evaporative 279 kWh 0..23 kW 251 kWh 0.21 kW 243 kWh 0.20 kW

Evaporative Pre-Cooler (For Air-Cooled Condensers) 129
2.16. Evaporative Pre-Cooler (For Air-Cooled Condensers)
Evaporative pre-coolers, when added to an air-cooled condenser coil, can improve both
equipment capacity and energy efficiency. The algorithms and assumptions for this measure are
applicable to retrofits in which a separate evaporative cooling system is added onto an air-
cooled condenser. Such systems include saturated media, water nozzles (and associated water
piping), and a rigid frame. The additional equipment is used to evaporatively pre-cool ambient
air before it reaches the air-cooled condenser. This not a replacement of an air-cooled
condenser with an evaporative condenser. Typical applications include refrigeration systems
and air-cooled chillers.
The tables below summarize the ‘typical’ expected unit energy impacts for this measure. Typical
values are based on the algorithms and stipulated values described below.
Table 2-123 Typical Savings Estimates for Evaporative Pre-Cooler (Installed on Chillers)107
Retrofit New Construction
Deemed Savings Unit Ton Ton
Average Unit Energy Savings 106 kWh n/a
Average Unit Peak Demand Savings .09 kW n/a
Expected Useful Life 15 Years n/a
Average Material & Labor Cost $ 173 n/a
Average Incremental Cost n/a n/a
Stacking Effect End-Use Cooling

Table 2-124 Typical Savings Estimates for Evaporative Pre-Cooler (Installed on Refrigeration
Systems)108
Retrofit New Construction
Deemed Savings Unit Ton Ton
Average Unit Energy Savings 186 kWh n/a
Average Unit Peak Demand Savings .16 kW n/a
Expected Useful Life 15 Years n/a
Average Material & Labor Cost $ 173 n/a
Average Incremental Cost n/a n/a

107 See spreadsheet “17-TypicalCalcs_EvapPreCool.xlsx” for assumptions and calculations used to estimate the typical unit energy
savings and incremental costs.
108 See spreadsheet “17-TypicalCalcs_EvapPreCool.xlsx” for assumptions and calculations used to estimate the typical unit energy
savings and incremental costs.

Evaporative Pre-Cooler (For Air-Cooled Condensers) 130
2.16.1. Definition of Eligible Equipment
Eligible equipment includes any retrofit in which equipment is added to an existing air-cooled
condenser to evaporatively cool the ambient air temperature before reaching the condenser
coils. Self-contained evaporative condensing coils are not eligible as part of this measure.
Eligible systems must be purchased and installed by a qualified contractor.
2.16.2. Definition of Baseline Equipment
Baseline equipment for this measure is determined by the nature of the project. There are two
possible scenarios: retrofit (early replacement) or new construction.
Retrofit (Early Replacement)
The baseline equipment for retrofit projects is the existing air-cooled condenser coil in a properly
working and maintained condition.
New Construction (Includes Major Remodel & Replace on Burn-Out)
The baseline equipment for new construction projects is defined to be a properly working and
maintained air-cooled condenser coil with all required fan and head pressure controls as defined
by the local energy codes and standards.
2.16.3. Algorithms
The following energy and demand savings algorithms are applicable for this measure:
ΔkWh = kWh/Unit * Cap
ΔkW = kW/Unit * Cap
2.16.4. Definitions
ΔkWh Expected energy savings between baseline and installed equipment.
ΔkW Expected peak demand savings between baseline and installed equipment.
Cap Nominal capacity (in Tons) of the air-cooled equipment
kWh/Unit Per unit energy savings as stipulated in Table 2-123.
kW/Unit Per unit demand savings as stipulated in Table 2-123.
2.16.5. Sources
8. Bisbee, Dave & Mort, Dan. Evaporative Precooling System: Customer Advanced
Technologies Program Report Technology Evaluation Report. 2010 109
109 https://www.smud.org/en/business/save-energy/energy-management-solutions/documents/evapercool-tech-aug10.pdf

Evaporative Pre-Cooler (For Air-Cooled Condensers) 131
9. Shen, Bo et al. 2010. Direct Evaporative Precooling Model and Analysis. Oak Ridge
National Laboratory. ORNL/TM-2010/231 110
10. One other internal monitoring study was referenced when deriving savings values for
this measure; however, has not been made public.
2.16.6. Stipulated Values
The following tables stipulate allowable values for each of the variables in the energy and
demand savings algorithms for this measure.
Table 2-125 Unit Energy Savings for Evaporative Pre-Cooler (For Air-Cooled Condensers)
Measure kWh per Unit Savings kW per Unit Savings
Evaporative Pre-Cooler (Installed on Chillers) 106 0.09
Evaporative Pre-Cooler (Refrigeration Systems) 186 0.16

110 http://web.ornl.gov/info/reports/2010/3445605702460.pdf

Variable Frequency Drives (For HVAC Applications) 132
2.17. Variable Frequency Drives (For HVAC Applications)
The following algorithms and assumptions are applicable to Variable Frequency Drives (VFDs)
on HVAC fans and pumps installed in commercial spaces. This measure applies to projects
which represent either equipment retrofit or new construction (including major renovations).
Table 2-124 summarizes the ‘typical’ expected unit energy impacts for this measure. Typical
values are based on algorithms and stipulated values described below and data from past
program participants.
Table 2-126 Summary Deemed Savings Estimates for VFDs Installed on Chilled Water Pumps,
Condensing Water Pumps, and Cooling Tower Fans
Retrofit New Construction
Deemed Savings Unit HP HP
Average Unit Energy Savings 286 kWh 268 kWh
Average Unit Peak Demand Savings 0 kW 0 kW
Expected Useful Life 15 Years 15 Years
Average Material & Labor Cost $ 194.28 n/a
Average Incremental Cost n/a $ 165.33
Stacking Effect End-Use Cooling

Table 2-127 Summary Deemed Savings Estimates for VFDs Installed on Fans & Hot Water
Pumps
Retrofit New Construction
Deemed Savings Unit HP HP
Average Unit Energy Savings 1,065 kWh 996 kWh
Average Unit Peak Demand Savings 0 kW 0 kW
Expected Useful Life 15 Years 15 Years
Average Material & Labor Cost $ 174.82 n/a
Average Incremental Cost n/a $ 142.05
Stacking Effect End-Use Cooling

2.17.1. Definition of Eligible Equipment
Only VFDs installed on variably loaded motors, from 5 to 300 horsepower, in HVAC applications
are eligible under this measure. Note that systems of motors which are individually less than 5
horsepower are eligible provided that: 1) they are controlled by a common VFD, and 2) the
aggregate horsepower of motors controlled by a single VFD is greater than 5 HP. New
construction projects must meet or exceeds current federal minimum requirements and must not
be required by the applicable building codes. Retrofit projects must remove or permanently
disable any pre-existing throttling or flow control device(s), and cannot replace a pre-existing
VFD.

Variable Frequency Drives (For HVAC Applications) 133
2.17.2. Definition of Baseline Equipment
Baseline equipment for this measure is determined by the nature of the project. There are two
possible scenarios: retrofit or new construction.
Retrofit (Early Replacement)
If the project is retrofitting pre-existing equipment with a variable frequency drive then the
baseline control strategy is defined by the pre-existing control strategy.
New Construction (Includes Major Remodel & Replace on Burn-Out)
For facilities that are installing VFDs during a new construction project the minimum HVAC
fan/pump controls strategy is dictated by the prevailing building energy code or standard
according to which the project was permitted. Current applicable control standards are defined
by ASHRAE 90.1-2004 and 90.1-2007.

Code Compliance Considerations for HVAC VFDs
Section 6.5.3 Of the ASHRAE 90.1 Standard specifies horsepower threshold in which VFDs
must be installed on individual fans in VAV air-side delivery systems. Section 6.5.4 specifies a
horsepower threshold for pumps in hydronic variable flow systems. Note that the is the system
has less than three control valves then it is exempt from the VFD requirement. Section 6.5.5
specifies a horsepower threshold for heat rejections fans such as cooling tower fans. Note that
the threshold for VAV fans does changes between the 2004 and 2007 versions of Standard
90.1.
2.17.3. Algorithms
The following energy and demand savings algorithms are applicable for this measure:
ΔkWh = .746 * HP * LF / ηmotor *HRS * ESF
ΔkW = 0
2.17.4. Definitions
ΔkWh Expected energy savings between baseline and installed equipment.
ΔkW Peak demand savings are defined to be zero for this measure.
HP Manufacturer name plate rated horsepower of the motor.
LF Load Factor. Ratio between the actual load and the rated load. Motor efficiency curves typically result in motors being most efficient at approximately 75% of the rated load.
The default value is 0.75.

Variable Frequency Drives (For HVAC Applications) 134
ηmotor Manufacturer name plate efficiency of the motor at full load.
HRS Annual operating hours of VFD. Values for various building types and end uses are
stipulated in Table 2-126.
ESF Energy Savings Factor. Percent of baseline energy consumption saved by installing a VFD. The appropriate ESF can be found in Table 2-127.
2.17.5. Sources
1. ASHRAE, Standard 90.1-2004.
2. ASHRAE, Standard 90.1-2007.
3. California DEER Effective Useful Life worksheets: EUL_Summary_10-1-08.xls
4. California DEER Incremental Cost worksheets: Revised DEER Measure Cost Summary
(05_30_2008) Revised (06_02_2008).xls
2.17.6. Stipulated Values
The following tables stipulate allowable values for each of the variables in the energy and
demand savings algorithms for this measure.

Variable Frequency Drives (For HVAC Applications) 135
Table 2-128 Stipulated Hours of Use for Commercial HVAC Motors
Building Type Motor Usage Group Zone 5 Zone 6
Assembly
Education – Primary School
Education – Secondary School
Education – Community College
Education – University
Grocery
Health/Medical – Hospital
Health/Medical – Nursing Home

Variable Frequency Drives (For HVAC Applications) 136
Building Type Motor Usage Group Zone 5 Zone 6
Lodging – Hotel
Lodging – Motel
Manufacturing – Light Industrial
Office – Large
Office – Small
Restaurant – Sit Down
Restaurant – Fast Food
Retail – 3 Story
Retail – Single Story

Variable Frequency Drives (For HVAC Applications) 137
Building Type Motor Usage Group Zone 5 Zone 6
Retail – Small
Storage – Conditioned

Variable Frequency Drives (For HVAC Applications) 138
Table 2-129 Stipulated Energy Savings Factors (ESF) for Commercial HVAC VFD Installations
Building Type Motor Usage Group Zone 5 Zone 6
Assembly
Education – Primary School
Education – Secondary School
Education – Community College
Education – University
Grocery
Health/Medical – Hospital
Health/Medical – Nursing Home

Variable Frequency Drives (For HVAC Applications) 139
Building Type Motor Usage Group Zone 5 Zone 6
Lodging – Hotel
Lodging – Motel
Manufacturing – Light Industrial
Office – Large
Office – Small
Restaurant – Sit Down
Restaurant – Fast Food
Retail – 3 Story
Retail – Single Story

Variable Frequency Drives (For HVAC Applications) 140
Building Type Motor Usage Group Zone 5 Zone 6
Retail – Small
Storage – Conditioned

Water-Side Economizers 141
2.18. Water-Side Economizers
The following algorithms and assumptions are applicable to energy efficient air conditioning
units installed in commercial spaces. This measure applies to projects which represent either
equipment retrofit or new construction (including major renovations).
Table 2-128 summarizes the ‘typical’ expected (per combined chillers tonnage) unit energy
impacts for this measure. Typical values are based on algorithms and stipulated values
described below and data from past program participants.
Table 2-130 Typical Savings Estimates for Water-Side Economizers
Retrofit New Construction
Deemed Savings Unit Ton (Chillers) Ton (Chillers)
Average Unit Energy Savings 184 kWh 154 kWh
Average Unit Peak Demand Savings 0 kW 0 kW
Expected Useful Life 10 Years 10 Years
Average Material & Labor Cost $ 462.69 n/a
Average Incremental Cost n/a $ 462.69
Stacking Effect End-Use Cooling
2.18.1. Definition of Eligible Equipment
Eligibility is determined by the installed cooling system. A water cooled chilled water plant must
be present and a separate cooling tower installed dedicated to providing free cooling to the
chilled water loop.
2.18.2. Definition of Baseline Equipment
Baseline equipment for this measure is determined by the nature of the project. There are two
possible scenarios: retrofit (early replacement) or new construction. For both cases the
assumed baseline is a water cooled chilled water plant with no waterside free cooling
capabilities.
Retrofit (Early Replacement)
If the project is adding waterside economizing capabilities to a pre-existing chilled water system
then it is considered a retrofit except when the project involves an expansion of capacity of the
chilled water plant.
New Construction (Includes Major Remodel & Replace on Burn-Out)
Waterside economizer additions on new chilled water plants and on pre-existing plants
undergoing expansion are considered new construction for the purposes of this measure.

Water-Side Economizers 142
2.18.3. Algorithms
The following energy and demand savings algorithms are applicable for this measure:
2.18.4. Definitions
ΔkWh Expected energy savings between baseline and installed equipment.
ΔkWh/Ton Per unit energy savings as stipulated by weather zone.
Capsupplanted The combined rated capacities of all the chillers supplanted by the waterside
economizer.
2.18.5. Sources
11. California DEER Prototypical Simulation models (modified), eQUEST-DEER 3-5002E 111
2.18.6. Stipulated Values
The following tables stipulate allowable values for each of the variables in the energy and
demand savings algorithms for this measure.
Table 2-131 Water Side Economizer Savings 112
Zone Retrofit Savings New Construction
5 183 153
6 186 155

111 Prototypical building energy simulations were used to generate Idaho specific kWh savings for various buildings.
112 See “19-TypicalCalcs_WaterEcono.xlsx” for assumptions and calculations used to estimate the typical unit energy savings.

Kitchen: Refrigerators/Freezers 143
2.19. Kitchen: Refrigerators/Freezers
The following algorithms and assumptions are applicable to the installation of a new reach-in
commercial refrigerator, or freezer meeting ENERGY STAR 2.0 efficiency standards. ENERGY
STAR labeled commercial refrigerators and freezers are more energy efficient because they are
designed with components such as ECM evaporator and condenser fan motors, hot gas anti-
sweat heaters, and/or high-efficiency compressors, which will significantly reduce energy
consumption.
Table 2-130 and Table 2-131 summarize ‘typical’ expected (per unit) energy impacts for this
measure can be found. Typical values are based on the algorithms and stipulated values
described below.113
Table 2-132 Typical Savings Estimates for ENERGY STAR Refrigerators (< 30 ft3)114
Retrofit New Construction
Deemed Savings Unit Refrigerator Refrigerator
Average Unit Energy Savings 6.2 kWh 6.2 kWh
Average Unit Peak Demand Savings 0.66 W 0.66 W
Expected Useful Life 12 Years 12 Years
Average Material & Labor Cost $ 7,626 n/a
Average Incremental Cost n/a $ 108
Stacking Effect End-Use Refrigeration

Table 2-133 Typical Savings Estimates for ENERGY STAR Refrigerators (30 to 50 ft3)
Retrofit New Construction
Deemed Savings Unit Refrigerator Refrigerator
Average Unit Energy Savings 5.4 kWh 5.4 kWh
Average Unit Peak Demand Savings 0.58 W 0.58 W
Expected Useful Life 12 Years 12 Years
Average Material & Labor Cost $ 12,133 n/a
Average Incremental Cost n/a $ 135
Stacking Effect End-Use Refrigeration

113 See spreadsheet “20-TypicalCalcs_KitchFrigFrzrIce.xlsx” for assumptions and calculations used to estimate the typical unit
energy savings, EUL, and incremental costs.
There isn’t a difference between new construction and retrofit because the retrofit baseline is at least as efficient as that required by
federal equipment standards.
114 These numbers do not include chest refrigerators. Inclusion of chest refrigerators would increase the ‘typical’ savings estimates.

Kitchen: Refrigerators/Freezers 144
Table 2-134 Typical Savings Estimates for ENERGY STAR Freezers (< 30 ft3)
Retrofit New Construction
Deemed Savings Unit Freezer Freezer
Average Unit Energy Savings 28 kWh 28 kWh
Average Unit Peak Demand Savings 3.0 W 3.0 W
Expected Useful Life 12 Years 12 Years
Average Material & Labor Cost $ 11,052 n/a
Average Incremental Cost n/a $ 163
Stacking Effect End-Use Refrigeration

Table 2-135 Typical Savings Estimates for ENERGY STAR Freezers (30 to 50 ft3)
Retrofit New Construction
Deemed Savings Unit Freezer Freezer
Average Unit Energy Savings 75 kWh 75 kWh
Average Unit Peak Demand Savings 8.0 W 8.0 W
Expected Useful Life 12 Years 12 Years
Average Material & Labor Cost $ 12,806 n/a
Average Incremental Cost n/a $ 35
Stacking Effect End-Use Refrigeration

2.19.1. Definition of Eligible Equipment
The eligible equipment is a new commercial vertical solid, glass door refrigerator or freezer, or
vertical chest freezer meeting the minimum ENERGY STAR 2.0 efficiency level standards.
2.19.2. Definition of Baseline Equipment
The baseline equipment used to establish energy savings estimates for this measure is
established by the Regional Technical Forum (RTF). The RTF uses an existing solid or glass
door refrigerator or freezer meeting the minimum federal manufacturing standards as specified
by the Energy Policy Act of 2005. The RTF sources a market potential study for and uses a
baseline that is more efficient than code. Consequently, there is no distinction between
baselines for new construction and retrofit projects
Retrofit (Early Replacement)
See explanation above
New Construction (Includes Major Remodel & Replace on Burn-Out)
See explanation above

Kitchen: Refrigerators/Freezers 145
2.19.3. Algorithms
The following energy and demand savings algorithms are applicable for this measure:
ΔkWh = ΔkWh/Unit * NUnits
ΔkW = ΔkW/Unit * Nunits
= ΔkWh/Unit * CF / Hours
2.19.4. Definitions
ΔkWh Expected energy savings between baseline and installed equipment.
ΔkW Demand energy savings between baseline and installed equipment.
kWh/Unit Per unit energy savings as stipulated in Table 2-134 and Table 2-135.
kW/Unit Per unit demand savings.
ΔkW/Uniti Unit demand savings for combination i of type, harvest rate, and/or volume.
CF Coincidence Factor = 0.937
Hours Annual operating hours = 8760
NUnits Number of refrigerators or freezers
2.19.5. Sources
12. Regional Technical Forum measure workbooks:
http://rtf.nwcouncil.org/measures/com/ComFreezer_v3.xlsm &
http://rtf.nwcouncil.org/measures/com/ComRefrigerator_v3.xlsm
13. Illinois Technical Reference Manual
2.19.6. Stipulated Values
The following tables stipulate allowable values for each of the variables in the energy and
demand savings algorithms for this measure.

Kitchen: Refrigerators/Freezers 146
Table 2-136 Unit Energy and Demand Savings for Units 15 to 30 cu.ft 115
Measure Category Energy Savings Peak Reduction
Solid Door Refrigerator 4.8 0.52
Glass Door Refrigerator 7.5 0.8
Chest Refrigerator (Solid) 29 3.1
Chest Refrigerator (Glass) 181 19.4
Solid Door Freezers 9.9 1.06
Glass Door Freezers 46.2 4.94
Chest Freezer (Solid) 0.0 0.0
Chest Freezer (Glass) 7.8 0.84

Table 2-137 Unit Energy and Demand Savings for Units 30 to 50 cu.ft.116
Measure Category
Solid Door Refrigerator 5.3 0.57
Glass Door Refrigerator 5.5 0.59
Chest Refrigerator (Solid) 29 3.1
Glass Door Freezers 146 15.6

115 See spreadsheet “20-TypicalCalcs_KitchFrigFrzrIce.xlsx” for assumptions and calculations used to estimate the typical unit
energy saving.
116 See spreadsheet “20-TypicalCalcs_KitchFrigFrzrIce.xlsx” for assumptions and calculations used to estimate the typical unit
energy saving.

Kitchen: Refrigerators/Freezers 147
Table 2-138 List of Incremental Cost Data For Refrigerators and Freezers.117
Type Size Category Incremental Cost Average Cost
Solid Door Freezers $25
Glass Door Freezers $256
Solid Door Refrigerators ($30)
Glass Door Refrigerators $158

117 From RTF Workbook: http://rtf.nwcouncil.org/measures/com/ComFreezer_v3.xlsm

Kitchen: Refrigerators/Freezers 148
Table 2-139 List of Materials Cost Data for Refrigerators and Freezers.118
Size Category Qualifying Products Average List Price
Solid Door Refrigerators
0<V<15 $ 3,484.00
15<=V<30 $ 6,513.17
30<=V<50 $ 12,111.17
50<=V $ 17,694.20
Glass Door Refrigerators
0<V<15 $ 3,181.67
15<=V<30 $ 8,739.33
30<=V<50 $ 12,155.60
50<=V $ 16,747.75
Chest Refrigerators (Solid and Glass)
All Sizes $ 4,097.38
Solid Door Freezers
0<V<15 n/a
15<=V<30 $ 7,204.67
30<=V<50 $ 13,033.33
50<=V $ 18,738.25
Glass Door Freezers
0<V<15 n/a
15<=V<30 $ 14,899.00
30<=V<50 $ 12,578.50
50<=V $ 19,299.00
Chest Freezers (Solid and Glass)
All Sizes $ 1,487.70

118 From RTF Workbook: http://rtf.nwcouncil.org/measures/com/ComFreezer_v3.xlsm

Kitchen: Ice Machines 149
2.20. Kitchen: Ice Machines
The following algorithms and assumptions are applicable to the installation of a new commercial
ice machine meeting ENERGY STAR 2.0 efficiency standards. The ENERGY STAR label is
applied to air-cooled, cube-type ice machines including ice-making head, self-contained, and
remote-condensing units.
Table 2-138 and Table 2-139 summarize the ‘typical’ expected (per unit) energy impacts for this
measure. Typical values are based on the algorithms and stipulated values described below. 119
Table 2-140 Typical Savings Estimates for Ice Machines (<200 lbs/day)
Retrofit New Construction
Deemed Savings Unit Machine Machine
Average Unit Energy Savings 336 kWh 336 kWh
Average Unit Peak Demand Savings .07 kW .07 kW
Expected Useful Life 10 Years 10 Years
Average Material & Labor Cost $ 2,165 n/a
Average Incremental Cost n/a $ 189
Stacking Effect End-Use Refrigeration

Table 2-141 Typical Savings Estimates for Ice Machines (>200 lbs/day)
Retrofit New Construction
Deemed Savings Unit Machine Machine
Average Unit Energy Savings 341 kWh 341 kWh
Average Unit Peak Demand Savings .07 kW .07 kW
Expected Useful Life 10 Years 10 Years
Average Material & Labor Cost $ 4,800 n/a
Average Incremental Cost n/a $ 480
Stacking Effect End-Use Refrigeration

2.20.1. Definition of Eligible Equipment
The eligible equipment is a new commercial ice machine meeting the minimum ENERGY STAR
2.0 efficiency level standards.
119 See spreadsheet “21-TypicalCalcs_KitchIceMcn.xlsx” for assumptions and calculations used to estimate the typical unit energy
savings, EUL, and incremental costs.
There isn’t a difference between new construction and retrofit because the retrofit baseline is at least as efficient as that required by
federal equipment standards.

Kitchen: Ice Machines 150
2.20.2. Definition of Baseline Equipment
The baseline condition for retrofit and new construction is established by the RTF. The RTF
uses a commercial ice machine meeting federal equipment standards established January 1,
2010. The RTF sources a market potential study for and uses a baseline that is more efficient
than code. Consequently, there is no distinction between baselines for new construction and
retrofit projects
Retrofit (Early Replacement)
See explanation above
New Construction (Includes Major Remodel & Replace on Burn-Out)
See explanation above
2.20.3. Algorithms
The following energy and demand savings algorithms are applicable for this measure:
ΔkWh = ΔkWh/Unit * NUnits
= [(kWhbase – kWhInstalled) * H * Hours/(24*100) + ΔkWhwastewater ]* NUnits
ΔkW = ΔkW/Unit * NUnits
= ΔkWh/Uniti,ice * CF / Hours
2.20.4. Definitions
ΔkWh Expected energy savings between baseline and installed equipment.
ΔkW Demand energy savings between baseline and installed equipment.
ΔkWh/Unit Per unit energy savings as stipulated in Table 2-140.
ΔkW/Unit Per unit demand savings as stipulated in Table 2-140.
kWhbase/Installed Daily energy usage of base (baseline) or installed ice machines.
ΔkWhwastewater Annual savings from reduced water usage.
CF Coincidence Factor = 0.937 120
H Harvest Rate (pounds of ice made per day)
Hours Annual operating hours = 4400
120 From Illinois TRM

Kitchen: Ice Machines 151
NUnits Number of refrigerators or freezers
2.20.5. Sources
14. Regional Technical Forum measure workbooks:
15. http://rtf.nwcouncil.org/measures/com/ComIceMaker_v1_1.xlsx
16. SDG&E Work Paper: WPSDGENRCC0004, “Commercial Ice Machines”
17. Illinois Technical Reference Manual
2.20.6. Stipulated Values
The following tables stipulate allowable values for each of the variables in the energy and
demand savings algorithms for this measure.
Table 2-142 Unit Energy Savings for Ice Machine 121
Measure kWh per Unit kW per Unit
Energy Star Air Cooled Ice Making Head Unit <=200 lbs/day ice 297 0.063
Energy Star Air Cooled Ice Making Head Unit >200 lbs/day ice 1,153 0.246
Energy Star Air Cooled Self-Contained Unit <=200 lbs/day ice 184 0.039
Energy Star Air Cooled Self-Contained Unit >200 lbs/day ice 450 0.096
Energy Star Air Cooled Remote Condensing Unit <=200 lbs/day ice 394 0.084
Energy Star Air Cooled Remote Condensing Unit >200 lbs/day ice 1,082 0.231
CEE Tier 2 Water Cooled Ice Making Head Unit <=200 lbs/day ice 232 0.049
CEE Tier 2 Water Cooled Ice Making Head Unit >200 lbs/day ice 744 0.158
CEE Tier 2 Water Cooled Self-Contained Unit <=200 lbs/day ice 137 0.029
CEE Tier 2 Water Cooled Self-Contained Unit >200 lbs/day ice 343 0.073
CEE Tier 3 Air Cooled Ice Making Head Unit <=200 lbs/day ice 448 0.095
CEE Tier 3 Air Cooled Ice Making Head Unit >200 lbs/day ice 1,587 0.338
CEE Tier 3 Water Cooled Ice Making Head Unit <=200 lbs/day ice 357 0.076
CEE Tier 3 Water Cooled Ice Making Head Unit >200 lbs/day ice 1,371 0.292
CEE Tier 3 Air Cooled Self-Contained Unit <=200 lbs/day ice 385 0.082
CEE Tier 3 Air Cooled Self-Contained Unit >200 lbs/day ice 950 0.202
CEE Tier 3 Water Cooled Self-Contained Unit <=200 lbs/day ice 292 0.062
CEE Tier 3 Water Cooled Self-Contained Unit >200 lbs/day ice 734 0.156
CEE Tier 3 Air Cooled Remote Condensing Unit <=200 lbs/day ice 636 0.135
CEE Tier 3 Air Cooled Remote Condensing Unit >200 lbs/day ice 1,747 0.372

121 Values given are based on assumed weights for harvest rates. Savings vary significantly between harvest rates.

Kitchen: Ice Machines 152
Table 2-143 Unit Incremental Cost for Ice Machines
Harvest Rate (H) New Construction & ROB Retrofit - ER
100-200 lb ice machine $189 $2,165
201-300 lb ice machine $818 $3,260
301-400 lb ice machine $281 $2,740
401-500 lb ice machine $63 $2,646
501-1000 lb ice machine $233 $3,728
1001-1500 lb ice machine $550 $5,301
>1500 lb ice machine $866 $7,668

Kitchen: Efficient Dishwashers 153
2.21. Kitchen: Efficient Dishwashers
The following algorithms and assumptions are applicable to the installation of new high and low
temp under counter, single tank door type, single tank conveyor, and multiple tank conveyor
dishwashers installed in a commercial kitchen meeting ENERGY STAR efficiency standards.
ENERGY STAR dishwashers save energy in four categories: reduction in wastewater
processing, building water heating, booster water heating, and idle energy. Building water
heating and booster water heating can be either electric or natural gas.
Table 2-142 and Table 2-143 summarize the ‘typical’ expected (per machine) energy impacts
for this measure. Typical values are based on the algorithms and stipulated values described
below. 122
Table 2-144 Typical Savings Estimates for Efficient Commercial Dishwashers (All Electric)
Retrofit New Construction
Deemed Savings Unit Machine Machine
Average Unit Energy Savings 5,561 kWh 5,561 kWh
Average Unit Peak Demand Savings 0.41 kW 0.41 kW
Expected Useful Life 12 Years 12 Years
Average Material & Labor Cost $ 3,978 n/a
Average Incremental Cost Machine $ 3, 978
Stacking Effect End-Use Miscellaneous Loads

Table 2-145 Typical Savings Estimates for Efficient Commercial Dishwashers (Gas Heater with
Electric Booster)
Retrofit New Construction
Deemed Savings Unit Machine Machine
Average Unit Energy Savings 1,761 kWh 1,761 kWh
Average Unit Peak Demand Savings 0.23 kW 0.23 kW
Expected Useful Life 12 Years 12 Years
Average Material & Labor Cost $ 3,978 n/a
Average Incremental Cost Machine $ 3,978
Stacking Effect End-Use Miscellaneous Loads
122 Savings estimates are only given for a quick cost effectiveness test. The estimates are based on assumed weights for equipment
types. See spreadsheet “22-TypicalCalcs_KitchDshWshr.xlsx” for assumptions and calculations used to estimate the typical unit
energy savings, expected useful life, coincidence factor, and incremental costs. Note that there isn’t a difference between new
construction and retrofit because code doesn’t constrain commercial dishwasher efficiencies. The baseline used in the RTF is
conservative.

Kitchen: Efficient Dishwashers 154
Table 2-146 Typical Savings Estimates for Efficient Residential Dishwashers (All Electric)
Retrofit New Construction
Deemed Savings Unit Machine Machine
Average Unit Energy Savings 2,210 kWh 2,210 kWh
Average Unit Peak Demand Savings 0.19 kW 0.19 kW
Expected Useful Life 12 Years 12 Years
Average Material & Labor Cost $ 232 n/a
Average Incremental Cost Machine $ 232
Stacking Effect End-Use Miscellaneous Loads

Table 2-147 Typical Savings Estimates for Efficient Residential Dishwashers (Gas Heater with
Electric Booster)
Retrofit New Construction
Deemed Savings Unit Machine Machine
Average Unit Energy Savings 821 kWh 821 kWh
Average Unit Peak Demand Savings 0.10 kW 0.10 kW
Expected Useful Life 12 Years 12 Years
Average Material & Labor Cost $ 232 n/a
Average Incremental Cost Machine $ 232
Stacking Effect End-Use Miscellaneous Loads

2.21.1. Definition of Eligible Equipment
The eligible equipment is an ENERGY STAR certified dishwasher meeting the thresholds for
idle energy rate (kW) and water consumption (gallons/rack) limits listed in the tables below.
Maximum idle rates are determined by both machine type and sanitation approach
(chemical/low temp versus high temp). Dishwashers installed with both gas hot water and gas
booster water heating are not eligible. However; dishwashers installed with electric booster
water heating are eligible in buildings using gas hot water heating.
Table 2-148 Idle Rate Requirements for Low Temperature Dishwashers
Type
Post Condition
Idle Energy Rate (kW) Water Consumption (GPR)

Kitchen: Efficient Dishwashers 155
Table 2-149 Idle Rate Requirements for High Temperature Dishwashers
Type
Post Condition
Idle Energy Rate (kW) Water Consumption (GPR)
0.38 0.74
Door type 0.55 0.68
Single tank conveyor 1.45 0.39
Multiple tank conveyor 1.84 0.35

2.21.2. Definition of Baseline Equipment
The baseline condition is a dishwasher that’s not ENERGY STAR certified and doesn’t meet the
efficiency thresholds for idle energy rate (kW) and water consumption (gallons/rack).
2.21.3. Algorithms
The following energy and demand savings algorithms are applicable for this measure:
ΔkWh = ΔkWh/Unit * NUnits
ΔkW = ΔkW/Unit * NUnits
ΔkW/Unit = (ΔkWh/Unit / HrsIdle) * CF
2.21.4. Definitions
ΔkWh Expected energy savings between baseline and installed equipment.
ΔkW Expected demand reduction between baseline and installed equipment.
kWh/Unit Per unit energy savings as stipulated in Table 2-149and Table 2-150.
kW/Unit Per unit demand savings as stipulated in Table 2-149and Table 2-150.
CF Coincidence Factor 123
NUnits Number of dishwashers
HrsIdle Annual Idle Hours. Values for this input are stipulated in Table 2-149
and Table 2-150.
123 From Illinois TRM

Kitchen: Efficient Dishwashers 156
2.21.5. Sources
18. Regional Technical Forum measure workbook:
http://rtf.nwcouncil.org/measures/com/ComDishwasher_v1_2.xlsm
19. Illinois Technical Reference Manual
2.21.6. Stipulated Values
The following tables stipulate allowable values for each of the variables in the energy and
demand savings algorithms for this measure.
Table 2-150 Coincidence Factor for Kitchen: Efficient Dishwashers 118 124
Location CF
Fast Food Limited Menu 0.32
Fast Food Expanded Menu 0.41
Pizza 0.46
Full Service Limited Menu 0.51
Full Service Expanded Menu 0.36
Cafeteria 0.36

Table 2-151 Unit Energy Savings and Incremental Costs for All Electric Kitchen: Efficient
Dishwashers 125
Equipment Type Electric Savings Demand Savings Idle Hours Inc. Cost - Retrofit Inc. Cost - New Construction
Low Temp Under Counter 3,271 0.283 3375 $232.00 $232
Low Temp Door Type 3,684 0.135 1632 $2,659 $2,659
Low Temp Single Tank Conveyor 3,067 0.281 3600 $5,882 $5,882
Low Temp Multi Tank Conveyor 6,864 0.588 3600 $3,394 $3,394
High Temp Under Counter 1,150 0.103 3375 $232 $232
High Temp Door Type 4,586 0.269 1632 $2,659 $2,659
High Temp Single Tank Conveyor 7,265 0.540 3600 $5,882 $5,882
High Temp Multi Tank Conveyor 7,897 0.658 3600 $3,394 $3,394

124 From Illinois TRM
125 See spreadsheet “22-TypicalCalcs_KitchDshWshr.xlsx” for assumptions and calculations used to estimate the typical unit energy
savings.

Kitchen: Efficient Dishwashers 157
Table 2-152 Unit Energy Savings and Incremental Costs for Gas Heater with Electric Booster
Kitchen: Efficient Dishwashers
Equipment Type Savings Savings Idle
Hours
Inc. Cost -
Retrofit
Inc. Cost - New
Construction
Low Temp Under Counter 975 0.116 3375 $2,297 $232
Low Temp Door Type -352 -0.087 1632 $2,297 $2,659
Low Temp Single Tank Conveyor 1,337 0.150 3600 $2,297 $5,882
Low Temp Multi Tank Conveyor 1,862 0.209 3600 $2,297 $3,394
High Temp Under Counter 668 0.080 3375 $2,297 $232
High Temp Door Type 1,684 0.416 1632 $2,297 $2,659
High Temp Single Tank Conveyor 2,275 0.255 3600 $2,297 $5,882
High Temp Multi Tank Conveyor 3,761 0.421 3600 $2,297 $3,394

Refrigeration: Efficient Refrigerated Cases 158
2.22. Refrigeration: Efficient Refrigerated Cases
This protocol estimates savings for installing high efficiency refrigerated cases. Efficient cases
have low- or no-heat glass doors, efficient fan motors, efficient lighting, and efficient
evaporators.
Table 2-151 summarizes the ‘typical’ expected (per linear foot) energy impacts for this measure.
Typical values are based on the algorithms and stipulated values described below.
Table 2-153 Typical Savings Estimates for Efficient Refrigerated Cases 126
Retrofit New Construction
Deemed Savings Unit Linear ft. n/a
Average Unit Energy Savings Table 2-152 n/a
Average Unit Peak Demand Savings Table 2-152 n/a
Expected Useful Life 12 Years n/a
Average Material & Labor Cost $906.27 n/a
Average Incremental Cost n/a n/a
Stacking Effect End-Use Refrigeration
2.22.1. Definition of Eligible Equipment
Efficient cases with doors must have low- or no-heat glass doors, efficient fan motors, efficient
lighting, and evaporators that raise the suction temperature set point by at least 3° F. Efficient
cases without doors must the same features excluding door requirements. Savings for cases
that don’t satisfy all requirements must be treated under their corresponding measure chapters
(e.g. efficient lighting, evaporator fans, and/or low-no-heat glass).
2.22.2. Definition of Baseline Equipment
There are two possible project baseline scenarios – retrofit and new construction. This measure
currently only addresses the retrofit scenario. For purposes of the energy savings estimates
open cases are assumed to utilize night covers for 6 hours at night.
Retrofit (Early Replacement)
The baseline condition is assumed to be a standard refrigerated case. A standard case is
defined as any refrigerated case without any of the following equipment:
1) Low- or no-heat door glass (applies only to fixtures with doors)
2) ECM fan motors
3) LED case lighting
4) Evaporator controls which raise the suction temperature set-point by at least 3° F
New Construction (Includes Major Remodel & Replace on Burn-Out)
126 See spreadsheet “23-TypicalCalcs_EffCases.xlsx” for assumptions and calculations used to estimate the typical unit energy
savings, EUL, and incremental cost.

Refrigeration: Efficient Refrigerated Cases 159
New construction is not eligible for this measure as this measure is assumed to be standard
practice.
2.22.3. Algorithms
The following energy and demand savings algorithms are applicable for this measure:
ΔkWh = ΔkWh/Unit * NUnits
ΔkW = ΔkW/Unit * NUnits
2.22.4. Definitions
ΔkWh Expected energy savings between baseline and installed equipment.
ΔkW Expected demand reduction between baseline and installed equipment.
ΔkWh/Unit The unit annual energy savings
listed by weather zone in Table 2-152.
ΔkW/Unit The unit peak reduction
weather zone in Table 2-152.
NUnits Number of linear feet of refrigerated case
2.22.5. Sources
20. DEER Measure Cost Summary:
http://www.deeresources.com/deer0911planning/downloads/DEER2008_Costs_ValuesA
ndDocumentation_080530Rev1.zip
21. DEER EUL/RUL Values:
http://www.deeresources.com/deer0911planning/downloads/EUL_Summary_10-1-08.xls
2.22.6. Stipulated Values
The following tables stipulate allowable values for each of the variables in the energy and
demand savings algorithms for this measure.

Refrigeration: Efficient Refrigerated Cases 160
Table 2-154 Unit Energy Savings for Efficient Refrigerated Cases
Case Type (Std. to Eff.)
Climate Zone 5 Climate Zone 6
Per Unit kWh Per Unit kW Per Unit kWh Per Unit kW

Refrigeration: ASH Controls 161
2.23. Refrigeration: ASH Controls
Anti-sweat heater (ASH) controls turn off door heaters when there is little or no risk of
condensation. There are two commercially available control strategies that achieve “on-off”
control of door heaters based on either: (1) the relative humidity of the air in the store or (2) the
“conductivity” of the door (which drops when condensation appears). In the first strategy, the
system activates door heaters when the relative humidity in a store rises above a specific set-
point and turns them off when the relative humidity falls below that set-point. In the second
strategy, the sensor activates the door heaters when the door conductivity falls below a certain
set-point and turns them off when the conductivity rises above that set-point. Without controls,
anti-sweat heaters run continuously whether they are necessary or not. Savings are realized
from the reduction in energy used by not having the heaters running at all times. In addition,
secondary savings result from reduced cooling load on the refrigeration unit when the heaters
are off.
The following algorithms and assumptions are applicable to ASH controls installed on
commercial glass door coolers and freezers.
Table 2-153 summarizes the ‘typical’ expected (per linear ft. of case) energy impacts for this
measure. Typical values are based on the algorithms and stipulated values described below.
Table 2-155 Typical Savings Estimates for ASH Controls 127
Retrofit New Construction
Deemed Savings Unit linear ft. of case n/a
Average Unit Energy Savings 208 kWh n/a
Average Unit Peak Demand Savings 23.7 W n/a
Expected Useful Life 8 Years n/a
Average Material & Labor Cost n/a
2.23.1. Definition of Eligible Equipment
The eligible equipment is assumed to be a door heater control on a commercial glass door
cooler or refrigerator utilizing humidity or conductivity control. This does not apply to special
doors with low/no anti-sweat heat.
2.23.2. Definition of Baseline Equipment
There are two possible project baseline scenarios – retrofit and new construction. This measure
currently only addresses the retrofit scenario.
127 See spreadsheet “24-TypicalCalcs_ASH.xlsx” for assumptions and calculations used to estimate the typical unit energy savings,
expected useful life, and incremental costs.
128 The cost is based on the most recent Regional Technical Forum Measure Workbook for this measure:
http://rtf.nwcouncil.org/measures/Com/ComGroceryAntiSweatHeaters_v1_0.xlsm

Refrigeration: ASH Controls 162
Retrofit (Early Replacement)
The baseline condition is assumed to be a commercial glass door cooler or refrigerator with a
standard heated door with no controls installed.
New Construction (Includes Major Remodel & Replace on Burn-Out)
n/a
2.23.3. Algorithms
The following energy and demand savings algorithms are applicable for this measure:
waste Sav
2.23.4. Definitions
ΔkWh Expected energy savings between baseline and installed equipment.
ΔkW Expected demand reduction between baseline and installed equipment.
WInstalled Connected load (kW) for typical reach-in refrigerator or freezer door and frame with
DF
Fwaste Waste Heat Factor. Defined as the percentage of ASH energy use that is converted into heat in the case and must be removed by the refrigeration system. Stipulated
FSav ASH run-
2.23.5. Sources
22. June 2001 edition of ASHRAE Journal
23. Regional Technical Forum, Measure Workbooks
http://rtf.nwcouncil.org/measures/Com/ComGroceryAntiSweatHeaters_v1_0.xlsm
24. http://rtf.nwcouncil.org/measures/com/ComGroceryDisplayCaseECMs_v2_2.xlsm
2.23.6. Stipulated Values
The following tables stipulate allowable values for each of the variables in the energy and
demand savings algorithms for this measure.

Refrigeration: ASH Controls 163
Table 2-156 Connected Load for Typical Reach-In Case 129
Case Type kWBas EER DF Fwaste FSav ΔW/linear ΔkWh/linear
Low Temperature 72 5.12 0.98 0.35 0.5 38.7 339
Medium Temperature 43 11.2 0.98 0.35 0.8 8.8 76.8
Average 57 8.2 0.98 0.35 0.65 23.7 208

129 The values are based on the most recent Regional Technical Forum Measure Workbook for this measure.
http://rtf.nwcouncil.org/measures/Com/ComGroceryAntiSweatHeaters_v1_0.xlsm

Refrigeration: Auto-Closer 164
2.24. Refrigeration: Auto-Closer
Auto-closers on freezers and coolers can reduce the amount of time that doors are open,
thereby reducing infiltration and refrigeration loads.
The following algorithms and assumptions are applicable to auto-closers installed on reach-in
and walk-in coolers and freezers.
Table 2-155 through Table 2-158 summarize the ‘typical’ expected (per door) energy impacts for
this measure. Typical values are based on the algorithms and stipulated values described
below. 130
Table 2-157 Typical Savings Estimates for Auto-Closers (Walk-In, Low-Temp)
Retrofit New Construction
Deemed Savings Unit Door n/a
Average Unit Energy Savings 2,547 kWh n/a
Average Unit Peak Demand Savings 0.27 kW n/a
Expected Useful Life 8 Years n/a
Average Material & Labor Cost $ 139.32 n/a
Average Incremental Cost n/a n/a
Stacking Effect End-Use Refrigeration

Table 2-158 Typical Savings Estimates for Auto-Closers (Walk-In, Med-Temp)
Retrofit New Construction
Deemed Savings Unit Door n/a
Average Unit Energy Savings 575 kWh n/a
Average Unit Peak Demand Savings 0.14 kW n/a
Expected Useful Life 8 Years n/a
Average Material & Labor Cost $ 139.32 n/a
Average Incremental Cost n/a n/a
Stacking Effect End-Use Refrigeration

130 See spreadsheet “25-TypicalCalcs_AutoCloser_v2.xlsx” for assumptions and calculations used to estimate the typical unit energy
savings and incremental costs.

Refrigeration: Auto-Closer 165
Table 2-159 Typical Savings Estimates for Auto-Closers (Reach-In, Low-Temp)
Retrofit New Construction
Deemed Savings Unit Door n/a
Average Unit Energy Savings 560 kWh n/a
Average Unit Peak Demand Savings 0.07 kW n/a
Expected Useful Life 8 Years n/a
Average Material & Labor Cost $ 139.32 n/a
Average Incremental Cost n/a n/a
Stacking Effect End-Use Refrigeration

Table 2-160 Typical Savings Estimates for Auto-Closers (Reach-In, Med-Temp)
Retrofit New Construction
Deemed Savings Unit Door n/a
Average Unit Energy Savings 373 kWh n/a
Average Unit Peak Demand Savings 0.06 kW n/a
Expected Useful Life 8 Years n/a
Average Material & Labor Cost $ 139.32 n/a
Average Incremental Cost n/a n/a
Stacking Effect End-Use Refrigeration

2.24.1. Definition of Eligible Equipment
The eligible equipment is an auto-closer that must be able to firmly close the door when it is
within one inch of full closure.
2.24.2. Definition of Baseline Equipment
There are two possible project baseline scenarios – retrofit and new construction. This measure
currently only addresses the retrofit scenario.
Retrofit (Early Replacement)
The baseline equipment is doors not previously equipped with functioning auto-closers and
assumes the walk-in doors have strip curtains.
New Construction (Includes Major Remodel & Replace on Burn-Out)
n/a
2.24.3. Algorithms
The following energy and demand savings algorithms are applicable for this measure:

Refrigeration: Auto-Closer 166
ΔkWh = ΔkWh/Unit * NUnits
ΔkW = ΔkW/Unit * NUnits
2.24.4. Definitions
ΔkWh Expected energy savings between baseline and installed equipment.
ΔkW Expected demand reduction between baseline and installed equipment.
ΔkWh/Unit provided in Table 2-159 based on case type and temperature.
ΔkW/Unit Unit demand savings estimates
provided in Table 2-159 based on case type and temperature.
NUnits Number of doors onto which this measure is installed.
2.24.5. Sources
25. Regional Technical Forum, Measure Workbooks
http://rtf.nwcouncil.org/measures/com/ComGroceryAutoCloser_v1_0.xlsm
26. http://rtf.nwcouncil.org/measures/com/ComGroceryDisplayCaseECMs_v2_2.xlsm
27. Workpaper PGECOREF110.1 – Auto-Closers for Main Cooler or Freezer Doors
28. DEER Measure Cost Summary:
http://www.deeresources.com/deer0911planning/downloads/DEER2008_Costs_ValuesA
ndDocumentation_080530Rev1.zip
2.24.6. Stipulated Values
The following tables stipulate allowable values for each of the variables in the energy and
demand savings algorithms for this measure.
Table 2-161 Unit Energy and Demand Savings Estimates
Case Temperature ΔkWh/Unit ΔkW/Unit
Low Temperature (Reach-in) 560 0.07
Medium Temperature (Reach-in) 373 0.06
Low Temperature (Walk-in) 2,547 0.27
Medium Temperature (Walk-in) 575 0.14

Refrigeration: Condensers 167
2.25. Refrigeration: Condensers
The following algorithms and assumptions are applicable to efficient air and evaporative cooled
refrigeration condensers. Condensers can be oversized in order to take maximum advantage of
low ambient dry-bulb (for air-cooled) or wet-bulb (for evaporative cooled) temperatures.
Table 2-160 summarizes the ‘typical’ expected (per ton) energy impacts for this measure.
Typical values are based on the algorithms and stipulated values described below.
Table 2-162 Summary Deemed Savings Estimates for Efficient Refrigeration Condenser
Retrofit New Construction
Deemed Savings Unit Ton ton
Average Unit Energy Savings 120 kWh 114 kWh
Average Unit Peak Demand Savings 0.118 kW 0.112 kW
Expected Useful Life 15 Years 15 Years
Average Material & Labor Cost n/a
n/a
2.25.1. Definition of Eligible Equipment
Efficient condenser retrofits must have floating head pressure controls, staged or VSD
controlled fans, must operate with subcooling of 5°F or more at design conditions and have a
TD of 8°F of less for low-temp systems, 13°F or less for med-temp systems and 18°F or less for
evaporative condensers.
2.25.2. Definition of Baseline Equipment
Baseline equipment for this measure is determined by the nature of the project. There are two
possible scenarios: retrofit (early replacement) or new construction.
Retrofit (Early Replacement)
The baseline equipment for retrofit projects is the existing condenser coil in a properly working
and maintained condition.
New Construction (Includes Major Remodel & Replace on Burn-Out)
The baseline equipment for new construction projects is defined to be a properly working and
maintained condenser coil with all required fan and head pressure controls as defined by the
local energy codes and standards.
2.25.3. Algorithms
The following energy and demand savings algorithms are applicable for this measure:
131 From DEER 2005 Database
132 From Ameren TRM

Refrigeration: Condensers 168
ΔkWh = ΔkWh/Unit * NUnits
ΔkW = ΔkW/Unit * Nunits
2.25.4. Definitions
ΔkWh Expected energy savings between baseline and installed equipment.
ΔkW Expected demand reduction between baseline and installed equipment.
ΔkWh/Unit Per unit energy savings as stipulated in Table 2-161.
ΔkW/Unit Per unit demand savings as stipulated in Table 2-161.
Nunits Number of condensers installed on individual systems

2.25.5. Sources
29. Ameren Missouri Technical Resource Manual
2.25.6. Stipulated Values
The following tables stipulate allowable values for each of the variables in the energy and
demand savings algorithms for this measure.
Table 2-163 Unit Energy Savings for Efficient Refrigeration Condenser 133
Measure kWh/Ton kW/Ton
Energy Efficient Condenser - Retrofit 120 0.118
Energy Efficient Condenser – New Construction 114 0.112

133 From Ameren Missouri Technical Resource Manual

Refrigeration: Controls 169
2.26. Refrigeration: Controls
Floating-head pressure controls take advantage of low outside air temperatures to reduce the
amount of work for the compressor by allowing the head pressure to drop and rise along with
outdoor conditions. Dropping the head pressure during low outdoor ambient temperature
conditions (less than 70 degrees F) reduces compressor energy consumption and overall
runtime. Floating suction pressure requires controls to reset refrigeration system target suction
temperature based on refrigerated display case or walk-in temperature, rather than operating at
a fixed suction temperature set-point. This also reduces compressor energy consumption and
overall runtime.
Table 2-162 Typical Savings Estimates for Floating Suction Pressure Controls (Only)
Retrofit New Construction
Deemed Savings Unit HP HP
Average Unit Energy Savings 104 kWh 77 kWh
Average Unit Peak Demand Savings 19 W 10 W
Expected Useful Life 16 Years 16 Years
Average Material & Labor Cost $86.91 n/a
Average Incremental Cost n/a $53.75
Stacking Effect End-Use Refrigeration

Table 2-163 Typical Savings Estimates for Floating Head Pressure Controls (Only)
Retrofit New Construction
Deemed Savings Unit HP HP
Average Unit Energy Savings 440 kWh 225 kWh
Average Unit Peak Demand Savings 17 W 11 W
Expected Useful Life 16 Years 16 Years
Average Material & Labor Cost $272.60 n/a
Average Incremental Cost n/a $166.60
Stacking Effect End-Use Refrigeration

Table 2-164 summarizes the ‘typical’ expected (per unit) energy impacts for this measure.
Typical values are based on the algorithms and stipulated values described below.

Refrigeration: Controls 170
Table 2-164 Typical Savings Estimates for Floating Suction Pressure Controls (Only)
Retrofit New Construction
Deemed Savings Unit HP HP
Average Unit Energy Savings 104 kWh 77 kWh
Average Unit Peak Demand Savings 19 W 10 W
Expected Useful Life 16 Years 16 Years
Average Material & Labor Cost $86.91 n/a
Average Incremental Cost n/a $53.75
Stacking Effect End-Use Refrigeration

Table 2-165 Typical Savings Estimates for Floating Head Pressure Controls (Only)
Retrofit New Construction
Deemed Savings Unit HP HP
Average Unit Energy Savings 440 kWh 225 kWh
Average Unit Peak Demand Savings 17 W 11 W
Expected Useful Life 16 Years 16 Years
Average Material & Labor Cost $272.60 n/a
Average Incremental Cost n/a $166.60
Stacking Effect End-Use Refrigeration

Table 2-166 Typical Savings Estimates for Floating Head and Suction Pressure Controls
Retrofit New Construction
Deemed Savings Unit HP HP
Average Unit Energy Savings 544 kWh 302 kWh
Average Unit Peak Demand Savings 36 W 21 W
Expected Useful Life 16 Years 16 Years
Average Material & Labor Cost $359.51 n/a
Average Incremental Cost n/a $220.35
Stacking Effect End-Use Refrigeration
2.26.1. Definition of Eligible Equipment
Refrigeration systems having compressors with motors rated 1 horsepower or larger are
eligible. A head pressure control valve (flood-back control valve) must be installed to lower
minimum condensing head pressure from fixed position (180 psig for R-22; 210 psig for R-404a)
to a saturated pressure equivalent to 70 degrees F or less. Either a balanced-port or electronic
expansion valve that is sized to meet the load requirement at a 70 degree condensing
temperature must be installed. Alternatively, a device may be installed to supplement
refrigeration feed to each evaporator attached to condenser that is reducing head pressure.

Refrigeration: Controls 171
2.26.2. Definition of Baseline Equipment
There are two possible project baseline scenarios – retrofit and new construction.
Retrofit (Early Replacement)
The baseline equipment for retrofit projects is the existing refrigeration system without floating
head and/or suction pressure controls.
New Construction (Includes Major Remodel & Replace on Burn-Out)
The baseline equipment for New Construction projects is a refrigeration system meeting current
federal energy efficiency requirements and without floating head and/or suction pressure
controls.
2.26.3. Algorithms
The following energy and demand savings algorithms are applicable for this measure:
ΔkWh = ΔkWh/Unit * Cap
ΔkW = ΔkW/Unit * Cap
2.26.4. Definitions
ΔkWh Expected energy savings between baseline and installed equipment.
ΔkW Expected demand reduction between baseline and installed equipment.
ΔkWh/Unit Per unit energy savings as stipulated in Table 2-165 and Table 2-166 according to building type, building vintage, and baseline refrigeration
system type.
ΔW/Unit Per unit demand savings (in Watts) as stipulated in Table 2-165 and Table 2-166 according to building type, building vintage, and baseline
refrigeration system type.
Cap The capacity (in Tons) of the refrigeration system(s) onto which controls are being installed.
2.26.5. Sources
30. DEER Database for Energy-Efficient Resources. Version 2011 4.01
31. DEER Measure Cost Summary:
http://www.deeresources.com/deer0911planning/downloads/DEER2008_Costs_ValuesA
ndDocumentation_080530Rev1.zip
32. Regional Technical Forum UES workbook for Floating Head Pressure Controls:
http://rtf.nwcouncil.org/measures/com/ComGroceryFHPCSingleCompressor_v1_1.xls

Refrigeration: Controls 172
2.26.6. Stipulated Values
The following tables stipulate allowable values for each of the variables in the energy and
demand savings algorithms for this measure.
Table 2-167 Unit Energy and Demand Savings estimates for Retrofit Projects
Measure Description ΔkWh/HP ΔW/HP
Grocery, Floating Suction Pressure 104 17.27
Grocery, Floating Head Pressure, Fixed Setpoint (air-cooled) 325 -0.81
Grocery, Floating Head Pressure, Fixed Setpoint (evap-cooled) 466 4.59
Grocery, Floating Head Pressure, Variable Setpoint (air-cooled) 345 9.05
Grocery, Floating Head Pressure, Variable Setpoint (evap-cooled) 484 26.89
Grocery, Floating Head Pressure, Variable Setpt & Speed (air-cooled) 520 21.90
Grocery, Floating Head Pressure, Variable Setpt & Speed (evap-cooled) 515 30.85
Ref Warehse, Floating Suction Pressure 115 57.89
Ref Warehse, Floating Head Pressure, Fixed Setpoint (evap-cooled) 351 45.10
Ref Warehse, Floating Head Pressure, Variable Setpoint (evap-cooled) 351 45.10
Ref Warehse, Floating Head Pressure, Variable Setpt & Speed (evap-cooled) 467 45.10

Table 2-168 Unit Energy and Demand Savings estimates for New Construction Projects
Measure Description ΔkWh/HP ΔW/HP
Grocery, Floating Suction Pressure 78 9.62
Grocery, Floating Head Pressure, Fixed Setpoint (air-cooled) 120 0.00
Grocery, Floating Head Pressure, Fixed Setpoint (evap-cooled) 184 -23.55
Grocery, Floating Head Pressure, Variable Setpoint (air-cooled) 169 16.24
Grocery, Floating Head Pressure, Variable Setpoint (evap-cooled) 190 0.62
Grocery, Floating Head Pressure, Variable Setpt & Speed (air-cooled) 411 63.16
Grocery, Floating Head Pressure, Variable Setpt & Speed (evap-cooled) 226 4.96
Ref Warehse, Floating Suction Pressure 70 12.31
Ref Warehse, Floating Head Pressure, Fixed Setpoint (evap-cooled) 352 28.06
Ref Warehse, Floating Head Pressure, Variable Setpoint (evap-cooled) 352 28.06
Ref Warehse, Floating Head Pressure, Variable Setpt & Speed (evap-cooled) 438 28.06

Refrigeration: Door Gasket 173
2.27. Refrigeration: Door Gasket
Tight fitting gaskets inhibit infiltration of warm, moist air into the cold refrigerated space, thereby
reducing the cooling load. Aside from the direct reduction in cooling load, the associated
decrease in moisture entering the refrigerated space also helps prevent frost on the cooling
coils. Frost build-up adversely impacts the coil’s, heat transfer effectiveness, reduces air
passage (lowering heat transfer efficiency), and increases energy use during the defrost cycle.
Therefore, replacing defective door gaskets reduces compressor run time and improves the
overall effectiveness of heat removal from a refrigerated cabinet.
The following algorithms and assumptions are applicable to door gaskets installed on reach-in
and walk-in coolers and freezers.
Table 2-167 summarizes the ‘typical’ expected (per linear ft. of gasket) energy impacts for this
measure. Typical values are based on the algorithms and stipulated values described below.
Table 2-169 Typical Savings Estimates for Door Gaskets
Retrofit New Construction
Deemed Savings Unit linear ft. of gasket n/a
Average Unit Energy Savings 2.4 kWh n/a
Average Unit Peak Demand Savings 0.27 W n/a
Expected Useful Life 4 Years n/a
Average Material & Labor Cost $ 9.61 134 n/a
2.27.1. Definition of Eligible Equipment
The eligible equipment is a new door gasket and must replace a worn or damaged gasket on
the main insulated solid door of a walk-in cooler. Replacement gaskets must meet the
manufacturer’s specifications regarding dimensions, materials, attachment method, style,
compression, and magnetism.
2.27.2. Definition of Baseline Equipment
There are two possible project baseline scenarios – retrofit and new construction. This measure
currently only addresses the retrofit scenario.
Retrofit (Early Replacement)
The baseline equipment is a door gasket that has a tear that is at least large enough for a hand
to pass through (6 inches).
New Construction (Includes Major Remodel & Replace on Burn-Out)
134 Weighted Cost from DEER Measure Cost Summary

Refrigeration: Door Gasket 174
n/a
2.27.3. Algorithms
The following energy and demand savings algorithms are applicable for this measure:
ΔW = ΔWunit * L
2.27.4. Definitions
ΔkWh Expected energy savings between baseline and installed equipment.
ΔW Expected demand reduction (in Watts) between baseline and installed equipment.
ΔkWhunit Deemed kWh savings stipulated in Table 2-168.
ΔWunit Deemed kW savings stipulated in Table 2-168.
L Length of gasket replaced in feet.
2.27.5. Sources
33. CPUC Reports of Strip Curtains and Gaskets
http://rtf.nwcouncil.org/subcommittees/grocery/CPUC%20Strip&Gasket%202010.zip
34. Regional Technical Forum, Measure Workbooks
http://rtf.nwcouncil.org/measures/com/ComGroceryDoorGasketReplacement_v1_0.xlsm
http://rtf.nwcouncil.org/measures/com/ComGroceryDisplayCaseECMs_v2_2.xlsm
http://rtf.nwcouncil.org/measures/com/ComGroceryWalkinECM_v1_1.xlsm
35. DEER Measure Cost Summary:
http://www.deeresources.com/deer0911planning/downloads/DEER2008_Costs_ValuesA
ndDocumentation_080530Rev1.zip
2.27.6. Stipulated Values
The following tables stipulate allowable values for each of the variables in the energy and
demand savings algorithms for this measure.

Refrigeration: Door Gasket 175
Table 2-170 Unit Energy Savings for Door Gaskets 135
Case Type ΔkWhunit ΔWunit
Reach-In (Low-Temp)
Reach-In (Med-Temp) 0.53 0.06
Walk-In (Low-Temp) 5.10 0.58
Walk-In (Med-Temp) 0.70 0.08

135 Walk-in values obtained from CPUC reports. Reach-in values referenced by using a similar reach-in to walk-in ratio as RTF

Refrigerator: Evaporator Fans 176
2.28. Refrigerator: Evaporator Fans
Existing standard efficiency evaporator fan motors in reach-in and walk-in freezers and coolers
can be retrofitted with high-efficiency motors and/or controllers. These measures save energy
by reducing fan usage, refrigeration load (due to heat from motors), and compressor energy
(from electronic temperature control).The following algorithms and assumptions are applicable
to reach-in and walk-in evaporator fans.
Table 2-169 through Table 2-171 summarize the ‘typical’ expected (per motor) energy impacts
for this measure. Typical values are based on the algorithms and stipulated values described on
the next page. 136
Table 2-171 Typical Savings Estimates for Reach-in and Walk-in Evaporator Fan Controls
Retrofit New Construction
Deemed Savings Unit Motor n/a
Expected Useful Life 15 Years n/a
Stacking Effect End-Use Refrigeration

Table 2-172 Typical Savings Estimates for Walk-in Evaporator Fan Motors
Retrofit New Construction
Deemed Savings Unit Motor n/a
Average Unit Energy Savings 593 kWh n/a
Average Unit Peak Demand Savings 61 W n/a
Expected Useful Life 15 Years n/a
Average Material & Labor Cost $ 296.78 n/a
Average Incremental Cost n/a n/a
Stacking Effect End-Use Refrigeration

136 See spreadsheet “29-TypicalCalcs_EvapFans.xlsx” for assumptions and calculations.

Refrigerator: Evaporator Fans 177
Table 2-173 Typical Savings Estimates for Reach-in Evaporator Fan Motors
Retrofit New Construction
Deemed Savings Unit Motor n/a
Average Unit Energy Savings 318 kWh n/a
Average Unit Peak Demand Savings 44 W n/a
Expected Useful Life 15 Years n/a
Average Material & Labor Cost $ 84.45 n/a
Average Incremental Cost n/a n/a
Stacking Effect End-Use Refrigeration

2.28.1. Definition of Eligible Equipment
The eligible equipment for high-efficiency evaporator fan motors is Electronically Commutated
(ECM) or Permanent Split Capacitor (PSC) motors. PSC motors can only replace shaded pole
(SP) motors, and ECM motors can replace either SP or PSC motors. Eligible fan motor controls
can either be 2 speed (hi/low) or cycle the fans (on/off). Controls must cut fan motor power by at
least 75 percent during the compressor “off” cycle.
2.28.2. Definition of Baseline Equipment
There are two possible project baseline scenarios – retrofit and new construction. This measure
currently only addresses the retrofit scenario.
Retrofit (Early Replacement)
The baseline equipment for high-efficiency evaporator fan motors is SP or PSC evaporator fan
motors in reach-in and walk-in freezers and coolers. SP motors can be retrofitted with either
ECMs or PSCs. Existing PSC motors can only be retrofitted with ECMs. The baseline for
controls is a fan that operated continuously and at full speed prior.
New Construction (Includes Major Remodel & Replace on Burn-Out)
n/a
2.28.3. Algorithms
The following energy and demand savings algorithms are applicable for this measure:
ΔkWh = NUnits *[ (kWhFan) + (kWhFan * 3.413) / EER]
ΔkW = NUnits * kWhFan * CF / Hours
kWhFan, motor = (kWmotor, base – kWmotor, Installed) * Hours
kWhFan, control = (kWhcontrol, base – kWhcontrol, Installed)

Refrigerator: Evaporator Fans 178
kWmotor, base = Wattsbase / (ηbase *1000)
kWmotor, Installed = WattsInstalled / (ηInstalled *1000)
kWhcontrol, base = Wattsbase * Hours / (ηbase *1000)
kWhcontrol, Installed = kWhfullspeed + kWhlowspeed
kWhfullspeed = kWhcontrol, base * Run Time %
kWhlowspeed = % Speed2.5 * kWhcontro, base * Run Time %
2.28.4. Definitions
ΔkWh Expected energy savings between baseline and installed equipment.
ΔkW Expected demand reduction between baseline and installed equipment.
NUnits Number of fans
Hours Annual operating hours
CF Coincidence Factor
kWmotor, i Connected load of the base and installed motors
Wattsbase/Installed Baseline motor output wattage - If unknown, see Table 2-173 and Table 2-176.
ηbase/Installed Efficiency of baseline (base) or installed motor(s) - If unknown, see Table 2-173 and Table 2-176.
kWhcontrol, i Fan annual energy usage before (base) and after (Installed) controls
kWhFan Fan motor annual energy usage
kWhfullspeed Fan annual energy usage at full speed
kWhlowspeed Fan annual energy usage at low speed
Run Time % Run Time % - Percent of time that fan is at corresponding speed see Table 2-178.
% Speed Ratio of low speed to full speed in a percent = 35% see Table 2-178.
2.28.5. Sources
36. Regional Technical Forum, Measure Workbooks
http://rtf.nwcouncil.org/measures/com/ComGroceryDisplayCaseECMs_v2_2.xlsm
http://rtf.nwcouncil.org/measures/com/ComGroceryWalkinEvapFanECMController_v1_1.
xls

Refrigerator: Evaporator Fans 179
http://rtf.nwcouncil.org/measures/com/ComGroceryWalkinECM_v1_1.xlsm
37. EnergySmart Grocer Invoice Data
38. AHRI Standard 1200 – 2006
39. Federal Rulemaking for Commercial Refrigeration Equipment, Technical Support
Document. 2009
40. Pennsylvania TRM
2.28.6. Stipulated Values
The following tables stipulate allowable values for each of the variables in the energy and
demand savings algorithms for this measure.
Table 2-174 Evaporator Fan Motor Output and Input Power for Reach-ins
Motor
Output 137
SP
Input
ECM
Input
PSC
Input ECM
Efficiency 138 PSC Efficiency SP Efficiency
9 45 14 31 66% 29% 20%
19.5 97.5 29.5 67.2 66% 29% 20%
37 185 56 128 66% 29% 20%

137 From RTF Workbook: http://rtf.nwcouncil.org/measures/com/ComGroceryDisplayCaseECMs_v2_2.xlsm
138 Values from AHRI Standard 1200 - 2006

Refrigerator: Evaporator Fans 180
Table 2-175 Un-Weighted Baseline kWh Savings for Reach-ins 139
Retrofit Type
Base
Power
(Watts)
Installed Power Annual
Hours EER
Energy Savings
Med Temp Shaded Pole to ECM - 9 Watt Output 45 14 8,760 9 379
Med Temp Shaded Pole to ECM - 19.5 Watt 98 30 8,760 9 821
Med Temp Shaded Pole to ECM - 37 Watt 185 56 8,760 9 1,558
Low Temp Shaded Pole to ECM in display case - 98 30 8,030 5 918
Low Temp Shaded Pole to ECM - 37 Watt Output 185 56 8,030 5 1,742
Med Temp Shaded Pole to PSC - 19.5 Watt 98 67 8,760 9 366
Med Temp Shaded Pole to PSC - 37 Watt Output 185 128 8,760 9 694
Low Temp Shaded Pole to PSC in display case - 98 67 8,030 5 409
Low Temp Shaded Pole to PSC - 37 Watt Output 185 128 8,030 5 776
Med Temp PSC to ECM - 37 Watt Output (1/20 128 56 8,760 9 864
Low Temp PSC to ECM in display case - 19.5 67 30 8,030 5 509
Low Temp PSC to ECM - 37 Watt Output (1/20 128 56 8,030 5 966

Table 2-176 Average Savings and Incremental Cost by Evaporator Fan Motor Type for Reach-
ins
Retrofit Type kWh Savings kW Savings Incremental Cost
SP to ECM 477 0.049 $84.45
SP to PSC 212 0.022 $84.45
PSC to ECM 265 0.027 $84.45

139 kWh algorithms from RTF Workbook: http://rtf.nwcouncil.org/measures/com/ComGroceryDisplayCaseECMs_v2_2.xlsm

Refrigerator: Evaporator Fans 181
Table 2-177 Evaporator Fan Motor Output and Input Power for Walk-ins 140
Motor Output SP Input ECM Input PSC Input ECM
Efficiency
PSC
Efficiency 141
SP
Efficiency
16-23 75 30 48 66% 41% 26%
37 142 56 90 66% 41% 26%
49.7 191 75 121 66% 41% 26%

140 All values except PSC Efficiency are from RTF Workbook:
http://rtf.nwcouncil.org/measures/com/ComGroceryWalkinEvapFanECMController_v1_1.xls
141 PSC Efficiency from Pennsylvania TRM

Refrigerator: Evaporator Fans 182
Table 2-178 Un-Weighted Baseline kWh Savings for Walk-ins 142
Retrofit Type
Base
Power
(Watts)
Installed Power Annual
Hours
EER

Total Energy Savings
Med Temp Shaded Pole to ECM - 16-23 Watt 75 30 8,760 11.16 520
Med Temp Shaded Pole to ECM - 37 Watt 142 56 8,760 11.16 987
Med Temp Shaded Pole to ECM - 49.7 Watt 191 75 8,760 11.16 1325
Low Temp Shaded Pole to ECM - 16-23 Watt 75 30 8,760 5.12 664
Low Temp Shaded Pole to - 37 Watt Output 142 56 8,760 5.12 1259
Low Temp Shaded Pole to ECM - 49.7 Watt 191 75 8,760 5.12 1691
Med Temp Shaded Pole to PSC - 16-23 Watt 75 48 8,760 11.16 314
Med Temp Shaded Pole to PSC - 37 Watt 142 90 8,760 11.16 596
Med Temp Shaded Pole to PSC - 49.7 Watt 191 121 8,760 11.16 800
Low Temp Shaded Pole to PSC - 16-23 Watt 75 48 8,760 5.12 401
Low Temp Shaded Pole to - 37 Watt Output 142 90 8,760 5.12 760
Low Temp Shaded Pole to PSC - 49.7 Watt 191 121 8,760 5.12 1021
Med Temp PSC to ECM - 37 Watt Output (1/20 90 56 8,760 11.16 391
Med Temp PSC to ECM - 49.7 Watt Output 121 75 8,760 11.16 525

142 kWh algorithms are based on RTF Workbook: http://rtf.nwcouncil.org/measures/com/ComGroceryWalkinECM_v1_1.xlsm

Refrigerator: Evaporator Fans 183
Table 2-179 Average Savings and Incremental Cost by Evaporator Fan Motor Type for Walk-ins
Retrofit Type kWh Savings kW Savings Incremental Cost
SP to ECM 659 0.068 $304.58
SP to PSC 398 0.041 $226.53
PSC to ECM 261 0.027 $304.58

Refrigerator: Evaporator Fans 184
Table 2-180 Un-Weighted Baseline kWh Savings for Walk-in Evaporator Fan Controls
Baseline Fan Energy Savings Full Speed Low Speed
Walk-in Motor
Type
Output Power EER Input Power Annual
Hours
Annual Energy Run Time Annual Energy Run Time %
Speed
Annual Energy Direct
(kWh)
Refrig.
(kWh)
Total
(kWh)
Med SP 37 (1/20 11.16 142 8,760 1247 52% 648 48% 35% 43 555 170 725
Med SP 49.7 11.16 191 8,760 1675 52% 871 48% 35% 58 746 228 974
Low SP 37 (1/20 5.12 142 8,760 1247 68% 848 32% 35% 29 370 247 617
Low SP 49.7 5.12 191 8,760 1675 68% 1139 32% 35% 39 497 331 828
Med PSC 37 (1/20 11.16 90 8,760 791 52% 411 48% 35% 28 352 108 460
Med PSC 49.7 11.16 121 8,760 1062 52% 552 48% 35% 37 473 145 617
Low PSC 37 (1/20 5.12 90 8,760 791 68% 538 32% 35% 18 235 156 391
Low PSC 49.7 5.12 121 8,760 1062 68% 722 32% 35% 25 315 210 525
Med ECM 37 (1/20 11.16 56 8,760 491 52% 255 48% 35% 17 219 67 286
Med ECM 49.7 11.16 75 8,760 660 52% 343 48% 35% 23 294 90 384

Refrigerator: Evaporator Fans 185
Baseline Fan Evap Fan Controls Energy Savings
Low ECM 5.12 56 8,760 491 68% 334 32% 35% 11 146 97 243
Low ECM 49.7 5.12 75 8,760 660 68% 449 32% 35% 15 196 131 326

Refrigerator: Evaporator Fans 186
Table 2-181 Average Savings and Incremental Cost by Evaporator Fan Motor Type for Walk-in
Evaporator Fan Controls
Motor Type kWh Savings kW Savings Incremental Cost
SP 452 0.046 $161.74
PSC 285 0.029 $161.74
ECM 178 0.018 $161.74

Refrigeration: Insulation 187
2.29. Refrigeration: Insulation
This measure applies to installation of insulation on existing bare suction lines (the larger
diameter lines that run from the evaporator to the compressor) that are located outside of the
refrigerated space. Insulation impedes heat transfer from the ambient air to the suction lines,
thereby reducing undesirable system superheat. This decreases the load on the compressor,
resulting in decreased compressor operating hours, and energy savings. Table 2-180 and Table
2-181 summarize the ‘typical’ expected (per foot) energy impacts for this measure. Typical
values are based on the algorithms and stipulated values described below.
Table 2-182 Typical Savings Estimates for Suction Line Insulation for Medium-Temperature
Coolers
Retrofit New Construction
Deemed Savings Unit Linear Foot n/a
Average Unit Energy Savings 7.5 kWh n/a
Average Unit Peak Demand Savings 1.6 W n/a
Expected Useful Life 11 Years n/a
Average Material & Labor Cost $ 4.46

Table 2-183 Typical Savings Estimates for Suction Line Insulation for Low-Temperature
Freezers
Retrofit New Construction
Deemed Savings Unit Linear Foot n/a
Average Unit Energy Savings 12 kWh n/a
Average Unit Peak Demand Savings 2.3 W n/a
Expected Useful Life 11 Years n/a
Average Material & Labor Cost
2.29.1. Definition of Eligible Equipment
Insulation must insulate bare refrigeration suction lines of 2-1/4 inches in diameter or less on
existing equipment only. Medium temperature lines require 3/4 inch of flexible, closed-cell, nitrite
rubber or an equivalent insulation. Low temperature lines require 1-inch of insulation that is in
compliance with the specifications above. Insulation exposed to the outdoors must be protected
from the weather (i.e. jacketed with a medium-gauge aluminum jacket).
143 From SCE Work Paper: WPSCNRRN0003.1
144 From SCE Work Paper: WPSCNRRN0003.1

Refrigeration: Insulation 188
2.29.2. Definition of Baseline Equipment
There are two possible project baseline scenarios – retrofit and new construction. This measure
currently only addresses the retrofit scenario.
Retrofit (Early Replacement)
The baseline condition is an un-insulated (bare) refrigeration suction line.
New Construction (Includes Major Remodel & Replace on Burn-Out)
New construction is not eligible since installation of insulation on refrigerant suction line is
standard practice.
2.29.3. Algorithms
The following energy and demand savings algorithms are applicable for this measure:
2.29.4. Definitions
ΔkWh Expected energy savings between baseline and installed equipment.
ΔkW Expected demand reduction between baseline and installed equipment.
ΔkWh/Unit Unit energy savings. Stipulated values for this input are listed in Table 2-182.
ΔkW/Unit Unit demand savings. Stipulated values for this input are listed in Table 2-182.
L Length of insulation installed.
2.29.5. Sources
41. Southern California Edison Company, "Insulation of Bare Refrigeration Suction Lines",
Work Paper WPSCNRRN0003.1
42. Pennsylvania Technical Reference Manual
2.29.6. Stipulated Values
The following tables stipulate allowable values for each of the variables in the energy and
demand savings algorithms for this measure.

Refrigeration: Insulation 189
Table 2-184 Unit Energy Savings for Suction Line Insulation 145
Case Type ΔkW/ft ΔkWh/ft
Medium-Temperature Coolers 0.001548 7.5
Low-Temperature Freezers 0.00233 12

145 See spreadsheet “30-TypicalCalcs_RefIns.xlsx” for assumptions and calculations used to estimate the typical unit energy savings
and incremental costs. Unit energy savings are referenced from the DEER for California climate zone 16 (which exhibits the most
similar weather to Idaho). Note that these savings do not exhibit significant sensitivity to outdoor weather.

Refrigeration: Night Covers 190
2.30. Refrigeration: Night Covers
Night covers are deployed during facility unoccupied hours in order to reduce refrigeration
energy consumption. These types of display cases can be found in small and medium to large
size grocery stores. The air temperature inside low-temperature display cases is below 0°F and
between 0°F to 30°F for medium-temperature and between 35°F to 55°F for high-temperature
display cases. The main benefit of using night covers on open display cases is a reduction of
infiltration and radiation cooling loads. It is recommended that these covers have small,
perforated holes to decrease moisture buildup. The following algorithms and assumptions are
applicable to night covers installed on existing open-type refrigerated display cases.
Table 2-183 summarizes the ‘typical’ expected (per ft. of the opening width) energy impacts for
this measure. Typical values are based on the algorithms and stipulated values described
below.
Table 2-185 Typical Savings Estimates for Night Covers
Retrofit New Construction
Deemed Savings Unit ft. of case n/a
Average Unit Energy Savings 29 kWh n/a
Average Unit Peak Demand Savings 0.0 kW n/a
Expected Useful Life 5 Years n/a
Average Material & Labor Cost $ 42.20 146 n/a
2.30.1. Definition of Eligible Equipment
The eligible equipment is assumed to be a refrigerated case with a continuous cover deployed
during overnight periods. Characterization assumes covers are deployed for six hours daily.
2.30.2. Definition of Baseline Equipment
There are two possible project baseline scenarios – retrofit and new construction. This measure
currently only addresses the retrofit scenario.
Retrofit (Early Replacement)
The baseline equipment is assumed to be an open refrigerated case with no continuous
covering deployed during overnight periods.
New Construction (Includes Major Remodel & Replace on Burn-Out)
n/a
146

Refrigeration: Night Covers 191
2.30.3. Algorithms
The following energy and demand savings algorithms are applicable for this measure:
ΔkWh = ΔkWh/Unit * L
ΔkW = 0
2.30.4. Definitions
ΔkWh Expected energy savings between baseline and installed equipment.
ΔkW Defined to be zero for this measure. Demand savings are zero because
it is assumed that the covers aren’t used during the peak period.
ΔkWh/Unit Per unit energy savings as stipulated in Table 2-184 according to case temperature and climate zone.
2.30.5. Sources
43. SCE Workpaper: “Night Covers for Open Vertical and Horizontal LT and Open Vertical
MT Display Cases,” SCE13RN005.0
44. RTF Workbook:
http://rtf.nwcouncil.org/measures/com/ComGroceryDisplayCaseECMs_v2_2.xlsm
45. DEER Measure Cost Summary:
http://www.deeresources.com/deer0911planning/downloads/DEER2008_Costs_ValuesA
ndDocumentation_080530Rev1.zip
2.30.6. Stipulated Values
The following tables stipulate allowable values for each of the variables in the energy and
demand savings algorithms for this measure.
Table 2-186 Unit Energy Savings for Refrigeration: Night Covers
CZ Case Type Savings
5 Low Temperature 66.67
5 Medium Temperature 28.99
6 Low Temperature 75
6 Medium Temperature 30.43

Refrigeration: No-Heat Glass 192
2.31. Refrigeration: No-Heat Glass
New low heat/no heat door designs incorporate heat reflective coatings on the glass, gas
inserted between the panes, non-metallic spacers to separate the glass panes, and/or non-
metallic frames (such as fiberglass). This protocol documents the energy savings attributed to
the installation of special glass doors with low/no anti-sweat heaters for low temp cases. Table
summarizes the ‘typical’ expected (per door) energy impacts for this measure. Typical values
are based on the algorithms and stipulated values described below.
Table 2-187 Typical Savings Estimates for Low/No Heat Doors 147
Retrofit New Construction
Deemed Savings Unit Door Door
Average Unit Energy Savings 281 kWh 253 kWh
Average Unit Peak Demand Savings 0.17 kW 0.15 kW
Expected Useful Life 12 Years 12 Years
Average Material & Labor Cost $472 n/a
Average Incremental Cost n/a $386
Stacking Effect End-Use Refrigeration
2.31.1. Definition of Eligible Equipment
The eligible equipment is a no-heat/low-heat clear glass on an upright display case. It is limited
to door heights of 57 inches or more. Doors must have either heat reflective treated glass, be
gas filled, or both. This measure applies to low temperature cases only—those with a case
temperature below 0°F. Doors must have 3 or more panes. Total door rail, glass, and frame
heater wattage cannot exceed 54 Watts per door for low temperature display cases.
2.31.2. Definition of Baseline Equipment
There are two possible project baseline scenarios – retrofit and new construction. This measure
currently only addresses the retrofit scenario.
Retrofit (Early Replacement)
The baseline condition is assumed to be a commercial glass door that consists of two-pane
glass, aluminum doorframes and door rails, and door and frame heaters. For the purposes of
calculating typical energy savings for this measure it is assumed that the baseline door and
frame heaters consume 214 Watts per door.
New Construction (Includes Major Remodel & Replace on Burn-Out)
n/a
147 See spreadsheet “32-TypicalCalcs_NoHeatGlass.xlsx” for assumptions and calculations used to estimate the typical unit energy
savings, EUL, and incremental cost.

Refrigeration: No-Heat Glass 193
2.31.3. Algorithms
The following energy and demand savings algorithms are applicable for this measure:
ΔkWh = ΔkWh/Unit * NUnits
ΔkW = ΔkW/Unit * NUnits
2.31.4. Definitions
ΔkWh Expected energy savings between baseline and installed equipment.
ΔkW Expected demand reduction between baseline and installed equipment.
ΔkWh/Unit Per unit energy savings. Stipulated values for this input can be found in Table […].
ΔkW/Unit Per unit peak reduction. Stipulated values for this input can be found in
Table […].
NUnits Total number of doors installed.
2.31.5. Sources
46. Southern California Edison. Low ASH Display Doors Work Paper: SCE13RN018.0
47. DEER EUL/RUL Values:
http://www.deeresources.com/deer0911planning/downloads/EUL_Summary_10-1-08.xls
2.31.6. Stipulated Valies
The following tables stipulate allowable values for each of the variables in the energy and
demand savings algorithms for this measure.
Table 2-188 Stipulated Energy and Demand Savings Estimates for “No-Heat Glass”
ΔkWh/Unit ΔkW/Unit
Weather Zone 5 295.4 0.175
Weather Zone 6 223.9 0.14

PC Management Software 194
2.32. PC Management Software
This measure relates to the installation of a centralized energy management system that
controls when desktop computers and monitors plugged into a network power down to lower
power mode states. Savings come from an increase in the rate of time spent in the "Off" state
due to the ability of the network application to shut the computer down when not in prolonged
use. The shift in hours from idle state to off state is based on empirical studies of power
management installations. Savings vary by building type according to HVAC interaction factor.
Table 2-187 summarizes the ‘typical’ expected (per machine controlled) energy impacts for this
measure. Typical values are based on the algorithms and stipulated values described below.
Table 2-189 Typical Savings Estimates for PC Power Management Software
Retrofit New Construction
Deemed Savings Unit Machine Controlled n/a
Expected Useful Life 4 Years n/a
Stacking Effect End-Use Miscellaneous Loads
2.32.1. Definition of Eligible Equipment
The eligible equipment is a network of standard desktop computers and monitors, with no
centralized power management software. Eligible software must allow IT administrators to
control desktop power consumption within the network from a central location and include a
reporting feature to enable monitoring and validation of the energy savings. Reports must also
provide a catalog of systems (and their locations) under management.
2.32.2. Definition of Baseline Equipment
There are two possible project baseline scenarios – retrofit and new construction. This measure
currently only addresses the retrofit scenario.
Retrofit (Early Replacement)
The baseline condition is a network of standard desktop computers and monitors, with no
centralized power management software. Baseline desktop usage is derived as a weighted mix
of Energy Star compliant and non-compliant models, and a mix of desktop categories. Baseline
duty cycle is drawn from empirical studies, taking into account the enabled built-in power
management of computers and monitors before applying the effects of a centralized power
management control.
New Construction (Includes Major Remodel & Replace on Burn-Out)
n/a

PC Management Software 195
2.32.3. Algorithms
The following energy and demand savings algorithms are applicable for this measure:
Units
Units

2.32.4. Definitions
ΔkWh Expected energy savings between baseline and installed equipment.
ΔkWh/Unit Per unit energy savings as stipulated in Table 2-188.
ΔkW/Unit Per unit demand savings as stipulated in Table 2-188.
NUnits Total number of computers controlled.
2.32.5. Sources
48. Regional Technical Forum, Measure Workbooks
http://rtf.nwcouncil.org/measures/measure.asp?id=95/
NonResNetCompPwrMgt_v3_0.xls
2.32.6. Stipulated Values
The following tables stipulate allowable values for each of the variables in the energy and
demand savings algorithms for this measure.
Table 2-190 Unit Energy Savings for PC Power Management Software 148
Building HVAC System ΔkWh/Unit ΔkW/Unit
K-12 School Electric Heat 83.9 0.003
K-12 School Heat Pump 124.4 0.004
K-12 School Gas Heat 159.2 0.006
Large Office/Central HVAC Electric Heat 131.4 0.006
Large Office/Central HVAC Heat Pump 147.6 0.007
Large Office/Central HVAC Gas Heat 160.6 0.008
Other/Packaged HVAC Electric Heat 98.7 0.005
Other/Packaged HVAC Heat Pump 138.2 0.007
Other/Packaged HVAC Gas Heat 172.2 0.008

148 See spreadsheet “33-NonResNetCompPwrMgt_v3_0.xlsx” for assumptions and calculations used to estimate the typical unit
energy and peak demand savings.

Variable Frequency Drives (Process Applications) 196
2.33. Variable Frequency Drives (Process Applications)
Variable Frequency drives can provide energy efficient operation for fans and pumps used in
processes applications. The savings potential for Variable Frequency Drives in process
applications is highly variable and dependent upon its application. For this reason it is best for
the energy impacts for such projects to be determined via a custom path. The method below
can be used to assess energy impacts for projects in which a VFD is installed on either a fan or
centrifugal pump serving a process application.
Table 2-189 summarizes the ‘typical’ expected energy impacts for this measure. Typical values
are based on the algorithms and stipulated values described below.
Table 2-191 Variable Frequency Drives (Process Applications)149
Retrofit New Construction
Deemed Savings Unit HP HP
Expected Useful Life 12 Years 12 Years
Stacking Effect End-Use Process
2.33.1. Definition of Eligible Equipment
Only VFDs installed on variably loaded motors, from 5 to 300 horsepower, in process
applications are eligible under this measure.150 Note that systems of motors which are
individually less than 5 horsepower are eligible provided that: 1) they are controlled by a
common VFD, and 2) the aggregate horsepower of motors controlled by a single VFD is greater
than 5 HP. Eligible applications are limited to fans and centrifugal pumps serving a process
load. Examples of such loads include (but are not limited to) wastewater effluent pumping,
ventilation fans for agricultural sheds, and dairy vacuum pumps. Fans and pumps used for
Heating, Ventilation and Air-Conditioning in occupant comfort applications are not eligible under
this measure.
2.33.2. Definition of Baseline Equipment
When electing to use an engineering calculation approach (Algorithm 2 below) the reported
savings estimates must be production neutral. Since the impact of facility production rates is
implicit in the motor load profile care should be taken to ensure that the baseline and measure
motor load profiles developed for each site are based on a facility 'typical' production. In cases
where the project constitutes an expansion due to increased production (or new construction)
149 See spreadsheet “34-TypicalCalcs_ProcessVFD.xlsx” for assumptions and calculations used to estimate the typical unit energy
savings and incremental costs.
150 The term “process” here denotes any industrial or agricultural VFD driven application which does not serve space conditioning
equipment for occupant comfort.

Variable Frequency Drives (Process Applications) 197
the most reliable production estimates should be used. There are two possible project baseline
scenarios - retrofit and new construction.
Retrofit (Early Replacement)
In early replacement retrofit scenarios the baseline equipment is the pre-existing pump/fan,
motor, and flow control strategy. Production levels (to the extent that they impact equipment
energy use) are assumed to be 'typical' for the facility.
New Construction (Includes Major Remodel & Replace on Burn-Out)
Baseline equipment for new construction projects (including retrofits that result in an expansion
of equipment capacity) is defined by the "industry standard" for affected processes. If no
industry standard can be identified then the facility (or others operated by the same company)
should be explored to identify whether or not older and similar production lines can be used to
define baseline equipment. If none of the above are present (or applicable) then the baseline
equipment is assumed to be the least efficient variant of what is installed. Production levels (to
the extent that they impact equipment energy use) are assumed to be the most reliable estimate
of 'typical' production rates for the facility.
2.33.3. Algorithms
The following energy and demand savings algorithms are applicable for this measure:
Algorithm 1: Deemed
ΔkWhDeemed = kWh/Unit * PNominal
ΔkWDeemed = kW/Unit * PNominal
Algorithm 2: Engineering Formulas 151
Δ kWhEng = ∑ Pmotor * Hri * (Fbase, i - Fmeas, i)
Δ kWEng = Pmotor * (Fbase, i - Fmeas, i) * CF
Pmotor = .745 * PNominal * LF / η
Fi = β1 + β 2 * Spdi + β 3 * Spdi2 3
2.33.4. Definitions
ΔkWh Expected energy savings between baseline and installed equipment.
ΔkW Expected demand reduction between baseline and installed equipment.
Pmotor The electrical power draw of the motor at pump design conditions.
Pnominal The nominal horsepower of the motor
LF The load factor for the motor when operating at pump design conditions.
151 TCFhese formulas are applied in the workbook titled “34-TypicalCalcs_ProcessVFD.xlsx”. The spreadsheet titled “Site Specific
Calculator” can be used to estimate project energy impacts using the engineering formula based approach.

Variable Frequency Drives (Process Applications) 198
Fi The motor process loading factor at motor % Speed i. This is calculated using the
curve-fit coefficients β 1 through β 4 found in Table 2-191. The appropriate factors
are selected based on the flow control type for the baseline. Coefficients for flow control VFD are selected for the measure factors (Fmeas, i). For any project, it must
i
2.33.5. Sources
49. Regional Technical Forum Unit Energy Savings calculator for Agricultural: Variable
Frequency Drives – Dairy (http://rtf.nwcouncil.org/measures/ag/AgDairyVFD_v1_2.xls)
50. Regional Technical Forum Unit Energy Savings calculator for Agricultural: Variable
Frequency Drives - Potato/Onion Shed
(http://rtf.nwcouncil.org/measures/ag/AgPotatoOnionShedVFD_v1_3.xls)
51. Evaluation Results from 2011 Easy Upgrades, 2011 Building Efficiency, and 2010
Custom Efficiency Incentive Programs.
The following tables stipulate allowable values for each of the variables in the energy and
demand savings algorithms for this measure.
Table 2-192 Deemed Per/HP savings values
Measure Energy Savings Peak Demand Savings
Process VFD 1,377 0.16

Table 2-193 Coefficients for Process Loading Factors (Fi) Curve-Fits
Flow Control Type β1 β2 β3 β4
Throttling Valve 55.2124 0.637 -0.0019 0
Eddy Current Clutch 16.39683 -0.05647 0.01237 -3 x 10-5
Mechanical (Torque Converter) 13.51137 0.34467 0.01269 -7 x 10-5
Bypass, Recirculation Valve 102 0 0 0
VFD 27.44751 -1.00853 0.01762 0

Variable Frequency Drives (Process Applications) 199
Table 2-194 Coincidence Factors
Application CF
Site Specific As Measured
Other .77

Variable Frequency Drives (Process Applications) 200
3. Appendix A: Document Revision History

Variable Frequency Drives (Process Applications) 201
Table 3-1Document Revision History
Date Modified Revised Description of Changes
4/01/14 - 1.0 Initial Adoption of TRM.
11/04/14 1.0 1.1
Added PVVT and GSHP system types to HVAC
Controls measure chapter. Updates were made to
values in the summary tables which provide a unit savings estimate based on an assumed average of
system types. System type specific values were added
to the remaining applicable tables in this section.
04/16/15 1.1 1.2
Added WSHP system type to HVAC Controls measure
chapter. Updates were made to values in the summary tables which provide a unit savings estimate based on
an assumed average of system types. System type specific values were added to the remaining applicable tables in this section. Updated tables include Table
05/19/15 1.2 1.3 Found typo in several tables (Table 2-65 through Table 2-82). Table values updated to reflect corresponding
05/27/15 1.3 1.4
Found typo in several tables (Table 2-66 through Table
2-67). Table values updated to reflect corresponding
06/26/15 1.4 1.5
Updated savings values for Evaporative Pre-Cooler
measure (Chapter 17) to incorporate data from new
source. Accounts for the fact that the studies used to determine savings are biased towards R-22 and that R-
410A has higher savings potential. New numbers
assume a mix of both refrigerants, but a predominance
08/06/15 1.5 1.6
Made small revisions to three chapters:
1) Sections 2.12 and 2.13: Expanded description of eligible equipment to include changing from
A/C only to Heat-Pump and visa versa. 2) Section 2.10: Added references for the reader which provide full descriptions of the listed
HVAC system types. 3) Section 2.16: Updated numbers in Table 2-123
to reflect those in summary table and consistent

Variable Frequency Drives (Process Applications) 202
Date Modified Revised Description of Changes
10/02/2015 1.6 1.7
Updated (4) measures to include energy savings under
IECC 2012. Note that only a handful of measures were affected by the IECC 2012 code update:
1) High Efficiency A/C
2) High Efficiency Heat Pumps 3) Guest Room Occupancy Sensors

Supplement 2: Evaluation Idaho Power Company
Page 640 Demand-Side Management 2015 Annual Report
This page left blank intentionally.

Evaluations
Idaho Power Company Supplement 2: Evaluation
Demand-Side Management 2015 Annual Report Page 641
EVALUATIONS
Table 4. 2015 Evaluations
Report Title Program or Sector Analysis Performed by Study Manager Study/Evaluation Type
2015 Flex Peak Program End-of-Season Annual Report Commercial/Industrial Idaho Power Idaho Power Annual Report
2015 Irrigation Peak Rewards Program Report Irrigation Idaho Power Idaho Power Annual Report
A/C Cool Credit Impact Evaluation Residential CLEAResult Idaho Power Impact
Flex Peak Demand Response Program 2015 Impact Evaluation Commercial/Industrial CLEAResult Idaho Power Impact
Impact and Process Evaluation of Idaho Power’s Ductless Heat Pump Program
Residential Applied Energy Group Idaho Power Impact/Process
Impact and Process Evaluation of Idaho Power’s Home Improvement Program Applied Energy Group Idaho Power Impact/Process
Impact and Process Evaluation of Idaho Power’s See ya later, refrigerator® Program
Residential Applied Energy Group Idaho Power Impact/Process
Irrigation Peak Rewards Program 2015 Impact Evaluation Irrigation CLEAResult Idaho Power Impact
Supplement 2: Evaluation Idaho Power Company
Page 642 Demand-Side Management 2015 Annual Report
This page left blank intentionally.

2015 Flex Peak Program
End-of-Season Annual Report

November 3, 2015

Idaho Power
Flex Peak Program End-of-Season Report Page i

Table of Contents
Table of Contents ............................................................................................................. i
List of Tables .................................................................................................................... ii
List of Figures ................................................................................................................... ii
Background ..................................................................................................................... 1
Program Details .............................................................................................................. 1
Program Incentives ......................................................................................................... 2
Program Results ............................................................................................................. 3
Participation ............................................................................................................... 3
Operations ................................................................................................................. 7
Load Reduction Analysis ........................................................................................... 7
Program Costs ......................................................................................................... 11
Benefit-Cost Analysis ............................................................................................... 12
Customer Satisfaction Results ...................................................................................... 12
Program Activities for 2016 ........................................................................................... 13
Conclusions ................................................................................................................... 14

Idaho Power
Page ii Flex Peak Program End-of-Season Report
List of Tables
Table 1. 2015 Incentive Structure. ........................................................................... 2
Table 2. 2015 Event Realization Rates. ....................................................................... 9
Table 3. Realization Rate Per Participant for Each Event During Season. .............. 9
Table 4. Program Costs Through October 1, 2015. ............................................... 12

List of Figures
Figure 1. Idaho Power Service Area ........................................................................... 5
Figure 2. Distribution of Participants by Region for 2015 ............................................ 6
Figure 3. Distribution by Customer Segment for 2015 ................................................ 6
Figure 4. Baseline and “Day of Adjustment” Methodology Comparisons .................... 8
Figure 5. Average Realization Rate by Each Nomination Group .............................. 11

Attachment
CLEAResult 2015 Impact Evaluation

Idaho Power
Flex Peak Program End-of-Season Report Page 1
Background
The Flex Peak Program (“Program”) is a voluntary demand response (“DR”) program
available to industrial and large commercial customers that are capable of reducing their
electrical energy loads for short periods during summer peak days. By reducing
demand on extreme system load days during summer months, the Program reduces the amount of generation and transmission resources required to serve customers. This
Program, along with Idaho Power Company’s (“Idaho Power” or “Company”) other DR
programs, Irrigation Peak Rewards and the Residential Air Conditioner Cycling
Program, has helped to delay the need to build supply-side resources.
Idaho Power filed an application with the Idaho Public Utilities Commission (“Commission”) on February 4, 2015, in Case No. IPC-E-15-03 requesting authority to
replace the existing optional FlexPeak Management DR program that was managed by
a third-party contractor with an optional DR program that would be managed by the
Company. The Commission issued Order No. 33292 on May 7, 2015, authorizing the
Company to implement an internally managed Flex Peak Program under Schedule 82 in Idaho and continue recovery of its DR program costs in the manner it had been
previously.
As part of Order No. 33292, the Commission ordered the Company to file an annual
end-of-season report that should include the number of participants, number of
participating sites, megawatts (“MW”) of DR under contract, MW of DR realized and incented per dispatch, percent of nominated MW achieved in each dispatch event by
participant, and a detailed program cost analysis. This report addresses the annual
end-of-season reporting requirements.
Page 8 of the Commission’s order also requires Idaho Power to file a separate, one-
time report no later than May 7, 2016, that discusses the Company’s experience in running the Program, how the Program’s costs and benefits compare to those achieved
under the prior program, how participants have performed under the structure, and
whether changes might improve the Program. The Company will file the one-time
report in 2016.
Program Details
The Program pays participants a financial incentive for reducing load within their facility
and is active June 15 to August 15, between the hours of 2 p.m. to 8 p.m. on
non-holiday weekdays.
Customers with the ability to nominate or provide load reduction of at least 20 kilowatts
(“kW”) are eligible to enroll in the Program. The 20 kW threshold allows a broad range of customers the ability to participate in the Program. Participants receive notification of
a load reduction event (“event”) two hours prior to the start of the event, and events last
between two to four hours. The Flex Peak Program provided approximately 28 MW at
the generation level of committed load reduction based on the 2015 nomination
amounts.
Idaho Power Company
Page 2 Flex Peak Program End-of-Season Report
The parameters of the Flex Peak Program are in Schedule 82, and include the following:
 A minimum of three load reduction events would occur each Program season
 Events could occur any weekday, excluding July 4, between the hours of 2 p.m. and 8 p.m.
 Events could occur up to four hours per day and up to 15 hours per week, but no
more than 60 hours per Program season
 Idaho Power would give notification to participants two hours prior to the initiation
of an event
 If prior notice of a load reduction event had been sent, Idaho Power could choose
to cancel the event and notify participants of cancellation 30 minutes prior to the start of the event
Program Incentives
The Flex Peak Program includes both a fixed and variable incentive payment. The fixed
incentive is calculated by multiplying the actual kW reduction by $3.25 for weeks when an event is called, or the weekly nominated kW amount by $3.25 for weeks when an event is not called. The variable energy incentive is calculated by multiplying the kW
reduction by the event duration hours to achieve the total kilowatt-hour (“kWh”)
reduction during an event. The variable incentive payment is $0.16 per kWh and is
implemented for events that occur after the first three events.
The Program also includes an incentive adjustment of $2.00 when participants do not achieve their nominated amount during load reduction events. This adjustment amount
is used for the first three events. After the third event, the adjustment is reduced to
$0.25 per kW. Incentives are calculated using Idaho Power’s interval metering billing
data and participants’ incentive checks were mailed within 30 days of the end of the Program season. Participants were mailed their incentive checks by September 15 in 2015. The incentive structure offered for the 2015 season is listed in Table 1.
Table 1.
Fixed Capacity Payment Rate* Variable Energy Payment Rate**
$3.25 per Weekly Effective kW Reduction

Adjustment for first three events
$2.00 per kW not achieved up to nomination
$0.16 per kWh (Actual kW x Hours of Event)

Adjustment after first three events
$0.25 per kW not achieved up to nomination
*To be prorated for partial weeks **Does not apply to first three Program events
Idaho Power
Flex Peak Program End-of-Season Report Page 3
Program Results
The results throughout this report are at the generation level and system losses have
been taken into account. Idaho Power called three load reduction events in 2015. The
first event occurred on June 30, the second on July 21, and the third on August 4. The
maximum realization rate during the season was 96.6% and the average for all three events combined was 79.6%. The realization rate is the percentage of load reduction
achieved versus the amount of load reduction committed for an event. The highest
hourly load reduction achieved was during the July 21 event at 25.6 MW.
Participants had a committed load reduction of 28.1 MW in the first week of the
Program, which was the peak committed load reduction for the season. This weekly commitment, or “nomination”, was comprised of 38 participants totaling 72 sites. Out of
the total number of sites, 57 sites participated in the 2014 season, and 15 sites were
newly added in 2015. There were 36 sites that did not re-enroll from the 2014 season.
Of the 36 sites that did not re-enroll, 17 were from one customer that chose not to
participate in 2015. However, of the sites that did not re-enroll last season, Idaho Power has received information from customers that three sites will be enrolled in 2016.
The committed load reduction at the end of the season was 26.37 MW, which was
achieved by 71 facility sites. One site dropped out of the Program during the season
due to its primary pump being taken down and replaced.
The first event was called on Tuesday, June 30. Participants were notified at 2 p.m. for a four-hour event from 4-8 p.m. The total nomination for this event was 27.72 MW. The
average load reduction was 23.6 MW. The highest hourly load reduction was 24.1 MW
during hour three. The realization rate for this event was 86.7%.
The second event was called on Tuesday, July 21. Participants were notified at 2 p.m.
for a four-hour event from 4-8 p.m. The total nomination for this event was 26.4 MW. The average load reduction was 24.9 MW. The highest hourly load reduction was 25.6
during hour one. The realization rate for this event was 96.6%.
The third event was called on Tuesday, August 4. Participants were notified at 2 p.m.
for a three-hour event from 4-7 p.m. The total nomination for this event was 26.2 MW.
The average load reduction was 13.8 MW. The highest hourly load reduction was 14.6 MW during hour three. The realization rate for this event was 55.4%. This was
primarily due to one customer with two sites that was not able to provide their typical
load reduction because of production issues caused by outages from range fires.
These two sites achieved a realization rate of 8% in the August 4 event, compared to an
average of 113% for the first two events. Had the site’s realization rate for the August 4 event been the average of its realization rates from the first two events, the realization
rate for this event would have been 94.8%.
Participation
In anticipation of the 2015 Program season, Idaho Power utilized direct customer
mailings to encourage both past participants and new customers to enroll. Several
communications were sent to former FlexPeak Management program participants prior
Idaho Power Company
Page 4 Flex Peak Program End-of-Season Report
to the Commission approving Schedule 82 to advise them about the possible upcoming Program changes. The Commission granted authorization for the new Company-
managed Program on May 7, 2015. Idaho Power had just over 30 days to recruit
customers for the Flex Peak Program before the season began on June 15, 2015.
In May 2015, Program enrollment mailings were sent to all customers that had participated in prior seasons from 2012 to 2014. Contents of this mailing included Program details, a Program application, the Program’s incentive structure, and a listing
of the customer’s eligible service points. Additionally, the Idaho Power Program
Specialist and Customer Representatives answered specific customer questions by
phone, email, and face to face contact, which helped inform participants of new Program details.
Despite changes to the Program, most past participants and sites re-enrolled. The
number of sites enrolled in the Program for 2015 was 72. Of those 72 sites, 57 were
previously enrolled during the 2014 season. Those 57 returning sites accounted for
79% of the 2015 enrolled service points. The Program also retained 34 of the 48
participants from the 2014 season for a 71% customer retention rate.
In 2015, the average nominated kW per site was 378 kW, while the average load
reduction was 291 kW per site. The 72 enrolled sites nominated an average of 26.9
MW across the three events and included 38 unique participants. The average number
of sites enrolled per participant was 3.1.

Idaho Power
Flex Peak Program End-of-Season Report Page 5
Figure 1 represents Idaho Power’s service area divided into five regional areas: Western, Canyon, Capital, Southern, and Eastern.
Figure 1.

Idaho Power Company
Page 6 Flex Peak Program End-of-Season Report
Figure 2 represents the 72 service points that enrolled in 2015 and their distribution by Idaho Power’s regional service areas.
Figure 2.

Figure 3 represents the 72 service points that enrolled in 2015 and their diversity per
customer segment.
Figure 3.

Canyon
7%
Capital
18%
Eastern
10%
Southern
22%
Western
43%
2015 Participation by Region
based on Nomination
Asphalt, Concrete,
Gravel
36%
Education
2% Food Processing
23%
Light Industrial
10%
Manufacturing
3%
Other
5%
Refrigerated
Warehouse
11%
Water &
Wastewater
Treatment
Facility
9%
2015 Participation by Customer Segment
based on Nomination
Idaho Power
Flex Peak Program End-of-Season Report Page 7
Operations
Interval metering data provides Idaho Power the ability to view all participants’ load after
events. This metering data was used to calculate the reduction achieved per site during load reduction events. Using this data, Idaho Power provided participants post-event usage reports that showed hourly baseline, actual usage, and reduction during an
event. This tool assisted participants in refining their nomination for future events. This
data provides information useful in determining which participating sites may have an
opportunity to provide more reduction or change their reduction strategy if nomination amounts were not achieved.
Based on individual event performance, Idaho Power contacted participants if their
reduction was 25% less than the nominated amount for the event. When a participant
did not achieve at least 75% of their nominated amount, there were often one or more of
the following factors that influenced the performance:
 Production requirements prevented the ability to curtail or fully implement all load
reduction measures within facility

 Building operators and/or maintenance personnel were out of town or unavailable during event day

 Enrolled facility was offline or not in production during entire load reduction event or baseline period due to reduced hours of operation
Load Reduction Analysis
Potential load reduction impacts in 2015 were verified by an impact evaluation
performed by a third-party contractor, CLEAResult. The impact evaluation report performed by CLEAResult is included as an attachment to this report. The goals of the
impact evaluation were to calculate load reduction in MW under Idaho Power’s
methodology, as well as the methodology that was previously used for the Program.
The evaluation also analyzed and verified load reduction per site and per event.
The baseline that load reductions are measured against during load reduction events is calculated using a 10-day period. The baseline is the average kW of the highest energy
usage days during the event availability time (2-8 p.m.) from the highest three days out
of the last 10 non-event weekdays. Individual baselines are calculated for each facility
site. Once the original baseline is calculated, there is an additional piece included in the
methodology called the Day-of-Adjustment (“DOA”) that is used to arrive at the adjusted baseline.
Adjustments address situations where load is lower or higher than it has historically
been and the baseline does not accurately reflect the load behavior immediately prior to
the event. The DOA is applied to each site’s original baseline by accounting for the
difference between the average baseline kW and the average curtailment day kW during hours two-three prior to the start of the event. The DOA is calculated as a flat
kW and is applied to all baseline hours and capped at +/- 20% of the original baseline
Idaho Power Company
Page 8 Flex Peak Program End-of-Season Report
kW. The DOA is symmetrical, having either an upward or downward adjustment to the baseline, and is applied to the original baseline kW for each facility site for each hour
during the Program event.
In determining the reduction amount for each event, there was variation from the
previous baseline methodology compared to the current baseline methodology used in 2015 due to the DOA.
While both methods are commonly accepted throughout the industry, Idaho Power
believes having a symmetrical DOA with caps is a more equitable way to calculate load
reduction for both participants and the Company. The baseline and DOA
methodologies will be compared in greater detail in the one-time Flex Peak Program report to be filed in 2016 per Order No. 33292.
Figure 4 represents the measured reduction from Idaho Power’s baseline and DOA
methodology versus the prior program baseline methodology for the second event on
July 21, 2015.
Figure 4.

Idaho Power
Flex Peak Program End-of-Season Report Page 9
CLEAResult also analyzed the realization rate for each event with all sites aggregated together, as well as on an individual site basis.
Table 2 shows the Program realization rates for 2015 based on peak load reduction per
event.
Table 2.
Event Date Idaho Power Baseline & DOA Previous Baseline & DOA
Season Average 79.6% 97.5%

Table 3 shows the realization rate per site for each participant in the Program.
Table 3.

Participant
Number
June 30 Event
Realization
July 21 Event
realization
August 4 Event
Realization
Season
Realization
1 2% 2% 9% 4%
2 39% 59% 66% 55%
3 100% 129% 62% 97%
4 17% 128% 127% 91%
5 84% 206% 90% 127%
6 51% 69% 34% 51%
7 190% 14% 13% 100%
8 90% 74% 121% 95%
9 156% 70% 76% 101%
10 395% 71% 198% 221%
11 59% 38% 95% 64%
12 0% 11% 7% 6%
13 170% 168% 116% 151%
14 2% 60% 96% 53%
15 1% 92% 38% 44%
16 60% 46% 15% 40%
17 124% 106% 0% 77%
18 159% 163% 157% 160%
19 103% 71% 110% 95%
20 81% 106% 77% 88%
21 1% 61% 54% 39%
22 46% 113% 103% 87%
23 0% 19% 24% 14%
24 35% 0% 109% 48%
25 28% 0% 184% 71%
26 169% 79% 160% 136%
27 392% 277% 19% 229%
28 103% 89% 0% 64%
Idaho Power Company
Page 10 Flex Peak Program End-of-Season Report
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38

When broken out across four size classes, the sites with the smallest nominated load
reduction, 0 – 50 kW, achieved the highest average realization rate across the three
events: 137%. The highest realization rate among all nomination groups was the
smallest at 0-50 kW, which supports that the Program change in allowing smaller participants to enroll helped increase both the Program participation and overall
realization rate.
The second largest size class, 201 – 500 kW, achieved the lowest average realization
rate: 64%. The 201-500 kW group had the largest portion of sites enrolled for the Program and was very diverse in size and facility type. The lower realization rates for
this group were due to production requirements and key personnel being unavailable to
implement the full curtailment of the sites. Idaho Power will work with this customer
segment to help refine nominations to more closely align with realistic reduction
opportunities which will increase the realization rate specific to this group.

Idaho Power
Flex Peak Program End-of-Season Report Page 11
Figure 5 below represents the realization rate achieved by each nomination group, averaged across all three events.
Figure 5.

The realization rate analysis results show that maximum load reduction was realized in
the middle of the Program season. This time period is the last week of June through the
middle of July, which correlates with Idaho Power’s overall summer system peak.
Program Costs
Program costs totaled $563,292 through October 1, 2015. Incentive payments were the largest expenditure comprising 87% of total costs. The incentive payments were fixed capacity payments resulting from the three events called during the 2015 Program
season. Variable energy payments were not made during the season because the
variable energy payment is implemented starting with the fourth event. Total Program
costs during 2014 were $1,563,211 or $44.66 per kW based on 35 MW. Total Program costs for 2015 were $22.53 per kW based on 25 MW. By managing the Flex Peak Program internally the Company saved its customers nearly $1 million compared to
2014 program costs.

137%
78%
64%
100%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
140%
160%
0-50 51-200 201-500 501+
Re
a
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n

R
a
t
e

Range of Nominated Load Reduction (kW)
Idaho Power Company
Page 12 Flex Peak Program End-of-Season Report
Table 4 displays the 2015 Program costs through October 1, 2015, by category.
Table 4.
Item 2015 Program Costs
Total $563,292

Benefit-Cost Analysis
The benefit-cost analysis for the Flex Peak Program is based on a 20-year model that uses financial and demand-side management alternative cost assumptions from
the 2015 Integrated Resource Plan (“IRP”). As part of the public workshops in
conjunction with Case No. IPC-E-13-14, Idaho Power and other stakeholders agreed in
a settlement agreement (“Settlement”) on a new method for valuing DR.
The Settlement, as approved in Commission Order No. 32923, determined that the annual cost of operating the three DR programs for the maximum allowable 60 hours
must be no more than $16.7 million. This amount was reevaluated in the 2015 IRP, as
agreed upon in the Settlement, to be $18.5 million.
The preliminary cost estimate through October 1, 2015, of operating the three DR
programs in 2015 was $8.9 million. It is estimated that if the three programs were dispatched for the full 60 hours, the total costs would have been approximately
$11.4 million which is still below the total annual costs agreed upon in the 2013
Settlement as revised in the 2015 IRP.
Idaho Power’s cost-effectiveness for DR programs is updated annually. A more comprehensive benefit-cost analysis will be included in the Company’s annual 2016 Demand-Side Management Report when all the data will be available.
Customer Satisfaction Results
Idaho Power conducted a post-season survey that was sent via email to all participants
enrolled in the Program. The survey focused on quantifiable questions that encouraged customer feedback that could be used to improve the Program in future years. Questions were based on a five point rating scale. Idaho Power received a response
rate of 51%. The results of the survey were favorable and participants were satisfied,
as shown below:
 When asked, overall the application process was easy to understand, 5 being “strongly agree,” the average response was 4.5
Idaho Power
Flex Peak Program End-of-Season Report Page 13
 When asked, how clear were the notification messages for the Flex Peak Program
events, 5 being “very clear,” the average response was 4.9
 When asked, how prepared you were for each of the events called this year, 5 being “very prepared,” the average response was 4.2
 When asked, how helpful was the post-event performance data in helping you refine
future nominations for the Program, 5 being “very useful,” the average response was
4.9
 When asked, how helpful was Idaho Power with any questions you had regarding
the Flex Peak Program, 5 being “very helpful,” the average response was 4.6
 When asked, how satisfied are you with the timeliness of receiving your incentive
payment, 5 being “very satisfied,” the average response was 4.7
 When asked, how satisfied are you with your incentive amount, 5 being “very
satisfied,” the average response was 4.2
 When asked, how satisfied are you with your overall experience with the Flex Peak Program, 5 being “very satisfied,” the average response was 4.5
 When asked, how likely you would be to re-enroll in the Flex Peak Program in the
future, 5 being “very likely,” the average response was 4.9
Program Activities for 2016
Recruitment efforts for the 2016 season will begin in the fourth quarter of 2015 and first
quarter of 2016 to encourage participation for the 2016 Program season. Idaho Power
will meet with existing participants during the off-season from either their Idaho Power
Customer Representative or the Program Specialist to discuss past season performance and upcoming season details. New customers will be identified mid-winter with field visits and will have a follow up communication in early spring. Several new
large customers verbally committed to enrolling for the 2016 season at the end of the
2015 season as the groundwork had been laid during the active season to recruit them
for the future. The Company has also published an article promoting the Flex Peak Program in the “Energy at Work” fall edition of Idaho Power’s quarterly newsletter that was sent to all commercial and industrial customers. The article was well received and
customers have reached out to the Idaho Power Program Specialist to inquire if the
Program is right for them.
Idaho Power plans to launch a marketing campaign early in 2016 with Customer Representatives to recruit new participants. The Company is also developing new Program literature and a new Program brochure. This marketing campaign will focus on
identifying customer dynamics that make successful Program participants and will also
highlight available incentive amounts based on customers’ load size. The Program will
be jointly marketed along with Idaho Power’s other energy efficiency programs. In addition, the marketing campaign goals are to increase the number and size (in terms of nominated load reduction) diversity of sites enrolled. By having a larger diversity of
customer sizes enrolled, the Program would be less prone to volatility in its realization
rate. The Company will utilize Customer Representative support for the sites with the
Idaho Power Company
Page 14 Flex Peak Program End-of-Season Report
largest nominated load reduction with the goal of ensuring all large sites are able to participate when load reduction events are called.
For the upcoming season, Idaho Power plans to complete an educational campaign
with both enrolled participants and new customers to inform them of DR strategies with
goals of increasing, refining or lowering the amount of nominated load reduction from each site to more realistically align with load reduction potential.
Conclusions
A Company-managed program offers customers several benefits. First, there are
significant annual cost savings. The total cost savings this season compared to the
prior year was nearly $1 million. These cost savings flow back to customers through the Company’s Power Cost Adjustment mechanism. Second, all participants were paid
within 30 days of the season ending compared to previous years where the second
installment was paid nearly five months after the end of the season. Lastly, because
the Program is managed by the Company, Idaho Power could cross-market energy
efficiency programs and strengthen the relationship with its participants directly. In addition, the Company concluded the following:
 The Program had a total of 72 sites reducing peak demand by 25.6 MW
 The total Program costs for 2015 through October 1 were $563,292
 There were 15 new sites recruited to enroll in the 2015 season
 The Program shows high customer satisfaction results among participants
 The cost of having this resource available was $22.53 per kW in 2015 based on 25 MW, $26.32 per kW based on average reduction for the season, and $20.01 per kW
based on max nomination for the season
 Despite changing to a Company-managed program, a short timeline to implement the Program, and modifications to the load reduction calculation methodology, the Flex Peak Program retained 71% of past participants (34 of 48 participants) from the
2014 season
 When analyzing the Program at the generation level, industrial and commercial customers have made noteworthy contributions to Idaho Power’s DR programs. The
Flex Peak Program currently contributes approximately 8-10% of the Company’s
overall DR portfolio and can be relied upon to provide dispatchable load reduction
for the electrical grid
 Curtailment event results showed maximum load reductions of 24.1, 25.6, and 14.6 MW, respectively, for the three events, and an average of 21.4 MW. The events
achieved realization rates of 86.7%, 96.6%, and 55.4%, respectively, averaging
79.6%

Idaho Power
March 15, 2015
Idaho Power 2015
2015 Irrigation Peak Rewards
Program Report
Idaho Power
Irrigation Peak Rewards Program Report Page i
Table of Contents
Table of Contents ............................................................................................................................. i
List of Tables .................................................................................................................................. ii
List of Figures ................................................................................................................................. ii
Executive Summary .........................................................................................................................1
Summary of Program Results ..........................................................................................................1
Program Details .........................................................................................................................2
Interruption Options .............................................................................................................2
Program Incentives ..............................................................................................................3
Program Opt-out ..................................................................................................................4
Review of Program Results .............................................................................................................4
Participation ...............................................................................................................................4
Operations ..................................................................................................................................6
Equipment and Monitoring ..................................................................................................6
Dispatch Option .............................................................................................................6
Program Analysis …………………………………………………………………………………7
Load Reduction Analysis…………………………………………………………………… 7
Program Costs…………………………………………………………………………………….9
Benefit-Cost Analysis ....................................................................................................................10
Conclusions ....................................................................................................................................10

Idaho Power
Page ii Irrigation Peak Rewards Program Report
List of Tables

Table 1. 2015 incentives. .......................................................................................................3
Table 2. 2015 Eligible service locations and participation levels by area. ............................6
Table 3. Counterfactual realiztion rates 2015. .......................................................................8
Table 4. Annual Program Costs - 2015…………………………………………………….9

List of Figures
Figure 1. Idaho Power service areas. .......................................................................................5
Figure 2. Distribution of participants 2015. ............................................................................5
Figure 3. Daily counterfactual realization rates .....................................................................9
Idaho Power
Irrigation Peak Rewards Program Report Page iii
This page left blank intentionally.

Idaho Power
Irrigation Peak Rewards Program Report Page 1
Executive Summary
The Irrigation Peak Rewards program (the program) is a voluntary demand response program
that has been available to Idaho Power’s agricultural irrigation customers since 2004. The program pays irrigation customers a financial incentive for the ability to turn off participating irrigation pumps at potential high system load periods. The program is designed to minimize or
delay the need to build new supply-side resources. The company estimates future capacity
shortfalls through the Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) and then plans resources to mitigate these
shortfalls. The Irrigation Peak Rewards program is a result of this planning process. The program is measured by the amount of demand reduction, in MW, available to the company during potential system peak periods.
The program continually increased peaking resource capacity to 340 MW’s in 2012. Following
the 2012 program season, Idaho Power determined through the 2013 IRP load and resource
balance, that there would be no capacity shortfalls until 2016. In 2013, Idaho Power filed IPUC Case No. IPC-E-12-29 to temporarily suspend the program to allow time to work with stakeholders and interested parties to determine how the program should operate in the future.
These workshops resulted in settlement agreements reached in Case No. IPC-E-13-14 and UM 1653. The Irrigation Peak Rewards program was again offered as a demand response program in 2014, with
some modifications. Under the terms of the settlement agreement, the program was only available
to service locations that currently had a load-control device installed or that participated in the Manual Incentive Option in 2012. In the most recent 2015 IRP, Demand Response (DR) programs were considered as committed resources as part of the load and resource balance. This new way of
considering DR, contributed to a new load and resource balance indicating no capacity shortfalls
until 2026. There were no changes to the Program for the 2015 program season. This report provides a review of the program’s activities and expenditures for 2015 and is a supplement to the 2015 DSM Annual Report.

Summary of Program Results
The following items summarize the key components of the 2015 Irrigation Peak Rewards
program.
• In 2015, the program had an estimated generation level load reduction of 305.3 MW
resulting from a load control event, but had a maximum estimated load reduction potential of 323 MW.
• Four hundred forty six (446), or nearly 72% of the 623 eligible customers, chose to
participate in 2015.
• Two thousand two hundred fifty nine (2,259), or 81% of the 2,775eligible service points, were enrolled in 2015.
Idaho Power Company
Page 2 Irrigation Peak Rewards Program Report
• The program achieved a total billing demand enrollment of 403,176 kilowatts (kW).
• The total program costs for 2015 were $7,258,831.

Program Details
Interruption Options
Idaho Power irrigation customers taking service under Schedule 24 in both Idaho and Oregon,
and had service locations that currently had a load-control device installed or that had previously
participated in the Manual Dispatch Option, were eligible to participate. The interruption options allowed Idaho Power to initiate load control events that prevented pumps from operating at
participating metered service locations. Participants could choose between three Interruption
Options:
Automatic Dispatch Options
• Option 1 – A dispatchable one-way communication Load Control Device installed that
allowed only Idaho Power to control all the customer’s pumps at a single metered service
point.
• Option 2 – A dispatchable two-way communication Load Control Device installed that allowed both Idaho Power and the customer to control all the pumps at a single service
point.
All metered service points were assigned to participate in Option 1 unless specifically requested
by the customer to be assigned Option 2 in order to retain control and monitoring capabilities.
Manual Dispatch Option
• Option 3 (Manual) - Service points with multiple pumps and over 1,000 cumulative Hp
were eligible to participate in the Manual Option. Customers under this classification
could choose to manually control which pumps were controlled during a load control
event. Manual Option participants are required to nominate the amount of kilowatts (kW) available to dispatch during load control events.
The parameters of the Program included the following:
• Idaho Power would initiate control (dispatch) events on a customized EnerNOC Web site
and an Idaho Power owned AMI integrated software platform.
• A minimum of three (3) load control events would occur each program season.
• Dispatch load control events could occur any weekday or Saturday, excluding July 4,
between the hours of 1 p.m. and 9 p.m.
Idaho Power
Irrigation Peak Rewards Program Report Page 3
• Load control events could occur up to 4 hours per day and up to 15 hours per week,
but no more than 60 hours per program season.
• Idaho Power would give notification to Manual Dispatch Option participants four hours prior to the initiation of a control event. Idaho Power may not provide prior notification
of a load control event for Automatic Dispatch Option participants.
• If prior notice of a load control event had been sent, Idaho Power could choose to cancel
the event and notify participants of cancellation.
• Idaho Power would give up to 30 minutes notice prior to start of all actual events and 30
minutes prior to the end of all actual events.
• The provisions for this program did not apply to system emergencies or events outside
the control of Idaho Power.
Program Incentives
A customer’s incentive appeared as a demand credit and energy credit applied to the monthly
bills for the period of June 15th through August 15 th. The demand credit is calculated by
multiplying the monthly billing kW by the demand-related incentive amount. The energy credit
is calculated by multiplying the monthly billing kilowatt-hour (kWh) usage by the energy-related
incentive amount. Credits were prorated for periods when reading/billing cycles did not align with the program season dates from June 15 to August 15. The incentive structure includes a ‘Fixed’ and ‘Variable’ payment, with an increased variable credit amount for service points that
voluntarily participate in the ‘Extended’ 9 p.m. late interruption period. All customers’ ‘Fixed’
incentives in the Automatic and Manual Dispatch options are calculated using Idaho Power
metered billing data. Idaho Power’s Customer Relations and Billing (CR&B) calculates the bill credits and applies it to the bill. Manual Dispatch Option customers’ incentives were calculated using billing kW from 2015 metering data and nominated kW. The incentives were calculated
through a manual process, and customers received the incentives in the form of a check. Any
‘Variable’ incentive payments (applied to events occurring after the first three) would be paid by
check no more than 45 days after the end of the program season. The incentives offered in 2015 are listed in Table 1.
Table 1. 2015 Incentives.
Option
Fixed Demand
Credit ($/billing kW)
Fixed Energy Credit
($/billing kWh)
Variable Energy Credit ($/billing
kWh)
Extended hour Variable Energy
Credit ($/billing kWh)

Automatic and Manual Options $

Idaho Power Company
Page 4 Irrigation Peak Rewards Program Report
Program Opt-out
Under the rules of the Dispatch Option, participants had the ability to opt-out of dispatch events
up to five times per metered service point. Each opt-out incurred a fee. The opt-out fee was
$5.00 per kW for the first three events, and $1.00 per kW for remaining events based on the
current month’s billing demand (kW). Opt-out penalty fees would never exceed the incentive amount. Manual Dispatch Option metered service locations were charged opt-out penalty fees based on the nominated kW that was not turned off during a load control event.
In 2015, one hundred thirty eight (138) service points opted out 195 times, some service points
opting out of multiple events.
Review of Program Results
Participation
Idaho Power presented the program details at irrigation workshops across Idaho Power’s service
area, and each year Idaho Power staff participates in four agriculture shows. After the Irrigation Peak Program suspension in 2013, Idaho Power has continually made a concerted effort to
encourage past participants to re-enroll in the program each year by sponsoring workshops,
attending trade shows, and doing direct customer mailings. In 2015, Idaho Power presented the
details of the program at six (6) workshops across five regional areas. Additionally, Idaho Power
agriculture representatives answered specific customer’s questions by phone, email, and face to face contact which helped inform customers about the program details.
In March 2015, program enrollment mailings were sent to all customers that currently had a load-
control device installed or past participants in the Manual Dispatch Option. Contents of this mailing
included program details, a program application, the program’s incentive structure, listing of the
customer’s eligible service points, and a potential incentive estimate for each program option based on the customer’s previous year’s usage.
Despite reinstating the program in 2014 with a reduction in incentive amounts, three minimum
load control events, and modifications to the event notification, the program increased
enrollment in 2015. The number of service points enrolled to participate in the program for 2015
was 2,259. This accounted for approximately 81 percent of the eligible service points
Figure 1 portrays Idaho Power’s service area divided into five regional areas; Western, Canyon, Capital, Southern, and Eastern. These areas are used throughout this report in reference to
program information.
Idaho Power
Irrigation Peak Rewards Program Report Page 5
Figure 1. Idaho Power service areas.

Figure 2 represents the 2,259 irrigation service points that participated in 2015 and their
distribution by Idaho Power’s regional service areas.
Figure 2. Distribution of participants 2015.

Western, 4% Canyon, 6%
Capital, 15%
Southern, 36%
Eastern, 39%
2015 participation by area
Idaho Power Company
Page 6 Irrigation Peak Rewards Program Report

Table 2 lists the total number of eligible service points and the participation levels for each area
in 2015.

Table 2. 2015 Eligible service locations and participation levels by area.
2015-Idaho Power Area
Eligible Service
Locations
Automatic
Device Manual
Total Enrolled
by Area
eligible
enrolled by
area
Western Idaho 60 39 0 39 65%
Oregon 66 50 3 53 80%
Canyon Idaho 151 130 8 138 91%
Oregon 4 3 0 3 75%
Capital 386 309 24 333 86%
Southern Twin Falls 525 391 3 394 75%
Mini-Cassia 456 410 0 410 90%
Eastern 1127 889 0 889 79%

Operations
Equipment and Monitoring
Dispatch Option
At the inception of the Dispatch Option, Idaho Power contracted with Irrigation Load Control,
LLC (ILC), who had formed a joint venture between M2M Communications and Spartan Energy
Control Systems to provide installation and service for this portion of the program. In the winter of 2010, M2M Communications was purchased by EnerNOC. Idaho Power contracted with
EnerNOC to provide equipment, installation, and service for the Irrigation Peak Rewards
Dispatch Option. Idaho Power initiates Irrigation Peak Rewards dispatch control events on a
customized EnerNOC Web site. The Web-to-wireless remote control system, developed by
M2M Communications utilizes the Loadstar® Model M101control device installed in customers’ pump motor control circuit to turn off or prevent the pump from running during an interruption
event. This equipment provides remote cellular communication or remote satellite
communication. The Web service allows Idaho Power to dispatch, schedule and carry-out
interruption events. Communication from the device can provide feedback to determine the status of the customers’ equipment surrounding an interruption event. Customers also have the option of using the equipment for their own remote control purposes outside of interruption
events.
Idaho Power
Irrigation Peak Rewards Program Report Page 7
Idaho Power has also been expanding the use of our power line carrier technology used for its
automated metering system and air conditioning cycling program for turning off pumps within
the Irrigation Peak Rewards program. This technology utilizes an Aclara Demand Response
Unit (DRU) Model Y99700, installed in the customers’ pump motor control circuit to turn off or prevent the pump from running during a load control event. The DRU receives commands via
Idaho Power owned power line carrier technology.
Idaho Power’s Automated Metering Infrastructure (AMI) technology allows Idaho Power to
monitor the majority of participating irrigation pumps during load control events by supplying
hourly usage reports. These reports provide useful information in determining which service locations had devices that either worked or failed to turn off pumps during events.
Program Analysis
Load Reduction Analysis
Estimated load reduction impacts in 2015 were determined in an impact evaluation performed by a third party contractor. In 2015, Idaho Power contracted CLEAResult Consulting Inc., (CLEAResult) to complete an impact evaluation of the 2015 Peak Rewards program. The goals
of the impact evaluation were to determine the demand reduction (in MW) during three test
events and determine the counterfactual realization rate had an event been called on each
business day during the program’s June 15 through August 15 season. This information was used to determine and verify realization rates used to estimate load reduction potential.
For the purposes of this report, realization rate is defined as the likelihood an irrigation service
point is operating during the interrupt period and includes program equipment failures, and is
used to determine program impacts. The realization rate can be characterized as the percentage
of monthly billing demand expected to result in an actual load reduction on the system during a given interruption period in a typical summer. This rate is highest at the end of June and the beginning of July when many irrigation pumps are operating nearly 24 hours per day and 7 days
per week. The realization rate is lower later in the irrigation season when many irrigation pumps
are turned off due to crop maturity. Hourly data used for the evaluation was acquired and
analyzed using information from IPC’s Automated Metering Infrastructure (AMI) technology.
In 2014, the Company contracted with PECI to complete an impact evaluation of the Program. A complete analysis resulted in an expected maximum realization rate of 71.6 percent occurring
during the first two weeks of July. Using AMI data, CLEAResult developed a counterfactual
realization rate analysis that demonstrated similar results with what past analysis have shown,
that the time period within an irrigation season has a large influence on the expected realization rate.
CLEAResult completed analyses of curtailment events held on June 29, July 2, and August 11,
2015, each containing four dispatch groups that curtailed enrolled irrigation pumps in rolling
four-hour increments. The results of the curtailment event analyses showed maximum meter
level demand reductions of 278.3, 273.8, and 180.2 MW, respectively, for the three events, and an average of 244.1 MW. The Company has determined that the full value of the demand reductions at the generation level include an average 9.7 percent line loss. When line losses are
Idaho Power Company
Page 8 Irrigation Peak Rewards Program Report
included, maximum demand reductions are 305.3, 300.3, and 197.7 MW respectively for the
three events. The events achieved realization rates of 69.0 percent, 67.9 percent, and 44.7
percent, respectively, averaging 60.5 percent.
While the first quarter of the program season (June 15–July 30) showed an average expected realization rate of 68.6 percent, the expected realization rate in the last three quarters of the
season (July 1–August 15) drops off significantly, to an average of 49.1 percent. This is due to a
higher percentage of pumps being shut off during the baseline period in the first two weeks of
August. The 2015 counterfactual realization rate peaks in the last two weeks of June, which was
two weeks earlier than 2014 due to an earlier start of the growing season. The analysis determined that the highest realization rate of 73.1 percent occurred June 25. Had the program
experienced a load control event on that day, it would have resulted in a 295 MW load reduction
at the meter level, or a 323 MW maximum load reduction at the utility generation level.
A copy of this evaluation report can be found in Supplement 2: Evaluation. Tables 3 and Figure
3 show program realization rates from analysis for 2015.
Table 3: 2015 Program realization rates and the seasonal average percent categorized load
expected to not be turned off during a load control event had it occurred during each respective
two week period throughout the program season.
Date Range OFF in Baseline Average Opt-Out Rate Failure Rate total nominated Counterfactual Realization Rate Total
Jun 15 - 30 22.1% 3.2% 2.9% 3.3% 68.6% 100.0%
Jul 1 - 15 34.8% 3.2% 2.9% 3.3% 55.9% 100.0%
Jul 16 - 31 45.8% 3.2% 2.9% 3.3% 44.9% 100.0%
Aug 1 - 15 44.2% 3.2% 2.9% 3.3% 46.5% 100.0%

Figure 3: Figure three graphically presents the expected realization rate for all non-holiday and non-weekend days of the 2015 program season. The expected realization rate peaks on June 25th at 73.1%.
Idaho Power
Irrigation Peak Rewards Program Report Page 9

The results of the 2015 impact evaluation showed Idaho Power’s Peak Rewards program
functioned as intended, and, if properly maintained, can be relied on to provide dispatchable
demand reduction to the electricity grid. These realization rates are used to calculate program performance from total enrolled billing demand and used to forecast load reduction potential in the future.

Program Costs
In 2015, this program had a total cost of $7,258,831 with the incentive credit being the largest
expenditure at 85 % of total costs. The program was not marketed to new participants in 2015.
Table 4 displays the annual program costs by category.
Table 4. Annual program costs 2015.
Item 2015 Program Costs
Materials and Equipment $139,957

Installation and Contract Services $855,184
Incentive payments $6,167,226

Marketing and Administration $96,464
Total $7,258,831

62
.
7
%

0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
Pe
r
c
e
n
t

Date
Idaho Power Company
Page 10 Irrigation Peak Rewards Program Report
Benefit-Cost Analysis
The methodology used to determine the cost-effectiveness of the demand response programs was updated in 2014. As part of the public workshops in conjunction with 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, defined annual cost of
operating the three demand-response programs for the maximum allowable 60 hours must be less
than $16.7 million. This $16.7 million value is the levelized annual cost of a 170 MW deferred resource over a 20 year life. In 2015, the cost of operating the three demand response programs
was $9 million. It is estimated that if the three programs were dispatched for the full 60 hours,
the total costs would have been approximately $12.4 million and remain cost-effective.

Conclusions
• The Irrigation Peak Rewards program increased its enrollment from 2014 to include over
81% of eligible service locations in 2015.
• The program had a total of 2,259 service locations reducing peak demand by 305.3 MW’s.
• When looking at the program at the generation level, irrigation customers have made
significant contributions to Idaho Power’s demand response programs. The Irrigation Peak
Rewards program currently contributes approximately 83 % of Idaho Powers overall demand
response portfolio.
• The cost of having this resource available was $23.77 per kW in 2015

A

P
P
R

CLEAResult, 2
A/C
2015
eptember
PREPARE
REPARE
EPORTIN
014
Co
Impa
5, 2015
D BY CLEA
D FOR Idaho
G PERIOD
ol Cr
ct Ev
esult
Power Co
uly – ugu
edit
aluati
pany
t 2015
We
Pro
on

change t
gra
he way pe
m
ople use nergyTM
A
T
E
I
B
A
C
J
J
J
P

L

L

A/C Cool Credit
Table of
xecutive S
ntroduction
Background ..
nalysis Met
Results ........
Curtailment E
une 30th Cur
uly 21st Curt
uly 31st Curt
redictive Mo
Conclusions
ist of T
Table 1: Unit
able 2: 201
able 3: 201
able 4. Pred
able 5. Pred
able 6. Pred
List of Fi
Figure 1: Su
igure 2: Jun
igure 3: Jun
igure 4: July
igure 5: July
igure 6: July
igure 7: July
rogram
Contents
mmary........
....................
.....................
odology .......
.....................
vents Summ
ailment ........
ilmen .........
ilmen .........
del ...............
....................
bles
Counts by C
Curtailment
Summary R
ictive Model
ictive Model
ictive Model
gures
mmary of 201
30 Curtailm
30 Curtailm
21 Curtailm
21 Curtailm
31 Curtailm
31 Curtailm

.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
ary ................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
urtailment Ev
Event Sched
sults of Exe
utputs Com
utputs Com
utputs Com
Events .......
ent Event R
ent Event R
nt Event Re
nt Event Re
nt Event Re
nt Event Re

....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
ent ...............
ule ...............
uted Contro
pared to Act
pared to Act
pared to Act
....................
sults - Boise
sults - Pocat
ults - Boise .
ults - Pocate
ults - Boise .
ults - Pocate
.....................
....................
.....................
....................
.....................
.....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
.....................
.....................
....................
Events .......
al - Boise ....
al - Pocatell
al – Boise (2
....................
....................
llo/Twin Fall
....................
llo/Idaho Fall
....................
llo/Idaho Fall
.....................
....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
/Twin Falls ..
012 events r
.....................
.....................
s ..................
.....................
s ..................
.....................
s ..................
We chang
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
moved) ......
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
Sep
the way peopl
.....................
....................
.....................
....................
.....................
.....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
.....................
.....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
ember 2015
0
use energy
.............. 1
.............. 1
.............. 1
.............. 1
.............. 3
.............. 3
.............. 5
.............. 6
.............. 7
.............. 8
............ 10
............. 2
............. 3
............. 4
............. 8
............. 9
........... 10
............. 4
............. 5
............. 5
............. 6
............. 6
............. 7
............. 7
A
E
I
t
I
S
c
c
(
I
i
t
A
I
i
/C Cool Credit
Executiv
daho Power
rogram. The
/C Cool Cre
urtailment e
LEAResult
three hour
nd 0.82 kW
.62, and 0.7
he Boise an
he impact e
roperly main
ntroduc
ackgrou
Summer use
ontracts, an
urtail A/C us
kW) reductio
daho Power’
uspended fo
urtailment e
rovisions of
emand by u
eriod. A/C C
ours per cur
urtailed, pro
LEAResult
valuation al
pacted kW
esearch was
o estimate lo
ith every im
s well as the
he goals of
 Deter
 Utilize
Analysis
The demand
nfrastructure
pact evalu
stimations o
rogram
e Summ
Company co
goal of the i
it curtailme
ent results.
ompleted an
uration. The
er participa
kW per par
Pocatello/T
aluation de
tained, can b
tion
d
of air conditi
transmissio
in times of
.
A/C Cool C
r the 2013 s
ents each y
he program.
ilizing direct l
ol Credit pr
ailment seas
ram particip
ompleted im
o included a
reduction re
used to dev
d reduction
act evaluati
calculator’s
his 2015 imp
ine and verif
ata analysis
Methodolo
reduction im
(AMI) data p
tion, which a
energy redu
ary
ntracted CLE
pact evalua
t events and
alyses of cur
results of th
t, respective
icipant, resp
in Falls regi
onstrated th
e relied on t
ning (A/C) s
and distrib
igh demand
edit is one s
ason, the pr
ar during the
The progra
oad control t
gram curtail
on (with the
nts receive
act evaluati
research co
ults, as well
lop a predict
based on c
n, resulting i
ccuracy, to i
act evaluatio
the deman
results to up
gy
pact evaluatio
ovided by Id
nalyzed both
ction per cur
Result to c
ion was to c
update the p
ailment eve
analyses sh
y, for the thr
ctively, for t
ns, each cu
t Idaho Pow
provide disp
stems place
tion systems
have proven
ch program
gram has be
June 15th th
’s function is
chnology to
ent events
xception of
$5 credit o
ns on the A/
ponent, inv
s indoor air
ve model (th
cling strateg
the sample
ncrease with
were to:
reduction (
ate regressi
n was condu
ho Power.
AMI and log
ailment even
mplete an i
lculate the e
ogram’s exi
ts held on Ju
wed maxim
e events. Th
e three even
tailment eve
r’s A/C Coo
atchable de
a burden o
. Demand re
to successf
hat curtails
en reinstate
ough Augus
to curtail res
cycle A/C un
re limited to
system em
their July, A
C Cool Credi
stigating ho
emperatures
“IPC Curtai
and temper
size of even
each passin
W) during a
ons informin
ted through
his approac
er data, and
t.
pact evaluati
stimated de
ting predicti
ne 30th, July
m single ho
e average h
ts. Due to th
t analysis in
Credit progr
and reducti
Idaho Pow
uction progr
lly deliver si
emand from
since 2014
15th progra
dential A/C
its OFF for a
non-holiday
rgency). In
gust, and S
t program in
different cy
of participati
lment Calcul
ture inputs.
s informing t
season.
minimum of
the existing
the analysis
was suppor
showed bot
We chang
on of the 201
and reducti
e model to a
21st, and Jul
r demand re
urly demand
distinct we
ludes region
am functions
n to the elec
r Company’s
ms in which
nificant and
residential A
n a limited
season as r
emand durin
portion of ea
eekdays wi
xchange for
ptember ele
011, 2012
ling strategi
ng homes. T
tor”) that us
The calculat
e calculator’
hree events
predictive m
f hourly d
ed by the fin
sources to
Sep
the way peopl
5 /C Cool
n achieved
count for th
31st, 2015,
ductions of 1
reduction w
ther patterns
-specific res
as intended,
ricity grid.
power suppl
customers a
ispatchable
C units. Afte
asis, comple
quired und
g periods of
h curtailme
h a maximu
aving their
tric bills.
nd 2014. Th
s and tempe
e outcome
s regression
or has been
s regression
n 2015
del
anced Meter
ings of the
roduce simil
ember 2015
1
use energy
redit
y three
2015
ach with
.11, 0.65,
s 1.04,
between
lts.
and, if
, power
gree to
demand
r being
ing three
r the
eak
t event
of 60
/C units
2012
ratures
f that
formulas
pdated
formulas,
ng
012
r
A
t
S
C

D
A
“
B
I
/C Cool Credit
nalysis of th
nalyzing lar
C Cool Cre
odel first im
o configure it
he sub-secti
nalysis, and
Sampling Pl
The availabili
rogram parti
nalyses. Pa
vent period
rom the anal
able 1: Unit Co
Curtailment
Event
June 30
July 21
July 31
Average
Demand Re
. Baseli
The load red
urtailment d
previous day
on-curtailme
rom these pr
urtailment ti
ays for the b
B. Offset
n order to eff
actor, calcul
rior to the st
W to the cur
utdoor temp
rogram
AMI data
e amounts o
it research p
orts the rele
in a way sui
ns below d
updating of t
an
ty of AMI dat
ipants. Tabl
rticipants we
f the baselin
zed particip
nts by Curtailm
Coun
Parti
2
2
2
2
duction Anal
e Data
uction achiev
y against th
” approach
nt days. Bas
vious ten n
eframe. Cu
aseline ensu
Facto
ectively com
ted as the di
rt of the curt
ailment day
rature or ot
as conducte
data in a co
ojects was u
vant AMI dat
able for anal
scribe the pr
e predictive
for all progr
1 below de
e not analyz
e period. Wit
nts have be
nt Event
t of Total
ipants
9,874
,432
,288
,198
ysis
ed during cur
average loa
as used, w
line kW was
n-curtailmen
tailment day
es a similar
are baseline
ference in k
ailment. The
W. The offs
er external f
using the S
sistent man
tilized to co
from Com
sis; and thir
ject’s meth
model.
m participa
ails the num
d if their int
an average
n extrapolat
Count of
n
2
2
2
2
ailment even
developed
ich utilizes t
calculated a
days, as ra
normally oc
oad profile is
and curtailm
between th
offset factor
t factor mitig
ctors.
S analytics
er. The SA
plete the an
a Separated
, analyzes t
dology relat
ts allowed th
er of partici
rval meter d
of 99.7% of
d to all parti
Participant
alyzed
9,758
,342
,244
,115
ts was calcul
rom non-cur
e average lo
the averag
ked by the h
ur on hot, hi
used for the
ent day load
e baseline a
as applied t
tes underlyi
rogram. SA
model deve
lysis for eac
Values (CS
e data to pr
d to the sam
e project’s s
ants include
ta included
ll participan
ipants in the
s Perc
Particip
ated by com
ailment day
d data from
of the three
ghest hourly
h demand
baseline da
, the baselin
d curtailmen
the baselin
ng difference
We chang
provides a
oped as part
2015 curtai
) files; seco
duce the de
ling plan, d
mpling plan
in each of t
n error code
s analyzed, t
results secti
ent of Total
nts Analyz
99.6%
99.7%
99.8%
99.7%
aring the av
selected for
the previous
days with th
demand occ
ays, thus sel
s as the curt
load was a
t event day l
day to “nor
s in load due
Sep
the way peopl
robust platfo
of the 2012
ment event.
d, processe
ired result m
mand reduc
o be a cens
e curtailmen
during the c
he results ca
n.
ed
erage load fr
the baseline
10 non-wee
greatest de
rring during
cting high d
ilment days.
justed using
ad during th
alize” the b
to slight diff
ember 2015
2
use energy
m for
nd 2014
he
the data
trics.
ion
s of
t event
rtailment
lculated
m each
The
end,
and
the
mand

an offset
hour
seline
rences in
A
P

i
R
C
t

/C Cool Credit
Predictive M
The “IPC Cur
012 AC Coo
eduction lev
014 impact
he calculato
an input exp
ill provide a
lternatively,
ercent cycli
he model us
dependent
ycling.” This
esults.
s part of the
urtailment e
nd 2015 cur
Results
urtailme
A total of thre
etails the ch
/C Cool Cre
emperature i
aximum te
egrees on J
able 2: 2015 C
Curtailme
Event
June 30
July 21
July 31
rogram
odel
tailment Calc
l Credit Rese
ls based on
valuation to
is Excel-ba
cted tempe
estimated k
users can in
g required to
es a regressi
ariable repr
variable was
2015 impact
ents. This e
ailment even
nt Events
e curtailment
racteristics
it participan
Boise durin
perature in
ly 21st.
rtailment Event
nt Bo
ulator” was d
arch Project
emperature
nclude regre
ed and drive
ature at the
reduction
ut temperat
achieve the
on formula d
senting the i
shown in th
evaluation, t
tailed devel
ts
Summary
events were
f these even
s were inclu
event days
ocatello duri
chedule
ise Temp
(high)
102
94
98

veloped usi
ith the aim
nd cycling p
sion formul
n by regressi
tart of the cu
er unit and t
re and a req
equested M
veloped for
teraction of
2012 Resea
e predictive
ping new re
completed a
ts, including
ed in each c
ranged from
g event day
TF/Pocat
Temp (hig
94
89
94
g data resul
f providing I
rcentage in
s that accou
n formulas
rtailment eve
tal MW for t
ested MW r
reduction.
oth regions
Temperatur
rch Project t
model was u
ression form
part of the
igh tempera
rtailment ev
102 degrees
ranged fro
ell
h)
Contr
Sta
4:
4:
4:
s from the s
aho Power
uts. The cal
ted for both
eveloped in
nt and perce
he populatio
duction amo
(Boise and P
at start of c
produce th
pdated to ac
las that use
015 /C Co
ture, event ti
nt that Idah
on June 30t
94 degrees
ol Event
t Time
00pm
0pm
0pm
We chang
ven curtailm
ith a tool fo
ulator was t
2012 and 20
the SAS ana
t cycling str
of program
unt and the
ocatello/Twi
rtailment ev
most statisti
ount for the
as inputs r
l Credit prog
e period, a
Power call
to 98 degre
on June 30th
Control Eve
End Time
7:00pm
7:00pm
7:00pm
Sep
the way peopl
nt events fr
estimating d
en updated
14 event res
lytics progra
tegy and th
participants.
odel will est
Falls) base
n ” and “Per
ally signific
results of the
sults from 2
ram. Table 2
d cycling pe
d. The maxi
s on July 21
and July 31
nt Length
(hrs)
3
3
3
ember 2015
3
use energy
m the
mand
fter the
lts.
. Users
model
mate the
on an
ent
nt
2015
12, 2014,
below
cent. All
um
t. The
t to 89
Cycling
Percent
55%
55%
55%
A
t
i
D

/C Cool Credit
able 3 sum
he results fo
clude line l
eparate eve
verage kW r
able 3: 2015 S
Date and Hi
Temp
June
Boise: 10
Poc/TF: 9
July
Boise: 9
Poc/TF: 8
July
Boise: 9
Poc/TF: 9
igu e 1: Summ
-
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
1.20
1.40
kW

R
e
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

p
e
r

P
a
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
n
t
Program
arizes the A
each curtail
sses. Becau
ts and resul
ductions for
mmary Results
gh Perce
Curtail
30
2
4
55%
1
4
9
55%
1
8
4
55%
ry of 2015 Even
AllJun 30
vg k
I data anal
ent event in
se temperat
s are reporte
both Boise a
f Executed Co
nt
ent Regi
All
Bois
Poc/
All
Bois
Poc/
All
Bois
Poc/
s
BoiseJun 30 PJ
Reduction
sis results fo
kilowatt (kW
res in Boise
d individually
nd Pocatello
trol Events
on
vg
Reduc
Parti
1.
1.
F 0.
0.
0.
F 0.
0.
0.
F 0.
c/TFn 30 lJul
per Particip
r each curtail
reduction a
iffer from th
. The June 3
Twin Falls re
. kW
ion per
ipant
Re
04
9
4
2
4
0
4
9
6
l 1 BoisJul 21
Region an
ant Ma
ment event.
the meter le
Twin Falls/th event sho
gions.
Max kW
uction per
articipant
1.11
1.16
0.78
0.65
0.67
0.54
0.82
0.88
0.49
Poc/TFJul 21
d Date
x kW Reducti
We chang
igure 1 also
el. The met
ocatello are
ed the high
Avg. kW
Reduction
Total
30,985
27,830
3,163
18,115
16,003
2,103
20,845
18,890
1,933
AllJul 31
on per Partic
Sep
the way peopl
shows an o
r level result
, they are tr
st maximum
-
Max k
Reductio
Total
33,113
29,792
3,326
19,093
16,820
2,267
23,28
21,18
2,074
BoiseJul 31
ipant
ember 2015
4
use energy
erview of
do not
ated as
and
W
-
7

oc/TFul 31
A
J
/C Cool Credit
June 30th
The event cal
verage dem
our demand
vent was 1.
emand redu
articipant. Fi
articipants, r
igure 2: June 3
igure 3: June 3
 ‐
 20,000
 40,000
 60,000
 80,000
 100,000
 120,000
 140,000
kW
Ba
-
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
16,000
18,000
20,000
kW
Program
Curtailmen
led on June
nd reductio
reduction of
9 kW per pa
tion for the
ure 2 and 3
espectively,
Curtailment Ev
Curtailment Ev
1:
0
0
 PM
2:
0
0
 PM
eline Energy
1:
0
0

P
M
2:
0
0

P
M
Baseline Tem
t
30th impleme
of 1.04 kW
1.11 kW per
ticipant, whe
oise area w
below prese
or the June
nt Results - Bo
nt Results - Po
3:
0
0
 PM
Curta
3:
0
0

P
M
p Cu
ted a 55 per
er participa
articipant. I
reas in Poca
s 1.16 kW p
t the aggreg
0th curtailme
se
atello/Twin Fall
4:
0
0
 PM
5:
0
0
 PM
ilment Event En
4:
0
0

P
M
5:
0
0

P
M
tailment Even
ent curtailm
t across the
the Boise re
ello/Twin Fal
r participant
ate load profi
t event.

6:
0
0
 PM
Time
ergy
6:
0
0

P
M
Time Temp
nt strategy
hree hours o
gion, the av
ls it was 0.7
and in Poca
les for the B
7:
0
0
 PM
8:
0
0
 PM
Curtailment E
7:

8:
0
0

P
M
Curtailment
We chang
nd resulted i
f the event,
rage deman
kW per parti
ello/Twin Fal
ise and Poc
9:
0
0
 PM
vent Temp
9:
0
0

P
M
10
:
0
0

P
M
Event Temp
Sep
the way peopl
a system
nd a maxim
reduction f
cipant. The
ls it was 0.78
tello/Twin F
10
:
0
0
 PM
11
:
0
0
 PM
Baselin
11
:
0
0

P
M
Baseli
ember 2015
5
use energy
ide
m single
r the
aximum
kW per
lls

0
20
40
60
80
100
Te
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e
e Temp
0
20
40
60
80
100
Te
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e
ne Temp
A
J
/C Cool Credit
July 21st C
The event cal
verage dem
our demand
as 0.64 kW
emand redu
articipant. Fi
articipants, r
igure 4: July 21
igure 5: July 21
 ‐
 20,000
 40,000
 60,000
 80,000
 100,000
 120,000
 140,000
kW
Bas
-
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
16,000
18,000
20,000
kW
Bas
rogram
urtailmen
led on July 2
nd reductio
reduction of
per participa
tion for the
ure 4 and 5
espectively,
Curtailment Ev
Curtailment Ev
1:
0
0
 PM
2:
0
0
 PM
line Energy
1:
0
0

P
M
line Temp
t
1st implemen
of 0.62 kW
.65 kW per
t, whereas i
oise area w
below prese
or the July 2
nt Results - Boi
nt Results - Poc
3:
0
0
 PM
Curtail
2:
0
0

3:
0
0

P
M
Curtail
ed a 55 perc
er participa
articipant. I
Pocatello/T
s 0.67 kW p
t the aggregst curtailmen
e
atello/Idaho Fall
4:
0
0
 PM
5:
0
0
 PM
ment Event E
4:
0
0

P
M
5:
0
0

P
M
ent Event En
nt curtailme
t across the
the Boise a
in Falls it w
r participant
ate load profi
event.

6:
0
0
 PM
Time
ergy
6:
0
0

P
M
Time
ergy
nt strategy a
hree hours o
ea, the aver
s 0.50 kW p
and in Poca
les for the B
7:
 PM
8:
0
0
 PM
Curtailment E
7:
0
0

P
M
8:
0
0

P
M
Curtailment
We chang
d resulted in
f the event,
ge demand
r participant
ello/Twin Fal
ise and Poc
9:
0
0
 PM
10
:
0
0
 PM
vent Temp
9:
0
0

P
M
vent Temp
Sep
the way peopl
a system wi
nd a maxim
eduction for
. The maxim
ls it was 0.54
tello/Twin F
11
:
0
0
 PM
Baseli
10
:
0
0

11
:
0
0

P
M
Baseli
ember 2015
6
use energy
e
m single
he event
m
kW per
lls

0
20
40
60
80
100
Te
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e
ne Temp
0
20
40
60
80
100
Te
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e
e Temp
A
J
/C Cool Credit
July 31st C
The event cal
verage dem
our demand
as 0.79 kW
emand redu
articipant. Fi
articipants, r
igure 6: July 31
igure 7: July 31
 ‐
 20,000
 40,000
 60,000
 80,000
 100,000
 120,000
 140,000
kW
Bas
 ‐
 2,000
 4,000
 6,000
 8,000
 10,000
 12,000
 14,000
 16,000
 18,000
 20,000
kW
B
Program
urtailmen
led on July 3
nd reductio
reduction of
per participa
tion for the
ure 6 and 7
espectively,
Curtailment Ev
Curtailment Ev
1:
0
0
 PM
2:
0
0
 PM
line Energy
1:
0
0
 PM
2:
0
0
 PM
aseline Ener
t
1st implemen
of 0.74 kW
.82 kW per
t, whereas i
oise area w
below prese
or the July 3
nt Results - Boi
nt Results - Poc
3:
0
0
 PM
Curtail
3:
0
0
 PM
y Curt
ted a 55 perc
er participa
articipant. I
Pocatello/T
s 0.88 kW p
t the aggregst curtailmen
e
atello/Idaho Fall
4:
0
0
 PM
5:
0
0
 PM
ment Event E
4:
0
0
 PM
5:
0
0
 PM
ailment Even
ent curtailme
t across the
the Boise a
in Falls it w
r participant
ate load profi
event.

6:
0
0
 PM
Time
ergy
6:
0
0
 PM
Time
 Energy
nt strategy a
hree hours o
ea, the aver
s 0.46 kW p
and in Poca
les for the B
7:
 PM
8:
0
0
 PM
Curtailment E
7:
 PM
8:
0
0
 PM
Curtailmen
We chang
d resulted in
f the event,
ge demand
r participant
ello/Twin Fal
ise and Poc
9:
0
0
 PM
10
:
0
0
 PM
vent Temp
9:
0
0
 PM
10
:
0
0
 PM
t Event Temp
Sep
the way peopl
a system wi
nd a maxim
eduction for
. The maxim
ls it was 0.49
tello/Twin F
11
:
0
0
 PM
Baseli
11
:
0
0
 PM
Basel
tember 2015
7
use energy
e
m single
he event
m
kW per
lls

0
20
40
60
80
100
Te
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e
ne Temp
0
20
40
60
80
100
Te
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e
ine Temp
A
P
i
/C Cool Credit
Predictive
As part of the
ycling strate
ocatello/Twi
urtailment e
2015 to ac
able 4 and
valuations
how a high
urtailment e
onversely, f
ctual deman
able 4. Predicti
Curtailme
Event
12-Jul-12
19-Jul-12
31-Jul-12
13-Aug-1
16-Aug-1
20-Aug-1
22-Aug-1
14-Jul-14
31-Jul-14
11-Aug-1
30-Jun-1
21-Jul-1
31-Jul-1
Average
rogram
Model
2012 impact
y and temp
Falls) base
ent” and “Pe
ount for the
below comp
ith the estim
mount of var
ents, the mo
r most 2012
d reduction f
e Model Output
nt Temp
of
1
1

1

1
1

evaluation,
rature inputs
on an inde
rcent cycling.
esults of the
are the actu
ted maximu
iability betwe
el predicted
curtailment
r most even
Compared to
at Start
vent
05
04
7
7
3
3
0
00
3
01
02
2
6
7
predictive
. The model
endent varia
” s discuss
2012, 2014,
l maximum d
demand re
en model ou
lower dema
vents, the m
s.
ctual - Boise
Percent
ycling P
60%
65%
70%
50%
75%
65%
100%
65%
55%
55%
55%
55%
55%
63%
odel was de
tilizes a reg
ble represen
d in the Met
nd 2015 cu
emand redu
uctions out
puts and act
d reduction
del predicte
Max kW Red
redicted by
1.05
1.10
0.99
0.76
0.94
0.84
1.09
1.01
0.73
0.90
0.92
0.71
0.80
0.91
eloped that
ession form
ing the inter
odology se
tailment eve
tion results i
ut by the mo
al results fo
han actual d
significantl
uction
odel
ct
k
We chang
stimates loa
la for each r
ction of “Te
tion above, t
ts.
the 2012, 2
el. The resu
both region
mand reduc
higher dem
ual Maximu
Reduction
1.14
0.99
0.89
0.40
0.83
0.58
0.86
1.34
0.98
1.15
1.16
0.67
0.88
0.91
Sep
the way peopl
reductions
gion (Boise
perature at
e model wa
14, and 201
lts of this co
. For 2014 a
ion for most
nd reductio
m Perce
Differe
-8.0
11.3
11.9
90.3
12.8
44.7
26.3
-24.6
-25.4
-21.6
-20.7
6.0
-9.1
7.2
ember 2015
8
use energy
based on
nd
tart of
updated
5 impact
parison
d 2015
events.
than
nt
ce
%

A

t
i

/C Cool Credit
able 5. Predicti
Curtailme
Event
12-Jul-12
19-Jul-12
31-Jul-12
13-Aug-1
16-Aug-1
20-Aug-1
22-Aug-1
31-Jul-14
11-Aug-1
30-Jun-1
21-Jul-1
31-Jul-1
Average
he discrepa
he 2012 pro
clude only
able 6 belo
ote that onl
ignificant wh
rogram
e Model Output
nt Temp
of

cy between
ram’s device
014 and 201
includes th
Boise regio
en 2012 eve
Compared to
at Start
vent
99
93
94
93
91
85
87
89
93
92
89
93
92
he model’s
communicat
events, the
results from
results are
ts are remo

ctual - Pocatell
Percent
ycling
M
P
60%
65%
70%
50%
75%
65%
100%
55%
55%
55%
55%
55%
55%
utput for 201
ion challeng
discrepancy
a predictive
hown due to
ed.
/Twin Falls
ax kW Redu
edicted by
0.73
0.67
0.73
0.55
0.70
0.53
0.77
0.53
0.59
0.58
0.53
0.59
0.63
2 events and
s. When the
between mo
odel that d
Pocatello/T
ction
odel
ct
k
the 2014 an
model’s reg
el-predicted
es not includ
in Falls regi
We chang
ual Maximu
Reduction
0.69
0.66
0.90
0.44
0.59
0.52
0.75
0.56
0.60
0.78
0.54
0.49
0.63
2015 event
ession form
and actual r
e 2012 even
n results not
Sep
the way peopl
m Perce
Differe
5.5%
1.8%
-19.0
27.4
19.3
1.4%
3.0%
-5.3
-1.3
-26.0
-0.7
20.9
2.2%
s is presuma
la is update
sults is mini
s for the Boi
being statist
ember 2015
9
use energy
nt
ce
%

bly due to
to
ized.
e region.
cally
A

C
i
/C Cool Credit
able 6. Predicti
Curtailme
Event
14-Jul-14
31-Jul-14
11-Aug-1
30-Jun-1
21-Jul-1
31-Jul-1
Average
Conclusi
The 2015 im
perating as i
lectricity gri
.82 kW per
verage hour
ue to the di
nalysis inclu
een in the P
urtailment e
ocatello/Twi
o better und
ercentages
or the progra
s accuracy),
ore urgentl
rogram
e Model Output
nt Temp
of

ons
pact evaluatio
ntended, an
. The results
articipant, re
y demand re
tinct weathe
es region-s
catello/Twin
ents from 20
Falls regio
rstand the p
other than 5
m’s predictiv
and providin
needed.
Compared to
at Start
vent
100
93
01
02
92
6.1
97
n of the A/C
, properly m
of the analy
pectively, fo
uction was
patterns bet
ecific results
Falls region
12, 2014, an
were on av
rogram’s de
%) during fu
model, incr
more value
ctual – Boise (2
Percent
ycling
M
P
65%
55%
55%
55%
55%
55%
63%
ool Credit p
intained, ca
es showed
r the curtail
.04, 0.62, a
een the Boi
. Driven by c
ere on aver
2015 seas
rage 31 per
and reducti
ure curtailm
asing the st
to Idaho Po
12 events rem
ax kW Redu
edicted by
1.34
0.81
1.13
1.17
0.77
0.93
1.03
ogram’s cur
be relied on
aximum sin
ent events h
d 0.74 kW p
se and Poca
oler temper
age 33 perc
ns, the maxi
ent less than
n potential, i
nt events.
tistical signi
er and grid
ved)
ction
odel
ct
tailment eve
to provide di
le hour dem
ld on June
r participant
ello/Twin Fal
tures, the 2
nt less than
um deman
those in the
’s recomme
oing so will
icance of its
perators wh
We chang
ual Maximu
Reduction
1.34
0.98
1.15
1.16
0.67
0.88
1.03
ts confirmed
spatchable d
nd reductio
0th, July 21st,
respectively
ls regions, e
15 maximu
hose in the
reductions
Boise region
ded to utiliz
rovide a bro
egression fo
n demand r
Sep
the way peopl
m kW P
Dif
-
-1
-
1
that the pro
mand savin
s of 1.11, 0.
and July 31
, for the thre
ch curtailme
demand re
oise region.
een in the
.
a variety of
der set of d
rmulas (i.e. i
sponse reso
ember 2015
10
use energy
ercent
erence
0.1%
6.9%
.8%
.5%
.6%
.2%
.6%
ram is
s to the
5, and
. The
events.
nt event
uctions
For all
ycling
ta points
creasing
urces are

F

P
P
R

Flex
2015
ctober 201
PREPARE
REPARE
EPORTIN
Pea
Impac
5
D BY CLEA
D FOR Idaho
G PERIOD
k De
t Eval
esult
Power Co
une 15th –
mand
uatio
pany
ugust 15th,
We
Res
n
2015
change t
pon
he way pe
se Pr
ople use
ogra
0
nergyTM
m

T
E
I
B
I
F
C

L
L

able of
xecutive S
ntroduction
Background ..
mpact Evalu
ethodology
Findings ......
Participant C
urtailment E
Conclusions
ist of T
Table 1. Erro
able 2: Num
able 3: Sum
able 5: June
able 7: July
able 9: Aug
List of Fi
Figure 1. Cou
igure 3: Su
igure 4. Ave
igure 5. Jun
igure 6. July
igure 7. Aug
Contents
mmary........
....................
.....................
tion Goals ...
....................
.....................
haracterizatio
vent Results
....................
bles
r Code Key ...
ber of Sites
ary of Dem
30th Curtail
1st Curtailm
st 4th Curtai
gures
nt of Sites b
mary of De
age Realiza
30th Curtail
21st Curtail
ust 4th Curtai

.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
n ..................
.....................
.....................
.....................
y Processin
nd Reducti
ent Event R
nt Event: B
ment Event
Nominated
and Reducti
ion Rate by
ent Event L
ent Event Lo
ment Event

....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
Step ...........
n and Result
sults by Ho
seline Resul
esults by H
eduction Gr
n (MW) ......
ominated R
ad Profile ...
ad Profile ....
oad Profile .
We
.....................
....................
.....................
....................
....................
.....................
.....................
....................
.....................
.....................
....................
ing Realizati
r (MW) .........
s by Hour (
ur (MW) ......
up ..............
....................
duction Gro
....................
....................
....................
change t
.....................
....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
n Rate (MW
.....................
W) ...............
.....................
.....................
.....................
p .................
.....................
.....................
.....................
e way pe
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
...................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
ple use
.....................
....................
.....................
....................
....................
.....................
.....................
....................
.....................
.....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
1
nergyTM
.............. 2
.............. 2
.............. 2
.............. 2
.............. 3
.............. 4
.............. 4
.............. 5
............ 10
............. 3
............. 4
............. 5
............. 7
............. 8
............. 9
............. 5
............. 6
............. 6
............. 7
............. 8
............. 9

E
I
i
t
I
T
a
p
i
i
I
I
i
Executiv
daho Power
voluntary d
ustomers. In
pact evalu
urtailment e
LEAResult
th (4-7pm), 2
3.3, and 13.
chieved real
1 unique sit
he 71 sites
cross four si
verage reali
he lowest av
he results o
nd provided
nd with addi
apacity requ
ntroduc
ackgrou
The Flex Pea
nd industrial
eriods of ext
centive to c
rogram has
an event w
avings achie
he Flex Pea
hone and e
ours.
mpact Ev
daho Power
pact evalu
1. Dete
2. Dete
he results c
lectricity gri
e Summ
Company co
mand respo
2015, there
tion were to
ents during t
ompleted an
15. The res
MW, respe
zation rates
s, with the a
nrolled in th
e classes, t
ation rate a
rage realiza
the impact e
up to 23 MW
ional particip
rements dict
tion
d
k Program is
customers.
reme peak el
stomers to t
fixed paym
s called) dur
ved during c
program pr
ail. Events
aluation G
contracted C
tion has two
mine and ve
mine realizat
ntained in th
and provide
ary
ntracted CLE
se (DR) pro
ere 38 cust
etermine th
he program’
alyses of cur
lts of the cu
tively, for th
f 86.7%, 96.
gregate no
program co
e sites with
ross the thre
ion rate at 6
valuation sh
to the electri
ants and mo
te.
a voluntary
he program’
ectricity use.
rn off or red
nt amount o
ng the progr
rtailment ev
vides custo
an be called
oals
LEAResult to
primary goal
ify the dema
ion rate for e
is report will
more accura
Result to c
ram that ha
mers and a
demand re
June 15th -
ailment eve
tailment eve
three event
6%, and 55.
inated load
tributed a m
he smallest
events at 1
%.
w that Idaho
city grid at th
e diversity a
emand resp
objective is
The progra
ce electrical
$3.25/kW p
m season, a
nts after the
ers with a n
rom June 1
complete an
:
d reduction
ch event
nable Idaho
e estimates
We
mplete an i
been availa
otal of 71 sit
uction (in M
ugust 15th s
ts held on Ju
t analyses s
, and an ave
%, respectiv
eduction ave
edian nomin
ominated lo
7%. The se
Power’s 201
meter level
ong particip
nse (DR) pr
to reduce th
is designed
system load
r week of n
nd a variable
third event.
tification tw
th - ugust 1
impact eval
MW) during
Power to be
f the progra
change t
pact evaluati
le to Idaho
s enrolled i
) and realiz
ason.
ne 30th (4-8p
owed maxi
rage of 19.5
ly, averagin
raging 24.5
ted reductio
d reduction,
cond largest
5 Flex Peak
. In addition,
ants, could c
gram availa
demand on
to reduce pe
at their facili
minated loa
payment a
hours prior
th anytime fr
ation of the
015 curtail
ter define th
’s load red
e way pe
on of the 201
ower’s com
the progra
tion rate for
m), July 21st
um demand
MW at the m
79.6%. ll
W across th
of 175 kW.
0-50 kW, ac
size class, 2
rogram fun
he Flex Pea
ontribute mo
le to Idaho
Idaho Powe
k load by p
ies during c
reduction (o
ount of $0.1
o the start o
m 2 - 8pm a
015 Flex Pe
ent events
impact of th
ction in the f
ple use
5 Flex Peak
ercial and i
. The goals
at least thre
(4-8pm), an
reductions o
ter level. Th
hree events
e three even
When broke
ieved the hi
1-500 kW,
tioned as int
program is
e reduction
ower’s com
’s system du
ying a finan
lled events.
r actual load
/kWh for en
curtailment
d can last fr
k Program.
program o
ture.
2
nergyTM
program,
dustrial
f the

August
21.9,
e events
ncluded
s.
out
hest
chieved
nded
calable
s future
ercial
ing
ial
he
reduction
rgy
vents via
m 2 - 4
his 2015
the

M
t
D
i
t
E

S
D
D
t
t
Methodolo
The section b
ethodology
etermining t
rogram’s ba
ested, with r
valuation:
Data Source
CLEAResult
terval data
omination k
here the so
hat no site I
odes were n
able 1. Error C
Error Code
1
9
Q
Sampling Pl
The use of h
articipants (i
Data Gatheri
CLEAResult
reated a con
eviewed to i
owever no o
Determine t
CLEAResult
he previous t
emand was
LEAResult t
he demand f
LEAResult t
f hours 12p
ays and the
gy
elow describ
or gathering
e curtailmen
eline and de
sults reporte
ternative Me
s
conducted th
hourly kW re
, and the c
rce data wa
s needed to
t present du
de Key
Descript
Power O
Missing
Estimate
an
ourly interval
.e. all partici
ng and Proc
processed all
sistent and a
entify the pr
ccurrences
he Baseline
determined si
en non-week
etermined a
hen determi
r each hour
hen calculat
and 1pm (h
event day. T
s the data u
and process
t event realiz
mand reduct
in the acco
hodologies.”
2015 Flex
dings) and
stomer’s ag
missing or
e removed
ring the curt
ion
utage
eading
Reading
etering dat
ants were co
essing
data provide
ppropriate d
sence of err
ere found.
e-specific b
end/holiday
s the day wit
ed each site’
across all thr
d a day-of-a
ours 3 and 4
e DOA was
ed to compl
ng data, det
tion rates.
on calculatio
panying m

Peak impact
n event-spe
regated opti
stimated. Se
rom the anal
ilment event

a allowed the
nsidered in t
by Idaho P
ta format for
r codes duri
selines by fir
nd non-curt
the highest
unadjusted
e comparis
justment (D
prior to the b
alculated as
We
te the impa
rmining bas
ote that the
methodolo
mo “Flex Pe
valuation thr
ific participa
n. Some int
Table 1 for
ses due to t
or baseline
impact evalu
e analysis).
wer using th
all three curt
g the curtail
t identifying
ilment days (
average de
baseline de
n days.
A) for each
eginning of t
a flat kW, a
change t
t evaluation,
line, calcula
ethodology
y. Two addi
k Demand
ugh the use
t list. The p
rval meter d
a list of erro
e presence
eriods.
tion’s samp
e analytics p
ilment even
ent event p
the three da
hereto calle
and during t
and during
ite. The DO
e curtailmen
d was capp
e way pe
the sampling
ing the dem
detailed bel
tional baseli
esponse Pr
of two prima
rticipant list i
ta included
codes inclu
f errors cod
ing plan to b
atform SAS
s. The interv
riod or in th
s with the gr
comparison
e hours of 2
he event tim
was calcul
t period) for
d at +/- 20%
ple use
plan, and th
nd reduction
w is aligned
e methodolo
gram 2015 I
ry data sourc
cluded site
rror codes f
ed in the dat
s because
a census o
. The use of
l metering d
baseline pe
atest dema
days). The
pm - 8pm.
frame by av
ted using th
oth the com
of the value
3
nergyTM

and
ith the
ies were
pact
es:
D,
r cases
. Note
rror
program
AS®
ata was
riod,
d from
reatest
raging
average
arison
or the

t
C
D
t

F
i
P
t
C

ame time pe
o avoid the b
uilding). Thi
ggregate ba
Calculate De
CLEAResult
urtailment e
emand redu
eduction) wa
Determine C
CLEAResult
emand redu
he analysis.
Findings
The section b
haracterizati
urtailment e
dicated. Ida
eduction.
Participan
The 2015 Fle
he three eve
able 2: Number
Curtailment
June 30th
uly 21st
ugust 4th
verage
riod during t
aseline bein
DOA appro
eline.
mand Redu
calculated th
ent from the
tions were t
calculated
urtailment E
determined t
tions calcul
elow present
n of the site
ent. Note th
o Power lin
t Characte
x Peak progr
ts. The 71 s
of Sites by Pro
Event No
he original ba
affected by
ch was appl
ction
e demand red
participant’s
en aggregat
y aggregati
vent Realiza
he realization
ted in the pr
the finding
enrolled in
t numbers p
losses are
rization
am included
tes were acc
essing Step
minated M
25.3
24.1
24.0
24.5
eline windo
articipant a
ed to each s
uction for ea
adjusted bas
d for all par
g each parti
tion Rate
rates for eac
vious step b
of the 2015
he program
resented in t
.7% for dem
1 enrolled si
unted for b
W Coun
We
. The DOA
tion to prepa
rvice locatio
h participan
line load (d
icipants. The
ipant’s resul
curtailment
the total no
lex Peak pr
nd ending
bles are ex
nd to conve
es, accounti
38 unique c
t of Total
ites
71
71
71
71
change t
as applied
re for the cur
n and summ
by subtracti
termined in
total event i
s.
event by divi
inated load
gram impac
ith a present
ressed in M
t from meter
g for an ave
stomers.
Count
nal
7
7
7
7
e way pe
o all baselin
ailment eve
d to arrive a
g its load du
he previous
pact (both
ding the agg
for the all pa
evaluation,
tion of the r
at meter le
level to gen
rage of 24.5
of Sites
yzed
71
1
1
1
ple use
hours. This
t (e.g. pre-c
the progra
ring each ho
teps). The h
verage and
egate maxi
rticipants incl
eginning wi
sults of eac
el, unless ot
ration level l
nominated M
Percent
Sites A
100
100
100
100
4
nergyTM
as done
ol the
’s
r of the
urly
aximum
um
uded in
h a

herwise
ad
W across
of Total
alyzed
%
%
%
%

T
c
o
r
9
T
*

When site’s n
44.4 kW, wh
eduction wa
igure 1. Count
Curtailme
Table 3 and
urtailment e
f 13.3 MW f
eduction res
6.6% realiza
able 3: Summa
Curtailmen
June 30th
July 21st
August 4th
Average
* Based on ma
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Co
u
n
t

o
f

S
i
t
e
s
ominated k
ile the media
in the 51-20
f Sites b Nomi
nt Event R
Figure 3 belo
ents and the
r the ugust
lted in a real
tion rate. Wh
y of Demand R
Event Ti
ximum reducti
14
0-50
was averag
n reduction
0 kW range,
ated Reduction
esults
w summarize
resulting rea
4th event to
ization rate o
en considere
duction and Re
Event
eframe
4-8pm
4-8pm
4-7pm

on
R
ed across the
as 175 kW.
ccounting f
Group
the estimate
lization rate.
high of 23.3
f 55.4%, whil
together, t
ulting Realizati
Nominat
Deman
Reducti
25.3
24.1
24.0
24.5
30
51-200
Range of Nom
We
three event
s Figure 1 b
r 42% of the
demand re
he maximu
MW for the
e the July 31
e three even
n Rate (MW)
ed

n
vg
Redu
nated Load
change t
, the averag
elow depicts,
sites.
uction achie
demand re
uly 21st eve
t event’s 23.
ts had an av
g. Demand
ction (MW)
21.5
22.6
12.6
18.9
21
201-500
Reduction (k
he way pe
nominated l
the most co
ed during e
duction achi
t. The Augu
MW reducti
rage realiza
Max Dem
Reduction (
21.9
23.3
13.3
19.5
W)
ople use
oad reductio
mon nomin
ch of the thr
ved ranged
t 4th event’s
on equated t
ion rate of 7
and
MW)
Real
8
9
5
7
6
501+
5
nergyTM
was
ted load

e
rom a low
3.3 MW
a
.6%.
ization
ate*
6.7%
.6%
.4%
.6%

(

igure 2: Summ
igure 4 belo
verage load
ites in the s
137%), while
ealization rat
igure 3. Averag
0
5
10
15
20
25
De
m
a
n
d

R
e
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

(
M
W
)
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
140%
160%
Re
a
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n

R
a
t
e
ary of Demand R
presents th
reduction (a
allest group
the second l
e (64%).
Realization Ra
Jun
137
0-5
duction (MW)
e realization
ross three e
(0-50 kW of
argest group
te by Nominate
30th
Avg. Deman
rate achieve
ents) was di
nominated lo
(201-500 k
Reduction Gro
Reduction (M
78%
51-20
Range of N
We
by each sit
ided by their
d reduction
of nominate
p
July 21st
W)Max
ominated Lo
change t
group. To
average no
achieved th
reduction)
Demand Red
64%
201-500
ad Reduction
he way pe
alculate the
ination acro
highest ave
chieved the
A
ction (MW)
(kW)
ople use
esults, each
s the three
rage realizati
lowest avera
ugust 4th
100%
501+
6
nergyTM

Site IDs
vents.
on rate
e

J
M

t
N

-

June 30th C
Table 5 belo
pm experien
able 4: June 30
Method
June 30th
igure 5 belo
he results fr
urtailment e
igure 4. June 3
Notes:
Energy usag
-5pm is depic
The Baseline
djustment (D
-
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
11
a
m
MW
rtailment E
w breaks out
ced the larg
h Curtailment E
presents th
m Table 5 a
ent energy l
th Curtailment E
e for a given h
ed in the 4 m
Energy and C
A) being calc
12
p
m
vent
demand redu
st total redu
ent Results by
e load profile
ove. The bl
ad profile w
ent Load Profil
our is reported
reading.
rtailment Eve
lated rior to
1p
m
2p
m
Baseline E
tion for eac
tion (21.9 M
ou (MW)
4-5pm
21.9
of the June
ck line durin
uld have to r

in the time re
t Energy line
he event start
3p
m
nergy
We
hour of the
, 86.7% of t
5-6pm
21.6
0th curtailm
the curtail
each in orde
ading at the be
do not inters
time.
4p
m
5p
m
Time
Curtailment
change t
urtailment e
he total nomi
6-7pm
21.9
nt event and
ent event pe
to achieve
ginning of the
ct at the begin
p 6p
m
Event Energy
e way pe
ent. The ho
nated load).
7-8pm R
20.5
its baseline,
iod depicts t
100% realiz
hour. For exa
ning of the ev
7p
m
8
m
100
ple use
r between 6
Avg.
duction R
21.5
graphically d
e level the
tion rate.
mple, energy u
nt due to the
p 9p
m
Realization
7
nergyTM
m and
Max.
duction
21.9
picting
sage from
ay-of-
10
p
m
ate

T
d
T
b
T
J

t
N

-
July 21st Cu
The second
emand redu
able 7 belo
etween 4pm
able 5: July 21s
Method
July 21st
igure 6 belo
he results fr
vent energy
igure 5. July 21
Notes:
Energy usag
-5pm is depic
The Baseline
djustment (D
-
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
11
a
m
MW
tailment Ev
Flex Peak ev
tion results
breaks out
and 5pm ex
Curtailment Ev
presents th
m Table 7 a
load profile
t Curtailment E
e for a given h
ed in the 4 m
Energy and C
A) being calc
12
p
m
ent
ent was calle
ut of the thr
emand redu
erienced th
nt: Baseline Re
e load profile
ove. The bla
ould have to
ent Load Profile
our is reported
reading.
rtailment Eve
lated prior to
1p
m
2p
m
Baseline En
in the third
e events.
tion for eac
largest total
ults by Hou (M
4-5pm
23.3
of the July 2
k line durin
reach in ord
in the time re
t Energy line
he event start
3p
m
rgy C
We
eek of July.
hour of the
reduction (2
)
5-6pm
22.9
1st curtailme
the curtailm
r to achieve
ading a the be
do not inters
time.
4p
m
5p
m
Time
urtailment Eve
change t
The July 21st
urtailment e
.3 MW, 96.6
6-7pm
22.9
t event and i
nt event per
a 100% reali
ginning of the
ct at the begin
6p
m
nt Energy
e way pe
event achie
ent by dispa
of the total
7-8pm
21.5
ts baseline,
iod depicts t
ation rate.
hour. For exa
ning of the ev
7p
m
8
m
100% Re
ple use
ed the highe
tch group. T
nominated l
Avg.
eduction
22.6
raphically d
e level the c
mple, energy u
nt due to the
p 9p
m
lization Rate
8
nergyTM
t
e hour
ad).
Max.
eduction
23.3
picting
rtailment

sage from
ay-of-
10
p
m

A
M

t
N

-
W
r
August 4th
The third Fle
eduction out
able 9 belo
etween 6pm
able 6: August
Method
August 4th
igure 7 belo
he results fr
vent energy
igure 6. August
Notes:
Energy usag
-5pm is depic
The Baseline
djustment (D
When consid
ealization rat
-
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
11
a
m
MW
urtailment
x Peak event
of the three
breaks out
and 7pm ex
th Curtailment
presents th
m Table 9 a
load profile
4th Curtailment
e for a given h
ed in the 4 m
Energy and C
A) being calc
ering the poo
e can be sin
12
p
m
Event
was called in
vents.
emand redu
erienced th
vent Results by
e load profile
ove. The bla
ould have to
vent Load Profi
our is reported
reading.
rtailment Eve
lated prior to
r performanc
ly attributed
1p
m
2p
m
Baseline En
the first wee
tion for eac
largest total
Hou (MW)
4-5pm
12.2
of the ugu
k line durin
reach in ord
e
in the time re
t Energy line
he event start
e of the Augu
o a lack of p
3p
m
rgy C
We
of August.
hour of the
reduction (1
5-6pm
12.4
t 4th curtailm
the curtailm
r to achieve
ading at the be
do not inters
time.
st 4th event,
rformance b
4p
m
5p
m
Time
urtailment Eve
change t
he August 4
urtailment e
.3 MW).
6-7pm
13.3
nt event an
nt event per
a 100% reali
ginning of the
ct at the begin
compared to
y the site wit
6p
m
nt Energy
e way pe
h event saw
ent by dispa
Av
Reduc
12.
its baseline
iod depicts t
ation rate.
hour. For exa
ning of the ev
the other two
the largest
7p
m
8p
m
100% Rea
ple use
he lowest d
tch group. T
g.
ion Re
6
graphically
e level the c
mple, energy u
nt due to the
events, the
nominated lo
9p
m
lization Rate
9
nergyTM
mand
e hour
Max.
uction
13.3
epicting
rtailment

sage from
ay-of-
reduced
d
10
p
m

t
C
eduction in t
verage of 11
verage of its
o 94.8%.
Conclusi
The goals of
uring curtail
LEAResult
ugust 4th (4
veraging 24.
1.9, 23.3, a
ealization rat
he results o
nd provided
nd with addi
apacity requ
e program.
3% across t
realization r
ons
the 2015 Fle
ent events
ompleted an
7pm). All t
5 MW acros
d 13.3 MW,
es of 86.7%,
the impact e
up to 23 MW
ional particip
rements dict
hat site ach
e first two e
tes from the
Peak impac
nd determin
alyses of cur
ree events i
the three ev
espectively,
96.6%, and
valuation sh
to the electri
ants and mo
te.
eving a reali
ents. Had th
first two eve
evaluation
the realizati
ailment eve
cluded 71 u
ents. The re
or the three
5.4%, respe
w that Idaho
city grid at th
e diversity a
We
ation rate of
site’s realiz
ts, the event
ere to deter
on rate for e
ts held on Ju
ique sites, w
ults of the a
vents, and
tively, avera
Power’s 201
meter level
ong particip
change t
8% in the A
ation rate for
’s realization
ine and veri
ch event.
ne 30th (4 –
th the aggre
alyses show
n average o
ging 79.6%.
5 Flex Peak
. In addition,
ants, could c
e way pe
gust 4th eve
the ugust
rate would’v
fy the deman
pm), July 21
ate nominat
d maximum
19.5 MW. T

rogram fun
he Flex Pea
ontribute mo
ple use
t, compared
th event bee
increased
d reduction (
st (4 – 8pm),
d load redu
demand red
e events ac
tioned as int
program is
e reduction
10
nergyTM
to an
the
y 39.4%
W)
nd
tion
ctions of
ieved
nded
calable
s future

Impact and Process Evaluation of Idaho Power’s
Ductless Heat Pump Program
Final Report
Applied Energy Group, Inc.
500 Ygnacio Valley Road, Suite 250
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
510.982.3525
www.appliedenergygroup.com
Prepared for:
Idaho Power Company

This work was performed by Applied Energy Group, Inc. 500 Ygnacio Valley Blvd., Suite 250 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Project Director: C. Williamson Project Manager: B. Ryan Project Team: K. Parmenter D. Burdjalov T. Shah

Executive Summary The Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance (NEEA) initiated the Northwest Ductless Heat Pump Pilot project (DHP) in 2008 and Idaho Power (IPC) joined the project in 2009, implementing the pilot throughout its service area. The company extended the project as an Idaho Power DHP Pilot through 2014 offering customers a $750 incentive payment to have a qualified DHP installed. IPC works with a network of participating contractors to deliver the program. Currently there are approximately 75 participating contractors, although that number changes as contractors continue to be added to the program. Honeywell performs on-site verification for the program.
Conclusions The results of the impact analysis show that the Ductless Heat Pump program saved 451,391 kWh achieving 97.5% of its goal. For non-electric benefits the ex-ante realization rate is 109.2%.
Table ES-1 Ductless Heat Pump Program Results
Metric Program Goal Reported AEG-Evaluated Overall Realization Rate
Annual Energy Savings
(kWh) 460,000 462,747 451,391 97.5%
Non-Electric Benefits (NEBs) NA $178,221 $194,605 109.2% Other key findings from the process and impact evaluations include:
• The program is very well run, has an involved program specialist, and adheres to best practices in the industry.
• The program has high satisfaction among participating contractors and customers, and the technology is well received.
• Contractor/retailers, bill inserts, and word of mouth are the main ways 2014 participants heard about the program.
• The price of the technology has remained steady and the perceived high cost can be a barrier to program participation. The incentive helps address this barrier for some but not all eligible customers.
• Low performing contractors could become more engaged with additional technical training and development.
Ductless Heat Pump Program Impact & Process Evaluation
Applied Energy Group, Inc. iv www.appliedenergygroup.com
• According to IPC staff, the contractor portal is rarely being used, but the high-and mid-performing contractors interviewed say they have used the portal and are satisfied with the materials.
1.1 Recommendations Based on this evaluation, the following recommendations should be considered to enhance program effectiveness and improve the accuracy and transparency of reported savings:
• Consider expanding the target market to new construction and small commercial businesses.
• Conduct more outreach with contractors. Interviews with contractors revealed that they could benefit from more marketing and outreach. The program specialist is very busy and does not have enough time to do the outreach on his own. Customer Representatives (CR) could help the program specialist reach out more frequently to participating contractors. Contacts made by the CR are tracked by the Program Specialist. Visits to contractors could also be coordinated with other HVAC programs to inform them about all the energy efficiency rebates available from IPC.
• Work with ductless heat pump manufacturers to provide training materials and workshops for participating contractors.
• Remind contractors who are not using the portal about the availability of the contractor portal. Data is available on who has logged in to the portal and the frequency of visits. Idaho Power reports that the contractor portal is underutilized, however, the highest performing contractors interviewed said they use the portal. Let all contractors know when new materials are available through the portal.
• When calculating NEBs, make sure that the correct inflator is used to convert to current year values. Also IPC is currently using the Present Value Non-Electric System Benefits $/kWh for calculating NEBs and that is incorrect as this value is not based on site energy savings. The “PV Regional Non-E Value” parameter should be used directly or in conjunction with the site savings.
• When a home’s ZIP code is in two counties, use the street address to determine the correct climate and heating zone.

Ductless Heat Pump Program Impact & Process Evaluation
Applied Energy Group, Inc. v www.appliedenergygroup.com
Contents
Chapter 1: Introduction ...................................................................................................1 Program Description ............................................................................................. 1 Purpose of the Evaluation ................................................................................... 1 Report Structure ..................................................................................................... 2
Chapter 2: Methodology ..................................................................................................3
Process Evaluation................................................................................................. 3 Impact Evaluation .................................................................................................. 5
Chapter 3: Process Evaluation Findings .....................................................................6 Program Staff Interviews ..................................................................................... 6 Program Processes ................................................................................................ 8 Program Marketing................................................................................................ 8 Contractor Interviews ........................................................................................... 10 Best Practices .......................................................................................................... 13
Chapter 4: Impact Evaluation Findings .......................................................................14 Engineering Review ............................................................................................... 14 Non-Electric Benefits ............................................................................................ 15
Chapter 5: Conclusions and Recommendations .......................................................17
Recommendations ................................................................................................. 18
Appendix A: Program Staff and Contractor Interview Guides

Applied Energy Group, Inc. 1 www.appliedenergygroup.com
1
Introduction
1.1 Program Description The Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance (NEEA) initiated the Northwest Ductless Heat Pump Pilot project (DHP) in 2008 and Idaho Power joined the project in 2009, implementing the pilot throughout its service area. The company extended the project as an Idaho Power DHP Pilot through 2014 offering customers a $750 incentive payment to have a qualified DHP installed. The primary goal of the Northwest DHP Pilot project is to promote DHP technology as an energy-saving alternative for customers who primarily heat their homes with electricity. Other Northwest DHP Pilot goals are to identify DHP energy savings, help inform Regional Technical Forum (RTF) deemed-savings amounts, and obtain customer satisfaction and behavior patterns regarding this technology. The program targets existing homes heated with electric zonal systems. Typically, these homes do not have air ducting and therefore cannot easily have a forced-air heat pump system installed. The types of electric zonal systems in the targeted homes include baseboard, ceiling cable, and wall-mounted units. Homes heated with fossil fuel forced-air systems or electric forced-air systems do not qualify. Qualifications include having one DHP indoor unit installed in the main living area of the home, since this is where most occupants spend the majority of their time. IPC works with a network of participating contractors to deliver the program. Currently there are approximately 75 participating contractors, although that number changes as contractors continue to be added to the program. Honeywell performs on-site verification for the program. In 2014, the Ductless Heat Pump program reported 463 MWh of savings (Table 1-1).
Table 1-1 Ductless Heat Pump Program Reported Savings vs. 2014 Goals
Year Units MWh Savings PY2014 IPC Goals NA 460
IPC-Reported 179 463
Percent of IPC-Reported to Goals NA 101%
1.2 Purpose of the Evaluation
Idaho Power Company (IPC) contracted with Applied Energy Group (AEG) to conduct a process evaluation of the Ductless Heat Pump program and an impact
Ductless Heat Pump Program Impact & Process Evaluation
Applied Energy Group, Inc. 2 www.appliedenergygroup.com
evaluation for program year 2014. The key objectives addressed in the process evaluation were to:
• Evaluate program design including program mission, logic, and use of best practices.
• Evaluate program implementation including quality control, operational practice, and outreach.
• Evaluate program administration including program oversight, staffing, management, training, documentation, and reporting.
• Evaluate participant and stakeholder response including customer interaction and satisfaction.
• Report findings and observations and provide recommendations that enhance program effectiveness. The key objectives addressed by the impact evaluation were to:
• Measure and verify the energy (kWh), and non-electric impacts attributable to the 2014 program.
• Provide credible and reliable ex-post program energy savings and realization rates and non-electric impact estimates attributed to the program for the 2014 program year.
• Report findings and observations, and provide recommendations that would enhance the effectiveness of future analysis and the accurate and transparent reporting of program savings.
1.3 Report Structure Following this introductory chapter are the following chapters:
• Chapter 2 – Methodology: Description of the evaluation methods, sampling design, and data collection and analysis process.
• Chapter 3 – Process Evaluation Findings: Description and discussion of the program processes and best practices review.
• Chapter 4 – Impact Evaluation Findings: Description and discussion of the result of the engineering review including kWh savings estimates, non-electric benefits and realization rates.
• Chapter 5 – Conclusions and Recommendations: Conclusions reached based on the process and impact evaluation including the best practices review and recommendations to improve the program.

Applied Energy Group, Inc. 3 www.appliedenergygroup.com
2
Methodology
This section describes the approach AEG used to evaluate the Ductless Heat Pump program.
2.1 Process Evaluation Process evaluations focus on determining the overall effectiveness of program delivery, identifying opportunities for program improvements, and assessing key program metrics including participation rates, market barriers, and overall program operations. The process evaluation for the Ductless Heat Pump program consisted of the following research activities: • Interviews with program staff • A detailed review of the program documentation and tracking database
• Interviews with participating contractors • A best practices review
Interviews with Program Staff AEG conducted an in-depth qualitative interview with the IPC Program Specialist. The interview included questions surrounding the goals for the program offering from the interviewee’s perspective; policies, processes and procedures surrounding recruitment and delivery of the program; what is working and what is not; and the strengths and weaknesses of the program.
Documentation Review AEG reviewed several sources of data as metrics to evaluate the program and the program offerings. The data sources included the program implementation plan, strategic marketing plan, application, contractor training slides, marketing copy, database of participating contractors, and example on-site verification forms. Insight gained from this document review was used to provide a background for conducting the process evaluation and to inform the resulting conclusions and recommendations.
Contractor Interviews AEG conducted interviews with 10 participating contractors that have attended training for the Ductless Heat Pump program. The goal of these interviews was to explore contractors’ knowledge, experience and suggestions for the program. Specific topics addressed during the interviews included:
Ductless Heat Pump Program Impact & Process Evaluation
Applied Energy Group, Inc. 4 www.appliedenergygroup.com
• Contractor’s skills and knowledge about the technology and the program
• Use and satisfaction with IPC’s portal
• Program participation
• Possible strategies for getting contractors more involved in the program (e.g., increasing the number of projects they complete for the program) Participating contractors were stratified by the number of projects completed. Interviews were completed with the three top performers in terms of projects completed (10 – 51 projects), along with three mid-performing contractors (3-9 projects), two low performer contractors (1-2 projects) and two contractors who did not complete any projects. Table 2-1 shows the number of contractor interviews completed in each stratum and the number of projects they represent.
Table 2-1 Ductless Heat Pump Program Contractor Interviews
Stratum
Total
Number of
Total
Number of Contractors
Completed
by
Contractors High Performer (10 or more projects) 77 3 3 77 Mid-Performer (3 – 9 projects) 75 13 3 17 Low Performer (1 – 2 projects) 27 19 2 2 Non-Performer (0 projects) 0 40 2 0

Best Practices Review AEG conducted a literature review of industry publications to identify an appropriate set of best practices to compare with IPC’s Ductless Heat Pump program. AEG conducted the best practices review as follows:
• Reviewed regulatory filings, evaluation reports, conference presentations, marketing materials and industry publications
• Created a list of best practices/innovations and the rationale behind the best practice/innovation
• Benchmarked IPC’s program against each best practice listed

Ductless Heat Pump Program Impact & Process Evaluation
Applied Energy Group, Inc. 5 www.appliedenergygroup.com
2.2 Impact Evaluation The main objective of the impact evaluation was to estimate the annual kWh savings achieved by the program. This was accomplished by conducting a detailed engineering review that included a two-step process: a savings replication and a documentation review. Non-electric benefits were also verified for the program.
Engineering Review For the savings replication, AEG applied the RTF deemed algorithms to the tracked parameters for all program participants to verify that the algorithms were applied correctly, identify errors or issues, and adjust savings estimates at the project level if necessary. This step yielded verified or adjusted savings estimates for all projects in the program. Because this step is done for all program participants, there is no sampling error from this step. For the documentation review, AEG designed a stratified random sample using reported climate zone as the stratification variable. The Ductless Heat Pump engineering review consisted of a review of 20 of the 179 projects (Table 2-2).
Table 2-2 Ductless Heat Pump Program Sample Design
Stratum Definition Population Sample Size
1 Cooling Zone = 1 Heating Zone = 3 Savings = 292 kWh/yr 25 4
2 Cooling Zone = 1 Heating Zone = 2 Savings = 2,585 kWh/yr 2 2
3 Cooling Zone = 2 Heating Zone = 2 Savings = 2,746 kWh/yr 63 5
4 Cooling Zone = 3 Heating Zone = 2 Savings = 3,016 kWh/yr 12 3
5 Cooling Zone = 3 Heating Zone = 1 Savings = 3,131 kWh/yr 77 6
Detailed documentation (rebate applications, invoices, etc.) for each project in the sample was reviewed. Any adjustments needed based on this documentation review would result in an overall adjustment to the savings, along with associated sampling error. However, in this case, based on the findings from those project files, no additional adjustments to savings calculations were necessary for this step. The savings for the sample were expanded to the population using a combined ratio
Ductless Heat Pump Program Impact & Process Evaluation
Applied Energy Group, Inc. 6 www.appliedenergygroup.com
estimate, which leverages the correlation between the replicated savings and the verified savings to create a more precise estimate of the total verified savings for the program. Because there were no adjustments needed, the replicated savings and the verified savings were identical, resulting in a perfect correlation of 1.0 between the two savings estimates. The uncertainty in the ratio estimate is driven by that correlation, and because the correlation is 1.0, the analysis results show no uncertainty. The resulting 90% confidence interval becomes zero, so no confidence intervals are reported here.
Non-Electric Benefits Non-electric benefits (NEBs) were evaluated for this program according to the values set out in the RTF Unit Energy Savings (UES) workbook (v2.0) and Supplement 1 of the Idaho Power 2014 Annual Report.

Applied Energy Group, Inc. 7 www.appliedenergygroup.com
3
Process Evaluation Findings
The process evaluation for the Ductless Heat Pump program focused on conducting interviews with program staff and participating contractors and reviewing program processes to assess the program operations, quality control, staffing, and outreach. The evaluation also included secondary research to determine if the program is currently using established best practices prevalent in the industry. The process evaluation found that the program is well run, adheres to industry best practices, and that the program and the DHP technology is well received by customers and contractors, resulting in high satisfaction.
3.1 Program and Implementation Staff Interviews AEG conducted an in-depth interview with the program specialist for the Ductless Heat Pump program. The following are some of the key points from the interview.
Program Design and Operations
• Currently, 75 contractors are participating in the program. Number of projects per contractor ranges from 0 – 51 in 2014.
• When people install DHPs, they replace systems that are more expensive to operate. According to the program specialist, these devices “have a way of shaping the market” because they are providing customers lower heating costs.
• The initial cost of DHPs has remained steady and is perceived to be high. The cost has not come down as expected.
Marketing and Outreach
• An algorithm is used to identify IPC customers who have higher energy usage. This algorithm has identified approximately 95,000 customers.
• The eligible customer list is sorted by energy use from highest to lowest. The top 30,000 are the target market and are sent direct mail letters. These are more likely to have electric heat.
• Bill inserts and direct mail have been successful in encouraging participation.
• Awareness of the program and the technology is low. This has been determined by surveys and studies performed by IPC and NEEA.
Program Staffing
• The program specialist is largely responsible for all aspects of administering the program. He is responsible for handling all the data entry of the applications, signing up new contractors, supporting existing contractors in
Ductless Heat Pump Program Impact & Process Evaluation
Applied Energy Group, Inc. 8 www.appliedenergygroup.com
the field, creating and managing the budget, implementing the marketing strategy, developing trade show props to support the program, and handling questions from customers.
• Support is provided by Honeywell to conduct the onsite verification visits. Honeywell also provides some technical support for contractors in the field.
Customer Satisfaction
• The most recent IPC customer survey had a very high response rate and the respondents were very positive about the program.
• The program specialist believes the equipment has performed very well. This can be a concern with new technology, but DHPs have been received favorably by the market.
• The program specialist says he talks to customers routinely who say they are satisfied with the program and the product.
3.2 Program Processes The program is supported by 75 participating contractors. In order to participate in the program, contractors are required to attend a NEEA webinar, obtain factory brand training, obtain and have a discussion with the program specialist. Participating contractors are listed on the company website. Customers interested in participating in the program call one or more participating contractors. The contractor determines if the customer qualifies for the program and provides them with a price quotation. The customer approves the price quotation, the equipment is installed, the contractor fills out the paperwork, and the customer receives a check ($750) within 3 - 5 weeks of submission.
Quality Assurance/Quality Control For quality assurance/control, IPC contracts with Honeywell, who provides on-site verification. According to the QA/QC plan ten percent of installations should be verified each program year. Most projects are selected randomly by IPC, but under certain conditions specific projects must be verified. If, for example, a project is the first project completed by a contractor, it must be included in the verification sample. Also if a contractor fails an earlier verification, the next two projects completed by that contractor must be included in the verification sample. During the on-site visit, Honeywell ensures the proper equipment was installed, is connected correctly, and placed correctly. Honeywell also asks customers (as able) if they are satisfied with the contractor, program and equipment and records their response on the verification form. Contractors and IPC are invited, but not required to attend the verification visit. Honeywell notifies the contractor and IPC of the result of the visit within 2 business days. Hard copies of verification forms are completed by Honeywell and submitted to IPC electronically. IPC also has an internal research assistant who verifies that the data entered into the program database matches the data provided on the application.
Ductless Heat Pump Program Impact & Process Evaluation
Applied Energy Group, Inc. 9 www.appliedenergygroup.com
3.3 Program Marketing Over the years, the program has been marketed in various ways including advertising in rural newspapers where electric zonal heat is more prevalent, direct mail letters, bill inserts to all residential customers, retail coupon mailers, trade shows, and social media. Table 3-1 shows the marketing methods used in 2014.
Table 3-1 Marketing Methods Used in 2014
Method Date Direct mail letters to customers with new homes February, May & August Print ads in designated areas more likely to have high electric usage January, May & September Online behavioral ads March thru June Bill insert January, May & September Social media mentions Spring & Fall Facebook ads February, March & April Energy efficiency campaigns February & August
Source: IPC Ductless Heat Pump program 2014 Strategic Marketing Plan
During installation, participating customers were asked how they heard about the program. This information is stored in the program tracking database. In 2014, contractors/retailers, bill inserts, and word of mouth were the most frequently mentioned ways customers reporting hearing about the program (Figure 3-1).

Ductless Heat Pump Program Impact & Process Evaluation
Applied Energy Group, Inc. 10 www.appliedenergygroup.com

Source: IPC Ductless Heat Pump 2014 program tracking database
Figure 3-1 How 2014 Participants Heard about the Ductless Heat Pump Program IPC also implemented a new contractor portal in 2014 where the participating contractors can download pre-made marketing collateral artwork for advertising – this makes it easy for them to advertise the program.
3.4 Participating Contractor Interviews During August and September 2015, AEG conducted in-depth interviews with 10 participating contractors in IPC’s Ductless Heat Pump Program. (See Appendices for the interview guide.) The main objectives of the interviews were to assess the contractors’ skills and knowledge related to the technology and the program, gauge the use of IPC’s contractor portal, identify any barriers to program participation, assess customer satisfaction, and identify any strategies to increase contractor involvement in the program.
Contractors’ Skills and Knowledge Most contractors say they are very familiar with the technology and the program requirements. One high performing contractor said his company joined the program because they wanted to start selling DHPs. Most contractors say that projects from the program account for very small percentages of the contractors overall business providing ranges of 2-5% of their total business. Mid-performers, however, seem collectively to have the highest proportion of projects through the program, saying
26%
22%
18%
16%
6%
4%
4%4%
1%Contractor/retailers
Idaho Power Bill Insert
Friend or Relative
No answer
Idaho Power Letter
Magazine/Newspaper/TV/Radio
ad
Other
Website
Home show
Ductless Heat Pump Program Impact & Process Evaluation
Applied Energy Group, Inc. 11 www.appliedenergygroup.com
such projects account for of 12-15% of their business. All of the high-performing and one non-performing contractor expect the number of projects they complete through the program to grow in the next 2 years. The other contractors expect the number of projects to stay about the same. All contractors who have had at least one project through the program, said they have adequate staff trained who are knowledgeable about the program. These employees are able to answer customers’ questions and explain the benefits of the technology to the customer.
“We take the time to train the customers on the system to ensure that they understand
the benefits.” Non-performing contractors felt that more training would be helpful. Specifically training about proper sizing for certain applications. High and mid-performing contractors said the program helps them sell more DHPs and gives them an edge over the competition.
“The program gives us a chance to sell more ductless heat pumps, increase our
business and employ more people. I think it gives us a competitive edge.” Low performing contractors like the rebate and feel it helps their sales. They do not feel the program gives them a competitive edge because all their competitors participate in the program.
IPC’s Contractor Portal Most of the high and mid-performing contractors interviewed say they have used IPC’s contractor portal and are satisfied with the materials. Low performing contractors do not use IPC’s contractor portal, mainly because they didn’t feel the need to do more marketing or change their existing marketing.
“I get a ton of referrals. I don’t need to market a lot.”
“I have no need for the IPC materials.” Non-performing contractors and one mid-performing contractor were not aware of the IPC contractor portal.
Program Participation Contractors’ views on customer awareness of the program are mixed. Some said customers are aware of the program. One non-performing contractor said he is participating in the program because a customer asked him about the rebate. Others say they usually tell customers about the program, and the majority of eligible customers are not aware. All contractors who had one or more projects in the program say customers who participate are very satisfied with the program and the equipment. The high cost of DHPs is a barrier to installing the technology and participating in the program. The rebate helps some customers, but for others it still isn’t enough to overcome the high price of the technology.
Ductless Heat Pump Program Impact & Process Evaluation
Applied Energy Group, Inc. 12 www.appliedenergygroup.com
“The program is well thought out and executed.”
“The customers are generally aware of the program but are often surprised by the
high cost of the equipment.” Overall, contractors are very satisfied with the help and support they get from the IPC program specialist.
“It’s very helpful to have someone knowledgeable about the program. He came over
and talked about the program and the benefits to my company and the customers. He
was very influential.”
Suggestions for Improvement Most of the suggestions for improvement centered on increasing marketing/outreach and training:
• One high performing contractor felt that IPC could do a better job getting the word out to people who live in small towns.
• A mid-performing contractor said he would like IPC to reach out to him more and tell him about other HVAC programs that could benefit customers.
• Two contractors (one mid, one low performing) would like to see more advertising from IPC and/or from DHP manufacturers.
• Non-performing contractors felt more training from IPC would be helpful.
“I would like to have more documentation to take to the site that listed the benefits of
ductless heat pumps. We also need more technical education. A forum with
manufacturers and contractors would be helpful”
Summary The following conclusions can be drawn from the information gained in the contractor interviews:
• High and mid-performing contractors are savvy about the program and technology. They have adequate staff, can explain the benefits of the technology to customers, and make use of the contractor portal. They are also more optimistic about the growth of the market.
• Low performers do not complete more projects because they have all the work they need. As a result, little can be done to move these contractors to the mid or high performing categories.
• Non-performing contractors would benefit from more training.
• All contractors interviewed said they were satisfied with the program, the support they receive from IPC, and the technology.
Ductless Heat Pump Program Impact & Process Evaluation
Applied Energy Group, Inc. 13 www.appliedenergygroup.com
3.5 Best Practices AEG conducted a literature review of industry publications to identify an appropriate set of best practices to compare with the DHP program. AEG reviewed the following sources to create a list of best practices/innovations in the industry:
• Publicly available best practices reports
• Conference papers and presentation
• Evaluations of other ductless heat pump programs Table 3-2 below shows each best practice/ innovation and whether IPC currently uses the practice. In all cases, either IPC is already doing the best practice, or it relates to something not eligible in the IPC program.
Table 3-2 Best Practices/Innovation for Ductless Heat Pump Programs
Best Practice/Innovation Standard Practice? Explanation Provide contractor training  Training required to be a participating contractor Provide customer education  Video provided on website. Contractors provide customer education Target DHPs to replace electric resistance heating  Electric heat is the target market for the program Consider promoting DHPs to residential new construction x New construction is not eligible Promote improved comfort  Mentioned in marketing plan, website, and in marketing materials Consider commercial markets x Commercial customers are not eligible Train contractors on proper placement of DHPs  Proper placement required by program and verified through random on-site visits Target manufactured homes  Although not specifically targeted, manufactured homes are included in the electric heat target market Promote marketing by contractors/installers  Contractor portal created

Applied Energy Group, Inc. 14 www.appliedenergygroup.com
4
Impact Evaluation Findings
The impact evaluation for the Ductless Heat Pump program consisted of a detailed engineering review that included a two-step process: a savings replication and a documentation review. Non-electric benefits were also verified.
4.1 Engineering Review The Idaho Power Ductless Heat Pump conversion measure refers specifically to conversion from electric zonal (baseboard, ceiling cable, or wall) heating. The Ductless Heat Pump Pilot program used Version 2.0 of the RTF Ductless Heat Pump unit energy savings (UES) workbook for deemed savings in 2014. This version was approved by the RTF on March 18, 2014 and was also used by AEG for savings replication in the 2014 evaluation. This workbook provides annual energy savings for DHP conversions from zonal heating systems by heating zone (HZ) and cooling zone (CZ). Only the “No Screen” options, unscreened for supplemental fuel use, were used for the reported savings and the analysis. In the savings replication analysis, AEG identified four sites that showed ambiguous mapping between ZIP code, county, and climate zone. There were four homes with a recorded climate zone of HZ1/CZ3 in the tracking database whose county of residence was recorded as Boise County, which would result in a climate zone of HZ3/CZ1 based on the lookups in the RTF Climate Zone file. However, the ZIP code for these homes was 83716, which indicates Ada County and a climate zone of HZ1/CZ3 (according to the climate zone lookup provided by IPC). Through the review of the homes’ addresses, it was found that the homes do in fact reside in Boise County and should have a climate zone designation of HZ3/CZ1. AEG applied this change to database in the savings replication analysis resulting in a replicated savings realization rate of 97.5%. No other issues or discrepancies were found in the savings replication analysis. Twenty homes were sampled for a more thorough documentation review. AEG reviewed application forms and on-site verification reports (if available) to determine if all information in the program tracking database for these projects was correct. There were no issues or errors found in the review sample. Half of the homes in the sample were found to have installed more than one DHP unit; this did not change the deemed savings since these are prescribed on a per-home basis. Because there were no errors or issues found that affected the savings, the realization rate for the documentation review step was 100%. Because of the perfect correlation between the savings that came out of the replication step and the verified savings from the documentation review, the ratio estimate of savings has no uncertainty.
Ductless Heat Pump Program Impact & Process Evaluation
Applied Energy Group, Inc. 15
1.2 Non-Electric Benefits Non-electric benefits (NEBs) were evaluated for this program according to the values set out in the RTF Unit Energy Savings (UES) workbook v2.0 and Supplement 1 of the Idaho Power 2014 Annual Report. During the replication review, AEG determined that non-energy benefits (NEBs) were being incorrectly calculated. The NEBs reported in Supplement 1 of the Idaho Power 2014 Annual Report were based on the “Present Value Non-Electric System Benefits ($/kWh)” values (in 2006 dollars) provided by the RTF, multiplied by the total site savings per measure, and converted from 2006 to 2014 dollars with an incorrect inflator of 1.175023. The correct RTF inflator for converting from 2006 to 2014 dollars is 1.136889 based on the RTF Standard Information Workbook v2.2; the one used by IPC inflated the dollar amounts from 2005 to 2014 dollars. Furthermore, the “Present Value Non-Electric System Benefits ($/kWh)” values (located in Column AJ of the “MeasureTable” sheet in the RTF UES workbook) should not be used for calculating NEBs based on site energy savings. These NEB values are calculated in RTF UES workbooks by dividing the “PV Regional Non-E Value” parameter (Column BV of the “Measure_InputOutput” sheet, output by ProCost) by the “Wholesale Electric Energy (kWh)” parameter (Column L of the “Measure_InputOutput” sheet, output by ProCost). Since the $/kWh PV(NEB) value is based on wholesale electricity savings at the generator busbar, this value should not be multiplied by the deemed site electricity savings to result in the NEB for the measure. Rather, the “PV Regional Non-E Value” parameter should be used directly or in conjunction with the site savings. Even though the corrected dollar year deflator is lower than the one used by IPC, the overall AEG correction resulted in an increase in NEBs due to the higher site-based $/kWh PV(NEB) values. These corrections resulted in an increase in NEBs for the program of about 9%.
1.3 Results Table 4-1 shows the results of the impact analysis. The program saved 451,391 kWh and achieved $194,605 in non-electric benefits. The realization rates from the replication step are 97.5% for energy savings and 109.2% for NEBs. The realization rates from the documentation review step relative to the replication step are 100% for both energy savings and NEBs. There is no sampling error in AEG’s evaluated impacts since all adjustments were made in the replication step and no additional adjustments were needed as a result of the documentation review step.
Ductless Heat Pump Program Impact & Process Evaluation
Applied Energy Group, Inc. 16
Table 4-1 Impact Evaluation Results for the Ductless Heat Pump program

Reported AEG Evaluated Replication RR % Documentation Review RR %1
Savings (kWh) 462,747 451,391 97.5% 100%
NEB (2014$) $178,221 $194,605 109.2% 100%

1 The document review realization rate is relative to the replicated savings, not the reported savings.

Applied Energy Group, Inc. 17 www.appliedenergygroup.com
5
Conclusions and Recommendations
The results of the impact analysis show that the Ductless Heat Pump program saved 451,391 kWh achieving 97.5% of its goal.
Table 5 1 Ductless Heat Pump Program Results
Metric Program Goal Reported AEG-Evaluated Overall Realization
Rate
Annual Energy Savings
(kWh) 460,000 462,747 451,391 97.5%
Non-Electric Benefits
(NEBs) NA $178,221 $194,605 109.2% Other key findings from the process and impact evaluations include:
• The program is very well run, has an involved program specialist, and adheres to best practices in the industry.
• The program has high satisfaction among participating contractors and customers, and the technology is well received.
• Contractor/retailers, bill inserts, and word of mouth are the main ways 2014 participants heard about the program.
• The price of the technology has remained steady and the perceived high cost can be a barrier to program participation. The incentive helps address this barrier for some but not all eligible customers.
• Low performing contractors could become more engaged with additional technical training and development.
• According to IPC staff, the contractor portal is rarely being used, but the high-and mid-performing contractors interviewed say they have used the portal and are satisfied with the materials.
Ductless Heat Pump Program Impact & Process Evaluation
Applied Energy Group, Inc. 18
5.1 Recommendations Based on this evaluation, the following recommendations should be considered to enhance program effectiveness and improve the accuracy and transparency of reported savings:
• Consider expanding the target market to new construction and small commercial businesses.
 Rationale: Growing the target market is an industry best practice and will increase participation and savings if expanding to these new markets are determined to be cost effective.
• Conduct more outreach with contractors. Interviews with contractors revealed that they could benefit from more marketing and outreach. Customer Representatives (CR) could help the program specialist reach out more frequently to participating contractors. Contacts made by the CR are tracked by the Program Specialist. Visits to contractors could also be coordinated with other HVAC programs to inform them about all the energy efficiency rebates available from IPC.
 Rationale: The program specialist has a large workload supporting this program and little extra time to conduct the outreach with contractors that is required. Outreach to contractors is also an industry best practice.
• Work with ductless heat pump manufacturers to provide training materials and workshops for participating contractors.
 Rationale: Non-performing contractors identified a need for more training about the technology.
• Remind contractors who are not using the portal about the availability of the contractor portal. Data is available on who has logged in to the portal and the frequency of visits. Let all contractors know when new materials are available through the portal.
 Rationale: Idaho Power reports that the contractor portal is underutilized, however, the highest performing contractors interviewed said they use the portal. Use of the portal may help lower performing contractors increase their number of projects through the program.
• When calculating NEBs, make sure that the correct inflator is used to convert to current year values. Also do not use the Present Value Non-Electric System Benefits $/kWh for calculating NEBs this value is not based on site energy savings. The “PV Regional Non-E Value” parameter should be used directly or in conjunction with the site savings.
 Rationale: Calculating the NEBs according to the RTF rules will result in more accurate savings estimates.
• When a home’s ZIP code is in two counties, use the street address to determine the correct climate and heating zone.
Ductless Heat Pump Program Impact & Process Evaluation
Applied Energy Group, Inc. 19
 Rationale: Savings vary greatly by climate and heating zone. Ensuring the correct zones are used will result in more accurate savings estimates. . This was primarily found to be an issue between Boise and Ada counties, in ZIP Code 83706.

A
Program Staff and Implementation Contractor
Interview Guides

Program Manager Interview Guide – Final –IPC Residential
NAME
TITLE
PROGRAM
DATE
PHONE
EMAIL
INTERVIEWER

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
[Once the interview is complete, please complete interview notes within this document. First, provide a high-level summary of findings below. Then, within each section summarize the findings.]
[Some of the answers to these questions will be filled in prior to the interview, based on information learned during the kick off meeting in Boise on June 8, 2015]
BACKGROUND
1. Please provide a brief description of the programs you are directly responsible for?
2. Please describe your job responsibilities related to the program.
3. How long have you been responsible for administration of this program?
4. On average, what percent of your time is spent on the program you are directly
responsible for?
5. What other staff work on the program? What is their role regarding the program (i.e.
what are the responsible for with regard to the program)? Who, if anyone, provides you
with support? What support do they provide?

PROGRAM GOALS
6. What metrics are used to track the success of the program? (Probe for electric savings, participation rates, number of units)?
7. How are goals for this program established?

Ductless Heat Pump Program Impact & Process Evaluation

8. Did the program meet its goals in 2014? If not, what kept the program from meeting its
goals?
9. Has the program met its annual goals in previous years? Is it on track to meet its goals
for 2015?
PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION AND MARKETING
10. Do you work with an implementation contractor or trade allies to help deliver the
program? Who is/are the implementation contractor and/or trade allies you work with on this program? Do you have any issues or concerns about the implementation contractor or trade allies? If yes, what are your concerns?
11. What is the target market for the program? How are potential customers identified?
12. What are the main barriers to participation? How does the program address these barriers?
13. What has been done to market the program? How successful have these strategies been?
Are some marketing strategies or messages more beneficial than others? How is success
of the marketing strategies or messages measured?

PROGRAM OPERATIONS
14. What are the participation steps from the customers’ perspective? Have these changed
over time? If so, why were they changed?
15. Are there any specific aspects of the program that are working very well? Any not
working well? (Probe for details) What could be done to improve?
16. What quality control/quality assurance procedures are in place? Are these documented?
Is any verification done? What does this entail? Who does the verification?
17. Do the incentive levels seem appropriate? If not, why not? What, if any, changes in the incentive levels do you think may be needed?
18. What is your opinion of free ridership for this program? Meaning do you think customers
would pay for the measures on their own, outside of the program. Why do you say that?
19. Do you think the program is changing customers' energy efficiency attitudes and actions?
(Probe for specifics)
20. Are customers satisfied with the program overall? With the measures installed? Are they
satisfied with the incentive amount? With the savings achieved? How is satisfaction with
the program measured? (i.e. is this based on survey information or is it anecdotal?)

PROGRAM IMPACTS
21. Deemed savings from the RTF are used to determine program impacts – correct? Do you
know what version of the RTF workbook you are using? If no, who should I ask for that information?
22. We plan to do a review of detailed project documentation for a sample of participants, including cross-checking the project documentation with the tracking spreadsheets. What
is the best way to get this data in an electronic form? How is it currently stored?

PROGRAM DATA AND DOCUMENTATION
23. Does the tracking database collect all the information you need? Is there
information/data that you wish were available but are not? Is there information in the
database that you don’t use?
Ductless Heat Pump Program Impact & Process Evaluation

24. What type of documentation is required to support the purchase and installation of the
measure?

EVALUATION
25. What do you hope to learn from this evaluation? Are there specific issues you would like
the evaluation to address?

Ductless Heat Pump Program Impact & Process Evaluation

Contractor Interview Guide – FINAL–IPC Ductless Heat Pump Program
NAME
TITLE
COMPANY
DATE
PHONE
EMAIL
INTERVIEWER

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
[Once the interview is complete, please complete interview notes within this document. First, provide a high-level summary of findings below. Then, within each section summarize the
findings.]
INTRODUCTION
Hi, my name is ___ and I am calling from Applied Energy Group on behalf of Idaho Power
Company. We are working with Idaho Power to evaluate their Ductless Heat Pump Pilot
Program. I’m calling to ask you a few questions about your participation as a contractor in that
program to help determine what is working and what might be improved. Are you familiar with
your company’s participation in the Ductless Heat Pump Pilot Program? If not, who would be the
best person to speak with at your company about this subject?
All of your answers will be confidential. For our analysis your responses will be anonymously
aggregated with those from other companies that participated in the program.
[IF THEY DON’T WANT TO TALK NOW, TRY TO GET A GOOD TIME TO CALL THEM BACK.]
[IF RESPONDENT PROPOSES AN ALTERNATE CONTACT, OBTAIN NAME, BEST NUMBER AT WHICH TO REACH THE CONTACT, AND ANY INFO REGARDING BEST TIME TO CALL]
[IF THEY HAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT OUR LEGITIMACY, THEY CAN CONTACT:]
Gary Grayson at 208-388-2395
[NOTE THAT TODD GREENWELL IS THE PROGRAM SPECIALIST AND HE IS THE PERSON THEY
ARE MOST FAMILIAR WITH. GARY IS THE MANAGER IN CHARGE OF EVALUATIONS]
[IF THEY ASK ABOUT TIME LENGTH OF SURVEY, SAY BETWEEN 15 AND 30__ MINUTES]
[IF THEY AGREE TO TALK SAY: THANKS FOR TAKING THE TIME TO SPEAK WITH US. LET’S GET
STARTED.]

ABOUT THE CONTRACTOR
Let me start by getting a little information about you and your company.
1. What is your job title or role?

2. What are your company’s main products and/or services?

3. When did your company begin participating in IPC’s Ductless Heat Pump (DHP) program?

Ductless Heat Pump Program Impact & Process Evaluation

4. Why did you or your company decide to participate in the program?

5. Had your company installed DHPs before participating in the program? [IF YES] How
long have you been installing DHPs?

6. What percentage of your business comes from installing DHPs? Have all these projects
completed in 2014 received a rebate from Idaho Power? [IF NO] Why not?

In 2014? _____% 999. DK

7. Do you expect that percentage to grow, stay the same or decrease in the next 2 years (2015 2016)?

CONTRACTOR SKILLS AND KNOWLEDGE
8. How many employees at your company have been trained/ are knowledgeable about the
Ductless Heat Pump program?

9. Is the number of employees you have trained enough to meet your customer demand for
ductless heat pumps? If you had more employees knowledgeable about ductless heat
pump installations and/or the Idaho Power program would you be able to complete more
projects?
10. How well would you say you and your employees understand and are able to
communicate the benefits of DHPs? If don’t understand well, what additional knowledge/training is needed?

11. Do you feel the customers you installed DHPs for understand the benefits of the system
you installed? If not, what was not clear?

12. Did customers adequately understand the Idaho Power program eligibility requirements,
enrollment process, and the amount of the incentive? If not, what was not clear?

PROGRAM PARTICIPATION
13. Please describe your company’s process for marketing DHPs to customers. Do you tell
your customers about DHPs and the IPC program? Or do they typically come to you
requesting DHPs?

14. Do you think eligible customers (those with electric zonal heat) are generally aware of the program? If not, what else could be done to inform eligible customers about the program?

15. If anything, what things about the program make it difficult for customers to participate
(e.g., paperwork, measures, incentives too low, etc.)?

Ductless Heat Pump Program Impact & Process Evaluation

16. Have you received any complaints from customers who feel the equipment doesn't meet
their expectations? [IF YES] What specifically were they disappointed in? How did you
address their concerns?

17. How influential was the Idaho Power DHP program manager in your decision to
participate? How helpful is the program manager if you have questions or concerns?
Does having access to a knowledgeable program manager increase the value of your participation in the program?

18. Does the program make it easier for you to sell DHPs and/or identify prospects?

19. Do you use Idaho Power’s contractor portal to access marketing materials?

a. [IF NO] Why not? How could it be made more valuable/useful to you?
b. [IF YES] Has it been helpful to your business? Are you satisfied with the
materials available through the portal?

20. What, if anything, do you think is particularly good about the IPC program?

21. Do you have any suggestions for improvement to the program?

PROGRAM EFFECTIVENESS
22. What are the benefits to your company to participate in the program? Do you think the program helps your business? Does it give you a competitive advantage over other contractors in your area? [Probe for reasons?]

23. If the program was no longer available would you continue to install the DHPs in homes?
Why or why not?

24. Is there anything else Idaho Power could do to help you increase the number of DHPs
you install in their service territory?

CONCLUSION
25. Is there anything else that you think Idaho Power should think about as they continue to
offer and improve this program?

Ductless Heat Pump Program Impact & Process Evaluation

Applied Energy Group, Inc. 500 Ygnacio Valley Road, Suite 250 Walnut Creek, CA 94596
P: 510.982.3525 F: 925.284.3147

Impact and Process Evaluation of Idaho Power’s
Home Improvement Program
Final Report
Applied Energy Group, Inc.
500 Ygnacio Valley Road, Suite 250
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
510.982.3525
www.appliedenergygroup.com
Prepared for:
Idaho Power Company

This work was performed by Applied Energy Group, Inc. 500 Ygnacio Valley Blvd., Suite 250 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Project Director: C. Williamson Project Manager: B. Ryan Project Team: K. Parmenter D. Burdjalov T. Shah

Applied Energy Group, Inc. i www.appliedenergygroup.com
Executive Summary The Home Improvement Program offers incentives to homeowners for upgrading insulation and windows in electrically heated homes. To qualify for an incentive under this program, the home must be a single-family home, a multifamily structure three stories or under, or a manufactured home in Idaho Power’s service area in Idaho. The home must have an electric heating system serving at least 80 percent of the home’s conditioned floor area. The heating system can be a permanently installed electric furnace, heat pump, or electric zonal heating system. Insulation must be professionally installed between conditioned and unconditioned space by an insulation contractor.
Conclusions The results of the impact analysis show that in 2014, the Home Improvement program more than doubled its savings goal, achieving 845 MWh of savings with a realization rate of 100.7%.
Table ES-1 Home Improvement Program 2014 Results
Metric Program Goal Reported AEG Evaluation Realization Rate Annual Energy Savings (kWh) 370,000 838,929 845,085 100.7% Other key findings from the process and impact evaluations include:
• Contractors and the program specialist report that participants are satisfied with the program, the savings achieved and the improved comfort of their homes.
• The network of installation contractors are engaged in the program.
• The target market is small and eligibility criteria (e.g., existing insulation levels) is strict, which may make achieving future participation and savings goals more challenging, although this has not been a problem to date.
• Marketing is effective and most contractors would like to see these efforts increased.
Recommendations Based on this evaluation, the following recommendations should be considered to enhance program effectiveness and improve the transparency and accuracy of reported savings:
• Increase consistency/clarity between supporting documentation and the program database. Require more standardized documentation to prevent errors in the estimations of savings. More consistent documentation should be required in the project application and submitted materials to clearly identify all variables
EE Potential Study and Action Plan
Applied Energy Group, Inc. ii www.appliedenergygroup.com
necessary for the calculation of savings. The submitted documentation was often disorganized and sometimes incomplete. Recently IPC improved their application, adding a checklist for customers on the application itemizing the documentation required. IPC should have a standardized documentation package for each project that includes a similar checklist completed by IPC that verifies that all required information has been submitted. The information should then be carefully and completely input in the tracking database.
• Use the current versions of the RTF Unit Energy Savings (UES) workbooks to discern between different residential segments, to estimate Non-Electric Benefits (NEBs), and to improve the overall accuracy of impact estimates. The project application discerns between standard single family, manufactured, and multifamily homes. These entries should be emphasized, recorded in the tracking database, and used to determine the correct savings for the respective residential building segment. In addition, adopting the current versions of the Single Family and Manufactured Home Weatherization workbooks would allow IPC to estimate NEBs for the Home Improvement program.
• Add sliding glass doors to the measure description on the application. Since sliding glass doors are specifically included in the RTF UES workbook for the window upgrade weatherization measures, “sliding glass doors” should be also included in the measure description in the project application.
• Require that contractors match U-factors (taken from the NFRC window stickers) to each window on the invoice. Since the RTF only prescribes savings for U-30 and U-22 window upgrades, consider a cutoff (e.g. U-25) where windows with lower than U-25 would be evaluated with savings for U-22 window upgrades. This would require calculating an average U-value weighted by window area.
• Increase marketing. Or if that’s not possible due to cost effectiveness issues, focus marketing dollars on the more proven strategies: contractor outreach and bill inserts.

Applied Energy Group, Inc. iii www.appliedenergygroup.com
Contents
Chapter 1: Introduction ...................................................................................................1 Program Description ............................................................................................. 1 Purpose of the Evaluation ................................................................................... 1 Report Structure ..................................................................................................... 2
Chapter 2: Methodology ..................................................................................................3
Process Evaluation................................................................................................. 3 Impact Evaluation .................................................................................................. 4 Non-Electric Benefits ............................................................................................ 6
Chapter 3: Process Evaluation Findings .....................................................................7 Program Staff Interviews ..................................................................................... 7 Program Processes ................................................................................................ 8 Program Marketing................................................................................................ 8 Contractor Interviews ........................................................................................... 9 Best Practices .......................................................................................................... 12
Chapter 4: Impact Evaluation Findings .......................................................................14 Engineering Review ............................................................................................... 14 Non-Electric Benefits ............................................................................................ 17 Results ....................................................................................................................... 18
Chapter 5: Conclusions and Recommendations .......................................................19
Recommendations ................................................................................................. 19
Appendix A: Program Staff and Contractor Interview Guides

Applied Energy Group, Inc. 1 www.appliedenergygroup.com
1
Introduction
1.1 Program Description The Home Improvement Program (HIP) offers incentives to homeowners for upgrading insulation and windows in electrically heated homes. To qualify for an incentive under this program, the home must be a single-family home, a multifamily structure three stories or under, or a manufactured home in Idaho Power’s service area in Idaho. The home must have an electric heating system serving at least 80 percent of the home’s conditioned floor area. The heating system can be a permanently installed electric furnace, heat pump, or electric zonal heating system. Insulation must be professionally installed between conditioned and unconditioned space by an insulation contractor. Customers must use a participating contractor to qualify for the Idaho Power incentive. Incentives are processed by Idaho Power. Two third-party contractors perform on-site verification for the program. In 2014, the Home Improvement program exceeded its unit goal and more than doubled its savings goal, reporting 839 MWh of savings across 555 projects (Table 1-1).
Table 1-1 Home Improvement Program Reported Savings vs. 2014 Goals
Year Projects MWh Savings PY2014 IPC Goals 400 370
IPC-Reported 555 839
Percent of IPC-Reported to Goals 139% 227%
1.2 Purpose of the Evaluation
Idaho Power Company (IPC) contracted with Applied Energy Group (AEG) to conduct a process evaluation of the Home Improvement program and an impact evaluation for program year 2014. The key objectives addressed in the process evaluation were to:
• Evaluate program design including program mission, logic, and use of best practices.
• Evaluate program implementation including quality control, operational practice, and outreach.
Home Improvement Program Impact & Process Evaluation
Applied Energy Group, Inc. 2 www.appliedenergygroup.com
• Evaluate program administration including program oversight, staffing, management, training, documentation, and reporting.
• Evaluate participant and stakeholder response including customer interaction and satisfaction.
• Report findings and observations and provide recommendations that enhance program effectiveness. The key objectives addressed by the impact evaluation were to:
• Measure and verify the energy (kWh) and non-electric impacts attributable to the 2014 program.
• Provide credible and reliable ex-post program energy savings and realization rates for the 2014 program year.
• Report findings and observations, and provide recommendations that would enhance the effectiveness of future analysis and the accurate and transparent reporting of program savings.
1.3 Report Structure Following this introductory chapter are the following chapters:
• Chapter 2 – Methodology: Description of the evaluation methods, sampling design, and data collection and analysis process.
• Chapter 3 – Process Evaluation Findings: Description and discussion of the program processes and best practices review.
• Chapter 4 – Impact Evaluation Findings: Description and discussion of the result of the engineering review including kWh savings estimates, non-electric benefits and realization rates.
• Chapter 5 – Conclusions and Recommendations: Conclusions reached based on the process and impact evaluation including the best practices review and recommendations to improve the program.

Applied Energy Group, Inc. 3 www.appliedenergygroup.com
2
Methodology
This section describes the approach AEG used to evaluate the Home Improvement program.
2.1 Process Evaluation Process evaluations focus on determining the overall effectiveness of program delivery, identifying opportunities for program improvements, and assessing key program metrics including participation rates, market barriers, and overall program operations. The process evaluation for the Home Improvement program consisted of the following research activities: • Interviews with program staff • A detailed review of the program documentation and tracking database
• Interviews with participating contractors • A best practices review
Interviews with Program Staff AEG conducted an in-depth qualitative interview with the IPC Program Specialist. The interview included questions surrounding the goals for the program offering from the interviewee’s perspective; policies, processes and procedures surrounding recruitment and delivery of the program; what is working and what is not; and the strengths and weaknesses of the program.
Documentation Review AEG reviewed several sources of data as metrics to evaluate the program and the program offerings. The data sources included the program tracking database, application, marketing plan, marketing copy, example QA forms, and the program history. Insight gained from this document review was used to provide a background for conducting the process evaluation and to inform the resulting conclusions and recommendations.
Contractor Interviews AEG conducted interviews with 8 participating contractors, including 5 insulation contractors and 3 window contractors. The goal of these interviews was to qualitatively explore contractors’ knowledge and experience with the program. Specific topics addressed during the interviews included:
• Contractor’s skills and knowledge about the program and the measures
Home Improvement Program Impact & Process Evaluation
Applied Energy Group, Inc. 4 www.appliedenergygroup.com
• Program participation; barriers and satisfaction
• Suggestions for improvement
Best Practices Review AEG conducted a literature review of industry publications to identify an appropriate set of best practices to compare with IPC’s Home Improvement program. AEG conducted the best practices review as follows:
• Reviewed regulatory filings, evaluation reports, conference presentations, marketing materials and industry publications
• Created a list of best practices/innovations and the rationale behind the best practice/innovation
• Benchmarked IPC’s program against each best practice listed
2.2 Impact Evaluation The main objective of the impact evaluation was to estimate the annual kWh savings achieved by the program. This was accomplished by conducting a detailed engineering review that included a two-step process: a savings replication and a documentation review.
Engineering Review For the savings replication step, AEG applied the RTF deemed algorithms to the tracked parameters for all program participants to verify that the algorithms were applied correctly, identify errors or issues, and adjust savings estimates at the project level if necessary. This step yielded replicated savings estimates for all projects in the program. Because this step is done for all program participants, there is no sampling error from this step. AEG designed a stratified random sample to select projects for the documentation review. While a simple random sample selects sample points at random from the entire population, a stratified random sample selects sample points at random from the population within mutually exclusive groups called strata. In this analysis, the reported kWh savings was used as the stratification variable. As long as the stratification variable is correlated with the variable of interest, in this case the final verified savings that is not yet known, then using a stratified design increases the precision of the estimates holding sample size constant, or decreases sample size holding precision constant. The first step was to specify the sample frame, which consisted of the 555 projects in program year 2014. The next step was to determine the stratification variable and number of strata. The magnitude of kWh savings was used for stratification resulting in 4 strata for the original sample design: 1) low savings; 2) medium savings; 3) high savings; and 4) highest savings (which was a census stratum comprising the three
Home Improvement Program Impact & Process Evaluation
Applied Energy Group, Inc. 5 www.appliedenergygroup.com
projects with highest kWh savings). The Delanius-Hodges method was applied to determine the stratum boundaries. Sample sizes by stratum were calculated using a Neyman Allocation, which assigns sampling points to each stratum based on a combination of the weights and standard deviation for each stratum. Finally, sample points were randomly selected for Strata 1, 2 and 3 (Strata 4 was a census strata with all projects included). During the data collection process, AEG requested project files by customer ID number. Several customers in the sample had more than one project. AEG reviewed all projects for those customers and placed the additional projects in a fifth census stratum called “additional projects.” In addition, one extra project file was inadvertently provided to AEG. AEG reviewed that file as well and grouped the findings in the additional projects stratum. Adding these projects as part of the random sample could introduce bias, since they were not part of the original sample selected and would not necessarily be representative of other projects. However, rather than discarding the results, we included them as another census stratum, where each of these additional projects represents only themselves, thereby eliminating the bias from including them. This served to increase the overall precision of the results slightly with minimal incremental effort. The sample for the Home Improvement review consisted of 30 projects from the original sample selection process plus the six additional projects. Therefore, 36 of the 555 projects were reviewed (Table 2-2).
Table 2-1 Home Improvement Program Sample Design
Stratum Reported Savings (kWh/yr) # in Population # in Sample 1. Low Savings <1100 251 7 2. Medium Savings ≥1100 and <2400 201 9 3. High Savings ≥2400 and <7000 94 11 4. Highest Savings (Census) ≥7000 3 3 5. Additional Projects (Census) NA 6 6
Total 555 36 Detailed documentation (rebate applications, invoices, etc.) for each project in the sample was reviewed. Any adjustments needed based on this documentation review would result in an overall adjustment to the savings, along with associated sampling error. The resulting savings are referred to here as “verified savings.”
Estimating Total Program Impacts AEG expanded the verified savings results from the sample to estimate the savings for the population of projects in program year 2014 using a combined ratio estimate according to the steps below. 1. Calculated the per-project average replicated savings (from the first engineering review step) by stratum for the sample. Calculated the per-
Home Improvement Program Impact & Process Evaluation
Applied Energy Group, Inc. 6 www.appliedenergygroup.com
project average verified savings (second engineering review step) by stratum for the sample. 2. Calculated a weighted average replicated savings and a weighted average verified savings for 2014 using weights that reflect the proportion of projects in each stratum in the population. 3. Calculated the ratio of the sample verified weighted average for 2014 to the sample replicated weighted average. 4. Applied this combined ratio to the program’s total replicated population savings to estimate the evaluated gross savings for the program in 2014. 5. Determined the overall realization rate for the 2014 program by dividing the estimated evaluated gross savings from step 4 by the reported population savings. The combined ratio estimate results in a more precise estimate of savings because it leverages the correlation between the replicated savings, known for all customers, and the verified savings, known only for the sample.
Non-Electric Benefits IPC did not claim non-electric benefits (NEBs) for the Home Improvement program in 2014. The RTF workbook used by IPC for 2014 savings is version 2.5. That version does not include NEBs. NEBs are calculated only in v3.0 and later, and these are heavily dependent on the savings analysis methodology that changed significantly since v2.5. Therefore, AEG used the latest RTF workbook (version 3.3) to estimate non-electric benefits associated with supplemental non-electric heating energy use. To make those estimates, electric energy savings were calculated using the version 3.3 workbook because the non-electric benefits are based on the version 3.3 electric savings. Since it is not appropriate to use the version 3.3 non-electric benefits in the evaluated impacts without also using the version 3.3 electric savings, AEG only provides the version 3.3 electric savings and non-electric benefits to IPC for comparison with the electric-only savings from version 2.5. The non-electric benefits are not included in our final evaluated impacts.

Applied Energy Group, Inc. 7 www.appliedenergygroup.com
3
Process Evaluation Findings
The process evaluation for the Home Improvement program focused on conducting interviews with program staff and participating contractors and reviewing program processes to assess the program operations, quality control, staffing, and outreach. The evaluation also included secondary research to determine if the program is currently using established best practices prevalent in the industry. The process evaluation found that customers and contractors are very satisfied with the program, the marketing is very effective, but the target market of eligible customers is small and often hard to reach.
3.1 Program Staff Interview AEG conducted an in-depth interview with the program specialist for the Home Improvement program. The following are some of the key points from the interview.
Program Design and Operations
• Although the program has consistently met its goals, it is currently running a little behind in program year 2015.
• According to the program specialist, the biggest challenge for the program is “beating the bushes” to find the all-electric customers and make them aware of the program and its benefits. Most IPC customers are not eligible for the program because they have natural gas heat.
• There are 18 participating insulation contractors and 115 participating window contractors in the program.
Marketing and Outreach
• An algorithm is used to identify IPC customers who are likely to have electric heat. These customers are targeted through direct mail.
• Customers who participate in the audit program and have electric heat are also the target market for the program.
• Marketing for the program includes bill inserts, Facebook ads, direct mail letters and ads in rural newspapers where residents are more likely to have electric heat.
Program Staffing
• The program specialist is responsible for all aspects of administering the program. The program takes about 80% of her time.
• The program specialist has an internal marketing partner who helps with the marketing of the program.
Home Improvement Program Impact & Process Evaluation
Applied Energy Group, Inc. 8 www.appliedenergygroup.com
Customer Satisfaction
• The QA contractor asks customers about satisfaction with the program and the results have consistently been positive.
• According to the program specialist, customers are generally happy with the energy savings and the improved comfort achieved from the increased insulation.
3.2 Program Processes The program is delivered by the participating contractors. In order to participate in the program, contractors are required to attend a two-day training. Participating contractors are listed on the company website. Customers interested in participating in the program call one or more participating contractors. The contractor determines if the customer qualifies for the program and provides them with a bid. The program application must be sent to IPC within 90 days of installation. Rebate checks are required to be mailed within 6-8 weeks of receipt of application.
Quality Assurance/Quality Control For quality assurance/control, IPC works with two independent contractors to do inspections. The QA/QC plan requires contractors to inspect 5% of all projects completed. The participants to be inspected are randomly selected by the QA/QC contractor. During the visit, the inspectors measure the insulation installed to make sure it matches the contractor’s invoice, verify that the windows are installed correctly and the window measurements match the invoice, and ask the participants some customer satisfaction questions.
3.3 Program Marketing Table 3-1 shows the marketing methods used in 2014 to promote the Home Improvement program.
Table 3-1 Marketing Methods Used in 2014
Method Date Bill insert Jan, Apr, Sep Print ads in select rural newspapers Feb, May, Oct Direct mail letter Feb, Sep Facebook ads Jun - Aug Ad network digital ads Mar – May Social media Ongoing
Source: 2014 HIP Marketing Plan
Home Improvement Program Impact & Process Evaluation
Applied Energy Group, Inc. 9 www.appliedenergygroup.com
During installation, participating customers were asked how they heard about the program. This information is stored in the program tracking database. In 2014, insulation contractors and bill inserts were the most frequently mentioned ways customers reported hearing about the program (Figure 3-1).

Source: 2014 HIP Marketing Plan
Figure 3-1 How Participants Heard about the Home Improvement Program IPC also implemented a new contractor portal in 2014 where the participating contractors can download artwork for advertising – this was designed to make it easy for contractors to customize advertising about the program.
3.4 Participating Contractor Interviews During August and September 2015, AEG conducted in-depth interviews with 8 participating contractors in IPC’s Home Improvement Program: 5 insulation contractors and 3 window contractors. (See Appendices for the interview guide.) The main objectives of the interviews were to qualitatively assess the contractors’ skills and knowledge related to the program, gauge the use of IPC’s contractor
Insulation
Contractor, 39%
Idaho Power bill
insert, 27%
Idaho Power
website, 10%
No answer, 9%
Friend/Referral,
8%
Idaho Power
direct mailer, 4%Event/Show, 2%
TV/Radio/Newspaper,
1%
Home Improvement Program Impact & Process Evaluation
Applied Energy Group, Inc. 10 www.appliedenergygroup.com
portal, identify any barriers to program participation, assess customer satisfaction, and identify any strategies to improve the program.
Contractors’ Skills and Knowledge Most contractors feel they are knowledgeable about the program and are able to explain the benefits to customers. No contractors reported any problems with employee turnover or getting new employees trained on the program.
“The program is very easy to explain to customers, especially those with electric heat.”
“One of the services my company offers is to explain all the program details to
customers. Our first question is -- what is their heat source? If they say electric we tell
them about IPC.” One contractor said he had a very large project and the IPC program specialist sent a person on-site to train the seven person crew.
IPC’s Contractor Portal Most contractors are not aware of the portal or do not use it. One contractor said he had no need to advertise. Another contractor said that IPC sends him boxes of marketing materials whenever he runs low and therefore has no need for the portal. One contractor said that when he went to the website it said he could not use the IPC logo. The materials available through the portal were not useful to him without the IPC logo.
Program Participation Contractors say customers experience substantial savings from participating in the program. The feedback they get from customers about the program and the measures is positive.
“It’s a great program. Customers love it. Contractors love it.” Contractors say awareness of the program is split. Some customers come to them asking about the program, while in other instances the contractor informs customers that they might be eligible for rebates. One contractor said about 40% of the customers who are eligible for the program were not aware before he told them. Another contractor said that most customers come to him asking about the program.
“They’ve got a great marketing campaign. I see it on Facebook, radio and TV. They do
a great job. A lot of our calls come from bill stuffers. They are doing a good job getting
the word out.” Contractors generally complete the paperwork for the customers. Contractors described the process as straightforward and easy. Contractors were very positive about their interaction with the program specialist. They said she is knowledgeable and able to answer any questions that they have.
“I do interact with Becky regularly. She is very helpful. Does a great job.”
Home Improvement Program Impact & Process Evaluation
Applied Energy Group, Inc. 11 www.appliedenergygroup.com
Contractors believe the rebate is very influential in convincing all-electric customers to add insulation. Some contractors are able to convince customers to add wall or floor insulation when they come in asking about increasing insulation in their attic. The rebate is very helpful in up selling these customers.
“80% of people add floor insulation to the job. It’s a decent incentive.”
“The rebate makes the sale so easy for all-electric homes. All bids are basically the
same. The IPC rebate gives us an edge.” The existing insulation levels and electric-heat only requirements are seen as unnecessarily strict by some contractors. Other, savvier contractors understand that cost effectiveness is an issue with rebate programs.
“The program is too narrow. R19 or less really cuts the amount of people that are
eligible. Homes that were built in the 70’s – 40 years ago – you put in at least an R30. I
can’t believe that anyone would put in less than that. When I first started doing this
R30 was the standard for the attic. R19 is not something you see very often.”
“It’s hard to explain to gas customers why they don’t qualify. I wish they could qualify
if they have AC.”
“I would love it if they would allow existing insulation levels of R25 or R26, but I know
they have to deal with cost effectiveness.” Window contractors appreciated the fact that sliding glass doors are eligible1 and that customers don’t have to do all their windows at once. They can spread the upgrades out over several years.
Suggestions for Improvement Most of the suggestions for improvement centered on expanding the program and increasing marketing. Specific suggestions included the following:
• Expand the program to make customers with higher existing insulation levels and/or central air conditioning eligible.
• Increase marketing. The marketing that IPC does is effective but there are still customers who are not aware of the program and the benefits.
• Provide contractors with lists of customers who have all-electric homes so they could market directly to them.
Summary The following conclusions can be drawn from the information gained in the contractor interviews:

1 Sliding glass doors are allowed by the program, but are not individually specified on the program application form.
Home Improvement Program Impact & Process Evaluation
Applied Energy Group, Inc. 12 www.appliedenergygroup.com
• Satisfaction with the program is high. The contractors interviewed and the customers they serve are very satisfied with the program, the program specialist, and the measures installed.
• The limited target market is a barrier to program participation. Given the all-electric and existing insulation requirements, only a small percentage of customers are eligible to participate.
• Marketing is very effective and should be increased if possible.
• The contractor portal is not being used by the contractors interviewed.
• The incentive is very helpful in influencing people to add insulation. It also makes it easier to up sell customers who are interested in attic insulation to also add floor and/or wall insulation.
3.5 Best Practices AEG conducted a literature review of industry publications to identify an appropriate set of best practices to compare with the Home Improvement program. AEG reviewed the following sources to create a list of best practices/innovations in the industry:
• Publicly available best practices reports
• Conference papers and presentation
• Evaluations of other weatherization programs Table 3-2 below shows each best practice/ innovation and whether IPC currently uses the practice. In all cases, either IPC is already doing the best practice, or it relates to something that is covered by a different IPC program.
Home Improvement Program Impact & Process Evaluation
Applied Energy Group, Inc. 13 www.appliedenergygroup.com
Table 3-2 Best Practices/Innovation for Weatherization Programs
Best Practice/Innovation Standard Practice? Explanation Emphasize non-energy benefits such as improved comfort and home improvement  Improved comfort emphasized in promotional ads Conduct tests to pinpoint where homes are losing energy X Not required; likely covered in IPC’s audit program Cross promote with HVAC rebate programs  Cross promotion with heat pumps listed in marketing plan Cross promote with audit programs  Project specialist says she uses audit participants as one of the target markets Develop a network of local installers  Participating contractors deliver the program Provide contractor training  2-day training required Require third party verification of installations  Verification of 5% of projects conducted by third party Process rebates in 8 weeks or less  Rebate check required to be sent within 6-8 weeks. Most actually sent in less than 2 weeks. Emphasize affordability of measures  Cited as a strength in the marketing plan

Applied Energy Group, Inc. 14 www.appliedenergygroup.com
4
Impact Evaluation Findings
The impact evaluation for the Home Improvement program consisted of a detailed engineering review that included a two-step process: a savings replication and a documentation review.
4.1 Engineering Review The Home Improvement Program used Version 2.5 of the RTF Single Family Weatherization Unit Energy Saving (UES) workbook that was specifically developed with separate cooling zones for Idaho Power for deemed savings in program year 2014. This version was provided as a program specific measure workbook by the RTF on December 31, 2011 and was used by AEG for savings replication in this evaluation. This RTF UES workbook provides annual heating and cooling energy savings per square foot of installed measure for multiple types of weatherization measures, multiple levels of upgrade, multiple heating and cooling zone combinations, and multiple heating systems. Cooling savings were only reported for those homes that had a central AC or heat pump system. Of the measures covered by the RTF UES workbook, wall insulation, attic insulation, floor insulation, and window upgrades were among the measures installed in the Home Improvement Program. During the savings replication effort, all deemed savings from the RTF were rounded to two decimal points for significant figure consistency with the IPC analysis. Every record in the database was checked and savings were replicated. The AEG-replicated energy savings for this program were 839,124 kWh/yr. The realization rate was 100.02%, and the replicated energy savings exceeded the reported savings by 195 kWh/year. There were a number of minor discrepancies found through the tracking database review and replication effort. The most significant discrepancy was found for wall insulation in HZ1 with zonal heat; the RTF deemed heating savings for this measure were 1.60 kWh/square foot (sqft), while the HIP savings logic file provided by IPC reported savings of 1.56 kWh/sqft. This discrepancy was found in 13 measures and accounted for a total difference of 284.8 kWh/year between the reported and replicated savings for these measures. Other small discrepancies included floor insulation (R-0 to R-30) with an electric furnace heating system in HZ2/CZ3 and attic insulation (R-19 to R-49) with an electric furnace heating system in HZ1/CZ3. These were due to 0.01 kWh/sqft differences in deemed savings values between the RTF deemed values and the reported IPC values, most likely attributable to rounding error. The following table is the replication summary for measures in the 2014 Home Improvement Program.

Home Improvement Program Impact & Process Evaluation
Applied Energy Group, Inc. 15
Table 4-1 Replication Summary for IPC PY 2014 Home Improvement Program
Measure Count Reported Savings (kWh/yr) Replicated Savings (kWh/yr) Attic Insulation 133 179,877 179,633 Floor Insulation 64 88,755 88,823 Wall Insulation 29 32,386 32,670 Window Replacement 329 537,912 537,998
Total 555 838,929 839,124 For step two of the engineering review, AEG reviewed a statistically representative sample of 36 out of 555 total projects through the Home Improvement Program. Customer background documents (invoices and rebate forms) were requested from IPC and reviewed. The “per-sqft” heating and cooling savings for these projects are deemed by the RTF on a climate zone basis in the UES workbook v2_5. AEG verified that each customer address and ZIP code matched the appropriate climate zone and checked that variables such as heating and cooling type, square footage of the measure in question, baseline weatherization level, and proposed weatherization level were reported and used correctly in the IPC tracking database. The Heating Zone/Cooling Zone (HZ/CZ) match was checked for each site with ZIP codes and counties in the “ZoneLookup” sheet of the “IPC home improvement savings logic.xlsx” workbook provided by IPC as well as the “PNWClimateZones.xlsx” workbook from the RTF. No issues with the climate zone assignments were found in the sample. AEG found the following issues in the sample through the documentation review:
• Four instances where the reported HVAC system type had to be changed based on evidence in the submitted documentation;
• Two instances where the reported window area had to be changed based on evidence in the submitted documentation;
• One instance where the final R-value had to be changed based on evidence in the submitted documentation;
• Two instances where the HVAC system type was not reported or unclear in the documentation;
• Three instances where the home in question was a multifamily apartment;
• One instance where the home in question was a manufactured home;
• Two instances where the final wall insulation level was much greater than the R-11 level specified by the RTF;
• Two instances where the existing window type was not provided in the documentation. Table 4-2 shows the results of the document review by project.
Home Improvement Program Impact & Process Evaluation
Applied Energy Group, Inc. 16
Table 4-2 Project Level Results of HIP Document Review
Site ID Sample Point Stratum # of Projects Savings Savings Savings Realization Rate (%) 10730 1 1 1 933.6 933.6 933.6 100.0% 11047 2 1 1 313.5 313.5 313.5 100.0% 10847 3 1 1 252.7 252.7 252.7 100.0% Add’l Census 5 2 3,886.3 3,886.3 3,886.3 100.0% 11110 4 1 1 292.1 292.1 292.1 100.0% Add’l Census 5 1 614.64 630.4 630.4 102.6% 10942 5 1 1 432.8 432.8 432.8 100.0% 10934 6 1 1 432.8 432.8 432.8 100.0% 11118 7 1 1 231.0 231.0 231.0 100.0% Add’l Census 5 1 1,110.7 1,139.2 1,139.2 102.6% 11144 8 2 1 1,674.0 1,676.8 1,676.8 100.2% 10701 9 2 1 2,278.0 2,278.0 2,278.0 100.0% 11077 10 2 1 1,926.0 1,929.2 2,253.8 117.0% 10806 11 2 1 1,120.1 1,121.8 792.3 70.7% 10759 12 2 1 1,420.8 1,420.8 1,142.4 80.4% 10666 13 2 1 1,584 1,584 1,392 87.9% 10793 14 2 1 1,796.8 1,796.8 1,796.8 100.0% Add’l Census 5 1 209.04 214.4 214.4 102.6% 11059 15 2 1 1,626.3 1,626.3 1,626.3 100.0% 10867 16 2 1 1,690.6 1,690.6 1,690.6 100.0% 11171 17 3 1 2,515.9 2,515.9 2,867.0 114.0% 10842 18 3 1 4,445.2 4,445.2 4,445.2 100.0% 10801 19 3 1 2,907.7 2,907.7 4,601.9 158.3% 11061 20 3 1 2,910 2,925 2,925 100.5% 11096 21 3 1 2,524.0 2,524.0 2,524.0 100.0% 10989 22 3 1 2,870.3 2,870.3 2,870.3 100.0% 10981 23 3 1 4,523.5 4,523.5 4,523.5 100.0% 10854 24 3 1 6,121.6 6,121.6 6,121.6 100.0% 10727 25 3 1 2,641.7 2,643.4 2,643.4 100.1% 11135 26 3 1 4,087.2 4,093.4 4,093.4 100.2% 10902 27 3 1 4,241.2 4,234.7 4,234.7 99.8% 10869 28 4 1 7,330.4 7,319.2 7,293.1 99.5% 10692 29 4 1 8,450.2 8,450.2 7,396.6 87.5% 11153 30 4 1 10,795.0 10,795.0 10,795.0 100.0% 10728 Add’l Census 5 1 198.5 198.6 198.6 100.1%
Home Improvement Program Impact & Process Evaluation
Applied Energy Group, Inc. 17
4.2 Non-Electric Benefits AEG analyzed the “SFWx_v3_3.xlsm” (Version 3.3) UES workbook to determine the latest savings values for the measures and evaluate Non-Electric Benefits (NEBs) for the program. Since this UES workbook did not separate cooling savings by cooling zone, AEG accessed the cooling zone-specific savings from the “SEEM_SingleFamilyExistingHVACandWeatherization_May2015.xlsm” (SEEM) file available on the RTF website. The cooling savings in the SEEM file were weighted by central air conditioning and room air conditioning saturation values from a Northwest Power Conservation Council forecast of Residential Building Stock Assessment (RBSA) data. Central air conditioning savings were assumed by the RTF to be identical to heat pump cooling savings, while zonal cooling system savings were assumed to be 50% of the heat pump cooling savings based on RTF best judgment. AEG separated the cooling savings by “Central Cooling”, “Zonal Cooling”, and “Unknown” system savings. The savings per cooling zone were then applied to each corresponding measure in each heating zone to result in unique HZ/CZ mappings with heating systems and three different types of cooling savings. While for 2014, the Home Improvement Program only included cooling savings for homes with central cooling systems, AEG also applied “Zonal Cooling” system savings from Version 3.3 for homes with room air conditioning and evaporative coolers and applied “Unknown” system savings to projects that had blank or “Other” entries for the cooling system in the tracking database2. Non-Electric Benefits (NEBs) were also evaluated based on the RTF Phase II Non-Electric Heat Adjustment in the SEEM file and the Idaho Wood Fuel Credit of $0.078/kWh (2006 dollars) from the RTF Standard Information Workbook v2.2; the NEB was then converted to 2014 dollars3.
Table 4-3 Home Improvement Program Non-Electric Benefits (using Workbook v3.3)
Measure Count Reported Savings (kWh/yr)
Replicated with v2.5 Replicated with v3.3 Benefits with v3.3 Attic Insulation 133 179,877 179,633 106,035 $1,354.28 Floor Insulation 64 88,755 88,823 45,726 $739.68 Wall Insulation 29 32,386 32,670 32,179 $474.87 Window Replacement 329 537,912 537,998 235,677 $2,910.53

2 Two attic insulation projects that were reported as R-0 to R-19 upgrades had to be evaluated with savings for the R-0 to R-38
upgrade because the current version of the workbook does not include R-19 as an efficient case for attic insulation level. 3 This wood fuel credit is lower than the regional average of $0.081/kWh as listed in the RTF Standard Information Workbook
Home Improvement Program Impact & Process Evaluation
Applied Energy Group, Inc. 18
4.3 Results Table 4-3 shows the results of the impact analysis. The program saved 845,085 kWh in 2014 with a realization rate of 100.7%. The evaluated savings relative precision is 3.63% at the 90% confidence interval.
Table 4-4 Home Improvement Program Impact Evaluation Results
Reported Savings Replicated Savings (kWh/yr) Combined Ratio Savings* Realization Rate** (%) 838,929 839,124 1.007 845,085 100.7% *Evaluated savings equal replicated savings multiplied by combined ratio **Ratio of evaluated savings to reported savings, expressed as a percentage
Home Improvement Program Impact & Process Evaluation
Applied Energy Group, Inc. 19
5
Conclusions and Recommendations
The results of the impact analysis show that the Home Improvement program saved 845,085 kWh in 2014, more than doubling its goal, with a realization rate of 100.7%.
Table 5-1 Home Improvement Program Results
Metric Program Goal Reported AEG-Evaluated Overall Realization Rate
Annual Energy Savings (kWh) 370,000 838,929 845,085 100.7% Other key findings from the process and impact evaluations include:
• Participants are satisfied with the program, the savings achieved and the improved comfort of their homes.
• The network of installation contractors are engaged in the program.
• The target market is small and eligibility criteria (e.g., existing insulation levels) is strict, which may make achieving future participation and savings goals more challenging, although this has not been a problem to date.
• Marketing is effective and most contractors would like to see these efforts increased.
Recommendations Based on this evaluation, the following recommendations should be considered to enhance program effectiveness and improve the transparency and accuracy of reported savings:
• Increase consistency/clarity between supporting documentation and the program database. Require more standardized documentation to prevent errors in the estimations of savings. More consistent documentation should be required in the project application and submitted materials to clearly identify all variables necessary for the calculation of savings. The submitted documentation was often disorganized and sometimes incomplete. Recently IPC improved their application, adding a checklist for customers on the application itemizing the documentation required. IPC should have a standardized documentation package for each project that includes a similar
Home Improvement Program Impact & Process Evaluation
Applied Energy Group, Inc. 20
checklist completed by IPC that verifies that all required information has been submitted. The information should then be carefully and completely input in the tracking database.
 Rationale: Helps ensure the correct variables are used to look up deemed savings, which ensures more defensible results and a more accurate impact analysis.
• Use the current versions of the RTF UES workbooks to discern between different residential segments, to estimate NEBs, and to improve the overall accuracy of impact estimates. The project application discerns between standard single family, manufactured, and multifamily homes. These entries should be emphasized, recorded in the tracking database, and used to determine the correct savings for the respective residential building segment. In addition, adopting the current versions of the Single Family and Manufactured Home Weatherization workbooks would allow IPC to estimate NEBs for the Home Improvement program4.
 Rationale: Although the energy savings associated with the Single Family Version 3.3 weatherization workbook are smaller than those associated with Version 2.5, the impacts in Version 3.3 are more accurate and defensible than those in Version 2.5. The current weatherization workbook represents RTF’s best estimate of savings, uses “Option 3” to take measure interactions into account, and uses two phases of calibration to more accurately represent savings for homes in the Pacific Northwest and incorporate non-electric benefits. One shortcoming, however, is that the UES workbooks do not separate savings by cooling zone. These savings can be separated by cooling zone using data from the underlying SEEM model workbook, as RTF has previously done for IPC in Version 2.5 and AEG has demonstrated for Version 3.3.

• Add sliding doors to measure description on the application. Since sliding glass doors are specifically included in the RTF UES workbook for the window upgrade weatherization measures, “sliding glass doors” should be also included in the measure description in the project application.
 Rationale: Avoids confusion during evaluation.
• Require that contractors match U-factors (taken from the NFRC window stickers) to each window on the invoice. Since the RTF only prescribes

4 AEG acknowledges that the UES workbook for multifamily weatherization is currently out of
compliance with a sunset date of 12/31/2015, and that the newly approved UES workbook for manufactured homes has not been QCed as of the date of this report. However, AEG encourages IPC to differentiate between residential building segments for the Home Improvement Program.

Home Improvement Program Impact & Process Evaluation
Applied Energy Group, Inc. 21
savings for U-30 and U-22 window upgrades, consider a cutoff (e.g. U-25) where windows with lower than U-25 would be evaluated with savings for U-22 window upgrades. This would require calculating an average U-value weighted by window area.
 Rationale: Though window upgrade savings were evaluated with a final rating of U-30, many of the projects had installed windows with U-factors below 0.30. Making this change would result in more accurate savings estimates.
• Increase marketing. Or if that’s not possible due to cost effectiveness issues, focus marketing dollars on the more proven strategies: contractor outreach and bill inserts.
 Rationale: These two methods were cited by 2/3 of participants when asked how they heard about the program. Contractors said marketing is effective and would like to see more.

A
Program Staff and Implementation Contractor
Interview Guides

Program Manager Interview Guide – Final –IPC Residential
NAME
TITLE
PROGRAM
DATE
PHONE
EMAIL
INTERVIEWER

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
[Once the interview is complete, please complete interview notes within this document. First, provide a high-level summary of findings below. Then, within each section summarize the findings.]
[Some of the answers to these questions will be filled in prior to the interview, based on information learned during the kick off meeting in Boise on June 8, 2015]
BACKGROUND
1. Please provide a brief description of the programs you are directly responsible for?
2. Please describe your job responsibilities related to the program.
3. How long have you been responsible for administration of this program?
4. On average, what percent of your time is spent on the program you are directly
responsible for?
5. What other staff work on the program? What is their role regarding the program (i.e.
what are the responsible for with regard to the program)? Who, if anyone, provides you
with support? What support do they provide?

PROGRAM GOALS
6. What metrics are used to track the success of the program? (Probe for electric savings, participation rates, number of units)?
7. How are goals for this program established?

Home Improvement Program Impact & Process Evaluation

8. Did the program meet its goals in 2014? If not, what kept the program from meeting its
goals?
9. Has the program met its annual goals in previous years? Is it on track to meet its goals
for 2015?
PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION AND MARKETING
10. Do you work with an implementation contractor or trade allies to help deliver the
program? Who is/are the implementation contractor and/or trade allies you work with on this program? Do you have any issues or concerns about the implementation contractor or trade allies? If yes, what are your concerns?
11. What is the target market for the program? How are potential customers identified?
12. What are the main barriers to participation? How does the program address these barriers?
13. What has been done to market the program? How successful have these strategies been?
Are some marketing strategies or messages more beneficial than others? How is success
of the marketing strategies or messages measured?

PROGRAM OPERATIONS
14. What are the participation steps from the customers’ perspective? Have these changed
over time? If so, why were they changed?
15. Are there any specific aspects of the program that are working very well? Any not
working well? (Probe for details) What could be done to improve?
16. What quality control/quality assurance procedures are in place? Are these documented?
Is any verification done? What does this entail? Who does the verification?
17. Do the incentive levels seem appropriate? If not, why not? What, if any, changes in the incentive levels do you think may be needed?
18. What is your opinion of free ridership for this program? Meaning do you think customers
would pay for the measures on their own, outside of the program. Why do you say that?
19. Do you think the program is changing customers' energy efficiency attitudes and actions?
(Probe for specifics)
20. Are customers satisfied with the program overall? With the measures installed? Are they
satisfied with the incentive amount? With the savings achieved? How is satisfaction with
the program measured? (i.e. is this based on survey information or is it anecdotal?)

PROGRAM IMPACTS
21. Deemed savings from the RTF are used to determine program impacts – correct? Do you
know what version of the RTF workbook you are using? If no, who should I ask for that information?
22. We plan to do a review of detailed project documentation for a sample of participants, including cross-checking the project documentation with the tracking spreadsheets. What
is the best way to get this data in an electronic form? How is it currently stored?

PROGRAM DATA AND DOCUMENTATION
23. Does the tracking database collect all the information you need? Is there
information/data that you wish were available but are not? Is there information in the
database that you don’t use?
Home Improvement Program Impact & Process Evaluation

24. What type of documentation is required to support the purchase and installation of the
measure?

EVALUATION
25. What do you hope to learn from this evaluation? Are there specific issues you would like
the evaluation to address?

Home Improvement Program Impact & Process Evaluation

Contractor Interview Guide – FINAL–IPC Home Improvement Program
NAME
TITLE
COMPANY
DATE
PHONE
EMAIL
INTERVIEWER

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
[Once the interview is complete, please complete interview notes within this document. First, provide a high-level summary of findings below. Then, within each section summarize the
findings.]
INTRODUCTION
Hi, my name is ___ and I am calling from Applied Energy Group on behalf of Idaho Power
Company. We are working with Idaho Power to evaluate their Home Improvement Program. I’m
calling to ask you a few questions about your participation as a contractor in that program to
help determine what is working and what might be improved. Are you familiar with your
company’s participation in the program? If not, who would be the best person to speak with at
your company about this subject?
All of your answers will be confidential. For our analysis your responses will be anonymously
aggregated with those from other companies that participated in the program.
[IF THEY DON’T WANT TO TALK NOW, TRY TO GET A GOOD TIME TO CALL THEM BACK.]
[IF RESPONDENT PROPOSES AN ALTERNATE CONTACT, OBTAIN NAME, BEST NUMBER AT WHICH TO REACH THE CONTACT, AND ANY INFO REGARDING BEST TIME TO CALL]
[IF THEY HAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT OUR LEGITIMACY, THEY CAN CONTACT:]
Gary Grayson at 208-388-2395
[NOTE THAT BECKY ARTE HOWELL IS THE PROGRAM SPECIALIST AND SHE IS THE PERSON
THEY ARE MOST FAMILIAR WITH. GARY IS THE MANAGER IN CHARGE OF EVALUATIONS]
[IF THEY ASK ABOUT TIME LENGTH OF SURVEY, SAY BETWEEN 15 AND 30__ MINUTES]
[IF THEY AGREE TO TALK SAY: THANKS FOR TAKING THE TIME TO SPEAK WITH US. LET’S GET
STARTED.]

ABOUT THE CONTRACTOR
Let me start by getting a little information about you and your company.
1. What is your job title or role?

2. What are your company’s main products and/or services?

3. When did your company begin participating in IPC’s Home Improvement program?

Home Improvement Program Impact & Process Evaluation

4. Why did you or your company decide to participate in the program?

5. What percentage of your business comes from projects through the program? Have all
these projects completed in 2014 received a rebate from Idaho Power? [IF NO] Why
not?

In 2014? _____% 999. DK

7. Do you expect that percentage to grow, stay the same or decrease in the next 2 years (2015 2016)?

CONTRACTOR SKILLS AND KNOWLEDGE
8. How many employees at your company have been trained/ are knowledgeable about the
Home Improvement program?

9. Is the number of employees you have trained enough to meet your customer demand for
insulation/windows? If you had more employees knowledgeable about the Idaho Power
program would you be able to complete more projects?
10. How well would you say you and your employees understand and are able to
communicate the benefits of increased insulation/window upgrades? If don’t understand
well, what additional knowledge/training is needed?

11. Do you feel the customers understand the benefits of the measures you installed? If not, what was not clear?

12. Did customers adequately understand the Idaho Power program eligibility requirements,
enrollment process, and the amount of the incentive? If not, what was not clear?

PROGRAM PARTICIPATION
13. Please describe your company’s process for marketing to customers. Do you tell your
customers about the IPC program? Or do they typically come to you requesting the
rebate?

14. Do you think eligible customers (those with electric zonal heat) are generally aware of
the program? If not, what else could be done to inform eligible customers about the
program?

15. If anything, what things about the program make it difficult for customers to participate (e.g., paperwork, measures, incentives too low, etc.)?

16. Have you received any complaints from customers who feel the measures don’t meet
their expectations? [IF YES] What specifically were they disappointed in? How did you
address their concerns?
Home Improvement Program Impact & Process Evaluation

17. How influential was the Idaho Power program manager in your decision to participate?
How helpful is the program manager if you have questions or concerns? Does having
access to a knowledgeable program manager increase the value of your participation in
the program?

18. Does the program make it easier for you to sell projects and/or identify prospects?

19. Do you use Idaho Power’s contractor portal to access marketing materials?

a. [IF NO] Why not? How could it be made more valuable/useful to you?
b. [IF YES] Has it been helpful to your business? Are you satisfied with the
materials available through the portal?

20. What, if anything, do you think is particularly good about the IPC program?

21. Do you have any suggestions for improvement to the program?

PROGRAM EFFECTIVENESS
22. What are the benefits to your company to participate in the program? Do you think the
program helps your business? Does it give you a competitive advantage over other
contractors in your area? [Probe for reasons?]

24. Is there anything else Idaho Power could do to help you increase the number of projects in their service territory?

CONCLUSION
25. Is there anything else that you think Idaho Power should think about as they continue to
offer and improve this program?

Home Improvement Program Impact & Process Evaluation

Applied Energy Group, Inc.
500 Ygnacio Valley Road, Suite 250
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
P: 510.982.3525 F: 925.284.3147

Impact and Process Evaluation of Idaho Power’s See Ya
Later, Refrigerator Program
Final Report
Applied Energy Group, Inc.
500 Ygnacio Valley Road, Suite 250
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
510.982.3525
www.appliedenergygroup.com
Prepared for:
Idaho Power Company

This work was performed by Applied Energy Group, Inc. 500 Ygnacio Valley Blvd., Suite 250 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Project Director: C. Williamson Project Manager: B. Ryan Project Team: K. Parmenter D. Burdjalov T. Shah

Applied Energy Group, Inc. i www.appliedenergygroup.com
Executive Summary Idaho Power’s See Ya Later, Refrigerator® program acquires energy savings through the removal of qualified refrigerators and stand-alone freezers in residential homes throughout Idaho Power’s service area. The goal of the program is to reduce the number of old, inefficient refrigerators and freezers that customers have moved to their garages or other locations such as basements and patios. The program makes a concerted effort to maximize savings by focusing on secondary/spare units and minimizing free riders (customers who will replace the unit with another, or would have removed the unit anyway through another service). Idaho Power Company (IPC) contracted with Applied Energy Group (AEG) to conduct a process evaluation of the See Ya Later, Refrigerator program and an impact evaluation for program year 2014.
Conclusions The results of the impact analysis show that the See Ya Later, Refrigerator program surpassed its goals, achieving 1,390,760 kWh in savings in 2014 with a 100% realization rate.
Table ES-1 See Ya Later, Refrigerator 2014
ResultsMetric
Program
Goal Reported Realization
Rate
AEG-
Evaluated Non-Electric
Benefits Annual Energy Savings (kWh) 837,000 1,390,760 100% 1,390,760 $137,560.39 Other key findings from the process and impact evaluations include:
• The program is very well run and complies with most of the best practices in the industry.
• The program has adequate staffing and a very competent and engaged implementation contractor.
• The program has high customer satisfaction.
• The program has the necessary quality control procedures in place and is extremely well documented.
• The wealth of data captured by the program is exemplary and is analyzed by IPC staff to continuously provide insight and improve the program.
Recommendations Based on this evaluation, the following recommendations should be considered to enhance program effectiveness and improve the transparency of reported savings:
EE Potential Study and Action Plan
Applied Energy Group, Inc. ii www.appliedenergygroup.com
• If no savings are associated with a measure, explain why in the program tracking database.
• Decrease the time between scheduling and pick up to 7 days or less.
• Experiment with different promotional offerings to see if they increase program participation. An example would be to offer an incentive for a limited time (e.g., one month) for secondary refrigerators only.
• Use the updated RTF workbook (v.3.2) in the future and include non-electric benefits in the cost effectiveness analysis.

Applied Energy Group, Inc. iii www.appliedenergygroup.com
Contents
Chapter 1: Introduction ...................................................................................................1 Program Description ............................................................................................. 1 Purpose of the Evaluation ................................................................................... 1 Report Structure ..................................................................................................... 2
Chapter 2: Methodology ..................................................................................................3
Process Evaluation................................................................................................. 3 Impact Evaluation .................................................................................................. 4
Chapter 3: Process Evaluation Findings .....................................................................5 Program and Implementation Staff Interviews ............................................. 5 Program Processes ................................................................................................ 6 Program Marketing................................................................................................ 7 Best Practices .......................................................................................................... 10
Chapter 4: Impact Evaluation Findings .......................................................................11 Engineering Review ............................................................................................... 11 Non-Electric Benefits ............................................................................................ 12
Chapter 5: Conclusions and Recommendations .......................................................16
Recommendations ................................................................................................. 16
Appendix A: Program Staff and Implementation Contractor Interview Guides

Applied Energy Group, Inc. 1 www.appliedenergygroup.com
1
Introduction
1.1 Program Description Idaho Power’s See Ya Later, Refrigerator® program acquires energy savings through the removal of qualified refrigerators and stand-alone freezers in residential homes throughout Idaho Power’s service area. The goal of the program is to reduce the number of old, inefficient refrigerators and freezers that customers have moved to their garages or other locations such as basements and patios. The program makes a concerted effort to maximize savings by focusing on secondary/spare units and minimizing free riders (customers who will replace the unit with another, or would have removed the unit anyway through another service). IPC contracts with JACO Environmental (JACO) to provide turnkey services for the See Ya Later, Refrigerator program including customer service and scheduling, unit pickup, unit recycling, reporting, marketing assistance, and incentive payments. Marketing assistance is provided by JACO, through Runyon Saltzman Einhorn, a marketing company that assists utility appliance recycling programs throughout the country. IPC provides participant confirmation, additional marketing, and internal program administration. In 2014, the See Ya Later, Refrigerator program reported 1,391 MWh of savings by recycling 3,194 refrigerators/freezers (Table 1-1), exceeding the program goals by over 50%.
Table 1-1 See Ya Later, Refrigerator Program Reported Savings vs. 2014 Goals
Year Units MWh Savings PY2014 IPC Goals 2,100 837
IPC-Reported 3,194 1,391
Percent of IPC-Reported to Goals 152% 166%
1.2 Purpose of the Evaluation Idaho Power Company (IPC) contracted with Applied Energy Group (AEG) to conduct a process evaluation of the See Ya Later, Refrigerator program and an impact evaluation for program year 2014. The key objectives addressed in the process evaluation were to:
• Evaluate program design including program mission, logic, and use of best practices.
See Ya Later, Refrigerator Program Impact & Process Evaluation
Applied Energy Group, Inc. 2 www.appliedenergygroup.com
• Evaluate program implementation including quality control, operational practice, and outreach.
• Evaluate program administration including program oversight, staffing, management, training, documentation, and reporting.
• Evaluate participant and stakeholder response including customer interaction and satisfaction.
• Report findings and observations and provide recommendations that enhance program effectiveness. The key objectives addressed by the impact evaluation were to:
• Measure and verify the energy (kWh) and non-electric impacts attributable to the 2014 program.
• Provide credible and reliable ex-post program energy savings and realization rates and non-electric impact estimates attributed to the program for the 2014 program year.
• Report findings and observations, and provide recommendations that would enhance the effectiveness of future analysis and the accurate and transparent reporting of program savings.
1.3 Report Structure Following this introductory chapter are the following chapters:
• Chapter 2 – Methodology: Description of the evaluation methods, sampling design, and data collection and analysis process.
• Chapter 3 – Process Evaluation Findings: Description and discussion of the program processes and best practices review.
• Chapter 4 – Impact Evaluation Findings: Description and discussion of the result of the engineering review including kWh savings estimates, non-electric benefits and realization rates.
• Chapter 5 – Conclusions and Recommendations: Conclusions reached based on the process and impact evaluation including results of the best practices review and recommendations to improve the program.

Applied Energy Group, Inc. 3 www.appliedenergygroup.com
2
Methodology
This section describes the approach AEG used to evaluate the See Ya Later, Refrigerator program.
2.1 Process Evaluation Process evaluations focus on determining the overall effectiveness of program delivery, identifying opportunities for program improvements, and assessing key program metrics including participation rates, market barriers, and overall program operations. The process evaluation for the See Ya Later, Refrigerator program consisted of the following research activities: • Interviews with program and implementation staff. • A detailed review of the program documentation and tracking database. • A best practices review.
Interviews with Program and Implementation Staff AEG conducted in-depth qualitative interviews with the IPC Program Specialists for the program. This included the outgoing program specialist and her replacement. The interview included questions surrounding the goals for the program offering from the interviewee’s perspective; policies, processes and procedures surrounding recruitment and delivery of the program; what is working and what is not; and the strengths and weaknesses of the program. AEG also conducted an interview with the program manager for the implementation contractor, JACO. The interview included questions about program operations and marketing, program implementation, the relationship with IPC staff, how the See Ya Later, Refrigerator program compares to other appliance recycling programs implemented by JACO, and strategies to overcome barriers to program participation.
Documentation Review AEG reviewed several sources of data as metrics to evaluate the program and the program offerings. The data sources included the program implementation plan, quality control plan, past evaluation reports, the program tracking database, program application, marketing materials and marketing results from 2009 - 2014. Insight gained from this document review was used to provide a background for conducting the process evaluation and to inform the resulting conclusions and recommendations.
See Ya Later, Refrigerator Program Impact & Process Evaluation
Applied Energy Group, Inc. 4 www.appliedenergygroup.com
Best Practices Review AEG conducted a literature review of industry publications to identify an appropriate set of best practices to compare with the IPC programs. AEG conducted the best practices review as follows:
• Reviewed regulatory filings, evaluation reports, conference presentations, marketing materials and industry publications.
• Created a list of best practices/innovations and the rationale behind the best practice/innovation.
• Benchmarked IPC’s program against each best practice listed.
2.2 Impact Evaluation The main objective of the impact evaluation was to estimate the annual kWh savings achieved by the program. This was accomplished by conducting an engineering review and replicating the savings for all of the projects in the 2014 program tracking database using the RTF-approved deemed savings algorithms for program year 2014. AEG also estimated non-electric benefits for the program.
Engineering Review The See Ya Later, Refrigerator program used Version 2.5 of the Regional Technical Forum (RTF) Refrigerator and Freezer Decommissioning Unit Energy Savings (UES) workbook for deemed savings in program year 2014. This version was approved by the RTF on December 11, 2012 and was used by AEG for savings replication in this evaluation. This workbook provides annual energy savings of 424 kWh/year for refrigerators and 478 kWh/year for freezers. AEG applied the deemed algorithms to the tracked parameters for all program participants to verify that the algorithms were applied correctly, identify errors or issues, and adjust savings estimates at the project level if necessary. While impact evaluations normally also include the selection of a sample for a more detailed further review, that was not necessary here, since all the information needed to calculate the RTF-approved deemed savings was included in the tracking database. As a result, there is no sampling error or associated confidence interval to report.
Non-Electric Benefits IPC did not report non-electric benefits for the See Ya Later, Refrigerator program because the RTF workbook version used for program year 2014 (“ResFridgeFreezeDecommissiong_v2_5”) does not specify deemed values for non-electric benefits. As a result, AEG used the latest RTF workbook (version 3.2) to estimate non-electric benefits associated with greenhouse gas emission reduction and avoided mercury and oil contamination. The resulting non-electric benefits are included in the evaluated impacts along with the electric savings evaluated using the version 2.5 workbook.

Applied Energy Group, Inc. 5 www.appliedenergygroup.com
3
Process Evaluation Findings
The process evaluation for the See Ya Later, Refrigerator program focused on conducting interviews with program and implementation staff and reviewing program processes to assess the program operations, quality control, staffing, and outreach. The evaluation also included secondary research to determine if the program is currently using established best practices prevalent in the industry. The process evaluation found that the program is very well run, has adequate staffing, a very competent and engaged implementation contractor, and high customer satisfaction.
3.1 Program and Implementation Staff Interviews AEG conducted in-depth interviews with the program specialists (outgoing and recent replacement) and the implementation contractor for the See Ya Later, Refrigerator program. The following are some of the key points from the interviews with the program specialists and the implementation contractor.
Program Design and Operations
• A major challenge of the program is cost effectiveness. In order to stay cost effective, IPC had to eliminate the incentive and reduce their marketing budget in 2015.
• Beginning in the summer of 2015, IPC began offering 2 free LED bulbs to customers. The results of that effort are unknown at the time of this report. JACO feels this won’t convince someone to recycle their appliance, but for customers who have been considering getting rid of an extra appliance, it may help motivate them to enroll in the program.
• JACO upgraded some of their systems and as a result, both IPC and JACO experienced some technical/IT problems during the transition. These problems have been addressed and the upgrades should lead to improved processes.
Marketing and Outreach
• IPC sends targeted mailings to a segment of customers with “empty nester” characteristics to encourage recycling secondary or extra units.
• IPC has found that bill inserts are the most effective means of marketing – in terms of convincing customers to participate. JACO confirmed that bill inserts are the most effective marketing approach for other appliance recycling programs around the country as well.
See Ya Later, Refrigerator Program Impact & Process Evaluation
Applied Energy Group, Inc. 6 www.appliedenergygroup.com
• IPC sends bill inserts to all customers, not just the defined “empty nester” target market. Bill inserts are inexpensive and limiting the number sent would not save much money in the marketing budget.
• Customers in rural areas are a more challenging market. Many are hunters and fisherman who need freezers and second refrigerators to store their meat and fish. They also tend to stock up at warehouse stores like Costco. Winter road conditions can also present a challenge for scheduling pickups in rural areas.
• Rocky Mountain Power has a similar program that also uses JACO as the implementer. Similar marketing messages are used by the two programs, providing each other with some marketing lift.
• JACO is only aware of one other utility that discontinued their incentive. This utility attempted to boost participation rates by offering product giveaways such as cooler bags.
Program Staffing
• The outgoing program specialist had limited time in recent years to devote to the program. The new program specialist should be able to devote more time to the program.
• The working relationship between IPC and JACO is excellent. The two companies work well together and provide support in an effort to continuously improve the program and meet participation goals.
Customer Satisfaction
• Surveys conducted in the past by JACO and IPC show very high customer satisfaction with the program.
• This program is one of the few programs that is offered to all residential customers (not just all-electric customers) providing additional value to IPC’s portfolio.
Program Life Cycle
• JACO feels that there is plenty of secondary refrigerator and freezer stock in Idaho Power’s service territory to be able to support the program for another decade or more.
• According to JACO, 25% of households in the northwest have second refrigerators or freezers. Only about 1% are of those are recycled through the program each year.
3.2 Program Processes Applicants may enroll online or by phone. In 2014, 70% of participants enrolled by phone. IPC screens each applicant to confirm eligibility (i.e., verifying the applicant is an IPC residential customer). JACO screens each applicant to confirm the refrigerator or freezer unit under consideration meets all program eligibility
See Ya Later, Refrigerator Program Impact & Process Evaluation
Applied Energy Group, Inc. 7 www.appliedenergygroup.com
requirements, including the requirement that a unit be of residential-grade, a minimum of 10 cubic feet as measured using inside dimensions, no larger than 30 cubic feet, and in working condition. In 2014, customers received a $30 incentive check mailed after the removal of the unit, but that incentive has been discontinued in 2015 in order to make the program cost effective. In July 2015, the program began offering 2 free LED light bulbs to participants and began targeting older, secondary units for maximum savings. JACO uses a sophisticated scheduling system to optimize collection routes. Participants are given a choice of one or more days for pickup based on the scheduling routes. In 2014, pick up occurred an average of 13 days after the customer called. Participants are required to be present during the pickup and must sign an appliance turn-in form.
Quality Assurance/Quality Control IPC may only accept units from active residential accounts and must verify the energy savings at the account level. IPC performs daily checks to verify participants signed up for the program through JACO. This requires a daily data transfer between JACO and IPC. If a participant can’t immediately be verified as either a confirmed customer or not a customer, it is marked as pending. IPC works to resolve issues with pending files each day. IPC also performs monthly quality control reconciling the invoices with the tracking database. In October, 2012 the program specialists toured the JACO recycling facility in Salt Lake City and determined that the facility was well organized and appliances were being recycled in compliance with IPC’s requirements.
3.3 Program Marketing Since the program began in 2009, a variety of marketing methods have been used to promote the program. Table 3-1 below shows the various methods used each program year. In 2015 the program decreased the overall marketing budget for the program due to cost effectiveness concerns. As a result, fewer marketing activities are scheduled for 2015.
See Ya Later, Refrigerator Program Impact & Process Evaluation
Applied Energy Group, Inc. 8 www.appliedenergygroup.com
Table 3-1 Marketing Methods Used Each Year
Method 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Bill inserts 1 3 4 4 5 7 6 Newspaper ads X X X X X X Google Ad Words X X X X X X X Direct Mail 2 3 1 1 Web Site X X X X X X X Events X X X X X X X Radio X X X ValPak X X X X Customer Connections X X X X X PR Event X X X X X Cross Marketing X X X X X X Craigslist X Truck Wrap X X X X X X X Fair Fans X X X X X Uhaul X Movie Trailer X Brochures X X X X X X X
Source: See Ya Later, Refrigerator Marketing Results 2009 – 2014 DSM Reporting Years
IPC tracks the marketing effectiveness for the program in several ways. Participants are asked how they heard about the program when they enroll, and the date of customer enrollment is tracked and can be attributed to specific marketing activities. Acquisition costs are also tracked by marketing method. Figure 3-1 below shows that almost half of 2014 participants heard about the program from the utility bill insert.
See Ya Later, Refrigerator Program Impact & Process Evaluation
Applied Energy Group, Inc. 9 www.appliedenergygroup.com

Source: See Ya Later, Refrigerator Marketing Results 2009 – 2014 DSM Reporting Years
Figure 3-1 How 2014 Participants Heard about the See Ya Later, Refrigerator Program Table 3-2 below provides the estimated acquisition cost per participant for several marketing efforts. Although direct mail has the highest response rate, it’s almost 3 times as costly as bill inserts. Bill inserts has the overall lowest average cost per participant.
Table 3-2 2014 Marketing Response Rates and Costs
Activity Rate Cost ($/participant) Bill inserts .35% $11.93 Direct Mail .88% $37.74 Newspaper .06% $265.08 Radio NA $275.76
Source: See Ya Later, Refrigerator Marketing Results 2009 – 2014 DSM Reporting Years

Utility bill
insert, 49%
Friend/neighbor,
19%
Appliance
retailer, 9%
Direct
mail,
5%
Utility
website/
office, 4%
Radio, 3%
TV, 2%
Online, 2%Newspaper,
2%Other , 5%
See Ya Later, Refrigerator Program Impact & Process Evaluation
Applied Energy Group, Inc. 10 www.appliedenergygroup.com
3.4 Best Practices AEG conducted a literature review of industry publications to identify an appropriate set of best practices to compare with the IPC programs. AEG reviewed the following sources to create a list of best practices/innovations in the industry:
• Publicly available best practices reports
• Conference papers and presentation
• Evaluations of other appliance recycling programs Using these resources, AEG created a list of best practices/innovations that applied to the See Ya Later, Refrigerator program. Table 3-3 below shows each best practice/ innovation and whether IPC currently uses the practice.
Table 3-3 Best Practices/Innovation for Appliance Recycling Programs
Best Practice/Innovation Standard Practice? Explanation Offer on-line scheduling  Available; 30% of participants use this method Pick up units within one week of request X Average pick up in 2014 was 13 days Provide pick up on Saturdays  Saturdays are included Use bill inserts to market the program  Several each year Show cost savings from removing second refrigerator  “Can save up to $100 a year” Contact people a couple of days prior to appointment as reminder  Called one to two days before and 30 minutes before Program staff should visit recycling center and see how it works  Completed in 2012 Prioritize removal of secondary refrigerator  Targets empty nesters; marketing messages focus on secondary or extra units Provide a financial incentive X Incentive discontinued in 2015 Provide an energy savings kit as an additional incentive  2 LED bulbs are provided to participants beginning in summer of 2015 Stress free removal and safe disposal  Marketing materials highlight free pick up. Facebook and local news showed how refrigerators are recycled Stress convenience  “Let us do the heavy lifting”

Applied Energy Group, Inc. 11 www.appliedenergygroup.com
4
Impact Evaluation Findings
The impact evaluation for the See Ya Later, Refrigerator program consisted of an engineering review that replicated the savings estimates for all of the projects in the 2014 program tracking database.
4.1 Engineering Review The AEG-replicated energy savings for this program were 1,390,760 kWh/yr, with a realization rate of 100%. Only one issue was found through the tracking database review and replication effort. There was one decommissioned freezer measure in the program year 2014 population for which the “Count Savings” parameter in the tracking database was listed as “N”. Savings for this entry were not reported and were not replicated. More information was requested and the IPC program specialist said the unit was in a mobile home park that was classified as a commercial rate and therefore not eligible for the program. In order to preserve customer satisfaction, however, IPC allowed the unit to be picked up but did not count the savings. While impact evaluations normally also include the selection of a sample for a more detailed further review, that was not necessary here, since all the information needed to calculate the RTF-approved deemed savings was included in the tracking database. Since sufficient information was in available in the database, the savings for all units were recalculated and verified. As a result, since no sample was used, there is no sampling error or associated confidence interval to report. The following table depicts the summary for refrigerators and freezers in the 2014 See Ya Later, Refrigerator Program.
Table 4-1 Replicated Savings Results for See Ya Later, Refrigerator Program
Measure
Measure Reported Savings Replicated Realization 2,518 1,067,632 1,067,632 100% 676 323,128 323,128 100% 1 0 0 -- * Not eligible because customer was on a commercial rate.

See Ya Later, Refrigerator Program Impact & Process Evaluation
Applied Energy Group, Inc. 12
1.2 Non-Electric Benefits IPC did not report non-electric benefits for the See Ya Later, Refrigerator program because the RTF workbook version used for program year 2014 (“ResFridgeFreezeDecommissiong_v2_5”) does not specify deemed values for non-electric benefits. As a result AEG used the latest RTF workbook (version 3.2) to estimate non-electric benefits associated with greenhouse gas emission reduction and avoided mercury and oil contamination. The resulting non-electric benefits are included in the evaluated impacts along with the electric savings evaluated using the version 2.5 workbook. The non-energy benefits (NEBs) in the RTF workbook (v3.2) are $7.12/yr and $8.74/yr for refrigerator and freezer decommissioning, respectively. The reason for the difference is the expected useful lifetime (EUL) of the measures (6 years for refrigerators, 5 years for freezers) by which the overall incremental benefit ($45.58) is divided. This incremental non-energy benefit is a total net value of benefits attributable to the program from the monetization of greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reduction as well as avoided mercury and oil contamination. Reclaimed materials such as aluminum, copper, ferrous metal, foam, oil, and plastic were monetized in the RTF analysis but were not included in the final net NEB value. These NEB values are the net environmental benefits as the difference between the gross benefits (sum of all benefits realized under the program) and the average benefits that would have been realized in the program’s absence. The GHG emissions were calculated for each environmental benefit/raw material using specified conversion factors. These materials and their conversion to metric tons of CO2 equivalents (MTCO2eq) can be seen in the Table 4-2 below.

See Ya Later, Refrigerator Program Impact & Process Evaluation
Applied Energy Group, Inc. 13
Table 4-2 Environmental Benefit CO2 Conversion Table
Raw Material Disposal Type Units Conversion to MTCO2eq CFC-12 All lbs. 3.67 HFC-134a All lbs. 0.59 HCFC-22 All lbs. 0.68 CFC-11 All lbs. 1.72 HCFC-141b All lbs. 1.02 HFC-134a All lbs. 0.59 Used Oil All lbs. 0.010 Ferrous Metal Recycled lbs. 0.00027 Non-Ferrous Metal Recycled lbs. 0.00027 Rubber Recycled lbs. 0.00027 Plastic Recycled lbs. 0.00027 Glass Recycled lbs. 0.00027 Mercury-Containing Components All (components) 0 PCB-Containing Capacitors All (components) 0.00027 Non PCB-Containing Capacitors Recycled (components) 1.7E-05 Non PCB-Containing Capacitors Disposed (components) 0.063 Foam Recycled lbs. 0.00027 Fiberglass Recycled lbs. 0.00027 These conversion factors were multiplied by values for each of five scenarios seen in Table 4-3 and then further analyzed to produce the GHG emissions totals seen in Table 4-4 below.

See Ya Later, Refrigerator Program Impact & Process Evaluation
Applied Energy Group, Inc. 14
Table 4-3 Environmental Benefit CO2 Conversion Table
Scenario Description
Distribution w/o n w/
1 Unit destroyed in an environmentally irresponsible way, disposed of in a way such that no materials would be recovered 15% 0%
2 Unit destroyed in an environmentally irresponsible way, disposed of in a way such that materials with retail value would be recovered 23% 0%
3 Taken to dump 23% 0% 4 Recycled, non-RAD, non-utility 39% 0% 5 Current program 0% 100%

Table 4-4 Final RTF Non-Electric Benefits, Gross and Net (2006 Dollars)
Material
Gross
(2006
in the
NEB GHG Emissions $50.77 74% $37.38 Yes Avoided Mercury Contamination $4.28 49% $2.10 Yes Avoided Oil Contamination $16.21 38% $6.10 Yes Reclaimed aluminum $4.52 11% $0.49 No Reclaimed copper $15.46 12% $1.82 No Reclaimed ferrous metal $15.39 11% $1.68 No Reclaimed foam $1.33 100% $1.33 No Reclaimed oil $0.92 38% $0.35 No Reclaimed plastic $4.01 55% $2.20 No

See Ya Later, Refrigerator Program Impact & Process Evaluation
Applied Energy Group, Inc. 15
Non-electric benefits for the See Ya Later, Refrigerator program were calculated using the “Present Value (PV) Regional Non-E Value” from Version 3.2 of the RTF UES Workbook. Since these values were in 2006 dollars, they were inflated to 2014 dollars using a factor of 1.136889 from the RTF Standard Information Workbook v3.2. Thus, each recycled refrigerator was assigned a present value of non-electric benefits (PV(NEB)) of $41.08 and each recycled freezer was assigned a PV(NEB) of a $50.46.
Table 4-5 See Ya Later, Refrigerator Program PV NEBs
Measure Measure
Count Savings Savings Realization
Rate (%)
Total
PV(NEB) 2,518 1,067,632 1,067,632 100% $103,450.83 676 323,128 323,128 100% $34,109.56

Applied Energy Group, Inc. 16 www.appliedenergygroup.com
5
Conclusions and Recommendations
The results of the impact analysis show that the See Ya Later, Refrigerator program surpassed its goals, achieving 1,390,760 kWh in savings in 2014 with a 100% realization rate.
Table 5-1 See Ya Later, Refrigerator Program 2014 Results
Metric Program Goal Reported Realization Rate AEG-Evaluated Non-Electric Benefits Annual Energy Savings (kWh) 837,000 1,390,760 100% 1,390,760 $137,560.39 Other key findings from the process and impact evaluations include:
• The program is very well run and complies with most of the best practices in the industry.
• The program has adequate staffing and a very competent and engaged implementation contractor.
• The program has high customer satisfaction.
• The program has the necessary quality control procedures in place and is extremely well documented.
• The wealth of data captured by the program is exemplary and is analyzed by IPC staff to continuously provide insight and improve the program.
5.1 Recommendations Based on this evaluation, the following recommendations should be considered to enhance program effectiveness and improve the transparency of reported savings:
• If no savings are associated with a measure, explain why in the program tracking database.
 Rationale: This is a very minor issue for IPC but including an explanation would improve the transparency of the data and provide necessary information for the evaluator without requiring follow up.
• Decrease the time between scheduling and pick up to 7 days or less.
 Rationale: Best practices in the industry call for pick up within 7 days of scheduling appointment. This change may also improve participation rates.
See Ya Later, Refrigerator Program Impact & Process Evaluation
Applied Energy Group, Inc. 17
• Experiment with different promotional offerings to see if they increase program participation. An example would be to offer an incentive for a limited time (one month) for secondary fridges only.
 Rationale: Creativity is necessary to overcome the discontinuation of the incentive. This is unchartered territory for the program, as very few other programs are not offering an incentive. Several other programs have offered limited time increases in incentives to “bump” participation rates. A limited time incentive may provide IPC with the necessary lift in participation to meet annual goals. The incentive could replace the free LEDs to help cover the cost.
• In the future, use the RTF Workbook 3.2 and include non-electric benefits in the cost effectiveness analysis.
 Rationale: Including non-electric benefits in the analysis should improve the cost effectiveness. As a result IPC may be able to bring back an incentive and/or increase the marketing to its former levels.

Applied Energy Group, Inc. 18 www.appliedenergygroup.com
A
Program Staff and Implementation Contractor
Interview Guides

Program Manager Interview Guide – Final –IPC Residential
NAME
TITLE
PROGRAM
DATE
PHONE
EMAIL
INTERVIEWER

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
[Once the interview is complete, please complete interview notes within this document. First, provide a high-level summary of findings below. Then, within each section summarize the findings.]
[Some of the answers to these questions will be filled in prior to the interview, based on information learned during the kick off meeting in Boise on June 8, 2015]
BACKGROUND
1. Please provide a brief description of the programs you are directly responsible for?
2. Please describe your job responsibilities related to the program.
3. How long have you been responsible for administration of this program?
4. On average, what percent of your time is spent on the program you are directly
responsible for?
5. What other staff work on the program? What is their role regarding the program (i.e.
what are the responsible for with regard to the program)? Who, if anyone, provides you
with support? What support do they provide?

PROGRAM GOALS
6. What metrics are used to track the success of the program? (Probe for electric savings, participation rates, number of units)?
7. How are goals for this program established?

See Ya Later, Refrigerator Program Impact & Process Evaluation
Applied Energy Group, Inc. 19
8. Did the program meet its goals in 2014? If not, what kept the program from meeting its
goals?
9. Has the program met its annual goals in previous years? Is it on track to meet its goals
for 2015?
PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION AND MARKETING
10. Do you work with an implementation contractor or trade allies to help deliver the
program? Who is/are the implementation contractor and/or trade allies you work with on this program? Do you have any issues or concerns about the implementation contractor or trade allies? If yes, what are your concerns?
11. What is the target market for the program? How are potential customers identified?
12. What are the main barriers to participation? How does the program address these barriers?
13. What has been done to market the program? How successful have these strategies been?
Are some marketing strategies or messages more beneficial than others? How is success
of the marketing strategies or messages measured?

PROGRAM OPERATIONS
14. What are the participation steps from the customers’ perspective? Have these changed
over time? If so, why were they changed?
15. Are there any specific aspects of the program that are working very well? Any not
working well? (Probe for details) What could be done to improve?
16. What quality control/quality assurance procedures are in place? Are these documented?
Is any verification done? What does this entail? Who does the verification?
17. Do the incentive levels seem appropriate? If not, why not? What, if any, changes in the incentive levels do you think may be needed?
18. What is your opinion of free ridership for this program? Meaning do you think customers
would pay for the measures on their own, outside of the program. Why do you say that?
19. Do you think the program is changing customers' energy efficiency attitudes and actions?
(Probe for specifics)
20. Are customers satisfied with the program overall? With the measures installed? Are they
satisfied with the incentive amount? With the savings achieved? How is satisfaction with
the program measured? (i.e. is this based on survey information or is it anecdotal?)

PROGRAM IMPACTS
21. Deemed savings from the RTF are used to determine program impacts – correct? Do you
know what version of the RTF workbook you are using? If no, who should I ask for that information?
22. We plan to do a review of detailed project documentation for a sample of participants, including cross-checking the project documentation with the tracking spreadsheets. What
is the best way to get this data in an electronic form? How is it currently stored?

PROGRAM DATA AND DOCUMENTATION
23. Does the tracking database collect all the information you need? Is there
information/data that you wish were available but are not? Is there information in the
database that you don’t use?
See Ya Later, Refrigerator Program Impact & Process Evaluation
Applied Energy Group, Inc. 20
24. What type of documentation is required to support the purchase and installation of the
measure?

EVALUATION
25. What do you hope to learn from this evaluation? Are there specific issues you would like
the evaluation to address?

See Ya Later, Refrigerator Program Impact & Process Evaluation
Applied Energy Group, Inc. 21
Implementation Contractor Interview Guide – FINAL–See Ya Later, Refrigerator
program
NAME
TITLE
PROGRAM
DATE
PHONE
EMAIL
INTERVIEWER

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
[Include highlights of interview here]

INTRODUCTION
Hi, my name is ___ and I am calling from Applied Energy Group on behalf of Idaho Power
Company. We are working with Idaho Power to evaluate their See Ya Later, Refrigerator
program. I’m calling to ask you a few questions about the implementation of the program
to help determine what is working and what might be improved.
• [IF THEY DON’T WANT TO TALK NOW, TRY TO GET A GOOD TIME TO CALL THEM
BACK.]
• [IF RESPONDENT PROPOSES AN ALTERNATE CONTACT, OBTAIN NAME, BEST NUMBER
AT WHICH TO REACH THE CONTACT, AND ANY INFO REGARDING BEST TIME TO CALL]

BACKGROUND
1. Please provide a brief description of the services you provide for Idaho Power’s See Ya
Later, Refrigerator Program.
2. Please describe your job responsibilities related to the program.
3. What other staff at your company work on the program? What is their role regarding the
program (i.e. what are the responsible for with regard to the program)? Who, if anyone,
provides you with support? What support do they provide?

PROGRAM GOALS
4. What metrics do you use to track your success implementing this program? (e.g.
participation rates, number of units)?
5. How is the program performing in regards to these metrics?

PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION AND MARKETING
6. Describe your communications and working relationship with Idaho Power? Are there areas that could be improved?
7. What is the target market for the program? How are potential customers identified?

See Ya Later, Refrigerator Program Impact & Process Evaluation
Applied Energy Group, Inc. 22
8. What are the main barriers to participation? What is being done to address these
barriers?
9. What has been done to market the program? How successful have these strategies been?

PROGRAM OPERATIONS
10. Please briefly describe how the program operates? What is the sequence of steps for the
implementation?
11. Are there any specific aspects of the program that are working very well? Any not working well? (Probe for details) What could be done to improve the program?
12. How has the elimination of the incentive affected the program? What strategies could be implemented to help overcome any negative effectives of eliminating the incentive?
13. How does this program compare to other programs appliance cycling programs you
implement? Any lessons learned or take-a-ways from other programs that could benefit
Idaho Power?
14. Are customers satisfied with the program overall? Have you heard any feedback about
eliminating the incentive?
15. What is the typical program life cycle for appliance recycling programs? Is there a
predictable ebb and flow in terms of participation? What strategies do other utilities use
to reach their participation goals?
16. What do you see as future challenges to the program?

CONCLUSION
17. Is there anything else about the program that you feel is important, that I haven’t discussed in this interview? Do you have any other suggestions for improvements or
changes to the program?

Applied Energy Group, Inc. 500 Ygnacio Valley Road, Suite 250 Walnut Creek, CA 94596
P: 510.982.3525 F: 925.284.3147

I

P
P
R

CLEAResult, 2
Irrig
2015
ecember 2
PREPARE
REPARE
EPORTIN
014
atio
Impa
3, 2015
D BY CLEA
D FOR Idaho
G PERIOD
n P
ct Ev
esult
Power Co
uly 15 – u
eak
aluati
pany
ust 15 201
We
Rew
on

change t
ards
he way pe
Pr
ople use
ogra
energyTM
m
P
T
E
I
B
I
F
C

L
L

Peak Rewards P
Table of
xecutive S
ntroduction
Background ..
mpact Evalu
ethodology
Findings ......
Curtailment E
ounterfactu
Conclusions
ist of T
Table 1. Erro
able 2. Num
able 3: Esti
able 4. Loa
able 5: June
able 6: June
able 7: July
able 8: July
able 9: Aug
able 10: Au
able 11. Co
List of Fi
Figure 1: Jun
igure 2: Jun
igure 3: July
igure 4: July
igure 5: Aug
igure 6: Aug
igure 7: Cou
ogram
Contents
mmary........
....................
.....................
tion Goals ...
....................
.....................
vent Results
l Realization
....................
bles
r Code Key ...
ber of Pump
ated Dema
Remaining
29th Curtail
29th Curtail
nd Curtailm
nd Curtailm
st 11th Curt
ust 11th Cur
nterfactual r
gures
e 29th Curtail
29th Curtail
2nd Curtail
2nd Curtail
ust 11th Curt
ust 11th Curt
nterfactual R

.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
Rate Result
.....................
.....................
by Processi
d Reduction
ate Investig
ent Event
ent Event R
nt Event Re
nt Event: B
ilment Event
ailment Eve
alization rat
ent Event L
ent Event
ent Event L
ent Event R
ailment Even
ailment Even
ealization Ra

....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
...................
....................
....................
g Step .......
nd the Res
tion Results
esults ..........
sults by Ho
ults ............
seline Resul
Results .......
t Results by
s for 15-day
ad Profile (
ealization R
ad Profile (A
alization Ra
t Load Profil
t Realization
te by Date ...
.....................
....................
.....................
....................
....................
.....................
.....................
....................
.....................
.....................
....................
lting Realiza
....................
....................
r ..................
....................
s by Hour ....
....................
Hour ............
summer peri
ll Dispatch
te ................
l Dispatch G
e ..................
(All Dispatc
Rate ............
....................
.....................
....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
ion Rate ......
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
ods in 2015 .
roups) .........
.....................
oups) ...........
.....................
Groups) .....
.....................
.....................
We chang
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
De
the way peopl
.....................
....................
.....................
....................
....................
.....................
.....................
....................
.....................
.....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
ember 2015
i
use energy
.............. ii
.............. 1
.............. 1
.............. 1
.............. 1
.............. 3
.............. 4
............ 13
............ 15
............. 2
............. 3
............. 4
............. 5
............. 6
............. 6
............. 8
............. 9
........... 11
........... 12
........... 14
............. 7
............. 8
........... 10
........... 10
........... 13
........... 13
........... 15
P E
I
i
i
t
I
t
t
t
i

eak Rewards P
Executiv
daho Power
ewards pro
gricultural ir
the progra
uring three
ach busines
LEAResult
ontaining fo
f the curtail
espectively,
clude line l
aximum de
eport do not
veraging 60.
he results o
xpected real
xpected real
ugust 15) dr
ff during the
o weeks of
orresponds
daho Power
he percent o
o the last we
he growing s
he results o
tended, and
rid.
ogram
e Summ
Company co
ram, a volun
igation custo
in 2015. Th
urtailment e
day during
ompleted an
r dispatch gr
ent event an
or the three
sses which a
and reducti
nclude line l
5%.
the counterf
ization rate.
ization rate o
ops off signif
baseline peri
June, which
o a shift to a
ay maximiz
pumps that
k of June a
ason.
the impact e
, if properly
ary
ntracted CLE
ary demand
ers since 2
e goals of th
ents and det
he program’
alyses of cur
ups that cu
alyses show
vents, and a
ccording to I
ns are 305.
sses. The e
ctual realiza
hile the firs
68.6%, the
cantly, to an
od in the firs
s a shift of t
earlier gro
the progra
re shut off d
d first week
valuation sh
aintained, c
Result to c
response (D
04. There w
impact eval
rmine the c
June 15th -
ailment eve
tailed enrolle
d maximum
n average of
aho Power,
, 300.3, and
ents achiev
tion rate ana
quarter of th
xpected rea
average of 4
two weeks
o weeks fro
ing season i
’s realizatio
uring the bas
f July, howe
w that Idaho
n be relied
mplete an i
) program t
ere approxi
ation were t
unterfactual
ugust 15th s
ts held on Ju
d irrigation p
demand red
244.1 MW
verage 9.7
197.7 MW re
d realization
ysis demons
e program s
ization rate i
.1%. This is
f August. Th
2014 peak
2015.
rate by cho
eline period i
er it is depe
Power’s Irrig
n to provide
pact evaluati
at has been
ately 2,250 i
determine
realization ra
ason.
ne 29th, July
mps in rollin
ctions of 27
easured at t
ercent. Whe
spectively. A
rates of 69.0
rated that d
ason (June
the last thr
due to a hig
counterfact
ounterfactu
sing to hold
s minimized.
dent on we
ation Peak
ispatchable
We chang
on of the 201
available to I
rigation serv
he demand r
te had an ev
2nd, and Aug
g four-hour i
.3, 273.8, an
e meter. Th
n line losses
alysis and t
, 67.9%, a
te has a larg
5 - July 30)
e quarters o
er percenta
al realizatio
l realization
curtailment
This time pe
ther and the
ewards Prog
demand red
De
the way peopl
5 Irrigation
daho Power’
ce locations
duction (in
nt been call
st 11th, 201
crements. T
d 180.2 MW,
se results d
are included
bles contain
d 44.7%, re
influence o
howed an a
the season
e of pumps
rate peaks i
imeframe. T
vents on da
iod generall
timing of the
ram function
ction to the
ember 2015
ii
use energy
eak

enrolled
W)
d on
, each
e results

not

d in this
pectively,
the
erage
July 1 –
eing shut
n the last
is
s when
equates
launch of
as
lectricity
P
I
T
a
p
p
h
A
d
s
a
i
I
I
i
l
M
D
eak Rewards P
ntroduc
ackgrou
The Irrigation
gricultural ir
articipating i
rogram, Ida
ours, the ho
fter the 201
ue to the 20
eries of stak
greed to rei
frastructure
ugust 15 pr
mpact Ev
daho Power
rogram. Thi
1. Dete
2. Dete
seas
he results c
lectricity gri
form as to
ad reductio
Methodolo
The section b
ethodology
etermining t
Data Source
CLEAResult
ources provi
0 meter inte
roup, pump
vent day. All
ee Table 1 f
ogram
tion
d
Peak Rewar
igation custo
rigation pum
o Power has
rs driving Id
Peak Rewa
3 Integrated
holder enga
state the pro
In 2014, an
gram seaso
aluation G
contracted C
2015 impac
mine and ve
mine counte
n
ntained in th
and provide
hich days d
impact.
gy
elow describ
or gathering
e curtailmen
s
conducted th
ed by Idaho
val data (ho
umber, nom
interval met
r a list of er
s Program i
ers since 2
ps during su
been succe
ho Power’s
ds program
Resource Pl
ement sess
ram in 201
again in 20
.
oals
LEAResult to
evaluation
ify the dema
factual realiz
is report will
more accura
ring the prog
s the data u
and process
t event and
2015 Irrigat
Power: Auto
rly kW readi
inated kW,
r data includ
or codes incl
a voluntary
04. The pro
mer peak d
sful in reduc
otential futu
eason, Idah
an (IRP) not
ons in 2013,
on a limited
5, the progr
complete an
ad two prim
d reduction
tion rate ha
nable Idaho
e estimates
ram season
ed to compl
ng data, det
ounterfactua
on Peak Re
mated Meter
gs), and a p
eter number,
ed error cod
ded in the d
DR program
ram is desig
mand hours
ng load duri
e need for n
Power elec
howing a n
Idaho Powe
basis for the
m complete
impact eval
ry goals:
MW) during
an event b
Power to be
f the progra
ould be exp
te the impa
rmining the
realization r
ards impact
Infrastructur
ogram parti
and opt-out
s for cases
ata.
which has b
ned to reduc
in return for
g the summ
w generatio
ed to suspe
ed for DR re
and the Ida
purpose of
three curtail
ation of the
minimum o
en called on
ter define th
’s load red
cted to provi
t evaluation,
aseline, cal
tes.
evaluation th
(AMI) inter
ipant list. Th
status for ea
here the so
We chang
en available
peak load
financial in
r afternoon
resources.
d the progra
ources until
o Public Utili
aintaining th
ment events
015 Irrigatio
three test e
each busine
impact of th
ction to futu
de the highe
the sampling
ulating the d
rough the us
al data (hou
participant l
h enrolled p
rce data wa
De
the way peopl
to Idaho Po
y turning off
entive. Thro
nd early eve
m for the 201
2016. fter h
ties Commis
program
during the Ju
Peak Rewa
ents
s day during
program o
e IRP proce
t realization
plan, the
mand reduc
of three pri
ly kW readin
ist included
mp and curt
missing or
ember 2015
1
use energy
er’s
gh this
ning
3 season
olding a
ion
ne 15 -
rds
the
the
ses and
rate and
ion, and
ary data
s), MV-
ispatch
ilment
stimated.
P
E

S
D
t
t
t
D
C
t
t
t
t
i
eak Rewards P
able 1. Error C
Error Code
1
9
Q
Sampling Pl
The use of A
articipants (i
Data Gatheri
CLEAResult
reated a con
leaning) of t
resence of e
eriod or in t
he results of
hereby mis
inally, befor
nd 2 pumps
pically large
o groups, a
ufficient dat
ate from opti
isleading re
Determine B
CLEAResult
ourth, third,
receding the
ump operat
ummed eac
Calculate De
CLEAResult
urtailment e
he hourly de
ispatch grou
he dispatch
ote that the
he program,
he presence
ealization rat
order to es
ogram
de Key
Descript
Power O
Missing
Estimate
an
MI and MV-9
.e. all partici
ng and Proc
processed all
sistent and a
e data invol
rror codes, a
e baseline p
his method
ing values w
completing
(which have
r and manua
nd the fact th
to analyze (
n 1 and 2 p
ults.
aseline
determined t
nd second h
curtailment
rs manually
pump’s bas
mand Redu
calculated th
ent from the
and reducti
p. The total
roup results.
demand red
ot just thos
of error code
e (see sectio
imate the tot
ion
utage
eading
Reading
data allowe
ants were co
essing
data provide
ppropriate d
ed identifyin
l AMI data w
riod were re
howed statis
re estimate
he following
irect load c
ly controlled
at the results
ee the begi
mps in the a
e baseline k
urs precedi
vent was no
hutting off t
line by disp
ction
e demand red
pump’s base
ns for all pu
rogram impa

ction results
analyzed. A
during the
below) to t
l demand re

d the impact
nsidered in t
by Idaho P
ta format for
and addres
th one or mo
oved from t
tically signifi
using linear
steps below,
ntrol devices
. This was d
from pumps
ning of the F
nalysis datas
load separ
g the beginn
included in
e pump prior
tch group to
uction for ea
line load (de
ps within a
ct (both aver
presented in
discussed
urtailment e
e nominated
duction achi
valuation’s
e analysis).
wer using th
all three curt
ing error co
re error code
he analysis. I
ant results c
interpolation
two distinct
installed), a
one to accou
analyzed we
indings secti
et to option
tely for eac
ing of each p
he baseline
to the start
arrive at a u
h pump by s
ermined in t
ispatch gro
ge and max
this report re
bove, some
ent and/or b
kW of pump
ved during e
ampling pla
e analytics p
ilment even
es in the so
in the interv
n the 2014
mpared to a

atasets wer
d the other i
nt for differe
re extrapolat
n for details
pumps not i
pump by av
umps’ curtail
eterminatio
f the curtail
ique baselin
ubtracting its
e previous s
p to yield a t
mum reducti
present the
pumps were
seline perio
removed a
ach curtailm
We chang
to be a cen
atform SAS
s. CLEARes
rce AMI dat
l readings d
eak Reward
n alternative
created: on
cluding opti
t device failu
d to pumps
. Extrapolati
the analysi
raging the i
ment event.
due to the f
ent event. C
for each di
kW load dur
ep). CLEAR
tal hourly re
n) was calc
stimated red
removed fro
. CLEARes
part of the
nt event.
De
the way peopl
us of progra
. The use of
l ’s processi
. To addres
ring the curt
impact eval
method test
including o
n 3 pumps (
re rates bet
hat did not h
g the device
dataset wo
terval readi
he first hour
equent pract
EAResult th
patch group.
ing each hou
sult then ag
duction for e
lated by ag
uction for all
the analysi
lt applied th
ata cleaning
ember 2015
2
use energy

AS®
ng (i.e.
the
ailment
ation,
d
tions 1
hich are
een the
ave
failure
ld lead to
gs in the
ce of
n

r of the
regated
ch
regating
umps in
due to

process
P
D
i
D
I
t
t

F
P
I
I

eak Rewards P
Determine C
CLEAResult
alculated in
cluded in th
Determine C
n order to inf
ate for each
ealization rat
hat date. Sta
ot present d
evice failure
he estimated
Findings
The 2015 im
nd realizatio
elow first co
resent the r
ounterfactua
able 2 belo
umber of pu
able 2. Number
Processing
ncluded in P
o AMI data
emoved du
emoved du
emoved du
emoved du
ncluded in fi
ogram
urtailment E
determined t
he previous
analysis.
ounterfactu
orm future pr
on-weeken
e is the reali
ting with a r
ring each p
and “did not
counterfactu
act evaluatio
rates for th
pare the re
sults of the
l realization r
details the
ps remove
of Pumps by Pr
Step
articipant Lis
vailable
to ’estimate
to ‘missing
to ‘power o
to unreason
al analysis d
vent Realiza
he realization
tep (both m
al Realizatio
ogram planni
and non-hol
ation rate th
alization rat
mp’s baselin
reduce total
al realization
n of the Pea
three test e
ults from the
urtailment e
ate analysis.
umber of pu
during the
cessing Step
reading’ er
eading’ error
tage’ error c
able AMI dat
tase
tion Rate
rates for eac
ximum and
n Rate
ng, CLEARe
iday day duri
t Idaho Pow
of 100%, C
e period. Fro
nominated k
rate for eac
Rewards pr
ents compl
two analysis
ents’ deman
ps included
ata Gatherin
or code Q
code 9
de 1

dispatch gr
verage redu
ult used AM
g the progr
r likely woul
EAResult su
that total,
” rates duri
day.
gram includ
ted, and the
approaches
reduction a
in the partici
g and Proce
J
2
1
oup by dividi
tion) by the
data to esti
m season (J
have achie
btracted the
LEAResult
g the three
s two prima
ounterfactu
discussed in
d realizatio
ant list for e
sing step.
une 29
2,259
295
112
3
4
5
,840
We chang
g the dema
otal nominat
ate the cou
un 15 - ug
ed had an e
ercent of no
ubtracted th
015 curtailm
y sets of res
l realization
the Method
rate analys
ch curtailm
July 2
2,259
295
50
1
3
7
1,903
De
the way peopl
d reductions
d kW for th
terfactual re
5). The cou
ent been ca
minated load
average op
ent events to
lts: demand
rates. The s
logy section,
s as well as
nt event and
August
2,259
295
177
1
71
6
1,780
ember 2015
3
use energy
pumps
lization
terfactual
led on
that was
-out,
arrive at
reduction
ctions
and then
he
the
11
P C
(

I
t
l
l
l
l
eak Rewards P
Curtailme
Table 3 belo
nd the resul
realization ra
9th event.
f the factors
ighest impa
f the load).
able 3: Estimat
Curtailme
Event
June 29
uly 2
ugust 11
verage
oad Remain
n the 2014 P
ailure Rate.”
urtailed, wit
eam complet
ad (i.e. cont
rom the met
ategories w
fter conside
ad remainin
ad that cont
umps, are la
umps canno
o make this
ad originall
ominated k
ogram
nt Event R
w summarize
ing realizatio
te of 44.7%)
that drove d
t (average o
d Demand Red
nt
Nomin
Dem
Reduc
(M
403.
403.
403.
403.
ng Investiga
ak Rewards
In this evalu
the aim of d
ed a “ground
ributed to th
odology of t
s considere
ing the load
g category c
ributed to th
rger and ma
technically
istinction cl
in the load r
.” Table 4 b
esults
s the estimat
rate. The
or the ugu
wn the reali
29.8% of th
ction and the R
ated
nd
ion
)
De
Red
(
2 2
2 2
2 1
2 2
ion
program im
tion, the pro
termining to
up” analysis
realization r
e primary an
on an aggre
n a pump-b
uld not be e
load remain
ually turned
ave device f
ar, the pum
maining cat
low shows t
d demand re
aximum de
t 11th event t
ation rate, p
load), follo
sulting Realiza
Max
and
ction
W)
Re
78.3
3.8
0.2
4.1
act evaluati
ect team did
what extent
that categori
te), opt-out,
lysis, which
gate-basis.
-pumps basi
tirely consid
ng rate was
off by their o
ilures, they
-by-pump an
gory: “Devic
e pump-by-
duction achi
and reductio
a high of 2
mps being s
ed by load r
ion Rate
alization
Rate
69.0%
7.9%
4.7%
0.5%
n, the “Load
further anal
t was due to
ed each pu
load remaini
employed a
s, it became
red “device
ied to option
erators (i.e.
an fail to re
alysis create
e Failure (op
umps analy
ved during e
n achieved r
8.3 MW (re
hut off durin
maining (6.5
Opt-Out
Rate
2.8%
3.7%
3.0%
3.2%
Remaining
sis to identif
device failur
p into one o
g, or off in t
top down” a
lear that the
ailures.” Thi
three pumps
here is no d
uce the full
two new ca
ion 1 and 2
is’s results f
We chang
ach of the th
nged from a
lization rate
the baselin
% of the loa
Load
Remaining
Rate
7.6%
6.8%
5.2%
6.5%
ate” was incl
the reasons
s. In order t
the followin
e baseline.
proach, wh
6.5% of tota
is due to th
, which unlik
vice to fail).
mount of loa
tegories to b
umps)” and
r these two
De
the way peopl
ee curtailme
low of 180.2
f 69.0%) for
period had
), and opt-ou
Pump
OFF in
Baseline
Rate
20.5%
21.7%
47.1%
29.8%
uded in the “
for load not
do so, the
categories:
his approac
re the load i
l nominated l
fact that ~5
option one
While the o
that they n
tter charact
Did Not Red
ategories.
ember 2015
4
use energy
t events
MW
the June
he
ts (3.2%
Total
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
evice
eing
roject
reduced
differed
all
ad in the
% of the
nd two
tion three
minated.
rize the
uce Total
P
C

(

J
eak Rewards P
able 4. Load R
Curtailment
June 29
uly 2
ugust 11
verage
ote that the
6.2% compa
ggregate ap
ump approa
vent-specifi
June 29th Cu
The results o
ates, with bo
ombined. Ta
ealization rat
s seen in th
emand redu
roup. The 3-
ispatch grou
9.0%., whic
ogram
maining Rate In
Event (opti
sum of the t
ed to 6.5%).
roach (i.e. a
h categoriz
results belo
rtailment Ev
f the individu
h metrics re
ble 5 below
es for the Ju
table, each
tion ranged
7 p.m. dispat
p had the lo
was the hig
estigation Res
Device Failur
on 1 & 2 pu
3.5%
3.6%
1.6%
2.9%
o new categ
This is due
single pump
s 100% of e
do not sep
ent
al curtailment
orted by dis
resents the
e 29th event.
dispatch gro
rom 98.0 M
ch group ach
est realizati
est of the th
lts
e
ps)
Di
ories do not
o the primar
s load may
ch pump’s l
rate the loa
event analys
atch group,
aximum an

p’s contribut
for the 5-9
ieved the hig
n rate at 60.
ee curtailme
d Not Redu
Nominated
option 3 pu
5.2%
2.2%
2.4%
3.3%
quate exactl
analysis co
e contributin
ad into a sin
remaining c
es include e
s well as th
average de
ion to the tot
.m. dispatc
hest realizati
%. The over
t events call
ce Total
kW
ps)
y to the prim
sidering the
to multiple
le category.
tegory into t
timated dem
cumulative i
and reducti
l demand re
group to 45.
n rate of all
ll realizatio
ed in 2015.
We chang
Total
8.7%
5.8%
4.0%
6.2%
ry analysis’s
load remaini
ategories);
Because of t
e two new
and reductio
mpact of all
ns achieve
uction is no
5 MW for th
groups (81.0
rate for all d
De
the way peopl
load remaini
g rate on an
hereas, the
his discrepa
ategories.
s and realiz
ispatch grou
and resultin
equal. The
4-8 p.m. dis
), while the
ispatch grou
ember 2015
5
use energy
ng rate
ump-by-
cy, the
tion
ps

aximum
atch
4-8 p.m.
s was
P
D
N

t
t

I
t
M
eak Rewards P
able 5: June 29
Dispatch Gr
2 - 6 p.m.
- 7 p.m.
- 8 p.m.
- 9 p.m.
otal (2 - 9 p.
Notes:
- Realization
- Dispatch gr
- Each dispat
ntire pump p
ealization rat
- The estimat
ime period. B
he dispatch g
n order to in
or each hour
otal reductio
able 6: June 29
Metric
Baseline (M
otal Load (
otal Reducti
aseline (M
-6pm DG R
rom Baselin
-7pm DG R
rom Baselin
-8pm DG R
rom Baselin
-9pm DG R
rom Baselin
ogram
h Curtailment E
oup No

.)
rate is calcul
up realizatio
h group’s ba
pulation (not
.
d maximum
cause the m
roups' maxim
vestigate de
of the curtail
(278.3 MW)
h Curtailment E
)
W)
n from
)
duction
(MW)
duction
(MW)
duction
(MW)
duction
(MW)
ent Results
minated

87.6
1.2
5.4
49.0
03.2
ated using ma
rates were
eline, maxi
only the pum
emand redu
ximum dema
m demand r
mand reductio
ent event b
as this is th
ent Results by
2-3pm
309.1
239.9
69.2
63.0
6.5
0.0
(0.4)
Baseline M
73.1
70.5
54.4
111.1
309.1
ximum dema
alculated usi
um demand r
ps in the ana
tion within ea
nd reduction
ductions do
n on a more
dispatch gr
single hour
ou
3-4pm
309.1
164.8
144.3
63.9
73.4
6.6
0.4
W Max D
Reducti
64
73
45
98
27
nd reduction,
g only pump
duction, and
ysis dataset)
ch dispatch g
occur at diff
ot equal the
granular level
up. As expe
hen all disp
4-5pm
309.1
119.7
189.4
63.8
73.9
44.7
7.1
emand
n (MW)R
4.0
.9
.5
.0
.3
not average d
in the analy
average red
and were sc
roup is limite
rent hours f
"Total (2-9 p.
, Table 6 bel
cted, the 5-6
tch groups
5-6pm 6
309.1
30.8
278.3
64.0
73.5
45.5
95.3
We chang
Avg. Deman
duction (M
58.3
56.1
20.2
88.6
223.2
emand reduc
sis dataset.
ction values
led up using
to each dis
r each dispat
.)" maximu
ow breaks o
m hour exp
re actively c
-7pm 7-
309.1 3
68.3 1
40.8 1
24.5
72.8
45.4
98.0
De
the way peopl
d
)
Reali
R
73.
81.
60.
65.
69.
tion.
re estimate
the “Total 2-
atch group's
ch group, the
demand red
ut demand re
rienced the l
rtailing.
8pm 8-
09.1 3
30.3 1
78.8 1
5.9
0.9
4.5 1
7.6 9
ember 2015
6
use energy
zation
te
1%
%
%
%
%
d for the
p.m.”
event
sum of
ction.
duction
argest
9pm
09.1
2.3
6.8
.8
.7
6.8
6.5
P
t

(
(
t
eak Rewards P
igure 1 belo
he results fr
s the variou
igure 1: June 2
igure 2 belo
uccessfully
he reasons
umps being
option 1 and
ategories ar
he 4-8 p.m.
29.1% of the
o 4.4%. Real
0.0
50.0
100.0
150.0
200.0
250.0
300.0
350.0
MW
rogram
presents th
m Table 6 a
dispatch gr
th Curtailment E
depicts ea
urtailed, as
or load not b
shut off durin
2 pumps), a
combined i
ispatch gro
group’s nom
ization rate v
10
a
m
-
1
1
a
m
11
a
m
-
1
2
p
m
e load profile
ove. The ov
ups’ curtail
ent Load Profil
h dispatch g
ell as the co
ing success
g the baselin
d pumps not
to the load r
p experienc
inated load).
riability bet
12
p
m
-
1
p
m
1p
m
-
2
p
m
of the June
rall demand
ent periods
(All Dispatch
oup’s realiza
ponents th
ully curtaile
e period (an
curtailing to
maining cat
d the highes
ll of the dis
een the disp
2p
m
-
3
p
m
3p
m
-
4
p
m
Estimated L
9th curtailm
reduction pe
ome to an e
roups)
tion rate, whi
t make up th
include cust
thus not co
otal nominat
gory.
rate of the
atch groups
atch groups
4p
m
-
5
p
m
5p
m
-
6
p
m
ad B
nt event and
ks in the 5-
d.
ch is the per
e remainder
mers opting
tributing to l
ed kW (optio
umps being
had a mode
as highest
6p
m
-
7
p
m
7p
m
-
8
p
m
seline
We chang
its baseline,
pm hour and
ent of nomin
of the load th
out of the c
ad reduction
3 pumps).
hut off durin
ate opt-out r
uring the Ju
8p
m
-
9
p
m
9p
m
-
1
0
p
m
De
the way peopl
graphically d
gradually de
ated load th
at was not c
rtailment ev
), device fail
The latter tw
the baselin
te, ranging f
e 29th event.
10
p
m
-
1
1
p
m
11
p
m
-
1
2
p
m
ember 2015
7
use energy
picting
creases

t was
rtailed.
nt,
res

period
om 3.0%

P

J
D
N

Peak Rewards P
igure 2: June 2
July 2nd Curt
The July 2nd
vent, the 2-
ealization rat
alled in 201
able 7: July 2n
Dispatch Gr
2 - 6pm
- 7pm
- 8pm
- 9pm
otal (2 - 9P
Notes:
- Realizatio
- Dispatch g
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Real
ogram
th Curtailment E
ailment Eve
curtailment e
p.m. dispatc
e for all disp
.
Curtailment Ev
oup Nomi

)
n rate is cal
roup realiza
All Groups
ization Rate
ent Realization
nt
vent was the
group achi
tch groups
nt Results
nated M B
87.6
1.2
5.4
49.0
03.2
ulated usin
ion rates w
2-6P
Opt-out R
Rate
econd event
ved the high
as 67.9%, w
Baseline M
73.9
64.7
55.4
107.1
301.1
g maximum d
re calculate
M
Dis
ate Pump
called of the
st realizatio
ich was the
W Max D
Reducti
6
6
4
9
27
emand redu
d using only
3-7PM
patch Group
OFF in Basel
2015 progra
rate (77.3%
second high
emand
n (MW) R
7.7
.1
.3
.2
.8
ction, not av
pumps in t
4-8PM
ine Rate
We chang
season.
) of all dispat
st of the thr
Avg. Dema
eduction (M
65.0
66.1
48.9
92.1
272.1
verage dema
e analysis
M 5
Load Remain
De
the way peopl
in the June
ch groups. T
e curtailmen
nd
W)
Reali
R
77
72
65
62
67
nd reduction
ataset.
5-9PM
ng Rate
ember 2015
8
use energy

29th
e overall
events
zation
te
.3%
.5%
.5%
.5%
.9%
.
P

I
M

t
eak Rewards P
- Each disp
stimated fo
sing the “T
- The estim
roup's even
ispatch gro
.m." maxi
n order to in
or each hour
xperienced t
urtailing.
able 8: July 2n
Metric
Baseline (M
otal Load (
otal Reducti
aseline (M
-6pm DG R
aseline (M
-7pm DG R
aseline (M
-8pm DG R
aseline (M
-9pm DG R
aseline (M
igure 3 belo
esults from
he various di
ogram
atch group’s
the entire
tal 2-9 p.m.
ted maximu
t time perio
p, the sum
um demand
vestigate de
of the curtail
he largest to
Curtailment Ev
)
W)
n from
)
duction from
)
duction from
)
duction from
)
duction from
)
presents th
able 8 abov
patch group
baseline, m
ump popula
realization
demand r
. Because t
f the dispa
reduction.
mand reductio
ent event b
al reduction
nt: Baseline Re
2-3pm
301.1
234.2
66.8
63.3
4.3
0.2
(0.9)
e load profile
. The overall
’ curtailmen
aximum dem
ion (not onl
rate.
duction wit
e maximum
ch groups'
n on a more
dispatch gr
273.8 MW),
ults by Hou
3-4pm
301.1
162.4
138.6
63.4
66.1
8.3
0.9
of the July 2
demand red
periods co
and reductio
the pumps
in each dis
demand re
aximum de
granular level
up. As expe
s this is the
4-5pm 5
301.1
113.9
187.2
65.6
66.1
49.1
6.4
nd curtailmen
ction peaks
e to an end.
n, and aver
in the analy
atch group
uctions occ
and reduct
, Table 8 bel
cted, the ho
ingle hour
5-6pm 6-
301.1 3
27.2 6
73.8 2
67.6 2
66.1 6
49.3 4
90.7 9
event and it
in the 5-6pm

We chang
age reductio
sis dataset),
s limited to
r at differe
ons do not
ow breaks o
r between 5
hen all disp
7pm 7-8
01.1 30
5.6 12
5.5 17
7.0 7.
6.1 22
9.3 48
3.2 93
baseline, g
hour and gr
De
the way peopl
n values are
and were s
ach dispat
t hours for
qual the "T
ut demand re
nd 6 p.m.
tch groups a
pm 8-9p
1.1 301.
.5 185.
.6 115.
4.7
.6 4.4
.1 15.
.1 91.
aphically de
dually decre
ember 2015
9
use energy
caled up
h
ach
tal (2-9
duction
e actively
m
1

icting the
ses as
P eak Rewards P
igure 3: July 2n
igure 4 belo
xperienced t
ominated lo
ispatch grou
roups havin
igure 4: July 2n
0.0
50.0
100.0
150.0
200.0
250.0
300.0
350.0
MW
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Real
ogram
Curtailment E
depicts ea
he highest ra
d), while the
p’s rate of pu
a rate of 23
Curtailment E
10
a
m
-
1
1
a
m
11
a
m
-
1
2
p
m
ll Groups
ization Rate
ent Load Profile
h dispatch g
te of the pu
3-7 p.m. dis
mps being s
27%.
ent Realization
12
p
m
-
1
p
m
1p
m
-
2
p
m
2-6P
Opt-out R
(All Dispatch G
oup’s realiza
ps being sh
atch group
ut off during
ate
2p
m
-
3
p
m
3p
m
-
4
p
m
Estimated L
Dis
ate Pump
oups)
tion rate for t
t off during t
ad the highe
the baseline
4p
m
-
5
p
m
5p
m
-
6
p
m
ad B
3-7PM
patch Group
OFF in Basel
he July 2nd e
e baseline p
t load remai
was 6.4%, c
6p
m
-
7
p
m
7p
m
-
8
p
m
seline
4-8PM
ine Rate
We chang
ent. The 3-7
riod (27.2%
ing rate (7.
mpared to t
8p
m
-
9
p
m
9p
m
-
1
0
p
m
oad Remain
De
the way peopl
p.m. dispatc
of the group’
%). The 2-6
e other thre
10
p
m
-
1
1
p
m
11
p
m
-
1
2
p
m
-9PM
ng Rate
ember 2015
10
use energy

h group
s
.m.
dispatch

P A
l
(
D
N

I
eak Rewards P
August 11th
The third curt
as been call
west realiza
49.2%). The
.m. dispatch
able 9: August
Dispatch Gr
2 - 6pm
- 7pm
- 8pm
- 9pm
otal (2 - 9P
Notes:
- Realizatio
- Dispatch g
- Each disp
stimated fo
sing the “T
- The estim
roup's even
ispatch gro
.m." maxi
n order to in
or each hour
xperienced t
urtailing.
ogram
Curtailment
ailment even
d in the 201
tion rate (44.
realization ra
group and a
1th Curtailment
oup No

1
) 4
n rate is cal
roup realiza
tch group’s
the entire
tal 2-9 p.m.
ted maximu
t time perio
p, the sum
um demand
vestigate de
of the curtail
he largest to
Event
t of the 2015
and 2015 s
%) of all thr
tes were fairl
low of 42.4
Event Results
minated

87.6
1.2
5.4
9.0
3.2
ulated usin
ion rates w
baseline, m
ump popula
realization
demand r
. Because t
f the dispa
reduction.
mand reductio
ent event b
al reduction
rogram sea
easons. Wit
e events, dr
consistent
for the 5-9 p
Baseline M
43.6
45.4
41.1
71.0
201.0
g maximum d
re calculate
ximum dem
ion (not onl
rate.
duction wit
e maximum
ch groups'
n on a more
dispatch gr
180.2 MW),
on was held
the irrigatio
ven by a hig
cross all dis
.m. dispatch
W Max De
Reducti
40
44
35
63
18
emand redu
d using only
nd reductio
the pumps
in each dis
demand re
aximum de
granular level
up. As expe
s this is the
on August 1
season ne
rate of pum
atch groups
group.
mand
n (MW)Re
.4
2
4
1
.2
ction, not av
pumps in t
n, and aver
in the analy
atch group
uctions occ
and reduct
, Table 10 b
cted, the ho
ingle hour
We chang
th, which is t
rly finished,
ps off in the
, with a high
Avg. Demand
duction (M
39.9
43.6
35.1
62.5
181.1
verage dema
e analysis
ge reductio
sis dataset),
s limited to
r at differe
ons do not
elow breaks
r between 5
hen all disp
De
the way peopl
e latest dat
he event ac
aseline peri
f 48.5% for

)
Realiza
Rat
46.1
48.5
46.9
42.4
44.7
nd reduction
ataset.
values are
and were s
ach dispat
t hours for
qual the "T
out demand r
nd 6 p.m.
tch groups a
ember 2015
11
use energy
an event
ieved the
d
he 3-7
tion

%

.
aled up
h
ach
tal (2-9
eduction
e actively
P
M

t
eak Rewards P
able 10: Augus
Metric
Baseline (M
otal Load (
otal Reducti
aseline (M
-6pm DG R
aseline (M
-7pm DG R
aseline (M
-8pm DG R
aseline (M
-9pm DG R
aseline (M
igure 5 belo
he results fr
ecreases as
vents, the e
ue to the ta
eriod.
ogram
11th Curtailme
)
W)
n from
)
duction from
)
duction from
)
duction from
)
duction from
)
presents th
m Table 10
the various
timated load
ering off of t
t Event Results
2-3pm
201.0
156.8
44.2
40.1
4.3
(0.3)
0.2
e load profile
bove. The o
ispatch grou
does not co
e irrigation s
by Hou
3-4pm
201.0
114.1
86.9
39.5
44.2
3.4
(0.2)
of the ugu
erall deman
s’ curtailme
e close to r
ason and ir
4-5pm 5
201.0
78.4
122.6
39.5
44.1
34.7
4.4
t 11th curtail
reduction p
t periods co
gaining its p
igators turni
5-6pm 6-
201.0 2
20.8 4
80.2 1
40.3 1
43.2 4
35.1 3
61.6 6
ent event a
aks in the 5
e to an end
e-event leve
g off their pu
We chang
7pm 7-8
01.0 20
4.9 79
6.2 12
5.0 4.
2.9 18
5.3 35
3.1 63
d its baselin
6p.m. hour a
. Interestingl
after the ev
mps perman
De
the way peopl
pm 8-9p
1.0 201.
.6 114.
.4 86.1
1 1.1
.8 10.
.4 12.
.1 62.
, graphicall
nd gradually
, unlike the
nt ends. Thi
ntly during t
ember 2015
12
use energy
m
0

depicting
ther two
s is likely
is time
P

T
r
Peak Rewards P
igure 5: August
igure 6 belo
roup experi
etween the
igure 6: August
Counterfa
The 2015 im
ealization rat
0.0
50.0
100.0
150.0
200.0
250.0
MW
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Real
ogram
11th Curtailmen
depicts ea
nced the hig
ispatch grou
11th Curtailmen
ctual Reali
pact evaluatio
e that would
10
a
m
-
1
1
a
m
11
a
m
-
1
2
p
m
ll Groups
ization Rate
Event Load Pr
h dispatch g
est realizati
ps was lowe
Event Realizati
zation Rat
n also includ
ave been a
12
p
m
-
1
p
m
1p
m
-
2
p
m
2-6P
Opt-out R
file (All Dispatc
oup’s realiza
n rate of all
t in the ug
on Rate
e Results
ed an investi
hieved had
2p
m
-
3
p
m
3p
m
-
4
p
m
Estimated L
Dis
ate Pump
Groups)
tion rate for t
he dispatch
st 11th event
ation into th
n event bee
4p
m
-
5
p
m
5p
m
-
6
p
m
ad B
3-7PM
patch Group
OFF in Basel
he ugust 11
roups at 57.
of all three 2
counterfact
called on e
6p
m
-
7
p
m
7p
m
-
8
p
m
seline
4-8PM
ine Rate
We chang
th event. The
%. Realizati
15 events.
al realizatio
ch business
8p
m
-
9
p
m
9p
m
-
1
0
p
m
oad Remain
De
the way peopl
4-8 p.m. dis
on rate varia
rate, or the
day of the pr
10
p
m
-
1
1
p
m
11
p
m
-
1
2
p
m
-9PM
ng Rate
ember 2015
13
use energy

atch
ility

gram
P
D
R

i
eak Rewards P
eason. The
xpected real
able 11 bel
f the progra
5% of the s
hut off durin
able 11. Count
Date
ange
Jun 15 - 30
Jul 1 - 15
ul 16 - 31
ug 1 - 15
igure 7 belo
015 progra
rogram sea
eaking earli
rigation sea
ogram
esults of the
ization rate, l
w demonstra
season av
ason drops
the baselin
rfactual realizati
Average
Pump OFF
in Baseline
Rate
22.1%
34.8%
45.8%
44.2%
graphically
season. Th
on’s counter
r in the prog
on beginnin
counterfactu
ading to mo
tes that date
rages an ex
ff significantl
period incre
on rates for 15-
Average
Opt-Out
Rate
3.2%
3.2%
3.2%
3.2%
presents the
expected re
actual realiz
am season i
earlier than
l realization
re informed
has a large i
ected realiz
, to an aver
asing as the
ay summer peri
Average
Failure
(option
pump
2.9
2.9
2.9
2.9
expected re
alization rate
tion rate pe
likely due t
in 2014.
rate analysis
ecisions on
fluence on t
tion rate of 6
ge of 49.1%
season prog
ds in 2015
Device
ate
& 2
)
v
R
N
R
%

lization rate
peaks on Ju
ked on July
southern Id
will inform Id
hen to call
e expected
8.6%, the ex
This is due
esses.
erage Did N
duce Total
minated k
te (option 3
pumps)
3.3%
3.3%
3.3%
3.3%
or all non-h
ne 25th at 73.
0th (at 71.6
ho having a
We chang
aho Power o
urtailment e
ealization ra
ected realiz
o the percen
ot

Counter
Realiz
Ra
68.
55.
44.
46.
liday and no
1%. Interesti
). This shift
early spring
De
the way peopl
n how date i
ents.
e. While the
tion rate in t
tage of pum
factual
tion
e
% 1
% 1
% 1
% 1
-weekend d
gly, the 201
in realization
in 2015, an
ember 2015
14
use energy
pacts
first 25%
e last
s being
Total
00.0%
00.0%
00.0%
00.0%
ys of the

rates
the
P

C
t
i
eak Rewards P
igure 7: Counte
Conclusi
The goals of
hree events
uring the pr
LEAResult
ontaining fo
f the curtail
espectively f
espectively
veraging 60.
he results o
xpected real
xpected real
ugust 15) dr
ff during the
eek of June
ounterfactua
urtailment e
ypically, this
ependent o
ealization rat
W without li
he results o
properly ma
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
rogram
factual Realizat
ons
the 2015 Pea
nd determin
gram’s June
ompleted an
r dispatch gr
ent event an
r the three e
ith line losse
5%.
the counterf
ization rate.
ization rate o
ops off signif
baseline peri
and the first
l realization r
ents on day
time period
weather an
e analysis, t
e losses an
the impact e
intained, can
on Rate by Dat
k Rewards i
the counter
15th - ugus
alyses of cur
ups that cu
alyses show
vents, and a
s. The event
ctual realiza
hile the firs
68.6%, the
cantly, to an
od as the se
eek of July,
ates. Idaho
when the p
enerally equ
the timing o
e maximum
323.3 MW
valuation sh
be relied on

pact evaluat
actual realiz
15th season.
ailment eve
tailed enrolle
d maximum
average of
achieved re
tion rate ana
quarter of th
xpected rea
average of 4
son progres
which is a s
ower may
rcent of pum
ates to the la
the launch
valuated po
ith line loss
w that Idaho
to provide di
ion were to d
tion rate ha

ts held on Ju
d irrigation p
demand red
44.1 MW wi
alization rate
ysis demons
e program s
ization rate i
.1%. This is
es. The cou
ift of two we
aximize the
ps that are s
st week of J
f the irrigatio
ential capaci
s.
Power’s Pe
patchable d
Date
etermine the
an event b
ne 29th, July
mps in rollin
ctions of 27
hout line los
s of 69.0%,
rated that d
ason (June
the last thr
due to a hig
terfactual re
ks earlier c
rogram’s re
ut off during
ne and first
n season. B
y would hav
k Rewards p
mand reduc
We chang
demand red
en called on
2nd, and Aug
g four-hour i
.3, 273.8, an
es and 305.
7.9%, and 4
te has a larg
5 - July 30)
e quarters o
er percenta
alization rate
mpared to th
lization rate
the baseline
eek of July,
sed on the c
occurred o
rogram funct
ion to the el
De
the way peopl
ction (MW)
each busine
st 11th, 201
crements. T
d 180.2 MW,
, 300.3, and
.7%, respec
influence o
howed an a
the season
e of pumps
peaks in the
e 2014 peak
by choosing
period is mi
however it is
unterfactual
June 25th w
ons as inten
ctricity grid.
ember 2015
15
use energy

uring
s day
, each
e results

197.7
ively,
the
erage
July 1 –
eing shut
last
o hold
imized.
th 294.5
ed, and,
Success Stories
Idaho Power Company Supplement 2: Evaluation
Demand-Side Management 2015 Annual Report Page 813
SUCCESS STORIES
Table 5. 2015 Success Stories
Title Program Author
Idaho Power Incentives Help Turn Wastewater into Useable Water Custom Efficiency Idaho Power
What was Dark is Now Light at Meyers Alignment Easy Upgrades Idaho Power
*All success stories written under contract with Writers, Ink. LLC.
Supplement 2: Evaluation Idaho Power Company
Page 814 Demand-Side Management 2015 Annual Report
This page left blank intentionally.

Idaho Power incentives help turn
wastewater into useable water
ENERGY STAR® certifi cation for
french fry plant
There is a specifi c ENERGY STAR program for
frozen fried-potato factories in the US,” Don said,
“and we have to qualify every year.” To meet its
strict standards, Simplot evaluates each potato
plant for how many pounds of potato products
it makes and how much energy—including
electricity, natural gas and hydrogen—it uses.
“Then we enter it into an ENERGY STAR model,
and it gives us a score,” he explained. “A score
75 or above and you’re certifi ed for that year.
Our two factories in Washington and the one in
Aberdeen that’s been consolidated into this one
have all been certifi ed by ENERGY STAR.”
To modernize and streamline its potato processing operation, the J.R.
Simplot Company announced in 2012 that it would consolidate three of its
older french fry plants into one state-of-the-art facility at its Food Group
campus in Caldwell, Idaho.
“Th is new, larger factory uses much less water than the previous plants
but uses more water than the old factory that was here before,” said Don
Strickler, Simplot’s energy effi ciency engineer, “so we knew we had to
upgrade our wastewater treatment plant.”
Wastewater that’s not wasted
Simplot uses water throughout the potato product manufacturing process
and looks for opportunities to reduce its water use wherever possible.
“We use water to wash the potatoes when they come in off the fi eld,”
Don explained, “move them from one station to the other, push them
through the cutters and carry off the potato waste.” And every drop of water
goes through the treatment plant at the end of a shift.
“We don’t discharge to municipalities or the river,” said John Prigge,
a Simplot environmental manager. “Th e water we don’t recycle back to the
plant, we use to irrigate our own fi elds.”
What’s more, the water produced from the treatment plant meets
drinking-water standards. “You could drink the water from that plant,”
John noted.
Custom Effi ciency
For Complex Projects
The savings
Idaho Power incentives helped upgrade multiple components in the plant.
Two components of the upgrade included the following:
1. High-effi ciency turbo blowers aerate the water in the holding ponds
saving the company over 700,000 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year.
2. Variable-frequency drives (VFD) allow Simplot to control fl ows by
adjusting the speed of its reverse osmosis feed pumps and return water
pumps. Annual estimated power savings compared to fi xed-speed
pumps are close to 1,000,000 kWh for this portion of the project.
“While we spent more money up front,” Don said, “we knew the incentive
would off set a lot of that cost.”
Estimated savings from Idaho Power’s Easy Upgrade projects for
J.R. Simplot Caldwell French Fry Plant
Savings
(kWh/year)
Project
Cost
Savings
($/year)
Idaho
Power
Incentive
Customer
Out of
Pocket
Payback in
Years
1,711,599 $980,700 $94,138 $205,392 $775,308 8
Uncommon savings are quite common
Saving energy has always been a smart business decision. Now, Idaho Power
makes it attainable. Our complete suite of energy effi ciency programs
provides attractive incentives to commercial and industrial customers who
want to use energy wisely and reduce their utility costs.
• Th e Custom Effi ciency program off ers incentives to large
commercial and industrial customers who invest in energy-saving
improvements in their facilities.
• Easy Upgrades provides fi nancial incentives to commercial and
industrial customers who implement qualifi ed energy-saving
measures in their facilities.
• Th e Building Effi ciency program helps off set the additional
capital costs when a company upgrades its planned lighting,
cooling, controls, and building shell designs in favor of more
effi cient components.
“While Idaho Power incentives help,
Simplot invests in saving energy
because it’s the right thing to do
for the environment.”
idahopower.com/business
How much can your company save?
For more information about Idaho Power’s
energy effi ciency incentive programs, go to
idahopower.com/business or call us at
208-388-2323 within the Treasure Valley or
1-800-488-6151 outside of the Treasure Valley.
We’ll show you how you can save energy like the
J.R. Simplot Company.
Th e above success story was produced in cooperation with,
and approval from, the J.R. Simplot Company.
—Don Strickland, Energy Effi ciency
Engineer, J.R. Simplot Company
What was dark is now
light at Myers Alignment
Enjoying the classics
On Myers Alignment’s website is a photo of a
beautifully restored 1967 Pontiac Firebird.
“We do a lot of restoration work on classic cars,”
Richie said. “It’s mostly custom alignments,
suspensions and frame work, but it’s fun to see
these old classics look like new again.”
Richie’s reputation for his work on oldies-but-
goodies is growing. “People just keep rolling
them in,” he said, “so it’s helping out.”
“It used to be like a cave in here,” said Richie Myers as he stood in the
middle of his shop at Myers Alignment on the western edge of Ontario,
Oregon. “We do a lot of restoration work on classic cars. It’s mostly custom
alignments, suspensions and frame work, but it’s fun to see these old
classics look like new again.”
Richie bought the business two years ago and immediately noticed the
building’s most glaring need. “The lighting was horrible. There was one
row of eight-foot-long strips down the middle,” he said, pointing up to the
ceiling. “Some lights over near the west wall, but no lights at all on the
east wall.”
“We had to depend on drop lights that came down from the ceiling to do our
work.” Idaho Power’s Easy Upgrades program helped change all that.
The project
“We put in two rows of new four-foot fixtures up top,” he explained, “then a
row of fixtures around the walls about midway up.”
While the shop needed the most help, Richie overhauled lighting on the
entire building. Twenty-two T12 fixtures in the office and customer lounge
were upgraded to 20 T8 fixtures. Nine 400-watt, metal halide bulbs in the
shop were replaced with 16 T5s. Incandescent lamps in the restrooms
became four high-efficiency LED lamps. And finally, a high-efficiency
LED lighting package replaced the mercury vapor wall pack to light the
parking lot.
“We haven’t had a winter with the new lights yet,” Richie said with a smile,
“but we’re looking forward to shutting the doors and still being able to see.”
Easy Upgrades
For Simple Retrofits
The savings
The primary goal of the lighting upgrade was improving working conditions,
but it also reduced the shop’s energy use and, in the process, its power bill.
“It’s not a huge amount, because we added extra lights,” Richie pointed out,
“but the power bill has definitely gone down.”
Even with the additional lights, Richie’s annual energy usage dropped
by 5,786 kilowatt-hours (kWh), saving him $328 a year. Richie realized
additional savings when Idaho Power’s Easy Upgrades incentive paid more
than a third ($2,504) of the project’s $7,394 cost.
Estimated savings from Idaho Power’s Easy Upgrade projects for
Myers Alighment
Savings
(kWh/year)
Project
Cost
Savings
($/year)
Idaho
Power
Incentive
Customer
Out of
Pocket
Payback in
Years
5,786 $7,394 $328 $2,504 $4,890 14.9
Uncommon savings are quite common
Saving energy has always been a smart business decision. Now, Idaho Power
makes it attainable. Our complete suite of energy efficiency programs
provides attractive incentives to commercial and industrial customers who
want to use energy wisely and reduce their utility costs.
• The Custom Efficiency program offers incentives to large
commercial and industrial customers who invest in energy-saving
improvements in their facilities.
• Easy Upgrades provides financial incentives to commercial and
industrial customers who implement qualified energy-saving
measures in their facilities.
• The Building Efficiency program helps offset the additional
capital costs when a company upgrades its planned lighting,
cooling, controls, and building shell designs in favor of more
efficient components.
“More light. Less money. It works out great for us.”
– Richie Myers, Owner
Myers Alignment
idahopower.com/business
How much can your company save?
For more information about Idaho Power’s
energy efficiency incentive programs, go to
idahopower.com/business or call us at
208-388-2323 within the Treasure Valley or
1-800-488-6151 outside of the Treasure Valley.
We’ll show you how you can save energy like
Myers Alignment.
The above success story was produced in cooperation with,
and approval from, Myers Alignment.
WAQC Annual Report
Idaho Power Company Supplement 2: Evaluation
Demand-Side Management 2015 Annual Report Page 819
WEATHERIZATION ASSISTANCE FOR QUALIFIED CUSTOMERS
2014 ANNUAL REPORT
Supplement 2: Evaluation Idaho Power Company
Page 820 Demand-Side Management 2015 Annual Report
This page left blank intentionally.
2014
Weatherization Assistance
for Qualified Customers
2014 Annual Report
April 1, 2015
Idaho Power Company Weatherization Assistance for Qualified Customers
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table of Contents ............................................................................................................................. i
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................... i
Description .......................................................................................................................................1
Background ......................................................................................................................................1
Review of Weatherized Homes and Non-Profit Buildings By County ...........................................3
Review of Measures Installed ..........................................................................................................6
Overall Cost-Effectiveness ..............................................................................................................9
Customer Education and Satisfaction ............................................................................................15
Plans for 2015 ................................................................................................................................18

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 2014 WAQC activities and Idaho Power expenditures by agency and county ............................4
Table 2 2014 Idaho WAQC base funding and unspent funds made available ...........................................6
Table 3
2014 WAQC review of measures installed ...................................................................................7
2014 WAQC Annual Report Page i
Weatherization Assistance for Qualified Customers Idaho Power Company
This page left blank intentionally.

Page ii 2014 WAQC Annual Report
Idaho Power Company Weatherization Assistance for Qualified Customers
DESCRIPTION
The Weatherization Assistance for Qualified Customers (WAQC) program provides financial
assistance to regional Community Action Partnership (CAP) agencies in Idaho Power’s service
area. This assistance helps fund weatherization costs of electrically heated homes occupied by
qualified customers who have limited incomes. The WAQC program also provides a limited pool
of funds for the weatherization of buildings occupied by non-profit organizations serving
primarily special-needs populations, regardless of heating source, with priority given to buildings
with electric heat. Weatherization improvements enable residents to maintain a more
comfortable, safe, and energy-efficient home while reducing their monthly electricity
consumption. Improvements are available at no cost to qualified customers who own or rent their
homes. Weatherization customers also receive educational materials and efficiency ideas on
using energy wisely in their homes. Local CAP agencies determine participant eligibility
according to federal and state guidelines.
BACKGROUND
In 1989, Idaho Power began offering weatherization assistance in conjunction with the State of
Idaho Weatherization Assistance Program (WAP). Through the WAQC program, Idaho Power
provides supplemental funding to state-designated CAP agencies for the weatherization of
electrically heated homes occupied by qualified customers and buildings occupied by non-profit
organizations that serve special-needs populations. This allows CAP agencies to leverage their
federal Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) weatherization funds and
serve more people with special needs.
2014 WAQC Annual Report Page 1
Weatherization Assistance for Qualified Customers Idaho Power Company
Idaho Power oversees the program in Idaho through five regional CAP agencies. The company
has an agreement with each CAP agency that specifies the funding allotment, billing
requirements, and program guidelines. The five regional CAP agencies include CCOA—
Aging, Weatherization and Human Services (CCOA), Eastern Idaho Community Action
Partnership (EICAP), EL ADA Community Action Partnership (EL ADA), South Central
Community Action Partnership (SCCAP), and Southeastern Idaho Community Action
Agency (SEICAA). In Oregon, Community Connection of Northeast Oregon, Inc. (CCNO)
and Community in Action (CINA) provide weatherization services for qualified customers in
Idaho Power’s service area.
Idaho Power submits this Weatherization Assistance for Qualified Customers 2014 Annual
Report in compliance with the Idaho Public Utilities Commission’s (IPUC) Order No. 29505.
This report includes the following topics:
• Review of weatherized homes and non-profit buildings by county
• Review of measures installed
• Overall cost-effectiveness
• Customer education and satisfaction
• Plans for 2015
Page 2 2014 WAQC Annual Report
Idaho Power Company Weatherization Assistance for Qualified Customers
REVIEW OF WEATHERIZED HOMES AND NON-PROFIT
BUILDINGS BY COUNTY
In 2014, Idaho Power made $1,302,609 available to Idaho CAP agencies. Of the funds provided,
$1,190,073 were paid in 2014, while $112,536 were accrued for future funding. Of the funds
paid in 2014, $1,019,463 directly funded audits, energy efficiency measures, and health and
safety measures for qualified customers’ homes (production costs) in Idaho, and $101,946
funded administration costs to Idaho CAP agencies for those homes weatherized. Idaho Power
funding provided for the weatherization of 239 Idaho homes and 5 Idaho non-profit buildings in
2014. The production cost of the non-profit building weatherization measures was $62,422,
while $6,242 in administrative costs were paid for the Idaho non-profit building weatherization
jobs. In Oregon, Idaho Power paid $45,475 in production costs for 11 qualified homes and
$4,547 in CAP agency administrative costs for homes in Malheur and Baker counties. Table 1
shows each CAP agency, the number of homes weatherized, production costs, average cost per
home, administration payments, and total payments per county made by Idaho Power.

2014 WAQC Annual Report Page 3
Weatherization Assistance for Qualified Customers Idaho Power Company
Table 1 2014 WAQC activities and Idaho Power expenditures by agency and county
Agency County
Number
of Homes
Production
Cost
Average
Cost1
Administration Payment to
Agency
Total
Payment
CCOA Boise 2 $ 15,022 $ 7,511 $ 1,502 $ 16,524
Canyon 64 247,625 3,869 24,762 272,387
Gem 1 3,534 3,534 353 3,887
Payette 1 7,566 7,566 757 8,323
Agency Total 68 $ 273,747 $ 4,026 $ 27,374 $ 301,121
EICAP Lemhi 3 11,625 3,875 1,163 12,788
Agency Total 3 $ 11,625 $ 3,875 $ 1,163 $ 12,788
EL ADA Ada 85 427,110 5,025 42,711 469,821
Elmore 6 36,683 6,114 3,668 40,351
Owyhee 10 53,007 5,301 5,301 58,308
Agency Total 101 $ 516,799 $ 5,117 $ 51,680 $ 568,479
SCCAP Cassia 1 1,831 1,831 183 2,014
Gooding 2 8,752 4,376 875 9,627
Jerome 1 2,883 2,883 288 3,172
Lincoln 3 9,835 3,278 984 10,819
Twin Falls 15 77,607 5,174 7,761 85,368
Agency Total 22 $ 100,908 $ 4,587 $ 10,091 $ 110,999
SEICAA Bannock 24 63,459 2,644 6,346 69,805
Bingham 8 15,747 1,968 1,575 17,321
Power 13 37,178 2,860 3,718 40,895
Agency Total 45 $ 116,383 $ 2,586 $ 11,638 $ 128,022
Total Idaho Homes 239 $ 1,019,463 $ 4,266 $ 101,946 $ 1,121,409
Idaho Non-Profit Buildings Lemhi 1 5,834 – 583 6,418
Ada 1 15,360 – 1,536 16,896
Twin Falls 2 38,526 – 3,853 42,378
Blaine 1 2,702 – 270 2,972
Total Idaho Non-Profit Buildings 5 $ 62,422 – $ 6,242 $ 68,664
Oregon
CCNO Baker 2 7,487 3,744 749 8236
Agency Total 2 $ 7,487 3,744 $ 749 $ 8,236
CINA Malheur 9 37,987 4,221 3,799 41,786
Agency Total 9 $ 37,987 4,221 $ 3,799 $ 41,786
Total Oregon homes 11 $ 45,475 4,134 $ 4,547 $ 50,022
1 Agency average cost total is equal to the production cost divided by the number of jobs.
Note: Dollars are rounded.
Page 4 2014 WAQC Annual Report
Idaho Power Company Weatherization Assistance for Qualified Customers
The base funding for Idaho CAP agencies is $1,212,534 annually, which does not include any
carryover from the previous year. Idaho Power’s agreements with CAP agencies include the
provision allowing a maximum annual average cost per home of up to a dollar amount specified
in the agreement between the CAP agency and Idaho Power. The intent of the maximum annual
average cost is to provide the CAP agency flexibility to service some homes with greater or
fewer weatherization needs. It also provides a monitoring tool for Idaho Power to forecast
year-end outcomes. The average cost per home served is calculated by dividing the total annual
Idaho Power production cost of homes weatherized per CAP agency by the total number of
homes weatherized that the CAP agency billed to Idaho Power during the year. The maximum
annual average cost per home each CAP agency was allowed under the 2014 agreement was
$6,000. In 2014, Idaho CAP agencies had a combined average cost per home served of $4,266,
and Oregon CAP agencies averaged $4,134 per home. No CAP agency exceeded their maximum
average cost.
CAP agency administration fees are equal to 10 percent of Idaho Power’s per-job production
costs. The average administration cost paid to agencies per Idaho home weatherized in 2014 was
$427, and the average administration cost paid to Oregon agencies per Oregon home weatherized
during the same period was $413. Not included in the dollar totals reflected in Table 1 are
additional Idaho Power staff labor, marketing, evaluation, home verification, and support costs
for the WAQC program totaling $57,556 for 2014. These expenses were in addition to the
WAQC program funding requirements in Idaho specified in IPUC Order No. 29505.
In compliance with IPUC Order No. 29505, WAQC program funds are tracked separately,
with unspent funds carried over and made available to CAP agencies in the following year.
In 2014, $90,075 in unspent funds from 2013 were made available for expenditures in Idaho.
2014 WAQC Annual Report Page 5
Weatherization Assistance for Qualified Customers Idaho Power Company
Table 2 details the base funding and unspent funds from 2013 that were available in 2014 and the
total amount of 2014 spending.
Table 2 2014 Idaho WAQC base funding and unspent funds made available
Agency 2014 Base Funding
Available
Funds from 2013 Total 2014 Allotment Total 2014 Spending
Idaho
CCOA ................................$ 302,259 – $ 302,259 $ 301,120
EICAP ................................12,788 – 12,788 12,788
EL ADA ................................568,479 – 568,479 568,479
SCCAP ................................167,405 – 167,405 110,999
SEICAA ................................111,603 $ 38,211 149,814 128,022
Non-profit buildings ................................50,000 51,864 101,864 68,664
Idaho Total ................................ $ 1,212,534 $ 90,075 $ 1,302,609 $ 1,190,073
Note: Dollars are rounded.
REVIEW OF MEASURES INSTALLED
Table 3 details home counts for which Idaho Power paid all or a portion of the measure costs
during 2014. The Home Counts column represents the number of times any percentage of that
measure was billed to Idaho Power during the year. If totaled, measure counts would be higher
than the total homes weatherized because the number of measures installed in each home varies.
For example, Table 3 shows 72 homes received a compact fluorescent lamp/light (CFL)
measure. Each home received more than one bulb. Consistent with the Idaho WAP, the WAQC
program offers several measures that have costs but do not necessarily save energy or for which
the savings cannot be measured. Included in this category are health and safety measures, vents,
furnace repairs, other, and home energy audits. Health and safety measures are necessary to
ensure weatherization activities do not cause unsafe situations in a customer’s home or
compromise a home’s existing indoor air quality. Other non-energy saving measures are
Page 6 2014 WAQC Annual Report
Idaho Power Company Weatherization Assistance for Qualified Customers
allowed under this program because of their interaction with the energy-saving measures.
Examples of items included in the “other” measure category include vapor barriers, dryer vent
hoods, and necessary electrical upgrades. The EA5 energy audit program (EA5) is a software
program approved for use by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and chosen by the Idaho
Department of Health and Welfare (IDHW) for use in the Idaho state WAP and, therefore,
it is used by Idaho CAP agency weatherization managers. The EA5 includes material costs,
labor costs for installation, agency and contractor support costs, and estimated savings for
individual measures.
Table 3
2014 WAQC review of measures installed
Home Counts Production Costs
Idaho Home and Non-Profit Measures
Windows ................................................................................................126 $ 176,377
Doors ................................................................................................113 75,717
Wall insulation ................................................................11 10,323
Ceiling insulation ................................................................99 72,536
Vents ................................................................................................12 1,262
Floor insulation ................................................................85 68,982
Infiltration ................................................................................................133 29,888
Ducts ................................................................................................45 26,385
Health and safety ................................................................33 13,662
Other ................................................................................................22 7,336
Water heater ................................................................................................4 3,868
Pipes ................................................................................................32 1,688
Refrigerator* ................................................................................................6 19,384
Furnace tune ................................................................3 688
Furnace repair ................................................................9 9,100
Furnace replace ................................................................164 550,279
CFL ................................................................................................72 2,311
Audit ................................................................................................143 12,098
Total Idaho Homes and Non-Profit Measures $ 1,081,884
Continued on next page.
2014 WAQC Annual Report Page 7
Weatherization Assistance for Qualified Customers Idaho Power Company
Table 3 (continued)
Home Counts Production Costs
Oregon Home Measures
Windows ................................................................................................4 $ 10,359
Ceiling insulation ................................................................7 11,056
Floor insulation ................................................................5 15,438
Infiltration ................................................................................................4 3,530
Ducts ................................................................................................1 468
Health and safety ................................................................5 4,302
Pipes ................................................................................................2 322
Total Oregon Homes Measures $ 45,475
*One Idaho refrigerator replacement was a commercial refrigerator for a non-profit food bank.
Note: Dollars are rounded.
Annually, Idaho Power physically verifies approximately 10 percent of the homes
weatherized under the WAQC program. This is done through two methods. The first method
includes the Idaho Power program specialist participating in Idaho’s and Oregon’s state
monitoring process that reviews weatherized homes. The process involves utility representatives;
weatherization personnel from CAP agencies; Community Action Partnership Association of
Idaho, Inc. (CAPAI); and the IDHW or Oregon Housing and Community Services (OHCS)
reviewing homes weatherized by each of the CAP agencies. CAP agency weatherization
departments weatherize homes in accordance with federal guidelines.
The second method involves Idaho Power contracting with two companies—The Energy
Auditor, Inc., and Momentum, LLC—that employ certified building performance specialists to
verify installed measures in customer homes. The Energy Auditor verifies homes weatherized for
the WAQC program in Idaho Power’s eastern and southern Idaho regions. The owner of Energy
Auditor is certified by Performance Tested Comfort Systems and is an ENERGY STAR® home
performance specialist. Momentum verifies weatherization services provided through the WAQC
program in the Capital and Canyon regions of Idaho and in Idaho Power’s Oregon service area.
Page 8 2014 WAQC Annual Report
Idaho Power Company Weatherization Assistance for Qualified Customers
The owner of Momentum is a Residential Energy Services Network (RESNET®) certified home
energy rater. After these companies verify installed measures, any required follow-up is done by
the CAP agency personnel.
OVERALL COST-EFFECTIVENESS
Prior to 2012, reported annual savings and individual project screening for the WAQC program
were determined solely using annual savings estimates from the Idaho WAP EA4 energy audit
tool (EA4). In 2012, the Idaho WAP, and therefore the WAQC program, upgraded to the EA5.
The EA5 is used for the WAQC program in conjunction with the Idaho WAP for leveraging
funds by weatherization managers who are billing the State of Idaho and Idaho Power for each
completed home weatherization job. In the field, the weatherization auditor uses the EA5 to
conduct the initial audit of potential energy savings for a home. The EA5 compares the
efficiency of measures prior to weatherization to the efficiency after the proposed improvement
and translates that change into savings-to-investment ratio (SIR). The output of the EA5 SIR is
similar to the participant cost test (PCT) ratio. If the EA5 computes an SIR of 1.0 or higher,
the CAP agency is authorized to complete the proposed measures. In addition to the individual
measure SIR, the entire job is required to show an SIR of 1.0 or higher.
In 2014, the total utility cost (UC) benefit/cost (B/C) ratio for the WAQC program was 0.51,
while the B/C ratio from the total resource cost (TRC) perspective was 0.42. In 2014, the B/C
ratios declined compared to 2013 due to the downward change in the DSM alternative costs from
the 2013 Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) that Idaho Power uses to value energy efficiency.
In 2013, the UC B/C ratio was 0.95, while the TRC B/C ratio was 0.74. Based on 2014 savings
and costs, the WAQC program continued to not be a cost-effective program in 2014.
2014 WAQC Annual Report Page 9
Weatherization Assistance for Qualified Customers Idaho Power Company
In 2012, Idaho Power contracted with D&R International, Ltd., to conduct an impact evaluation
of 2011 WAQC activities. The impact evaluation was completed and provided to Idaho Power in
February 2013. Results indicated significantly lower realized energy savings for the WAQC
program compared with initial EA4 savings estimates from 2011. The average per-home savings
reported in the impact evaluation were 2,684 kilowatt-hours (kWh). As a result of the evaluation
results and recommendations by the evaluator, the EA5 was no longer deemed an accurate
source for annual savings estimates for WAQC projects. For reported savings in 2012 and 2013,
the evaluated average per-home savings of 2,684 kWh were used.
In 2014, Idaho Power conducted a billing analysis on participants’ billing data from 2012,
and the results were used to report savings for 2014. The additional billing data analysis was
done to increase Idaho Power’s understanding of savings resulting from the program and to
incorporate one of the recommendations from D&R International—to use a control group.
This would account for non-weather related changes in energy use not attributable to the
program’s weatherization measures. Homes where WAQC weatherization projects were
completed during 2010 were used as a control group to eliminate change in energy consumption
due to factors other than program weatherization. For the updated billing analysis, Idaho Power
also wanted to explore whether savings could be further differentiated between housing type
(single-family versus manufactured home), heating footprint of the home, and number of
occupants in the home. In contrast, the D&R International 2012 analysis only compared
customer’s billing data before and after weatherization.
All updated billing analysis and data preparation was done in accordance with the
Whole-building Retrofit with Consumption Data Analysis Evaluation Protocol document
published in April 2013 by the DOE at energy.gov/eere/about-us/ump-protocols.
Page 10 2014 WAQC Annual Report
Idaho Power Company Weatherization Assistance for Qualified Customers
Similar methods of consumption analysis of billing data were also used in recent regional
studies, including the Final Summary Report for the Ductless Heat Pump Impact and Process
Evaluation prepared by Ecotope, Inc., and published by the Northwest Energy Efficiency
Alliance (NEEA) in February 2014 at neea.org/docs/default-source/reports/e14-274-dhp-final-
summary-report-(final).pdf?sfvrsn=8 and SEEM Calibration, Phase 1, published by the Regional
Technical Forum (RTF) in May 2014 at rtf.nwcouncil.org/measures/support/SEEM/Default.asp.
Total claimed estimated savings for 2014 projects were 533,800 kWh, with 184,587 kWh from
single-family homes and 336,401 kWh from manufactured homes. An additional 12,812 kWh
resulted from weatherization projects at non-profit sites. Idaho Power’s analysis results
showed differences between average savings in manufactured and single-family type homes.
Manufactured home savings per home were similar to the findings of the previous D&R
International analysis evaluation results, with savings of 2,568 kWh per year. Single-family
homes, when analyzed independently from manufactured homes, revealed fewer savings than the
2012 evaluation results provided to Idaho Power in 2013, with an updated estimate of 1,551 kWh
per year per home. The effects of further segregating savings analyses by the heating footprint of
the home, number of occupants, and climate were not statistically significant across all housing
types and therefore were not factored into saving estimates. Idaho Power plans to continue
monitoring savings from WAQC through further billing analyses. Additionally, the RTF is
analyzing manufactured-home audit data from 2011 to 2012 to validate regional savings models
used for manufactured-home savings estimates for heat pumps and weatherization. The resulting
collaboration with the RTF will provide insights into how to potentially enhance analysis
methods and techniques of the program.
2014 WAQC Annual Report Page 11
Weatherization Assistance for Qualified Customers Idaho Power Company
For the five WAQC non-profit projects in 2014, Idaho Power used the savings estimated at
1.03 kWh per square foot of weatherized heated space. This was based on the average decrease
in annual energy intensity from the billing analysis of single-family homes resulting in an annual
savings for non-profits of 1.03 kWh/heated square foot. The small number of projects and the
lack of homogeneity among non-profit projects did not allow for a billing analysis based on
previous projects. Non-profit projects were excluded from the D&R International impact
evaluation. Idaho Power continues to look for methods to best estimate savings for
non-profit-type projects.
In 2013, Idaho Power administered a process evaluation of the WAQC program through the
third-party contractor Johnson Consulting Group. The contractor gathered data from a variety of
sources, including reviews of program materials, the program database, and in-depth interviews
with key agency and Idaho Power staff and stakeholders from May through August 2013.
In addition, Johnson Consulting Group conducted a literature review about low-income program
non-energy benefits (NEB) and cost-effectiveness policies used in other areas.
The recommendations from the IPUC staff’s report and IPUC Order No. 32788 were used for a
cost-effectiveness analysis for 2014. These recommendations include the following:
• Applying a 100-percent net-to-gross (NTG) value to reflect the likelihood that WAQC
weatherization projects would not be initiated without the presence of a program
• Claiming 100 percent of project savings
• Including an allocated portion of the indirect overhead costs
• Applying the 10-percent conservation preference adder
Page 12 2014 WAQC Annual Report
Idaho Power Company Weatherization Assistance for Qualified Customers
• Claiming one dollar of benefits for each dollar invested in health, safety,
and repair measures
• Amortizing evaluation expenses over a three-year period
A contract was signed with Kearns ENTerprises™ to develop a home audit tool to be used in
Idaho Power’s Weatherization Solutions for Eligible Customers program starting in 2015.
The updated tool was designed to capture key data and more details regarding measures installed
for health and safety. Updated calculations for estimates of energy savings and measure
information to more accurately report program effectiveness were built into the program.
The new Home Audit Tool (HAT 14.1) was distributed in January 2015 to contractors
participating in the Weatherization Solutions for Eligible Customers program and will be tested
throughout 2015 in that program. The WAQC program will use the tool if the Idaho state WAP
adopts it.
Updates to the energy audit tool included the following:
• Heating degree days and lives of measures to be used in calculating SIRs and estimated
energy savings were updated.
• Data-entry points were programmed into the tool as checkboxes to better categorize items
installed under the Health and Safety category. This will allow consistency between
agencies and will add quantitative capabilities for future reporting of NEBs.
• Data-entry points were added to the tool to more easily calculate SIRs and estimated
savings for refrigerator replacements.
2014 WAQC Annual Report Page 13
Weatherization Assistance for Qualified Customers Idaho Power Company
• Housing-type data-entry points were added to clarify housing types and increase the
capability of estimating savings by housing type.
• A support cost was hard-coded into the new program to calculate a maximum
percentage of support cost per measure. Sub-contracted labor no longer receives this
financial support.
• A data-entry point calculating a minimum percent of Idaho Power costs required to
be paid by the landlord for participation when a home is not owner-occupied was
hard-coded into the program.
• Data-entry points were added to count the number of CFL and light-emitting diode
(LED) installations to better estimate savings.
• All necessary items to ensure information is transmitted into an Idaho Power
database through proper file transfer protocol were included for the security of
customer information.
In addition, the University of Idaho Integrated Design Laboratory (IDL) developed a
weatherization heat pump calculator to check estimated energy savings reported by the new
HAT 14.1 when a heating system has been replaced as a part of weatherization in a home.
HAT 14.1 will be used for jobs submitted through Idaho Power’s Weatherization Solutions for
Eligible Customers program in 2015.
Page 14 2014 WAQC Annual Report
Idaho Power Company Weatherization Assistance for Qualified Customers
CUSTOMER EDUCATION AND SATISFACTION
Idaho Power provides materials to each CAP agency to help educate qualified customers who
receive weatherization assistance on using energy efficiently. Included in the materials are copies
of the Idaho Power booklets 30 Simple Things You Can Do to Save Energy and Energy Saving
Tips, which describe energy conservation tips for the heating and cooling seasons, and a
pamphlet that describes the energy-saving benefits of using CFLs, LEDs, and other tips for
choosing the right bulb. Idaho Power actively informs customers about WAQC through energy
and resource fairs and other customer contacts. Idaho Power’s Customer Service Center
regularly informs customers about the program.
To stay current with new programs and services, Idaho Power attends state and federal energy
assistance/weatherization meetings and other weatherization-specific conferences, such as the
Affordable Comfort Conference by the Building Performance Institute. Idaho Power is also
active in the Policy Advisory Council, helping advise and direct Idaho’s state weatherization
application for funding to the DOE.
As described in the Review of Measures Installed section above, Idaho Power used independent,
third-party verification companies across its service area to randomly check approximately
10 percent of the weatherization jobs submitted for payment by the program. These home
verifiers ensure the stated measures are installed in the homes of participating customers and
discuss the program with these customers. Home verifiers visited 44 homes, requesting feedback
about the program in 2014. When asked how much customers learned about saving electricity,
35 customers answered they learned “a lot” or “some.” When asked how many ways they tried to
save electricity, 39 customers responded “a lot” or “some.”
2014 WAQC Annual Report Page 15
Weatherization Assistance for Qualified Customers Idaho Power Company
As recommended by Johnson Consulting Group in the 2013 process evaluation, a customer
survey was developed to assess major indicators of customers’ satisfaction and program
operations consistently throughout the service area. The 2014 Weatherization Programs
Customer Survey was provided to all program participants in all regions upon completion of
weatherization in their homes. Survey questions gathered information about how customers
learned about the program, reasons for participating, how much customers learned about saving
energy in their homes, and the likelihood of household members changing behaviors to use
energy wisely.
Idaho Power received survey results from 237 of the 250 households weatherized by the program
in 2014. Of the 237 surveys received back from customers, 228 were from Idaho customers and
9 from Oregon customers. Some key highlights include the following:
• Over 47 percent of respondents learned of the program from a friend or relative,
and another almost 15 percent learned of the program from an agency flyer.
Nearly 6 percent learned about the weatherization program by receiving a letter in
the mail.
• Almost 90 percent of the respondents reported that their primary reason for participating
in the weatherization program was to reduce utility bills, and over 45 percent wanted to
improve the comfort of their home.
• Almost 74 percent reported they learned how air leaks affect energy usage, and just
over 65 percent indicated they learned how insulation affects energy usage during the
weatherization process. Another almost 57 percent of respondents said they learned how
to use energy wisely.
Page 16 2014 WAQC Annual Report
Idaho Power Company Weatherization Assistance for Qualified Customers
• Over 79 percent reported they were very likely to change habits to save energy,
and almost 80 percent reported they have shared all of the information about energy use
with members of their household.
• Over 86 percent of the respondents reported that they think the weatherization they
received will significantly affect the comfort of their home, and nearly 94 percent said
they were very satisfied with the program.
• Over 86 percent of the respondents reported that the habits they were most likely to
change was turning off lights when not in use, and over 61 percent said that washing full
loads of clothes was a habit they were likely to change to save energy. Turning the
thermostat up in the summer was reported by nearly 51 percent, and turning the
thermostat down in the winter was reported by almost 58 percent as a habit they and
members of the household were most likely to change to save energy.
A summary of the above survey is included in the Demand-Side Management 2014 Annual
Report’s Supplement 2: Evaluation available online at
idahopower.com/EnergyEfficiency/reports.cfm.
Also recommended in the Johnson Consulting Group 2013 process evaluation was that
Idaho Power begin developing a new energy audit tool. The tool was completed in 2014 for
Idaho Power’s Weatherization Solutions for Eligible Customers program and may be accepted
by the Idaho state WAP.
In Oregon, Idaho Power filed an updated tariff for the program. The tariff removed funding for
the non-profit pooled funds. This change allowed Idaho Power to increase funds used to
2014 WAQC Annual Report Page 17
Weatherization Assistance for Qualified Customers Idaho Power Company
weatherize homes. This funding shift occurred in 2014 and allowed additional funds to be
spent on efficiency improvements in qualified customers’ homes in Oregon.
PLANS FOR 2015
As in previous years, unless directed otherwise, Idaho Power will continue to provide financial
assistance to CAP agencies while exploring changes to improve program delivery and continue
to provide the most benefit possible to special needs customers while working with Idaho and
Oregon state WAP personnel. Unless the IPUC directs otherwise, Idaho Power will continue its
efforts to improve this program while at the same time offering it to the company’s customers on
an ongoing basis.
Idaho Power will continue to participate in the Idaho and the Oregon state monitoring process
of weatherized homes and will continue to verify approximately 10 percent of the homes
weatherized under the WAQC program via certified home-verification companies.
Idaho Power will continue its involvement with the State of Idaho’s Policy Advisory Council
that serves as an oversight group for weatherization activities in Idaho as well as review state
grant applications for federal funding.
Idaho Power plans to selectively market the WAQC program throughout 2015. The program
will be promoted at resource fairs, community special-needs populations’ service-provider
meetings, and CAP agency functions to reach customers who may benefit from the program.
Additional marketing for this program will be conducted in cooperation with
weatherization managers.
Page 18 2014 WAQC Annual Report
Idaho Power Company Weatherization Assistance for Qualified Customers
Idaho Power will continue working in partnership with the IDHW, OHCS, CAPAI,
and individual CAP agency personnel to maintain the targets and guidelines and improve
the overall WAQC program.
In 2015, Idaho Power will support the whole-house philosophy of the WAQC program and the
Idaho and Oregon WAP by continuing to contract a $6,000 annual maximum average per-home
cost. Based on the required funding, Idaho Power estimates 195 homes in Idaho and Oregon and
approximately 6 non-profit buildings in Idaho will be weatherized in 2015. In Idaho during 2015,
Idaho Power expects to fund the base amount plus available funds from 2014 to total $1,325,070
in weatherization measures and agency administration fees. Of this amount, $83,200 will be
provided to the non-profit pooled fund to weatherize buildings housing non-profit agencies that
primarily serve qualified customers in Idaho.
Service-area wide, Idaho Power will provide the WAQC program $1,375,642 in funding in
2015 for the weatherization of homes and buildings of non-profit agencies serving
qualified customers.
2014 WAQC Annual Report Page 19
Weatherization Assistance for Qualified Customers Idaho Power Company
This page left blank intentionally.
Page 20 2014 WAQC Annual Report