20170315Aschenbrenner Direct.pdf

iiECIIVED
;illl ii,rtii l5 Pil lr: 06
.. ,F I 1...r,,.:.'-,i.1,,
:.ril -tAr!I -. .,,1U\)J\/11
BEEORE THE IDAHO PUBLTC UTILITIES COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION
OF TDAHO POVflER COMPANY EOR A
DETERMINATION OF 2016 DEMAND-
SIDE MANAGEMENT EXPENSES AS
PRUDENTLY INCURRED.
IDAHO POVilER COMPANY
DIRECT TESTIMONY
OF
CONNIE ASCHENBRENNER
CASE NO. rPC-E-17-03
1 Q. Please state your name and business address.
2 A. My name is Connie Aschenbrenner. My busj-ness
3 address is l22L West Idaho Street, Boise, Idaho 83702.
4 Q. By whom are you employed and in what capacity?
5 A. I am employed by Idaho Power Company ("Idaho
6 Power" or "Company") as a Senior Regulatory Analyst.
1 Q. Please describe your educational background.
8 A. In May of 2006, I received a Bachelor of
9 Administration degree in Einance from Boise State
University
a Master of
in Boise, Idaho. In December of 20L7, I earned10
11
1-2
13
l4
15
16
t7
18
19
20
Business Adminlstration degree from Boise State
University. In addition,
utility ratemaking course
University's Center for
several- other industry
I have attended the electric
offered through New Mexico State
Public Utilities, as well as
conferences.
2t
O. Please descrj-be your work experience with
Idaho Power.
A. Tn 2012, I was hired as a Regulatory Analyst
in the Company's Regulatory Affairs Department. My primary
responsibilities included support of the Company's
Commercial and Industrial customer class's rate design. In
22 20L5, I assumed
Residential and
responsibilities associated with
23 SmaII General- Service rate design, as well
24 as activities associated with demand-side management
25 (*DSM") activities. In 2016, I was promoted to a Senior
ASCHENBRENNER, DI ].
Idaho Power Company
1 Regulatory Analyst and assumed responsibilities associated
2 with the Company's class cost-of-service analyses. My
3 duties as a Senior Regulatory Analyst include developing
4 cost studies, the analysi-s of the impact on customers of
5 rate design changes, and the administration of the
6 Company's tariffs in Idaho and Oregon.
7 Q. What j-s the purpose of your testimony in this
8 case?
9 A. The purpose of my testimony is to present the
10 Company's request for a determination that $40,242,L82 of
11 DSM expenses incurred for the acquisitlon of demand-side
72 resources was prudent. This amount includes $37,321-,862
13 funded in 2016 by the Idaho Energy Efficiency Rider
L4 ("Rider"), $7r059,420 of demand response program incentive
15 payments funded through base rates and tracked annually
t6 through the Power Cost Adjustment ("PCA"), and $1,860,90I
17 of incremental- DSM labor expenses incurred between 201,7 and
18 201,6 that have not yet received a prudence determination.
L9 The 2076 Rider-funded DSM expenses for which Idaho Power is
20 seeking a prudence determination is a 10 percent increase
27 over the 20L5 Rider-funded DSM expenses in last year's
22 prudence case (Case No. IPC-E-16-03). This j-ncrease in
23 expenses is accompanied by a 4 percent j-ncrease in system-
24 wide energy savings over 20L5 energy savings when
25 considering Idaho Power's efficj-ency programs alone. When
ASCHENBRENNER, DI 2
Idaho Power Company
1 the Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance (*NEEA") estimated
2 savings are included, the 201-6 energy savings increase over
3 2015 is also 4 percent.
4 My testimony will (1) provide a review of 201,6 DSM
5 program performance, (2) discuss 2015 DSM expenses and
6 adjustments, (3) provide an overview of cost-effectiveness,
1 (4) review evaluation efforts, (5) describe opportunities
8 for stakeholder input, (6) discuss the Company's request
9 for a prudence determinatj-on for incremental DSM labor
10 expenses above 2010 levels incurred between 201,7 and 2016,
11 and (7) provide an update to the Idaho Publj-c Utilities
1,2 Commission ("Commission") on compliance with Einal Order
13 No. 3358 3 in Case No. IPC-E-I-6-03 .
74 I. 2OL6 DSM PROGRA}T FERFORI{ANCE
15 O. Please provide an overvj-ew of Idaho Power's
16 DSM efforts in 2016.
77 A. In 20L6, Idaho Power achieved 4 percent more
18 energy savings than tn 2015. Idaho Power's energy
1,9 efficiency portfolio was cost-effective, resulting in a
20 2.56 benefit/cost ratio when eval-uated from a Total
2L Resource Cost (*TRC") test perspective and a 3.58
22 benefit/cost ratio when evaluated from a Utility Cost
23 ("UC") test perspective.
24 In 2016, on a system-wide basJ-s, Idaho Power offered
25 a portfolio of energy efficiency programs and demand
ASCHENBRENNER, DI 3
Idaho Power Company
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
I
9
response programs available to al-I customer segments,
partici-pated in market transformation efforts through NEEA,
and offered several educational and behavioral initiatives
including light emitting diode ("LED") light bulbs, drying
racks, Energy Savings Klts, the Smart-saver Pledge, and
other activities. A summary of Idaho Power's 2076 DSM
activities is provided in Tabl-e 1 be1ow.
TabJ.e 1. 2OL6 DSM Progrrtns by Sector, Operational. T1pe,
Location and Annualized /Penand Reduction*
Program by Sector Operational Type State
Residentia!
A/C CoolCredit
Easy Savings
Education Distributions
Energy Efficient Lighting
Energy House Calls
ENERGY STAR@ Homes Northwest
Fridge and Freezer Recycling Program
Heating & Cooling Efficiency Program
Home Energy Audit Program
Home lmprovement Program
Multifamily Energy Savings Program
Oregon Residential Weatherization
Rebate Advantage
Shade Tree Project
Simple Steps, Smart Savingsil
Weatherization Assistiance for Qualified Customers
Weatherization Solutions for Eligible Customers
Commercia!/lndustrial
Custom Projects
FlexPeak Management
Green Motors - lndustrial
New construction
Oregon Commercial Audits
Retrofits
lrrigation
Green Motors - lnigation
lnigation Efiiciency Rewards
lnigation Peak Rewards
AllSectors
Northwest Energy Effi ciency Alliance
Demand Response
Energy Efficiency
Eneqy Efficiency
Energy Efficiency
Energy Efficiency
Energy Efficiency
Energy Efficiency
Energy Efficiency
Energy Efficiency
Energy Efficiency
Energy Efiiciency
Energy Efficiency
Energy Efficiency
Other Programs and Activities
Energy Efficiency
Energy Efficiency
Energy Efficiency
ID/OR
ID
ID
ID/OR
ID/OR
ID/OR
ID/OR
ID/OR
ID
ID
ID
OR
ID/OR
ID
ID/OR
ID/OR
ID
ID/OR
ID/OR
ID/OR
ID/OR
OR
ID/OR
34 MW*
403 MWh
15,150 MWh
21,094 MWh
510 MWh
150 tt VVh
632 lt VVh
1,114 MWh
207]rrvvh
500 MWh
150 trrwh
3 MWh
411 Ir.,IWh
nla
577 trMh
746 trIwh
622 tr,Iwh
Energy Efficiency
Demand Response
Energy Efficiency
Energy Efficiency
Energy Efficiency
Energy Efficiency
Energy Efiiciency
Energy Efficiency
Demand Response
Market Transformation
47,519 MWh
42MW*
124 MWh
12,393 MWh
nla
28,125 MWh
74 MWh
15,674 MWh
303 MW*
ID/OR
ID/OR
ID/OR
tD/oR 24,616 MWh10 *This value represents the realized, non-coincident load reduction from each program
ASCHENBRENNER, DI 4
Idaho Power Company
1 Table 1 illustrates the broad availability of
2 programs offered by Idaho Power to its customers in energy
3 efficiency, demand response, and education. The Demand-
4 Side Management 2076 Annual Report (*DSM 20!6 Annua1
5 Report"), Attachment 1 to the Application fil-ed in this
6 proceeding, provides details for each program, including a
7 description of each program, 201,6 performance and
8 activities, cost-effectiveness, customer satisfaction, and
9 evaluation results when applicable. In additj-on, the DSM
10 2016 Annual Report provides a descrj-ption of Idaho Power's
1l- DSM strategies for 2077 .
L2 O. What 1eve1 of j-ncremental annual energy
13 efficiency savings was achieved in 2016?
L4 A. On a system-wide basis, Idaho Power achieved
15 770,792 megawatt-hours (*MWh") of incremental annual energy
16 efficiency savings in 2016. This value includes L46,7'16
1-1 MWh from Idaho Power's energy efficiency programs and an
18 estimated 24,6L6 MWh of energy efficiency market
1-9 transformation savings through NEEA initiatives. Because
20 Idaho Power will not receive final 2016 savings from NEEA
2L until Nlay 2017, the NEEA-attributable savings is an
22 estimate provided to ldaho Power by NEEA. Table 2 below
23 shows the incremental annual energy efficiency savings in
24 MWh from 2002 to the current year. Also shown in this
25
ASCHENBRENNER, DI 5
Idaho Power Company
1 table are the total energy efficiency expenses for each
2 year in millions of dollars.
3 fable 2. Incroental Annual Energy Efficiency Savings
4 (l0lh) and Energy Eff,icienay Exgrenses ($ nil.].ions) 2OO2-2OLG
250,000
200,000 r ldaho Power Program Savings (MWh)
-
Market Transformation (NEEA) (MWh)
-EE
Expenses (no DR)
2002 2003 2004 200s 200a 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Note: 2016 NEEA market-bansformation savings are estimated.
O. Why in recent years, is the rate of growth in
energy efficiency expenses greater than the year-over-year
growth in savings?
A. Table 2 demonstrates that as Idaho Power's
energy efficiency portfolio matures, some savings become
more difficult and costly to achieve, resulting in more
expensJ-ve incremental savings. In the recent years, Idaho
Power has started to expand its DSM portfolio to j-nclude
some behavioral or cohort programs; these programs are
generally more expensive to administer and market and often
have lower savings than traditional DSM programs, resultJ-ng
e
Irso,ooo;
CDc
$roo,ooo
o)
ofi so,ooo
oc.9
=oooE
o)CLxuJ
oq
.q()
Lu
o)
octU
$es
$30
$25
$zo
$ts
$10
$s
$00
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
1.2
13
t4
15
1,6
1,7
ASCHENBRENNER, DI 6
Idaho Power Company
18
1 in a higher cost for incremental savings acquired by these
2
3
4
5
6
7
I
9
programs.
O. What leve1 of demand reduction capacity was
availabl-e from Idaho Power's demand response programs in
20L6?
A. The total- available capacity of Idaho Power's
three demand response programs was approximately 392
megawatts ('Mf{"). The programs operated in 2016 and
provided actual demand reduction of 378 MW. This value
represents the maximum realized, non-coincident load
reduction from all three programs. Table 3 below reflects
the annual availabl-e peak demand reduction capacity and
actual- load reduction in MW since 2004 and the associated
annual expenses in millions of do11ars. This table shows
that, in 2073, the lrrigation Peak Rewards program and the
A/C Cool Credit program were temporarily suspended as Idaho
10
11
12
13
74
15
!6
1-7 Power worked with stakehol-ders to restructure the programs.
rPC-E-13-04. )18 (See Case Nos. IPC-E-l3-74, TPC-E-L2-79, and
19
20
2t
22
23
24
ASCHENBRENNER, DI 7
Idaho Power Company
25
1 Tab1€ 3. Peak De'nrnd Seduction Capacity (Mf) and Doand
2 Response E::lrenses ($ nill.ions) 2OO4-2OL6
$25.00
$2o.oo Eacoo-x
$15.00 llr
BQ
b.s
$1o.oo pz
Eco$5.00 Eoo
$0.00
250
200
150
100
50
0
=o(Eo-ooc.oo=^:tr>
&=pc(o
Eoorzoo)(L
500 r
I
450 i
I
4oo l
350 |
300 ,
r Available capacity
rActualLoad Reduction
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
II I
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
O. Tn 20L6, did Idaho Power meet the energy
efficiency targets included in its Integrated Resource Plan
(*rRP") ?
A. Yes. Table 4 below shows the annual
incremental energy efficiency savings compared with the IRP
targets for 2002 through 20L6 shown in average megawatt-
hours ("aMW") . The Company's savings each year surpassed
its annual IRP target L4 out of the last 15 years.
ASCHENBRENNER, DI 8
fdaho Power Company
10
11
t2
13
L4
15
16
t1
18
1 fabJ.e {. Annual Increnental. Energy Efficienca' Savings
2 (arol) rittr IRP Targets (2O02-2OL6}
30
rlPC Savings (with NEEA)
-lRP
Targets
11
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
O. How are the energy efficiency targets j-ncluded
in the IRP establ-ished?
A. Idaho Power contracts with a third party to
conduct an energy efficiency potenti-a1 study to estimate
the amount of cost-effective achievabl-e energy effJ-ciency
to be incl-uded in the IRP for planning purposes. Idaho
Power considers the achievable potential as a reasonable
plannJ-ng estimate but does not consider the achievable
potential as a ceiling that would l1mit the acquj-sition of
energy. efficiency; rather, the Company pursues all cost-
effective energy efficJ-ency.
Table 5 below shows the cumulative energy efficiency
savJ-ngs in aMW compared with the IRP targets for 2002
through 2076.
t2
13
1,4
15
16
t7
ASCHENBRENNER, DI 9
Idaho Power Company
25
==g20
ooP.o 15
Eco.t 10o)c'tEs6)tr€o
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
18
1 fabJ.e 5. Annual Cumulative Energy Efficiency Savings
2 (arfiD rittr IRP rargets i2OO2-2OL6,
rlPC Savings (with NEEA)
-!RP
Targets
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 20',t4 2015 2016
II. 2OL6 DSM EXPENSES A}ID ADi'USTMENTS
5 Q. What is Idaho Power's focus when spending
6 customer funds for the acquisi-tion of DSM resources?
7 A. Idaho Power takes its responsibility of
8 prudently managing customer funds seriously and the Company
9 believes it is important to get the maximum value for its
10 customers. The Company's actions in 2076, and the content
11 of the DSM 2016 Annual Report, provide evidence supporting
L2 the conscj-entious work Idaho Power employees and leaders
13 made toward usj-ng customers' funds wisely to support DSM
L4 activities.
15 O. What amount of DSM expenses is the Company
16 requesting the Commission find were prudently incurred?
1,7 A. In the delivery of energy efficiency, demand
18 response, and market transformation programs, ds well- as
ASCHENBRENNER, DI 10
Idaho Power Company
250
200
150
100
50
ooo)o
I'E(u
o>
6o
o)
o
=E
=o
0
3
4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
education and administrative costs, Idaho Power expended
$31,327,862 of Rider funds and $7,059,420 of demand
response program i-ncentives for a total of $38,387,282
spent on demand-side resource acquisi-tion in 2016. The
Company i-s
$1,860,901
also seeking a prudence determinatj-on on
expenses incurred from
in my testimony.
in incremental DSM labor
20LL through
Idaho
2016 as described later
Power requests that the 20L6 Rider-funded DSM
demand response program incentives
10
expenses, the 201,6
recovered through base rates and the PCA, and the 20LL
through 2076 incremental 1abor expenses be reviewed
together for a prudence determination. With this filing,
Idaho Power requests the Commission issue an order finding
that these funds were prudently incurred. Exhibit No. 1 to
my testimony, 2016 Idaho DSI4 Expenses and Adjustments for
Prudence FiTing, shows a breakout of these expenses by
program, customer sector, and by funding source.
O. Please compare the dol-lar amounts in Exhibit
No. 1 wj-th Appendix 2, 2016 DSM expenses by funding source
(do77ars), of the DSM 201-6 Annual Report.
A. For clarity and ease of understanding, Exhibit
No. 1 ties to Appendix, which is found on page 114 of the
DSM 2016 Annual Report. The first column of Appendix 2
labe]ed "Idaho Rider" and the first column of Exhibit No. 1
labeled "Rider Expenses" match at the row labeled "Total
ASCHENBRENNER, DI 11
Idaho Power Company
11
L2
13
t4
15
16
t7
18
19
20
2t
22
23
24
25
1 Expenses" in Exhibit No. 1 and "Grand Total-" in Appendix 2
2 in the amount of ;31,297t579. All val-ues in Exhibit No. 1
3 represent DSM expenses for the Idaho service area only.
4 Three current year accounting adjustments to this total
5 were needed to accurateJ-y arrive at the total 201-6 expenses
6 for purposes of the prudence determination. To aid in
7 explaining the adjustments, in my Exhibit No. L, I have
8 added a section at the bottom of the table titled
9 *Adjustments." The Company's requested incremental- labor
are also detailed in Exhibit10 amounts from 2077 through 20L6
11 No. 1 i-n the secti-on titled "Incremental- Labor."
L2 O. Please describe the current year-end
13 account j-ng adjustments.
1,4 A. fdaho Power discovered three incorrect
15 accounting entries that occurred in 2016: (1) $4,266
16 related to the Resj-dential Energy Efficiency Education
77 Initiatj-ve was charged to the Rider but should have been
18 charged to Operations & Maintenance, (2) $56,57 1 related to
19 the Weatherization Solutions for Eligible Customers program
20 was charged to the Oregon Energy Efficiency Rider but
2L should have been recorded to the Idaho Rlder, and (3) an
22 invoice of $22,022 related to the Fridge & Ereezer
23 Recycling program was charged twice to the program when it
24 should have been charged once. These j-ncorrect entries
25 were identified after the 20L6 accountj-ng books had closed,
ASCHENBRENNER, DI L2
Idaho Power Company
1
2
3
4
5
6
't
8
9
and were corrected in 20\1. The corrected entry resu1ts
are included
represent the
O.
in the 2076 DSM expenses to
amount incurred related to
accurately
20L6 DSM efforts.
Did Idaho Power transfer Rider funds to
customers through a credj-t r oL reduction, in the 2076/201,7
10
PCA?
A.
annual PCA
the Company
application
the amount
neutrality
normalized
base rates
approved thls
had no impact
o.
Rider?
A.
approved by
transfer in
Yes. On April 15, 20L6, Idaho Power filed its
in Case No. IPC-E-16-18. As part of this case,
continuedrequested the
of an annual
Commission approve the
PCA credit related to the Rider in
of $3,970,036 in
associated with
order to maintain the revenue
the June 2014 update to the
leve1 of net power supply expenses
33000.
included in
and
l-1
72
13
14
15
L6
L7
18
79
20
2L
22
Order No.The Commission
Order No. 33526. This transfer
on energy efficiency activities in 201,6.
What was the year-end 201,6 bal-ance of the
The Rider account balance at December 31,
2016, was a positive $1-0,730,l-51
January 2016 beginning balance,
adjustments described above, the
items, expenses, and transfers,
of December 31, 20L6.
Table 6 below shows the
the current
and
year accounting
interest
23
funding
and the ending balance as
24
25
ASCHENBRENNER, DI 13
Idaho Power Company
1 Table 6
2 2016)
Idaho Energy Efficiency Rider (ilanuaqy-Decemr.er
ldaho Energy Efficiency Rider
2016 Beginning Balance
201 6 Accounting Adjustments
2016 Funding plus Accrued lnterest
Total 2016 Funds
2016 Expenses (Exhibit No. 1)
Transfer to PCA (Commission Order No. 33526
Balance as of December 31,2016
$6,554,074
30,283
39,437,692
$46,022,049
(31,321,862)
(3,970,036)
$ 10,730,151
III. 2OL6 COST.EFFECTI\TENESS O\TERVTEIT
O. Ir'Ihat is Idaho Power's overall goal when it
comes to DSM cost-effectiveness tests?
A. Prior to the actual implementation of energy
efficiency or demand response programs, Idaho Power
performs a cost-effectj-veness analysis to assess whether a
potential program design or measure will be cost-effective
from the perspective of Idaho Power and its customers.
Idaho Power's goal is to have all programs achieve
benefit/cost ratios of 1.0 or greater for the TRC, the UC,
and the Participant Cost Test (*PCT") at the program and
measure leve1 where appropriate. fdaho Power reviews the
cost-effectiveness results for each program and measure on
an annual basis to determine whether the program should
continue or be modified in some way to ensure its ongoing
cost-effectiveness. If a particular measure or program is
found to not be cost-effective from each of the three
tests, fdaho Power works with the Energy Efficiency
ASCHENBRENNER, Dr 14
Idaho Power Company
3
4
5
6
1
I
9
10
11
L2
13
74
15
16
71
l_8
19
20
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Advj-sory Group (*EEAG") to get input on contj-nuing or
discontinuing an offering. If the measure or program is
indeed offered, the Company wiII explain why the measure or
program was implemented or continued when it seeks a
prudence determinatj-on for the j-ncentj-ves and expenses
associated with that program.
The Company believes this approach aligns both with
past Commission orders, as well as the expectations
outlined in the DSM Memorandum of Understanding signed by
Idaho Power, Avista Corporation, Rocky Mountain Power, and
Commission Staff ("Staff") and presented to the Commission
in Case No. IPC-E-09-09.
10
11
L2
13
t4
15
16
t7
18
79
o.
recogn j- ze
A.
costs are
Tab].e 7.
Generally, what perspecti-ve does each test
the program
Table 7 briefly describes what benefits and
included in each respectj-ve ratio.
Benefit/Cost Ratios Defined
The cost-effectiveness test methodologies and
or measure benefits and costs from?
20 assumptions are described in more detail in the first pages
ASCHENBRENNER, DI 15
Idaho Power Company
Total Resource Cost Test (TRC)
Benefits and costs from the perspective of all
utility customers (participants and non-
participants) in the utility service area
Utility Cost Test (UCT)Benefits and costs only from the perspective
of the utility
Participant Cost Test (PCT)Benefits and costs from the perspective of the
participating customer installing the measure
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
of SuppTement 7: Cost-Effectiveness ("Supplement 1") that
is included in Attachment 1 to the Applicatj-on in this
proceeding.
O. Pl-ease describe how Idaho Power wei-ghs each
test.
A. The Company believes all the tests are
important and should be considered in relation to each
other. That is, a review of each test aIlows for an
economic assessment of the life-cycle costs and benefits of
a particular DSM investment from the perspective of ldaho
Power, DSM program participants, and non-participatlng
customers. For example, while the UC test includes a
review of the costs and benefits related to a particular
program or measure flowing to the utility, the TRC ratio
considers the impact to aII of the utility's customers,
including those participating in a measure or program.
Considering both of these tests gives Idaho Power the
ability to conducL a fair comparJ-son between demand-side
resources and supply-side resources. The third test, the
PCT ratio, informs Idaho Power as to whether a particular
program or measure 1s cost-effective from the participating
customer's perspective; that is, whether the installed
measure(s) will pay back over its lifetime. In other
words, the PCT provides an indlcation of how economically
ASCHENBRENNER, DI 16
Idaho Power Company
10
11
t2
13
t4
15
16
L1
18
19
20
2L
22
23
24
25
1 attractive a particul-ar program or measure may be to a
2 prospective participant.
3 It is only through the review and consj-deratj-on of
4 each of these economic tests that the Company, and the
5 Commission, can be assured that each party involved in a
6 DSM transaction is not bej-ng asked to fund an investment
7 that is not cost-effecti-ve.
8 Q. In the 201-6 prudence request, does the Company
9 contj-nue to emphasize all- three of these tests?
10 A. Yes. Some parties in Idaho Power's 201,4 DSM
11 prudence request (Case No. IPC-E-15-06) argued that the
12 Company should focus on the UC test as "a better measure of
13 cost effectiveness than the TRC" and that the Commissi-on
74 should "determine prudence based primarily on the Utility
15 Cost Test results for each program. " Staff's Comments at
76 10; Idaho Conservation League's (*ICL") Comments at 3,
17 respectively. In its Reply Comments, the Company clarified
18 that it "believes each test provides value and that
L9 j-ncluding all tests when evaluatj-ng program performance is
20 best practice." Idaho Power's Reply Comments at 5. The
21 Company further asked for specj-fic guidance from the
22 Commission "in its order in this matter so that Idaho Power
23 is aware that this is the Commj-ssion's intent going
24 forward. " Id. The Commission stated:
25
26
find
to
We thus
Company
it reasonabl-e for the
cont j-nue screeningt
ASCHENBRENNER, DI T7
Idaho Power Company
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
I
9
10
11
t2
13
L4
15
L6
L7
1_8
27
potential programs using each test
as a guideline, and to advise us on
how the Company's programs fare
under each test. When the Companyultimately seeks to recover its
prudent investment in such programs,
however, we believe the Company may
(but need not exclusively) emphasize
the UCT-and that test's focus on
Company-control-l-ed benef its and
costs-to argue whether the programs
were cost-effective. As always, the
Company ultimately must persuade us
that its program investments wereprudent under the totality of the
circumstances.
19 Because Idaho Power must ul-timately persuade the
20 Commission that its program j-nvestments were prudent under
the cj-rcumstancesr " the Company remains
22
"the totality
committed to evaluating program performance under all three
23 metrics.
24 0. Do you believe it is appropriate for the
25 Company to focus so1e1y on the UC test when evaluating a
26 measure or program for inclusion in the Company's overall-
27 DSM portfolio?
28 A. No. As more fu11y described above, the
29 Company believes it is prudent to consider al-I the tests
30 prior to making a determination on offering a new program
31 or making a decision to contj-nue offering an existing
32 program. The Company believes that this process ensures
33 DSM portfolio that j-s not only good for the utility, but
a
ASCHENBRENNER, DI 18
Idaho Power Company
Order No. 33365 at 9-10.
of
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
one that is good for all customers, both participati-ng and
non-participating customers.
2076 Cost-Effectiveaesg ResuJ'ts
O. What were the results of the 2076 cost-
10
ef fectiveness analyses?
A. Exhibit No. 2 to my
Effectiveness Summary by Program,
shows the results of the TRC, UCT,
efficiency program, by sector and
shown in Table 8 below, all- tests
testimony, 20L6 Cost-
Sector, and PortfoTio,
and PCT for every energy
for the portfolio. As
achieved benefit/cost
11 ratios over 1.0 by sector and portfolio. These results are
t2
1_3
also included in Exhibit No. 2.
Tatrle 8. 2OL6 Benefit/Cost fab].e (by Sector & Portfo].io)
Sector Total Resource Gost
fiRC)
Utility Gost
(uc)
Participant Cost
(PCT)
Residential 2.36 2.74 4.10
Commercial/
lndustrial
2.81 4.67 2.31
lrrioation 3.17 5.00 2.73
Portfolio 2.56 3.58 2.93
14 On a program basis, these results show that, using
15 201-6 DSM costs and benefits, of the 15 energy efficiency
76 programs offered in Idaho for which the Company calculates
l7 cost-effectiveness, 11 programs had benefit/cost ratios
1-8 greater than 1.0 for both the TRC and UC tests. The
79 Weatherizatj-on Assistance for Qualified Customers ("WAQC")
20 and Weatherization Solutions for Eligible Customers
27 ("Solutions") programs had benefit/cost ratios ]ess than
ASCHENBRENNER, DI 79
Idaho Power Company
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1.0 for both the TRC and
Recycling program had a
for the UCT but greater
Improvement program had
1.0 for the TRC and the
UCT. The PCT ratios are
UC, the Fridge and Freezer
benefit/cost ratio of less than 1.0
than 1.0 for the TRC, and the Home
a beneflt/cost ratio of less than
PCT but greater than 1.0 for the
not calculated for those
that do not have a direct customer cost; these are
programs
shown as
10
N/A on Exhibit No. 2.
are in Supplement 1 of
O. Did rdaho
for each measure within
offers?
The detail-s of these calculati-ons
the DSM 2016 Annual Report.
Power calculate cost-effectiveness
each energy efficiency program it11
72
13 A. Yes. In 20L6, Idaho Power evaluated the
74 benefits and costs of 275 measures from both the TRC and
15 the UC perspective. The results of these calculations
76 along with measure assumption details and source
71 documentatlon can be found in Supplement 1 to the DSM 2016
18 Annual- Report.
19 O. How did fdaho Power address any individual-
20 measures that are not cost-effective based on one or more
2L tests?
22 A. The cost and benefit values used in the
23 various analyses are based on markets, technologies,
24 economic inputs, savings estimates, and cost estimates,
25 which can change over time. When a measure is determined
ASCHENBRENNER, DI 20
Idaho Power Company
1 not to be cost-effective at a specific point in tj-me, Idaho
2 Power first evaluates whether the inputs used in the
3 calcul-ations are still correct and then determines if
4 measure parameters should be modifj-ed or whether the
5 measure shoul-d be eliminated. The measures that are not
6 cost-effective from a TRC or UC test perspective will- be
7 discontinued, analyzed for additional- non-energy benefits,
8 modified to increase potentj-aI per unit savings, ox
9 monitored to examine their impact on the specific program's
10 overall- cost-effectiveness. For additional detail on
11 measure analysis refer to Supplement 1 to the DSM 2016
t2 Annual- Report.
o.
for its three
13
1-4
Does Idaho Power consider cost-effectiveness
demand response programs?
Yes. However, benefit/cost ratios are15
L7
t-B
19
A
16 currently not calcul-ated for the three demand response
programs. Instead,
cost-effectiveness
the methodology used to determine the
of the demand response programs was last
20
updated 1n 2074 and remains unchanged for 2016. As part of
the public workshops in conjunctj-on with Case No. IPC-E-13-
74, Idaho Power and other stakehol-ders agreed on a
methodology for valuing demand response. The settlement
agreement, as approved in Commissj-on Order No. 32923,
defined the annual cost of operating Idaho Power's demand
response portfoli-o must be no greater than $16.7 mill-ion.
27
22
23
24
25
ASCHENBRENNER, DI 2I
Idaho Power Company
1 This $16.7 million value is the levelized annual cost of a
2 770 MW deferred resource over a 2)-year life. In 201,6, the
3 system-wide cost of operating the three demand response
4 programs was approximately $9.5 million ($7.5 million of
5 j-ncentives and $2 mill1on of other costs). The amounts
6 attributable to the ldaho-on1y jurisdiction were $8.9
7 million ($7.1 mi]lion of j-ncentives and $1.8 mill-1on of
8 other costs). Idaho Power estimated that if the three
9 programs were dispatched for the fuII 60 hours a1lowed, the
10 total costs would have been approximately $12.9 mil-l-ion on
11 a system-wlde basis.
72 WAAC aad Sol,utioas Programs
13 O. What were the cost-effectiveness resul-ts for
1,4 the WAQC and Solutj-ons programs?
15 A. As shown in Exhibit No. 2, the WAQC and
76 Solutions programs, both of which are offered to limited-
77 j-ncome customers, did not achieve the 1.0 benefit/cost
18 ratio threshold in 2016 under the TRC and UC tests. The
L9 PCT is not calculated for these programs because the
20 programs impose no direct costs on the participants.
27 O. What action has the Company taken to address
22 the WAQC cost-effectiveness?
23 A. The WAQC program provldes real and substantj-al
24 per home savj-ngs, but due to the costs of comprehensive
25 whol-e-house weatherization, it is difficult for the val-ue
ASCHENBRENNER, DI 22
Idaho Power Company
1 of the savlngs to outweigh the costs. The weatherization
2 services provided through the WAQC program are consistent
3 with the Idaho State Weatherization Assistance Program
4 ("WAP") guidelines and are offered at no charge to the
5 participant. This program is designed for limited-income
6 customers and Idaho Power believes there are other benefits
7 to this program that are difficul-t to quantify such as
8 health and safety measures.
9 This program is offered 1n coordination with the
10 state WAP under U.S. Department of Energy guidelines;
11 changes to this program must be made by the state WAP.
L2 Idaho Power continues to work j-n partnershj-p with
13 its weatherization managers, stakeholders, and vendors to
L4 streamline operations and adjust offerings to make this
15 program more cost-effective. New savings values were
1,6 introduced in 20L6 as a resu1t of a billing analysj-s
L7 completed in 201,5, and while the program is still- not cost-
18 effective, the new savings did improve the cost-
t9 effectiveness of these programs when compared to 201-5.
20 O. What action has the Company taken to address
21, the Solutions cost-effectiveness?
22 A. Similar to the WAQC program, the Sol-utj-ons
23 program provides real and substantj-al per home savings, but
24 due to the costs of comprehensive whole-house
25 weatherization, it is difficult for the value of the
ASCHENBRENNER, DI 23
Idaho Power Company
1 savings to outweigh the costs. Like the WAQC program, the
2 Solutions program j-s offered to customers who may not have
3 the income to participate in other resj-dential energy
4 ef f icJ-ency programs. f daho Power bel j-eves there are
5 unquantifiable non-energy benefits to program participants,
6 such as increased safety and comfort. Idaho Power
7 continues to work in partnership with its program partners,
I stakeholders, and vendors to streamline operations, and
9 adjust offerings to make this program more cost-effective.
10 For instance, in 201"6 l-andlords who participated in the
11 program were required to fund at least 10 percent of the
72 project and the Company held the average cost per home
13 constant from the 20L4 level for the weatherizati-on
t4 contractors, actions which helped to keep the cost of the
15 program down.
L6 In 20L6, the Company directly instal-led new high
L7 saving measures in individual apartments at a complex
18 resulting in water heating savings and install-ed LED
L9 lighting for additional- savings. Similar to the WAQC
20 program, new savings values were introduced in 2076 as a
21 result of a billing analysis which improved the cost-
22 effectiveness of the program when compared to 20L5.
23 O. Does Idaho Power plan to continue to offer the
24 WAQC and Solutions programs in the future?
25
ASCHENBRENNER, DI 24
Idaho Power Company
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
I
9
Commission directs otherwise, Idaho
its efforts to improve the cost-
effectiveness of these programs while at the same time
offering them to the Company's limited-income customers on
an ongoing bas j-s.
Eore lryrovreat Progzam.
0. What were the cost-effectiveness results for
the Home Improvement program in 2076?
As shown in Exhibit No. 2, the Home
A. Yes.
programs are still-
ratios, unless the
Power wiII continue
A.
Improvement
the TRC and
consecutive
While the Company has identified the
not cost-effective under the TRC or UCT
program had a benefit/cost ratio below 1.0 from
PCT perspectives in 2076. Thls is the second
year that the program had a benefj-t/cost ratio
10
11
t2
13
L4
15 below 1.0 from the
t6 PCT ratio was Iess
l7 benefit/cost ratio
TRC perspective and
than 1.0. However,
above 1.0 from the
the first year the
it did have a
UCT
18 o.What actj-ons did the Company
19 2016 lo address the cost-effectiveness of
perspective.
undertake during
the program?
20 A. In 20L6, the Company eval-uated the non-cost-
effective measures and the potenti-aI impact of those
measures on the program's overall- cost-effectiveness.
Idaho Power first discussed the concerns it had regarding
the continued deterioration in cost-effectiveness of the
Home Improvement program with EEAG during the August 30,
2t
22
23
24
ASCHENBRENNER, DI 25
Idaho Power Company
25
7 20L6 EEAG meeting. In that meeting, Idaho Power informed
2 the EEAG that, uslng 20L5 savings and 2015 DSM alternate
3 costs, the Home Improvement program would 1ike1y pass the
4 UCT but would not pass the TRC. Consj-dering that the RTF
5 had recently reduced the savings assumptions for multi-
6 family weatherization (in March 2076), Idaho Power noted
7 that once the RTE savings assumptions were updated, the
I cost-effectiveness of the Home Improvement program would
9 likely deteriorate further. fdaho Power committed to
10 presenting its preliminary 20L6 cost-effectiveness findings
11 at the November 3, 2076, EEAG meeting.
O. Did EEAG provide suggestions for the Company
to consider that might improve the cost-effectj-veness of
the program?
A. Yes. EEAG offered suggestions for varj_ous
72
13
1,4
15
16 scenarios that might make
L7 Idaho Power committed to
18 determine whether or not
the program cost-effective and
evaluating those scenarios to
the cost-effecti-veness of the
79 program would
20 o.
Improvement
A.
27
22
improve with modification.
Did the Company provide EEAG with a Home
program update at its November meeting?
Yes. At the November meeting, the Company
that it did not expect the program would be23 informed EEAG
24 cost-effective 1n 2016 from the TRC perspective based on
25 preliminary savings information and the Company advised
ASCHENBRENNER, DI 26
Idaho Power Company
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
8
9
EEAG that under the scenarios it evaluated the cost-
effectiveness of the Home Improvement program woufd Iike1y
not improve in 2017. However, the Company assured EEAG
that it would continue to inform customers through
education to consider upgrading these measures where it
makes sense given
incentive may no
suggestions from
best discontinue
a customer's situati-on even
longer be offered and asked
EEAG members as to how Idaho
though an
for
Power could
10
the program.
O. Please describe the scenarj-os the Company
evaluated and the results of the Company's analysls.
A. One scenario the Company analyzed that was
presented at the November EEAG meeting was offering only
those measure combinations closest to being cost-effective;
11
72
1-3
1-4
15
16
include window
there
t7 pane windows, and insulation j-ncentives
18 home's R-value was less than l-0. Under
this modified program would only
replacements in situations where are existing single-
where the existi-ng
this scenario and
19 using estimated savings for 2077, the Company's analysis
20 performed in the faII of 201,6 indicated that the program
2l would 1ikeIy not be cost-effective from both the UCT and
22
23
24
25
the TRC. A subsequent analysis
scenario and using actual 2076
remain non-cost-effective under
indicated that under this
savings, the program would
all tests except the UC
ASCHENBRENNER, DI 21
Idaho Power Company
1 test which would decrease from 2.54 as the program exists
2 today to t.42.
3 Another scenario the Company analyzed was modifying
4 the program by only offering the highest savings measure
5 combinations in only the coldest c1imate cj-ties (heating
6 zone 3); these areas produce on average less than 5 percent
7 of projects on an annual basis. Under this scenario, the
8 modified program would fail all of the cost-effectiveness
9 tests except the PCT.
10 O. What other factors did the Company consider
11 when making a determination about discontinuing the
L2 program?
13 A. The Company consj-dered the impact on
74 participating and non-participating customers and the
15 impact on trade al1ies before ul-tj-mately deciding to
16 dj-scontinue the program. The Company al-so noted the
77 program's total savings as a percentage of the DSM
18 portfolio; rn 2016, the Home Improvement program accounted
19 for approximately 1 percent of the residential sector's
20 performance and less than .5 percent of the total portfolio
27 savings. The Company also considered whether the cost-
22 effectiveness of the program was expected to improve during
23 2071.
24 O. Does the Company anticj-pate the cost-
25 effectiveness of the program to improve during 20L7?
ASCHENBRENNER, DI 28
Idaho Power Company
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
8
9
A No. Tab]e 9 below shows the results of the
four cost-effectiveness tests for 2075 and
years, usrng
respectively.
effectiveness,
costs, which have
how those updated
effectiveness, the
the 20]-3 DSM al-ternate costs
When the Company calculates
it wilt use the IRP's 2015
2076 program
in rows ! and 2,
201"1 cost-
DSM alternate
decreased by 40 percent. To determine
costs will impact the overall cost-
Company calculated the ratios using 2075
10
savings and 2015 DSM alternate costs.
row 3 of Table 9.
Those results are in
Tab1e 9. Eome Inprovenent Progran Cost-Effectiveness
ASCHENBRENNER, DI 29
Idaho Power Company
11
t2
23
13
74
20
19
s
1_5
O. Did any of the EEAG members express concerns
about the Company potentially discontinuing the Home
Improvement program?
A. Yes. Some members of EEAG expressed concern
16
l1
18 about the Company discontinuing a program that passes the
that itUCT. However,
should consider
Idaho Power continues to believe
all of the recommended cost-effectiveness
2L tests (TRC, UCT, and the PCT) when planning new program
offerings or evaluating existing programs. The Company
also believes that this is consistent with the Commission's
22
Row Program Year TRC
Ratio
UGT
Ratio
PCT
Ratio
RIM
Test
0.67 1.91 1.05 0.6112015 (Using 2013 DSM Alternate Costs)
0.80 0.6422016 (Using 2013 DSM Alternate Costs)0.60 2.54
0.41 1.65 0.73 0.4632016 (Using 2015 DSM Alternate Costs)
1 expectations and dlrectives, most recently in Order No.
2 33365 described more fully in section III above.
3 Q. Does the Company believe the UCT ratio of
4 greater than one should stand-aIone as a reason to continue
5 offering the Home Improvement program?
6 A. No. Whil-e the program stil-I meets the UCT,
7 the Company does not believe it should rely on this test
8 solely in making a determination regarding the continuation
9 of the program. A recent decline in measure savings,
10 declining DSM al-ternative costs, and the high participant
11 costs of installing the measures themsel-ves have all
72 infl-uenced the overall cost-effectiveness. While the
13 program does pass the UCT, it does so primarily because the
1,4 participant's upfront costs are not considered in that
15 test. Idaho Power does not bel-ieve it should offer a
L6 program that has significant participant costs and does not
77 provide a payback for the customer over the life of the
18 measure.
19 O. Does the Company
20 whether or not to discontinue the Home Improvement program?
2L Yes. Eor all of the reasons descrj-bed above,
22 the Company plans to discontinue the Home Improvement
23 program begj-nning on June 30, 2017. Customers will have 90
24 days from the day the job is started to submit their
25 incentive applications and those customers whose jobs were
ASCHENBRENNER, Dr 30
Idaho Power Company
have a recommendation on
A
1 started on or before 'June 30, 2071, will qualify for an
2 incentive.
3 As described above, while the Company will
4 dj-scontinue the program effective June 30, 2077, if the
5 Commissi-on wishes Idaho Power to continue to offer or to
6 re-launch the program at a later time, the Company will
7 work col-laboratively wj-th EEAG to implement the
8 Commission's directive.
9 Eridge aad Ereezer Reqrc,J,ilag Progzaa
10 O. Which program did not have a benefit/cost
11 ratio greater than 1.0 in 2076 from the perspective of the
!2 UCT?
13 A. The Eridge and Freezer Recycling program had a
L4 TRC of 1.31 and a UCT of .92 in 20L6.
15 a. Please explain why the Fridge and Ereezer
16 Recycling program was not cost-effective in 20L6.
!1 A. The program was temporarity suspended in
18 December of 2015 through June of 20L6 as a resul-t of the
L9 Company's contractor abruptly going out of business. While
20 the Company reinstated the program after entering into a
2L contract with a different contractor to administer the
22 program, the Company did not have a full year to operate
23 the program, resulting in fewer units being recycled. The
24 Company bel-ieves had the program been operational for the
25
ASCHENBRENNER, DI 31
Idaho Power Company
1 full- t2 months of 2076, it is Iike1y that the program would
2 have passed the UC test.
3 A. Does the Company believe the Fridge and
4 Freezer Recycling program will be cost-effective in 20L7?
5 A. While the Regional Technical Forum (*RTF")
6 revised and approved new, lower savings for freezer and
7 refrigerator decommissioning at the end of 2016,
8 Idaho Power believes the Fridge and Freezer Recycling
9 program could be cost-effective in 2OlT from the TRC
10 perspective because of the non-energy benefits associated
11 with decommissioning a refrigerator and fxeezer. However,
12 the program may not pass the UC test. The Company
13 discussed the ongoing changes to the program with EEAG at
L4 the February, August, and November 2076 meetings. The
15 Company is currently evaluating the program and will-
16 discuss its findings with EEAG prior to making any final-
L7 decision about the continuation of the program.
18 IV. E\TAI.UATTOII ACTIVITT OVERVTEW
t9 o What is the Company's approach to DSM program
20 evaluation?
2L A. In order to
22 effectiveness of programs
ensure the ongoing cost-
through validation of
23 savings and demand reduction, and to guide the
24 management
evaluations
of its programs, the Company relies
by third-party contractors chosen through a
energy
efficient
on
ASCHENBRENNER, DI 32
Idaho Power Company
25
1 competitive bidding process, internal analyses, and
2 reqional and national studj-es. Idaho Power uses i-ndustry-
3 standard protocols for its internal and external- eval-uation
4 efforts. Process and impact evaluations are typically on a
5 three-year cycle for each program; however, the timing of
6 specific program evaluations is based on considerations
7 regarding program needs. The Company actively participates
8 in regional groups that evaluate new technologies and
9 advancements. Supplement 2: EvaTuations ("Supplement 2")
10 to the DSM 2016 Annual Report provides additional
11 information regarding how Idaho Power evaluates its
12 programs.
13 O. How does Idaho Power utilize the eval-uations
t4 described above?
15 A. Idaho Power uses the results of its
tG evaluations to inform decisions rel-ated to program
L7 improvement, to compare processes to industry best
18 practices, and to val-idate reported program savings.
19 O. What eval-uation activities took place in 2016?
20 A. In addition to the annual cost-effectiveness
2L analyses that the Company conducts for each program, in
22 2016, Idaho Power completed two combination impact and
23 process evaluations on the Rebate Advantage and Irrigation
24 Efficiency Rewards programs. Idaho Power conducted impact
25 eval-uations on the Building Efficiency, Easy Upgrades, A/C
ASCHENBRENNER, DI 33
Idaho Power Company
1 Cool Credit, and FIex Peak programs. A11 of these
2 evaluations were conducted by third-party contractors.
3 Lastly, Idaho Power conducted an internal analysis to
4 determine current and future cost-effectiveness and
5 possibl-e modifications to the Eridge and Freezer program.
6 Tdaho Power also administered surveys on severa.l-
7 programs in 2016 to measure program satlsfaction.
8 Participant surveys were conducted for the Drying Rack
9 Project, Elex Peak Program, Home Energy Audit, Shade Tree
10 Project, Smart-saver pledge, Weatherization Assistance for
11 Qualified Customi.", and Weatherization Solutions for
12 Eligible Customers.
13 The final reports for these eval-uations and studies,
t4 and the market effects evaluations
15 included in Supplement 2 to the DSM
conducted by
20L6 Annual-
L6
L7 Does Idaho Power have a DSM program evaluation
18 2017 ?
L9 Yes. Exhibit No. 3, Customer ReLations and
20 Energy Efficiency 201-2-2077 Program EvaLuation Plan, is
2t attached, and is also included in Supplement 2 to the DSM
22 2076 Annua1 Report. In 2017, Idaho Power's eval-uatj-on plan
23 includes third-party combj-nation impact and process
24 eval-uatj-on for the Heating and Cooling Effici-ency program,
25 an impact eval-uation for the Home Energy Audit program, and
ASCHENBRENNER, DI 34
Idaho Power Company
surveys,
NEEA are
Report.
o
plan for
A
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
a process evaluation for
Efficiency program.
Idaho Power will-
Drying Rack Pi1ot,
Energy House Cal1s
Shade Tree Project,
I/'IAQC and Sol-utions
the Commercial/Industrial Energy
al-so conduct an analysis of the
a market saturation analysis of the
program, a
a billing
programs,
8 for the A/C Cool Credit, Flex
9 Rewards programs. This plan
10 guide and may change based on
11 factors.
72
13
L4
15
t6
1_7
18
t9
20
27
22
23
24
qualitative analysis of the
comparison analysis of the
as well as summary analyses
Peak, and Irrigation Peak
is intended to be used as a
need, timing, or other
V. STAKEEOI,DER INPT''IT
o.What opportunitj-es exist generally for
external parties to provide input and guj-dance to Idaho
Power's DSM efforts?
A. In 2002, Idaho Power formed the EEAG to
provide input on enhancing existing DSM programs,
recoflrmending new energy efficiency measures, and
implementing energy efficiency programs. Members include
customer representatives from residentj-aI, irrigatj-on,
commercial, and industrial- sectors, and technj-cal experts,
as well as representatives for limited-income individuals,
environmental organizations, state agencies, the Idaho
Public Utilities Commissj-on, the PubIic Utility Commission
of Oregon, and Idaho Power.
ASCHENBRENNER, DI 35
Idaho Power Company
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
In 2016, the Company held four in-person EEAG
meeti-ngs and two conference calls. During these meetings,
Idaho Power discussed and requested recommendatj-ons on a
broad range of DSM issues and requested feedback on new
program ideas and new measure proposals, marketing methods,
and specific measure details. Idaho Power provided a
status of the Idaho and Oregon Rider funding and expenses,
gave an update of ongoing programs and projects, and
supplied general information on DSM j-ssues and other
important issues occurring in the region.
VI. I}ICREME}ITAL DSM I.ABOR
o
prudence
Please explain the Company's request for a
determj-nation on $1r 860,901- in j-ncremental DSM
!4 labor expenses.
A. The
10
11
L2
13
15
\6 determination on
Company i-s seeking a prudence
$1, 860, 901 in incremental Rider-funded
t1
18
L9
20
2L
22
23
24
25
labor expenses above the 2070 baseline that were incurred
as part of the pursuit and acquisi-tion of 943,719 MWh in
total DSM energy efficiency savingsr ds well as the
provision of demand response capacity between 20Ll and
2016. The Company bel-ieves that the labor expenses were
prudently incurred and necessary to acquire the total
energy savi-ngs and demand response capacity achieved in
each of those years. Eurther, these labor expenses were
ASCHENBRENNER, DI 36
Idaho Power Company
I incl-uded in the DSM portfollos cost-effectiveness tests in
2 each of those years.
3 Q. Has the Company requested a determination on
4 any of these amounts in prior cases?
5 A. Yes. In Case No. IPC-E-12-15, the Company
6 sought approval of 20L1, DSM expenditures in the amount of
7 $35,623,32L as prudently incurred. In its comments, Staff
8 raised concerns about granting a prudence determination on
9 certain incremental Rider-funded labor expenses above the
10 2070 Ievels. On page nine of Order No. 32667, the
11 Commission determined that the Company did not provide the
L2 necessary information to demonstrate that the increase in
13 Rider-funded labor-related expenses tn 2011 was reasonable
L4 and declj-ned to make a prudence determination on $89,601 of
l-5 the Company's labor-related expense increase, instead
L6 directing the Company to work with Staff to determine what
L7 type of information shoul-d be provided to demonstrate the
18 reasonabl-eness of those increases.
19 In Case No. IPC-E-13-08, the Company asked the
20 Commission to determine that $89,601 in 20lL incremental
2t labor expenses and $173,811 tn 2072 incremental labor
22 expenses were prudent. On pages eight and nine of final
23 Order No. 32953, the Commj-ssion questioned the accuracy and
24 completeness of the Company's compensation analysis and
25 again deferred its ruling on the reasonableness of the
ASCHENBRENNER, DI 37
Idaho Power Company
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Company's incremental labor adjustments. The Commission
again suggested that the Company work with Staff to
determj-ne what kind of evidence the Company should provide
to substantiate its claims. The Commission also indicated
that its preference is that the Company revisj-t the
incremental- Iabor in its next general rate case, but also
indicated the Company may raise the issue again in an
earlier filing (Order No. 32953 at 8-9).
O. Has the Company asked the Commission for a
prudence determination on incremental labor expenses in its
annual- DSM prudence filings since Case No. IPC-E-13-08?
A. No. On an annual basis, the Company has
quantified the amount of annual incremental expense
associated with DSM labor above the 2010 baseline and has
set aside those amounts for a prudence determj-nation in the
Company's annua1 DSM prudence filing. In each annual DSM
filing, the Company has continued to express concern about
not being able to fu1ly recover DSM expenses that were
necessary to achieve cost-effective energy effj-ciency and
demand response capacity.
a. Why is the Company requesting a prudence
determination on these amounts at this time?
A. As the balance of DSM-related labor costs
for which the Commission has deferred a prudence
determination has continued to grow in recent years, Idaho
ASCHENBRENNER, DI 38
Idaho Power Company
10
11
L2
13
t4
15
16
t7
18
19
20
21-
22
23
24
25
I
2
3
4
5
6
1
8
9
Power has become
to receive timely
costs incurred
DSM resources to
does not believe
increasingly
recovery of
in the course
its prudently
of procuring
incurred costs
cost-effective
concerned about its ability
the benefit of all customers.
that it coul-d have achieved the
The Company
level- of
10
energy efficiency and demand response during the last sj-x
years had it frozen the wages and salaries of its DSM
employees at 2070 Ievels, dS an interpretation of the past
regulatory treatment might suggest. The Company has been
able to attract and retain skil1ed and knowledgeable staff
of DSM employees by adjustJ-ng the respective compensation
levels to be competitive with the market leve1 for each
role. Eor this reason, the Company respectfully requests
that the Commission review and determine as part of this
proceedi-ng that the 2077- 20L6 labor cost increases were
necessarily incurred to facilitate the ongoing pursuit of
cost-effective energy efficiency, and were therefore,
prudently incurred.
0. Has the Company worked with Staff to determine
what kind of evidence the Company should provide to inform
2L a prudence determination by the Commission?
22 A Yes. In response to the Commission's
23 directive issued in Order No. 33583, Case No.r PC-E-1 6-03,
other24 for the Company to collaborate with Staff and
25 stakeholders to examine an adjustment to the Rider
ASCHENBRENNER, DI 39
Idaho Power Company
11
t2
13
74
15
76
1,7
18
19
20
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
percentage, the Company held two stakeholder meetings with
parties Staff, ICL, and the Industrial Customers of Idaho
Power i-n November 2016.
The primary purpose of those meetings was to
determine what the appropriate Rider collection percentage
should be to adequately fund projected annual- DSM
expenditures. Because Idaho Power believes the Rider
percentage should be set at a level that provides an
incurred Rider-fundedopportunity to recover all prudently
expenses, including Iabor, Idaho Power discussed the
growing amount of the incremental labor set-aside since
2070 to determine if the parties should consider the
incremental- labor in det.ermining the proper Rj-der
percentage going forward.
In that discussion, Idaho Power informed parties
10
11
L2
13
74
15
16
77
that by the
million of
received a
end of 2016 it would have approximately $1.8
Rider-funded incremental- labor that has not yet
but18prudence determination from the CommJ-ssion,
79 could affect the Rider balance in the future. Idaho Power
2A bel-j-eves these amounts were prudently incurred and
27 necessary to achieve the annual energy savings and demand
22 response capacity from Idaho Powerrs DSM activities and
23 these amounts have been and continue to be incl-uded in the
24 Company's cost-effectiveness calculations. Idaho Power
25
ASCHENBRENNER, DI 40
fdaho Power Company
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
I
9
expressed its continued desi-re to pursue a prudence
determination on these amounts in a future proceeding.
Staff and ICL acknowledged that it would be
appropriate for the Company to seek
determinatj-on in the Company's 20L6
be filed on March 15, 2071.
a prudence
DSM prudence request to
o.
quantify the
In preparati-on for this case, did you
amount of incremental labor
10
associ-ated with the
A Yes.
acquisition of 2076
As shown in Exhibit
expenses
DSM savings?
No. !, during
11 20L6,
above
the Company incurred $547 ,494 in DSM labor expense
the 20L0 baseline amounts.
O. What is the total amount of DSM labor
expense by year on which the Company is seeking a prudence
determination?
L2
13
t4
15
1,6 A. Tabl-e 10 illustrates the amounts
t1 labor expense above the 2070 baseline by year.
18 the 201-6 j-ncremental- Iabor expense, the Company
L9 incurred $1,860,901 in DSM labor above the 2010
of DSM
Including
has
basel-ine to
20 pursue cost-effective energy efficiency and
21, capaci-ty but has not yet been authorized to
22 amounts.
23
24
25
demand response
recover those
ASCHENBRENNER, DI 47
Idaho Power Company
Column 3 4 512
Total
Labor
2010$ /FTE
Baseline
Column 2
Times
Column 3
Column 1
Minus
Column 4YearFTE
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
$2,577,080
$2,637,729
$2,886,988
$2,767,445
$2,720,954
$2,957,912
$3.097.309
$96,520
$96,520
$96,520
$96,520
$96,520
$96,520
$96.520
$2,548,128
$2,713,177
$2,499,013
$2,382,247
$2,516,056
$2.549.815
$89,601
$173,811
$269,432
$338,707
$441,856
$547.494
26.7
26.4
28.11
25.88
24.68
26.07
26.42
Total $1,860.901
2
3
4
5
6
7
I
9
1 fab].e 10. Increnental DSM Labor Year
O. How did
information to present
the reasonableness of
the Company determine what
the $1,860,901 in DSM labor expenses?
A. At the November J, 2016, meeting with Staff
and parties, Idaho Power asked Staff what evidence woul-d
aid in the eval-uation of the reasonableness of the
incremental- DSM labor expenses. Based on that discussion
and the discussion at the subsequent meeting on November
22, 2076, Idaho Power understands that Staff expects to see
the documentation that the Company relied upon when making
the decision to grant annual wage adjustments.
O. What evidence j-s the Company submittj-ng to
support its request?
A. Attached to my testimony as confidential-
Exhibit No. 4 is the information that the Company relied
upon to make annual general wage adjustments in the years
2011, through 2076.
to the Commission to substantiate
10
11
1-2
13
t4
15
L6
T1
18
19
20
ASCHENBRENNER, DI 42
Idaho Power Company
1 Q. Please generally describe Idaho Power's
2 employee compensation philosophy.
3 A. Idaho Power's compensation philosophy is to
4 provj-de a balanced, competitj-ve, and sustainable total
5 compensation package or "Total Rewards" package, ensuring
6 it attracts and retains hiqh quality employees and
7 motivates them to achieve performance goals that benefit
8 customers and shareholders. Maintaining a competitive
9 compensation package all-ows the Company to recruit and
10 retain its highly skilled workforce. The competitiveness
11 of Idaho Power's compensation package also supports the
L2 Company's intent to maintain a fl-exible workforce that can
13 easily adjust work duties and assignments to meet changing
14 demands and operational needs, which in turn keep the
15 Company's costs of service lower. In support of this
1,6 philosophy, the Company and the Compensation Committee of
t7 Idaho Power's Board of Directors ("Board") monj-tor the
18 salary structure annuaIly, and adjust it as necessary in
19 order to maintain a market competitive compensation
20 package.
2t O. Please describe the standard the Company uses
22 to remain competitive in setting base wages.
23 A. The Company has a grade and step pay system.
24 The highest step in any grade is step 13. Each position is
25 assigned a grade as reflective of the market and the
ASCHENBRENNER, DI 43
Idaho Power Company
I Company standard for remaining competitive is to set the
2 highest step 13 pay of each grade to be approxj-mately equal
3 to the median pay for a comparable position in the peer-
4 compared market.
5 Q. How does the Company determine the grade 1evel
6 for each posJ-tJ-on?
7 A. Base compensation targets are established when
8 a job is created using peer utility company wage data
9 obtained from salary surveys and union contracts, as well
10 as an internal- equity analysis. Idaho Power typically
11 evaluates three to four years of wage data to ensure that
L2 compensation trends are taken into consideration, and to
13 prevent frequent changes to position wages based on one or
74 two years of survey data. As descrlbed above, the Company
15 reviews this information annually to ensure market-
76 competitive wages are maintained.
l7 O. Can an employee move between grades?
18 A. Yes, there are two common ways an employee can
79 move j-nto a different graded position. One example woul-d
20 be an employee movi-ng from a Program Specialist I to a
2! Program Specialist II. Each of these positions is assigned
22 a different grade, based on the knowledge, skill-s, and
23 experience requi-red for the posltion. A Program Specialist
24 cannot move from a l-eve1 one to a level two until that
25
ASCHENBRENNER, DI 44
Idaho Power Company
1 employee meets the requirements of the Program Specialist
2 TT.
3 The other way an employee may be eligible to move
4 into a different graded position is by pursj-ng a promotion
5 into a different job family. For example, if a Research
6 Assistant applies for a Program Specialist position and is
7 selected to fill that role, the employee's grade and
8 respective pay would reflect the responsi-bilities of the
9 new position.
10 O. Has the employee movementr dS you described
11 above, contributed to some of the $1.8 million in
t2 incremental labor above the 20L0 levels?
13 A. Yes. The Company identified 15 employees who
L4 have been in positions that are fu11y or mostly funded by
15 the Rider between 20L0 and 2016. The average grade of
16 these employees increased over that six-year period from
l7 approximately grade 26 to a grade 28, which is
18 representative of employee advancements and promotions as I
1,9 described above.
20 O. How do merit salary increases rel-ate to the
21 grade and step system?
22 A. Merj-t salary increases are the means by which
23 an employee progresses within the grade and step system.
24 For example, do employee that begins employment at step 1
25 of a salary grade may receive periodic merit salary
ASCHENBRENNER, DI 45
Idaho Power Company
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
I
9
increases untj-I that employee reaches step 13 of their
respective grade. Step 13 of each grade represents the
median wa ge leve1 based on market survey information.
Therefore, employees that are below step 13 of thelr grade
are compensated at a wage below the median market leve1
until they reach step 13. Employees are eligible for a
merj-t salary revj-ew every six months.
O. Have merit salary increases of Rider-funded
10
employees
Iabor over
A.
contributed to the $1.8 million in
2070 leve1s?
Yes. The Company l-ooked at the
described above and determined the
employees in
average step
incremental
same group of
average step
11
t2
13
employees
of those
2076 the
2010 was approximately a nine and j-n
1-4 of those employees was approximately
15 a 72. This demonstrates that as employees gain experience
76 and are performing well in their roles they are eligible to
l7 receive pay increases to bring their salary up to the
18 median of the market (step 13).
19 O. Are employees eligible for any other
20 adjustment to wages in a given year?
21, A. Yes, employees are eligible to recej-ve a
22 general wage adjustment ("GWA") if one is granted by the
23 Board.
24 O. What j-s a GWA?
25
ASCHENBRENNER, DI 46
Idaho Power Company
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
I
9
A. The GWA is a pay/salary adjustment mechanism
intended to ensure that Idaho Power's wages remain
competitive with market wages for comparable positions.
A. What information does the Company rely upon to
determine if a GWA is warranted and, if so, what the
percentage adjustment should be?
A. Idaho Power reli-es upon a combinati-on of
quantitative and qualitatj-ve
annual GWA recommendation for
information to prepare an
the
10 considerations include estimated
Board's approval. These
union and non-union
11 increases for investor-owned util-ities geographically near
72 Idaho Power's service area, salary increase budget survey
13 data for the energy services industry, 1ocaI economy
L4 business conditions, and the Consumer Price Index for all
15 Urban Customers ('CPI-U").
16 0. How does the Company obtain the information it
L7 relies upon for the estimated union and non-unj-on increases
18 for investor-owned utilities geographically near Idaho
19 Power's service area?
20 A. The Company contacts its peer utilities in the
27 fall- of each year to inquj-re as to what each utility's
22 recommended, or budgeted percentage increase may be for the
23 next year. Additionally, for the estimated union contract
24 increases, the Company gathers information from ratified
25 col-l-ective bargaining agreements when possible. This
ASCHENBRENNER, DI 47
Idaho Power Company
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
information j-s solicited at the point in ti-me when Idaho
Power is consolj-dating information for its recommendation
to the Board. The Company may have received information
from a peer utility that it recommended a general waqe
increase of a certain percentage, but the actual percentage
granted may have been different than the estimate that was
provided to Idaho Power.
The evidence that Idaho Power submj-ts in this case,
Confidential Exhibit No. 4, contains the informatj-on it
received in the faII from its peer utilities at the point
i-n time when the recontmendation to the Board was finalized.
Because Idaho Power's ul-timate recommendation was based in
10
11
72
15
13 part on that point-in-time estimate,
confidential Exhibit No.14 contained in 4is accurater ds it
relied upon torepresents the information that the Board
make its GWA determination.
18
O. Why are non-exempt trade positj-ons benchmarked
using Intermountain Utitity peer contract data?
A. Non-exempt peer trade positions most closely
align with ldaho Power trade positions. Because Idaho
Power is seeking skilled applicants 1n a l-imited pool,
benchmarking trade positions to salary increases in the
trade industry a1lows the Company to attract and retain its
trade employees by remaining competitive with its peer
util-ities.
L9
20
2t
22
23
24
ASCHENBRENNER, DI 48
Idaho Power Company
the informati-on
16
L7
25
1 Q. How does Idaho Power obtain the information on
2 salary increase budget survey data for the energy services
3 industry and data to represent local- economy busj-ness
4 conditions?
5 A. Idaho Power participates in a number of third-
6 party salary increase surveys and the results are typically
7 provided to partici-pants (sometj-mes for a nominal fee).
8 The Company's Human Resource manaqement team also requests
9 confidential planned union and non-union estj-mated wage
10 increase data from 1ocal companies.
11 O. What j-s the CPI-U?
L2 A. The CPI is a measure of the average change in
13 prices over time of goods and services purchased by
74 househol-ds. The Bureau of Labor Statistics publishes CPIs
15 for two population groups: (1) the CPI for Urban Wage
!6 Earners and Cl-erical Workers (CPI-W), which covers
t7 households of wage earners and clerical workers that
18 comprise approxi-mately 28 percent of the total population
19 and (2) the CPI for AIl Urban Consumers (CPI-U) and the
20 Chained CPI for A11 Urban Consumers (C-CPI-U), which covers
27 approximately 89 percent of the total- population and
22 includes, in addition to wage earners and clerical- worker
23 households, groups such as professional, managerial, and
24 technical workers, the self-employed, short-term workers,
25
ASCHENBRENNER, DI 49
Idaho Power Company
1 the unemployed, and retirees and others not in the labor
2 foxce.
3 Q. How does the Company weigh the informatj-on
4 when determining what it beLieves an appropriate GWA for
5 its employees should be?
6 A. As previously stated, the Company believes it
7 1s imperative that it maintains competitive wage levels for
8 employees to ensure the recruj-tment and retention of a
t hiqhly-ski11ed workforce. While the Company considers aII
10 of the information described above, it places emphasis on
11 the industry wage j-ncrease data, both from union contracts
L2 and energy services salary j-ncrease surveys.
13 O. Does the Company believe the GWAs granted by
74 the Board in 2011 through 2016 were prudent?
15 A. Yes.
16 a. Does the Company believe that it coul-d have
!1 achieved the 943,119 MWh in total energy efficiency savings
18 and demand response capacity between 20LL and 2016 whil-e
79 freezing its employees' salaries at 20!0 level-s?
20 A. No.
21 VTI. COMPLIE}ICE ITITE ORDER NO. 33583
22 a. On page 5 of Order No. 33583, the Commission
dj-rected Idaho Power to "submit a proposal for revising its
Rider percentage to this Commission no later than Friday,
23
24
ASCHENBRENNER, DI 50
Idaho Power Company
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
8
9
December 30, 2076."
directive?
A. Yes.
Did the Company comply with that
As referenced
collaboration with stakeholders,
application on December 22, 20L6,
an order approving (1) a decrease
percentage from
revenues, (2) a
Rider funds to
10 the elimination
above, following
the Company submj-tted an
asking the Commissj-on for
in the Rider collection
4 percent to 3.75 percent of base rate
$13 million refund of previously collected
be included in the 2077 /20L8 PCA, and (3)
of the annual- transfer of $4 million of
11 Rider funds through the PCA.
L2 o On page
Idaho Power13 directed
agencies." Did the
A. Yes.
6 of Order No. 33583, the Commission
"to work with Staff in determini-ng how
partj-cipating CAP
that directive?
1,4 to obtain the most usable data from the
15 Company comply with
Idaho Power hosted16
71 on Eriday,
18 process for
1_9 programs.
order is20
21
22
23
24
Eebruary 10, 2077,
administering the
a meetj-ng with Staff
to discuss the Company's
1ow-income weatherization
Idaho Power's presentation outl-ined how a work
processed from the initial customer contact
through the completion of the recommended weatherization
and payment of the associated invoice. Idaho Power also
explained the Company's process for follow-up inspections
and customer feedback. As a resul-t of this meeting, the
ASCHENBRENNER, DI 51
Idaho Power Company
25
1
2
3
Company believes that it has adequately addressed Staff's
concerns and that no further action 1s necessary.
O. In Order No. 33583, the Commissj-on stated:
Irfle f ind it reasonable for the
Company to work with Staff and EEAGto develop a DSM portf oJ-io that
considers more programs . . Inparticular, we encourage the Companyto consider residenti-a1 behavioral-
programs and smaIl-medium business
efficiency programs in expanding its
DSM portfolio.
Order No. 33583 at I
Has the Company complied with the Commission's
4
5
6
1
8
9
10
11
12
13
74
15
t6
11 directives ?
A. Yes.
multlple discussions
18 In 2016, the Company participated in
L9 with EEAG to solicit input on offering
20 behavioral programs and the Company has conducted a number
27 of activities to encourage customer behavj-oral change.
22 Eor the residential- customer segment, Idaho Power
23 conducted the Drying Rack Pj-l-ot Project distributing
24 approximately 1,300 drying racks to customers, began the
25 Energy-Savi-ngs Kits by request program distributing more
26 than 34r000 kits to customers, and launched a new offering,
21 the Smart-saver Pledge to encourage customers to make an
28 energy saving behavj-or change. Idaho Power believes that
29 all of these programs encourage residential customers to
30 make energy saving behavior changes.
31
ASCHENBRENNER, DI 52
Idaho Power Company
1
2
3
4
5
6
Al-so in 20L6, Idaho Power began work to establ-ish a
Home Energy Report program where resj-dential- customers will
be sent a home energy report advlsing of their energy use
The report
to sign up for myAccount to
and suggest behavior and other
7 changes customers may undertake to reduce energy use. The
8 Company plans to begin the Home Energy Report program in
9 the second quarter of 201,7 .
10 For the commercial/industrial- customer segment,
11 Idaho Power continued the Vflastewater Energy Efficiency
L2 Cohort, kicked off the Municipal Water Supply Optimization
13 Cohort and recruited for the School Cohort. The cohort
74 model brings operations professionals together along with
l-5 other industry experts to learn, share, and employ behavior
t6 and strategic energy efficiency management practices.
71 O. What has Idaho Power done to further sma11-
18 medium business efficiency programs?
79 A. In 2016, Idaho Power continued the Streamlj-ned
20 Custom Efficiency offering where customers with projects
2L that are typically too smal-l for Custom Projects are
22 provided the opportunity to work with engineering
23 consultants to evaluate energy-saving options, quantify
24 costs, and estj-mate savings for Custom Project incentives
25 with Idaho Power.
ASCHENBRENNER, DI 53
Idaho Power Company
as compared to an average
will encourage customers
monitor their energy use
home of similar size.
1
2
The Company also identified an opportunity to
increase its focus on small- and medium business customers
3 by promoting participation in energy efficiency programs.
4 As a result, the Company developed a new position titled
5 Customer Solutj-ons Advisor ("CSA"); these positions are
6 schedul-ed to be in place and performing their assigned
7 duties by May 7, 2077. A primary focus for the CSAs will-
8 be promoting and educating smal-l- and medium business
9
10 customers on energy efficiency and demand response
11 programs.
1,2 VIII. CONCLUSIO}I
13 o.Do you bel-ieve that the information contained
14 in this testimony and attached exhibits
determination for 20L6 DSM expenses and
incremental DSM labor amounts?
A. Yes. The DSM 2016 Annual Report detai1s Idaho
Power's DSM offerings in program specific sections. Based
on the 201,6 DSM Annual- Report, the testimony set forth
above, and the attached exhibits, Idaho Power respectfully
requests the Commission determine that $40,242,782 of DSM
expenses incurred for the acquisition of demand-side
resources were prudently incurred.
O. Does this concl-ude your testimony?
A. Yes, it does.
ASCHENBRENNER, DI 54
Idaho Power Company
supports a prudence
2077 through 207615
L6
T7
t_B
19
20
2t
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
ATTESTATION OF TESTIMONY
STATE OF IDAHO
SS.
County of Ada
Tt Connie Aschenbrenner, havlng been duly sworn to
testify truthfully, and based upon my personal knowledge,
state the following:
f am employed by Idaho Power Company as a Senior
Regulatory Analyst in the Regulatory Affairs Department and
am competent to be a witness in this proceeding.
I declare under penalty of perjury of the l-aws of
the state of Idaho that the foregoing pre-filed testimony
and exhibits are true and correct to the best of my
information and belief.
DATED this 15th day of March 201,7 .
10
11
t2
13
1,4
15
L6
17
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
1_8
19
20
27
22
23 March 201,7 .
24
/2n*
Conni e Asc nbrenner
SUBSCRIBED AND SVIORN to before me this 15th day of
,,.r'l'l
f,
c for IdahotroTA1"
rDor-
lglstQ
T
N ary
Residing Boise Idaho
My commission expires z L2/20/2020
ASCHENBRENNER, DI 55
Idaho Power Company
rtt. lD
4
rat
BEFORE THE
IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
GASE NO. IPC-E-17-03
IDAHO POWER COMPANY
ASGHENBRENNER, DI
TESTIMONY
EXHIBIT NO.1
ldaho Power Coorpany
2016 ldaho DSI EeerE s lnd Adfr.hcnt! ,or Prud.rrc. Flllno
DamartdRrem. 2016hcrttfit l
Ptogrm hcillhrB lrbor^Dor.2olo
Erpenaaa Rl&rErD.r[.. [e-mail] TdlEry.B.. B...lh.F]
ErrgyErrbbcytDt,,mdn pa,
R.dd.ndrl
ArcC@lCEdt
Edrc.fpnd tXttihrlbnr
Encoy Efidmr Lighlhg
Encoy Hour! Crlb
ENERGY STARO Homr Nortlmst
Fridgc .nd F@- R.slcline Prognm
H..ling A C@Ing Efikancy Prcgnm
Hom EnlEy Audit
HoD hTmvamnt PDg[m
MuliLrily Enarw Srvhgt Ppmm
Rrb|t Advrntlg!
Sh.d. Tm PEFct
Simph St$r, Smn S.vin$il
Wcrthlriatiq Solutbn! fbr Eliiblr CustomE
CmmGlaulnd$trlrl
Buildhg Efichncy
Curtom Elrrcilncy
E.3y Upgndrr
FluPEk Proerm
ldgruon
lrigatjon Eftcanc, Rmftl3
lfielbn P.rk RMdr
419,m7 I
398,122
6.212.2X)
6it2,070 3
2,33,1,206
3,00r,t70
18E,253
138,203
250,5ii5
5a5,,tsil
27E,959
309,799
55,750
103,056
70,669
1,t7,055
1,226,54
'1,05't,086
2,33/,26
3,00,970
188,253
r38,m3
250,535
545,45,t
278,959
30s,799
55,758
r03,056
70,669
147,055
1,226,54
'l0, lill
2,511
7,538
2,368
2,45
2,&6
22,275
10,653
11,225
3,288
,r,602
i|,349
3,1git
589
t
1,E63,58,1
7,664,56,ii
1,791,452
105,1 l6
1,863,584
7,664,56i'
1,79',t,652
503,238
25,079
70,5fi
19,505
16,627
1,472324
1.082.1't3
1,472324
7.U1.103
u,253
7.88{'
2G.4m.63 t l.W.am s 3it.'a.ct2 3 2rl.H
Norllmrt Enr@ Efici.nd Albn@ 2.il2_*7 2.il2.$7
,Md Tm',o.tn.rlon Tot,l t z51z$f t ,zsaz$f t
Otha. Proenm id Acthrltl6
R.rir.nli.l EmOy Eficbnqy Etuetibn lniEliv.259,301
234.767
259,301
234 767
't8,8(b
37 307Fn.tu FGdtu l.td o6Da 6v.A..A
ComEi.ylndurUi.l En Oy Eftcanc, Ovlrnud 2:22,7U 2122,7U S,355
Encrgy Efi€arcy Acountog rnd An.lfit 8,18,975 8it8,975 E7,01 9EnorgyEficbnqAd.LoryGrcup 1,1,365 14,365 954
Rc.ir!trti.l EmrW Eftcbncy Ov.lhud 783,384 783,38/t 35,987
S,tri,l Mu,tfrtg Eltfrs
(88.570)(88.575)
1.froE51 t t7a).E51 3 210.316
TdlErpGB 3 3rr0r,579 3 7,050I20t 3t350.9!t9 3 5a7.ata
Adluatment!
Cumnl ylrrcnd reountinO adjrrdmnts:
Rcsidanlhl Encrgy Eficirnca Eduation lnithtiyc Comctiono)
Wc.ticrization Solutiom br Eliglbla CustomE Comqtionc)
Fridgr A FEczr Racycling Prognm Corcctiono
-14,266
t56,571
-t22,022
{4,266
$58,571
-122,022
!t,ut,t6,t I 7,059/a20 t :lE,lElrtz
lncrementrl Labor
DSM L$or rbov! 20't0 Baalnco 1r,860,s01
3 3.18't.76:t 3 7.050,420 3 tn2Ar-14.
(.) [e-mail]*ioFrE,' ftngeotuttoidilolMtugdbhMEr*gyE/trk*wyFW.hmloin.b$oltEmlodtuM- TlbrM@dildubd
h tlp naf,,.ldtn h bp tuc E4,,D' drrn d tir.tttfl. t@ ffiri16 e d*M pqm dc atd o rd lt d.6''dd J# M,,c,
(c, Dr:r.pr ru duld b th O.qd fi* h N 10, .n {orfr tu bn *gd b h lUb t*tq- Tb ffiia wB z& in n I 7.
(d) Ttis.r'.d wG dzgd tsit, to lh Fqm h mlo. fb ffi wB m* h n1 7.
(.) Tri. lb M ,tdt &. J aud tunshl d,'.et @idcd *16 M.lt td DSN M tua tlb 2ArO b'l€ ?H luw d ti miv.d . $rfira Mbl fr@ tt Cw*y*n
Exhibit No. 1
Case No. IPC-E-17-03
C. Aschenbrenner, IPC
Page 1 of 1
BEFORE THE
IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
GASE NO. IPC-E-17-03
IDAHO POWER COMPANY
ASCHENBRENNER, DI
TESTIMONY
EXHIBIT NO.2
2016 Bcncf,UCct Tosts
ProgramMoc{or
Tortal Rccourco Cost
fiRC)
Utlllty Co.t
(uc)
Pardclpant Coct
(PCD
Easv Savinos 2.U 1.69 N/A
Educalional Dislribulions 633 3.63 wA
Enercv Effcienl Liohlino 252 1.27 3.17
Enelw House Calls 275 211 N/A
ENERGY STAR @ Homes Northwesl 100 179 1/l4
Fddoe and Feezer Reorclino 't 31 092 N/A
Heatino & Cnolino Ffficien.x Pmdram 't.26 2.33 't.76
Home lmomrnmenl Proorem 0.60 2.il o.80
Multifamilv Enemv Savinos Prooram 2.55 1.13 N/A
Rebate Advanlaoe 3.33 3.89 6.45
Simole Steos. Smart Savinos 1.33 2.10 2.13
Weatherization Assistance for Oualified Customers 0.65 0.73 N/A
Weatherization Solutions for Elioible Customers 0.70 0.59 N/A
Residendal Enoroy Efilcloncy Sec{or 2.36 2.71 1.10
C&l EE - Custom Proiecis 2.816 5.26 1.92
C&l EE - New Conslruction 3.07 1.10 3.19
C&l EE - Retrofits 2.U
2.81
3.83
1.6t
2.83
2.31
lnioation Efficiencv 3_21 4.95 2.74
lrrloa0on Eneroy Efffclency Scctor -3.11 5.OO 2-73
Enerov Efficlencv Porfollo 2.56 3.58 2.93
2016 Cost-Effectiveness Summary by Program, Sector, and Portfolio
'Commerciaulndustrial Energy Effciency Secior cost+fiectiveness ratios include savings and participant costE frrom Gresn MotoB Rswinds.
" lnigation Energy Efficiency Sec{or cost€fiactiveness ratios includo savings and participant costs ftom Gr€on Motors Rewinds.
Exhibit No. 2
Case No. IPC-E-17-03
C. Aschenbrenner, IPC
Page 1 of1
BEFORE THE
IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES GOMMISSION
GASE NO. IPC-E-17-03
IDAHO POWER COMPANY
ASCHENBRENNER, DI
TESTIMONY
EXHIBIT NO.3
I
o \
\\ec
\
CId
A
E
oto
o
oA
rc
C}({
q!\
oEo
oo
d
\
\
ra
C'd
q
E
Eo
o
o
rt
Ctd
oE \
\to
o
o \
\
6
C}a{
o
E
E
o
oo
ct
C'a{
oE
Eo
=od,
Uc
,q,u
U
EoEoa0
Eg
Eo
4co
6aa
L
Eo
bro
d
qltr
o
go
u:
E6r.!gf5
o!lo
cG
!
o6llod
6J
.g!sc
.o
GIf!U
IC.9a
U
uoCU
E
Eo
=(u&
q.9o
C
G'o
Foa,Gs
:
qtc
6
t6
E6
o
OJ
tuo
E
o
Eo
f(J
!o
=Gfd
o
oIco
.2
co
GN
o
Go
=
o
Eo
=U
lult
:Eu
o
tr.9
lo
c.ooN
6Jt
oo
=
Ea!
Uec
t!
u:,!c
Et
o
E
Eoc,
Ic.9I
U
Eo
fo
Eo
lU
Ic
.0JI
U
ua
.E
=f6
c
.9qf
coU](.,z
q,Eo
olEIf,
6U
iEo
0,E
6
Et!
EooocttoB6oc!coCo6
.:Eo(J
Eo(J
(J
Eo
olo
LJoqJdx0,
!
o3oe:God
C
.9oE!
6
El!
!!o
a.
lE
to!a,oc,
oiio
E:,o-
oIU
I
(,
If6
c.9
=ll'tr
.96'6
E
.9
6Uf.E'U
o!c
cu!3
E.9oEU
ilocU
IoU
lu5o-
u
ocu
o]Etoz
(u
Eo-eG
F
{oG.uzu
o
o
G
ooI
E6
Uoo
EO.=U
Uo
CE
o
iuQ^,! 3-
EO
oi:.,oE6 .-ElE.ts
LOrL
Eo
u!o
CL
Ic.9I
U
E!c
oo(J
06
EIC,E60.,-
=I'
=
uaocU
q,
EoI
EG
o(o
C
cOJ
Ea)
oo
E
lu
Eo!
lt
IT
ITll
I
I
TI
c!o.g
.9
o!.E
ut
Eo
o0or
oN
IN
oN
utro
IJa=
u,t
sotrl!
!co
utc
.9
!o4
o
Eo
6
=IJ
Exhibit No. 3
Case No. IPC-E-17-03
C. Aschenbrenner, IPC
Page 1 of 1
BEFORE THE
IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
GASE NO. IPC-E-17-03
IDAHO POWER COMPANY
ASCHENBRENNER, DI
EXHIBIT NO.4
EXHIBIT NO. 4
IS CONFIDENTIAL AND
WI LL BE PROVI DED TO
THE APPROPRIATE
PARTIES
UPON REOUEST AND
EXECUTION OF THE
PROTECTIVE
AGREEMENT