20180315DSM Supplement 2.pdf

clmlpPolllER.
An IDACORP Company
o RECEIVED
?0lB H$R l5 PH h: 06
SION
Ta
SUPPLEIVI ENT 2:
EVALUATIONL
ry7
D E IVIAN D-SI D E TVIANAG E tVI E NT IVIARCH 15 2O1B
Printed on recycled paper
Idaho Power Company Supplement 2: Evaluation
Demand-Side Management 2017 Annual Report Page i
LIST OF CONTENTS
Evaluation and Research Summary .............................................................................................................1
Evaluation Plan ............................................................................................................................................2
Energy Efficiency Advisory Group Minutes ...............................................................................................3
NEEA Market Effects Evaluations ............................................................................................................27
Integrated Design Lab ................................................................................................................................29
Research/Surveys .....................................................................................................................................169
Evaluations ...............................................................................................................................................295
Other Reports ...........................................................................................................................................347

Supplement 2: Evaluation Idaho Power Company
Page ii Demand-Side Management 2017 Annual Report

Idaho Power Company Supplement 2: Evaluation
Demand-Side Management 2017 Annual Report Page 1
EVALUATION AND RESEARCH SUMMARY
Idaho Power considers program evaluation an essential component 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 managed by Idaho Power’s
Strategic Sourcing department. In some cases, research and analysis is conducted internally and
managed by Idaho Power’s Research and Analysis team within the Customer Relations and Energy
Efficiency (CR&EE) department. Third-party evaluations are specifically managed by the company’s
energy efficiency evaluator.
Idaho Power uses industry-standard protocols for its internal and external evaluation efforts,
including the National Action Plan for Energy Efficiency—Model Energy Efficiency Program Impact
Evaluation Guide, the California Evaluation Framework, the International Performance Measurement
and Verification Protocol (IPMVP), the Database for Energy Efficiency Resources, and the Regional
Technical Forum’s (RTF) evaluation protocols.
The company also supports regional and national studies to promote the ongoing cost-effectiveness of
programs, the 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, industry best practice analyses, and customer
surveys as important resources in providing accurate and transparent program savings estimates.
Recommendations and findings from evaluations and research are used to continuously refine Idaho
Power’s DSM programs.
In 2017, Idaho Power contracted with KEMA, Inc. (DNV GL) to conduct two program impact
evaluations and two program process evaluations. Impact evaluations were performed for Home Energy
Audits and Heating and Cooling Efficiency Program. Process evaluations were performed for
Commercial/Industrial Energy Efficiency and Heating and Cooling Efficiency Program. Idaho Power
conducted internal analyses on the 2017 demand response events for A/C Cool Credit, Irrigation Peak
Rewards, and Flex Peak Program.
Throughout 2017, Idaho Power administered several surveys regarding energy efficiency programs to
measure customer satisfaction. Some surveys were administered by a third-party contractor; other
surveys were administered by Idaho Power either through traditional paper and electronic surveys or
through the company’s empowered community online survey.
An evaluation schedule and final reports from all evaluations, research, and surveys completed in 2017
are provided in Supplement 2: Evaluation.
Supplement 2: Evaluation Idaho Power Company
Page 2 Demand-Side Management 2017 Annual Report
EVALUATION PLAN
Energy Efficiency 2013–2018 Program Evaluation Plans

Idaho Power Company Supplement 2: Evaluation
Demand-Side Management 2017 Annual Report Page 3
ENERGY EFFICIENCY ADVISORY GROUP MINUTES
The following pages include minutes from EEAG meetings held on February 16, May 3, August 2,
and November 1, 2017.

1
Energy Efficiency Advisory Group (EEAG) Notes dated February 16, 2017
Present:
Kent Hanway-CSHQA Don Strickler–Simplot
Jim Hall–Bodybuilding.com Ben Otto-Idaho Conservation League
Stacey Donohue–Idaho Public Utilities Commission John Chatburn–Office of Energy & Mineral Resources
Diego Rivas–Northwest Energy Coalition Sid Erwin–Idaho Irrigation Pumpers Association
Tami White–Idaho Power Pete Pengilly*-Idaho Power
Nadine Hanhan–Public Utility Commission of Oregon (via phone)
Elfreda Higgins-Garden City Council
Tina Jayaweera-Northwest Power & Conservation Council (via phone)
Not Present:
Ken Robinette–South Central Comm. Action Partnership

Guests and Presenters*:
Quentin Nesbitt*-Idaho Power Phil DeVol–Idaho Power
Billie McWinn*–Idaho Power Theresa Drake*–Idaho Power
Shelley Martin–Idaho Power Andrea Simmonsen–Idaho Power
Amy Hawkins–Idaho Power Billie McWinn*–Idaho Power
Joe Bonocore–Bonocore Technology Partners Steve Hubble–City of Boise
Nick Bengston*–CLEAResult Anne Alenskis–Idaho Power
Tracey Burtch*–Idaho Power
Lisa Grow*-Idaho Power
Don Reading–Industrial Customers of Idaho Power
Cory Read-Idaho Power
Tonja Dyke-Idaho Power
Chris Pollow-Idaho Power
Randy Thorn-Idaho Power
Suzanne Smith-Idaho Power
Zeke VanHooser-Idaho Power
Connie Aschenbrenner-Idaho Power
Lynette Standley-Idaho Power
Mindi Shodeen-Idaho Power
Annie Meyer*–Idaho Power
Peter Richardson- Industrial Customers of Idaho Power
Gary Grayson-Idaho Power
Todd Greenwell-Idaho Power
Dan Axness-Idaho Power
Chellie Jensen-Idaho Power
Sheree Willhite-Idaho Power
Brianna Stafford-Idaho Power
Denise Humphreys-Idaho Power
Melissa Thom-Idaho Power
Jill Simpson-Idaho Power
Jennifer Pope-Office of Energy & Mineral Resources
Meeting Facilitator: Rosemary Curtin
Note Takers:
Shawn Lovewell (Idaho Power) with Kathy Yi (Idaho Power)
2
Meeting Convened at 9:29am
Pete started the meeting with the introduction of the two new members, Elfreda Higgins and Jim Hall, EEAG
members and guests. There were no comments or questions on the November notes. Pete explained the two financial documents that were sent out prior to the meeting; Appendix 1 and the 2016 DSM Actual Expenses and
Preliminary Energy Savings. There was some discussion surrounding both the Idaho and Oregon Rider balances.
Idaho Power emphasized that these balances, regardless of whether they are negative or positive, do not impact the company’s commitment to pursuing all cost effective energy efficiency.
9:45 am Energy Efficiency Potential Study and IRPAC—Pete Pengilly
Pete highlighted the purpose of a potential study, and presented the following key points:
 The potential study is done every two years and is completed by a third party, Applied Energy Group
(AEG)
 AEG determines three levels of energy efficiency potential; technical, economic, and achievable. All of
the achievable potential is put into the IRP portfolio.
 The potential study is not a program planning document but rather a way to assess energy efficiency
potential. Measures can change or go away during the time between each study being completed.
There were questions and comments around having EEAG take a deeper look into the potential study in order to help the company find ways to acquire more energy savings, if the company is doing any oversampling with the
Commercial Building Stock Assessment (CBSA) and the Residential Building Stock Assessment (RBSA) and if so, could the company present those findings at a future meeting.
10:00 am- Demand Response Programs Evaluation—Nick Bengston-CLEAResult
Nick Bengston of CLEAResult provided the evaluation result of two demand response programs; Flex Peak and A/C Cool Credit. The following key points were presented
 There were three events called for each program in 2016. For the benefit of the new EEAG members,
Nick explained the difference between energy efficiency and demand response. He gave a brief explanation of what each program does and how customers participate in the programs.
 The goal of this evaluation was to determine and verify demand reduction from at least three curtailment events. Demand response programs are not designed to save energy but to offset energy use during peak
times.
 A predictive calculator was created four years ago for the A/C Cool Credit Program. This calculator is a
planning tool based on a regression formula. Every time an evaluation is done this calculator is updated
with the new data.
 The Flex Peak program had about a 70% increase in number of customers and about a 90% increase in
participating sites. Nomination was about 27% increase from 2015 to 2016.
 Both of these programs are performing and functioning very well.
There were questions and discussion around snapback, participant geographic areas, and opportunities to improve the regression formula of the predictive calculator by adding night time temperatures as one of the data point inputs.
3
10:56 am- Break
11:11 am- Irrigation Peak Rewards 2016 Recap —Quentin Nesbitt
Quentin explained the Irrigation Peak Rewards program for new EEAG members and provided 2016 program highlights, costs, event data results and data calculation methods.
 This program was evaluated in house and a detailed report will be included in Supplement 2 of the DSM Annual Report.
 85% of Irrigation Peak participants have been switched over to AMI devices. In 2017, the contract between Idaho Power and M2M/EnerNOC will no longer be in effect. By this spring the remaining participants will be moved to either AMI or a cell phone device for the rural customers who don’t have
AMI.
 Irrigation represents about 30% of Idaho Power’s summertime load.
There was discussion around the causes of the AMI communication issue, manual pumps and how those are used
in a demand response event, and that the Irrigation customers would like the program to expand but that they acknowledge that the company doesn’t need the program to be enlarged at this time.

11:45 am-2016 Year End Wrap-up—Kathy Yi
Kathy provided preliminary savings numbers for the 2016 energy efficiency and demand response programs. The
following points were highlighted:
 Between 2015 and 2016 program savings have gone up slightly. Expenses do not include demand
response but do include educational efforts and marketing.
 The temporary suspension of the demand response programs in 2013 was explained for new members
 An incentive expense was defined as a monetary incentive to a customer to offset their cost. It could also be a buy down item, such as a LED bulb purchased at a retailer.
There was discussion around the demand response programs and the benefits of bringing the Flex Peak program
in house.
12:06 pm-Company Updates—Theresa Drake
Theresa informed the group of a few new projects that the company is currently working on. A new Customer
Solutions Advisor position is being developed. This position will perform outbound calls to the commercial customer segment assisting them on rate or pricing questions, energy efficiency programs, and assistance with
myAccount, among other things. The company is also planning to launch a new web service for large commercial
and industrial customers that will provide their interval usage data. Through the new customer relations management (CRM) software, the company has begun offering outage alerts via text. Through the outage map a
customer can enter their cell phone number which allows the company to text them outage information.
12:15 Lunch
1:00 Meeting Reconvened
4
1:00 pm-Comments—Lisa Grow, Senior Vice President & Chief Operating Officer
Lisa gave a brief history of her education and work career at Idaho Power. Utility planning is complex and
involves a lot of forecasting that requires balance. Energy efficiency is a critical piece of the company’s planning portfolio. Any new technology that is looked at has to be balanced with customer satisfaction and needs to be cost effective. Idaho Power and EEAG may not always agree on things, but these conversations are important and can
aid the company on its final decisions regarding programs. She thanked members of EEAG for their time and effort to help Idaho Power help its customers use energy wisely and efficiently
1:10 pm-Residential Programs—Billie McWinn
Billie presented the 2016 residential program performance which included program energy savings and participation. She provided an update on Home Improvement, Fridge & Freezer recycling, and Heating & Cooling
Efficiency program changes. She requested input on thermostatic shower valves and Pete provided an update on
the Home Energy Report pilot.
 Educational distributions and lighting make up the bulk of energy savings for the residential sector.
 The bulk of energy savings for E*Homes® is from multi-family homes. Because home occupancy rates are so high right now, there is less incentive for builders to participate and build more efficient homes.
 The uptick in participation for Home Energy Audits was due to expanding this offering to gas heated homes. It made it much easier to market to all customers vs. targeting all electric homes.
 At the November 2016 EEAG meeting, members provided feedback on ways to try to continue the Home Improvement Program using limited measures and on ways to sunset the program. Idaho Power took that
feedback and evaluated different scenario. The evaluation revealed that the program passed the Utility
Cost Test (UCT) but failed the Total Resource Cost Test (TRC). Therefore the goal is to sunset this program with minimal customer and contractor impact.
 Participation has increased in the Heating & Cooling Efficiency program (H&CE) but savings on a per unit basis have declined. The heat pump federal standard changed in January of 2015. The company had to apply the new standard in 2016 so savings were reduced on a per measure basis for air source heat
pumps. The company sees value in keeping ductless heat pumps because of regional efforts. The company is proposing to continue ductless heat pumps as a separate line item with several proposed
changes, including re-assigning non-program labor, reducing marketing spend while improving tactics
and removing the stipend to participating contractors.
 Billie explained the different distribution options along with cost effectiveness challenges for the
thermostatic shower valve and valve showerhead combo.
 Pete provided an update on the Home Energy Reports pilot. Idaho Power is contracting with consultants
to help with the design and implementation. Idaho Power is working to roll this out in quarter two.

There was questions and discussion about the changing building codes and how housing stock incentives are
administered, having someone from the Division of Building Safety present housing code information to the group, consumer education on the cost of operating a home. During the discussion of the cost effectiveness of the Home Improvement program, a few members stated their concerns with Idaho Power sun setting this program
despite it passing the UCT. They stated that they would feel ok having the company offer it with only passing the UCT. During the Heating & Cooling Efficiency program discussion, some members stated that since trade ally
5
relationships are an important piece of this program, they wouldn’t want to see the participating contractor stipend
eliminated. During the presentation on thermostatic shower valves there was discussion around how to use the
thermostatic shower valve and shower valve combo as a customer engagement piece and in the Energy Savings Kits in the future.
2:23 pm- Commercial Programs—Quentin Nesbitt
Quentin updated the group on 2016 program performance and 2017 plans for the Commercial & Industrial offerings, Flex Peak, Irrigation Efficiency, and Irrigation Peak Rewards. He presented the following key points:
 116 projects were completed in the New Construction program (formerly Building Efficiency). In 2017 Idaho Power will continue in code education efforts with the code collaborative and NEEA, in person
visits with architects and engineers, and continuing with educating customers on programs.
 The Retrofit program (formerly Easy Upgrades) saw an increase in energy savings and projects in 2016. In 2017 trade ally outreach will increase with an emphasis on training.
 Custom projects (formerly Custom Efficiency) experience smaller savings but more projects in 2016 compared to 2015. Plans for 2017 include coordination with the local Refrigeration Engineer group to
reinvigorate monthly meetings, reaching out to local Data Center Professionals group, School Cohort kick
off, and continuation of commercial & industrial trainings.
 The tariff changes for automatic re-enrollment in Flex Peak have been approved. Those applications will
be sent to existing participants at the end of February.
 In 2017, the Irrigation Efficiency program will hold a few more workshops in the spring compared to last
year. The company will continue to work with dealers who aren’t as engaged in the program and work with them to find ways to get them more engaged.
There was questions and discussion about lighting making up the bulk of the retrofit program, if there are repeat
customers changing out fluorescent lamps to LED’s, trade ally training and how important it is, and the focus of the school cohort offering.

3:10pm- Program Marketing—Tracey Burtch & Annie Meyer
Tracey and Annie provided updates on the Smart Saver Pledge, the Spring Awareness campaign, the Energy-
Saving Kits, and the new Commercial & Industrial Ad Campaign. The following key points were presented:
 A new giveaway was passed out to the group. These are energy savings playing cards. Each card has an
energy efficiency tip located on one side.
 The Smart-Saver Pledge lessons learned were discussed and EEAG was asked for their thoughts on the timing of doing another pledge for 2017.
 The spring awareness campaign will have the same look and feel as the previous campaign with some new concepts incorporated, such as multi-family housing, ductless heat pump, and home energy audit.
 Based on prior suggestions from EEAG, Idaho Power has reached out to the first time home buyer market with the Winter Energy Efficiency guide. Annie asked EEAG for suggestions on other types of
distribution channels for this guide.
6
 The first Commercial & Industrial campaign ad was shown to the group. It featured two current EEAG
members.
There were questions and suggestions on the timing of doing another Smart-Saver Pledge. The company should think about timing and keeping with the 21 day pledge, having a way for customers to share what they do on
social media. In general EEAG likes the idea of the company doing this type of pledge again. The group provided suggestions to Idaho Power on different distribution channels for the Winter Energy Efficiency guide. Some suggestions were: University papers, real estate offices, mortgage companies, HOA newsletters, and Idaho
Housing Association.
3:40 pm-Open Discussion/Wrap-up
 Would like to see a future presentation of the potential study that was recently completed.
 There was a comment made by someone from the audience about Idaho Power continuing with demand
response programs. Two members commented that as Industrial and Irrigation customers, they think these
programs should continue keep customers engaged when it is needed.
 Are there any updates from Idaho Power on motivating the small business customer to participate in
programs? Quentin answered that all of the commercial programs are available for the small business customer. Idaho Power has reached out to other utilities to find out how they have handled the issues
surrounding small business customer participation and communication challenges.
 Would like more information on the Next Step home in McCall. This was a good meeting.
 Being a new member, everyone’s comments and explanations were appreciated.
 Excited for the new members and for their perspective.
 If there is time on the next agenda would like to have a discussion on the potential study and how that informs program planning.
 Enjoyed hearing about customer engagement and the energy savings kits.

4:05 pm Meeting Adjourned

1
Energy Efficiency Advisory Group (EEAG) Notes dated 5-3-2017
Present:
Pete Pengilly*-Idaho Power Ben Otto-Idaho Conservation League
Jim Hall-Bodybuilding.com
Connie Aschenbrenner-Idaho Power
Nadine Hanhan (on phone)–Public Utility
Commission of Oregon
Stacey Donohue–Idaho Public Utilities Commission Sid Erwin–Idaho Irrigation Pumpers Association
Diego Rivas–Northwest Energy Coalition

Tina Jayaweera-Northwest Power & Conservation Council
Not Present:
Kent Hanway-CSHQA
Don Strickler–Simplot
Ken Robinette–South Central Comm. Action Partnership
John Chatburn–Office of Energy Resources
Guests and Presenters*:
Quentin Nesbitt*-Idaho Power Cory Read*–Idaho Power
Billie McWinn*–Idaho Power Theresa Drake–Idaho Power
Shelley Martin–Idaho Power Rob Ord–Idaho Power
Dan Axness-Idaho Power Stace Campbell–McCain Foods
Catherine Chertudi–City of Boise Becky Andersohn–Idaho Power
Tami White–Idaho Power Mindi Shodeen-Idaho Power
Chellie Jensen–Idaho Power Peter Richardson–Industrial Customers of Idaho Power
Gary Grayson-Idaho Power Todd Greenwell-Idaho Power
Dan Johnson-Avista Zeke VanHooser-Idaho Power
Bryan Wewers-Idaho Power Becky Arte-Howell-Idaho Power
Cheryl Paoli-Idaho Power Jill Simpson-Idaho Power
Bill Shawver*-Idaho Power Denise Humphreys-Idaho Power
Sheree Willhite-Idaho Power Donn English-Idaho Public Utilities Commission
Steve Hubble-City of Boise Joe Bonocore–Bonocore Technology Partners
Lynn Tominaga-Irrigation Pumpers Association Don Reading-Industrial Customers of Idaho Power
Randy Thorn-Idaho Power Bridget Kester-Applied Energy Group (on phone)

Note Takers:
Shawn Lovewell (Idaho Power) with Kathy Yi (Idaho Power)
Meeting Facilitator: Rosemary Curtin
Meeting Convened at 9:30am
Rosemary started the meeting with introduction of members and guests. Connie Aschenbrenner was introduced as the new member of EEAG that will be replacing Tami White. There were no comments or questions on the

2
February notes. Pete explained the two financial documents that were sent to EEAG members prior to the
meeting; Appendix 1 and the 2017 DSM Actual Expenses and Preliminary Energy Savings by Program.
Appendix 1 had to be modified due to the timing of Idaho Power’s earnings release. An updated version will be sent out next week. The expenses by program and year to date savings will be covered in more detail during the
Program Planning presentation by Billie and Quentin and there is also time set aside for open discussion at the
end of the meeting.

9:48 am-Program Planning—Billie McWinn and Quentin Nesbitt
Billie started her presentation by recognizing the work that the program specialist and engineers put into these programs. She pointed out the poster boards around the room that Idaho Power used to engage customers in a
text-to-win contest during Treefort as a part of the residential education initiative. There were about 100 participants that took part. Billie provided information and updates for the thermostatic shower valves (TSV), heat pump water heaters (HPWH) and home energy reports (HER). Quentin spoke to the group about commercial
energy efficiency kits and the new Customer Solutions Advisor (CSA) positions.
 In the near-term, the TSV will be included in direct install programs when appropriate. In the long-term,
they will be included in the Energy Saving Kits.
 Billie provided information regarding heat pump hot water heaters, including the history of these units in
the Pacific Northwest, cost effectiveness, and considerations. She asked EEAG for their comments on
whether Idaho Power should add this measure to its residential portfolio.
 Participating customers will begin receiving HER in July or August. At this time, only Idaho customers
will be eligible and Idaho Power expects approximately 15,000 to 20,000 people will be included in the pilot.
 Due to the success of the Energy Saving Kits for residential customers, the company is researching a
similar idea for small commercial customers. The cost effectiveness options are being reviewed and the company would like feedback and ideas from EEAG on what types of items to include in the kits.
 Quentin updated the group on the new Customer Solutions Advisor positions, what their role in the company will be and that some of their time will be charged to the Energy Efficiency Rider.
There were questions and comments around the HPWH and how to market these to the consumer; planned purchase vs. emergency purchase. Education will be key for contractors on the benefits of HPWH’s, product availability, and proper installation considerations and protocols. NEEA has convened a regional strategy for
consumer products and the HPWH are a priority product being focused on. The general regional consensus is that
2017 will be a turning year for these units. The federal water heater standards are expected to change in 2021 with an expectation of more consumer adoption of HPWH. There was discussion around making sure that an incentive
amount will actually drive a customer toward purchasing a HPWH. There was also a comment that Idaho Power should consider partnering with the local gas company to jointly offer energy efficiency programs. Feedback on the small commercial energy kits focused on having kit categories depending on the type of business that requests
one. For instance, a restaurant might get a sprayer but an office might get a smart strip. A suggestion was made to include stickers or clings to remind people to turn machines and lights off and there was another suggestion to have the kits customizable. Generally, the group seemed pleased that Idaho Power is looking into additional ways
to engage the small business customer.

3

11:10 am-2016 Residential End-Use Study—Kathy Yi
Kathy provided highlights of the 2016 residential end use study. She reminded members that with this survey,
while the company believes the questions are straight forward; it does not imply or predict how customers interpret the questions. A copy of this report is included in the DSM Annual Report-Supplement 2. The following
key points were presented:
 The most recent studies were completed in 1994, 2004, and 2010.
 The largest difference between the 2010 survey and the 2016 survey is how it was distributed to participants. The survey in 2010 was proportional in the different regions, 2016’s was disproportional and then weighted the results after. In the 2016 survey, Idaho Power followed the vendor’s
recommendation and increased the sample size due to timing, holidays and the presidential election.
 The content of the 2016 survey was similar to the 2010 survey with only a few differences. Questions
about LEDs, smart thermostats, and program participation were added for 2016.

11:41 am-2017 Demand Response Preview—Quentin Nesbitt
Quentin provided the history of demand response from 2004-2016 along with current status of all three programs; A/C Cool Credit, Flex Peak and Irrigation Peak Rewards. The following key points were presented:
 Approximately 96% of the devices for Irrigation Peak Rewards were replaced last winter due to changing to AMI devices.
 The Flex Peak program has 5 new sites enrolled for 2017. The auto enrollment option has worked very
well. This program tends to experience a higher realization rate than what is nominated.
 The A/C Cool Credit program has experienced a small drop in participation levels due to customers
moving.
There were questions and comments regarding the number of A/C Cool Credit switches remaining in inventory, why we are not marketing to get additional customers to participate in the A/C Cool Credit program, and if Idaho
Power will be providing some sort of real time data tool to Flex Peak participants. Quentin answered that we are continuing to follow the demand response settlement with regards to marketing the A/C Cool Credit Program and
that the company is working on purchasing software to help make large customer interval metering data more
readily available to customers online.
12:05 Lunch
Catherine Chertudi, former EEAG member, was acknowledged for her participation on the board and presented
her an appreciation gift recognizing her years of service.

4
12:50 Meeting Reconvened
12:50 pm-Cost-Effectiveness Methods Review—Pete Pengilly
Pete presented a summary of the different cost-effectiveness tests, a cost-effectiveness example for lighting, explained what cost-effectiveness is and some of the myths. The following key points were presented:
 Net present value is the idea that the value of a dollar today is worth more than its value tomorrow.
 The Participant Cost Test (PCT) looks at the benefits from a participants point of view, that is, will it
make sense for the customer to participate from a payback perspective. The Utility Cost Test (UCT) looks at the costs and benefits from the utility’s perspective, and the Total Resource Cost Test (TRC) looks at the costs and benefits from the point of view of all customers (both participants and non-participants).
 Cost-effectiveness tests are not an exact science. All utilities calculate cost-effectiveness differently.
 Idaho Power uses all three cost-effectiveness test when evaluating programs.
There were questions and discussion regarding quantifying non-energy benefits and the benefits of using all three tests in regards to programs. The DSM Annual Report-Supplement 1 has all of the cost effectiveness information
for each program. The company was complimented on its hard work in putting this information together.
1:26 pm-2016 Energy Efficiency Potential Study—Cory Read & Bridget Kester (AEG)
Cory highlighted the results of the overall energy efficiency potential study along with the top measures for
residential, commercial, industrial, and irrigation customer segments. The following key points were presented:
 Bridget explained that the baseline forecast is what the load would be if there were no more programs.
Codes and standards are taken in to account. Realistic achievable potential is what Idaho Power can
achieve.
 Technical potential is if all technologies are adopted. Economic potential is calculated using Idaho
Powers avoided costs.
 The differences between economic and achievable are based on ramp rates from the Northwest Power and
Conservation Council (Council). The factors that determine ramp rates use the 2015 actual program
results along with the 7th Plan Council ramp rates and look at how many of those measures are being turned over. Then compared what the ramp rate shows vs. what Idaho Power is achieving.
 For this potential study, just the TRC was used. Once program planning begins, however, the other cost-effectiveness tests are used.
There were questions and discussion around ramp rate order of operation, why CFLs are still part of the measure
list for residential customers, commissioning and retro-commissioning for commercial customers and if Idaho Power has done any pilot programs around Low Elevation Sprinkler Application (LESA).

2:50 pm-Program Marketing—Bill Shawver
Bill informed the group that as of Monday May 1st, his department will now be called Corporate Communications
and Marketing. He updated the group on the spring campaign and Zignal, a new media intelligence tool being used by his department. The following points were presented:

5
 Customers have indicated that Connections is the most effective communication channel in regards to the
spring ad campaign. The animation for this ad campaign was updated this year and will run again in the fall.
 Earned media is very important to Idaho Power because it is based on the company’s reputation and
relationships with news outlets and there is no cost associated with it.
 Zignal is a new media intelligence tool that provides real time data every 10 seconds on what is being said
about the company in traditional media and social media. The tool was demonstrated to the group. There was question and discussion around how to use Zignal to promote energy efficiency. This could be used
as a way to engage customers. Since this tool is reacting to the stories in the media and who is talking
about them, it could be used as a way to respond to complaints in a more targeted way. The company will need to target its audience based on whether or not they are on the internet. Target marketing could be
another way to use this and to see how effective a marketing campaign actually is.

3:30 pm-Wrap-Up/Discussion
There was some further discussion on agenda flexibility and how these meetings are the forum in which to bring
up topics and work collaboratively to resolve any issues that arise.
 Appreciated the forward look of new program measures, the presentations by Pete and Cory, and Bill.
Also appreciated the flexibility to override the agenda.
 Like the forward look and the end use and potential studies.
 Appreciate all the members of EEAG. The company wanted to make this meeting more educational rather than just program reporting. In reply to an earlier comment about financial information, the company will
be able to discuss this in the future, but was just a timing issue. The company will look into having the Division of Building Safety provide a presentation on building codes.
Enjoyed being able to attend this meeting in person. Glad the company is looking into HPWH. It would
be nice to see the company do a pilot program on LESA and discuss Strategic Energy Management (SEM) more.
4:00 Meeting Adjourned

1
Energy Efficiency Advisory Group (EEAG) Notes dated August 2nd, 2017
Present:
Kent Hanway-CSHQA Pete Pengilly*-Idaho Power
Ken Robinette–South Central Comm. Action Partnership
Don Strickler–Simplot
Scott Pugrud-Office of Energy and Mineral
Resources
Stacey Donohue–Idaho Public Utilities Commission
Connie Aschenbrenner–Idaho Power
John Chatburn–Office of Energy and Mineral
Resources
Diego Rivas–Northwest Energy Coalition Sid Erwin–Idaho Irrigation Pumpers Association
Nadine Hanhan–Public Utility Commission of Oregon (on phone) Tina Jayaweera-Northwest Power & Conservation Council

Not Present:
Ben Otto-Idaho Conservation League
Elfreda Higgins–City of Garden City
Jim Hall–Bodybuilding.com
Guests and Presenters*:
Quentin Nesbitt*-Idaho Power Cory Read–Idaho Power
Billie McWinn*–Idaho Power Theresa Drake–Idaho Power
Shelley Martin–Idaho Power Andrea Simmonsen–Idaho Power
Mindi Shodeen–Idaho Power Cheryl Paoli–Idaho Power
Gary Grayson–Idaho Power Joe Bonocore–Bonocore Technology Partners
Don Reading– Industrial Customers of Idaho Power Tom Giffin*–Leidos
Peter Richardson–Industrial Customers of Idaho
Power
Amanda Richardson-Honeywell
Denise Humphreys-Idaho Power
Tonja Dyke-Idaho Power
Tracey Burtch*-Idaho Power
Lynette Standley-Idaho Power
Jordan Rodriguez-Idaho Power
Lisa Nordstrom-Idaho Power
Jerry Peterson-Division of Building Safety
Dan Johnson (on phone)–Avista
Rob Ord-Idaho Power
Chellie Jensen-Idaho Power
Zeke VanHooser-Idaho Power
Annie Meyer*-Idaho Power
Rachelle Farnsworth-Idaho Public Utilities Commission
Sheree Willhite-Idaho Power
Todd Greenwell-Idaho Power
Note Takers:
Shawn Lovewell (Idaho Power) with Kathy Yi (Idaho Power)
Meeting Facilitator: Rosemary Curtin
Meeting Convened at 9:30 am
2
Rosemary started the meeting with introduction of members and guests. There were no comments or questions on the May notes. Pete went over the two financial documents that were sent to EEAG members prior to the meeting:
Appendix 1 and the 2017 DSM Actual Expenses and preliminary Energy Savings by Program. He stated that a
more detailed version of Appendix 1 will be sent out after the company’s earnings release.
9:40 am–Residential Programs Update—Billie McWinn
Billie provided an update of the 2017 YTD savings for all residential programs. She highlighted Home Energy
Reports (HER) and Thermostatic Shower Valves (TSV) and asked members of EEAG for input regarding residential lighting, heat pump water heaters (HPWH), and fridge and freezer recycling.
• The first set of Home Energy Reports has been sent out to customers. A subset of customers (electric heating) will only receive reports during the winter, all other customers will receive reports periodically
over the year. The Customer Solutions Advisors will handle inbound customer calls regarding the reports.
So far, they have taken three calls. Two wanted to opt out and one wanted to update the characteristics of their home. The company will continue to log the types of calls that come in.
• Based on feedback from EEAG, the TSV will now be incorporated into the Energy Saving Kits. They will also be used in the Multi-Family Savings Program, Home Energy Audits, and Energy House Calls as appropriate.
• The history of residential lighting programs was presented along with market baseline changes, lighting sales, YTD savings and participation, and the Regional Technical Forum (RTF) savings numbers. In
2018, the RTF shows the per unit kWh savings decreasing. With the current pace of LED technology adoption far exceeding expectations, the company wanted to present this to EEAG to start the discussion on any potential flags with continuing this program considering potential market transformation.
• The history of the Fridge and Freezer Recycling program was presented along with updated cost effectiveness and participation estimates. The company is planning to discontinue the program as of Jan
1, 2018. The company would like input from EEAG on ways to communicate this to customers.
• At the May EEAG meeting, the group discussed the potential for adding a HPWH measure to the Heating
& Cooling Efficiency program. The program design was presented along with a marketing strategy. The
company’s program design did not include a mandatory training requirement for participating customers, however suggested that trainings would be made available to everyone. EEAG was asked for input on
whether the company should or should not require these trainings to participate.
There were questions and comments on why the company would discontinue the lighting program if it is cost-effective. Billie assured the group that the company is not proposing to discontinue the program. Rather the
purpose of the discussion was to start a discussion with EEAG before the decline in savings becomes an issue and to see if there were any concerns about the current pace of lighting adoption as it relates to market transformation and cost-effectiveness. The group did not indicate they had any concerns about either. Everyone agreed that if the
program is cost effective it would be continued. The group agreed that the Fridge and Freezer Recycling program should be discontinued by the end of the year, but there were several suggestions for the company to consider in the future, including: (1) could Idaho Power create a partnership with different counties as a consideration for
future offerings, (2) making sure customers are made aware quickly so they still have time to participate, and (3) to look at the program again when the new avoided costs are made available. The consensus of the group was to
not make training a requirement for HPWH participation. Highlighting the training and making it available to
customers if needed was acceptable.

3
11:04 am-Break

11:14 am-C&I and Irrigation Programs Update-—Quentin Nesbitt
Quentin provided year-to-date savings and participation for the Commercial & Industrial, Irrigation, and Flex Peak programs. The following points were presented:
• The New Construction program has a large project that has significant savings. Project numbers are up but as building codes increase, the savings per project may decrease. The Technical Reference Manual will be updated later in 2017 to align with 2015 International Energy Conservation Code (IECC)
• The company is looking at updating the lighting measures in the Retrofit program in 2018. The new Customer Solutions Advisors (CSA) are reaching out specifically to the small business customers in part
to promote awareness of energy efficiency programs and have made approximately 2000 contacts so far.
• The company is still researching the commercial energy savings kits. There aren’t that many utilities
doing this so the savings assumptions associated with them are not well documented.
• The savings for the Custom program are down from this time last year, however, there are quite a few
projects in the pipeline.
• The School Cohort had a midterm workshop on July 20th in Twin Falls. Each facility has a regression
model like the other cohorts. If they do a capital project it is removed out of the model.
• There have been two events in the Flex Peak program. A new system peak of 3422 MW was set on July 7th.
• The RTF finished the study on scientific irrigation scheduling and the report showed that the market has been transformed. The RTF is now reviewing a new measure Low Energy Spray Application (LESA).
This measure could be paid in the Irrigation Efficiency Program right now.
There were questions and comments on whether the company has done anything to adapt the New Construction program during this current building boom. The incentive for architects and engineers has help but it really comes
down to contractor and builder priorities. Including a postcard or survey link in the Commercial Energy Savings Kits could be a way for the company to gauge installation rates. Also, having an evaluation completed sooner on that project could ensure the company is providing exactly what the customer needs. The company has a done a
great job with the cohort model. Are there other ones lined up for the future? The company is looking for ways to continue the current cohort by locating new participation.
12:00 Lunch
12:45 Meeting Reconvened
12:45 pm-Demand Response—Quentin Nesbitt
Connie Aschenbrenner reminded the audience and EEAG that Idaho Power is in the middle of an open case and
the purpose of the discussion is educational in nature. It is not intended to resolve any issues raised by parties in the open case. There was internal legal counsel present during the presentation. Quentin explained what demand response (DR) is, the history of DR, the 2013 DR Workshops, and the settlement structure.
4
There were questions and comments about impact of the settlement on participation. Participation dropped in the irrigation program primarily due to the decreased incentive levels. A/C Cool Credit participation has continued to
decline because of participants moving in and out, and when the Flex Peak program was brought in house to
administer, essentially all those customers who were enrolled through the former third party had to be signed up again along with acquiring different customers. Keeping these programs active and having three events each year
is important for the times when the extra capacity is needed. The irrigation customers that are currently
participating are pleased with the program and want it to continue.
1:20 pm-2016 Program Evaluations—Tom Giffin, Leidos
Tom Giffin of Leidos provided a summary of the evaluations done for several residential and commercial
programs. Impact evaluations were done for the Retrofit (Easy Upgrades), New Construction (Building Efficiency), Irrigation Efficiency Rewards, and Rebate Advantage programs. Process evaluations were also done
on the Irrigation Efficiency Rewards and Rebate Advantage programs. The evaluations covered the 2015 program
year and were completed in 2016. He also went over the results of the Best Practices Review of the Residential Energy Efficiency Education Initiative.
There were questions and comments about billing analysis or metering studies, how many registered users of myAccount have accessed the energy efficiency program information, and the redesign of the book: 30 Simple Things You Can Do.
2:13 pm-Break
2:39 pm-Program Marketing—Tracey Burtch & Annie Meyer
Tracey announced that the current Corporate Communications Director, Bill Shawver, will be retiring and that
Lynette Standley, Corporate Communications Leader, will be the interim Corporate Communication Director. Tracey also informed the group that Anne Alenskis retired in June and introduced her replacement, Jordan Rodriguez. She presented the following information:
• The demographic makeup of the Empowered Community and the Spring Ad Campaign Empowered
Community survey results. The survey was only taken by members who had not completed a survey in
the past.
• The Summer Energy Efficiency guide was highlighted and a copy was provided to each member.
• The company’s latest earned media clips were shown to the group.
• Idaho Power recently partnered with Twin Falls County Pest Abatement on a commercial to promote the
Irrigation Efficiency Rewards programs while educating the public on mosquito abatement.
• The industry-specific tips brochures have been updated and new ones will be created for dairies and
assisted living facilities in the future. These brochures are primarily distributed by Customer Reps but are
also available on the company website.
The Marketing presentation concluded early so Rosemary asked for EEAG Roundtable before the next presenter
arrived.
EEAG Roundtable
• Appreciate the hard work being done by the company. It was an enjoyable meeting
5
• It was a good meeting. Would like to discuss the upcoming evaluation plan.
• It was nice to have the guest speaker; the meeting flow was good. Appreciated having the residential and
commercial updates as one discussion without interruption. It would be good if the group could talk about evaluation scope of work.
• It was a good meeting, thank you.
• Impressed with the evaluation presentation. It looks like Idaho Power is on track. Would like to see more
time to digest those number and ask questions.
• I learned some new things today, thank you.
• I appreciated everyone’s input at these meetings.
• It is helpful to see the effectiveness of the programs over time. Enjoyed learning about the marketing.
• Acknowledgement of Billie’s presentation. Appreciated that the company solicited feedback from EEAG on specific programs. Also, enjoyed Quentin’s presentation on the cohorts.
• Thank you for bringing the tiny house today.
• Thank you for going to the effort of bringing the tiny house. It is evident the company has broadened and
deepened its efforts. The only thing I take issue with was the discussion around LED lighting. Overall it was a good meeting and it is good to see that the irrigation reps are appreciated in the field.
3:05 pm-Comments—Adam Richins, VP of Customer Operations and Business Development
Adam provided his professional and personal background, thanked the group for its guidance and let them know how important their input is to Idaho Power. He informed the group of a current company focus; The Customer
Intent Statement. Idaho Power is focusing on becoming a trusted energy advisor for customers, creating
innovative solutions, being reliable and prompt, and making it easier for customers to do business with the company. He spoke about customer experience touchpoints and provided some examples of what the company is
currently working on.
3:20 pm EV Discussion—Billie McWinn.
Billie spoke about the company’s increased activity around electric vehicles (EV) and EV charging stations. She
wanted to get feedback from EEAG on a partnership concept that could be a potential opportunity to provide mutual benefit between energy efficiency and EV. No rider money would be used in any way to fund EV activity. Rather, it would be a partnership opportunity to leverage resources already in place for both energy efficiency and
EV. EEAG has brought up in past meetings, that the company should leverage partnerships with other entities.
This could be an opportunity to leverage non-rider company resources. Billie provided an example of leveraging internal resources: a green builder has a desire to have new homes be EV ready. Idaho Power has a program for
energy efficient homes. If the company provides an incentive on energy efficient EV charging stations, does it make sense to have the customer fill out two different applications or could these be combined to provide better customer satisfaction. Billie also brought up the fact that combining offerings could bring increased visibility to
both energy efficiency and EV, and that combining all incentives in one place is a more customer-focused way to create offerings
6
The consensus of the group is that it would be worth considering these types of potential partnerships and leveraging resources the company currently has. There could be some overlap however, it needs to be made clear
that it isn’t energy efficiency and that it is separate. It could be marketed in such a way as to acknowledge that a
customer will be using more energy due to the charging station so energy efficiency is a great way to offset that extra usage.
3:42 pm- Meeting Adjourned
1
Energy Efficiency Advisory Group (EEAG) Notes dated November 1st, 2017
Present:
Kent Hanway-CSHQA Don Strickler–Simplot
Ken Robinette–South Central Comm. Action Partnership Ben Otto-Idaho Conservation League
Stacey Donohue–Idaho Public Utilities Commission Scott Pugrud–Office of Energy & Mineral Resources
Diego Rivas–Northwest Energy Coalition (on phone) Sid Erwin–Idaho Irrigation Pumpers Association
Connie Aschenbrenner–Idaho Power Pete Pengilly*-Idaho Power
Nadine Hanhan–Public Utility Commission of Oregon
Jim Hall-Bodybuilding.com
Tina Jayaweera-Northwest Power & Conservation
Council (on phone)
Not Present:
Elfreda Higgins–City of Garden City
Name–Company
Name–Company
Guests and Presenters*:
Quentin Nesbitt*-Idaho Power Cheryl Paoli*–Idaho Power
Annie Meyer*–Idaho Power Theresa Drake–Idaho Power
Shelley Martin–Idaho Power Andrea Simmonsen–Idaho Power
Billie McWinn*–Idaho Power Tracey Burtch*–Idaho Power
Joe Bonocore–Bonocore Technology Partners Jerry Peterson–Division of Building Safety
Peter Richardson–Industrial Customers of Idaho Power Don Reading–Industrial Customers of Idaho Power
Donn English– Idaho Public Utilities Commission
Dan Axness-Idaho Power
Rachelle Farnsworth– Idaho Public Utilities Commission
Tonja Dyke-Idaho Power Chellie Jensen-Idaho Power
Sheree Willhite-Idaho Power Chris Pollow-Idaho Power
Randy Thorn-Idaho Power Mindi Shodeen-Idaho Power
Phil DeVol-Idaho Power Denise Humphreys-Idaho Power
Todd Greenwell-Idaho Power Rob Ord-Idaho Power
Mitch McClellin-Idaho Power Ken Miller-Snake River Alliance
Lynn Tominaga-Idaho Irrigation Pumpers Association Lisa Nordstrom-Idaho Power
Stephen Goodson- Idaho Public Utilities Commission Jonathan Farley- Idaho Public Utilities Commission
Katie Pegan-Office of Energy & Mineral Resources Kevin Keyt- Idaho Public Utilities Commission
Note Takers:
Shawn Lovewell (Idaho Power) with Kathy Yi (Idaho Power)
Meeting Facilitator: Rosemary Curtin
Meeting Convened at 9:30am
2
Rosemary started the meeting with introduction of members and guests. There were no comments or questions on the August meeting notes. Pete highlighted the two financial documents that were sent to EEAG members prior to
the meeting: Appendix 1 and the 2017 DSM Actual Expenses and Preliminary Energy Savings by Program. He
stated that a more detailed version of Appendix 1 will be sent out after the company’s earnings release. Connie recognized the efforts of EEAG members and the Program Specialists and provided a recap of the 2016 Prudence
order recently issued by the Idaho Public Utilities Commission.
9:40 am-C/I & Irrigation Programs—Quentin Nesbitt
Quentin provided year-to-date savings and participation for the Commercial, Industrial, and Irrigation programs:
• In the New Construction program, some of the prescriptive measures may be removed due to building code changes.
• With the current building boom, trade allies are more inclined to take on new construction projects rather
than retrofits. Idaho Power is continually working to increase Trade Ally engagement in the Retrofit Program and Quentin requested feedback or ideas on how the company could do this.
• Quentin provided a status update for the Commercial Energy Efficiency (EE) Kits and asked the group for feedback on distribution options.
• The company is looking at expanding the School Cohort and creating a new cohort group that would include other interested school districts, private schools, and charters. Quentin requested feedback on the
best time to launch the new group.
• Quentin provided the highlights and successes of the Water Cohort. The company is considering a joint
Water Cohort in Eastern Idaho and members were asked for feedback on this idea.
• The company is considering providing a dealer incentive for the menu portion of Irrigation Efficiency program to increase customer engagement. EEAG members were asked for feedback on that idea.
There were questions and comments regarding building codes and what measures will have to be removed in the New Construction Program. Idaho Power can try to engage with Trade Allies in the Retrofit program by offering an additional incentive like the architect/engineer bonus or some sort of endorsement from the company, and
streamlining the application process to make it more efficient. The feedback regarding Commercial EE Kits distribution channel is to make it as easy as possible for small businesses because time is usually stretched thin for
this demographic. It is important that the company provide messaging in the kit that someone will follow up with
them. It is good that the company is working on ways to reach these customers. The company should let schools inform the best time to launch a new cohort. The consensus of the group is that an Eastern Idaho Water Cohort is
a great idea. The company should focus more on continued education rather than a dealer incentive for the
Irrigation Efficiency program.
10:36 am-Residential Programs—Billie McWinn
Billie provided an update of the 2017 YTD savings for all residential programs. She highlighted the following
programs and products: Home Energy Reports, Multifamily Direct Install, Heat Pump Water Heaters, Appliance Recycling, CFL reflector bulbs, showerheads, and Energy Saving Kits. She also highlighted some new offerings
the company is exploring. The following key points were presented:
• The residential lighting program accounts for 61% of the overall savings achieved in the residential
portfolio, but lighting also contributes to the savings in most of the other residential programs.
3
• The company has been collecting feedback from customers who have received their Home Energy Report. Because customers are chosen randomly, there isn’t an “opt-in” option. The company is working
on internal email policies that will, in the future, support customers who choose to receive an email report instead of a paper copy.
• Heat pump water heaters (HPWH) will launch early 2018. Based on feedback from EEAG, specific
training for contractors or self-install is not a requirement to participate. The company is meeting with installers and wholesalers to educate them on the measure. Installers will be critical in ensuring
customers have access to HPWHs as an emergency replacement.
• The timeline to sunset the Fridge and Freezer program was discussed. As this program ramps down, there
will still be some savings realized and the company will be communicating this timeline so customers are
not caught off guard when it ends.
• The company purchased CFL reflector bulbs with ARRA funds and has a surplus of 1300 that were not
distributed. Billie asked EEAG for ideas on how the company could use these.
• Residential showerhead savings are declining but incremental costs are very low so they are still cost-
effective. Billie asked EEAG if the company should continue to incentivize the purchase of showerheads when efficient showerheads are not more expensive than their non-efficient counterparts
• The thermostatic shower valve combo was added to the Energy Saving Kits. A cling for water heaters was included in the kit to make customers aware that Idaho Power has a program for heat pump water heaters.
• Cheryl Paoli, Program Specialist for the Weatherization Programs was introduced to the group and she spoke about a new pilot the company is implementing as part of Idaho Power’s annual Low Income
Education Program; a coupon for a free electric furnace/AC & heat pump tune up.
• The company is exploring a new pilot program that would replace Energy Star® Homes NW incentives.
Billie provided details and considerations and asked EEAG for feedback on this new idea.
• As part of a Customer Onboarding redesign, the company decided to provide energy efficiency kits to
new customers. Billie recognized that the EEAG had previously recommended onboarding of new
customers as an opportunity to educate on energy efficiency. Billie provided details on two kit options for customers when they sign up for new service and asked EEAG for feedback on the two options.
There were questions and comments regarding the Fridge & Freezer Recycling program regarding the
company efforts to revive this program despite the challenges it faced. EEAG likes the idea of the company using the remaining CFL reflector bulbs and suggested that maybe a non-profit could benefit from those.
EEAG thinks it’s appropriate to consider market indicators when deciding on whether to continue offering
showerheads in the Simple Steps, Smart Savings program. The group was supportive of the Easy Savings coupon pilot and the liked the idea of the kits for new customers. Most of the group were in favor of option
2, which was a four-bulb kit, vs option 1 which was a full kit for non-all-electric customers.
11:47 am-Cost-Effectiveness Preview—Kathy Yi
Kathy provided an overview of cost-effectiveness and a refresher of the Utility Cost Test (UCT) and Total
Resource Cost Test (TRC). The preliminary 2018 cost-effectiveness summary and 2017-2019 program
assumptions were explained. The following points were presented:
4
• The company will use the 2015 IRP DSM alternative costs for the 2018 program year.
• The Technical Resource Manual is currently being revised and those new savings and assumptions will be
applied to the programs in mid-2018.
12:10 pm-Lunch. We will continue the Cost-Effectiveness presentation after lunch.
1:00 Meeting Reconvened
Cost Effective presentation continued
• Savings for lighting will decrease in 2018. There is a storage assumption in the bulb savings for 2018.
These numbers are from the Regional Technical Forum (RTF). The EISA standards are going up which changes the baseline. The baseline is a blend of many different things including sales data and Regional
Building Stock Assessment (RBSA) data.
There were questions and comments regarding market transformation. The presentation shows how this is happening. There was discussion amongst EEAG and other attendees regarding the timing of the inputs used
for cost-effectiveness.
1:20 pm-Program Evaluations—Pete Pengilly-
Based on feedback EEAG provided at the August meeting, Pete provided information on why Idaho Power does
evaluations, the objectives and types of evaluation and research done. The following points were presented:
• Evaluations help Idaho Power improve existing programs, provide accountability in using customer funds
prudently and provide transparency.
• The Request for Bid (RFP) process starts in early spring. They are sent to a list of known contractors and
posted on industry web-sites. Once the RFP’s are received, a committee is selected to review and score
each bid based on responses to questions, price, and experience.
• All the evaluations and reports are published every year in Supplement II of the DSM Annual Report.
There were questions and comments on whether the Energy Saving Kits will be evaluated. The kits would fall under the umbrella of the Educational Distributions but the company will consider that. Idaho Power’s evaluations are well written and rigorous.
1:45 pm-Customer Alerts —Todd Schultz
Todd updated the group on a couple of improvements that were made this year to the billing and payment options.
The following points were presented:
• Paperless billing and Autopay have been modernized to give customers more convenient payment options.
• These new options and upgrades have impacted the number of customers signing up for My Account. On average Idaho Power receives about 500k unique visits to My Account.
There were questions and comments regarding My Account being a great platform for incorporating energy
efficiency tips and ideas because customers are already in there and engaged. There were also comments on the types of customer alerts that will be available to sign up for.
5
2:00 pm-Residential Portal—Billie McWinn
Billie presented an idea that was brought to Idaho Power by a third-party vendor. The idea is a web based
application that has potential for residential energy efficiency customer education and a call to action. The
following points were presented:
• Idaho Power and the Division of Building Safety (DBS) want to help customers make better energy
efficient choices in the home. This idea would be a pilot to help customers better understand not only the steps in making their homes more efficient, but where to find training, what questions they need to ask of their contractors and what resources they will need to complete projects.
• DBS’s contribution will bring credibility to the pilot. Idaho Power may not have access to the homes that are having the issues where DBS will.
• Custom information will be provided to customers based on the home profile they build and a cross-reference of the DBS database which identifies trends and opportunities in specific areas and with
specific home types. The custom reports will provide suggestions for recommended upgrades.
There were comments and questions regarding having this as a pilot for at least a year. Having something like this as a tool when a home performance contractor is working in a home and interacting with a customer could be a
useful tool. The ability to target homes that are similar would be a great way to target efficiencies. There is a sense of credibility with DBS being part of this, it’s not just a third party but rather an entity with the State of Idaho. The company might want to make sure to provide a link back to the original site if they are posted on
YouTube. There may be some cost-sharing partnerships with retail stores that want to be on preferred shopping stores listed on the website.
2:20 pm-30 Simple Things/Residential Marketing—Billie McWinn/Tracey Burtch
Tracey and Billie passed out copies of 30 Simple Things and two new marketing pieces to members. They provided background on the original book produced and showed the differences between the two new options. Idaho Power would like feedback from the group on which option they prefer and company should move forward
with.
The group stated that they saw value in both options depending on the customer being addressed.
2:40 pm-Marketing Update—Tracey Burtch & Annie Meyer
Tracey and Annie presented an update on marketing activities since the last EEAG Meeting. The following points were presented:
• A video highlighting the energy efficiency efforts at Hope House in Marsing was shown.
• The fall energy efficiency campaign is underway. The October Connections focused on energy efficiency.
Annie passed around the marketing pieces workbook.
• The 2017 Smart-saver pledge is running until November 17th. Customer can now enter via social media.
• Idaho Power’s website is being re-designed with a scheduled launch date of November 4th. The goal for re-design was to make it adaptive responsive, easier navigation, and updated look.
6
• The company has been working on the addition of email marketing with the goal of beginning that in 2018.
There were questions and comments regarding the Smart-saver pledge being a commitment and that the company should be following up with customers to make sure they are honoring their commitment by providing reminders. Having a way for customers to utilize social media to publicize their commitment may be an option. The
marketing has improved over the last two years with the goal of savings acquisition. At the next EEAG meeting we would like to see how these increased marketing tactics have driven program participation.
3:15 pm—Wrap up/Discussion
• I’m glad Idaho Power is working with EEAG on cost effectiveness. I appreciate the company looking at the Custom Home Pilot program and approach to cost effectiveness on it.
• Enjoyed the cost effectiveness preview presentation.
• I enjoyed the Program Specialist speaking to the group. I also appreciate hearing how comments made
during EEAG meetings have been incorporated.
• I liked being able to attend this meeting in person. I see how much Idaho Power does and it has been very
educational.
• This was a good meeting. The residential portal is a great idea and could tie in well with the 30 Simple
Things booklet.
• It was a very informational meeting. Even though the meeting ran a little longer, I appreciate having the
opportunity to provide input. I still like the 30 Simple Things book and feel it still has relevance.
• I appreciate hearing about new programs. I would still like to talk about building codes. The City of Boise
is stepping forward to enact 2015 residential conservation code. There will be a meeting on December
12th. This would be a great opportunity for people in this room and the company to support these new building codes.
• I appreciate everyone speaking up and sharing their ideas, it is very helpful.

3:22 pm- Rider Forecast - Idaho/Oregon—Pete Pengilly/Rob Ord CONFIDENTIAL
Lisa Nordstrom gave a brief statement before the next presentation. The financial numbers in this presentation have not been made public, therefore are to remain confidential. If this is a challenge for anyone, they were
instructed to step out of the room. Pete provided a confidential rider forecast for Idaho and Oregon.
3:48pm Meeting Adjourned

Idaho Power Company Supplement 2: Evaluation
Demand-Side Management 2017 Annual Report Page 27
NEEA MARKET EFFECTS EVALUATIONS
Table 1. 2017 NEEA Market Effects Evaluations
Report Title Sector
Analysis
Performed By
Study
Manager
Study/Evaluation
Type
2016 BOC Program Dataset Analysis Commercial Research Into Action NEEA Analysis
2016-2017 Northwest Residential Lighting Long-Term Monitoring and Tracking Study
Residential Cadeo Group NEEA Tracking Study
Clothing Wear and Tear of Heat Pump vs Electric Resistance Clothes Dryers with Addendum Report Residential Ecos Research NEEA Research
Commercial Real Estate Infrastructure Market Progress Evaluation Report #1 Commercial Navigant Consulting NEEA Market Progress
Commissioning Long-Term Monitoring and Tracking—2016 Square Footage Update Commercial Cadeo Group NEEA Update
DHP Quick Connect Phase 2 Report* Residential Clearesult NEEA Research
Efficient rigs in manufactured digs; Consumer and dealer research on energy efficiency in manufactured homes Residential Arrow G Consulting NEEA Research
Electric Motors Standard Evaluation Industrial Cadmus Group NEEA Effectiveness Evaluation
Energy Efficiency Test Procedure for Residential Clothes Dryers Residential NEEA, PG&E, Ecova NEEA Research
Exploring the Consumer Value Proposition for Super-
Efficienct Dryer
Residential Arrow G Consulting NEEA Research
Exploring the Customer Path-To-Purchase for New Construction Homes Residential Arrow G Consulting NEEA Research
Green Motor Rewinds—2016 Long Term Monitoring and Tracking Report Industrial Cadmus Group NEEA Monitoring and Tracking
Interaction Between Heat Pump Water Heaters or Other Internal Point Source Loads And A Central Heating System Residential Pacific Northwest National Laboratory NEEA Research
Market Characterization of the Northwest Natural Gas Hearth Market Residential Russell Research NEEA Market Progress
Market Progress Evaluation Report 1: Energy Codes Program Market Cadmus Group NEEA Effectiveness Evaluation
Marketing Message Testing for Super-Efficient-Dryers Residential Arrow G Consulting NEEA Research
Natural Gas Segmentation Study Market Illume NEEA Analysis
NEEA Natural Gas Portfolio Mid-Cycle Assessment Market Opinion Dynamics NEEA Assessment
NEEA: Commercial Lighting Decision Maker Groups Commercial SEEK, Inc. NEEA Assessment
Northwest Heat Pump Water Heater Initiative Market Progress Evaluation Report #3 Residential Cadeo Group NEEA Market Progress
Retail Products Portfolio Market Test Assessment Residential Research Into Action NEEA Market Assessment
Rooftop HVAC Market Characterization Study Market Evergreen Economics NEEA Market Characterization
Report titles appearing in blue are links to the online versions of the reports. A PDF of this supplement can be found at
idahopower.com/ways-to-save/energy-efficiency-program-reports/.
* Online version not available at publication time.

Supplement 2: Evaluation Idaho Power Company
Page 28 Demand-Side Management 2017 Annual Report

Idaho Power Company Supplement 2: Evaluation
Demand-Side Management 2017 Annual Report Page 29
INTEGRATED DESIGN LAB
Table 2. 2017 Integrated Design Lab
Report Title Sector
Analysis
Performed By
Study
Manager Study/Evaluation Type
2017 Task 1: Foundational Services Commercial IDL Idaho Power EE Assistance & Education
2017 Task 2: Lunch and Learn Commercial IDL Idaho Power EE Training & Education
2017 Task 3: BSUG Commercial IDL Idaho Power EE Training & Education
2017 Task 4: New Construction Verifications Commercial IDL Idaho Power EE Verifications
2017 Task 5: Tool Loan Library Commercial IDL Idaho Power EE Assistance & Education
2017 Task 6: Absorption Chiller Feasibility Study Commercial IDL Idaho Power EE Research
2017 Task 7: Heat Pump Calculator Commercial IDL Idaho Power EE Assistance & Education
2017 Task 8: Daylighting Training Commercial IDL Idaho Power EE Training & Education

Report Number: 1701_001-01

2017 TASK 1: FOUNDATIONAL SERVICES
SUMMARY OF PROJECTS
IDAHO POWER COMPANY EXTERNAL YEAR-END
REPORT

December 31, 2017

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. (2017). 2017
TASK 1: Foundational Services – Summary of Projects
(1701_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 ............................................................................................................................... 7
2. Project Summary ..................................................................................................................... 8
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 7
2017 Task 1: Foundational Services- Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report #1701_001-01)
1.INTRODUCTION
The University of Idaho Integrated Design Lab (UI-IDL) provided technical
assistance in 2017 for energy efficiency building projects through the Foundational
Services task. This program, supported by Idaho Power Company (IPC), offered three
phases of assistance from which customers could choose. A marketing flyer, developed
in prior years, outlining the three phases is shown below. 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
The Foundational Services program was marketed at numerous events and to
multiple organizations in 2017, which included all IDL Lunch and Learn series
presentations and BSUG presentations to local architecture and engineering firms,
ASHRAE, AIA, and local government.
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 8
2017 Task 1: Foundational Services- Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report #1701_001-01)
2.PROJECT SUMMARYIn addition to several on-going projects from 2016, twenty-five new projects
received technical assistance through the Foundational Services program in 2017.
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 twenty-two Phase
I projects, and three Phase II projects. Seventeen of the projects were for work to be
completed in existing buildings, and four were for new construction projects. The
remaining projects are not building specific. Fewer projects were identified in 2017 than
in 2016, but the total building area impacted was greater. In 2017, the IDL assisted with
more than one million square feet of built area.
Table 1: 2017 Foundational Services Project Summary
Project Type Area New/Existing Location
Educational 6,200 New McCall
Educational 30,000 New Notus
Educational 30,000 Existing Boise
Office 15,000 Existing Twin Falls
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 9
2017 Task 1: Foundational Services- Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report #1701_001-01)
Church 15,000 Existing Jerome
Mixed Use 40,000 Existing Boise
Industrial Existing Boise
Office 24,000 Existing Boise
Mixed Use - - Boise
Office 268,000 Existing Boise
Commercial Product Research - -
Mixed Use 140,750 Existing Boise
Office Existing Boise
Wall Detailing - - Boise
Industrial 30,000 Existing Boise
Mixed Use 20,000 Existing Boise
Planning - - -
Civic/government 9,600 New Cambridge
Hotel 5,600 New Boise
Office 82,000 Existing Boise
Educational 50,000 Existing Boise
Report Number: 1701_002-01
2017 TASK 2: LUNCH AND LEARN
SUMMARY OF EFFORT AND OUTCOMES
IDAHO POWER COMPANY EXTERNAL YEAR-END REPORT
December 31, 2017
Prepared for:
Idaho Power Company
Authors:
Elizabeth Cooper
Dylan Agnes
Neha Pokhrel
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:
Elizabeth Cooper
Dylan Agnes
Neha Pokhrel
Prepared for:
Idaho Power Company
Contract Number:
#5277
Please cite this report as follows: Pokhrel, N., (2017). 2017 TASK
2: Lunch and Learn – Summary of Effort and Outcomes (1701_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. 2017 Summary and Cumulative Analysis .................................................................................... 8
2. Session Summaries ................................................................................................................... 13
2.1 Session 1: Daylight Performance Metrics for Human Health, Productivity, and Satisfaction
(02/16/2017) ............................................................................................................................. 13
2.2 Session 2: High Performance Classrooms: The Indoor Environment (03/16/2017) ........... 14
2.3 Session 3: Energy Plus/Open Studio Work Flow (03/23/2017) .......................................... 14
2.4 Session 4: Radiant Heating and Cooling Design (03/28/2017) ........................................... 15
2.5 Session 5: High Performance Classrooms: The Indoor Environment (03/30/17) ............... 15
2.6 Session 6: Daylight Performance Metrics for Human, Health, Productivity, and Satisfaction
(04/04/17) ................................................................................................................................. 16
2.7 Session 7: Radiant Heating and Cooling Design (04/13/17) ............................................... 17
2.8 Session 8: Dedicated Outdoor Air Systems (DOAS) Integration (04/27/17) ....................... 17
2.9 Session 9: Hybrid Ground Source Heat Pump System (05/18/17) ...................................... 18
2.10 Session 10: Daylight Performance Metrics for Human, Health, Productivity and
Satisfaction (05/23/17) ............................................................................................................. 18
2.11 Session 11: Radiant Heating and Cooling Design (06/01/17) .......................................... 19
2.12 Session 12: Dedicated Outdoor Air Systems (DOAS) Integration (06/08/2017) ............... 20
2.13 Session 13: Dedicated Outdoor Air Systems (DOAS) Integration (21/06/17) ................... 20
2.14 Session 14: Radiant Heating and Cooling Design (06/27/17) ........................................... 21
2.15 Sessions 15: Dedicated Outdoor Air Systems (DOAS) Integration (07/18/17) ................. 22
2.16 Session 16: Dedicated Outdoor Air System (DOAS) Integration (08/17/2017) ................ 22
2.17 Session 17: Radiant Heating and Cooling Design (09/06/2017) ....................................... 23
2.18 Session 18: Radiant Heating and Cooling Design (10/24/17) ........................................... 23
2.19 Session 19: Cold Feet: Managing Controls and Condensation for radiant Slab Cooling
(11/25/2017) ............................................................................................................................. 24
3. Future Work .............................................................................................................................. 25
vii
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)
Bldg. Building
BOMA Building Owners and Managers Association
CSI Construction Specifications Institute
Cx Customer Experience
DOE Department of Energy
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
IES Illuminating Engineering Society
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
8
1.2017 SUMMARY AND CUMULATIVE ANALYSIS
Table 1: 2017 Lunch and Learn Summary
Date Title Presenter Group / Location Attendees
1 02/16 Daylight Performance Metrics for Human Health,
Productivity, and Satisfaction.
Elizabeth Cooper Architectural Organization 1 9
2 03/16 High performance Classrooms: The Indoor Environment Nick Hansen Architectural Firm 1 6
3 03/23 Energy Plus/Open Studio Work Flow Damon Woods Architectural Firm 2 14
4 03/28 Radiant Heating and Cooling Design Damon Woods Engineering Firm 1 6
5 03/30 High Performance Classrooms: The Indoor Environment Nick Hansen Architectural Firm 3 6
6 04/04 Daylight Performance Metrics for Human Health,
Productivity and Satisfaction
Elizabeth Cooper Architectural Firm 2 11
7 04/13 Radiant Heating and Cooling Design Damon Woods Architecture Firm 1 4
8
9
04/27
05/18
Dedicated Outdoor Air Systems(DOAS) Integration
Hybrid Ground Source Heat Pump System
Elizabeth Cooper
Sean Rosin
Engineering Firm 1
Architectural Organization 1
15
9
10 05/23 Daylight Performance Metrics for Human, Health,
Productivity and Satisfaction.
Elizabeth Cooper Architectural Firm 3 8
11 06/01 Radiant Heating and Cooling Design Damon Woods Engineering Firm 2 8
12 06/08 Dedicated Outdoor Air Systems (DOAS) Integration Elizabeth Cooper Architectural Firm 1 5
13 06/21 Dedicated Outdoor Air Systems (DOAS) Integration Elizabeth Cooper Engineering Firm 2 7
14 06/27 Radiant Heating and Cooling Design Damon Woods Architectural Organization 2 14
15 07/18 Dedicated Outdoor Air Systems(DOAS) Integration Elizabeth Cooper Architecture Organization 2 11
16 08/17 Dedicated Outdoor Air Systems(DOAS) Integration Damon Woods Architectural Firm 4 5
17 09/6 Radiant Heating and Cooling Design Damon Woods Architecture Firm 4 7
18 10/24 Radiant Heating and Cooling Design Damon Woods Architectural Firm 5 6
19 10/25 Cold Feet: Managing Controls and condensation for
radiant slab cooling
Damon Woods Architectural Organization 1 12
163
9
Table 1 above summarizes all Lunch and Learn presentations given in 2017. The statistics in this section are
cumulative for the 19 presentations. For session 20, the date has been rescheduled from December 15th due to a conflict with the
client’s, the presentation will be given in early 2018 and will not count towards the 20 sessions for 2018. 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.
Participants were also 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: 107 Electrician:
Engineer: 6 Contractor:
Mech. Engineer: 6 Other: 44
Elec. Engineer: None Specified:
Total (In-Person): 163
10
Figure 1: Attendee Profession
Architect
61%
Engineer
5%
Mech.
Engineer
4%
Other
30%
Profession of Attendee Breakdown
11
Figure 2: Attendee Count by Title and Number of Session
9
6
14
6
15
9
12
11
6
4
5
8
8
7
14
11
7
5
6
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Daylight Performance Metrics for Human Health, Productivity, and Satisfaction
High Performance Classrooms: The Indoor Environment
Energy Plus/Open Studio Work Flow
Radiant Heating and Cooling Design
Dedicated Outdoor Air Systems (DOAS) Integration
Hybrid Ground Source Heat Pump System
Cold Feet: Managing controls and condensation when simulating radiant slab cooling
Session 1 Session 2 Session 3 Session 4 Session 5 Session 6
12
Figure 3: Average Evaluations by Session Title
Figure 4: Overall Averages of Evaluations for all Sessions
0
1
2
3
4
5
Daylight Performance
Metrics for Human
Health, Productivity, and
Satisfaction
High Performance
Classrooms: Indoor
Environment
Energy Plus/Open Studio
Work Flow
Radiant Heating and
Cooling Design
Dedicated Outdoor Air
Systems (DOAS)
Integration
Hybrid Ground Source
Heat Pump System
Cold Feet: Managing
controls and
condensation when
simulating radiant slab
cooling
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:
4.45 4.30 4.40 4.60 4.68 4.48
3.45
0
1
2
3
4
5
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:
13
2.SESSION SUMMARIES
After 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: Daylight Performance Metrics for Human Health, Productivity, and
Satisfaction (02/16/2017)
Title: Daylight Performance Metrics for Human Health, Productivity, and Satisfaction.
Description: Daylight can breathe light and life into our buildings. Daylight can also make our buildings
healthier and more energy efficient. However, designing effective, comfortable, and daylit buildings
remains outside the capabilities of most designers. This session will discuss the impacts of daylight on
humans in the built environment, the metrics associated with effective daylighting, and the tools
available for designing daylight spaces with these metrics. It will highlight both the physical and
psychological effects of daylight on the human visual and biological system and what can be feasibly
achieved in terms of positive impacts upon worker productivity and improved user satisfaction through
high quality daylighting design. It will explain the basis for daylighting metrics and how to utilize them in
daylight and lighting design as well as capabilities of simulation tools to generate them, the effect of
assumptions about blinds operation, implications for daylight performance and visual comfort, and the
limitations of the metrics. Examples from real spaces present us with actionable knowledge about
synthesizing the light of place with the specific needs of human activity as well as inform an intuitive
understanding of the metrics and corresponding criteria.
Presentation Info:
Date: 02/16/17
Location: Architectural Organization 1 – Pocatello, ID
Presenter: Elizabeth Cooper
Attendance:
Architect: 9 Electrician:
Engineer: Contractor:
Mech. Engineer: Other:
Elec. Engineer: None Specified:
Total (In-Person): 9
14
2.2 Session 2: High Performance Classrooms: The Indoor Environment (03/16/2017)
Title: High Performance Classrooms: The Indoor Environment.
Description: Classrooms represent the indoor environment where children spend most of their time at
school. Therefore, the quality of the classroom environment has a direct effect on children’s health and
academic performance. Studies have shown the relationship between improved air quality and higher
performance and satisfaction for students. Heating, ventilation and air-conditioning represents a key
area in the improvement of the environmental quality within a classroom, as well as significant
opportunities for energy performance optimization. In addition to healthier higher performing student
schools will see significant energy savings.
Presentation Info:
Date: 3/16/17
Location: Architectural Firm 1 – Boise, ID
Presenter: Nick Hansen
Attendance:
Architect: 6 Electrician:
Engineer: Contractor:
Mech. Engineer: Other*:
Elec. Engineer: None Specified:
Total (In-Person): 6
2.3 Session 3: Energy Plus/Open Studio Work Flow (03/23/2017)
Title: Energy Plus/Open Studio Work Flow.
Description: As a whole, building simulation software rapidly develops and evolves. Understanding an
effective workflow between the tools and disciplines is critical to the integrated design process and
resulting energy savings potential. Front-end graphic user interfaces have made powerful simulation
engines like Energy Plus more accessible to both architects and engineers. It has also made the
simulation process easier, smoother, and, perhaps, most importantly, faster. This presentation will focus
on describing the integrated energy and daylight simulation workflow of Open Studio, a free graphic
user interface developed by the Department of Energy, and its relationship with Radiance and Energy
Plus.
Presentation Info:
Date: 03/23/17
Location: Architectural Firm 2 – Boise, ID
Presenter: Damon Woods
15
Attendance:
Architect: 7 Electrician:
Engineer: Contractor:
Mech. Engineer: Other*: 7
Elec. Engineer: None Specified:
Total (In-Person): 14
2.4 Session 4: Radiant Heating and Cooling Design (03/28/2017)
Title: Radiant Heating and Cooling Design.
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:
Date: 03/28/2017
Location: Engineering Firm 1 – Boise, ID
Presenter: Damon Woods
Attendance:
Architect: Electrician:
Engineer: 6 Contractor:
Mech. Engineer: Other*:
Elec. Engineer: None Specified:
Total (In-Person): 6
2.5 Session 5: High Performance Classrooms: The Indoor Environment (03/30/17)
Title: High Performance Classrooms: The Indoor Environment
16
Description: Classrooms represent the indoor environment where children spend the majority of their
time at school. Therefore, the quality of the classroom environment has a direct effect on children’s
health and academic performance. Studies have shown the relationship between improved air quality
and higher performance and satisfaction for students. Heating, ventilation and air-conditioning
represents a key area in the improvement of the environmental quality within a classroom, as well as
significant opportunities for energy performance optimization. In addition to healthier higher
performing student schools will see significant energy savings.
Presentation Info:
Date: 03/30/2017
Location: Architectural Firm 3 – Boise, ID
Presenter: Nick Hansen
Attendance:
Architect: 6 Electrician:
Engineer: Contractor:
Mech. Engineer: Other*:
Elec. Engineer: None Specified:
Total (In-Person): 6
2.6 Session 6: Daylight Performance Metrics for Human, Health, Productivity, and
Satisfaction (04/04/17)
Title: Daylight Performance Metrics for Human, Productivity, and Satisfaction.
Description: Daylight can breathe light and life into our buildings. Daylight can also make our
buildings healthier and more energy efficient. However, designing effective, comfortable, and daylit
buildings remains outside the capabilities of most designers. This session will discuss the impacts of
daylight on humans in the built environment, the metrics associated with effective daylighting, and the
tools available for designing daylight spaces with these metrics. It will highlight both the physical and
psychological effects of daylight on the human visual and biological system and what can be feasibly
achieved in terms of positive impacts upon worker productivity and improved user satisfaction through
high quality daylighting design. It will explain the basis for daylighting metrics and how to utilize them in
daylight and lighting design as well as capabilities of simulation tools to generate them, the effect of
assumptions about blinds operation, implications for daylight performance and visual comfort, and the
limitations of the metrics. Examples from real spaces present us with actionable knowledge about
synthesizing the light of place with the specific needs of human activity as well as inform an intuitive
understanding of the metrics and corresponding criteria.
Presentation Info:
Date: 04/04/2017
Location: Architecture Firm 2- Boise, ID
Presenter: Elizabeth Cooper
Attendance:
17
Architect: 10 Electrician:
Engineer: Contractor:
Mech. Engineer: Other: 1
Elec. Engineer: None Specified:
Total (In-Person): 11
2.7 Session 7: Radiant Heating and Cooling Design (04/13/17)
Title: Radiant Heating and Cooling Design
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:
Date: 04/13/2017
Location: Architecture Firm 1 - Boise, ID
Presenter: Elizabeth Cooper
Attendance:
Architect: 3 Electrician:
Engineer: Contractor:
Mech. Engineer: Other: 1
Elec. Engineer: None Specified:
Total (In-Person): 4
2.8 Session 8: Dedicated Outdoor Air Systems (DOAS) Integration (04/27/17)
Title: Dedicated Outdoor Air Systems (DOAS) Integration
Description: Washington State has recently codified the requirement for DOAS in all new construction,
and other states will likely follow. What this requirement means for the design, operation, and energy
performance of buildings is the focus of this presentation. An introduction to the latest strategies and
technologies in ventilation is included.
18
Presentation Info:
Date: 04/27/2017
Location: Engineering Firm 1 – Boise, ID
Presenter: Elizabeth Cooper
Attendance:
Architect: Electrician:
Engineer: 5 Contractor:
Mech. Engineer: 7 Other: 3
Elec. Engineer: None Specified:
Total (In-Person): 15
2.9 Session 9: Hybrid Ground Source Heat Pump System (05/18/17)
Title: Hybrid Ground Source Pump System
Description: The initial cost of ground-source heat pump systems can be substantially higher than
conventional systems, limiting it as a design option. This presentation will highlight how, with a hybrid
GSHP system it is possible to optimize the overall system life-cycle cost by reducing the initial cost, while
still maintaining the low operating cost of a GSHP system. It will discuss how, to reduce initial costs, peak
loads should be carefully calculated and minimized during the design phase, the GSHP system should be
sized based on coincidental building loads with the use of simulation software, and the system
components, including the ground heat exchanger and additional central plant equipment, should be
sized to optimize life-cycle costs using appropriate economic assumptions.
Presentation Info:
Date: 05/18/2017
Location: Architectural organization 1 –Pocatello, ID
Presenter: Sean Rosin
Attendance:
Architect: 9 Electrician:
Engineer: Contractor:
Mech. Engineer: Other:
Elec. Engineer: None Specified:
Total (In-Person): 9
2.10 Session 10: Daylight Performance Metrics for Human, Health, Productivity and
Satisfaction (05/23/17)
Title: Daylight Performance Metrics for Human, Health, Productivity and Satisfaction.
19
Description: Daylight can breathe light and life into our buildings. Daylight can also make our buildings
healthier and more energy efficient. However, designing effective, comfortable, and daylit buildings
remains outside the capabilities of most designers. This session will discuss the impacts of daylight on
humans in the built environment, the metrics associated with effective daylighting, and the tools
available for designing daylight spaces with these metrics. It will highlight both the physical and
psychological effects of daylight on the human visual and biological system and what can be feasibly
achieved in terms of positive impacts upon worker productivity and improved user satisfaction through
high quality daylighting design. It will explain the basis for daylighting metrics and how to utilize them in
daylight and lighting design as well as capabilities of simulation tools to generate them, the effect of
assumptions about blinds operation, implications for daylight performance and visual comfort, and the
limitations of the metrics. Examples from real spaces present us with actionable knowledge about
synthesizing the light of place with the specific needs of human activity as well as inform an intuitive
understanding of the metrics and corresponding criteria.
Presentation Info:
Date: 05/23/2017
Location: Architectural Firm 2 –Boise, ID
Presenter: Elizabeth Cooper
Attendance:
Architect: 6 Electrician:
Engineer: Contractor:
Mech. Engineer: Other:
Elec. Engineer: None Specified: 2
Total (In-Person): 8
2.11 Session 11: Radiant Heating and Cooling Design (06/01/17)
Title: Radiant Heating and Cooling Design
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:
Date: 06/01/2017
20
Location: Engineering Firm 3 – Twin Falls, ID
Presenter: Damon Woods
Attendance:
Architect: Electrician:
Engineer: 1 Contractor:
Mech. Engineer: 3 Other: 3
Elec. Engineer: None Specified: 1
Total (In-Person): 8
2.12 Session 12: Dedicated Outdoor Air Systems (DOAS) Integration (06/08/2017)
Title: Dedicated Outdoor Air Systems (DOAS) Integration
Description: Washington State has recently codified the requirement for DOAS in all new construction,
and other states will likely follow. What this requirement means for the design, operation, and energy
performance of buildings is the focus of this presentation. An introduction to the latest strategies and
technologies in ventilation is included.
Presentation Info:
Date: 06/08/2017
Location: Architectural Firm 1 – Boise, ID
Presenter: Elizabeth Cooper
Attendance:
Architect: 5 Electrician:
Engineer: Contractor:
Mech. Engineer: Other*:
Elec. Engineer: None Specified:
Total (In-Person): 5
*Other included:
2.13 Session 13: Dedicated Outdoor Air Systems (DOAS) Integration (21/06/17)
Title: Dedicated Outdoor Air Systems (DOAS) Integration
Description: Washington State has recently codified the requirement for DOAS in all new construction,
and other states will likely follow. What this requirement means for the design, operation, and energy
performance of buildings is the focus of this presentation. An introduction to the latest strategies and
technologies in ventilation is included.
21
Presentation Info:
Date: 6/21/2017
Location: Engineering Firm 2 – Twin Falls, ID
Presenter: Elizabeth Cooper
Attendance:
Architect: Electrician:
Engineer: 4 Contractor:
Mech. Engineer: Other: 3
Elec. Engineer: None Specified:
Total (In-Person): 7
2.14 Session 14: Radiant Heating and Cooling Design (06/27/17)
Title: Radiant Heating and Cooling Design
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:
Date: 06/27/2017
Location: Architectural Organization 2 – Ketchum, ID
Presenter: Damon Woods
Attendance:
Architect: 14 Electrician:
Engineer: Contractor:
Mech. Engineer: Other:
Elec. Engineer: None Specified:
Total (In-Person): 14
22
2.15 Sessions 15: Dedicated Outdoor Air Systems (DOAS) Integration (07/18/17)
Title: Dedicated Outdoor Air System (DOAS) Integration
Description: Washington State has recently codified the requirement for DOAS in all new construction,
and other states will likely follow. What this requirement means for the design, operation, and energy
performance of buildings is the focus of this presentation. An introduction to the latest strategies and
technologies in ventilation is included.
Presentation Info:
Date: 07/18/2017
Location: Architectural Organization 2 – Ketchum, ID
Presenter: Elizabeth Cooper
Attendance:
Architect: 11 Electrician:
Engineer: Contractor:
Mech. Engineer: Other:
Elec. Engineer: None Specified:
Total (In-Person): 11
2.16 Session 16: Dedicated Outdoor Air System (DOAS) Integration (08/17/2017)
Title: Dedicated Outdoor Air Systems (DOAS) Integration
Description: Washington State has recently codified the requirement for DOAS in all new construction,
and other states will likely follow. What this requirement means for the design, operation, and energy
performance of buildings is the focus of this presentation. An introduction to the latest strategies and
technologies in ventilation is included.
Presentation Info:
Date: 08/17/2017
Location: Architecture Firm 4 – Meridian, ID
Presenter: Damon Woods
Attendance:
Architect: 3 Electrician:
Engineer: Contractor:
Mech. Engineer: Other*: 2
Elec. Engineer: None Specified:
Total (In-Person): 5
23
2.17 Session 17: Radiant Heating and Cooling Design (09/06/2017)
Title: Radiant Heating and Cooling Design
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:
Date: 09/06/2017
Location: Architecture Firm 4 – Meridian, ID
Presenter: Damon Woods
Attendance:
Architect: 3 Electrician:
Engineer:

Contractor:
Mech. Engineer: Other*: 4
Elec. Engineer: None Specified:
Total (In-Person): 7
2.18 Session 18: Radiant Heating and Cooling Design (10/24/17)
Title: Radiant Heating and Cooling Design
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.
24
Presentation Info:
Date: 10/24/2017
Location: Architecture Firm 5 – Boise, ID
Presenter: Damon Woods
Attendance:
Architect: 5 Electrician:
Engineer: Contractor:
Mech. Engineer: Other*: 1
Elec. Engineer: None Specified:
Total (In-Person): 6
2.19 Session 19: Cold Feet: Managing Controls and Condensation for radiant Slab Cooling
(11/25/2017)
Title: Cold Feet: Managing Controls and Condensation for radiant Slab Cooling
Description: Radiant slab systems have the potential to use significantly less energy than conventional
all-air HVAC systems. In a 2012 survey by the New Buildings Institute, roughly 50% of net-zero buildings
chose to pursue radiant designs for their HVAC systems. However, if not controlled properly, radiant
slabs can lead to higher energy use and issues of simultaneous heating and cooling in both energy
models and real buildings. This talk will cover current design guidelines for radiant slab systems,
particularly when used for cooling. The lecture will also include a discussion of operational best
practices, capacity calculations, and condensation management based on the current literature. Damon
Woods will present some of the latest research on radiant systems, their unique load profiles, and
control requirements to show that there’s no need to have cold feet about installing radiant slabs
systems
Presentation Info:
Date: 11/25/2017
Location: Architecture Organization 1 – Idaho falls, ID
Presenter: Damon Woods
Attendance:
Architect: 12 Electrician:
Engineer: Contractor:
Mech. Engineer: Other*:
Elec. Engineer: None Specified:
Total (In-Person): 12
25
3.FUTURE WORK
Feedback was gathered from the 100 Lunch and Learn evaluations received throughout
2017. The comments from these were valuable in defining possible future Lunch and Learn
topics and informed the list of suggestions below.
Potential Future Topics:
•Chilled Beams
•VRFs & Heat pumps
•Efficient Educational Facilities
•Ventilating Well
•Absorption Cooling Technologies and Applications
•Thermal Comfort and its Implications in Building Design
•Drain Recovery Technologies
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: 1701_003-01
2017 TASK 3: BSUG
SUMMARY OF EFFORT AND OUTCOMES
IDAHO POWER COMPANY EXTERNAL YEAR-END REPORT
December 31, 2017
Prepared for:
Idaho Power Company
Author:
Dylan Agnes
Elizabeth Cooper
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:
Dylan Agnes
Elizabeth Cooper
Prepared for:
Idaho Power Company
Contract Number:
5277
Please cite this report as follows: Agnes, D. (2017). 2017 TASK 3:
BSUG – Summary of Effort and Outcomes (1701_003-01).
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. Acronyms and Abbreviations ...................................................................................................... 2
2. Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 3
3. 2017 Summary and Cumulative Analysis .................................................................................... 3
3.1 2017 Attendance ................................................................................................................... 4
3.2 2017 Evaluations ................................................................................................................... 5
4. Session Summaries ..................................................................................................................... 6
4.1 Session 1: TMSF Energy Optimization (3/22/17) .................................................................. 6
4.2 Session 2: Using Analytics to Optimize Equipment Operation and Reduce Energy Use
(04/26/17) ................................................................................................................................... 6
4.3 Session 3: The Power of the Hour: The Multitude of Uses for Hourly Energy Model Output
(05/24/17) ................................................................................................................................... 7
4.4 Session 4: Climate Design Tools (06/28/17).......................................................................... 8
4.5 Session 5: Using Building Simulation to Analyze Energy Savings from a Smart Thermostat
(10/25/17) ................................................................................................................................... 9
4.6 Session 6: LightStanza – Accurate Intuitive, Web-Based Daylighting (11/15/17) .............. 10
5. Website Maintenance and Statistics ........................................................................................ 10
6. Other Activities and Suggestions for Future Improvements .................................................... 13
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 2
1.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)
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
Elec. Electrical
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
TMSF Twenty-Mile-South-Farm
TMY Typical Meteorological Year
UDC Urban Design Center
UI University of Idaho
USGBC U.S. Green Building Council
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 3
2.INTRODUCTION
The 2017 Idaho Power scope of work for the Building Simulation Users’ Group (BSUG) task included planning, organization
and hosting of six meetings, recording attendance and evaluations, archiving video of the presentations, and maintaining the BSUG
2.0 website.
3.2017 SUMMARY AND CUMULATIVE ANALYSIS
In 2017, 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
3/22 TMSF Energy Optimization Skylar Swinford
& Scott Yribar
ESCO & AYA 10 11 8 10
4/26 Using Analytics to Optimize Equipment Operation and
Reduce Energy Use
Jake MacArthur ETC 4 9 3 5
5/24 The Power of the Hour: The Multitude of Uses for Hourly
Energy Model Output
Mike Hatten AG 5 7 7 4
6/28 Climate Design Tools Damon Woods IDL 8 7 5 4
10/25 Using Building Simulation to Analyze Energy Savings
from a Smart Thermostat
Sukjoon Oh BSU 3 2 5 2
11/15 LightStanza: Accurate Intuitive, Web-Based Daylighting Daniel Galser &
Sydney Nelson
LSA 8 31 5 16
Total: 38 67 33 41
105 74
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 4
3.1 2017 Attendance
Figure 1: Attendee Count by Session and Type
Table 2: Overall Attendance Breakdown
Architect: 14 Electrician:
Engineer: 14 Contractor:
Mech. Engineer: 7 Other: 6
Elec. Engineer: None Specified: 33
Total (In-Person): 33
Total (Online): 41
Total (Combined): 74
8
3
7
5
5
5
10
5
4
4
2
16
0 5 10 15 20 25
TMSF Energy Optimization
Using Analytics to Optimize Equipment Operation and
Reduce Energy Use
The Power of the Hour: The Multitude of Uses for Hourly
Energy Model Output
Climate Design Tools
Using Building Simulation to Analyze Energy Savings from a
Smart Thermostat
LightStanza - Accurate Intuitive, Web-Based Daylighting
Number of Attendees In-Person Online
Figure 2: Attendee Profession Breakdown Figure 3: Attendee Type Breakdown
Architect
34%
Engineer
34%
Mech.
Engineer
17%
Other
15%
In-
Person
45%Online
55%
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 5
3.2 2017 Evaluations
Figure 4: Average Evaluations by Session
Figure 5: Average Evaluation Scores for All Sessions
0
1
2
3
4
5
TMSF Energy Optimization Using Analytics to Optimize
Equipment Operation and
Reduce Energy Use
The Power of the Hour: The
Multitude of Uses for Hourly
Energy Model Output
Climate Design Tools Using Building Simulation to
Analyze Energy Savings from
a Smart Thermostat
LightStanza - Accurate
Intuitive, Web-Based
Daylighting
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:
4.41
3.82
4.56 4.51 4.74 4.64
3.92
0
1
2
3
4
5
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:
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 6
4.SESSION SUMMARIES
4.1 Session 1: TMSF Energy Optimization (3/22/17)
Title: TMSF Energy Optimization
Date: 03/22/17
Description: The presentation will cover the energy related design and construction aspects of the City
of Boise's recently completed Ultra-Low-Energy "Twenty-Mile South Farm" multi-use building. This LEED
Gold (projected) building consists of an office building, maintenance shop, parts warehouse, and
mechanic shop. In addition to LEED certification, the project is aiming to be Idaho's first Net-Zero Energy
commercial building. The project's roof is outfitted with a 56.43kW PV array. Skylar will review the
approaches and tools utilized to model and optimize the building's energy performance and how low
tech and low maintenance strategies led to a reduction in heating and cooling demand of nearly 90%
compared to conventionally constructed buildings. In addition, the rigorous onsite building enclosure
testing and verification process will be discussed, as well as how it was utilized to minimize the
performance gap between the energy model/design and actual building construction.
Presenter: Skylar Swinford & Scott Yribar
Attendance:
Architect: 5 Electrician:
Engineer: 5 Contractor:
Mech. Engineer: 2 Other*:
Elec. Engineer: None Specified: 6
Total (In-Person): 8
Total (Online): 10
*If 'Other' was noted:
Evaluation Highlights (What attendees found most valuable):
•Great intro to passive house – new to me
•Air tight guide lines for building practice
4.2 Session 2: Using Analytics to Optimize Equipment Operation and Reduce Energy Use
(04/26/17)
Title: Using Analytics to Optimize Equipment Operation and Reduce Energy Use
Date: 04/26/17
Description: Automated analytics can identify operational issues and improve energy performance of
any building. Whether the building is large or small, new or old, LEED platinum or not, room for
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 7
improvement always exists. This presentation will focus on the basics of setting up an analytics platform
and then dive into a few brief case studies to understand how analytics can be used to comprehensively
commission a building or find opportunities during retrocommissioning. Finally, we will discuss
techniques to prevent performance drift.
Presenters: Jake MacArthur
Attendance:
Architect: 2 Contractor:
Mech. Engineer: 1 Other*:
Elec. Engineer: None Specified: 5
Total (In-Person): 3
Total (Online): 5
*If 'Other' was noted: IPC Programs (2)
Evaluation Highlights (What attendees found most valuable):
•Hearing about local project, nice broad overview of things to be considered when looking for
monitoring solutions
4.3 Session 3: The Power of the Hour: The Multitude of Uses for Hourly Energy Model Output
(05/24/17)
Title: The Power of the Hour: The Multitude of Uses for Hourly Energy Model Output
Date: 05/24/17
Description: The ability to output results of whole building energy models on a hour-by-hour basis exists
in most modeling tools, but remains an under-utilized capability on most projects. This presentation will
highlight several creative uses of hourly modeling output including illustrating integrated energy design,
energy model QA/QC, climate analysis, shading and facade optimization, loads analysis, solar system
design support, and passive system design support. real-time examples will be demonstrated using
Equest.
Presenter:
Attendance:
Architect: 1 Electrician:
Engineer: Contractor:
Mech. Engineer: 5 Other*: 1
Elec. Engineer: None Specified: 4
Total (In-Person): 7
Total (Online): 4
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 8
*If 'Other' was noted: Building Enclosure
Evaluation Highlights (What attendees found most valuable):
•Ideas for reports to look at
•Demonstrated great perspective on how to use data in various forms to have a dialog with
designers
4.4 Session 4: Climate Design Tools (06/28/17)
Title: Climate Design Tools
Date: 06/28/17
Description: The Idaho Power Company funded the University of Idaho Integrated Design Lab (UI-IDL)
to produce a series of climate design resources to help assist in the conceptual and early design of
passive strategies. Through their support, the UI-IDL has developed two generations of spreadsheet
calculators that are capable of analyzing building loads and energy consumption impacts of passive
design strategies in locations throughout Idaho. Currently, there are seven different advanced design
considerations supported by this calculation spreadsheet:
Heat Gain Calculations, Cross Ventilation, Stack Ventilation, Night Ventilation with Thermal Mass,
Balance Point Calculation, Passive Solar, and Earth Tube
These tools have been combined into a single spreadsheet that calculates the thermal energy savings
associated with each of these strategies. The step-by-step input process directs the user to define the
critical baseline and performance parameters of a building. These factors are linked to pre-defined
equations within the spreadsheet that automatically provide the peak cooling loads, cooling capacities,
and describe other critical design criteria. Wind roses, stacked charts, line graphs, and other forms of
graphic information automatically populate the workspace to provide rich visual feedback to the user.
The spreadsheets also contain a reference tab that consolidates a myriad of textbook, code, and other
sources needed to complete the step-by-step instructions. Additionally, a variety of weather data,
including hourly information from TMY weather files, are embedded into the calculations based upon
cities throughout the Idaho. Once each tab is filled out, the results pages of the spreadsheets contains
all of the important outputs needed to evaluate how much the passive design measures can contribute
to the peak loads or energy savings of the building. Changes to the building parameters are reflected
instantaneously to the user, making the Climate Tools Package an ideal instrument to explore different
design iterations and how they might facilitate passive design strategies.
Presenter: Damon Woods
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 9
Attendance:
Architect: 3 Electrician:
Engineer: 2 Contractor:
Mech. Engineer: Other*:
Elec. Engineer: None Specified: 4
Total (In-Person): 5
Total (Online): 4
*If 'Other' was noted:
Evaluation Highlights (What attendees found most valuable):
•No evaluations were completed for this session, however, several customers requested the tool
soon after the presentation.
4.5 Session 5: Using Building Simulation to Analyze Energy Savings from a Smart Thermostat
(10/25/17)
Title: Using Building Simulation to Analyze Energy Savings from a Smart Thermostat
Date: 10/25/17
Description: “Smart” thermostats are becoming more and more common in a multitude of applications,
from residential to small commercial, and understanding their potential impact in energy consumption
is of growing interest. This month’s BSUG presentation will demonstrate how building simulation can be
used to analyze energy savings from a smart thermostat. The presentation will describe a calibration
method and simulation results using data from a smart thermostat installed at a case-study residence in
Texas.
Presenter: Sukjoon Oh
Attendance:
Architect: 2 Electrician:
Engineer: 1 Contractor:
Mech. Engineer: Other*: 3
Elec. Engineer: None Specified: 1
Total (In-Person): 5
Total (Online): 2
*If 'Other' was noted: Student
Evaluation Highlights (What attendees found most valuable):
•Simulated vs. Actual results, nice clear graphics. Plots of several variables together.
•Interesting occupancy trends, advanced application of smart thermostats
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 10
4.6 Session 6: LightStanza – Accurate Intuitive, Web-Based Daylighting (11/15/17)
Title: LightStanza – Accurate Intuitive, Web-Based Daylighting
Date: 11/15/17
Description: Learn how to successfully daylight buildings through the use of web-based computer
modeling. During the first part of this session, challenges for building an easy to use, but high quality
daylight tool are presented. Types of daylight analyses will be shown through small case studies. This
will include ways of measuring the diurnal nature of daylight, the LEED and WELL certification system,
and dynamic building products.
It will be followed by a demonstration of leading edge daylight design methods from schematic design to
construction documents using web-based software. Participants will learn how to use their own 3D
models to generate presentation-quality renderings and animations, false color analyses, and daylight
glare probability scores. Attendees will also learn how to measure illuminance in the form of full-day
animated illuminance grids, annual metrics, and even LEED v3 or v4 scorecards. The class will also show
how users can apply daylighting strategies such as dynamic glass, daylight redirecting film, dynamic
blinds, and more for a holistic, strategic, healthy, and beautiful daylight design.
Presenters: Daniel Glaser and Sydney Nelson
Attendance:
Architect: 1 Electrician:
Engineer: 5 Contractor:
Mech. Engineer: Other*: 2
Elec. Engineer: None Specified: 13
Total (In-Person): 5
Total (Online): 16
*If 'Other' was noted: Energy Modeler
Evaluation Highlights (What attendees found most valuable):
•Nice visual demonstration, quick set-up with power capabilities
5.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
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 11
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, 2017 and November 28, 2017, total page views summed to 994 with
unique page views at 823 for 914 total sessions at the site. Of the 914 sessions, 234 (26%) 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.
Figure 6: Number of Page Views for the Ten Most Popular Pages in 2017
277
16
133
61
17
52
25 23 26
71
151
16
116
57
16
45
21 21 21
48
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
Most Popular Pages
Pageviews Unique Pageviews
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 12
Figure 7: Monthly Site-Wide Statistics
Figure 8: Heat Map of All U.S. Sessions in 2017
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
Site-Wide Statistics
Page Views Unique Page Views Avg. Time on Page (sec)Sessions Users
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 13
Figure 9: Bubble Maps of All Sessions and Idaho in 2015
6.OTHER ACTIVITIES AND SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE IMPROVEMENTS
We saw a decrease in average attendance for each session this year and lost 41 in-
person (58%) for overall attendance from 2016. However, online attendance is on par for what
it was last year. Despite the decrease in attendance this year was successful for the BSUG task
with 6 sessions completed and 74 total attendees – 33 in-person and 41 online. Feedback was
provided by attendees via the evaluation forms, 26 of which were collected. These offered a
starting point for determining future improvements to the program. Such as, reviewing and
revising the mailing list, advertise with ASHRAE and AIA, host joint session with ASHRAE or AIA,
and lastly creating physical flyers to hand out at lunch and learns.
Report Number: 1701_004-01
2017 TASK 4: NEW CONSTRUCTION VERIFICATIONS
SUMMARY OF PROJECTS
IDAHO POWER COMPANY EXTERNAL YEAR-END REPORT
December 31, 2017
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
Authors:
Robert Galarza
Prepared for:
Idaho Power Company
Contract Number:
5277
Please cite this report as follows: Cooper, E. (2017). 2017 TASK 4:
New Construction Verifications – Summary of Projects (1701_004-
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
2017 Task 4: New Construction Verifications - Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report #1701_004-01)
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 1
2. 2017 New Construction Verification Projects ............................................................................. 1
3. 2017 Photo Controls Review Projects ......................................................................................... 3
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
AC Air Conditioning
NCV New Construction 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
2017 Task 4: New Construction Verifications- Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report #1701_004-01)
1
1.INTRODUCTION
The University of Idaho Integrated Design Lab (UI-IDL) had two roles for the New
Construction Verification (NCV) task in 2017. The primary role was to conduct on-site
verification reports for approximately 10%, typically thirteen to sixteen, of projects that
participated in Idaho Power Company’s (IPC) New Construction Program. The verified projects
were randomly selected from the entire pool of projects, and at least four projects were
required to be outside the Boise/Meridian/Eagle/Kuna 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 New Construction 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.
2.2017 NEW CONSTRUCTION VERIFICATION PROJECTS
The UI-IDL completed fourteen New Construction Verification projects in 2017. A
detailed report for each project was submitted to IPC, including claimed and actual installation
for each specific incentive the project applied for. Six of the projects reviewed in 2017 were
completed under the new Building Efficiency’s 2014 Program, eight of the projects were
completed under the 2016 Program, which supersedes the Building Efficiency’s 2014 Program.
The specific incentives for this program are outlined in Table 1.
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 2
2017 Task 4: New Construction Verifications- Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report #1701_004-01)
2
Table 2 summarizes the fourteen projects and respective qualified incentive measures
which were verified by UI-IDL. For the projects listed, more than 62.5% were conducted outside
the Boise area.
Table 1: 2016 New Construction 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
A6
Direct Evaporative Coolers
Evaporative Pre-coolers on Air-cooled
C4
C5
Kitchen Hood Variable Speed Drives
Onion/Potato Shed Ventilation Variable Speed
Heating D1 EnergyStar Undercounter Dishwashers
R2
R3
Floating Suction Controls
Efficient Condensers
Table 2: Project Summary
IPC Project
#
Facility
Description Location
Retail (non food) Meridian, ID L1, L5, A1, C1 12/18/17
14-306 Office Building Pocatello, ID 08/28/17
14-310
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 3
2017 Task 4: New Construction Verifications- Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report #1701_004-01)
3
14-285 Filer, ID 08/28/17
16-087 Meridian, ID 06/06/17
3.2017 PHOTO CONTROLS REVIEW PROJECTS
In 2017, the UI-IDL received at least sixteen inquiries regarding the New Construction
photo controls incentive review. Documentation was received and final letters of support were
submitted to IPC for photo controls incentive applications for fifteen of these projects including
offices, schools, retail, manufacturing, maintenance buildings, and warehouse.
Report Number: 1601_005-05
2017 TASK 5: TOOL LOAN LIBRARY
SUMMARY OF EFFORT AND OUTCOMES
IDAHO POWER COMPANY EXTERNAL YEAR-END REPORT
December 31, 2017
Prepared for:
Idaho Power Company
Authors:
Dylan Agnes
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:
Dylan Agnes
Elizabeth Cooper
Prepared for:
Idaho Power Company
Contract Number:
5277
Please cite this report as follows: Agnes, D. (2017). 2017 TASK 5:
Tool Loan Library – Summary of Effort and Outcomes (1601_005-
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. New Tools & Tool Calibration Plan ........................................................................................... 11
4. 2017 Summary Of Loans ........................................................................................................... 13
vii
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
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
3P Third Party
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 8
2017 Task 5: Tool Loan Library - Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report #1601_005-05)
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 types of libraries has grown.
Recently, the Smart Building Center which is a project of the Northwest Energy Efficiency
Council has started a lending library and they cite other lending libraries spanning a large range
of tools, including non-energy efficiency related 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 measuring
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 (http://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
2017 Task 5: Tool Loan Library - Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report #1601_005-05)
2.MARKETING
Marketing for the TLL was done at various UI-IDL and IPC activities throughout 2017, as
well as on the UI-IDL website. 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 the American Institute
of Architects (AIA), ASHRAE, City of Boise, and the Idaho Green Energy and Building Conference.
The TLL flyer and program slides direct 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 2017, the TLL home page had 2,498
visitors. Changes and progress for the TLL homepage can be found in Appendix D.
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 10
2017 Task 5: Tool Loan Library - Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report #1601_005-05)
Figure 1: TLL Flyer Front Figure 2: TLL Flyer Back
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 11
2017 Task 5: Tool Loan Library - Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report #1601_005-05)
3.NEW TOOLS & TOOL CALIBRATION PLAN
In 2017, no new tools were added to the TLL, however, manuals and guidelines were
made available to more tools for lending. Four data cables used for extracting data from Dent
ElitePro Energy Loggers were bought and added to the Library. Regardless if a customer
requested one it is always offered when pick-up of the Tool Loan proposal is schedule and so
far they have been checked out regularly with every energy logger request this year.
Equipment items included in the tool loan program are typically distributed with a
manufacturer guaranteed calibration period between 1 and 3 years. While many items may
remain within recommended tolerances for years after the guaranteed calibration period ends,
verifying the item is properly calibrated after initial and subsequent periods is recommended.
Calibration services are available on most tools, sometimes from the manufacturer, and from
various certified calibration services nationwide.
Third party (3P), certified tool calibration is ideal, but an extensive 3P calibration
program would be expensive. Based on research and pricing from quotes, formal calibration
would be cost prohibitive for much of the library tools. In several cases, cost of calibration can
well exceed 30% of the item cost. As a certified calibration is typically only valid for 1-2 years,
an alternative measurement and verification plan for most sensors and loggers is
recommended. This will be possible with most of the tool loan inventory. A few exceptions to
this must be made on a case by case basis to allow for factory calibration of items that cannot
be compared or tested in any other way. An example of one item in this category would be the
Shortridge Digital Manometer and Air-Data Multimeter which would have to be recalibrated by
the manufacturer.
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 12
2017 Task 5: Tool Loan Library - Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report #1601_005-05)
The IDL will continue to perform the following to ensure items are within specified
calibration tolerances, but also, to create a tracking plan for calibration cycles and type:
1.Equipment will be cross-checked against new equipment of the same type for
accuracy in a test situation where data is logged. The IDL plan would cross-check
older items against multiple newer items at the end of each calibration period (i.e.
every two years) to ensure readings are within specified tolerances.
2.Those items found to be out of tolerance will be assessed for factory re-calibration
or replacement.
Calibration tracking columns have been added to an inventory spreadsheet which will
allow the IDL to determine which items are due for calibration testing. Updates to calibration
and references to testing data will be maintained in the inventory spreadsheet and has been
expanded to include tool use, quotes, and budget estimates, please see Appendix C for more
details.
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 13
2017 Task 5: Tool Loan Library - Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report #1601_005-05)
4.2017 SUMMARY OF LOANS
In 2017, loan requests totaled 58 with 55 loans completed, 3 Loans were canceled by
the customer or were rejected, 19 loans were to the Integrated Design Lab, where the majority
of loans, 11, were used for internal research. The second quarter had the highest volume of
loans at 20 total. Loans were made to 12 different locations and 30 unique users. A wide range
of tools were borrowed, as listed in Figure 8. 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 2017.
Table 1: Project and Loan Summary
Request Date Location Project Type of Loan
# of
Tools
Loaned
1 1/3/2017 Boise ID PT1 Audit 1
2 1/9/2017 Burley ID MCFPPL
Basline
measurement
of EEMs
8
3 1/17/2017 Garden City ID ASA Audit 9
4 1/17/2017 Boise ID LE Audit 1
5 1/17/2017 Boise ID SWHQ Verification
of EEMs 2
6 1/25/2017 Boise ID RA Audit 6
7 1/30/2017 Notus ID NSD Audit 1
8 3/6/2017 Parma ID TP Audit 2
9 3/15/2017 Springfiled ID SFH Verification
of EEMs 1
10 3/17/2017 Boise ID DIPRT Audit 1
11 3/20/2017 Boise ID AAHQB Verification
of EEMs 1
12 3/28/2017 Atomic City ID INLA
Basline
measurement
of EEMs
26
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 14
2017 Task 5: Tool Loan Library - Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report #1601_005-05)
13 4/10/2017 Boise ID RAIAQ Verification
of EEMs 8
14 4/11/2017 Boise ID LRTT Audit 1
15 4/13/2017 Boise ID LBCD Audit 6
16 4/19/2017 Boise ID CBDW Audit 25
17 4/24/2017 Eagle ID MLRS Audit 1
18 5/4/2017 Boise ID BTD Audit 3
19 5/4/2017 Boise ID IACCB Audit 16
20 5/15/2017 Boise ID FWU Audit 1
21 5/15/2017 Boise ID ERBCP Audit 1
22 5/26/2017 Boise ID GBSR
Basline
measurement
of EEMs
30
23 5/30/2017 Boise ID ANSCP Audit 1
24 6/1/2017 Boise ID BCCDC
Basline
measurement
of EEMs
1
25 6/1/2017 Boise ID RHEM Audit 14
26 6/9/2017 Boise ID RHPM Audit 2
27 6/12/2017 Star ID SWWEA Audit 10
28 6/12/2017 Emmett ID COE Audit 6
29 6/13/2017 Boise ID BTD Audit 1
30 6/16/2017 Meridian ID WCN Audit 1
31 6/27/2017 Ketchum ID MTIBD
Basline
measurement
of EEMs
1
32 6/27/2017 Fruitland ID IACSV Audit 2
33 7/5/2017 Boise ID BHCPA Audit 8
34 7/6/2017 Ketchum ID MIBD
Basline
measurement
of EEMs
1
35 7/10/2017 Boise ID FWU2 Audit 9
36 7/14/2017 Boise ID ANSCP2 Audit 2
37 7/27/2017 Boise ID FWU3 Audit 9
38 7/31/2017 New
Meadows ID IRTB Audit 1
39 8/2/2017 Boise ID BBES Verification
of EEMs 0
40 8/7/2017 Boise ID HBTT Audit 10
41 8/16/2017 Meridian ID VSL Audit 1
42 8/22/2017 Boise CA OTPCT Audit 33
43 8/30/2017 Meridian ID SLIAQS Audit 3
44 9/5/2017 Boise ID EFT Audit 1
45 9/13/2017 Boise ID FRP Cancled 4
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 15
2017 Task 5: Tool Loan Library - Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report #1601_005-05)
46 9/15/2017 Boise ID AVNP Audit 1
47 9/29/2017 Boise ID COTT Audit 34
48 10/12/2017 Boise ID IWCDW Audit 22
49 10/13/2017 Boise ID IWCDW2 Audit 21
50 10/17/2017 Boise ID OPTSPV Audit 21
51 10/27/2017 Nampa ID NWWTP Audit 5
52 10/31/2017 Boise ID IWCDW3 Audit 25
53 11/10/2017 Boise ID OPTSYC Audit 35
54 11/13/2017 Gooding ID PWC Cancled 0
55 12/13/2017 Boise ID YPPS Audit 2
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 16
2017 Task 5: Tool Loan Library - Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report #1601_005-05)
Figure 3: Loans by Type Figure 4: Number of Loans per Quarter
Figure 5: Number of Loans per Month
7 2 3
16
3
12
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
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
Cancled
Loans by Type
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
12
20
15
8
0
5
10
15
20
25
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
Number of Loans per Quarter
0
2
4
6
8
10
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Number of Loans per Month
Total
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 17
2017 Task 5: Tool Loan Library - Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report #1601_005-05)
Figure 6: Number of Loans by Location Figure 7: Number of Loans by User
6
1
1
1
1
1
1
14
1
1
1
1
1
1
11
1
2
1
6
1
1
0 10 20 30 40
Boise
Eagle
Garden City
Gooding
Ketchum
Nampa
Burley
Meridian
Notus
Parma
Springfiled
Atomic City
Star
Emmett
Fruitland
New Meadows
Id
a
h
o
Loans by Location
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
6
1
1
1
1
2
1
3
1
2
1
6
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
5
1
1
1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Architectural Firm 1
Engineering Firm 4
Research Lab
Engineering Firm 3
Company 1
Architectural Firm 2
Engineering Firm 2
Engineering Firm 7
Utilities 1
Engineering Firm 1
Engineering Firm 8
Engineering 10
Engineering Firm 12
Engineering Firm 9
University 2
Engineering Firm 13
University 1
Company 2
Engineering Firm 5
Company 3
Engineering Firm 6
Engineering Firm 14
City 1
Company 4
Engineering Firm 16
Engineering Firm 15
Loans by User
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 18
2017 Task 5: Tool Loan Library - Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report #1601_005-05)
TOTAL TOOLS LOANED: 388 Q1=56 Q2=110 Q3=100 Q4=122
Figure 8: Summary of Tools Loaned
2
3
2
3
3
1
4
2
5
5
11
6
2
4
2
1
1
2
1
4
6
1
2
1
1
2
8
6
14
2
50
3
1
5
1
6
6
1
2
2
1
1
37
32
8
1
1
1
1
3
1
57
57
3
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
BAPI
Carbon Dioxide and Temperature Monitor
Carbon Dioxide and Temperature Monitor w/ Data Logging
Dent CONTACTlogger
Dent ElitePro Energy Logger, High Memory, Line Power
Dent ElitePro XC Power Meter
Dent RoCoil Flexible CT
Extech Light Meter
FLIR E50bx
FLIR ONE Thermal Imaging Camera - Droid
Fluke 43B Handheld Instrument
GE Sensing Flow Meter
HOBO Current Transformer 100 Amp
HOBO Current Transformer 20 Amp
HOBO Current Transformer 200 Amp
HOBO Current Transformer 50 Amp
HOBO Temperature Sensor
HOBO U12-006 Data Logger
HOBO U12-012 Data Logger
HOBO U12-013 Data Logger
Magnelab AC Current Transformer (CT) Connection
Shortridge Flow Hood
Shortridge Flow Meter ADM-880C
Smoke Pen
Split-core CT, 200 Amp
Split-Core Mini CT, 50 Amp
Veris CO2
VOC and Temperature Monitor w/ Data Logging
Tool Summary
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 19
2017 Task 5: Tool Loan Library - Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report #1601_005-05)
Report Number: 1701_006-01
2017 TASK 6: ABSORPTION CHILLER FEASIBILITY STUDY
IDAHO POWER COMPANY EXTERNAL YEAR-END REPORT
December 31, 2017
Prepared for:
Idaho Power Company
Authors:
Jinchao Yuan
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:
Jinchao Yuan
Damon Woods
Elizabeth Cooper
Prepared for:
Idaho Power Company
Contract Number:
5277
Please cite this report as follows: Yuan, J. (2017). 2017 TASK 6:
Absorption Chiller Feasibility Study (1701_006-01). 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.
1
Absorption Chiller Applications in Southern
Idaho
Jinchao Yuan, Damon Woods, and Elizabeth Cooper
Integrated Design Lab
Introduction
Absorption chillers use thermochemical absorption processes to replace the vapor compression
cycles in conventional electric chillers. Instead of relying on high grade electricity to drive a
compressor, absorption chillers derive most of their cooling energy from a low grade heat source.
Since absorption chiller technology emerged more than half a century ago, it has achieved a market
share in bespoke applications where inexpensive or free low grade heat sources are available.
This document provides an overview of the absorption refrigeration technology and its differences
from conventional vapor compression, followed by applications and economic considerations. The
investigation follows potential applications in southern Idaho. Three existing facilities of different
sizes were selected in southern Idaho where this technology might benefit their current operation.
The study focused on the cooling capacity that could be achieved at each location, the market
availability of required equipment, and the lifecycle costs of the equipment compared to
conventional systems. Two other potential applications in other parts of Idaho were identified.
Technology Overview
Working Principles
A conventional refrigeration cycle has four components. First, the refrigerant is compressed to a
high pressure by some mechanical device that draws electricity. From the compressor, the high
pressure fluid releases heat and becomes a liquid. This high pressure liquid then flows through a
nozzle and expands into a lower pressure. The fluid at this low pressure absorbs heat from the
environment and evaporates (this is the cooling coil). After the refrigerant evaporates, it is
compressed into a high pressure fluid once again and the cycle repeats as shown in Figure 1a.
For absorption chillers, the refrigeration cycle components and processes are more complex. The
main difference is that instead of using an electrically driven compressor to drive a phase-change
in the refrigerant, a heat source is combined with a secondary fluid to drive this process. In this
way, the cooling energy comes mainly from a heat source instead of an electrical source. A basic
absorption refrigeration cycle is shown in Figure 1b. Like the vapor compression cycle, it includes
a condenser, evaporator, and expansion device, but the compressor is replaced with an absorber,
generator, and expansion valve.
2
Instead of sending the evaporated refrigerant into a compressor, an absorption chiller sends the
evaporated gas into a chamber where the gas can be dissolved into another fluid (sometimes water)
[M000]. The mix of fluid and absorbed refrigerant is sent to the generator, where heat is added.
As heat is added to the generator, the refrigerant evaporates out of the fluid at a higher pressure
and temperature. This high temperature refrigerant then is sent to the condenser as in a normal
refrigeration cycle. A small pump is required to keep the secondary fluid circulating, but no
compressor is required. A cross-section of a typical absorption chiller illustrating this process is
shown in Figure 2.
(a). Vapor Compression Cycle (b). Absorption Refrigeration Cycle
Figure 1. A conventional vapor compression cycle vs. an absorption refrigeration cycle (source: [M006])
Figure 2. The absorption chiller cycle system and components diagram (Source: [M014])
3
Components of absorption chiller systems
Absorber
In the absorber, the low-pressure refrigerant vapors condense and are absorbed into the secondary
working fluid, releasing some amount of heat in the process. In a typical absorption chiller this
working fluid comes from its own heat rejection system (e.g. the water from a cooling tower). As
the working fluid absorbs the refrigerant vapor, the solution become more concentrated with the
refrigerant and the solution’s ability to continue absorbing the refrigerant decreases. At the end of
the absorption process, the absorbent solution is pumped to the generator.
Generator
The generator is where the refrigerant/working fluid solution is heated, increasing the pressure.
This heat may be provided in a number of ways – it could come directly from combustion (like a
boiler), but more often the heat is taken from another hot fluid or steam loop passing through a
heat exchanger in parallel with the solution. The addition of this heat drives out (vaporizes) the
refrigerant from the solution. The remaining solution is pumped back into the absorber while the
high temperature vaporized refrigerant is then sent to a condenser, expansion valve, and evaporator
as in a conventional refrigeration system.
Type of Absorption chillers
Depending on the configuration and working media, absorption chillers can be divided into
different categories. Figure 3 shows the classification of conventional vapor compression chillers
and the absorption chillers for HVAC applications (source [M009]):
Figure 3. Types of vapor compression chillers and absorption chillers (Source: [M009])
Similar to the classification of different types of vapor compression chillers, absorption chillers
can also be classified as different types according to the differences in refrigerant type, firing type,
and number of stages. They can be directly or indirectly fired, and can be single-effect or double-
4
effect. Indirect-fired chillers use heat from another source, while direct-fired chillers use a natural
gas burner to power the cycle. The direct-fired chiller will have the combusting fuel to directly
heat up the generator; while the indirectly fired chiller will have a secondary heat exchanging
devices to heat the generator.
Figure 4 shows configurations of a single stage absorption chiller vs. a double-stage absorption
chiller. Double effect absorption chillers recycle part of the intermediate heat produced in the cycle,
and therefore can be more efficient on per unit heat input bases, although the higher efficiency is
obtained at a cost of requiring a higher steam or natural gas combustion temperatures [M012].
a. A single effect absorption chiller;b. A double effect absorption chiller
Figure 4. Single-Effect vs. Double-Effect Absorption Chiller (Source: [M015])
Single-stage absorption chillers typically require hot water temperature of about 200F-240F (but
applications with heat sources as low as 185-200F have been documented), or steam at pressure of
15psig (in the 10-20psig range) [M009]. Double stage absorption chillers typically use higher
temperature heat source of about 350F water (other sources indicate 360-400F range), or 115psig
steam (range: 40-200psig) [M009].
Two common types of media can be used for absorption cooling: Ammonia-Water or Lithium
Bromide. Ammonia systems can provide low refrigeration temperatures (i.e. less than 40F), which
can work well for ice-making or food storage applications. Lithium-Bromide absorption chillers
have lower efficiencies and cannot cool to such low temperatures, but are cheaper, require less
heat input, and are typically used for building air-conditioning [M008]. The Ammonia-Water
based absorption chiller typically require temperature sources of 230F or above [M021]. The
Lithium Bromide type absorption chiller can use relatively lower temperature sources (around
200F).
Absorption chiller performance
Absorption chiller efficiency is defined by Coefficient of Performance (COP) as:
5
COP = Qevap / Qgen, (1)
Where Qevap is the cooling out of the absorption chiller evaporator; and Qgen is the heat input to the
generator that drives the cycle.
For a single effect absorption chiller, the COP is typically around 0.7 to 0.79 [M008]; and for
double effect absorption chillers, the efficiency is typically 1.35 to 1.42 [M008]. This is in contrast
to a conventional chiller which might have a COP of 2.8 or higher [M022]. However, an absorption
chiller has the advantage of having a heat input that is sometimes free and does not require high
electrical consumption. Absorption chillers still uses some electricity for running small systems
such as the pump for the solution circulation. However, this electricity usage is much smaller
compared to the electricity consumption for a regular vapor compression cycle. The absorption
chiller electricity usage is only about 2% to 9% percent of that of a vapor compression chiller with
the same cooling capacity [M003].
Technical benefits and shortcomings
Comparison between Absorption vs. Electric Chillers
A general comparison between the absorption chiller and the electric chiller is shown in Table 1.
The major difference is the working cycle. Absorption chillers are driven by heat; and an electric
chillers typically utilize electricity. The heat-driven mechanism of the absorption chiller make it
possible for the absorption technology to utilize heat in many special situations (such as process
waste heat) and save electricity, especially during peak electricity demands in the summer.
Table 1. Comparison between Absorption Chillers and Electrical Chillers [M005]
Absorption Chiller Electric Chiller
Basic Cycle Heat Work
Electric Power used Low High
Operation Cost Low High
Maintenance Cost Low High
Noise Low High
Environment Hazard CFC Free Potential CFC
Energy Source Waste Heat (or Solar) Only Electrical
Carbon Footprint Low High
Advantages of absorption chiller
The major advantage is the ability to use heat rather than electricity to drive the compression cycle;
and the heat required can be low grade heat from various industrial processes. The electricity
consumption of an absorption chiller is typically only about 2–9% of that required for an electric
chiller of equivalent size [M003]. Absorption chillers also produce less noise than a conventional
system and release fewer CFCs. Absorption chillers can also have lower operation and
maintenance costs because the system contains no major moving parts such as a vapor compressor.
6
Disadvantages
The major disadvantage of absorption chillers is that they are relatively inefficient compared to an
electric chiller. As stated in the previous section, a typical single stage absorption chiller has a
COP (Coefficient of Performance) of only about 0.7; even a double stage absorption chiller, which
typically requires higher operational temperatures, would only achieve a COP of 1.4. While an
electric chiller will typically achieve a COP of 2.8 or higher.
The first costs of absorption chillers is also typically much higher than electric chillers. A typical
electric chiller is estimated at around $350-1000 per ton installed (sources: [M016], [M017],
[M018]). However, an absorption chiller can cost about $1800-6000 per ton installed (source
[M008]).
While maintenance costs can be lower for absorption chillers due to fewer moving parts, the
systems are complex and may requireM003 a special service provider as most facility staff and
local providers are not familiar with the technology. Additional maintenance contracts with a
major manufacturers may be required to service the equipment on a regular basis [M003].
General Applications of Absorption Chillers
According to the characteristics of absorption chillers, the typical scenarios where absorption
chillers can be used is when there is a high electricity cost but a low fuel cost. This characteristic
makes it most suitable for scenarios when free waste heat is available, such as in many food
processing, manufacturing, and chemical production plants. For places where electricity grids have
limited capacities but alternative fuels are available, absorption chillers can provide a viable way
of providing cooling using available heat sources.
In addition to energy savings, for applications where noise and vibration control is of a concern,
an absorption chiller can provide a possible alternative. Since absorption chillers have fewer
moving mechanical parts (compared to vapor compression machines), they are generally used
where noise and vibration levels are an issue, particularly in some hospitals, schools, and office
buildings [M012].
Commercial and industrial applications
Another potential benefit of absorption chillers is for peak load reduction in the summer. During
the summer time, the peak load is an important issue for both the rate payer and utilities companies.
Since absorption chiller will not use electricity to drive the vapor compression (using only a small
amount, about 2%-9% of the electricity of a similar size electric chiller [M003]).
In commercial applications where summer peak demand is of a concern, absorption chillers can
team up with electric chillers in “hybrid” modes to lower the energy costs [M011]. In the summer,
the absorption chillers can be used to reduce high peak electric demand charges; and during the
winter, the electric chillers can be used (if there is a cooling need in winter) for higher efficiency
[M011].
7
Due the possible availability of a waste heat source, industrial plants can provide good
opportunities for the use of absorption chillers. Table 2 lists a range of typical industrial absorption
cooling applications recommended by Johnson Controls [M004]). Most applications are associated
with using cheaply available heat source or waste heat in industrial processes such as power
generation, manufacturing, chemical production, or food processing. The waste heat can be in
various forms such as steam, hot water, or exhaust gas suitable for different types of absorption
chillers.
Table 2. Absorption chiller industrial application examples (source: [M004])
8
Major manufactures
The major chiller manufactures will also typically have absorption chiller product lines, such
manufacturers include Carrier (United Technology Corporation), York (Johnson Controls), LG,
and Daikin. As a manufacture specialized in absorption chillers, Broad has extensive product lines
providing building related absorption chiller solutions [M001]. Another manufacture, Shanghai
Shuangliang Eco-energy Systems (CO., LTD) also has a series of absorption chillers available
[M002], some of which would be hot water based system that would be a good fit for building
applications using moderate temperature heat sources (about 200F). Table 3 lists the major
manufactures and their websites. Most of the manufactures provide a wide range of different types
of absorption chillers for different applications.
Table 3. Example Absorption Chiller Manufactures
Manufacture Website
Broad USA http://www.broadusa.com
Shuangliang Eco-Energy Systems www.shuangliang.com/en/
York International http://www.york.com/
Carrier Corporation http://www.carrier.com/
Trane http://www.trane.com
9
http://www.robur.com/
http://www.coolingtechnologies.com/
http://www.yazakienergy.com
http://www.thermax-usa.com/abcoolingbottom.htm
http://www.mcquay.com
Economic Considerations
The economics of the implementation of absorption chillers can be affected by many factors. The
major factor is the price ratio between the fuel price (or heat source price) and the electricity price.
Figure 5 demonstrates this relationship.
Figure 5. Fuel price vs. Electricity price for absorption chiller (Source: [M003])
When the electricity price is low, there is less of a cost advantage of using absorption chillers.
However, when the electricity costs are high, absorption chillers become financially viable. For
example, for the case shown in Figure 7, when a facility pays $0.10/kWh for electricity, the fuel
needs to be cheaper than about $3/MMBtu in order for the absorption chiller to have an advantage.
However, if the facility pays only $0.05/kWh for electricity, the fuel then needs to be no more than
$1.5/MMBtu in order for the absorption chiller to be economical. There are also factors related to
equipment costs, the chiller size, the application scenarios, and the fuel economy. In practice, many
absorption chiller applications only prove economically feasible when the fuel is almost free (e.g.
the waste heat scenario).
10
Equipment and installed cost
The equipment costs of absorption chillers are subject to various factors, such as type of absorption
working media (e.g. ammonia-water vs. LiBr-Water), type of design (single effect vs. double
effect), chiller size, and manufacturer. The focus of this report is on building cooling and heating
related absorption technologies (specifically, LiBr-Water based). A 2017 study by the Department
of Energy (DOE) [M008] reveals the following cost estimation according to chiller sizes:
Table 4. Absorption Chiller Capital and O&M Costs (Source: [M008])
The equipment cost in the DOE study [M008] indicates that it is more economical to use larger
size absorption chillers. For example, a relatively small 50 ton hot water driven single stage Li-Br
absorption chiller will be much more expensive on a per ton basis compared to its larger
counterpart (e.g. a 440-ton one). Therefore, from an economic perspective, it is beneficial to use
large absorption chillers in current applications. Case studies further on in the report provide
additional details on equipment and installation costs.
Southern Idaho climate adaption
Most of Idaho Power Company’s service territory is in southern Idaho. The 5b climate of this
region is characterized by dry cold weather, but there are still significant cooling needs during the
summer months.
Apart from building cooling needs, there could also be cooling needs in scenarios which are less
climate dependent, such as large internal loads, ice-making needs, or the need to refrigerate or
freeze food for processing.
11
Low grade heat source availability
There are several notable low grade heat sources in southern Idaho. For example, a municipally
operated direct use geothermal energy system supplies hot water at about 175F, which is in the
low range for driving an absorption chiller. Another type of heating source is the food processing
industry in the region. In southern Idaho, there are a number of food processing, chemical and
industrial processing plants that may be appropriate applications for absorption cooling.
A Case Study in South Idaho: food processing plant
A food processing facility was studied in detail. It generates waste heat that could be potentially
used for absorption cooling. The plant has multiple glycol loops that remove heat and moisture
generated from frying foods.
Basic setup
Through communication with the food processing plant facility managers, it was determined that
with the current setup the glycol loops have a temperature of approximately 160-170F and the flow
rate of the system is about 375 gpm at this condition. This temperature is slightly too low to drive
a typical commercial absorption chiller, which typically operates in the temperature range of 185-
200F. Therefore, some operational changes would be required to turn this into an effective heat
source for absorption cooling.
The heat recovery glycol loop is shown in Figure 6 and Figure 7. The glycol loop takes heat from
the chip frying exhaust to cool and remove moisture from the exhaust. The heated glycol loop then
forms its own closed loop to heat the building (in winter) and provide domestic hot water.
Figure 6. Configuration of the food processing plant heat recovery loop
12
Figure 7. Configuration of food processing plant heat recovery loop (HVAC loop details)
Absorption cooling capabilities
The cooling capacity of any absorption chiller is related to the glycol flow rate, specific heat,
density of the solution, and the temperature drop of the loop. The glycol solution specific heat is
assumed to be full glycol at about 185 F, which is about 0.6 Btu/lb/F. The specific weight is around
1.09 times that of water. It is typical for the absorption chiller to have around 10 degrees of
temperature drop (10 F) on the generator loop. Based on these assumptions, the heat recoverable
could be estimated using the following equation:
Q = 375 gpm*1.09 * 8.1 lb/gallon * 0.6 Btu/lb/F * 10 F = 1191915 btu/hr. (2)
Now assuming that a single effect Lithium-Bromide-Water will be implemented, the COP of the
absorption chiller is estimated to be about 0.7. This will allow the heat extracted from the glycol
recovery loop to generate about 70 tons of cooling.
Right now, the plant has not actually tested raising the recovery loop water temperature to above
185-200F, which will presumably reduce the glycol flow rate (to < 375gpm). Therefore, as a
conservative estimation, it can be assumed that 50 tons of cooling can be achieved if the
temperatures could be adjusted to achieve a suitable temperature.
Cost related to the installation
For a typical 50-ton installation, the associated equipment cost for an absorption chiller is about
$2000 per ton. Construction and installation cost is about $4000 per ton, which will yield an initial
cost of $6000 per ton [M008]. The estimation is based on DOE studies that compared data from a
13
few different manufactures and vendors quotes [M008]. The DOE source also shows that it is more
economical to have larger absorption systems as the cost per-ton base is much smaller for larger
equipment.
The absorption chiller cost is typically much higher than air-cooled or water-cooled electric
chillers of the same cooling capacities. It is estimated that the equipment cost for an air-cooled
chiller is typically around $350-$1000 per ton [M016], depending on the equipment size, with
larger equipment being cheaper on the per-ton bases. For the water cooled electric chillers, the
equipment cost is typically about $250-$600 per ton [M017]. Installed costs can vary widely based
on different chiller types and application scenarios. Another source [M018], provided a total
installed cost per ton estimated to be around $768 per ton for water cooled chillers and $703 for
air cooled chillers of the size of 75 tons. Despite all the variation of the electric chiller installed
costs, the initial cost of an absorption chiller is typically much larger than that of an electric chiller
of the same size, especially for the case of smaller equipment.
Potential savings and payback period
The potential savings for the absorption chiller can be estimated with the following logic:
For a 50-ton absorption chiller, the heat source required to operate the chiller is assumed to be free
in this setup, as they are treated as waste heat in the food processing. For an equivalent sized
electric vapor compression chiller, by assuming an efficiency of 0.6kW/ton, the summer cooling
season electricity consumption (for the four summer months from June to September) will be will
be around 87,600 kWh.
Assuming that the absorption chiller will use 5% (source [M003] indicates 2-9%) of the electricity
compared to an absorption chiller, the annual savings on summer cooling electricity usage for the
absorption chiller over the electric chiller is around 83,220 kWh.
The food processing plant has an electricity rate of about $0.0585/kWh when combining the kWh
and kW charges, according to an estimation based on the past three years of electric bills
(information courtesy of Idaho Power Company). Assume this charge rate per kWh, a simple
calculation yields the savings amount would be $4,869 per year.
Based on an initial equipment installed cost of about $300,000 ($6,000/ton for a 50-ton absorption
chiller), and using a typical air-cooled chiller cost at about $35,000 (approximately $700/ton for
an air-cooled chiller) [M018]. The payback period for the investment would be in the range of
about 54 years.
Later when this analysis was conducted, the author also received another set of electricity cost data
from the facility manager. The current electric structure is around $0.045 per kWh and on average
a $5 per kW for demand charge. This will make the savings around $4,314 each year. This yields
a simple payback of around 58 years, not far from the previous estimates.
14
Building cooling needs
It also necessary to know the facility cooling needs, in order to further examine if an absorption
chiller is a feasible option. An investigation of the size of the facility indicates that the building
needs much more cooling in summer than 50 tons. Although, at this site, only evaporative cooling
fans are used in the space, so any additional cooling would significantly improve the thermal
comfort of the employees. This could be an opportunity to apply larger absorption cooling
equipment from the cooling demand side.
For the current building size, the 50 ton cooling is estimated to be only a small portion of the
building’s cooling load needs. However, if there are potentially more heat recovery loops available
in the plants, and with adequate examination of the actual function of the each loop, there could
be more loops adjusted to a higher operation temperature. It is recommended in the future to
investigate the possibility of increasing the operating temperatures of other heat recovery loops to
allow selection of a larger absorption chiller. This, of course, would involve operation experiments
and careful feasibility validations to make sure the change would not affect the main food
processing operations.
Extended investigation on the food processing plant case
Assuming that the food processing plant has potentially more heat sources (which is very possible
as the facility management mentioned they had different loops of different temperatures), we can
estimate the economics of absorption chiller installation if a 440 ton chiller was selected instead
of a small 50-ton one. In this case, the estimated return on investment should be greatly improved,
as the cost per ton will be greatly reduced for larger absorption chillers (according to source
[M008]).
The estimated installed cost for a hypothetical 440 ton absorption chiller will be around $1,012,000
($2,300 per ton based on source [M008]). The estimated cost of a water-cooled 440 ton electric
chiller is approximately $220,000 ($500/ton based on source [M018]). The initial cost differential
for the two types of systems is $792,000.
The savings differential for the absorption chiller vs. electric chiller (of 400 tons hypothetically)
will be about 732,336 kWh based on the same estimation method used in the previous section.
For electricity rates, we will still use the same rate of about $0.0585/kWh combining the kWh and
kW charge based on the past three years of electric bills analysis (courtesy of Idaho Power
Company). Assuming this rate per kWh, a simple calculation yields the savings amount of a 440
ton absorption chiller would be $42,842 per year.
The overall return payback period will then be reduced to around 18.5 years. Considering that such
a project will also be of value to the utilities, this simple payback period can be further reduced if
the utility company is willing to offer incentives for the installation project.
15
Another factor to consider is the electricity price. Hypothetically, if the facility pays much higher
electricity prices, for example $0.10/kWh, then the overall simple rate of return would be reduced
from 18.5 years to about 10.8 years.
A Case Study in Boise: Brewery
A brewery with two major sites was studied in detail which are assumed to have similar brewery
equipment. The IDL team focused on one of these sites.
The waste heat source in the brewery is in a desirable temperature range for absorption cooling
applications. The brewery waste heat is at about 200-208F, which is an excellent range for the heat
source to drive absorption chillers for building cooling. The current set up at the facility is to
recover the heat using a cold water loop that harvests the heat from the brewery waste by cooling
the waste heat flow from 200-208F to about 68F, and at the same time heating the cold water from
40F to around 180 degrees. For the size of the brewery, the waste heat source is flowing at a rate
of flow rate of 30-33 gpm.
An attempt to visit the site was made in October but the arrangement could not be finalized in time
to be included in this report. However, a general configuration for a Brewery application from a
Johnson Controls’ application document [M004] is illustrated in Figure 8 to explain the potential
system setup. A difference between the system in Figure 8 and the one in the brewery is that the
driving fluid is hot water of about 200-208F rather than steam indicated in the diagram.
Nevertheless, it is still expected that such a configuration should have similarities to the brewery’s
system in terms of the general functionality and basic components.
Figure 8. A typical absorption chiller and system setup to use waste heat from brewery [M004]
The amount of waste heat generated at this facility could generate 5 tons of cooling by using an
absorption chiller. Practically, an absorption chiller of such a size would be more difficult to source
from a typical manufacturer’s catalog. However, it would be easy to scale up if the brewery has
more capacity or plans for expansion.
16
The original cold water heat recovery can still be used after the waste heat fluid flows through the
absorption chiller. After the absorption chiller cycle, the waste heat source temperature is still
around 185F and a 40F cold water recovery loop can still very effectively take the waste heat out
from the 185F waste heat water for domestic hot water heating.
If the building has a small need for HVAC cooling in the summer, it is very likely that simple DX
system would be used for the current facility. Installing an absorption chiller at the site would
require new chilled water loops, adding some complexities to its current systems. However, if the
addition to a specific area is feasible and easy to implement, a smaller absorption chiller could be
beneficial to the overall system performance. Moving forward, more coordination is required with
the facility management team to conduct site visits and examine the mechanical design
specifications in details.
For small applications, there are some developing trends for absorption chiller designs down to
the size of 5 tons [M010]. However, for major manufactures, equipment this small is still not easily
available—for example, Broad USA[M001] offers a minimum of 20 ton LiBr-Water hot water
absorption chillers; Shuangliang Eco [M002] offers a minimum of 10 ton LiBr-Water hot water
driven absorption chillers.
District Geothermal Heating Source
Another larger scale heat source is a municipal geothermal source. The system IDL studied
supplies water to meet the heating demands in buildings along and around the municipal loop at
175F water. Although perfect for the district heating applications, the water temperature, is not
efficient for absorption chiller applications at this temperature. Absorption chillers would require
a higher supply temperature. This means that with the current district heating set up, using the
distributed water to cool the buildings along the district is not a feasible solution.
In order to properly drive an absorption chiller, the heat source temperature typically needs to be
higher than the heating water supply temperature. One plausible idea of saving energy is to use a
natural gas fired boiler to raise the water temperature from 175F to around 200F to allow the end
users to use absorption chillers in the summer. Although this seems to require only a small
temperature rise by the natural gas fuel, there is actually no energy savings benefit in doing so
compared to using a direct-fired absorption chiller. The reason is that, when the absorption chiller
operates, the water temperature drop is typically small (e.g. around 10F). For example, for a 200F
heating source, the outlet water of the absorption chiller will still be around 190F, which is well
above the 175F. This means that the energy used by the absorption chiller is only on the top part
of the heating source (from 190-200F), which is still of higher grade than 175F and is completely
coming from the added heat by the natural gas burner. Therefore, the heat from geothermal water
itself (175F) is in fact never used in the absorption cooling. Furthermore, if the exiting temperature
of the absorption chiller is still higher than 175F, a portion of added heat is wasted (to the
17
absorption chiller) compared to direct firing. Therefore, using a natural gas direct fired absorption
chiller would actually be even more efficient than by using natural gas to raise the water
temperature. For natural gas direct fired absorption chillers, since a higher flame temperature can
be achieved, it is also possible to use more efficient double effect absorption chillers to gain higher
efficiency. But in neither case would the absorption chillers be any more efficient than electric
chillers.
Other potential applications in Idaho
Industrial chemical plant in eastern Idaho
An industrial chemical factory in eastern Idaho has a few chemical production plants that have
waste heat resources. Currently, the waste heat is rejected via multiple cooling towers with a
typical outlet temperature of 114F. A brief system summary was recently reviewed by the authors
for the potential of using the waste heat for absorption cooling.
On the chemical reactor towers, there are two types of heat sources available: one is the 170F 93%
sulfur acid; and the other is the 230F 98% sulfur acid. The 230F temperature could be a potential
driving heat source for the absorption cooling. However, in the current design, the tower cooling
water is existing only at a temperature of approximately 110-120F after harvesting the heat from
the acid production towers. In order to use the 230F acid temperature, it is estimated that major
changes may be needed on the cooling fluid side in order to obtain high enough temperatures for
absorption chiller applications (185-200F). It is suggested to investigate this case in any future
studies.
Northern Idaho
In the state of Idaho, it is not uncommon to have abundant wood and biofuel resources, especially
in the northern part of the state. With biofuel or waste wood resources, direct fired absorption
chillers can also be used in the summer, in remote locations where abundant natural fuel resources
are available but power grid bears less load due to small populations. On the University of Idaho
Moscow campus, an absorption chiller is used in the biofuel power generation plant to provide
part of the summer cooling needs via the centralized district cooling and heating distribution
system in the campus [M019]. Such direct fired absorption cooling applications would also be
possible in southern Idaho when similar conditions of abundant biofuel resources exist.
Conclusions
In this study, absorption cooling technologies are introduced and their applications on potential
projects in the southern Idaho region (Idaho Power Company’s service territory) were investigated.
As a technology with a history of more than half a century, the absorption cooling technology has
gained ample development and reliable equipment for such applications has been developed for
many years. The most suitable applications scenario for the technology features abundance of
18
cheap or freely available waste heat sources of adequate grades (temperatures). Along with savings
in total electricity consumptions, the absorption cooling technology is also a possible means to
reduce summer peak loads to benefit the power grids.
Three potential application cases were selected for detailed studies in southern Idaho for the
investigation of the feasibility and benefits of absorption technologies. These three cases represent
three different application scales as well. The brewery is a local small business where adequate
waste heat sources are available for absorption cooling in a small scale brewery plant. In this case,
the waste heat from the brewery process is available with adequate temperatures to serve as the
heat source to drive absorption cooling. The only limitation is the relatively small size of this
facility. This small size limits the choices of commercially available equipment, and also increased
the initial costs, and prolongs capital return periods. However, the application payback could be
improved in the future if the brewery expands its production size or absorption cooling is used in
breweries with larger production capacities.
The food processing plant case is a representative mid- to large scale application where a large
amount of waste heat from food processing is available for absorption cooling. The investigation
demonstrates potential for the waste heat to cover a small portion of summer cooling needs. The
current limitation is the equipment size that makes the economic payback period very long.
However, for this plant, there are other heat recovery loops that could be combined together to
provide more heat source for additional absorption cooling. This will potentially increase the
absorption cooling equipment size and also greatly improve the economics of the application.
Further, a limitation at this stage is that some operation experiments and changes would be required
to increase the waste heat recovery loop temperatures to adequately drive the absorption chiller.
This change could involve moderate to high level of interactions with the food processing, which
therefore needs very careful examination and concept validation before being implemented. It is
recommended that these tests be coordinated in any future phases of the study.
The study also examined a larger scale a geothermal heat source. It is however, with the current
setup, difficult to apply distributed absorption cooling applications due to the heating water
distribution temperature limitations. Raising the geothermal loop temperature through biomass,
solar thermal, or free waste heat from a power generation system is one possibility, but this would
involve major capital investments and system modifications.
In addition, the study also briefly examined the available heat sources from a chemical production
plant that has waste heat rejected by cooling towers at different temperatures. The cooling tower
loop temperature is not high enough to be directly applied in absorption cooling. However, there
are higher temperature sources from the acid towers that could be a possible heat source for
absorption cooling, albeit major revisions to the production equipment might be required to utilize
the heat from the source.
19
The report additionally examined the northern Idaho region, where wood and biofuel sources may
be available for direct fired absorption chiller application. One example is the currently operating
University of Idaho central plant which has an absorption chiller installed for part of the centralized
cooling for the entire campus. For other regions in northern Idaho where wood and biofuel sources
are easily retrievable, it would also feasible to use directly fired absorption technologies to meet
summer cooling demands and reduce peak load in remote areas. This type of direct fired absorption
technology is used globally through the use of household and industrial wastes, which may be
available in southern Idaho where biomass from the forest product industry is not readily available.
Reference
[M000] Çengel, Y. A., & Boles, M. A. (2015). Thermodynamics: An engineering approach.
Boston: McGraw-Hill.
[M001] Broad USA, 2016. “Broad Central Air Conditioning (Absorption LiBr+H2O): Broad XI
Non-Electric Chiller Model Selection & Design Manual,” Manufacture product catalog.
[M002] ShuangLiang Eco-Energy System Co. “SHUANGLIANG Absorption Chiller Product
Catalogue”, 2011.
[M003] “How to decide if an absorption chiller right for you,” Web Link:
http://antaresgroupinc.com/how-to-decide-if-an-absorption-chiller-right-for-you/; Accessed on
March 30, 2017.
[M004] Johnson Controls, Inc. “Application Opportunities for Absorption Chillers,” 2008.
[M005] Global Sustainable Cities Network, “DUBAL Energy Optimization Absorption Chiller
Pilot Project,” Global Sustainable Cities Network–2014, January 23, 2014
[M006] Yin, Hongxi. 2006. “An Absorption Chiller in a Micro BCHP Application: Model based
Design and Performance Analysis,” Ph.D. Thesis, Carnegie Mellon University, School of
Architecture, College of Fine Arts.
[M007]
[M008] U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy, 2017. “Combined
Heat and Power Technology Fact Sheet Series,” Advanced Manufacturing Office, DOE/EE-1608,
May 2017.
[M009] “HVAC System—HVAC Water Chiller, Types of Chillers,” Web Link: http://hvac-
system-basics.blogspot.com/2012/06/types-of-chillers.html; Accessed on May 18, 2017.
[M010] “Process Applications for Small Absorption Chillers,” Web Link:
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ve
d=0ahUKEwjS897jj6nXAhVRxmMKHSbjD_UQFggoMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fgasaircondi
20
tioning.com%2Ffiles%2F2015%2F12%2FProcess-applications-for-small-absorption-chillers-
Winter-2003-GT.pdf&usg=AOvVaw1urz2j8W1_fsw44dTNlnw4; Accessed on Oct 19, 2017.
[M011] DOE (Department of Energy) Office of EERE (Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy),
“Absorption Cooling Basics,” August 16, 2013 Version. Web Link:
https://www.energy.gov/eere/energybasics/articles/absorption-cooling-basics; Accessed on May
12, 2017.
[M012] ESC (Energy Solution Center), “Absorption Chillers,” Web Link:
http://www.energysolutionscenter.org/gas_solutions/absorption_chillers.aspx; Accessed April 30,
2017.
[M013] A. Bhatia “Overview of Vapor Absorption Cooling Systems,” Continuing Education and
https://www.cedengineering.com/userfiles/Vapor%20Absorption%20Machines.pdf; Accessed
April 28, 2017.
[M014] “Absorption cooling makes sense,” 08/19/2015 Version; Web Link:
https://www.plantengineering.com/industry-news/electrical-news/single-article/absorption-
cooling-makes-sense/99129eda863be563e413dfe4f5d1c61b.html; Accessed April 28, 2017.
[M015] Goodman Energy, “How does an absorption chiller work?” Web Link:
http://goldman.com.au/energy/company-news/how-does-an-absorption-chiller-work/; Accessed
on Oct 28, 2017.
[M016] FPL, “Air Cooled Chillers,” An FPL Technical Primer. Web Link:
https://www.fpl.com/business/pdf/air-cooled-chillers-primer.pdf; Accessed on May 29, 2017
[M017] FPL, “Water Cooled Chiller,” An FPL Technical Primer. Web Link:
https://www.fpl.com/business/pdf/water-cooled-chillers-primer.pdf; Accessed on May 29, 2017
[M018] “Compare Installed Costs Chillers,” Web Link:
http://c03.apogee.net/contentplayer/?coursetype=ces&utilityid=northwestern&id=1084;
Accessed on Oct 30, 2017.
[M019] “Utilities and Engineering Services: Chilled Water System”, Web Link:
http://www.uidaho.edu/infrastructure/facilities/ues/energy/chilled-water; Accessed on October 26,
2017.
[M020] Çengel, Y. A., & Boles, M. A. 2015. “Thermodynamics: An engineering approach,” 8th
edition, Boston: McGraw-Hill.
[M021] Kevin D. Rafferty, Geo-Heat P.E, Center. Klamath Falls, Notes on Absorption.
Refrigeration, Chapter-13.
21
[M022] ASHRAE. 2013. “ASHRAE Standard 90.1 2013,” Table 6.8.1.
Report Number: 1701_010-08
2017 TASK 7: HEAT PUMP CALCULATOR
SUMMARY OF PROGRESS
IDAHO POWER COMPANY EXTERNAL YEAR-END REPORT
December 31, 2017
Prepared for:
Idaho Power Company
Authors:
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:
Elizabeth Cooper
Prepared for:
Idaho Power Company
Contract Number:
5277
Please cite this report as follows: Cooper, E. (2017). TASK 7:
Climate Design Tools - Summary of Progress (1701_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. Outreach and Education ............................................................................................................. 1
3. Feedback and Next Steps ............................................................................................................ 2
4. References .................................................................................................................................. 6
5. Appendices .................................................................................................................................. 1
Appendix A: Climate Design Tools............................................................................................... 1
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
2017 Task 7: Heat Pump Calculator- Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report #1701_010-08)
1.INTRODUCTION
The 2017 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 2016. Over the years, the tool has grown in its
capabilities. Initially, 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 tool now does far more
than estimate heat pump savings. It incorporates several climate design tools and has come to
be known as the Thermal Energy Savings Tool (TEST). The work in 2014 improved the tool by
means of verification and user feedback. The tool was further revised in 2015 based on
outreach, adding a residential space-type, and incorporating several climate design tools. The
work in 2016 included the unification of additional climate design tools to the calculator and
the addition of seven unique weather files for sites around Idaho. The focus of the 2017 scope
was on outreach, education, and customization. Details of this and the tool improvements
based on feedback are outlined in this report.
2.OUTREACH AND EDUCATION
The IDL reached out to several local architecture and engineering firms to gauge interest
in the tool and receive feedback from new users. In addition to the calls and emails, the IDL
presented a lecture on the tool at the Building Simulation User’s Group meeting in May. The
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 2
2017 Task 7: Heat Pump Calculator- Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report #1701_010-08)
lecture was called TEST for Climate Design – how to use the Thermal Energy Savings Tool for
efficient design. After this lecture, a number of viewers requested, and were sent a copy of the
tool. Each time the tool was sent with a disclaimer that the tool could not guarantee savings,
but was intended for general comparison between preliminary design iterations. IDL brought in
a local HVAC supplier for an extended meeting to demonstrate the tool and receive feedback
from someone in practice. This year also saw the acceptance of a journal article on the tool into
the Energy & Buildings Magazine. The article is titled “Using a Passive Design Toolset to
Evaluate Low-Cost Cooling Strategies for an Industrial Facility in a Hot and Dry Climate.” The
article is available online now on Science Direct. It was authored by Amir Nezamdoost, Elizabeth
Cooper, and Damon Woods. The tool was also advertised at several lunch and learns that IDL
delivered this past year. A brief write-up of the tool development will appear in the next Idaho
ASHRAE newsletter. As a result, there continues to be intermittent requests for the tool. The
IDL sends the tool with a disclaimer through the service WeTransfer as it is too large to attach in
a traditional email. The goal is for the IDL to host the tool online as the IDL website is improved.
Once there, the tool will be available for free download by those who create an account with
IDL.
3.FEEDBACK AND NEXT STEPS
Based on last year’s feedback, several inputs were moved to the first page. This reduces
the time that users had to spend going through different sheets to update the location and
weather file. Now, the weather file and location on the first page feature drop-down selections.
Once they are selected, the rest of the calculations automatically update to match that input.
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 3
2017 Task 7: Heat Pump Calculator- Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report #1701_010-08)
There was concern that users would think the tool was limited to heat pump analysis. Therefore
the Heat Pump Calculator was re-branded to the Thermal Energy Savings Tool (or TEST for
climate design). This was to reflect the incorporation of the passive climate design tools and to
show that the spreadsheet can be used for load analysis for any system. The IDL reached out to
a dozen different architecture and engineering firms. The following table lists the contact point
for each firm and individual who expressed interest in the tool as well as whether IDL received
any feedback when the team followed up with that contact later in the year.
Firm Engineer/Architect Contact Feedback?

Integrated Design Lab | Boise 4
2017 Task 7: Heat Pump Calculator- Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report #1701_010-08)
The most comprehensive feedback came from the HVAC supplier as the IDL provided an
extended session going over the tool’s operation together. The following points reflect all the
feedback IDL received from different users based on the current state of the Thermal Energy
Savings Tool:
•More information on the source of the equipment performance curves would be
appreciated.
•The system selections are general and do not state some aspects, such as
whether the VAV has a chiller or a cooling tower and whether the compressor is
on/off or has a VFD.
•System costs need to be stated clearly – as the current costs are based solely on
equipment, it can be disingenuous if piping costs etc. are not included.
•It needs to be stated clearly whether the heat pumps include electric back-up,
how much is included and it needs to be clear how this is factored into the
curves.
•It would be helpful to have the design day be adjustable by the user so that heat
pumps are not sized the same way as VAV systems because they should rely on
electric backups during the coldest conditions and not have their coils sized to it.
•The source of the equipment costs needs to be made explicitly clear.
•Prospective users could be small engineering firms that don’t do sizing often
such as […] Engineering Firm.
•The system setups were confusing for some.
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 5
2017 Task 7: Heat Pump Calculator- Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report #1701_010-08)
•It would be helpful if one could upgrade just a portion of the system i.e.
upgrading just the air handler as part of the VAV.
•The tool is great for early comparisons of simple systems.
•The graphical representations are very clean and could be used for early
reporting.
•Further integration of the passive toolset so that the sizing is updated to reflect
their implementation would be very interesting. Other tools offer comparisons
between HVAC systems, but few offer a good method for including passive
design strategies.
•The current code defaults in the tool are ASHRAE 90.1 – 2010. It would be more
helpful if this were updated to the current code used in Idaho.
The IDL team has worked on some of these improvements already. There is now a
method to enter custom equipment curves so that users may enter in their own values. The IDL
will work with Idaho Power in order to prioritize future adjustments to the tool to make in
2018.
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 6
2017 Task 7: Heat Pump Calculator- Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report #1701_010-08)
4.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
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 1
2017 Task 7: Heat Pump Calculator- Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report #1701_010-08)
5.APPENDICES
Appendix A: Climate Design Tools
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 1
2017 Task 7: Heat Pump Calculator- Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report #1701_010-08)
TEST LOADS INPUT PAGE
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 2
2017 Task 7: Heat Pump Calculator- Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report #1701_010-08)
HVAC INPUT PAGE
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 1
2017 Task 7: Heat Pump Calculator- Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report #1701_010-08)
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 2
2017 Task 7: Heat Pump Calculator- Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report #1701_010-08)
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 3
2017 Task 7: Heat Pump Calculator- Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report #1701_010-08)
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 4
2017 Task 7: Heat Pump Calculator- Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report #1701_010-08)
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 5
2017 Task 7: Heat Pump Calculator- Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report #1701_010-08)
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 6
2017 Task 7: Heat Pump Calculator- Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report #1701_010-08)
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 7
2017 Task 7: Heat Pump Calculator- Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report #1701_010-08)
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 8
2017 Task 7: Heat Pump Calculator- Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report #1701_010-08)
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 9
2017 Task 7: Heat Pump Calculator- Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report #1701_010-08)
Report Number: 1701_001-08
2017 TASK 8: DAYLIGHTING TRAINING
SUMMARY OF EFFORTS AND PROGRESS
IDAHO POWER COMPANY EXTERNAL YEAR-END
REPORT
September 11, 2017
Prepared for:
Idaho Power Company
Authors:
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:
Elizabeth Cooper
Prepared for:
Idaho Power Company
Contract Number:
5277
Please cite this report as follows: Cooper, E., (2017).
2017 TASK 8: Daylighting Training – Summary of Efforts and
Progress (1701_008-01). 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 ............................................................................................................................... 7
2. Project Summary ..................................................................................................................... 7
3. Workshop Results .................................................................................................................... 8
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 7
2017 Task 8: Daylighting Training- Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report #1701_001-08)
1.INTRODUCTION
Idaho Power, in partnership with the University of Idaho’s Integrated Design Lab,
provided daylight training sessions for local professionals. This training enhanced
knowledge of, and appreciation for, daylight, and kept professionals informed of the
latest advances in daylighting technologies. The sessions discussed the fundamentals
of daylighting design and its implications on visual comfort, thermal comfort, building
energy performance and electric lighting control systems.
2.PROJECT SUMMARY
The objective of this task was to continue education and training sessions
surrounding the daylighting control systems installed at the IDL and any other approved
partner sites to electrical contractors and design professionals on an alternating year
basis, as market needs warrant. In 2016, the existing lighting controls in the lab were
recommissioned. Lighting controls that were not properly functioning were fixed. All of
the new lighting control equipment was commissioned for proper functionality. Manuals
for all of the installed lighting control equipment were gathered and all of the installed
systems were documented. A market needs assessment was performed in Q3 of 2016
to determine the need for a daylighting class as well as to help develop the curriculum
for the class. This survey was sent to a total of 210 individuals of which we received 18
responses. A detailed marketing plan was developed and in accordance with the
marketing plan marketing materials were produced. Marketing for the 2017 classes
continued into January 2017. The daylighting training was offered as two one-day
workshops. The sessions were held March 21-22 (A), April 18-19 (B), and May 9-10 (C).
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 8
2017 Task 8: Daylighting Training- Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report #1701_001-08)
This scope included education and training for existing technology and any additional
installed or updated systems or technologies. A copy of the workshop program can be
found in Appendix C.
3.WORKSHOP RESULTS
In the six days of the three sessions there were 27 total attendees with the largest
session being the first, with very low attendance for the second session (Figure 1). We
speculate that there may have been competing courses offered through other providers
around the time of the second session that targeted electrical contractors and that
provided CEUs which may have led to fewer attendees. The professions represented at
the sessions included; architects, designers, electrical engineers, and electrical
contractors (Figure 2). Many of the attendees (30%) indicated ‘other’ as their profession,
but we do not have additional information for them. In the future, it is recommended that
we provide an opportunity for them to give us their profession if they chose ‘other’. This
additional line would help us better know where to market the course in the future and
how best to tailor the information to suit the needs of the industry.
Attendees were asked to fill out an evaluation form following the course. A copy of
which is provided in Appendix B. The information from the respondents indicates that
there is some room for improving the course, although the rating of the instructor’s
subject knowledge was excellent, and the opportunity for questions was good. The
content of the presentation was rated ‘just right’, but in general the presentations were
only rated at just under 4 out of a possible best of 5. One of the open-ended
recommendations that was made a few times indicated that some of the information
presented may be out-of-date. Should this class be offered in the future, efforts should
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 9
2017 Task 8: Daylighting Training- Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report #1701_001-08)
be made to update any materials related to current available technologies and currently
adopted codes. In addition to these comments, some attendees suggested that the
instructor could provide a more polished and clear presentation.
In summary, the overall content of the courses was considered just right, and the
instructor’s knowledge excellent. However, attention should be paid to the appropriate
target audiences for marketing efforts, and classes should be scheduled to avoid other
lighting courses offered at or near the same time. The course content should be
reviewed to assess the relevance to current available technologies and codes.
Idaho Power Company Supplement 2: Evaluation
Demand-Side Management 2017 Annual Report Page 169
RESEARCH/SURVEYS
Table 3. 2017 Research/Surveys
Report Title Sector
Analysis
Performed By
Study
Manager
Study/Evaluation
Type
2017 Energy Efficiency Campaign Awareness Survey Residential Idaho Power Idaho Power Survey
2017 Energy Savings Guide Survey Residential Idaho Power Idaho Power Survey
2017 Home Energy Audit Program Survey Residential Idaho Power Idaho Power Survey
2017 Smart Saver Pledge Residential Idaho Power Idaho Power Survey
Idaho Power Drying Rack Project Post-Survey Residential Idaho Power Idaho Power Survey
Idaho Power Energy-Saving Kit Program Summary Report 2017 A Residential RAP Idaho Power Survey
Idaho Power Energy-Saving Kit Program Summary Report 2017 B Residential RAP Idaho Power Survey
Idaho Power Shade Tree Survey Residential Idaho Power Idaho Power Survey
WAQC Customer Satisfaction Surveys Residential Idaho Power Idaho Power Survey
Weatherization Solutions Summary Report Residential Idaho Power Idaho Power Survey

Idaho Power Weatherization Programs
1. Do you recall seeing any recent ads from Idaho Power on ways to save energy?
(asked of all respondents)

Options Responses Percent
Yes ............................................................................................................... 169 49.27%
No ................................................................................................................. 174 50.73%
Answered ..................................................................................................... 343

2. Where did you see, or hear, a recent Idaho Power advertisement about ways to
save energy?
(asked only of respondent who recalled seeing or hearing at least one ad)

Options Responses Percent
Television .................................................................................................... 62 36.69%
Radio ........................................................................................................... 5 2.96%
Newspaper .................................................................................................. 21 12.43%
Hulu ............................................................................................................. 1 0.59%
Pandora ....................................................................................................... 3 1.78%
Facebook/Instagram ................................................................................... 25 14.79%
Weatherbug ................................................................................................. 0 0.00%
Connections newsletter .............................................................................. 115 68.05%
Other .......................................................................................................... 3 1.78%
Answered .................................................................................................... 169

3. Which, if any, of the following message topics do you recall from the ad(s) you saw
or heard?
(asked only of respondents who said they saw or heard the ad on television or Hulu)

Options Responses Percent
You Have the Power to Save .................................................................... 12 18.75%
Energy Savings Made Easy ...................................................................... 40 62.50%
Home Energy Audits ................................................................................. 18 28.13%
Energy Savings Kits .................................................................................. 34 53.13%
Heating and Cooling Tips .......................................................................... 29 45.31%
None of these ............................................................................................ 2 3.13%
Answered .................................................................................................. 64

4. Which of the following ads from Pandora or Weatherbug do you recall? (asked only of respondents who said they heard the ad on Pandora or Weatherbug)
Options Responses Percent
Power to Save: EE Bulb ............................................................................ 2 66.67%
Power to Save: EE Ductless ..................................................................... 1 33.33%
Power to Save: Small Horizontal............................................................... 0 0.00%
Power to Save: Large Horizontal .............................................................. 0 0.00%
None of these ............................................................................................ 0 0.00%
Other ......................................................................................................... 0 0.00%
Answered .................................................................................................. 3

5. Which of the following ads from Facebook or Instagram do you recall? (asked only of respondents who said they saw the ad on Facebook or Instagram)

Options Responses Percent
Bulbs ......................................................................................................... 11 44.00%
Fan ............................................................................................................ 6 24.00%
Thermostat ................................................................................................ 10 40.00%
None of these ............................................................................................ 4 16.00%
Other ......................................................................................................... 2 8.00%
Answered .................................................................................................. 25

6. Which of the following newspaper/newsletter ads do you recall? (asked only of respondents who said they saw the ad in a newspaper or Connections)

Options Responses Percent
Overall Power to Save .............................................................................. 16 13.01%
Home Energy Audit ................................................................................... 19 15.45%
Ductless Heat Pump ................................................................................. 18 14.63%
None of these ............................................................................................ 74 60.16%
Other ......................................................................................................... 5 4.07%
Answered .................................................................................................. 123

7. Overall, how did you feel about the ad(s) you saw or heard? (asked only of respondents who said they recalled an energy saving ad)
Options Responses Percent
Positive ...................................................................................................... 124 73.37%
Neutral ....................................................................................................... 43 25.44%
Negative .................................................................................................... 2 1.18%
Answered .................................................................................................. 169

8. How likely are you to make energy saving changes in your home after seeing or hearing
these ads? (asked only of respondents who said they recalled an energy saving ad)

Options Responses Percent
Very Likely ................................................................................................. 60 35.50%
Somewhat Likely ....................................................................................... 76 44.97%
Not Very Likely .......................................................................................... 28 16.57%
Not Likely at All.......................................................................................... 5 2.96%
Answered .................................................................................................. 169

9. What energy saving changes are you most likely to make after seeing or hearing these ads? (asked only of respondents who said they recalled an energy saving ad)

Options Responses Percent
Ge a Home Energy Audit .......................................................................... 34 25.00%
Upgrade Heating and Cooling Equipment ................................................ 20 14.71%
Order an Energy Savings Kit ..................................................................... 62 45.59%
Other ......................................................................................................... 50 36.76%
Answered .................................................................................................. 136

10. Below are four examples of ads that were used in newspapers, online, television, and radio during the months of April and May.
• 1. Energy Savings Made Easy TV Commercial
• 2. Power to Save
• 3. Home Energy Audit
• 4. Ductless Heat Pump
Now that you have seen them, do you remember seeing or hearing any of these
ads recently? (asked only of respondents who did not remember seeing or hearing an energy saving ad)
Options Responses Percent
Yes ............................................................................................................ 38 21.84%
No .............................................................................................................. 136 78.16%
Answered .................................................................................................. 174

11. Based on what you just saw, how did you feel about these ad(s)? (asked only of respondents who did not remember seeing or hearing an energy saving ad)

Options Responses Percent
Positive ...................................................................................................... 87 50.00%
Neutral ....................................................................................................... 86 49.43%
Negative .................................................................................................... 1 0.57%
Answered .................................................................................................. 174

12. How likely are you to make energy saving changes suggested in the ads in your home? (asked only of respondents who did not remember seeing or hearing an energy saving ad)

Options Responses Percent
Very Likely ................................................................................................. 33 18.97%
Somewhat Likely ....................................................................................... 93 53.45%
Not Very Likely .......................................................................................... 40 22.99%
Not Likely at All.......................................................................................... 8 4.60%
Answered .................................................................................................. 174

13. What energy saving changes are you most likely to make after seeing these ads? (asked only of respondents who did not remember seeing or hearing an energy saving ad)
Options Responses Percent
Get a Home Energy Audit ......................................................................... 34 26.98%
Upgrade Heating and Cooling Equipment ................................................ 21 16.67%
Order an Energy Savings Kit ..................................................................... 57 45.24%
Other ......................................................................................................... 32 25.40%
Answered .................................................................................................. 126

14. How much would you agree, or disagree, that Idaho Power encourages energy efficiency and saving energy with its customers?
(asked of all respondents)

Options Responses Percent
Strongly Agree........................................................................................... 228 66.47%
Somewhat Agree ....................................................................................... 106 30.90%
Strongly Disagree ...................................................................................... 8 2.33%
Somewhat Disagree .................................................................................. 1 0.29%
Answered .................................................................................................. 343

Energy Savings Guide Survey Results–July 2017
1. If you received an energy savings guide in the mail that looked similar to this, how likely
would you be to open it and see what information is inside?
Question Total: 412
Options Percent
Very likely ................................................................................................................................. 71%
Somewhat likely ....................................................................................................................... 24%
Not very likely ........................................................................................................................... 4%
Not likely at all .......................................................................................................................... 2%

2. Please indicate which of the following topics you would find useful in helping you save
energy. (Check all that apply)
Question Total: 412
Options Percent
Rebates and Incentives offered by Idaho Power ...................................................................... 93%
Energy Savings Tips on how to save energy and money ......................................................... 83%
Additional Resources to help you save energy and money ...................................................... 67%

3. What information would you expect to see in a section of the energy savings guide labeled
Rebates and Incentives? (check all that apply)?
Question Total:384
Options Percent
Energy efficiency program descriptions .................................................................................... 68%
Explanations of how various energy efficiency programs can help you save energy and money ................................................................................................................................. 65%
Dollar amount of rebates and incentives available with energy efficiency programs ............... 90%
Eligibility requirements for energy efficiency programs and rebates and incentives ................ 90%
Links to energy efficiency program pages on idahopower.com ................................................ 60%
Instructions for how to apply for energy efficiency rebates and incentives ............................... 88%
Other (please specify) ............................................................................................................... 6%

This is an example of what one of the Rebates and Incentives pages might look like in the
energy savings guide.
4. What is your first impression of this example page?
Asked only of respondents who said they would find rebates and incentives offered by
Idaho Power as a useful topic in the Energy Savings Guide
Question Total:384
Options Percent
I like it ........................................................................................................................................ 80%
It’s okay, but I don’t love it ......................................................................................................... 18%
I don’t like it ............................................................................................................................... 2%

Here is another example of what one of the Rebates and Incentives pages might look like in the
energy savings guide.
5. What is your first impression of this example page?
Question Total:384
Options Percent
I like it ........................................................................................................................................ 44%
It’s okay, but I don’t love it ......................................................................................................... 47%
I don’t like it ............................................................................................................................... 9%

6. What information would you expect to see in a section of the energy savings guide labeled Energy Savings Tips? (check all that apply)
Question Total: 384
Options Percent
Cooling energy savings tips ..................................................................................................... 95%
Heating energy savings tips ..................................................................................................... 92%
Kitchen energy savings tips ..................................................................................................... 78%
Laundry energy savings tips .................................................................................................... 76%
Lighting energy savings tips ..................................................................................................... 88%
Other (please specify) .............................................................................................................. 12%

Here is an example of what one of the Energy Savings Tips pages might look like in the
energy savings guide.
7. What is your first impression of this example page?
Question Total:340
Options Percent
I like it ........................................................................................................................................ 62%
It’s okay, but I don’t love it ......................................................................................................... 32%
I don’t like it ............................................................................................................................... 5%

8. What information would you expect to see in a section of the energy savings guide labeled Additional Resources? (check all that apply)
Question Total: 274
Options Percent
How to access information on My Account at idahopower.com ............................................... 51%
How, or where, to access more information about other energy savings techniques for your home ................................................................................................................................. 90%
How, or where, to access more information about energy efficient appliances
and equipment........................................................................................................................... 81%
Other (please specify) ............................................................................................................... 7%

9. What action(s) do you think you would be most likely to take after reviewing an energy
savings guide like the one we have proposed here?(check all that apply)
Question Total: 390
Options Percent
Investigate Idaho Power's energy efficiency programs ............................................................... 67%
Participate in one or more Idaho Power energy efficiency programs ......................................... 61%
Make other energy savings improvements in your home like changes to your cooling, heating,
cooking, or laundry habits ........................................................................................................... 71%
Other (please specify) ................................................................................................................. 7%
Would not take any additional energy savings actions ............................................................... 3%

10. How useful do you think a guide like this would be in helping you save energy and money?
Question Total: 390
Options Percent
Very useful .................................................................................................. 52%
Somewhat useful ......................................................................................... 43%
Not very useful ............................................................................................ 5%
Not useful at all............................................................................................ 0%

11. What do you think would be the best way to make an energy savings guide available to the
most people? (check all that apply)
Question Total: 390
Options Percent
Send a bound book through the mail to customers ..................................... 61%
Have the information available online at idahopower.com .......................... 57%
Have a downloadable PDF available at idahopower.com ........................... 47%
Other (please specify) .................................................................................. 17%

12. If you received a bound version of the energy savings guide in the mail, how likely would
you be to save the guide for future reference? Question Total: 390
Options Percent
Very Likely ................................................................................................. 56%
Somewhat Likely ....................................................................................... 28%
Not Very Likely .......................................................................................... 13%
Not Likely at All.......................................................................................... 3%

2017 Home Energy Audit Program Survey
1. How easy was it for you to apply for the Home Energy Audit program?
Answer Choices Responses Percent
Very easy ..................................................................................................... 131 70.05%
Somewhat easy ............................................................................................ 49 26.20%
Somewhat difficult ........................................................................................ 6 3.21%
Very Difficult ................................................................................................. 1 0.53%
Answered ..................................................................................................... 187

2. If the application process was difficult what was it about that process that made
it difficult?
• 13 answered the question.
3. Please identify the auditor that you used for your home audit.
Answer Choices Responses Percent
Brian Bennett, The Energy Auditor .............................................................. 13 8.44%
Chris Callor, Affordable Energy Improvements, LLC ................................... 40 25.97%
Dallen Ward, Home Energy Efficiency Technologies (H.E.E.T.) ................. 2 1.30%
Jessie Lumbreras, Energy Zone, LLC ......................................................... 0 0.00%
Robert Johnson, Savings Around Power ..................................................... 0 0.00%
Rod Burk, Home Energy Management ........................................................ 13 8.44%
Tad Duby, On Point, LLC ............................................................................. 86 55.84%
Answered ..................................................................................................... 154

4. Please rate your home auditor on each of the following:
Answer Choices Responses Excellent Good Fair Poor
Courteousness ....................................... 178 89.33% 9.55% 1.12% 0.00%
Professionalism ...................................... 176 88.64% 9.66% 1.14% 0.57%
Explanation of work/measurements to be performed as part of the audit ................ 177 81.92% 16.38% 0.56% 1.13%
Explanation of recommendations resulting from audit ................................. 177 76.84% 18.64% 3.39% 1.13%
Overall experience with auditor (from scheduling an appointment to follow up after the audit) ........................................ 177 79.10% 17.51% 1.69% 1.69%

5. If you have additional comments you would like to offer about your home auditor, please
enter them in the space below.
• 43 answered the question.
6. How did you receive your Home Energy Audit report?
Answer Choices Responses Percent
Accessed report online ................................................................................. 66 38.15%
Received paper copy ................................................................................... 61 35.26%
Both .............................................................................................................. 46 26.59%
Answered ..................................................................................................... 173

7. How difficult was it for you to access the report online?
Answer Choices Responses Percent
Very easy ..................................................................................................... 70 46.36%
Somewhat easy ............................................................................................ 35 23.18%
Somewhat difficult ........................................................................................ 10 6.62%
Very Difficult ................................................................................................. 8 5.30%
N/A ............................................................................................................... 28 18.54%
Answered ..................................................................................................... 151

8. How much did the audit influence you to reduce the amount of electricity you consume?
Answer Choices Responses Percent
Influenced me a lot ....................................................................................... 70 39.11%
Influenced me some ..................................................................................... 79 44.13%
Didn't influence me much ............................................................................. 17 9.50%
Didn't influence me at all .............................................................................. 13 7.26%
Answered ..................................................................................................... 179

9. As a result of the Home Energy Audit program, please indicate how strongly you agree or
disagree with the following statements.
Answer Choices Responses Strongly agree Somewhat agree Somewhat disagree Strongly disagree N/A
I am more informed about energy usage in my home ... 175 65.14% 27.43% 4.57% 2.29% 0.57%
Other members of my
household are more informed about our household energy
usage .................................. 175 37.71% 31.43% 7.43% 2.86% 20.57%
I am more informed about energy efficiency programs
that are available to me through Idaho Power ........... 174 32.18% 45.40% 12.07% 4.60% 5.75%
I know what no- to low-cost
actions I can take ................ 173 52.60% 38.15% 4.62% 3.47% 1.16%
I know what next steps I should take.......................... 176 65.91% 28.41% 1.70% 3.41% 0.57%

10. After receiving your audit through the Home Energy Audit program, please indicate if
you have taken any of the following actions:
Answer Choices Responses Yes No
Visited the Idaho Power website ......................................................... 153 49.67% 50.33%
Unplugged appliances when not in use .............................................. 160 52.50% 47.50%
Signed up for myAccount .................................................................... 144 40.97% 59.03%
Shared my energy audit experience with relatives and/or friends ...... 164 74.39% 25.61%
Other ................................................................................................... 80 47.50% 52.50%
If you selected "other", please specify what other actions you have
taken: ................................................................................................... 50
Answered ............................................................................................ 170

11. Since receiving your audit through the Home Energy Audit program, please indicate when, or if, you will complete any of the
following improvements:
Answer Choices

-

Replace additional incandescent light bulbs with more efficient light bulbs (e.g., CFLs and LEDs) .................................................................................................................... 174 67.82% 16.67% 4.02% 3.45% 2.30% 5.75%
Replace additional showerheads with low-flow models ............................................... 169 36.09% 13.61% 2.37% 5.33% 23.67% 18.93%
Recycle an extra refrigerator or freezer ....................................................................... 171 7.60% 4.09% 4.09% 11.70% 25.73% 46.78%
Replace an older, inefficient appliance with a new ENERGY STAR model ................. 168 15.48% 6.55% 4.17% 26.19% 14.88% 32.74%
Service heating equipment........................................................................................... 168 49.40% 16.67% 9.52% 5.36% 4.17% 14.88%
Service cooling equipment ........................................................................................... 169 39.05% 19.53% 8.88% 5.33% 4.14% 23.08%
Increase attic insulation ............................................................................................... 172 13.95% 20.35% 11.05% 21.51% 8.72% 24.42%
Increase wall insulation ................................................................................................ 164 4.27% 8.54% 5.49% 18.29% 25.00% 38.41%
Increase underfloor insulation ...................................................................................... 162 11.73% 10.49% 8.64% 22.22% 19.75% 27.16%
Seal air leaks ............................................................................................................... 170 25.88% 33.53% 11.76% 12.94% 5.29% 10.59%
Seal duct work ............................................................................................................. 170 17.06% 21.18% 7.65% 20.00% 5.29% 28.82%
Other ............................................................................................................................ 43 18.60% 4.65% 9.30% 9.30% 13.95% 44.19%
If you selected "other", please specify what other actions you have taken or plan
to take: ......................................................................................................................... 24
Answered ..................................................................................................................... 176

12. For any improvements you indicated you do not plan to do, please tell us why.
• 64 answered the question.
13. What benefits did you experience from the Home Energy Audit program? (Check all
that apply)
Answer Choices Responses Percent
Cost savings ................................................................................................. 91 55.83%
Personal satisfaction .................................................................................... 107 65.64%
Raised awareness of energy use ................................................................. 119 73.01%
Benefit to the environment ........................................................................... 56 34.36%
Home improvement ...................................................................................... 86 52.76%
Comfort ......................................................................................................... 78 47.85%
Other ............................................................................................................ 13 7.98%
(please specify) ............................................................................................ 16
Answered ..................................................................................................... 163

14. What barriers do you encounter in making energy savings changes in your home?
(Check all that apply)
Answer Choices Responses Percent
Cost .............................................................................................................. 114 69.94%
Time ............................................................................................................. 70 42.94%
Convenience ................................................................................................ 37 22.70%
Lack of necessity .......................................................................................... 20 12.27%
Do not know who to contact ......................................................................... 36 22.09%
Other ............................................................................................................ 12 7.36%
Answered ..................................................................................................... 163

15. The most effective method for Idaho Power to provide information about energy
efficiency is to: (Check all that apply)
Answer Choices Responses Percent
Offer classes in convenient locations ........................................................... 26 15.48%
Communicate information in local newspapers ........................................... 24 14.29%
Communicate information on the Idaho Power website .............................. 52 30.95%
Communicate information on social media .................................................. 22 13.10%
Offer a minimal cost home audit service ...................................................... 107 63.69%
Send newsletters or information directly to homeowners ............................ 70 41.67%
Send email communications to homeowners .............................................. 44 26.19%
Send information in monthly Idaho Power bill .............................................. 111 66.07%
Other (please specify) .................................................................................. 6 3.57%
Answered ..................................................................................................... 168

16. How much do you agree with the following statements:
Answer Choices Responses Strongly agree Somewhat agree Somewhat disagree Strongly disagree
My Home Energy Audit report contained
valuable information .................................... 170 79.41% 14.12% 4.12% 2.35%
I would recommend the Home Energy Audit
program to a friend or relative ..................... 169 76.92% 15.98% 4.73% 2.37%
I am satisfied with my overall experience
with the Home Energy Audit program ......... 171 78.95% 14.62% 4.09% 2.34%

17. If you disagree with any of these statements, please tell us why.
• 12 answered the question.
18. Please identify your age in the ranges below:
Answer Choices Responses Percent
Under 25 ....................................................................................................... 0 0.00%
26–35 ........................................................................................................... 8 4.65%
36–50 ........................................................................................................... 32 18.60%
51–65 ........................................................................................................... 59 34.30%
Over 65 ......................................................................................................... 73 42.44%
Answered ..................................................................................................... 172

19. What is the highest level of education you completed?
Answer Choices Responses Percent
Less than High School ................................................................................. 1 0.59%
Some High School ....................................................................................... 1 0.59%
High School Graduate or Equivalent ............................................................ 16 9.47%
Some College ............................................................................................... 25 14.79%
Two-Year Associate Degree or Trade/Technical School ............................. 17 10.06%
Four-Year College Degree ........................................................................... 37 21.89%
Some Graduate Courses ............................................................................. 15 8.88%
Advanced Degree ........................................................................................ 57 33.73%
Answered ..................................................................................................... 169

20. May we use your name and comments in Idaho Power's communication efforts?
Answer Choices Responses Percent
Yes ............................................................................................................... 77 45.29%
No ................................................................................................................. 93 54.71%
Answered ..................................................................................................... 170

21. Do you have any issues or concerns you would like us to contact you about?
Answer Choices Responses Percent
Yes ............................................................................................................... 16 9.82%
No ................................................................................................................. 147 90.18%
Answered ..................................................................................................... 163

22. Please provide your name and contact information:
Answer Choices Responses Percent
Name ............................................................................................................ 97 98.98%
Last Name .................................................................................................... 3 3.06%
Phone or Email ............................................................................................. 97 98.98%
Answered ..................................................................................................... 98

23. Please provide your name:
Answer Choices Responses Percent
First Name .................................................................................................... 8 100.00%
Last Name .................................................................................................... 8 100.00%
Answered ..................................................................................................... 8

24. Thank you for taking the time to participate in this survey. We value your opinions and
comments. If you have any additional comments, please share your thoughts in the space
below.
• 47 answered the question.
2017 Smart-Saver Pledge Follow-Up Survey
1. Thank you for taking the Smart-saver Pledge. We'd love to hear how you did in meeting
your pledge as well as find out a bit more about you. Which of the following pledges did
you commit to? (Select all that apply)
Answer Choices Responses Percent
Clean the condenser coils on my fridge ....................................................... 164 41.21%
Register for myAccount, and review my energy use once a week .............. 85 21.36%
Wash full loads of laundry in cold water ....................................................... 319 80.15%
Use a smart power strip to turn off multiple items at once ........................... 154 38.69%
Use the crockpot or BBQ once a week instead of the stove ........................ 282 70.85%
Answered ..................................................................................................... 398

2. Were you able to meet your pledge(s) for the full 21 days?
Answer Choices Responses Percent
Yes ............................................................................................................... 376 94.47%
No ................................................................................................................. 22 5.53%
Answered ..................................................................................................... 398

3. What kept you from meeting the Smart-saver Pledge? (Select all that apply)
Answer Choices Responses Percent
Comfort ......................................................................................................... 0 0.00%
Time ............................................................................................................. 6 28.57%
Low priority ................................................................................................... 2 9.52%
Other individuals in my household were not aligned.................................... 2 9.52%
Other (please specify) .................................................................................. 15 71.43%
Answered ..................................................................................................... 21

4. Will you continue with your energy-saving change(s) now that the pledge has ended?
Answer Choices Responses Percent
Yes ............................................................................................................... 373 99.47%
No ................................................................................................................. 2 0.53%
Answered ..................................................................................................... 375

5. What is the primary reason you will continue with the energy-saving change(s)?
Answer Choices Responses Percent
Save energy ................................................................................................. 53 14.21%
Save money ................................................................................................. 165 44.24%
Help the environment ................................................................................... 39 10.46%
It's the right thing to do ................................................................................. 94 25.20%
Other (please specify) .................................................................................. 22 5.90%
Answered ..................................................................................................... 373

6. What is the primary reason why you won't continue with the energy-savings change(s)?
Answer Choices Responses Percent
Comfort ......................................................................................................... 0 0.00%
Time ............................................................................................................. 0 0.00%
Low priority ................................................................................................... 0 0.00%
Other individuals in my household are not aligned ...................................... 0 0.00%
Other (please specify) .................................................................................. 2 100.00%
Answered ..................................................................................................... 2

7. How did taking the Smart-saver Pledge affect your awareness of your energy habits?
Answer Choices Responses Percent
Made me much more aware ........................................................................ 139 35.10%
Made me somewhat more aware ................................................................. 202 51.01%
Did not affect my awareness ........................................................................ 55 13.89%
Answered ..................................................................................................... 396

8. After taking the Smart-saver Pledge, how likely are you to seek out additional ways to
save energy?
Answer Choices Responses Percent
Very likely ..................................................................................................... 244 61.62%
Somewhat likely ........................................................................................... 147 37.12%
Not very likely ............................................................................................... 4 1.01%
Not likely at all .............................................................................................. 1 0.25%
Answered ..................................................................................................... 396

9. What is your level of awareness of other Idaho Power Energy Efficiency programs?
Answer Choices Responses Percent
Very aware ................................................................................................... 68 17.22%
Somewhat aware ......................................................................................... 250 63.29%
Not very aware ............................................................................................. 66 16.71%
Not aware at all ............................................................................................ 11 2.78%
Answered ..................................................................................................... 395

10. After taking the Smart-saver Pledge, how likely are you to participate in an Idaho Power
Energy Efficiency program?
Answer Choices Responses Percent
Very likely ..................................................................................................... 170 54.31%
Somewhat likely ........................................................................................... 139 44.41%
Not very likely ............................................................................................... 4 1.28%
Not likely at all .............................................................................................. 0 0.00%
Answered ..................................................................................................... 313

11. How did you first learn about the Smart-saver Pledge?
Answer Choices Responses Percent
Bill insert ....................................................................................................... 263 66.25%
Facebook ...................................................................................................... 30 7.56%
Twitter ........................................................................................................... 0 0.00%
TV ................................................................................................................. 7 1.76%
Idaho Power website .................................................................................... 66 16.62%
Idaho Power employee ................................................................................ 2 0.50%
Friend, relative or neighbor .......................................................................... 19 4.79%
Other (please specify) .................................................................................. 10 2.52%
Answered ..................................................................................................... 397

12. What is the primary fuel used to heat your home?
Answer Choices Responses Percent
Electricity ...................................................................................................... 132 33.42%
Natural gas ................................................................................................... 222 56.20%
Propane ........................................................................................................ 14 3.54%
Wood ............................................................................................................ 20 5.06%
Other ............................................................................................................ 7 1.77%
Answered ..................................................................................................... 395

13. What is your zip code?
• 304 participants answered the question.
14. What is your gender?
Answer Choices Responses Percent
Male .............................................................................................................. 94 24.10%
Female ......................................................................................................... 296 75.90%
Answered ..................................................................................................... 390

15. Which of the following best describes your age?
Answer Choices Responses Percent
Under 25 ....................................................................................................... 13 3.31%
26–35 ........................................................................................................... 75 19.08%
36–50 ........................................................................................................... 103 26.21%
51–65 ........................................................................................................... 111 28.24%
Over 65 ......................................................................................................... 91 23.16%
Answered ..................................................................................................... 393

16. What is the highest level of education you completed?
Answer Choices Responses Percent
Less than High School ................................................................................. 2 0.51%
Some High School ....................................................................................... 1 0.25%
High School Graduate or Equivalent ............................................................ 53 13.49%
Some College ............................................................................................... 103 26.21%
Two-Year Associate Degree or Trade/Technical School ............................. 76 19.34%
Four-Year College Degree ........................................................................... 87 22.14%
Some Graduate Courses ............................................................................. 14 3.56%
Advanced Degree ........................................................................................ 57 14.50%
Answered ..................................................................................................... 393

17. May we use your name and comments in Idaho Power's communication efforts?
Answer Choices Responses Percent
Yes ............................................................................................................... 251 64.36%
No ................................................................................................................. 139 35.64%
Answered ..................................................................................................... 390

18. Thank you for taking the time to participate in this survey. We value your opinions and
comments. If you have any additional comments, please share your thoughts in the
space below.
• 77 participants answered the question.
Idaho Power Drying Rack Project Post-Survey
1. Which of the following best describes how you've used your clothes dryer since receiving
your Idaho Power drying rack?
Answer Choices Responses Percent
Used dryer significantly less ......................................................................... 213 27.59%
Used dryer somewhat less ........................................................................... 490 63.47%
No change in dryer use ................................................................................ 63 8.16%
Used dryer somewhat more ......................................................................... 2 0.26%
Used dryer significantly more ....................................................................... 4 0.52%
Answered ..................................................................................................... 772

2. What percent of your laundry do you currently dry in a clothes dryer?
Answer Choices Responses Percent
100%—I dry all of my clothes in the dryer ................................................... 16 2.06%
75–99% ........................................................................................................ 255 32.90%
50–74% ........................................................................................................ 262 33.81%
25–49% ........................................................................................................ 123 15.87%
Less than 25%.............................................................................................. 100 12.90%
0%—I dry all of my clothes without a clothes dryer ..................................... 19 2.45%
Answered ..................................................................................................... 775

3. Rank the following drying rack strategies in order of what you use most often with
1 being your most preferred method. Choose N/A if you do not use the strategy.
Answer Choices Responses 1 2 3 4 N/A
Dry full loads of laundry on the drying rack ........ 656 21.49% 18.75% 8.23% 20.27% 31.25%
Dry partial loads of laundry on the drying rack ... 690 55.07% 26.52% 7.97% 1.74% 8.70%
Remove full load from the dryer early to finish
drying on the drying rack .................................... 673 6.54% 9.96% 23.03% 15.16% 45.32%
Remove partial loads from the dryer early to
finish drying on the drying rack .......................... 703 17.78% 30.58% 18.21% 6.54% 26.88%
Answered ........................................................... 756

4. If you're not using your drying rack, please tell us why?
• 140 answered the question.

5. Since receiving the Idaho Power drying rack, have you adopted any of the
following efficient laundry habits?
Answer Choices Responses
Yes, I adopted this habit
No, I did not adopt this habit I was already doing this
Use a lower water temperature to wash ...................... 761 21.68% 8.02% 70.30%
Use a lower water to rinse........................................... 761 16.29% 19.45% 64.26%
Use an extra spin cycle on the washing machine ....... 761 15.90% 61.37% 22.73%
Dry similar materials together ..................................... 761 23.39% 13.40% 63.21%
Take clothes out of the dryer while still slightly damp . 761 30.35% 38.90% 30.75%
Use dryer's moisture sensor ....................................... 761 13.01% 41.13% 45.86%
Dry multiple loads back-to-back .................................. 761 20.37% 27.86% 51.77%
Dry the clothes using the fluff/no-heat cycle................ 761 12.09% 71.62% 16.29%
Clean the lint screen after every load .......................... 761 12.09% 3.94% 83.97%
Other (please specify) ................................................. 48
Answered .................................................................... 761

6. Have you noticed a change in your monthly power bill as a result of changes in your
laundry habit?
Answer Choices Responses Percent
Yes ............................................................................................................... 154 20.34%
No ................................................................................................................. 241 31.84%
Don’t know .................................................................................................... 362 47.82%
Answered ..................................................................................................... 757

7. How satisfied were you with the following aspects of the Idaho Power Drying
Rack Project?
Answer Choices Responses
Very
dissatisfied
Somewhat
dissatisfied
Somewhat
satisfied
Very
Satisfied
Enrollment process ....................... 757 3.17% 0.92% 10.70% 85.20%
Drying rack pick up ....................... 757 4.10% 0.00% 7.13% 88.77%
Drying rack quality ........................ 757 4.76% 5.02% 18.49% 71.73%
Overall Drying Rack Project .......... 759 3.29% 1.05% 10.94% 84.72%
Answered ...................................... 760

8. What did you find satisfying or dissatisfying about the Idaho Power Drying
Rack Project?
• 597 answered the question.
9. As a result of your participation in Idaho Power's Drying Rack Project, please indicate
how strongly you agree or disagree with the following statements.
Answer Choices Response Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree Somewhat agree Strongly agree N/A
I am more aware of energy use in ..................................... 755 3.84% 4.24% 49.01% 39.21% 3.71%
.................................. 756 4.76% 10.45% 43.92% 20.90% 19.97%
e me through
Power. ................................ 756 4.37% 9.13% 45.24% 37.30% 3.97%
..................................... 756

10. May we use your name and comments in Idaho Power's communication and
marketing efforts?
Answer Choices Responses Percent
Yes ............................................................................................................... 415 55.26%
No ................................................................................................................. 336 44.74%
Answered ..................................................................................................... 751

11. May we follow up with you if we have any questions regarding your responses to the
survey questions?
Answer Choices Responses Percent
Yes ............................................................................................................... 509 68.14%
No ................................................................................................................. 238 31.86%
Answered ..................................................................................................... 747

12. If yes, please provide your name and contact information:
Answer Choices Responses Percent
First Name .................................................................................................... 496 99.80%
Last Name .................................................................................................... 496 99.80%
Phone or Email ............................................................................................. 495 99.60%
Answered ..................................................................................................... 497

IDAHO POWER
ENERGY-SAVING KIT
PROGRAM SUMMARY REPORT
2017A
SUBMITTED BY:
RESOURCE ACTION PROGRAMS®
Submitted by:
January 2018
Idaho Power Energy-Saving Kit
Program Summary Report
2017A
Sponsored by:
Idaho Power Energy-Saving Kit Program Summary Report2
“Thanks for the kit, what a great way
to put energy saving solutions directly
into the hands of Idaho consumers!
Great idea of a program!”
– Idaho Power Energy-Saving Kit Program Participant
Resource Action Programs®3
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ...........................................................................................5
RAP Direct-to-Customer Programs .................................................................9
Idaho Power Energy-Saving Kit Program Overview ...................................11
Idaho Power Energy-Saving Kit Program Materials ....................................13
Idaho Power Energy-Saving Kit Program Implementation ........................15
Idaho Power Energy-Saving Kit Program Impact........................................17
A. Home Survey and Retrofit Data .........................................................17
B. Water and Energy Savings Summary ................................................18
C. Participant Response ...........................................................................19
Appendix A .......................................................................................................24
Projected Savings from 9-Watt LED Retrofit ..........................................24
Projected Savings from 7.5-Watt LED Retrofit .......................................24
Projected Savings from Showerhead Retrofit ........................................25
Projected Savings from Kitchen Faucet Aerator Retrofit .....................26
Projected Savings from Bathroom Faucet Aerator Retrofit .................27
Projected Savings from LED Night Light Installation ............................28
Projected Savings from Shower Timer Installation ................................29
Appendix B ........................................................................................................30
Enrollment Survey Response Summary ...................................................30
Kit Survey Response Summary .................................................................31
Appendix C ........................................................................................................34
Idaho Cities & Towns Affected ..................................................................34
Oregon Cities & Towns Affected ...............................................................35
Idaho Power Regions Affected .................................................................36
Idaho Power Energy-Saving Kit Program Summary Report4Executive Summary
“I am very gratified to be a part of
this type of conservation. I will be
checking out Idahopower.com and
seeing for myself the resources that
are available. Thank you.”
– Idaho Power Energy-Saving Kit Program Participant
Resource Action Programs®5Executive Summary
The Idaho Power Energy-Saving Kit Program was designed and implemented to provide Idaho Power’s
residential households with energy-efficiency education, measures to reduce their energy costs, and
help them develop energy-efficient behaviors consistent with Idaho Power. This report summarizes the
2017A Energy-Saving Kit program, which was implemented by twenty-eight thousand, nine-hundred
twenty-two (28,922) Idaho households and one thousand, three-hundred eighty-one (1,381) Oregon
households. Funding was provided by Idaho Power.
The program achieved or exceeded expectations and the results are listed below.
PROGRAM ACHIEVEMENTS
1. Provided residential energy-saving measures and energy-efficiency education to 28,922 Idaho
and 1,381 Oregon households.
• Affected all five regions of the Idaho Power service territory
• Affected 113 cities & towns in Idaho
• Affected 18 cities & towns in Oregon
Regions Households Electric Kit Non-Electric Kit
Canyon 4,735 2,690 2,045
Capital 12,070 4,835 7,235
Eastern 4,475 2,973 1,502
Southern 4,507 3,210 1,297
Western 4,516 3,676 840
Total 30,303 17,384 12,919
30,303
2. Generated residential energy and water savings. Projected annual savings:
• 192,824,444 gallons of water saved
• 14,007,649 kWh of electricity saved
• 70,107 therms of gas saved
Executive Summary
Idaho Power Energy-Saving Kit Program Summary Report6Executive Summary
3. Supported Idaho Power with their diverse outreach and distribution methods.
• Idaho Power website
• Idaho Power employee
• Information in bills
• Social Media
• Family & friends
• News
• Direct mailing
4. Designed and provided complementary educational materials and incentives to maximize
installation of targeted efficiency measures (Installation rates ranged from 51–91 percent).
5. Maintained data collection and management
services to collect and process audit ready data
from participating households.
6. Maintained tracking and reporting to
summarize the Program participation.
Program design and customization approved in 2016 resulted in the full implementation starting in
January 2017. Direct mailing in April and July resulted in immediate positive response from Idaho Power
customers. Program content on the Idaho Power website and enclosed information in the customer bills
combined with community events generated steady demand for this energy-saving kit. The program
served a total of 30,303 households in both Idaho and Oregon.
The Program provided customized Direct-to-Customer Program modules, which included educational
materials and energy-saving products. A participant survey was included with the program materials.
The purpose of the survey was to increase educational retention and impact while serving as a data
collection tool.
Survey responses indicated high participant satisfaction and participation in product retrofits and
adoption of new energy saving behaviors. Total 5,343 households returned completed surveys and the
responses were overwhelmingly positive. Highlights include:
A summary of responses can be found in Appendix B.
71+29+F
Reported households
with the High-Efficiency
Showerhead installed.*
71%66+34+F
Reported households who
used the Shower Timer.*
66%
OPTING-IN METHODS HOUSEHOLDS %
Website 20,272 66.9%
Phone 3,889 12.8%
Postcards 6,142 20.3%
(continued)
51+49+F
Reported households
with ALL 9 LED light
bulbs installed.
51%91+9+F
Reported households
with the LED Night Light
installed.*
91%
*Installation rates assume 50% of households who responded “Not yet, but will” actually completed the installation.
Resource Action Programs®7Executive Summary
Projected Resource Savings
A list of assumptions and formulas used for these calculations can be found in Appendix A.
Projected energy savings from this program are significant. Based on the reported actions, annual and
lifetime resource savings are as follows:
PROJECTED ANNUAL SAVINGS
192,824,444 gallons of water saved
14,007,649 kWh of electricity saved
70,107 therms of gas saved
PROJECTED ANNUAL
SAVINGS PER HOME
11,091 gallons of water saved
462 kWh of electricity saved
2 therms of gas saved
PROJECTED LIFETIME SAVINGS
1,724,992,412 gallons of water saved
130,307,859 kWh of electricity saved
140,213 therms of gas saved
PROJECTED LIFETIME
SAVINGS PER HOME
99,217 gallons of water saved
4,300 kWh of electricity saved
5 therms of gas saved
Idaho Power Energy-Saving Kit Program Summary Report8RAP Direct-to-Customer Programs
“Excellent program! Easy to understand
and implement. Thanks!”
– Idaho Power Energy-Saving Kit Program Participant
Resource Action Programs®9RAP Direct-to-Customer Programs
For more than 25 years, Resource Action Programs®
(RAP) has designed and implemented resource
efficiency and education programs, changing
household energy and water use while delivering
significant, measurable resource savings for
program sponsors. All RAP programs feature
a proven blend of innovative education and
comprehensive implementation services.
RAP Programs serve more than 550,000 households
each year through school and adult delivered
Measure Based Education Programs. Our forty-
person staff manages the implementation process
and program oversight for nearly 300 individual
programs annually. Recognized nationally as a
leader in energy and water efficiency education
and program design, RAP has a strong reputation
for providing the highest level of service to program
sponsors as part of a wide range of conservation
and resource efficiency solutions for municipalities,
utilities, states, community agencies, and
corporations.
All aspects of program design and implementation
are completed at the Program Center in Sparks,
Nevada. These include: graphic and web design, print
production, procurement, warehousing, logistics,
module production, marketing, program tracking,
data tabulation and reporting.
The Direct-to-Customer Program represents the
leading edge of community energy efficiency
education program design and implementation.
The Program uses a client-directed Measure
Based Education model to generate lasting
residential energy savings from both retrofits
and new behaviors. Initially, participants
choose their personal savings target. Then they
select retrofits using provided measures and
energy-saving behaviors to reach their goal. The
Direct-to-Customer Program is tremendously
versatile, and can easily be introduced and
distributed via a wide range of delivery channels,
including Opt-in Direct Mail, CBO/CAA distribution,
workshops, community events, affinity groups
(volunteers, CAAs, CBOs, churches) or public events.
Cost-effective energy savings from the measure
installations will justify program investments
on their own, but the Program delivers several
other important benefits as well. The educational
component is designed to include each household
member in order to manage household energy
use. Measures, immediate savings actions and
additional savings ideas for all areas of residential
energy use are grouped by areas of the home and
provided to participants as options to help them
reach their personal savings targets. Additional
rebates and program opportunities can be
introduced through the Program or offered as
incentives for program performance.
Participation in the Direct-to-Customer Program
provides a strong, personalized pathway for
participants to realize both initial and ongoing
savings from new products and behavior choices in
their homes.
RAP Direct-to-Customer Programs
Idaho Power Energy-Saving Kit Program Summary Report10Program Overview
“Our favorite was the shower timer.
It helps teach kids to take more
efficient showers! Thanks a ton.
Good customer engagement idea.
I heard about the kit through word of
mouth at a dance practice for my kid.”
– Idaho Power Energy-Saving Kit Program Participant
Resource Action Programs®11Program Overview
Idaho Power Energy-Saving Kit
Program Overview
The overarching goal of this measure based program was to assist Idaho Power in providing their
residential households with energy-efficiency education and reduced energy costs as well as
developing energy efficiency behaviors consistent with Idaho Power’s energy efficiency objectives.
The energy-savings Kits empowered the Idaho and Oregon households to save energy and money.
The program created and distributed a custom educational savings module consisting of efficiency
measures, educational materials, and household surveys. Educational materials included a Quick Start
Guide, Survey, Installation Instructions, Mini-Home Assessment (Idaho Power provided) and other tools
such as stickers and magnets as reminders for
new energy-efficient conservation behaviors.
All elements were customized to meet Idaho
Power priorities, regional conditions and
regulatory requirements.
The program was offered to eligible Idaho
Power residential households as defined
by Idaho Power. Those in participating
households cited the categories shown in the
table (at right) when asked how they heard of
the program.
Those in eligible households opting-in to receive
the energy-saving kit utilized one of three
primary methods:
1) RAP developed and maintained a program
website to process energy-saving kit orders as well as to provide program information, including
product installation videos and instructions. 2) RAP maintained a toll-free phone number to process
the called-in kit orders and address any inquiries and issues. 3) Custom-designed direct mailers were
sent to households with program information and instructions on ordering a kit.
Follow-up installation surveys were received from 5,343 participated households, representing a
response rate of 17.6% of the 30,289 energy-saving kits distributed. A monthly drawing for a $100 gift
card provided an incentive for returning the household installation surveys.
OPTING-IN METHODS HOUSEHOLDS %
Website 20,272 66.9%
Phone 3,889 12.8%
Postcards 6,142 20.3%
HEARD ABOUT PROGRAM HOUSEHOLDS %
Direct Mail 7,281 24.0%
Idaho Power employee 1,569 5.2%
Idaho Power website 1,635 5.4%
Info in bill 5,973 19.7%
Social Media 2,445 8.1%
Other: Family & Friends 4,994 16.5%
Other: News 3,467 11.4%
Other: Organizations 1,906 6.3%
Other 772 2.5%
Blank 261 0.9%
Idaho Power Energy-Saving Kit Program Summary Report12Program Materials
Refrigerator/Freezer
Almost 8 percent of your electricity use

g
o
e
s

t
o

y
o
u
r

refrigerator and 2 percent to your fre
e
z
e
r
.

I
f

t
h
e
y
’
r
e

e
v
e
n

1
0
°
F

colder than necessary, the energy they use

c
o
u
l
d

g
o

u
p

b
y

2
5

percent.
Use your digital thermometer to check the
temperature. Refrigerators should be set
b
e
t
w
e
e
n

3
8
°

and 40°F and the freezer should be set

a
t

0
°
F
.

Adjust temperature, if necessary.
TIP: Make sure the door is sealed tightly. Che
c
k

t
h
e

g
a
s
k
e
t

(rubber seal) for cracks and dried-on food
.
LED Lighting
LED light bulbs use up to 80 percen
t

l
e
s
s

e
n
e
r
g
y

t
h
a
n

traditional bulbs and last up to 25 times lo
n
g
e
r
.

F
o
r

t
h
e

most savings, use the LED bulbs from y
o
u
r

k
i
t

t
o

r
e
p
l
a
c
e

incandescent bulbs in high-use areas
.

T
h
e
n

i
n
s
t
a
l
l

t
h
e

L
E
D

night light in an area that lights a path and
l
e
t
s

y
o
u

a
v
o
i
d

turning on other lights.
Replace your most-used 45-watt bu
l
b
s

w
i
t
h

t
h
e

7.5-watt LED bulbs from your kit.
Replace your most-used 60-watt bu
l
b
s

w
i
t
h

t
h
e

9-watt LED bulbs from your kit.
Install the new LED night light from y
o
u
r

k
i
t
.
TIP: For the most savings, place LED bulbs
i
n

f
i
x
t
u
r
e
s

t
h
a
t

a
r
e

o
n

for at least 2-3 hours a day.
Water Efficiency
When taking a shower, you use two resource
s
—
w
a
t
e
r

a
n
d

energy to heat the water. There’s also the

e
n
e
r
g
y

i
t

t
a
k
e
s

t
o

pump, move and treat the water to con
s
i
d
e
r
.

I
n
s
t
a
l
l

t
h
e

3-way
high-efficiency showerhead and fauc
e
t

a
e
r
a
t
o
r
s

f
r
o
m

y
o
u
r

kit. You’ll find that these items provide goo
d

p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

a
n
d

a

satisfying result.
Install the new high-efficiency show
e
r
h
e
a
d

f
r
o
m

your kit.
Install the new kitchen faucet aerato
r

f
r
o
m

y
o
u
r

k
i
t
.
Install the new bathroom faucet aerator
s

f
r
o
m

y
o
u
r

k
i
t
.
TIP: You can compare the water flow rate o
f

y
o
u
r

o
l
d

s
h
o
w
e
r
h
e
a
d

with the new one by following the six st
e
p
s

o
n

t
h
e

f
l
o
w
-
r
a
t
e

t
e
s
t

bag included in the bottom of your k
i
t
.
QUICK STEP2
WATER AND
ENERGY
QUICK STEP1
LIGHTING
QUICK START GUIDE
Español en el otro lado
113719
START SAVING NOW!
1
2
3
Install the energy-efficient products in you
r

k
i
t
.
Follow the energy-saving tips provid
e
d

i
n

t
h
i
s

Q
u
i
c
k

S
t
a
r
t

G
u
i
d
e
.
For additional ways to save, visit idah
o
p
o
w
e
r
.
c
o
m
/
s
a
v
e
2
d
a
y
.
Installation Questions?
See the INSTALLATION INSTRUCTION

B
O
O
K
L
E
T

i
n

t
h
e

bottom of your kit.
Visit idahopower.com/save2day to view

i
n
s
t
a
l
l
a
t
i
o
n

v
i
d
e
o
s
.
Don’t forget!
Return your survey for a chance to win a
$
1
0
0

g
i
f
t

c
a
r
d
.
Developed in partnership:
QUICK STEP5
APPLIANCE
QUICK STEP4
APPLIANCE
Water Heater
Heating water can account for 14 to 25 per
c
e
n
t

o
f

t
h
e

e
n
e
r
g
y

consumed in your home. Many people t
h
i
n
k

p
l
a
c
i
n
g

a

w
a
t
e
r

heater on the hottest setting heats th
e

w
a
t
e
r

m
o
r
e

q
u
i
c
k
l
y

b
u
t

it doesn’t. It just uses more energy. Use the
d
i
g
i
t
a
l

t
h
e
r
m
o
m
e
t
e
r

from your kit to check the water tempera
t
u
r
e
.

I
f

i
t
’
s

o
v
e
r

1
2
0
°
F
,

you may be overheating your water an
d

w
a
s
t
i
n
g

e
n
e
r
g
y
!
Fill a cup with the hottest water from the
f
a
u
c
e
t

farthest from the water heater. Place th
e

d
i
g
i
t
a
l

thermometer in the cup for two minu
t
e
s
.

If your hot water is over 120°F, lower the

t
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e

setting on your water heater. Refer to

y
o
u
r

o
w
n
e
r
’
s

manual to adjust the settings.
TIP: If your water heater is in a garage or u
n
h
e
a
t
e
d

b
a
s
e
m
e
n
t
,

use a water heater blanket to save an a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l

4

t
o

9

p
e
r
c
e
n
t

on your water heating costs. Water h
e
a
t
e
r

b
l
a
n
k
e
t
s

c
a
n

b
e

found at your local hardware store.
Shower Timer
Running your shower for five minutes
c
a
n

u
s
e

a
s

m
u
c
h

e
n
e
r
g
y

as leaving a 60-watt light bulb on for 14 hou
r
s
.

A

s
h
o
w
e
r

t
i
m
e
r

reminds you to save energy and water wh
i
l
e

s
h
o
w
e
r
i
n
g
.

T
h
e

shower timer, set to five (5) minutes, en
c
o
u
r
a
g
e
s

t
h
e

w
i
s
e

u
s
e

of water. It requires no assembly or
m
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
.

S
i
m
p
l
y

r
o
t
a
t
e

the shower timer half a turn when you beg
i
n

y
o
u
r

s
h
o
w
e
r
;

t
h
e
n

try to finish before the sand runs out.
Install the new shower timer from y
o
u
r

k
i
t
.
TIP: The average shower is 8.2 – 10.4 minutes i
n

l
e
n
g
t
h
.

A

f
i
v
e
-
minute shower reduces energy used to pum
p

a
n
d

h
e
a
t

w
a
t
e
r
,

saves fresh water and reduces wastewate
r
.
QUICK STEP3
WATER AND
ENERGY
Want to Save More?
Idaho Power offers energy efficiency ince
n
t
i
v
e
s

t
o

r
e
d
u
c
e

t
h
e

cost of energy efficient products and/
o
r

s
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
.

C
h
e
c
k

o
u
t

the programs and tips at idahopow
e
r
.
c
o
m
/
s
a
v
e

t
o

f
i
n
d

m
o
r
e

ways to use energy wisely and avoid unne
c
e
s
s
a
r
y

w
a
s
t
e
.
Water Heater
Heating water can accoun
t

f
o
r

1
4

t
o

2
5

p
e
r
c
e
n
t

o
f

t
h
e

e
n
e
r
g
y

consumed in your home. Ma
n
y

p
e
o
p
l
e

t
h
i
n
k

p
l
a
c
i
n
g

a

w
a
t
e
r

heater on the hottest se
t
t
i
n
g

h
e
a
t
s

t
h
e

w
a
t
e
r

m
o
r
e

q
u
i
c
k
l
y

b
u
t

it doesn’t. It just uses mor
e

e
n
e
r
g
y
.

U
s
e

t
h
e

d
i
g
i
t
a
l

t
h
e
r
m
o
m
e
t
e
r

from your kit to check the w
a
t
e
r

t
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e
.

I
f

i
t
’
s

o
v
e
r

1
2
0
°
F
,

you may be overheating

y
o
u
r

w
a
t
e
r

a
n
d

w
a
s
t
i
n
g

e
n
e
r
g
y
!
Fill a cup with the hottest
w
a
t
e
r

f
r
o
m

t
h
e

f
a
u
c
e
t

farthest from the wate
r

h
e
a
t
e
r
.

P
l
a
c
e

t
h
e

d
i
g
i
t
a
l

thermometer in the cup f
o
r

t
w
o

m
i
n
u
t
e
s
.

If your hot water is ove
r

1
2
0
°
F
,

l
o
w
e
r

t
h
e

t
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e

setting on your water hea
t
e
r
.

R
e
f
e
r

t
o

y
o
u
r

o
w
n
e
r
’
s

manual to adjust the setting
s
.

TIP: If your water heater is
i
n

a

g
a
r
a
g
e

o
r

u
n
h
e
a
t
e
d

b
a
s
e
m
e
n
t
,

use a water heater blan
k
e
t

t
o

s
a
v
e

a
n

a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l

4

t
o

9

p
e
r
c
e
n
t

on your water heating co
s
t
s
.

W
a
t
e
r

h
e
a
t
e
r

b
l
a
n
k
e
t
s

c
a
n

b
e

found at your local hardwar
e

s
t
o
r
e
.
APPLIANCE
Refrigerator/Freezer
Almost 8 percent of your ele
c
t
r
i
c
i
t
y

u
s
e

g
o
e
s

t
o

y
o
u
r

refrigerator and 2 percen
t

t
o

y
o
u
r

f
r
e
e
z
e
r
.

I
f

t
h
e
y
’
r
e

e
v
e
n

1
0
°
F

colder than necessary, the
e
n
e
r
g
y

t
h
e
y

u
s
e

c
o
u
l
d

g
o

u
p

b
y

2
5

percent.
Use your digital thermom
e
t
e
r

t
o

c
h
e
c
k

t
h
e
temperature. Refrigerators
s
h
o
u
l
d

b
e

s
e
t

b
e
t
w
e
e
n

3
8
°

and 40°F and the freeze
r

s
h
o
u
l
d

b
e

s
e
t

a
t

0
°
F
.

Adjust temperature, if neces
s
a
r
y
.
TIP: Make sure the door is se
a
l
e
d

t
i
g
h
t
l
y
.

C
h
e
c
k

t
h
e

g
a
s
k
e
t

(rubber seal) for cracks a
n
d

d
r
i
e
d
-
o
n

f
o
o
d
.
APPLIANCE
LED Lighting
LED light bulbs use up t
o

8
0

p
e
r
c
e
n
t

l
e
s
s

e
n
e
r
g
y

t
h
a
n

traditional bulbs and last
u
p

t
o

2
5

t
i
m
e
s

l
o
n
g
e
r
.

F
o
r

t
h
e

most savings, use the LED b
u
l
b
s

f
r
o
m

y
o
u
r

k
i
t

t
o

r
e
p
l
a
c
e

incandescent bulbs in hi
g
h
-
u
s
e

a
r
e
a
s
.

T
h
e
n

i
n
s
t
a
l
l

t
h
e

L
E
D

night light in an area that l
i
g
h
t
s

a

p
a
t
h

a
n
d

l
e
t
s

y
o
u

a
v
o
i
d

turning on other lights
.
Replace your most-used

4
5
-
w
a
t
t

b
u
l
b
s

w
i
t
h

t
h
e

6-watt LED bulbs from you
r

k
i
t
.
Replace your most-used
6
0
-
w
a
t
t

b
u
l
b
s

w
i
t
h

t
h
e

9-watt LED bulbs from you
r

k
i
t
.
Install the new LED night
l
i
g
h
t

f
r
o
m

y
o
u
r

k
i
t
.
TIP: For the most savings, place

L
E
D

b
u
l
b
s

i
n

f
i
x
t
u
r
e
s

t
h
a
t

a
r
e

o
n

for at least 2-3 hours a day.
Want to Save More?
Idaho Power offers energy
e
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
c
y

i
n
c
e
n
t
i
v
e
s

t
o

r
e
d
u
c
e

t
h
e

cost of energy efficient

p
r
o
d
u
c
t
s

a
n
d
/
o
r

s
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
.

C
h
e
c
k

o
u
t

the programs and tips at
i
d
a
h
o
p
o
w
e
r
.
c
o
m
/
s
a
v
e

t
o

f
i
n
d

m
o
r
e

ways to use energy wisely a
n
d

a
v
o
i
d

u
n
n
e
c
e
s
s
a
r
y

w
a
s
t
e
.
QUICK STEP1
LIGHTING
QUICK START GUIDEEspañol en el otro lado
117419
START SAVING NO
W
! 1
2
3
Install the energy-efficient p
r
o
d
u
c
t
s

i
n

y
o
u
r

k
i
t
.
Follow the energy-saving t
i
p
s

p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d

i
n

t
h
i
s

Q
u
i
c
k

S
t
a
r
t

G
u
i
d
e
.
For additional ways to save,

v
i
s
i
t

i
d
a
h
o
p
o
w
e
r
.
c
o
m
/
s
a
v
e
2
d
a
y
.
Installation Question
s
? See the INSTALLATION INST
R
U
C
T
I
O
N

B
O
O
K
L
E
T

i
n

t
h
e

bottom of your kit.
Visit idahopower.com/s
a
v
e
2
d
a
y

t
o

v
i
e
w

i
n
s
t
a
l
l
a
t
i
o
n

v
i
d
e
o
s
.
Don’t forget!
Return your survey for a

c
h
a
n
c
e

t
o

w
i
n

a

$
1
0
0

g
i
f
t

c
a
r
d
.
Developed in partnership
:

Shower Timer
Running your shower for f
i
v
e

m
i
n
u
t
e
s

c
a
n

u
s
e

a
s

m
u
c
h

e
n
e
r
g
y

as leaving a 60-watt light bu
l
b

o
n

f
o
r

1
4

h
o
u
r
s
.

A

s
h
o
w
e
r

t
i
m
e
r

reminds you to save ene
r
g
y

a
n
d

w
a
t
e
r

w
h
i
l
e

s
h
o
w
e
r
i
n
g
.

T
h
e

shower timer, set to five (5
)

m
i
n
u
t
e
s
,

e
n
c
o
u
r
a
g
e
s

t
h
e

w
i
s
e

u
s
e

of water. It requires no
a
s
s
e
m
b
l
y

o
r

m
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
.

S
i
m
p
l
y

r
o
t
a
t
e

the shower timer half a tu
r
n

w
h
e
n

y
o
u

b
e
g
i
n

y
o
u
r

s
h
o
w
e
r
;

t
h
e
n

try to finish before the sand

r
u
n
s

o
u
t
.
Install the new shower t
i
m
e
r

f
r
o
m

y
o
u
r

k
i
t
.
TIP: The average shower is 8
.
2

–

1
0
.
4

m
i
n
u
t
e
s

i
n

l
e
n
g
t
h
.

A

f
i
v
e
-
minute shower reduces
e
n
e
r
g
y

u
s
e
d

t
o

p
u
m
p

a
n
d

h
e
a
t

w
a
t
e
r
,

saves fresh water and redu
c
e
s

w
a
s
t
e
w
a
t
e
r
.
QUICK STEP2
WATER AND ENERGY
Water Flow-Rate Test Ba
g
If your showerhead uses

m
o
r
e

t
h
a
n

2
.
5

g
a
l
l
o
n
s

o
f

w
a
t
e
r

p
e
r

minute (gpm) or your fauc
e
t
s

u
s
e

m
o
r
e

t
h
a
n

1
.
5

g
p
m
,

y
o
u

c
o
u
l
d

save by installing a high-effi
c
i
e
n
c
y

s
h
o
w
e
r
h
e
a
d

a
n
d

f
a
u
c
e
t

aerators. These devices s
a
v
e

w
a
t
e
r

a
n
d

e
n
e
r
g
y

w
h
i
l
e

d
e
l
i
v
e
r
i
n
g

good pressure.
With a stopwatch and
a

h
e
l
p
e
r
,

f
o
l
l
o
w

t
h
e

s
i
x

s
t
e
p
s

on the flow-rate test bag

t
o

m
e
a
s
u
r
e

t
h
e

w
a
t
e
r

u
s
e

of your current showerhea
d
.
Now measure the output
o
f

y
o
u
r

k
i
t
c
h
e
n

f
a
u
c
e
t

a
n
d

bathroom faucets.
TIP: Idaho Power offers inc
e
n
t
i
v
e
s

f
o
r
efficient showerheads b
y

w
o
r
k
i
n
g

w
i
t
h
manufacturers and partic
i
p
a
t
i
n
g

r
e
t
a
i
l
e
r
s
.
Go to idahopower.com/sho
w
e
r
h
e
a
d
s

f
o
r
promotion details.
QUICK STEP3
WATER
QUICK STEP4
QUICK STEP5
Refrigerator/Freeze
r
Almost 8 percent of yo
u
r

e
l
e
c
t
r
i
c
i
t
y

u
s
e

g
o
e
s

t
o

y
o
u
r

refrigerator and 2 per
c
e
n
t

t
o

y
o
u
r

f
r
e
e
z
e
r
.

I
f

t
h
e
y
’
r
e

e
v
e
n

1
0
°
F

colder than necessa
r
y
,

t
h
e

e
n
e
r
g
y

t
h
e
y

u
s
e

c
o
u
l
d

g
o

u
p

b
y

2
5

percent.
Use your digital therm
o
m
e
t
e
r

t
o

c
h
e
c
k

t
h
e

temperature. Refrige
r
a
t
o
r
s

s
h
o
u
l
d

b
e

s
e
t

b
e
t
w
e
e
n

3
8
°

and 40°F and the free
z
e
r

s
h
o
u
l
d

b
e

s
e
t

a
t

0
°
F
.

Adjust temperature, if

n
e
c
e
s
s
a
r
y
.
TIP: Make sure the doo
r

i
s

s
e
a
l
e
d

t
i
g
h
t
l
y
.

C
h
e
c
k

t
h
e

g
a
s
k
e
t

(rubber seal) for crac
k
s

a
n
d

d
r
i
e
d
-
o
n

f
o
o
d
.
LED Lighting
LED light bulbs use up

t
o

8
0

p
e
r
c
e
n
t

l
e
s
s

e
n
e
r
g
y

t
h
a
n

traditional bulbs and
l
a
s
t

u
p

t
o

2
5

t
i
m
e
s

l
o
n
g
e
r
.

F
o
r

t
h
e

most savings, use the L
E
D

b
u
l
b
s

f
r
o
m

y
o
u
r

k
i
t

t
o

r
e
p
l
a
c
e

incandescent bulbs in

h
i
g
h
-
u
s
e

a
r
e
a
s
.

T
h
e
n

i
n
s
t
a
l
l

t
h
e

L
E
D

night light in an area th
a
t

l
i
g
h
t
s

a

p
a
t
h

a
n
d

l
e
t
s

y
o
u

a
v
o
i
d

turning on other light
s
.
Replace your most-us
e
d

4
5
-
w
a
t
t

b
u
l
b
s

w
i
t
h

t
h
e

6-watt LED bulbs fro
m

y
o
u
r

k
i
t
.
Replace your most-u
s
e
d

6
0
-
w
a
t
t

b
u
l
b
s

w
i
t
h

t
h
e

9-watt LED bulbs from

y
o
u
r

k
i
t
.
Install the new LED

n
i
g
h
t

l
i
g
h
t

f
r
o
m

y
o
u
r

k
i
t
.
TIP: For the most savings
,

p
l
a
c
e

L
E
D

b
u
l
b
s

i
n

f
i
x
t
u
r
e
s

t
h
a
t

a
r
e

o
n

for at least 2-3 hours

a

d
a
y
.
Evolve Showerhead

P
l
u
s

T
S
V
When taking a shower
,

y
o
u

u
s
e

t
w
o

r
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
:

w
a
t
e
r
—
a
n
d

the energy to heat th
e

w
a
t
e
r
.

I
n
s
t
a
l
l

t
h
e

E
v
o
l
v
e

h
i
g
h
-
e
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
c
y

showerhead in your kit
.

I
t
’
s

i
n
t
e
g
r
a
t
e
d

t
h
e
r
m
o
s
t
a
t
i
c

s
h
u
t
-
o
f
f

valve (TSV) allows yo
u

t
o

e
f
f
o
r
t
l
e
s
s
l
y

s
a
v
e

t
h
e

h
o
t

w
a
t
e
r

a
n
d

energy that’s used wh
i
l
e

w
a
i
t
i
n
g

f
o
r

y
o
u
r

s
h
o
w
e
r

t
o

b
e
c
o
m
e

warm. It also lets you

k
n
o
w

w
h
e
n

y
o
u
r

s
h
o
w
e
r
’
s

r
e
a
d
y
.
Turn on the shower to

l
e
t

t
h
e

w
a
t
e
r

w
a
r
m

u
p
.
When the water reach
e
s

9
5
°

F
,

t
h
e

T
S
V

r
e
d
u
c
e
s

w
a
t
e
r

flow to let you know

y
o
u
r

s
h
o
w
e
r

i
s

r
e
a
d
y
.
Pull the cord to resu
m
e

f
u
l
l

w
a
t
e
r

f
l
o
w
.
TIP: You can compare th
e

w
a
t
e
r

f
l
o
w

r
a
t
e

o
f

y
o
u
r

o
l
d

showerhead with th
e

n
e
w

o
n
e

b
y

f
o
l
l
o
w
i
n
g

t
h
e

s
i
x

s
t
e
p
s

o
n

the flow-rate test bag

i
n
c
l
u
d
e
d

i
n

t
h
e

b
o
t
t
o
m

o
f

y
o
u
r

k
i
t
.
QUICK STEP2
WATER AND
ENERGY
QUICK STEP1
LIGHTING
QUICK START GUI
D
E
Español en el otro lad
o
117379
START SAVING NO
W
!

1
2
3
Install the energy-eff
i
c
i
e
n
t

p
r
o
d
u
c
t
s

i
n

y
o
u
r

k
i
t
.
Follow the energy-s
a
v
i
n
g

t
i
p
s

p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d

i
n

t
h
i
s

Q
u
i
c
k

S
t
a
r
t

G
u
i
d
e
.
For additional ways
t
o

s
a
v
e
,

v
i
s
i
t

i
d
a
h
o
p
o
w
e
r
.
c
o
m
/
s
a
v
e
2
d
a
y
.
Installation Questio
n
s
?
See the INSTALLATIO
N

I
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N

B
O
O
K
L
E
T

i
n

t
h
e

bottom of your kit.
Visit idahopower.com
/
s
a
v
e
2
d
a
y

t
o

v
i
e
w

i
n
s
t
a
l
l
a
t
i
o
n

v
i
d
e
o
s
.
Don’t forget!
Return your survey fo
r

a

c
h
a
n
c
e

t
o

w
i
n

a

$
1
0
0

g
i
f
t

c
a
r
d
.
Developed in partner
s
h
i
p
:

QUICK STEP5
APPLIANCE
QUICK STEP4
APPLIANCE
Water Heater
Heating water can ac
c
o
u
n
t

f
o
r

1
4

t
o

2
5

p
e
r
c
e
n
t

o
f

t
h
e

e
n
e
r
g
y

consumed in your h
o
m
e
.

M
a
n
y

p
e
o
p
l
e

t
h
i
n
k

p
l
a
c
i
n
g

a

w
a
t
e
r

heater on the hottest

s
e
t
t
i
n
g

h
e
a
t
s

t
h
e

w
a
t
e
r

m
o
r
e

q
u
i
c
k
l
y

b
u
t

it doesn’t. It just use
s

m
o
r
e

e
n
e
r
g
y
.

U
s
e

t
h
e

d
i
g
i
t
a
l

t
h
e
r
m
o
m
e
t
e
r

from your kit to chec
k

t
h
e

w
a
t
e
r

t
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e
.

I
f

i
t
’
s

o
v
e
r

1
2
0
°
F
,

you may be overhea
t
i
n
g

y
o
u
r

w
a
t
e
r

a
n
d

w
a
s
t
i
n
g

e
n
e
r
g
y
!
Fill a cup with the ho
t
t
e
s
t

w
a
t
e
r

f
r
o
m

t
h
e

f
a
u
c
e
t

farthest from the wate
r

h
e
a
t
e
r
.

P
l
a
c
e

t
h
e

d
i
g
i
t
a
l

thermometer in the c
u
p

f
o
r

t
w
o

m
i
n
u
t
e
s
.

If your hot water is o
v
e
r

1
2
0
°
F
,

l
o
w
e
r

t
h
e

t
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e

setting on your water
h
e
a
t
e
r
.

R
e
f
e
r

t
o

y
o
u
r

o
w
n
e
r
’
s

manual to adjust the

s
e
t
t
i
n
g
s
.

TIP: If your water heater is

i
n

a

g
a
r
a
g
e

o
r

u
n
h
e
a
t
e
d

b
a
s
e
m
e
n
t
,

use a water heater bl
a
n
k
e
t

t
o

s
a
v
e

a
n

a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l

4

t
o

9

p
e
r
c
e
n
t

on your water heati
n
g

c
o
s
t
s
.

W
a
t
e
r

h
e
a
t
e
r

b
l
a
n
k
e
t
s

c
a
n

b
e

found at your local ha
r
d
w
a
r
e

s
t
o
r
e
.
Water Efficiency
Five extra minutes in
t
h
e

s
h
o
w
e
r

c
a
n

u
s
e

a
s

m
u
c
h

e
n
e
r
g
y

a
s

leaving a 60-watt lig
h
t

b
u
l
b

o
n

f
o
r

1
4

h
o
u
r
s
.

A

s
h
o
w
e
r

t
i
m
e
r

reminds you to save e
n
e
r
g
y

a
n
d

w
a
t
e
r

w
h
i
l
e

s
h
o
w
e
r
i
n
g
.

T
h
e

shower timer, set to

f
i
v
e

(
5
)

m
i
n
u
t
e
s
,

e
n
c
o
u
r
a
g
e
s

w
i
s
e

u
s
e

o
f

water. Simply rotate it

a

h
a
l
f
-
t
u
r
n

w
h
e
n

y
o
u

b
e
g
i
n

y
o
u
r

s
h
o
w
e
r
;

then try to finish bef
o
r
e

t
h
e

s
a
n
d

r
u
n
s

o
u
t
.
Install the new showe
r

t
i
m
e
r

f
r
o
m

y
o
u
r

k
i
t
.
Faucet aerators save

w
a
t
e
r

a
n
d

e
n
e
r
g
y

w
h
i
l
e

p
r
o
v
i
d
i
n
g

g
o
o
d

pressure and satisfyin
g

r
e
s
u
l
t
s
.
Install the new kitch
e
n

f
a
u
c
e
t

a
e
r
a
t
o
r

f
r
o
m

y
o
u
r

k
i
t
.
Install the new bath
r
o
o
m

f
a
u
c
e
t

a
e
r
a
t
o
r
s

f
r
o
m

y
o
u
r

k
i
t
.
TIP: The average shower

i
s

8
.
2
-
1
0
.
4

m
i
n
u
t
e
s

i
n

l
e
n
g
t
h
.

A

f
i
v
e
-
minute shower reduces

e
n
e
r
g
y

u
s
e
d

t
o

p
u
m
p

a
n
d

h
e
a
t

w
a
t
e
r
,

saves fresh water and

r
e
d
u
c
e
s

w
a
s
t
e
w
a
t
e
r
.
QUICK STEP3
Want to Save More?
Idaho Power offers e
n
e
r
g
y

e
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
c
y

i
n
c
e
n
t
i
v
e
s

t
o

r
e
d
u
c
e

t
h
e

cost of energy efficien
t

p
r
o
d
u
c
t
s

a
n
d
/
o
r

s
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
.

C
h
e
c
k

o
u
t

the programs and tip
s

a
t

i
d
a
h
o
p
o
w
e
r
.
c
o
m
/
s
a
v
e

t
o

f
i
n
d

m
o
r
e

ways to use energy w
i
s
e
l
y

a
n
d

a
v
o
i
d

u
n
n
e
c
e
s
s
a
r
y

w
a
s
t
e
.
WATER AND
ENERGY
Resource Action Programs®13Program Materials
Included Efficiency Measures
Six 9-Watt LEDs (800 Lumens)
Three 7.5-Watt LEDs (480 Lumens)
IPC branded LED Night Light
High Efficiency Showerhead
Kitchen and Bathroom Faucet Aerators
Shower Timer
Digital Thermometer
Each participating household received an energy-saving kit containing efficiency measures for their
homes and a Quick Start Guide with energy efficiency information and behavioral tips. The materials
were customized for Idaho Power. Households with electric water heating received an electric kit
(including water-saving measures). Households with other water heating options received a
non-electric kit (not including water-saving measures).
Idaho Power Energy-Saving Kit
Program Materials
Included Educational Materials
Quick Start Guide
Survey
Survey Envelope (postage prepaid)
Sticker and Magnet Reminder
Mini-Home Assessment (Idaho Power provided)
Installation Instructions
* An Electric Kit
Idaho Power Energy-Saving Kit Program Summary Report14Program Implementation
15038 A0080 Idaho Power DTC
1. What type of home do you live in?
Single family home - Detached
Apartment, Condo, Townhouse, or Multi-family with 2-3 units
Apartment, Condo, Townhouse, or Multi-family with 4 or more units
Mobile/Manufactured home
2. How many people live in your home?
5 or more 3 1
4 2
3. How many of the LEDs did you install?
All of them 5-6 1-2
7-8 3-4 None
4. If you did not install all of the LEDs, what did you do with the remainder?
Plan to install, just haven’t yet Gave them to someone else
Stored for later use Other
Have you installed the Yes Not yet, but will No, won’t use
5. High-Efficiency Showerhead?
6. Kitchen Faucet Aerator?
7. Bathroom Faucet Aerator #1?
8. Bathroom Faucet Aerator #2?
Have you used the Yes Not yet, but will No, won’t use
9. LED Night Light?
10. Shower Timer?
11. Flow-Rate Test Bag to test the
flow rate of your shower or faucets?
12. If you used the Digital Thermometer to check the temperature of your
w
a
t
e
r
,

what was the temperature?
> 140° F < 120° F
131° F to 140° F Did not check water temperature
120° F to 130° F
Did you adjust the temperature of your Yes Yes No
I lowered it I raised it I did not adjust
13. Electric water heater?
14. Refrigerator?
15. Freezer?
16. How satisfied were you with the kit ordering process?
Very satisfied Somewhat dissatisfied
Somewhat satisfied Very dissatisfied
17. Did you receive your kit within 3 weeks?
Yes No
18. How likely would you be to tell a friend or family member to order a kit?
Very likely Somewhat unlikely
Somewhat likely Very unlikely
19. Prior to hearing about the Energy-Saving Kits, were you aware Idaho Po
w
e
r

h
a
d

energy efficiency programs and incentives?
Yes No
20. Have you ever gone to Idaho Power’s website to look for information about
energy efficiency programs or to find ways to save?
Yes No
21. How likely are you to participate in another energy efficiency program?
Very likely Somewhat unlikely
Somewhat likely Very unlikely
22. If you did not install some of the kit items, please tell us why.

Return this survey in the postage-paid envelope included in your kit.
You will be entered into our monthly drawing for a chance to win a $100 gift

c
a
r
d
.
0000000
100Gift Cd$
INSTAL LATION SURVEY
(Español en el otro lado)
Compl e šis survey
‚r a ƒ„… † win a
*
1. Install the energy-efficient products in your kit.
2. Follow the energy-saving tips provided in the
quick start guide.
3. Return this survey for a chance to win a $100
gift card!
(Postage-paid envelope included)
All you have to do is...
*For contest details visit Idahopower.com/save2day
Fill in each bubble completely
Use a black pen to fill in the bubble
next to the correct answer.
116219
YES NO
116219 15038 Idaho_Power Survey Electric.indd 1-3
12/15/16 9:25 AM
15038 A0080

I
d
a
h
o

P
o
w
e
r

D
T
C

1. What type of ho
m
e

d
o

y
o
u

l
i
v
e

i
n
?
Single family

h
o
m
e

-

D
e
t
a
c
h
e
d
Apartment, Co
n
d
o
,

T
o
w
n
h
o
u
s
e
,

o
r

M
u
l
t
i
-
f
a
m
i
l
y

w
i
t
h

2
-
3

u
n
i
t
s
Apartment, C
o
n
d
o
,

T
o
w
n
h
o
u
s
e
,

o
r

M
u
l
t
i
-
f
a
m
i
l
y

w
i
t
h

4

o
r

m
o
r
e

u
n
i
t
s
Mobile/Man
u
f
a
c
t
u
r
e
d

h
o
m
e
2. How many p
e
o
p
l
e

l
i
v
e

i
n

y
o
u
r

h
o
m
e
?
5 or more
3
1
4
23. How many of th
e

L
E
D
s

d
i
d

y
o
u

i
n
s
t
a
l
l
?
All of them
5-6
1-2
7-8
3-4
None
4. If you did not in
s
t
a
l
l

a
l
l

o
f

t
h
e

L
E
D
s
,

w
h
a
t

d
i
d

y
o
u

d
o

w
i
t
h

t
h
e

r
e
m
a
i
n
d
e
r
?
Plan to insta
l
l
,

j
u
s
t

h
a
v
e
n
’
t

y
e
t

Gave them
t
o

s
o
m
e
o
n
e

e
l
s
e
Stored for late
r

u
s
e

Other
Have you installe
d

t
h
e

Yes Not yet, b
u
t

w
i
l
l

N
o
,

w
o
n
’
t

u
s
e
5. High-Efficien
c
y

S
h
o
w
e
r
h
e
a
d
?

6. Kitchen Faucet
A
e
r
a
t
o
r
?

7. Bathroom Faucet

A
e
r
a
t
o
r

#
1
?

8. Bathroom Fauce
t

A
e
r
a
t
o
r

#
2
?

Have you used th
e

Yes Not yet,
b
u
t

w
i
l
l

N
o
,

w
o
n
’
t

u
s
e
9. LED Night L
i
g
h
t
?

10. Shower Timer?

11. Flow-Rate Test B
a
g

t
o

t
e
s
t

the
flow rate of
y
o
u
r

s
h
o
w
e
r

o
r

f
a
u
c
e
t
s
?

12. If you used t
h
e

D
i
g
i
t
a
l

T
h
e
r
m
o
m
e
t
e
r

t
o

c
h
e
c
k

t
h
e

t
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e

o
f

y
o
u
r

w
a
t
e
r
,

what was the te
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e
? > 140° F
< 120° F
131° F to 14
0
°

F

Did not chec
k

w
a
t
e
r

t
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e
120° F to 1
3
0
°

F
Did you adjust th
e

t
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e

o
f

y
o
u
r

Yes Yes No

I lowered it
I

r
a
i
s
e
d

i
t

I

d
i
d

n
o
t

a
d
j
u
s
t
13. Electric wa
t
e
r

h
e
a
t
e
r
?

14. Refrigerator?

15. Freezer?

16. How satisfied w
e
r
e

y
o
u

w
i
t
h

t
h
e

k
i
t

o
r
d
e
r
i
n
g

p
r
o
c
e
s
s
?
Very satisfi
e
d

Somewhat d
i
s
s
a
t
i
s
f
i
e
d
Somewhat satisf
i
e
d
Very dissat
i
s
f
i
e
d
17. Did you recei
v
e

y
o
u
r

k
i
t

w
i
t
h
i
n

3

w
e
e
k
s
?
Yes No18. How likely w
o
u
l
d

y
o
u

b
e

t
o

t
e
l
l

a

f
r
i
e
n
d

o
r

f
a
m
i
l
y

m
e
m
b
e
r

t
o

o
r
d
e
r

a

k
i
t
?
Very likely
Somewhat u
n
l
i
k
e
l
y
Somewhat
l
i
k
e
l
y

Very unlikel
y
19. Prior to hearing a
b
o
u
t

t
h
e

E
n
e
r
g
y
-
S
a
v
i
n
g

K
i
t
s
,

w
e
r
e

y
o
u

a
w
a
r
e

I
d
a
h
o

P
o
w
e
r

h
a
d

energy efficienc
y

p
r
o
g
r
a
m
s

a
n
d

i
n
c
e
n
t
i
v
e
s
?
Yes No20. Have you ever gon
e

t
o

I
d
a
h
o

P
o
w
e
r
’
s

w
e
b
s
i
t
e

t
o

l
o
o
k

f
o
r

i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n

a
b
o
u
t

energy efficien
c
y

p
r
o
g
r
a
m
s

o
r

t
o

f
i
n
d

w
a
y
s

t
o

s
a
v
e
?
Yes No21. How likely are yo
u

t
o

p
a
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
t
e

i
n

a
n
o
t
h
e
r

e
n
e
r
g
y

e
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
c
y

program?
Very likely
Somewhat u
n
l
i
k
e
l
y
Somewhat
l
i
k
e
l
y

Very unlike
l
y
22. If you did n
o
t

i
n
s
t
a
l
l

s
o
m
e

o
f

t
h
e

k
i
t

i
t
e
m
s
,

p
l
e
a
s
e

t
e
l
l

u
s

w
h
y
.

Return this surv
e
y

i
n

t
h
e

p
o
s
t
a
g
e
-
p
a
i
d

e
n
v
e
l
o
p
e

i
n
c
l
u
d
e
d

i
n

y
o
u
r

k
i
t
.
You will be enter
e
d

i
n
t
o

o
u
r

m
o
n
t
h
l
y

d
r
a
w
i
n
g

f
o
r

a

c
h
a
n
c
e

t
o

w
i
n

a

$
1
0
0

g
i
f
t

c
a
r
d
.
0000000100Gift Cd
$
INSTAL LATION SUR
V
E
Y
(Español en
e
l

o
t
r
o

l
a
d
o
)
Compl e š
i
s

s
u
r
v
e
y‚r a ƒ„…
†

w
i
n

a
*
1. Install the e
n
e
r
g
y
-
e
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t

p
r
o
d
u
c
t
s

i
n

y
o
u
r

k
i
t
.
2. Follow the
e
n
e
r
g
y
-
s
a
v
i
n
g

t
i
p
s

p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d

i
n

t
h
e

quick start g
u
i
d
e
.

3. Return this
s
u
r
v
e
y

f
o
r

a

c
h
a
n
c
e

t
o

w
i
n

a

$
1
0
0

gift card!
(Postage-pai
d

e
n
v
e
l
o
p
e

i
n
c
l
u
d
e
d
)
All you have

t
o

d
o

i
s
.
.
.
*For contest deta
i
l
s

v
i
s
i
t

I
d
a
h
o
p
o
w
e
r
.
c
o
m
/
s
a
v
e
2
d
a
y
Fill in each b
u
b
b
l
e

c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
l
y
Use a black pen

t
o

f
i
l
l

i
n

t
h
e

b
u
b
b
l
e

next to the
c
o
r
r
e
c
t

a
n
s
w
e
r
.
116219
YES NO
116219 15038 Idah
o
_
P
o
w
e
r

S
u
r
v
e
y

E
l
e
c
t
r
i
c
.
i
n
d
d

1
-
3
12/15/16 9:25 AM
Resource Action Programs®15Program Implementation
An introductory marketing direct mailer, supported by the information on the Idaho Power website,
merited positive results. Many shared their positive program experience with their family and
friends though social media, word of mouth, and emails. Additional exposure through bill inserts
and community events resulted in a steady demand for the program.
Participation was processed and tracked at the RAP Program Center, which has the capacity to
handle in excess of 100,000 requests per month. The program website, a toll-free phone number,
and the business reply postcards provided convenient methods for interested households to order
a kit and participate in the program.
Orders were tracked and managed daily from all outreach and enrollment sources. Program
materials and products were packaged and addressed for individual home delivery. All Program
modules received a unique ID number to improve the accuracy of data tracking and reduce the
amount of information required from respondents.
All enrollments, shipping, and survey data were managed by RAP’s proprietary Program Database. In
addition, all returned surveys were tabulated and included in the program database. This procedure
allows for reporting, which is an important element for tracking the measurements and goals of
this program.
Idaho Power Energy-Saving Kit
Program Implementation
Idaho Power Energy-Saving Kit Program Summary Report16Program Impact
“I installed everything — called the
gas company to find out about their
programs. Thank you for the Energy
Savings Kit, I’m telling everyone
about it!!”
– Idaho Power Energy-Saving Kit Program Participant
Resource Action Programs®17Program Impact
The program impacted 113 cities and towns throughout Idaho and 18 cities and towns in Oregon. As
illustrated below, the program successfully educated those in participating households about energy
and water efficiency while generating resource savings through the installation of efficiency measures
in their homes. Home survey and installation information was collected to track savings and gather
household consumption and demographic data. The three program elements, described on the next few
pages, were used to collect this data.
A. Home Survey and Retrofit Data
Upon completion of the program, participating households were asked to complete a home survey to
assess their resource use, verify product installation, provide demographic information, and measure
participation rates. Sample questions appear below and a complete summary of all responses is
included in Appendix B.
Did you install ALL 9 LED Light Bulbs? Yes - 51%
Did you install the LED Night Light? Yes - 91%
Did you install the High-Efficiency Showerhead? Yes - 71%
Did you use the Shower Timer? Yes - 66%
Idaho Power Energy-Saving Kit
Program Impact
71+29+F
Reported households
with the High-Efficiency
Showerhead installed.*
71%66+34+F
Reported households who
used the Shower Timer.*
66%51+49+F
Reported households
with ALL 9 LED Light
Bulbs installed.
51%91+9+F
Reported households
with the LED Night Light
installed.*
91%
*Installation rates assume 50% of households who responded “Not yet, but will” actually completed the installation.
Idaho Power Energy-Saving Kit Program Summary Report18Program Impact
B. Water and Energy Savings Summary
As part of the program, participants installed retrofit efficiency measures in their homes. Using the
family habits collected from the home survey as the basis for this calculation, 30,289 households are
expected to save the following resource totals. Savings from these actions and new behaviors will
continue for many years to come.
Projected Resource Savings
A list of assumptions and formulas used for these calculations can be found in Appendix A.
Total Number of Participants: 30,303
Number of Electric Only Participants: 17,386
Number of Non-Electric Participants: 12,917
Annual Lifetime
Projected reduction from Showerhead retrofit:96,701,129 967,011,287 gallons
Measure Life: 10 years 3,112,094 31,120,940 kWh
Projected reduction from Shower Timer installation:25,406,503 50,813,007 gallons
Product Life: 2 years 1,902,896 3,805,793 kWh
70,107 140,213 therms
Projected reduction from Kitchen Faucet Aerator retrofit:41,114,425 411,144,255 gallons
Measure Life: 10 years 1,842,916 18,429,160 kWh
Projected reduction from Bathroom Faucet Aerator retrofit:29,602,386 296,023,863 gallons
Measure Life: 10 years 3,685,832 36,858,320 kWh
Projected reduction from 9-watt LED Light Bulbs:1,818,180 21,818,160 kWh
Measure Life: 12 years
Projected reduction from 7.5-watt LED Light Bulbs:909,090 10,909,080 kWh
Measure Life: 12 years
Projected reduction from LED Night Light:736,641 7,366,406 kWh
Measure Life: 10 years
TOTAL PROJECTED PROGRAM SAVINGS:192,824,444 1,724,992,412 gallons
14,007,649 130,307,859 kWh
70,107 140,213 therms
TOTAL PROJECTED PROGRAM SAVINGS PER HOUSEHOLD: 11,091 99,217 gallons
462 4,300 kWh
2 5 therms
Resource Action Programs®19Program Impact
C. Participant Response
Participant response to Idaho Power’s various outreach methods combined with social media and
interpersonal communication resulted in an overwhelming demand for the program. Idaho Power
increased the budget and the kit availability for this program in order to fulfill all residential customer
orders. The participants utilized the Quick Start Guide to choose which measures and actions to take.
Installation videos and text instructions made retrofit projects easy to complete. The installation rate
data and the participant satisfaction data presented in this report were provided by kit surveys.
SURVEY TYPE KITS SHIPPED SURVEYS RECEIVED SURVEY %
Electric 17,386 2,794 16.1%
Non-electric 12,917 2,549 19.7%
TOTAL 30,303 5,343 17.6%
93+7+F
Reported households
that were very likely to
tell a friend or family
member to order a kit.
93%81+19+F
Reported households
that were very likely to
participate in another
energy efficiency program.
81%95+5+F
Reported households
that were very satisfied
with the ordering process.
95%98+2+F
Reported households
that received their kits
within 3 weeks.
98%
How satisfied were you with the kit ordering process? Very Satisfied - 95%
Did you receive your kit within 3 weeks? Yes - 98%
How likely would you be to tell a friend or family member to order a kit? Very Likely - 93%
How likely are you to participate in another energy efficiency program? Very Likely - 81%
Idaho Power Energy-Saving Kit Program Summary Report20Program Impact
Thanks for the kit, what a great way to put energy saving solutions directly into the hands of Idaho consumers!
Great idea of a program!
I am very gratified to be a part of this type of conservation. I will be checking out Idahopower.com and seeing for
myself the resources that are available. Thank you.
Excellent program! Easy to understand and implement. Thanks !
Our favorite was the shower timer. It helps teach kids to take more efficient showers! Thanks a ton. Good
customer engagement idea. I heard about the kit through word of mouth at a dance practice for my kid.
I installed everything — called the gas company to find out about their programs. Thank you for the Energy
Savings Kit, I’m telling everyone about it!!
Very helpful and useful kit that was sent. Would highly recommend it to all. Thank you.
I used everything in the kit. Instructions were easy to use follow and I liked the suggestions provided too.
We believe in saving power and one day installing solar panels to save more on power. Going green is a dream of
me and my family. I installed all the lights and thank, “Idaho Power” for giving them to us! Also, we read all the
info in the monthly statements. I donated my bulbs to the elderly who cannot afford new ones... we love ID Power
and all you provide to make our lives better.
I love the magnet stickers to reminder my husband to use cold water and the stickers about turning off lights.
I think the LED night light is very useful. My daughters love having light during the night.
I was somewhat apprehensive about the showerhead, but I installed it in my son’s shower. He is a teenager and
between the showerhead and timer, I see him trying harder to be more conservative on water/energy. Thank you
for offering this program, it has helped a lot. I even purchased more LED light bulbs to finish my entire house.
I am a renter and the landlord does agree with replacing things. I did what I can and learned all the information
for another time.
I love the night light. I love your website, too. Great information and helpful.
Thank you, thank you, thank you. It was the greatest birthday present ever!
We are using all of the kit. Very much appreciate the products to help make our electric bill more efficient and
hope to lower our bill. Thank you so much for everything.
The bathroom high efficiency showerhead is WONDERFUL. We love the LED night light! Thank you for this kit!
I love that you do this! I’m telling everyone!
Participant Responses
Resource Action Programs®21Program Impact
Outstanding kit! I’ve told others to make sure they get theirs.
Awesome kit! I’ve told all of my friends about it and would like one for my other property in garden valley.
I am 89 years old and very slow. I will get things done eventually. I think this kit is a wonderful idea.
I’m 84 years old, did the best I could — it is great idea. Thank you for saving me money.
Thank you Idaho Power for my energy savings kit. I am thrilled and I immediately installed every light bulb.
We used everything! Especially love the night light! Thanks!
I think we used everything except the flow rate test bag. I’d have to read up on what to do with this. I thought the
energy quiz was helpful too, to pinpoint where we could do better.
Thank you. It is awesome that you would help us!
This is a great program in offering the kit.
Participant Responses (continued)
Idaho Power Energy-Saving Kit Program Summary Report22Appendices
* An Electric Kit
Resource Action Programs®23Appendices
Appendix A
Projected Savings from 9-Watt LED Retrofit ...............................................24
Projected Savings from 7.5-Watt LED Retrofit ............................................24
Projected Savings from Showerhead Retrofit .............................................25
Projected Savings from Kitchen Faucet Aerator Retrofit ..........................26
Projected Savings from Bathroom Faucet Aerator Retrofit .......................27
Projected Savings from LED Night Light Installation .................................28
Projected Savings from Shower Timer Installation.....................................29
Appendix B
Enrollment Survey Response Summary ........................................................30
Kit Survey Response Summary .......................................................................31
Appendix C
Idaho Cities & Towns Affected .......................................................................34
Oregon Cities & Towns Affected ....................................................................35
Idaho Power Regions Affected ......................................................................36
Appendices
Idaho Power Energy-Saving Kit Program Summary Report24Appendix A
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x

A
9-watt LED Light Bulb retrofit inputs and assumptions:
Lamps per participant: 6
Number of participants:30,303
Deemed savings per lamp (kWh): 10 kWh1
Measure life:12 years1
Projected Electricity Savings:
The LED retrofit projects an annual reduction of: 1,818,180 kWh2
The LED retrofit projects a lifetime reduction of:21,818,160 kWh3
1 Regional Technical Forum. ResLightingCFLandLEDLamps_v3_3.xslm. Mail by request. LED general purpose and Dimmable. 665 to 1439 lumens.
2 LED kWh savings formula (Deemed savings per lamp x Number of participants x Lamps per participant).
3 LED kWh lifetime savings formula (Annual savings x Measure Life).
7.5-watt LED Light Bulb retrofit inputs and assumptions:
Lamps per participant: 3
Number of participants:30,303
Deemed savings per lamp (kWh): 10 kWh1
Measure life:12 years1
Projected Electricity Savings:
The LED retrofit projects an annual reduction of: 909,090 kWh2
The LED retrofit projects a lifetime reduction of:10,909,080 kWh3
1 Regional Technical Forum. ResLightingCFLandLEDLamps_v3_3.xslm. Mail by request. LED general purpose and Dimmable. 250 to 664 lumens.
2 LED kWh savings formula (Deemed savings per lamp x Number of participants x Lamps per participant).
3 LED kWh lifetime savings formula (Annual savings x Measure Life).
Projected Savings from 9-Watt LED Retrofit
Projected Savings from 7.5-Watt LED Retrofit
Resource Action Programs®25Appendix A
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x

A
Showerhead retrofit inputs and assumptions:
Showerheads per electric DHW kit: 1
Number of electric DHW participants: 17,386
Domestic electric hot water reported:100%1
Number of people per household: 2.59 1
Deemed Savings: 179 2
Length of average shower: 7.84 minutes3
Showerhead (baseline): 2.50 gpm3
Showerhead new (retrofit): 1.75 gpm
Measure life: 10.00 years2
Projected Water Savings:
Showerhead retrofit projects an annual reduction of:96,701,129 gallons4
Showerhead retrofit projects a lifetime reduction of:967,011,287 gallons4
Projected Electricity Savings:
Showerhead retrofit projects an annual reduction of:3,122,094 kWh5
Showerhead retrofit projects a lifetime reduction of:31,120,940 kWh5
1 Data Reported by Program Participants.
2 Regional Technical Forum - ResShowerheads_v2_1 xlsm. Mail by request. 1.75 gpm Any shower Electric water heating.
3 (March 20, 2014). Blessing Memo for LivingWise Kits for 2014, Paul Sklar, E.I., Planning Engineer Energy Trust of Oregon.
4 Showerhead Gallons Formula (Number of participants x (Showerhead baseline - Showerhead new) x Length of average shower x Days per year x People per household).
5 Showerhead kWh formula (Number of Participants x Deemed Savings).
Projected Savings from Showerhead Retrofit
Idaho Power Energy-Saving Kit Program Summary Report26Appendix A
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x

A
Kitchen Faucet Aerator retrofit inputs and assumptions:
Kitchen Faucet Aerator per electric DHW kit: 1
Number of electric DHW participants: 17,386
Domestic electric hot water reported:100%1
Number of people per household: 2.59 1
Savings: 106 kWh2
Average daily use: 2.50 minutes 3
Kitchen Faucet Aerator (baseline): 2.50 gpm3
Kitchen Faucet Aerator (retrofit): 1.50 gpm
Measure life:10.00 years3
Projected Water Savings:
Kitchen Faucet Aerator retrofit projects an annual reduction of:41,114,425 gallons4
Kitchen Faucet Aerator retrofit projects a lifetime reduction of:411,144,255 gallons4
Projected Electricity Savings:
Kitchen Faucet Aerator retrofit projects an annual reduction of:1,842,916 kWh5
Kitchen Faucet Aerator retrofit projects a lifetime reduction of:18,429,160 kWh6
1 Data Reported by Program Participants.
2 Applied Energy Group. Idaho Power Energy Efficiency Potential Study, 2012.
3 (March 20, 2014). Blessing Memo for LivingWise Kits for 2014, Paul Sklar, E.I., Planning Engineer Energy Trust of Oregon.
4 Kitchen Aerators gallons formula (Number of Participants x (Kitchen aerator baseline - Kitchen aerator retrofit) x Average Daily Use x Days per year x People per
household).
5 Kitchen Aerators kWh formula (Number of Participants x Savings).
6 Kitchen Faucet Aerator kWh lifetime savings formula (Annual savings x Measure life).
Projected Savings from Kitchen Faucet Aerator Retrofit
Resource Action Programs®27Appendix A
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x

A
Bathroom Faucet Aerator retrofit inputs and assumptions:
Bathroom Faucet Aerator per electric DHW kit: 2
Number of electric DHW participants:17,386
Domestic electric hot water reported:100%1
Number of people per household:2.59 1
Savings:106 kWh2
Average daily use: 1.50 minutes 3
Bathroom Faucet Aerator (baseline): 2.20 gpm3
Bathroom Faucet Aerator (retrofit): 1.00 gpm
Measure life: 10.00 years3
Projected Water Savings:
Bathroom Faucet Aerator retrofit projects an annual reduction of:29,602,386 gallons4
Bathroom Faucet Aerator retrofit projects a lifetime reduction of:296,023,863 gallons4
Projected Electricity Savings:
Bathroom Faucet Aerator retrofit projects an annual reduction of:3,685,832 kWh5
Bathroom Faucet Aerator retrofit projects a lifetime reduction of:36,858,320 kWh6
1 Data Reported by Program Participants.
2 Applied Energy Group. Idaho Power Energy Efficiency Potential Study, 2012.
3 (March 20, 2014). Blessing Memo for LivingWise Kits for 2014, Paul Sklar, E.I., Planning Engineer Energy Trust of Oregon.
4 Bathroom Faucet Aerator gallons formula ((People per Household x Average daily use) x (Bathroom faucet baseline - Bathroom faucet retrofit) x Days per year x Number of
Participants).
5 Bathroom Faucet Aerator kWh formula (Number of participants x savings x Bathroom Faucet Aerators per electric DHW kit).
6 Bathroom Faucet Aerator kWh lifetime savings formula (Annual savings x Measure life).
Projected Savings from Bathroom Faucet Aerator Retrofit
Idaho Power Energy-Saving Kit Program Summary Report28Appendix 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
Measure life:10 years2
Energy saved per year:28 kWh per year
Energy saved over life expectancy:285 kWh
Installation / participation rate of:85.39%3
Number of participants:30,303 3
Projected Electricity Savings:
The Energy Efficient Night Light retrofit projects an annual reduction of:736,641 kWh4
The Energy Efficient Night Light retrofit projects a lifetime reduction of:7,366,406 kWh5
1 Assumption (12 hours per day)
2 Product life provided by manufacturer
3 Data reported by program participants
4 Energy Efficient Night Light kWh savings formula (Energy saved per year x Number of participants x Installation rate)
5 Energy Efficient Night Light kWh lifetime savings formula (Energy saved over life expectancy x Number of participants x Installation rate)
Projected Savings from LED Night Light Installation
Resource Action Programs®29Appendix A
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x

A
Projected Savings from Shower Timer Installation
Shower TImer inputs and assumptions:
% of water heated by gas:42.00%1
% of water heated by electricity:57.00%1
Installation / participation rate of Shower Timer:50.42%1
Average showerhead has a flow rate of:2.50 gallons per minute1
Retrofit showerhead has flow rate of:1.75 gallons per minute1
Number of participants:30,303 1
Average of baseline and retrofit showerhead flow rate:2.13 gallons per minute2
Shower duration:8.20 minutes per day3
Shower Timer duration:5.00 minutes per day4
Showers per capita per day (SPCD):0.67 showers per day3
Percent of water that is hot water:73%5
Days per year:365.00 days
Product life:2.00 years5
Projected Water Savings:
Shower Timer installation projects an annual reduction of:25,406,503 gallons6
Shower Timer installation projects a lifetime reduction of:50,813,007 gallons7
Projected Electricity Savings:
Shower Timer installation projects an annual reduction of:1,902,896 kWh8
Shower Timer installation projects a lifetime reduction of:3,805,793 kWh9
Projected Natural Gas Savings:
Shower Timer installation projects an annual reduction of:70,107 therms10
Shower Timer installation projects a lifetime reduction of:140,213 therms11
1 Data Reported by Program Participants.
2 Average of the baseline GPM and the retrofit GPM
3 (March 4, 2010). EPA WaterSense® Specification for Showerheads Supporting Statement. Retrieved from http://www.epa.gov/WaterSense/docs/showerheads_
finalsuppstat508.pdf
4 Provided by manufacturer.
5 Navigant EM&V Report for Super Savers Program in Illinois PY7
6 Annual water savings = Water Flow (Average of baseline and retrofit flow) × (Baseline Shower duration - Shower Timer duration) × Participants ×
Days per year × SPCD × Installation Rate of Shower Timer
7 Projected Annual Water Savings x Product Life
8 Projected Annual Water Savings x Percent of Water that is Hot Water x 0.18 kWh/gal x % of Water Heated by Electricity x Participants
9 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 x Participants
10 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 Participants
11 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 x Participants
Idaho Power Energy-Saving Kit Program Summary Report30Appendix B
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x

B
1 How is the water heated in your home?
Electricity 57%
Gas 42%
Other 1%
2 Do you own or rent your home?
Own 86%
Rent 14%
3 What is the primary method of heating your home?
Gas forced air 54%
Heat pump 10%
Electric forced air 20%
Baseboard or ceiling cable 7%
Other 9%
4 What is the primary method of cooling your home?
Central A/C 63%
Window A/C 15%
Heat pump 10%
None 9%
Other 3%
5 What, if any, energy-saving improvements are you planning to make in the next two years?
Windows 30%
Furnace or A/C 14%
Insulation 13%
Appliances 17%
Smart thermostat 9%
Other 17%
6 How did you hear about this kit offering?
Direct mail 24%
Info in bill 20%
Social media 8%
Idaho Power website 5%
Idaho Power employee 5%
Other 38%
Enrollment Survey Response Summary
Due to rounding of numbers, percentages may not add up to 100%
Resource Action Programs®31Appendix B
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x

B
Due to rounding of numbers, percentages may not add up to 100%
Kit Survey Response Summary
1 What type of home do you live in?
Single family home - detached 85%
Apartment, Condo, Townhouses, or Multi-family with 2-3 units 4%
Apartment, Condo, Townhouses, or Multi-family with 4 or more units 3%
Mobile/Manufactured home 7%
2 How many people live in your home?
5 or more 7%
4 9%
3 12%
2 51%
1 21%
3 How many of the LEDs did you install?
All of them 51%
7-8 6%
5-6 16%
3-4 15%
1-2 7%
None 5%
4 If you did not install all of the LEDs, what did you do with the remainer?
30%
Stored for later use 63%
Gave them to someone else 1%
Other _________5%
5 Have you installed the High-Efficiency Showerhead?
Yes 53%
Not yet, but will 36%
No, won't use 11%
6 Have you installed the Kitchen Faucet Aerator?
50%
Not yet, but will 28%
22%
7 Have you installed the Bathroom Faucet Aerator #1?
54%
Not yet, but will 33%
13%
8 Have you installed the Bathroom Faucet Aerator #2?
Yes 37%
Not yet, but will 38%
No, won't use 25%
Idaho Power Energy-Saving Kit Program Summary Report32Appendix B
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x

B
Due to rounding of numbers, percentages may not add up to 100%
Kit Survey Response Summary (continued)
9 Have you used the LED Night Light?
Yes 85%
13%
No, won't use 2%
10 Have you used the Shower Timer?
Yes 50%
32%
No, won't use 17%
11 Have you used the Flow-Rate Test Bag to test the flow rate of your shower or faucets?
Yes 22%
Not yet, but will 56%
No, won't use 22%
12 If you used the Digital Thermometer to check the temperature of your water, what was the temperature?
> 140 F 2%
131 F to 140 F 8%
121 F - 130 F 24%
< 120 F 31%
Did not check water temperature 35%
13 Did you adjust the temperature of your electric water heater?
Yes, I lowered it 19%
2%
No, I did not adjust 80%
14 Did you adjust the temperature of your refrigerator?
Yes, I lowered it 23%
11%
No, I did not adjust 66%
15 Did you adjust the temperature of your freezer?
Yes, I lowered it 19%
No, I did not adjust 72%
16 How satisfied were you with the kit ordering process?
Very satisfied 95%
Somewhat satisfied 3%
Somewhat dissatisfied 0%
Very dissatisfied 1%
17 Did you receive your kit within 3 weeks?
Yes 98%
No 2%
Resource Action Programs®33Appendix B
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x

B
Due to rounding of numbers, percentages may not add up to 100%
Kit Survey Response Summary (continued)
Very likely 93%
Somewhat likely 6%
Somewhat unlikely 0%
Very unlikely 1%
19 Prior to hearing about the Energy-Saving Kits, were you aware Idaho Power had energy efficiency
programs and incentives?
Yes 55%
No 45%
20 Have you ever gone to Idaho Power's website to look for information about energy efficiency programs
and incentives?
Yes 37%
No 63%
21 How likely are you to participate in another energy efficiency program?
81%
Somewhat likely 17%
Somewhat unlikely 1%
Very unlikely 0%
22 If you did not install some of the kit items, please tell us why.
18 How likely would you be to tell a friend or family member to order a kit?
Idaho Power Energy-Saving Kit Program Summary Report34Appendix C
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x

C
Idaho Cities & Towns Affected
IDAHO CITIES & TOWNS AFFECTED
ABERDEEN GREENLEAF NEW MEADOWS
AMERICAN FALLS HAGERMAN NEW PLYMOUTH
ARBON HAILEY NORTH FORK
BANKS HAMMETT NOTUS
BELLEVUE HANSEN OAKLEY
BLACKFOOT HAZELTON OLA
BLISS HEYBURN OREANA
BOISE HILL CITY PARMA
BRUNEAU HOLLISTER PAUL
BUHL HOMEDALE PAYETTE
BURLEY HORSESHOE BEND PICABO
CALDWELL IDAHO CITY PINE
CAMBRIDGE INDIAN VALLEY PINGREE
CAREY INKOM PLACERVILLE
CARMEN JACKSON POCATELLO
CASCADE JEROME POLLOCK
CASTLEFORD KETCHUM PRAIRIE
CENTERVILLE KIMBERLY RICHFIELD
CHUBBUCK KING HILL RIGGINS
CORRAL KUNA ROBIE CREEK
COUNCIL LAKE FORK ROCKLAND
DIETRICH LEADORE ROGERSON
DONNELLY LEMHI RUPERT
EAGLE LETHA SALMON
EDEN LOWMAN SHOSHONE
EMMETT MALTA SPRINGFIELD
FAIRFIELD MARSING STAR
FEATHERVILLE MCCALL STERLING
FILER MELBA SUN VALLEY
FORT HALL MERIDIAN SWEET
FRUITLAND MESA TENDOY
FRUITVALE MIDDLETON TWIN FALLS
GARDEN CITY MIDVALE WEISER
GARDEN VALLEY MONTOUR WENDELL
GIBBONSVILLE MOUNTAIN HOME WEST MAGIC
GLENNS FERRY MURPHY WILDER
GOODING MURTAUGH YELLOW PINE
GRAND VIEW NAMPA
TOTAL NUMBER OF CITIES & TOWNS AFFECTED: 113
TOTAL NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS AFFECTED: 28,922
Resource Action Programs®35Appendix C
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x

C
Oregon Cities & Towns Affected
OREGON CITIES & TOWNS AFFECTED
ADRIAN HUNTINGTON RICHLAND
BROGAN IRONSIDE UNITY
DREWSEY JAMIESON VALE
DURKEE JORDAN VALLEY WESTFALL
HALFWAY NYSSA
HARPER ONTARIO
HEREFORD OXBOW
TOTAL NUMBER OF CITIES & TOWNS AFFECTED: 18
TOTAL NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS AFFECTED: 1,381
Idaho Power Energy-Saving Kit Program Summary Report36Appendix C
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x

C
REGIONS (IDAHO)ELECTRIC NON-ELECTRIC
CANYON 2,676 2,043
CAPITAL 4,835 7,235
EASTERN 2,973 1,502
SOUTHERN 3,210 1,297
WESTERN 2,489 662
NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS IMPACTED:16,183 12,739
TOTAL NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS IMPACTED:28,922
REGIONS (OREGON)ELECTRIC NON-ELECTRIC
CANYON 14 2
WESTERN 1,187 178
NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS IMPACTED:1,201 180
TOTAL NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS IMPACTED:1,381
REGIONS (COMBO)ELECTRIC NON-ELECTRIC
NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS IMPACTED:17,384 12,919
TOTAL NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS IMPACTED:30,303
Idaho Power Regions Affected
N30000
976 United Circle • Sparks, NV 89431
www.resourceaction.com • [phone]
©2018 Resource Action Programs®
IDAHO POWER
ENERGY-SAVING KIT
PROGRAM SUMMARY REPORT
2017B
SUBMITTED BY:
RESOURCE ACTION PROGRAMS®
Submitted by:
January 2018
Idaho Power Energy-Saving Kit
Program Summary Report
2017B
Sponsored by:
Idaho Power Energy-Saving Kit Program Summary Report2
“Appreciated very much receiving all
the products. Great way to illustrate
and teach the importance of energy
efficiency. Thank you! :)”
– Idaho Power Energy-Saving Kit Program Participant
Resource Action Programs®3
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ...........................................................................................5
RAP Direct-to-Customer Programs .................................................................9
Idaho Power Energy-Saving Kit Program Overview ...................................11
Idaho Power Energy-Saving Kit Program Materials ....................................13
Idaho Power Energy-Saving Kit Program Implementation ........................15
Idaho Power Energy-Saving Kit Program Impact........................................17
A. Home Survey and Retrofit Data .........................................................17
B. Water and Energy Savings Summary ................................................18
C. Participant Response ...........................................................................19
Appendix A .......................................................................................................24
Projected Savings from 9-Watt LED Retrofit ..........................................24
Projected Savings from 6-Watt LED Retrofit ..........................................24
Projected Savings from Showerhead Retrofit ........................................25
Projected Savings from Kitchen Faucet Aerator Retrofit .....................26
Projected Savings from Bathroom Faucet Aerator Retrofit .................27
Projected Savings from LED Night Light Installation ............................28
Projected Savings from Shower Timer Installation ................................29
Appendix B ........................................................................................................30
Enrollment Survey Response Summary ...................................................30
Kit Survey Response Summary .................................................................31
Appendix C ........................................................................................................34
Idaho Cities & Towns Affected ..................................................................34
Oregon Cities & Towns Affected ...............................................................35
Idaho Power Regions Affected .................................................................36
Idaho Power Energy-Saving Kit Program Summary Report4Executive Summary
“It was all very helpful and I like the
energy package. Thank you for the
energy program. I will spread the
word to my friends and family.”
– Idaho Power Energy-Saving Kit Program Participant
Resource Action Programs®5Executive Summary
The Idaho Power Energy-Saving Kit Program was designed and implemented to provide Idaho Power’s
residential households with energy-efficiency education, measures to reduce their energy costs, and
help them develop energy-efficient behaviors consistent with Idaho Power. This report summarizes the
2017B Energy-Saving Kit program, which was implemented by nineteen thousand, six-hundred seven
(19,607) Idaho households and seven-hundred ten (710) Oregon households. Funding was provided by
Idaho Power.
The program achieved or exceeded expectations and the results are listed below.
PROGRAM ACHIEVEMENTS
1. Provided residential energy-saving measures and energy-efficiency education to 19,607 Idaho
and 710 Oregon households.
• Affected all five regions of the Idaho Power service territory
• Affected 113 cities & towns in Idaho
• Affected 18 cities & towns in Oregon
Regions Households Electric Kit Non-Electric Kit
Canyon 3,703 1,750 1,953
Capital 4,650 1,506 3,144
Eastern 4,075 2,055 2,020
Southern 4,682 2,568 2,114
Western 3,207 2,112 1,095
Total 20,317 9,991 10,326
20,317
2. Generated residential energy and water savings. Projected annual savings:
• 113,242,107 gallons of water saved
• 9,173,216 kWh of electricity saved
• 47,004 therms of gas saved
Executive Summary
Idaho Power Energy-Saving Kit Program Summary Report6Executive Summary
3. Supported Idaho Power with their diverse outreach and distribution methods.
• Idaho Power website
• Idaho Power employee
• Information in bills
• Facebook/Twitter
• Friend or family
• Other
• Direct mail
4. Designed and provided complementary educational materials and incentives to maximize
installation of targeted efficiency measures (Installation rates ranged from 58–93 percent).
5. Maintained data collection and management
services to collect and process audit ready data
from participating households.
6. Maintained tracking and reporting to
summarize the Program participation.
The program with a new electric kit configuration was launched in mid-August. Direct mailing in
September and November resulted in immediate positive response from Idaho Power customers.
Program content on the Idaho Power website and enclosed information in the customer bills combined
with community events generated steady demand for this energy-saving kit. The program served a total
of 20,317 households in both Idaho and Oregon.
The Program provided customized Direct-to-Customer Program modules, which included educational
materials and energy-saving products. A participant survey was included with the program materials.
The purpose of the survey was to increase educational retention and impact while serving as a data
collection tool.
Survey responses indicated high participant satisfaction and participation in product retrofits and
adoption of new energy saving behaviors. Total 2,908 households returned completed surveys and the
responses were overwhelmingly positive. Highlights include:
A summary of responses can be found in Appendix B.
65+35+F
Reported households
with the Evolve TSV &
Showerhead installed.*
65%66+34+F
Reported households who
used the Shower Timer.*
66%
OPTING-IN METHODS HOUSEHOLDS %
Website 5,633 27.7%
Phone 1,004 4.9%
Postcards 13,680 67.3%
(continued)
58+42+F
Reported households
with ALL 9 LED light
bulbs installed.
58%93+7+F
Reported households
with the LED Night Light
installed.*
93%
*Installation rates assume 50% of households who responded “Not yet, but will” actually completed the installation.
Resource Action Programs®7Executive Summary
Projected Resource Savings
A list of assumptions and formulas used for these calculations can be found in Appendix A.
Projected energy savings from this program are significant. Based on the reported actions, annual and
lifetime resource savings are as follows:
PROJECTED ANNUAL SAVINGS
113,242,107 gallons of water saved
9,173,216 kWh of electricity saved
47,004 therms of gas saved
PROJECTED ANNUAL
SAVINGS PER HOME
11,334 gallons of water saved
452 kWh of electricity saved
2 therms of gas saved
PROJECTED LIFETIME SAVINGS
996,148,378 gallons of water saved
85,182,671 kWh of electricity saved
94,008 therms of gas saved
PROJECTED LIFETIME
SAVINGS PER HOME
99,705 gallons of water saved
4,193 kWh of electricity saved
5 therms of gas saved
Idaho Power Energy-Saving Kit Program Summary Report8RAP Direct-to-Customer Programs
“I have installed and used everything
that was sent. I even bought more
LED bulbs for the rest of the house.”
– Idaho Power Energy-Saving Kit Program Participant
Resource Action Programs®9RAP Direct-to-Customer Programs
For more than 25 years, Resource Action Programs®
(RAP) has designed and implemented resource
efficiency and education programs, changing
household energy and water use while delivering
significant, measurable resource savings for
program sponsors. All RAP programs feature
a proven blend of innovative education and
comprehensive implementation services.
RAP Programs serve more than 550,000 households
each year through school and adult delivered
Measure Based Education Programs. Our forty-
person staff manages the implementation process
and program oversight for nearly 300 individual
programs annually. Recognized nationally as a
leader in energy and water efficiency education
and program design, RAP has a strong reputation
for providing the highest level of service to program
sponsors as part of a wide range of conservation
and resource efficiency solutions for municipalities,
utilities, states, community agencies, and
corporations.
All aspects of program design and implementation
are completed at the Program Center in Sparks,
Nevada. These include: graphic and web design, print
production, procurement, warehousing, logistics,
module production, marketing, program tracking,
data tabulation and reporting.
The Direct-to-Customer Program represents the
leading edge of community energy efficiency
education program design and implementation.
The Program uses a client-directed Measure
Based Education model to generate lasting
residential energy savings from both retrofits
and new behaviors. Initially, participants
choose their personal savings target. Then they
select retrofits using provided measures and
energy-saving behaviors to reach their goal. The
Direct-to-Customer Program is tremendously
versatile, and can easily be introduced and
distributed via a wide range of delivery channels,
including Opt-in Direct Mail, CBO/CAA distribution,
workshops, community events, affinity groups
(volunteers, CAAs, CBOs, churches) or public events.
Cost-effective energy savings from the measure
installations will justify program investments
on their own, but the Program delivers several
other important benefits as well. The educational
component is designed to include each household
member in order to manage household energy
use. Measures, immediate savings actions and
additional savings ideas for all areas of residential
energy use are grouped by areas of the home and
provided to participants as options to help them
reach their personal savings targets. Additional
rebates and program opportunities can be
introduced through the Program or offered as
incentives for program performance.
Participation in the Direct-to-Customer Program
provides a strong, personalized pathway for
participants to realize both initial and ongoing
savings from new products and behavior choices in
their homes.
RAP Direct-to-Customer Programs
Idaho Power Energy-Saving Kit Program Summary Report10Program Overview
“I have or will use the whole kit, it
was awesome!! Came much sooner
than I thought it would.”
– Idaho Power Energy-Saving Kit Program Participant
Resource Action Programs®11Program Overview
Idaho Power Energy-Saving Kit
Program Overview
The overarching goal of this measure based program was to assist Idaho Power in providing their
residential households with energy-efficiency education and reduced energy costs as well as
developing energy efficiency behaviors consistent with Idaho Power’s energy efficiency objectives.
The energy-savings Kits empowered the Idaho and Oregon households to save energy and money.
The program created and distributed a custom educational savings module consisting of efficiency
measures, educational materials, and household surveys. Educational materials included a Quick Start
Guide, Survey, Installation Instructions, Mini-Home Assessment (Idaho Power provided) and other tools
such as stickers and magnets as reminders for
new energy-efficient conservation behaviors.
All elements were customized to meet Idaho
Power priorities, regional conditions and
regulatory requirements.
The program was offered to eligible Idaho
Power residential households as defined
by Idaho Power. Those in participating
households cited the categories shown in the
table (at right) when asked how they heard of
the program.
Those in eligible households opting-in to receive
the energy-saving kit utilized one of three
primary methods:
1) RAP developed and maintained a program
website to process energy-saving kit orders as well as to provide program information, including
product installation videos and instructions. 2) RAP maintained a toll-free phone number to process
the called-in kit orders and address any inquiries and issues. 3) Custom-designed direct mailers were
sent to households with program information and instructions on ordering a kit.
Kit installation surveys were received from 2,908 participated households, representing a response rate
of 14.3% of the 20,317 energy-saving kits distributed. A monthly drawing for a $100 gift card provided
an incentive for returning the household installation surveys.
OPTING-IN METHODS HOUSEHOLDS %
Website 5,633 27.7%
Phone 1,004 4.9%
Postcards 13,680 67.3%
HEARD ABOUT PROGRAM HOUSEHOLDS %
Direct Mail 14,817 72.9%
Idaho Power employee 648 3.2%
Idaho Power website 578 2.8%
Info in bill 978 4.8%
Facebook/Twitter 458 2.3%
Friend or family 1,918 9.4%
Other: News 73 0.4%
Other: Organizations 447 2.2%
Other 220 1.1%
Blank 180 0.9%
Idaho Power Energy-Saving Kit Program Summary Report12Program Materials
Water Heater
Heating water can account for 14 to 25
p
e
r
c
e
n
t

o
f

t
h
e

e
n
e
r
g
y

consumed in your home. Many peopl
e

t
h
i
n
k

p
l
a
c
i
n
g

a

w
a
t
e
r

heater on the hottest setting heats the wat
e
r

m
o
r
e

q
u
i
c
k
l
y

b
u
t

it doesn’t. It just uses more energy. Use t
h
e

d
i
g
i
t
a
l

t
h
e
r
m
o
m
e
t
e
r

from your kit to check the water temp
e
r
a
t
u
r
e
.

I
f

i
t
’
s

o
v
e
r

1
2
0
°
F
,

you may be overheating your water and was
t
i
n
g

e
n
e
r
g
y
!
Fill a cup with the hottest water from th
e

f
a
u
c
e
t

farthest from the water heater. Place

t
h
e

d
i
g
i
t
a
l

thermometer in the cup for two minutes.
If your hot water is over 120°F, lower
t
h
e

t
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e

setting on your water heater. Refer to your o
w
n
e
r
’
s

manual to adjust the settings.
TIP: If your water heater is in a garage
o
r

u
n
h
e
a
t
e
d

b
a
s
e
m
e
n
t
,

use a water heater blanket to save a
n

a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l

4

t
o

9

p
e
r
c
e
n
t

on your water heating costs. Water heater
b
l
a
n
k
e
t
s

c
a
n

b
e

found at your local hardware store.
APPLIANCE
Refrigerator/Freezer
Almost 8 percent of your electricity use goe
s

t
o

y
o
u
r

refrigerator and 2 percent to your freezer.

I
f

t
h
e
y
’
r
e

e
v
e
n

1
0
°
F

colder than necessary, the energy they

u
s
e

c
o
u
l
d

g
o

u
p

b
y

2
5

percent.
Use your digital thermometer to check t
h
e

temperature. Refrigerators should be
s
e
t

b
e
t
w
e
e
n

3
8
°

and 40°F and the freezer should be set at 0
°
F
.

Adjust temperature, if necessary.
TIP: Make sure the door is sealed tightly. Check

t
h
e

g
a
s
k
e
t

(rubber seal) for cracks and dried-o
n

f
o
o
d
.
APPLIANCE
LED Lighting
LED light bulbs use up to 80 percent less e
n
e
r
g
y

t
h
a
n

traditional bulbs and last up to 25 times
l
o
n
g
e
r
.

F
o
r

t
h
e

most savings, use the LED bulbs from

y
o
u
r

k
i
t

t
o

r
e
p
l
a
c
e

incandescent bulbs in high-use area
s
.

T
h
e
n

i
n
s
t
a
l
l

t
h
e

L
E
D

night light in an area that lights a path an
d

l
e
t
s

y
o
u

a
v
o
i
d

turning on other lights.
Replace your most-used 45-watt bulbs wit
h

t
h
e

6-watt LED bulbs from your kit.
Replace your most-used 60-watt b
u
l
b
s

w
i
t
h

t
h
e

9-watt LED bulbs from your kit.
Install the new LED night light from

y
o
u
r

k
i
t
.
TIP: For the most savings, place LED bulbs in

f
i
x
t
u
r
e
s

t
h
a
t

a
r
e

o
n

for at least 2-3 hours a day.
Want to Save More?
Idaho Power offers energy efficiency in
c
e
n
t
i
v
e
s

t
o

r
e
d
u
c
e

t
h
e

cost of energy efficient products and
/
o
r

s
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
.

C
h
e
c
k

o
u
t

the programs and tips at idahopower.com/
s
a
v
e

t
o

f
i
n
d

m
o
r
e

ways to use energy wisely and avoid unn
e
c
e
s
s
a
r
y

w
a
s
t
e
.
QUICK STEP1
LIGHTING
QUICK START GUIDE
Español en el otro lado
117419
START SAVING NOW!
1
2
3
Install the energy-efficient products in yo
u
r

k
i
t
.
Follow the energy-saving tips provid
e
d

i
n

t
h
i
s

Q
u
i
c
k

S
t
a
r
t

G
u
i
d
e
.
For additional ways to save, visit ida
h
o
p
o
w
e
r
.
c
o
m
/
s
a
v
e
2
d
a
y
.
Installation Questions?
See the INSTALLATION INSTRUCTIO
N

B
O
O
K
L
E
T

i
n

t
h
e

bottom of your kit.
Visit idahopower.com/save2day to vi
e
w

i
n
s
t
a
l
l
a
t
i
o
n

v
i
d
e
o
s
.
Don’t forget!
Return your survey for a chance to win

a

$
1
0
0

g
i
f
t

c
a
r
d
.
Developed in partnership:
Shower Timer
Running your shower for five minutes can

u
s
e

a
s

m
u
c
h

e
n
e
r
g
y

as leaving a 60-watt light bulb on for 14

h
o
u
r
s
.

A

s
h
o
w
e
r

t
i
m
e
r

reminds you to save energy and wat
e
r

w
h
i
l
e

s
h
o
w
e
r
i
n
g
.

T
h
e

shower timer, set to five (5) minutes, encou
r
a
g
e
s

t
h
e

w
i
s
e

u
s
e

of water. It requires no assembly or main
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
.

S
i
m
p
l
y

r
o
t
a
t
e

the shower timer half a turn when you

b
e
g
i
n

y
o
u
r

s
h
o
w
e
r
;

t
h
e
n

try to finish before the sand runs out.
Install the new shower timer from your

k
i
t
.
TIP: The average shower is 8.2 – 10.4 min
u
t
e
s

i
n

l
e
n
g
t
h
.

A

f
i
v
e
-
minute shower reduces energy used to

p
u
m
p

a
n
d

h
e
a
t

w
a
t
e
r
,

saves fresh water and reduces waste
w
a
t
e
r
.
QUICK STEP2
WATER AND ENERGY
Water Flow-Rate Test Bag
If your showerhead uses more than
2
.
5

g
a
l
l
o
n
s

o
f

w
a
t
e
r

p
e
r

minute (gpm) or your faucets use more th
a
n

1
.
5

g
p
m
,

y
o
u

c
o
u
l
d

save by installing a high-efficiency show
e
r
h
e
a
d

a
n
d

f
a
u
c
e
t

aerators. These devices save water an
d

e
n
e
r
g
y

w
h
i
l
e

d
e
l
i
v
e
r
i
n
g

good pressure.
With a stopwatch and a helper, follow
t
h
e

s
i
x

s
t
e
p
s

on the flow-rate test bag to measur
e

t
h
e

w
a
t
e
r

u
s
e

of your current showerhead.
Now measure the output of your kitc
h
e
n

f
a
u
c
e
t

a
n
d

bathroom faucets.
TIP: Idaho Power offers incentives for
efficient showerheads by working with

manufacturers and participating retailers.
Go to idahopower.com/showerheads for
promotion details.
QUICK STEP3
WATER
QUICK STEP4
QUICK STEP5
Refrigerator/Freezer
Almost 8 percent of your el
e
c
t
r
i
c
i
t
y

u
s
e

g
o
e
s

t
o

y
o
u
r

refrigerator and 2 perce
n
t

t
o

y
o
u
r

f
r
e
e
z
e
r
.

I
f

t
h
e
y
’
r
e

e
v
e
n

1
0
°
F

colder than necessary, the

e
n
e
r
g
y

t
h
e
y

u
s
e

c
o
u
l
d

g
o

u
p

b
y

2
5

percent.
Use your digital thermom
e
t
e
r

t
o

c
h
e
c
k

t
h
e
temperature. Refrigerators

s
h
o
u
l
d

b
e

s
e
t

b
e
t
w
e
e
n

3
8
°

and 40°F and the freezer sh
o
u
l
d

b
e

s
e
t

a
t

0
°
F
.

Adjust temperature, if nece
s
s
a
r
y
.
TIP: Make sure the door is seale
d

t
i
g
h
t
l
y
.

C
h
e
c
k

t
h
e

g
a
s
k
e
t

(rubber seal) for cracks and

d
r
i
e
d
-
o
n

f
o
o
d
.
LED Lighting
LED light bulbs use up to 80

p
e
r
c
e
n
t

l
e
s
s

e
n
e
r
g
y

t
h
a
n

traditional bulbs and last

u
p

t
o

2
5

t
i
m
e
s

l
o
n
g
e
r
.

F
o
r

t
h
e

most savings, use the LED
b
u
l
b
s

f
r
o
m

y
o
u
r

k
i
t

t
o

r
e
p
l
a
c
e

incandescent bulbs in h
i
g
h
-
u
s
e

a
r
e
a
s
.

T
h
e
n

i
n
s
t
a
l
l

t
h
e

L
E
D

night light in an area that

l
i
g
h
t
s

a

p
a
t
h

a
n
d

l
e
t
s

y
o
u

a
v
o
i
d

turning on other lights.
Replace your most-used

4
5
-
w
a
t
t

b
u
l
b
s

w
i
t
h

t
h
e

6-watt LED bulbs from yo
u
r

k
i
t
.
Replace your most-used

6
0
-
w
a
t
t

b
u
l
b
s

w
i
t
h

t
h
e

9-watt LED bulbs from you
r

k
i
t
.
Install the new LED night

l
i
g
h
t

f
r
o
m

y
o
u
r

k
i
t
.
TIP: For the most savings, pla
c
e

L
E
D

b
u
l
b
s

i
n

f
i
x
t
u
r
e
s

t
h
a
t

a
r
e

o
n

for at least 2-3 hours a da
y
.
Evolve Showerhead Plus

T
S
V
When taking a shower, you u
s
e

t
w
o

r
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
:

w
a
t
e
r
—
a
n
d

the energy to heat the wa
t
e
r
.

I
n
s
t
a
l
l

t
h
e

E
v
o
l
v
e

h
i
g
h
-
e
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
c
y

showerhead in your kit. It’s
i
n
t
e
g
r
a
t
e
d

t
h
e
r
m
o
s
t
a
t
i
c

s
h
u
t
-
o
f
f

valve (TSV) allows you t
o

e
f
f
o
r
t
l
e
s
s
l
y

s
a
v
e

t
h
e

h
o
t

w
a
t
e
r

a
n
d

energy that’s used while w
a
i
t
i
n
g

f
o
r

y
o
u
r

s
h
o
w
e
r

t
o

b
e
c
o
m
e

warm. It also lets you know w
h
e
n

y
o
u
r

s
h
o
w
e
r
’
s

r
e
a
d
y
.
Turn on the shower to le
t

t
h
e

w
a
t
e
r

w
a
r
m

u
p
.
When the water reaches 95
°

F
,

t
h
e

T
S
V

r
e
d
u
c
e
s

w
a
t
e
r

flow to let you know you
r

s
h
o
w
e
r

i
s

r
e
a
d
y
.
Pull the cord to resume full w
a
t
e
r

f
l
o
w
.
TIP: You can compare the wate
r

f
l
o
w

r
a
t
e

o
f

y
o
u
r

o
l
d

showerhead with the
n
e
w

o
n
e

b
y

f
o
l
l
o
w
i
n
g

t
h
e

s
i
x

s
t
e
p
s

o
n

the flow-rate test bag in
c
l
u
d
e
d

i
n

t
h
e

b
o
t
t
o
m

o
f

y
o
u
r

k
i
t
.
QUICK STEP2
WATER AND ENERGY
QUICK STEP1
LIGHTING
QUICK START GUIDEEspañol en el otro lado
117379
START SAVING NOW
! 1
2
3
Install the energy-efficient
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
s

i
n

y
o
u
r

k
i
t
.
Follow the energy-saving

t
i
p
s

p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d

i
n

t
h
i
s

Q
u
i
c
k

S
t
a
r
t

G
u
i
d
e
.
For additional ways to save
,

v
i
s
i
t

i
d
a
h
o
p
o
w
e
r
.
c
o
m
/
s
a
v
e
2
d
a
y
.
Installation Questio
n
s
? See the INSTALLATION INS
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N

B
O
O
K
L
E
T

i
n

t
h
e

bottom of your kit.
Visit idahopower.com/save2
d
a
y

t
o

v
i
e
w

i
n
s
t
a
l
l
a
t
i
o
n

v
i
d
e
o
s
.
Don’t forget!
Return your survey for a cha
n
c
e

t
o

w
i
n

a

$
1
0
0

g
i
f
t

c
a
r
d
.
Developed in partnershi
p
:

QUICK STEP5
APPLIANCE
QUICK STEP4
APPLIANCE
Water Heater
Heating water can accoun
t

f
o
r

1
4

t
o

2
5

p
e
r
c
e
n
t

o
f

t
h
e

e
n
e
r
g
y

consumed in your home. Ma
n
y

p
e
o
p
l
e

t
h
i
n
k

p
l
a
c
i
n
g

a

w
a
t
e
r

heater on the hottest se
t
t
i
n
g

h
e
a
t
s

t
h
e

w
a
t
e
r

m
o
r
e

q
u
i
c
k
l
y

b
u
t

it doesn’t. It just uses more

e
n
e
r
g
y
.

U
s
e

t
h
e

d
i
g
i
t
a
l

t
h
e
r
m
o
m
e
t
e
r

from your kit to check

t
h
e

w
a
t
e
r

t
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e
.

I
f

i
t
’
s

o
v
e
r

1
2
0
°
F
,

you may be overheating
y
o
u
r

w
a
t
e
r

a
n
d

w
a
s
t
i
n
g

e
n
e
r
g
y
!
Fill a cup with the hottest
w
a
t
e
r

f
r
o
m

t
h
e

f
a
u
c
e
t

farthest from the water

h
e
a
t
e
r
.

P
l
a
c
e

t
h
e

d
i
g
i
t
a
l

thermometer in the cup f
o
r

t
w
o

m
i
n
u
t
e
s
.

If your hot water is over

1
2
0
°
F
,

l
o
w
e
r

t
h
e

t
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e

setting on your water hea
t
e
r
.

R
e
f
e
r

t
o

y
o
u
r

o
w
n
e
r
’
s

manual to adjust the setting
s
.

TIP: If your water heater is
i
n

a

g
a
r
a
g
e

o
r

u
n
h
e
a
t
e
d

b
a
s
e
m
e
n
t
,

use a water heater blan
k
e
t

t
o

s
a
v
e

a
n

a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l

4

t
o

9

p
e
r
c
e
n
t

on your water heating co
s
t
s
.

W
a
t
e
r

h
e
a
t
e
r

b
l
a
n
k
e
t
s

c
a
n

b
e

found at your local hardwar
e

s
t
o
r
e
.
Water Efficiency
Five extra minutes in the s
h
o
w
e
r

c
a
n

u
s
e

a
s

m
u
c
h

e
n
e
r
g
y

a
s

leaving a 60-watt light

b
u
l
b

o
n

f
o
r

1
4

h
o
u
r
s
.

A

s
h
o
w
e
r

t
i
m
e
r

reminds you to save ener
g
y

a
n
d

w
a
t
e
r

w
h
i
l
e

s
h
o
w
e
r
i
n
g
.

T
h
e

shower timer, set to five (5
)

m
i
n
u
t
e
s
,

e
n
c
o
u
r
a
g
e
s

w
i
s
e

u
s
e

o
f

water. Simply rotate it a

h
a
l
f
-
t
u
r
n

w
h
e
n

y
o
u

b
e
g
i
n

y
o
u
r

s
h
o
w
e
r
;

then try to finish before t
h
e

s
a
n
d

r
u
n
s

o
u
t
.
Install the new shower time
r

f
r
o
m

y
o
u
r

k
i
t
.
Faucet aerators save water a
n
d

e
n
e
r
g
y

w
h
i
l
e

p
r
o
v
i
d
i
n
g

g
o
o
d

pressure and satisfying r
e
s
u
l
t
s
.
Install the new kitchen fau
c
e
t

a
e
r
a
t
o
r

f
r
o
m

y
o
u
r

k
i
t
.
Install the new bathroom

f
a
u
c
e
t

a
e
r
a
t
o
r
s

f
r
o
m

y
o
u
r

k
i
t
.
TIP: The average shower is 8.2
-
1
0
.
4

m
i
n
u
t
e
s

i
n

l
e
n
g
t
h
.

A

f
i
v
e
-
minute shower reduces en
e
r
g
y

u
s
e
d

t
o

p
u
m
p

a
n
d

h
e
a
t

w
a
t
e
r
,

saves fresh water and
r
e
d
u
c
e
s

w
a
s
t
e
w
a
t
e
r
.
QUICK STEP3
Want to Save More?
Idaho Power offers energy

e
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
c
y

i
n
c
e
n
t
i
v
e
s

t
o

r
e
d
u
c
e

t
h
e

cost of energy efficient prod
u
c
t
s

a
n
d
/
o
r

s
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
.

C
h
e
c
k

o
u
t

the programs and tips at

i
d
a
h
o
p
o
w
e
r
.
c
o
m
/
s
a
v
e

t
o

f
i
n
d

m
o
r
e

ways to use energy wisely

a
n
d

a
v
o
i
d

u
n
n
e
c
e
s
s
a
r
y

w
a
s
t
e
.
WATER AND ENERGY
Water Heater
Heating water can acco
u
n
t

f
o
r

1
4

t
o

2
5

p
e
r
c
e
n
t

o
f

t
h
e

e
n
e
r
g
y

consumed in your ho
m
e
.

M
a
n
y

p
e
o
p
l
e

t
h
i
n
k

p
l
a
c
i
n
g

a

w
a
t
e
r

heater on the hottest s
e
t
t
i
n
g

h
e
a
t
s

t
h
e

w
a
t
e
r

m
o
r
e

q
u
i
c
k
l
y

b
u
t

it doesn’t. It just uses

m
o
r
e

e
n
e
r
g
y
.

U
s
e

t
h
e

d
i
g
i
t
a
l

t
h
e
r
m
o
m
e
t
e
r

from your kit to che
c
k

t
h
e

w
a
t
e
r

t
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e
.

I
f

i
t
’
s

o
v
e
r

1
2
0
°
F
,

you may be overheat
i
n
g

y
o
u
r

w
a
t
e
r

a
n
d

w
a
s
t
i
n
g

e
n
e
r
g
y
!
Fill a cup with the hot
t
e
s
t

w
a
t
e
r

f
r
o
m

t
h
e

f
a
u
c
e
t

farthest from the wa
t
e
r

h
e
a
t
e
r
.

P
l
a
c
e

t
h
e

d
i
g
i
t
a
l

thermometer in the cu
p

f
o
r

t
w
o

m
i
n
u
t
e
s
.

If your hot water is ov
e
r

1
2
0
°
F
,

l
o
w
e
r

t
h
e

t
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e

setting on your wate
r

h
e
a
t
e
r
.

R
e
f
e
r

t
o

y
o
u
r

o
w
n
e
r
’
s

manual to adjust the s
e
t
t
i
n
g
s
.

TIP: If your water heater

i
s

i
n

a

g
a
r
a
g
e

o
r

u
n
h
e
a
t
e
d

b
a
s
e
m
e
n
t
,

use a water heater blan
k
e
t

t
o

s
a
v
e

a
n

a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l

4

t
o

9

p
e
r
c
e
n
t

on your water heating

c
o
s
t
s
.

W
a
t
e
r

h
e
a
t
e
r

b
l
a
n
k
e
t
s

c
a
n

b
e

found at your local
h
a
r
d
w
a
r
e

s
t
o
r
e
.
APPLIANCE
Refrigerator/Freeze
r
Almost 8 percent of yo
u
r

e
l
e
c
t
r
i
c
i
t
y

u
s
e

g
o
e
s

t
o

y
o
u
r

refrigerator and 2 pe
r
c
e
n
t

t
o

y
o
u
r

f
r
e
e
z
e
r
.

I
f

t
h
e
y
’
r
e

e
v
e
n

1
0
°
F

colder than necessary
,

t
h
e

e
n
e
r
g
y

t
h
e
y

u
s
e

c
o
u
l
d

g
o

u
p

b
y

2
5

percent.
Use your digital therm
o
m
e
t
e
r

t
o

c
h
e
c
k

t
h
e

temperature. Refrig
e
r
a
t
o
r
s

s
h
o
u
l
d

b
e

s
e
t

b
e
t
w
e
e
n

3
8
°

and 40°F and the free
z
e
r

s
h
o
u
l
d

b
e

s
e
t

a
t

0
°
F
.

Adjust temperature, i
f

n
e
c
e
s
s
a
r
y
.
TIP: Make sure the door

i
s

s
e
a
l
e
d

t
i
g
h
t
l
y
.

C
h
e
c
k

t
h
e

g
a
s
k
e
t

(rubber seal) for crack
s

a
n
d

d
r
i
e
d
-
o
n

f
o
o
d
.
APPLIANCE
LED Lighting
LED light bulbs use up

t
o

8
0

p
e
r
c
e
n
t

l
e
s
s

e
n
e
r
g
y

t
h
a
n

traditional bulbs and

l
a
s
t

u
p

t
o

2
5

t
i
m
e
s

l
o
n
g
e
r
.

F
o
r

t
h
e

most savings, use the

L
E
D

b
u
l
b
s

f
r
o
m

y
o
u
r

k
i
t

t
o

r
e
p
l
a
c
e

incandescent bulbs
i
n

h
i
g
h
-
u
s
e

a
r
e
a
s
.

T
h
e
n

i
n
s
t
a
l
l

t
h
e

L
E
D

night light in an area t
h
a
t

l
i
g
h
t
s

a

p
a
t
h

a
n
d

l
e
t
s

y
o
u

a
v
o
i
d

turning on other ligh
t
s
.
Replace your most-us
e
d

4
5
-
w
a
t
t

b
u
l
b
s

w
i
t
h

t
h
e

6-watt LED bulbs from

y
o
u
r

k
i
t
.
Replace your most-
u
s
e
d

6
0
-
w
a
t
t

b
u
l
b
s

w
i
t
h

t
h
e

9-watt LED bulbs from

y
o
u
r

k
i
t
.
Install the new LED n
i
g
h
t

l
i
g
h
t

f
r
o
m

y
o
u
r

k
i
t
.
TIP: For the most saving
s
,

p
l
a
c
e

L
E
D

b
u
l
b
s

i
n

f
i
x
t
u
r
e
s

t
h
a
t

a
r
e

o
n

for at least 2-3 hours a

d
a
y
.
Want to Save More?
Idaho Power offers
e
n
e
r
g
y

e
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
c
y

i
n
c
e
n
t
i
v
e
s

t
o

r
e
d
u
c
e

t
h
e

cost of energy efficie
n
t

p
r
o
d
u
c
t
s

a
n
d
/
o
r

s
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
.

C
h
e
c
k

o
u
t

the programs and t
i
p
s

a
t

i
d
a
h
o
p
o
w
e
r
.
c
o
m
/
s
a
v
e

t
o

f
i
n
d

m
o
r
e

ways to use energy w
i
s
e
l
y

a
n
d

a
v
o
i
d

u
n
n
e
c
e
s
s
a
r
y

w
a
s
t
e
.
QUICK STEP1
LIGHTING
QUICK START GUID
E
Español en el otro la
d
o
117419
START SAVING NO
W
!

1
2
3
Install the energy-ef
f
i
c
i
e
n
t

p
r
o
d
u
c
t
s

i
n

y
o
u
r

k
i
t
.
Follow the energy-savi
n
g

t
i
p
s

p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d

i
n

t
h
i
s

Q
u
i
c
k

S
t
a
r
t

G
u
i
d
e
.
For additional ways to

s
a
v
e
,

v
i
s
i
t

i
d
a
h
o
p
o
w
e
r
.
c
o
m
/
s
a
v
e
2
d
a
y
.
Installation Questi
o
n
s
?
See the INSTALLATIO
N

I
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N

B
O
O
K
L
E
T

i
n

t
h
e

bottom of your kit.
Visit idahopower.com/
s
a
v
e
2
d
a
y

t
o

v
i
e
w

i
n
s
t
a
l
l
a
t
i
o
n

v
i
d
e
o
s
.
Don’t forget!
Return your survey f
o
r

a

c
h
a
n
c
e

t
o

w
i
n

a

$
1
0
0

g
i
f
t

c
a
r
d
.
Developed in partne
r
s
h
i
p
:

Shower Timer
Running your shower

f
o
r

f
i
v
e

m
i
n
u
t
e
s

c
a
n

u
s
e

a
s

m
u
c
h

e
n
e
r
g
y

as leaving a 60-watt li
g
h
t

b
u
l
b

o
n

f
o
r

1
4

h
o
u
r
s
.

A

s
h
o
w
e
r

t
i
m
e
r

reminds you to save
e
n
e
r
g
y

a
n
d

w
a
t
e
r

w
h
i
l
e

s
h
o
w
e
r
i
n
g
.

T
h
e

shower timer, set to fiv
e

(
5
)

m
i
n
u
t
e
s
,

e
n
c
o
u
r
a
g
e
s

t
h
e

w
i
s
e

u
s
e

of water. It requires n
o

a
s
s
e
m
b
l
y

o
r

m
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
.

S
i
m
p
l
y

r
o
t
a
t
e

the shower timer ha
l
f

a

t
u
r
n

w
h
e
n

y
o
u

b
e
g
i
n

y
o
u
r

s
h
o
w
e
r
;

t
h
e
n

try to finish before th
e

s
a
n
d

r
u
n
s

o
u
t
.
Install the new showe
r

t
i
m
e
r

f
r
o
m

y
o
u
r

k
i
t
.
TIP: The average shower i
s

8
.
2

–

1
0
.
4

m
i
n
u
t
e
s

i
n

l
e
n
g
t
h
.

A

f
i
v
e
-
minute shower reduc
e
s

e
n
e
r
g
y

u
s
e
d

t
o

p
u
m
p

a
n
d

h
e
a
t

w
a
t
e
r
,

saves fresh water and
r
e
d
u
c
e
s

w
a
s
t
e
w
a
t
e
r
.
QUICK STEP2
WATER AND
ENERGY
Water Flow-Rate Te
s
t

B
a
g
If your showerhead u
s
e
s

m
o
r
e

t
h
a
n

2
.
5

g
a
l
l
o
n
s

o
f

w
a
t
e
r

p
e
r

minute (gpm) or your
f
a
u
c
e
t
s

u
s
e

m
o
r
e

t
h
a
n

1
.
5

g
p
m
,

y
o
u

c
o
u
l
d

save by installing a h
i
g
h
-
e
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
c
y

s
h
o
w
e
r
h
e
a
d

a
n
d

f
a
u
c
e
t

aerators. These device
s

s
a
v
e

w
a
t
e
r

a
n
d

e
n
e
r
g
y

w
h
i
l
e

d
e
l
i
v
e
r
i
n
g

good pressure.
With a stopwatch and

a

h
e
l
p
e
r
,

f
o
l
l
o
w

t
h
e

s
i
x

s
t
e
p
s

on the flow-rate test

b
a
g

t
o

m
e
a
s
u
r
e

t
h
e

w
a
t
e
r

u
s
e

of your current showe
r
h
e
a
d
.
Now measure the out
p
u
t

o
f

y
o
u
r

k
i
t
c
h
e
n

f
a
u
c
e
t

a
n
d

bathroom faucets.
TIP: Idaho Power offers in
c
e
n
t
i
v
e
s

f
o
r

efficient showerhead
s

b
y

w
o
r
k
i
n
g

w
i
t
h

manufacturers and par
t
i
c
i
p
a
t
i
n
g

r
e
t
a
i
l
e
r
s
.

Go to idahopower.co
m
/
s
h
o
w
e
r
h
e
a
d
s

f
o
r

promotion details.
QUICK STEP3
WATER
QUICK STEP4
QUICK STEP5
Resource Action Programs®13Program Materials
Included Efficiency Measures
Six 9-Watt LEDs (800 Lumens)
Three 6-Watt LEDs (480 Lumens)
IPC branded LED Night Light
Evolve TSV & Showerhead
Kitchen and Bathroom Faucet Aerators
Shower Timer
Digital Thermometer
Each participating household received an energy-saving kit containing efficiency measures for their
homes and a Quick Start Guide with energy efficiency information and behavioral tips. The materials
were customized for Idaho Power. Households with electric water heating received an electric kit
(including water-saving measures). Households with other water heating options received a
non-electric kit (not including water-saving measures).
Idaho Power Energy-Saving Kit
Program Materials
Included Educational Materials
Quick Start Guide
Survey
Survey Envelope (postage prepaid)
Sticker and Magnet Reminder
Mini-Home Assessment (Idaho Power provided)
Installation Instructions
* An Electric Kit
Idaho Power Energy-Saving Kit Program Summary Report14Program Implementation
100Gift Cd$
INSTAL LATION SURVEY
(Español en el otro lado)
Compl e šis survey
‚r a ƒ„… † win a
*
15039 A0092 Idaho Power DTC
*For contest details visit Idahopower.com/save2day
1. What type of home do you live in?
Single family home - Detached
Apartment, Condo, Townhouse, or Multi-family with 2-3 units
Apartment, Condo, Townhouse, or Multi-family with 4 or more units
Mobile/Manufactured home
2. How many people live in your home?
5 or more 3 1
4 2
3. How many of the LEDs did you install?
All of them 5-6 1-2
7-8 3-4 None
4. If you did not install all of the LEDs, what did you do with the remainder?
Plan to install, just haven’t yet Gave them to someone else
Stored for later use Other
Have you used the Yes Not yet, but will No, won’t use
5. LED Night Light?
6. Shower Timer?
7. Flow-Rate Test Bag to test the
flow rate of your shower or faucets?
8. If you used the Digital Thermometer to check the temperature of your w
a
t
e
r
,

what was the temperature?
> 140° F < 120° F
131° F to 140° F Did not check water temperature
120° F to 130° F
Did you adjust the temperature of your Yes Yes No
I lowered it I raised it I did not adjust
9. Electric water heater?
10. Refrigerator?
11. Freezer?
12. How satisfied were you with the kit ordering process?
Very satisfied Somewhat dissatisfied
Somewhat satisfied Very dissatisfied
13. Did you receive your kit within 3 weeks?
Yes No
14. How likely would you be to tell a friend or family member to order a
k
i
t
?
Very likely Somewhat unlikely
Somewhat likely Very unlikely
15. Prior to hearing about the Energy-Saving Kits, were you aware Idaho Power h
a
d

energy efficiency programs and incentives?
Yes No
16. Have you ever gone to Idaho Power’s website to look for information ab
o
u
t

energy efficiency programs or to find ways to save?
Yes No
17. How likely are you to participate in another energy efficiency program?
Very likely Somewhat unlikely
Somewhat likely Very unlikely
18. If you did not install some of the kit items, please tell us why.

Return this survey in the postage-paid envelope included in your kit.
You will be entered into our monthly drawing for a chance to win a $100 gift

c
a
r
d
.
117429
0000000
YES NO
1. Install the energy-efficient products in your kit.
2. Follow the energy-saving tips provided in the
quick start guide.
3. Return this survey for a chance to win a $100
gift card!
(Postage-paid envelope included)
All you have to do is...
Fill in each bubble completely
Use a black pen to fill in the bubble
next to the correct answer.
117429 15039 Idaho_Power Survey Non_Electric.indd 1-3
7/13/17 3:46 PM
100Gift Cd
$
INSTAL LATION SUR
V
E
Y
(Español en
e
l

o
t
r
o

l
a
d
o
)
Compl e š
i
s

s
u
r
v
e
y‚r a ƒ„…
†

w
i
n

a
*
15039 A0092

I
d
a
h
o

P
o
w
e
r

D
T
C

*For contest deta
i
l
s

v
i
s
i
t

I
d
a
h
o
p
o
w
e
r
.
c
o
m
/
s
a
v
e
2
d
a
y
1. What type of h
o
m
e

d
o

y
o
u

l
i
v
e

i
n
?
Single family

h
o
m
e

-

D
e
t
a
c
h
e
d
Apartment,
C
o
n
d
o
,

T
o
w
n
h
o
u
s
e
,

o
r

M
u
l
t
i
-
f
a
m
i
l
y

w
i
t
h

2
-
3

u
n
i
t
s
Apartment
,

C
o
n
d
o
,

T
o
w
n
h
o
u
s
e
,

o
r

M
u
l
t
i
-
f
a
m
i
l
y

w
i
t
h

4

o
r

m
o
r
e

u
n
i
t
s
Mobile/Man
u
f
a
c
t
u
r
e
d

h
o
m
e
2. How many p
e
o
p
l
e

l
i
v
e

i
n

y
o
u
r

h
o
m
e
?
5 or more
3
1
4
23. How many of t
h
e

L
E
D
s

d
i
d

y
o
u

i
n
s
t
a
l
l
?
All of them
5-6
1-2
7-8
3-4
None
4. If you did not i
n
s
t
a
l
l

a
l
l

o
f

t
h
e

L
E
D
s
,

w
h
a
t

d
i
d

y
o
u

d
o

w
i
t
h

t
h
e

r
e
m
a
i
n
d
e
r
?
Plan to insta
l
l
,

j
u
s
t

h
a
v
e
n
’
t

y
e
t

Gave them
t
o

s
o
m
e
o
n
e

e
l
s
e
Stored for late
r

u
s
e

Other
Have you used th
e

Yes Not yet,
b
u
t

w
i
l
l

N
o
,

w
o
n
’
t

u
s
e
5. LED Night
L
i
g
h
t
?

6. Shower Timer?

7. Flow-Rate Test B
a
g

t
o

t
e
s
t

the
flow rate of
y
o
u
r

s
h
o
w
e
r

o
r

f
a
u
c
e
t
s
?

8. If you used the
D
i
g
i
t
a
l

T
h
e
r
m
o
m
e
t
e
r

t
o

c
h
e
c
k

t
h
e

t
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e

o
f

y
o
u
r

w
a
t
e
r
,

what was the tem
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e
? > 140° F
< 120° F
131° F to 14
0
°

F

Did not chec
k

w
a
t
e
r

t
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e
120° F to 1
3
0
°

F
Did you adjust the

t
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e

o
f

y
o
u
r

Yes Yes
No

I lowered it
I

r
a
i
s
e
d

i
t

I

d
i
d

n
o
t

a
d
j
u
s
t
9. Electric wate
r

h
e
a
t
e
r
?

10. Refrigerato
r
?

11. Freezer?

12. How satisfied we
r
e

y
o
u

w
i
t
h

t
h
e

k
i
t

o
r
d
e
r
i
n
g

p
r
o
c
e
s
s
?
Very satisfie
d

Somewhat

d
i
s
s
a
t
i
s
f
i
e
d
Somewhat satisfi
e
d
Very dissatis
f
i
e
d
13. Did you rec
e
i
v
e

y
o
u
r

k
i
t

w
i
t
h
i
n

3

w
e
e
k
s
?
Yes No14. How likely w
o
u
l
d

y
o
u

b
e

t
o

t
e
l
l

a

f
r
i
e
n
d

o
r

f
a
m
i
l
y

m
e
m
b
e
r

t
o

o
r
d
e
r

a

k
i
t
?
Very likely
Somewhat

u
n
l
i
k
e
l
y
Somewhat li
k
e
l
y

Very unlikely
15. Prior to hearing a
b
o
u
t

t
h
e

E
n
e
r
g
y
-
S
a
v
i
n
g

K
i
t
s
,

w
e
r
e

y
o
u

a
w
a
r
e

I
d
a
h
o

P
o
w
e
r

h
a
d

energy efficien
c
y

p
r
o
g
r
a
m
s

a
n
d

i
n
c
e
n
t
i
v
e
s
?
Yes No16. Have you ever g
o
n
e

t
o

I
d
a
h
o

P
o
w
e
r
’
s

w
e
b
s
i
t
e

t
o

l
o
o
k

f
o
r

i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n

a
b
o
u
t

energy efficienc
y

p
r
o
g
r
a
m
s

o
r

t
o

f
i
n
d

w
a
y
s

t
o

s
a
v
e
?
Yes No17. How likely are you

t
o

p
a
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
t
e

i
n

a
n
o
t
h
e
r

e
n
e
r
g
y

e
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
c
y

program?
Very likely
Somewhat

u
n
l
i
k
e
l
y
Somewhat li
k
e
l
y

Very unlikely
18. If you did no
t

i
n
s
t
a
l
l

s
o
m
e

o
f

t
h
e

k
i
t

i
t
e
m
s
,

p
l
e
a
s
e

t
e
l
l

u
s

w
h
y
.

Return this surv
e
y

i
n

t
h
e

p
o
s
t
a
g
e
-
p
a
i
d

e
n
v
e
l
o
p
e

i
n
c
l
u
d
e
d

i
n

y
o
u
r

k
i
t
.
You will be enter
e
d

i
n
t
o

o
u
r

m
o
n
t
h
l
y

d
r
a
w
i
n
g

f
o
r

a

c
h
a
n
c
e

t
o

w
i
n

a

$
1
0
0

g
i
f
t

c
a
r
d
.
117429
0000000
YES NO
1. Install the e
n
e
r
g
y
-
e
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t

p
r
o
d
u
c
t
s

i
n

y
o
u
r

k
i
t
.
2. Follow the
e
n
e
r
g
y
-
s
a
v
i
n
g

t
i
p
s

p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d

i
n

t
h
e

quick start g
u
i
d
e
.

3. Return this
s
u
r
v
e
y

f
o
r

a

c
h
a
n
c
e

t
o

w
i
n

a

$
1
0
0

gift card!
(Postage-pai
d

e
n
v
e
l
o
p
e

i
n
c
l
u
d
e
d
)
All you have

t
o

d
o

i
s
.
.
.
Fill in each b
u
b
b
l
e

c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
l
y
Use a black pen

t
o

f
i
l
l

i
n

t
h
e

b
u
b
b
l
e

next to the
c
o
r
r
e
c
t

a
n
s
w
e
r
.
117429 15039 Idah
o
_
P
o
w
e
r

S
u
r
v
e
y

N
o
n
_
E
l
e
c
t
r
i
c
.
i
n
d
d

1
-
3
7/13/17 3:46 PM
Resource Action Programs®15Program Implementation
An introductory marketing direct mailer, supported by the information on the Idaho Power website,
merited positive results. Many shared their positive program experience with their family and
friends though social media, word of mouth, and emails. Additional exposure through bill inserts
and community events resulted in a steady demand for the program.
Participation was processed and tracked at the RAP Program Center, which has the capacity to
handle in excess of 100,000 requests per month. The program website, a toll-free phone number,
and the business reply postcards provided convenient methods for interested households to order
a kit and participate in the program.
Orders were tracked and managed daily from all outreach and enrollment sources. Program
materials and products were packaged and addressed for individual home delivery. All Program
modules received a unique ID number to improve the accuracy of data tracking and reduce the
amount of information required from respondents.
All enrollments, shipping, and survey data were managed by RAP’s proprietary Program Database. In
addition, all returned surveys were tabulated and included in the program database. This procedure
allows for reporting, which is an important element for tracking the measurements and goals of
this program.
Idaho Power Energy-Saving Kit
Program Implementation
Idaho Power Energy-Saving Kit Program Summary Report16Program Impact
“Thank you for the light bulbs. I’ve
replaced all of my home lights with
LED except in my shop but will do
them too. Replaced my kitchen lights
with LED strip lights fixtures. It was
way brighter, wife is happy!”
– Idaho Power Energy-Saving Kit Program Participant
Resource Action Programs®17Program Impact
The program impacted 115 cities and towns throughout Idaho and 18 cities and towns in Oregon. As
illustrated below, the program successfully educated those in participating households about energy
and water efficiency while generating resource savings through the installation of efficiency measures
in their homes. Home survey and installation information was collected to track savings and gather
household consumption and demographic data. The three program elements, described on the next few
pages, were used to collect this data.
A. Home Survey and Retrofit Data
Upon completion of the program, participating households were asked to complete a home survey to
assess their resource use, verify product installation, provide demographic information, and measure
participation rates. Sample questions appear below and a complete summary of all responses is
included in Appendix B.
Did you install ALL 9 LED Light Bulbs? Yes - 58%
Did you install the LED Night Light? Yes - 93%
Did you install the Evolve TSV & Showerhead? Yes - 65%
Did you use the Shower Timer? Yes - 66%
Idaho Power Energy-Saving Kit
Program Impact
65+35+F
Reported households
with the Evolve TSV &
Showerhead installed.*
65%66+34+F
Reported households who
used the Shower Timer.*
66%58+42+F
Reported households
with ALL 9 LED Light
Bulbs installed.
58%93+7+F
Reported households
with the LED Night Light
installed.*
93%
*Installation rates assume 50% of households who responded “Not yet, but will” actually completed the installation.
Idaho Power Energy-Saving Kit Program Summary Report18Program Impact
B. Water and Energy Savings Summary
As part of the program, participants installed retrofit efficiency measures in their homes. Using the
family habits collected from the home survey as the basis for this calculation, 20,317 households are
expected to save the following resource totals. Savings from these actions and new behaviors will
continue for many years to come.
Projected Resource Savings
A list of assumptions and formulas used for these calculations can be found in Appendix A.
Total Number of Participants: 20,317
Number of Electric Only Participants: 9,991
Number of Non-Electric Participants: 10,326
Annual Lifetime
Projected reduction from Showerhead retrofit:55,570,055 555,700,550 gallons
Measure Life: 10 years 2,397,840 23,978,400 kWh
Projected reduction from Shower Timer installation:17,034,087 34,068,174 gallons
Product Life: 2 years 1,275,819 2,551,638 kWh
47,004 94,008 therms
Projected reduction from Kitchen Faucet Aerator retrofit:23,626,724 236,267,241 gallons
Measure Life: 10 years 1,059,046 10,590,460 kWh
Projected reduction from Bathroom Faucet Aerator retrofit:17,011,241 170,112,413 gallons
Measure Life: 10 years 2,118,092 21,180,920 kWh
Projected reduction from 9-watt LED Light Bulbs:1,219,020 14,628,240 kWh
Measure Life: 12 years
Projected reduction from 6-watt LED Light Bulbs:609,510 7,314,120 kWh
Measure Life: 12 years
Projected reduction from LED Night Light:493,889 4,938,893 kWh
Measure Life: 10 years
TOTAL PROJECTED PROGRAM SAVINGS:113,242,107 996,148,378 gallons
9,173,216 85,182,671 kWh
47,004 94,008 therms
TOTAL PROJECTED PROGRAM SAVINGS PER HOUSEHOLD: 11,334 99,705 gallons
452 4,193 kWh
2 5 therms
Resource Action Programs®19Program Impact
C. Participant Response
Participant response to Idaho Power’s various outreach methods combined with social media and
interpersonal communication resulted in an overwhelming demand for the program. Idaho Power
increased the budget and the kit availability for this program in order to fulfill all residential customer
orders. The participants utilized the Quick Start Guide to choose which measures and actions to take.
Installation videos and text instructions made retrofit projects easy to complete. The installation rate
data and the participant satisfaction data presented in this report were provided by kit surveys.
SURVEY TYPE KITS SHIPPED SURVEYS RECEIVED SURVEY %
Electric 9,991 1,213 12.1%
Non-electric 10,326 1,695 16.4%
TOTAL 20,317 2,908 14.3%
87+13+F
Reported households
that were very likely to
tell a friend or family
member to order a kit.
87%80+20+F
Reported households
that were very likely to
participate in another
energy efficiency program.
80%95+5+F
Reported households
that were very satisfied
with the ordering process.
95%99+1+F
Reported households
that received their kits
within 3 weeks.
99%
How satisfied were you with the kit ordering process? Very Satisfied - 95%
Did you receive your kit within 3 weeks? Yes - 99%
How likely would you be to tell a friend or family member to order a kit? Very Likely - 87%
How likely are you to participate in another energy efficiency program? Very Likely - 80%
Idaho Power Energy-Saving Kit Program Summary Report20Program Impact
Appreciated very much receiving all the products. Great way to illustrate and teach the importance of energy
efficiency. Thank you! :)
It was all very helpful and I like the energy package. Thank you for the energy program. I will spread the
word to my friends and family.
I have installed and used everything that was sent. I even bought more LED bulbs for the rest of the house.
I have or will use the whole kit, it was awesome!! Came much sooner than I thought it would.
Thank you for the light bulbs. I’ve replaced all of my home lights with LED except in my shop but will do
them too. Replaced my kitchen lights with LED strip lights fixtures. It was way brighter, wife is happy!
I was very impressed with the kit, makes you aware of energy efficiency.
The bulbs were AMAZING - we purchased more to change out all of our bulbs! The shower timer will
be great for our son. Amount of ways to temp with thermometer, helped with fridge and both freezers.
Thank you for providing this education tool and energy-saving tools.
Thank you :) this energy savings kit is a great idea.
Thanks! What an awesome kit and interesting activities.
I have told everyone that comes to our home about the gift package. Loved it.
Thank you - I try to be energy aware - this was a nice way to check the light bulbs are great and
the night light we didn’t even know we needed until now!
Used all the lights, very easy to install. Have used the digital thermometer in a number of avenues and
like it very much. Some of the other tools I will get around to using, just need to find the time to get it done.
I also participate in the A/C power shut off program in the summer.
Great program, loved the kit, great energy items. Thank you
Almost everything was installed as used. Will use everything as time permits.
I’m 80 years old and love the night light, foster girls take 25 min showers.
Had some LED lights already but will use them when needed. Good program. I take more baths for shower timer,
we’ll use when grandkids come. Us older people, always need night lights in hallways. Thank you!
I loved the kit, very helpful! Thank you!
Participant Responses
Resource Action Programs®21Program Impact
Loved night light & light bulbs (as they are) more efficient. Thank you. I’ll pay it forward.
I was very pleased with my kit. I am 81 so I appreciate all I get. Thank you.
Awesome kit! Very well put together. We were impressed with it! Great job.
Thank you. Best program ever! I have told friends!
The shower timer is very helpful with the kids. I’ve noticed the teenagers taking shorter showers.
Thanks for making that battle easier!
Pleasantly surprised with kit, more than I expected.
I loved the kit, very helpful! Thank you!
All items useful and informative. Thanks a lot.
Idaho power is a fine company. I hope to be a long time customer. Keep up the good work!
Participant Responses (continued)
Idaho Power Energy-Saving Kit Program Summary Report22Appendices
* An Electric Kit
Resource Action Programs®23Appendices
Appendix A
Projected Savings from 9-Watt LED Retrofit ...............................................24
Projected Savings from 6-Watt LED Retrofit ...............................................24
Projected Savings from Showerhead Retrofit .............................................25
Projected Savings from Kitchen Faucet Aerator Retrofit ..........................26
Projected Savings from Bathroom Faucet Aerator Retrofit .......................27
Projected Savings from LED Night Light Installation .................................28
Projected Savings from Shower Timer Installation.....................................29
Appendix B
Enrollment Survey Response Summary ........................................................30
Kit Survey Response Summary .......................................................................31
Appendix C
Idaho Cities & Towns Affected .......................................................................34
Oregon Cities & Towns Affected ....................................................................35
Idaho Power Regions Affected ......................................................................36
Appendices
Idaho Power Energy-Saving Kit Program Summary Report24Appendix A
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x

A
9-watt LED Light Bulb retrofit inputs and assumptions:
Lamps per participant: 6
Number of participants:20,317
Deemed savings per lamp (kWh): 10 kWh1
Measure life:12 years1
Projected Electricity Savings:
The LED retrofit projects an annual reduction of: 1,219,020 kWh2
The LED retrofit projects a lifetime reduction of:14,628,240 kWh3
1 Regional Technical Forum. ResLightingCFLandLEDLamps_v3_3.xslm. Mail by request. LED general purpose and Dimmable. 665 to 1439 lumens.
2 LED kWh savings formula (Deemed savings per lamp x Number of participants x Lamps per participant).
3 LED kWh lifetime savings formula (Annual savings x Measure Life).
7.5-watt LED Light Bulb retrofit inputs and assumptions:
Lamps per participant: 3
Number of participants:20,317
Deemed savings per lamp (kWh): 10 kWh1
Measure life:12 years1
Projected Electricity Savings:
The LED retrofit projects an annual reduction of: 609,510 kWh2
The LED retrofit projects a lifetime reduction of:7,314,12 kWh3
1 Regional Technical Forum. ResLightingCFLandLEDLamps_v3_3.xslm. Mail by request. LED general purpose and Dimmable. 250 to 664 lumens.
2 LED kWh savings formula (Deemed savings per lamp x Number of participants x Lamps per participant).
3 LED kWh lifetime savings formula (Annual savings x Measure Life).
Projected Savings from 9-Watt LED Retrofit
Projected Savings from 6-Watt LED Retrofit
Resource Action Programs®25Appendix A
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x

A
Showerhead retrofit inputs and assumptions:
Showerheads per electric DHW kit: 1
Number of electric DHW participants: 9,991
Domestic electric hot water reported:100%1
Number of people per household: 2.59 1
Deemed Savings: 240 2
Length of average shower: 7.84 minutes3
Showerhead (baseline): 2.50 gpm3
Showerhead new (retrofit): 1.75 gpm
Measure life: 10.00 years2
Projected Water Savings:
Showerhead retrofit projects an annual reduction of:55,570,055 gallons4
Showerhead retrofit projects a lifetime reduction of:555,700,550 gallons4
Projected Electricity Savings:
Showerhead retrofit projects an annual reduction of:2,397,840 kWh5
Showerhead retrofit projects a lifetime reduction of:23,978,400 kWh5
1 Data Reported by Program Participants.
2 Regional Technical Forum - ResShowerheads_v2_1 xlsm. Mail by request. 1.75 gpm Any shower Electric water heating.
3 (March 20, 2014). Blessing Memo for LivingWise Kits for 2014, Paul Sklar, E.I., Planning Engineer Energy Trust of Oregon.
4 Showerhead Gallons Formula (Number of participants x (Showerhead baseline - Showerhead new) x Length of average shower x Days per year x People per household).
5 Showerhead kWh formula (Number of Participants x Deemed Savings).
Projected Savings from Showerhead Retrofit
Idaho Power Energy-Saving Kit Program Summary Report26Appendix A
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x

A
Kitchen Faucet Aerator retrofit inputs and assumptions:
Kitchen Faucet Aerator per electric DHW kit: 1
Number of electric DHW participants:9,991
Domestic electric hot water reported:100%1
Number of people per household: 2.59 1
Savings: 106 kWh2
Average daily use: 2.50 minutes 3
Kitchen Faucet Aerator (baseline): 2.50 gpm3
Kitchen Faucet Aerator (retrofit): 1.50 gpm
Measure life:10.00 years3
Projected Water Savings:
Kitchen Faucet Aerator retrofit projects an annual reduction of:23,626,724 gallons4
Kitchen Faucet Aerator retrofit projects a lifetime reduction of:236,267,241 gallons4
Projected Electricity Savings:
Kitchen Faucet Aerator retrofit projects an annual reduction of:1,059,046 kWh5
Kitchen Faucet Aerator retrofit projects a lifetime reduction of:10,590,460 kWh6
1 Data Reported by Program Participants.
2 Applied Energy Group. Idaho Power Energy Efficiency Potential Study, 2012.
3 (March 20, 2014). Blessing Memo for LivingWise Kits for 2014, Paul Sklar, E.I., Planning Engineer Energy Trust of Oregon.
4 Kitchen Aerators gallons formula (Number of Participants x (Kitchen aerator baseline - Kitchen aerator retrofit) x Average Daily Use x Days per year x People per
household).
5 Kitchen Aerators kWh formula (Number of Participants x Savings).
6 Kitchen Faucet Aerator kWh lifetime savings formula (Annual savings x Measure life).
Projected Savings from Kitchen Faucet Aerator Retrofit
Resource Action Programs®27Appendix A
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x

A
Bathroom Faucet Aerator retrofit inputs and assumptions:
Bathroom Faucet Aerator per electric DHW kit: 2
Number of electric DHW participants:9,991
Domestic electric hot water reported:100%1
Number of people per household:2.59 1
Savings:106 kWh2
Average daily use: 1.50 minutes 3
Bathroom Faucet Aerator (baseline): 2.20 gpm3
Bathroom Faucet Aerator (retrofit): 1.00 gpm
Measure life: 10.00 years3
Projected Water Savings:
Bathroom Faucet Aerator retrofit projects an annual reduction of:17,011,241 gallons4
Bathroom Faucet Aerator retrofit projects a lifetime reduction of:170,112,413 gallons4
Projected Electricity Savings:
Bathroom Faucet Aerator retrofit projects an annual reduction of:2,118,092 kWh5
Bathroom Faucet Aerator retrofit projects a lifetime reduction of:21,180,920 kWh6
1 Data Reported by Program Participants.
2 Applied Energy Group. Idaho Power Energy Efficiency Potential Study, 2012.
3 (March 20, 2014). Blessing Memo for LivingWise Kits for 2014, Paul Sklar, E.I., Planning Engineer Energy Trust of Oregon.
4 Bathroom Faucet Aerator gallons formula ((People per Household x Average daily use) x (Bathroom faucet baseline - Bathroom faucet retrofit) x Days per year x Number of
Participants).
5 Bathroom Faucet Aerator kWh formula (Number of participants x savings x Bathroom Faucet Aerators per electric DHW kit).
6 Bathroom Faucet Aerator kWh lifetime savings formula (Annual savings x Measure life).
Projected Savings from Bathroom Faucet Aerator Retrofit
Idaho Power Energy-Saving Kit Program Summary Report28Appendix 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
Measure life:10 years2
Energy saved per year:28 kWh per year
Energy saved over life expectancy:285 kWh
Installation / participation rate of:85.39%3
Number of participants:20,317 3
Projected Electricity Savings:
The Energy Efficient Night Light retrofit projects an annual reduction of:493,889 kWh4
The Energy Efficient Night Light retrofit projects a lifetime reduction of:4,938,893 kWh5
1 Assumption (12 hours per day)
2 Product life provided by manufacturer
3 Data reported by program participants
4 Energy Efficient Night Light kWh savings formula (Energy saved per year x Number of participants x Installation rate)
5 Energy Efficient Night Light kWh lifetime savings formula (Energy saved over life expectancy x Number of participants x Installation rate)
Projected Savings from LED Night Light Installation
Resource Action Programs®29Appendix A
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x

A
Projected Savings from Shower Timer Installation
Shower TImer inputs and assumptions:
% of water heated by gas:42.00%1
% of water heated by electricity:57.00%1
Installation / participation rate of Shower Timer:50.42%1
Average showerhead has a flow rate of:2.50 gallons per minute1
Retrofit showerhead has flow rate of:1.75 gallons per minute1
Number of participants:20,317 1
Average of baseline and retrofit showerhead flow rate:2.13 gallons per minute2
Shower duration:8.20 minutes per day3
Shower Timer duration:5.00 minutes per day4
Showers per capita per day (SPCD):0.67 showers per day3
Percent of water that is hot water:73%5
Days per year:365.00 days
Product life:2.00 years5
Projected Water Savings:
Shower Timer installation projects an annual reduction of:17,034,087 gallons6
Shower Timer installation projects a lifetime reduction of:34,068,174 gallons7
Projected Electricity Savings:
Shower Timer installation projects an annual reduction of:1,275,819 kWh8
Shower Timer installation projects a lifetime reduction of:2,551,638 kWh9
Projected Natural Gas Savings:
Shower Timer installation projects an annual reduction of:47,004 therms10
Shower Timer installation projects a lifetime reduction of:94,008 therms11
1 Data Reported by Program Participants.
2 Average of the baseline GPM and the retrofit GPM
3 (March 4, 2010). EPA WaterSense® Specification for Showerheads Supporting Statement. Retrieved from http://www.epa.gov/WaterSense/docs/showerheads_
finalsuppstat508.pdf
4 Provided by manufacturer.
5 Navigant EM&V Report for Super Savers Program in Illinois PY7
6 Annual water savings = Water Flow (Average of baseline and retrofit flow) × (Baseline Shower duration - Shower Timer duration) × Participants ×
Days per year × SPCD × Installation Rate of Shower Timer
7 Projected Annual Water Savings x Product Life
8 Projected Annual Water Savings x Percent of Water that is Hot Water x 0.18 kWh/gal x % of Water Heated by Electricity x Participants
9 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 x Participants
10 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 Participants
11 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 x Participants
Idaho Power Energy-Saving Kit Program Summary Report30Appendix B
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x

B
1 How is the water heated in your home?
Electricity 48%
Gas 50%
Other 1%
2 Do you own or rent your home?
Own 90%
Rent 10%
3 What is the primary method of heating your home?
Gas forced air 60%
Heat pump 9%
Electric forced air 16%
Baseboard or ceiling cable 6%
Other 9%
4 What is the primary method of cooling your home?
Central A/C 65%
Window A/C 16%
Heat pump 8%
None 8%
Other 4%
5 What, if any, energy-saving improvements are you planning to make in the next two years?
Windows 30%
Furnace or A/C 14%
Insulation 12%
Appliances 19%
Smart thermostat 11%
Other 14%
6 How did you hear about this kit offering?
Direct mail 73%
Idaho Power employee 3%
Idaho Power website 3%
Info in bill 5%
Facebook/Twitter 2%
Friend or Family 7%
Other 7%
Blank 1%
Enrollment Survey Response Summary
Due to rounding of numbers, percentages may not add up to 100%
Resource Action Programs®31Appendix B
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x

B
Due to rounding of numbers, percentages may not add up to 100%
Kit Survey Response Summary
1 What type of home do you live in?
Single family home - detached 92%
Apartment, Condo, Townhouses, or Multi-family with 2-3 units 2%
Apartment, Condo, Townhouses, or Multi-family with 4 or more units 1%
Mobile/Manufactured home 4%
2 How many people live in your home?
5 or more 10%
4 11%
3 14%
2 48%
1 17%
3 How many of the LEDs did you install?
All of them 58%
7-8 6%
5-6 11%
3-4 11%
1-2 8%
None 6%
4 If you did not install all of the LEDs, what did you do with the remainer?
28%
Stored for later use 64%
Gave them to someone else 2%
Other _________6%
5 Have you installed the Evolve Showerhead?
Yes 44%
Not yet, but will 42%
No, won't use 14%
6 Have you installed the Kitchen Faucet Aerator?
48%
Not yet, but will 31%
21%
7 Have you installed the Bathroom Faucet Aerator #1?
57%
Not yet, but will 33%
10%
8 Have you installed the Bathroom Faucet Aerator #2?
Yes 42%
Not yet, but will 37%
No, won't use 22%
Idaho Power Energy-Saving Kit Program Summary Report32Appendix B
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x

B
Due to rounding of numbers, percentages may not add up to 100%
Kit Survey Response Summary (continued)
9 Have you used the LED Night Light?
Yes 88%
11%
No, won't use 1%
10 Have you used the Shower Timer?
Yes 49%
34%
No, won't use 17%
11 Have you used the Flow-Rate Test Bag to test the flow rate of your shower or faucets?
Yes 24%
Not yet, but will 55%
No, won't use 20%
12 If you used the Digital Thermometer to check the temperature of your water, what was the temperature?
> 140 F 2%
131 F to 140 F 8%
121 F - 130 F 26%
< 121 F 26%
Did not check water temperature 37%
13 Did you adjust the temperature of your electric water heater?
Yes, I lowered it 19%
2%
No, I did not adjust 79%
14 Did you adjust the temperature of your refrigerator?
Yes, I lowered it 25%
12%
No, I did not adjust 63%
15 Did you adjust the temperature of your freezer?
Yes, I lowered it 20%
Yes, I raised it 9%
No, I did not adjust 71%
16 How satisfied were you with the kit ordering process?
Very satisfied 95%
Somewhat satisfied 4%
0%
Very dissatisfied 1%
17 Did you receive your kit within 3 weeks?
Yes 99%
No 1%
Resource Action Programs®33Appendix B
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x

B
Due to rounding of numbers, percentages may not add up to 100%
Kit Survey Response Summary (continued)
18 How likely would you be to tell a friend or family member to order a kit?
Very likely 87%
Somewhat likely 10%
Somewhat unlikely 1%
Very unlikely 1%
19 Prior to hearing about the Energy-Saving Kits, were you aware Idaho Power had energy efficiency
programs and incentives?
Yes 53%
No 47%
20 Have you ever gone to Idaho Power's website to look for information about energy efficiency programs
and incentives?
Yes 26%
No 74%
21 How likely are you to participate in another energy efficiency program?
Very likely 80%
Somewhat likely 19%
Somewhat unlikely 1%
1%
22 If you did not install some of the kit items, please tell us why.
Idaho Power Energy-Saving Kit Program Summary Report34Appendix C
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x

C
Idaho Cities & Towns Affected
IDAHO CITIES & TOWNS AFFECTED
ABERDEEN GREENLEAF NEW MEADOWS
AMERICAN FALLS HAGERMAN NEW PLYMOUTH
ARBON HAILEY NORTH FORK
BANKS HAMMETT NOTUS
BELLEVUE HANSEN OAKLEY
BLACKFOOT HAZELTON OLA
BLISS HEYBURN OREANA
BOISE HILL CITY PARMA
BRUNEAU HOLLISTER PAUL
BUHL HOMEDALE PAYETTE
BURLEY HORSESHOE BEND PICABO
CALDWELL IDAHO CITY PINE
CAMBRIDGE INDIAN VALLEY PINGREE
CAREY INKOM PLACERVILLE
CARMEN JACKSON POCATELLO
CASCADE JEROME POLLOCK
CASTLEFORD KETCHUM PRAIRIE
CENTERVILLE KIMBERLY RICHFIELD
CHUBBUCK KING HILL RIGGINS
CORRAL KUNA ROBIE CREEK
COUNCIL LAKE FORK ROCKLAND
DIETRICH LEADORE ROGERSON
DONNELLY LEMHI RUPERT
EAGLE LETHA SALMON
EDEN LOWMAN SHOSHONE
EMMETT MALTA SPRINGFIELD
FAIRFIELD MARSING STAR
FEATHERVILLE MCCALL STERLING
FILER MELBA SUN VALLEY
FORT HALL MERIDIAN SWEET
FRUITLAND MESA TENDOY
FRUITVALE MIDDLETON TWIN FALLS
GARDEN CITY MIDVALE WEISER
GARDEN VALLEY MONTOUR WENDELL
GIBBONSVILLE MOUNTAIN HOME WEST MAGIC
GLENNS FERRY MURPHY WILDER
GOODING MURTAUGH YELLOW PINE
GRAND VIEW NAMPA
TOTAL NUMBER OF CITIES & TOWNS AFFECTED: 113
TOTAL NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS AFFECTED: 19,607
Resource Action Programs®35Appendix C
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x

C
Oregon Cities & Towns Affected
OREGON CITIES & TOWNS AFFECTED
ADRIAN HUNTINGTON OXBOW
BROGAN IRONSIDE RICHLAND
DREWSEY JAMIESON UNITY
DURKEE JORDAN VALLEY VALE
HALFWAY JUNTURA
HARPER NYSSA
HEREFORD ONTARIO
TOTAL NUMBER OF CITIES & TOWNS AFFECTED: 18
TOTAL NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS AFFECTED: 710
Idaho Power Energy-Saving Kit Program Summary Report36Appendix C
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x

C
REGIONS (IDAHO)ELECTRIC NON-ELECTRIC
CANYON 1,731 1,952
CAPITAL 1,506 3,144
EASTERN 2,055 2,020
SOUTHERN 2,568 2,114
WESTERN 1,630 887
NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS IMPACTED:9,490 10,117
TOTAL NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS IMPACTED:19,607
REGIONS (OREGON)ELECTRIC NON-ELECTRIC
CANYON 19 1
WESTERN 482 208
NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS IMPACTED:501 209
TOTAL NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS IMPACTED:710
REGIONS (IDAHO POWER)ELECTRIC NON-ELECTRIC
NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS IMPACTED:9,991 10,326
TOTAL NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS IMPACTED:20,317
Idaho Power Regions Affected
©2018 Resource Action Programs
N30000
976 United Circle • Sparks, NV 89431
www.resourceaction.com • [phone]
©2018 Resource Action Programs®
Idaho Power Shade Tree Survey
1. How did you hear about Idaho Power's Shade Tree Project? (Check all that apply)
Answer Choices Responses Percent
Letter from Idaho Power ............................................................................... 413 46.35%
Friend or relative .......................................................................................... 248 27.83%
Neighbor ....................................................................................................... 62 6.96%
Idaho Power employee ................................................................................ 24 2.69%
Other (please specify) .................................................................................. 174 19.53%
Answered ..................................................................................................... 891

2. What was the primary reason you participated in the program? (Mark one)
Answer Choices Responses Percent
Tree was free ............................................................................................... 167 18.72%
Home too warm in the summer .................................................................... 143 16.03%
Reduce energy bill ....................................................................................... 179 20.07%
Improve landscape/property value ............................................................... 131 14.69%
Wanted a tree ............................................................................................... 158 17.71%
Help the environment ................................................................................... 69 7.74%
Other (please specify) .................................................................................. 45 5.04%
Answered ..................................................................................................... 892

3. What kept you from planting a tree prior to the Shade Tree Project? (Mark one).
Answer Choices Responses Percent
Lack of knowledge ....................................................................................... 146 16.44%
Cost .............................................................................................................. 453 51.01%
Time ............................................................................................................. 112 12.61%
Other (please specify) .................................................................................. 177 19.93%
Answered ..................................................................................................... 888

4. Where would you typically purchase a new tree? (Mark one)
Answer Choices Responses Percent
Garden section of a do-it-yourself/home improvement store ....................... 308 35.20%
Nursery/garden store ................................................................................... 539 61.60%
Other (please specify) .................................................................................. 28 3.20%
Answered ..................................................................................................... 875
5. How long did you spend on the online enrollment tool? (Mark one)
Answer Choices Responses Percent
10 minutes or less ........................................................................................ 582 65.54%
11–20 minutes .............................................................................................. 223 25.11%
21-30 minutes............................................................................................... 53 5.97%
31 minutes or more ...................................................................................... 18 2.03%
N/A ............................................................................................................... 12 1.35%
Answered ..................................................................................................... 888

6. Overall, how easy was it for you to use the online enrollment tool?
Answer Choices Responses Percent
Very easy ..................................................................................................... 652 73.59%
Somewhat easy ............................................................................................ 197 22.23%
Somewhat difficult ........................................................................................ 22 2.48%
Very Difficult ................................................................................................. 4 0.45%
N/A ............................................................................................................... 11 1.24%
Answered ..................................................................................................... 886

7. How many trees did you pick up at the Shade Tree event?
Answer Choices Responses Percent
One ............................................................................................................... 268 30.15%
Two ............................................................................................................... 621 69.85%
Answered ..................................................................................................... 889

8. When did you plant your shade tree?
Answer Choices Responses Percent
Same day as the tree pickup ........................................................................ 84 31.23%
1–3 days after the tree pickup ...................................................................... 117 43.49%
4–7 days after the tree pickup ...................................................................... 43 15.99%
More than 1 week after the tree pickup ........................................................ 22 8.18%
Did not plant the tree .................................................................................... 3 1.12%
Answered ..................................................................................................... 269

9. On which side of your home did you plant your shade tree?
Answer Choices Responses Percent
North ............................................................................................................. 11 4.20%
Northeast ...................................................................................................... 13 4.96%
East .............................................................................................................. 30 11.45%
Southeast ..................................................................................................... 18 6.87%
South ............................................................................................................ 23 8.78%
Southwest ..................................................................................................... 36 13.74%
West ............................................................................................................. 107 40.84%
Northwest ..................................................................................................... 24 9.16%
Answered ..................................................................................................... 262

10. How far from the home did you plant your shade tree?
Answer Choices Responses Percent
20 feet or less ............................................................................................... 106 40.15%
21–40 feet .................................................................................................... 133 50.38%
41–60 feet .................................................................................................... 22 8.33%
More than 60 feet ......................................................................................... 3 1.14%
Answered ..................................................................................................... 264

11. How many shade trees did you plant?
Answer Choices Responses Percent
One tree ....................................................................................................... 13 2.09%
Both trees ..................................................................................................... 598 96.30%
Did not plan trees ......................................................................................... 10 1.61%
Answered ..................................................................................................... 621

12. When did you plant your shade tree?
Answer Choices Responses Percent
Same day as the tree pickup ........................................................................ 3 23.08%
1–3 days after the tree pickup ...................................................................... 5 38.46%
4–7 days after the tree pickup ...................................................................... 3 23.08%
More than 1 week after the tree pickup ........................................................ 2 15.38%
Answered ..................................................................................................... 13
13. On which side of your home did you plant your shade tree?
Answer Choices Responses Percent
North ............................................................................................................. 0 0.00%
Northeast ...................................................................................................... 3 23.08%
East .............................................................................................................. 3 23.08%
Southeast ..................................................................................................... 0 0.00%
South ............................................................................................................ 1 7.69%
Southwest ..................................................................................................... 2 15.38%
West ............................................................................................................. 4 30.77%
Northwest ..................................................................................................... 0 0.00%
Answered ..................................................................................................... 13

14. How far from the home did you plant your shade tree?
Answer Choices Responses Percent
20 feet or less ............................................................................................... 2 15.38%
21–40 feet .................................................................................................... 10 76.92%
41–60 feet .................................................................................................... 0 0.00%
More than 60 feet ......................................................................................... 1 7.69%
Answered ..................................................................................................... 13

15. When did you plant your shade trees?
Answer Choices

pi
c
k
u
p

1–

4–

Tree 1 ................. 593 18.89% 49.92% 18.72% 12.48%
Tree 2 ................. 550 17.27% 49.09% 18.91% 14.73%
Answered ........... 595

16. On which side of your home did you plant your shade trees?
Answer Choices

Tree 1 ........................ 568 6.34% 7.92% 13.56% 10.56% 8.80% 15.67% 29.58% 7.57%
Tree 2 ........................ 563 6.75% 6.39% 11.37% 7.28% 10.12% 19.01% 29.13% 9.95%
Answered ................... 568

17. How far from the home did you plant your shade trees?
Answer Choices

21
–

41
–

Tree 1 .......................................................... 572 34.27% 48.60% 13.64% 3.50%
Tree 2 .......................................................... 552 28.99% 49.09% 16.30% 5.62%
Answered .................................................... 572

18. How satisfied are you with the information you received on the planting and care of your
shade tree?
Answer Choices Responses Percent
Very satisfied ................................................................................................ 764 88.32%
Somewhat satisfied ...................................................................................... 83 9.60%
Somewhat dissatisfied ................................................................................. 6 0.69%
Very dissatisfied ........................................................................................... 3 0.35%
Not applicable............................................................................................... 9 1.04%
Answered ..................................................................................................... 865

19. What information did you find most valuable?
Answer Choices Responses Percent
Planting depth .............................................................................................. 479 55.44%
Circling roots ................................................................................................ 113 13.08%
Staking ......................................................................................................... 77 8.91%
Watering ....................................................................................................... 68 7.87%
Not applicable............................................................................................... 62 7.18%
Other (please specify) .................................................................................. 65 7.52%
Answered ..................................................................................................... 864

20. How much do you agree with the following statements:
Answer Choices Responses Strongly agree Somewhat agree Somewhat disagree Strongly disagree Not applicable
I am satisfied with the
Shade Tree Project pick up event ................................. 864 91.55% 7.18% 0.69% 0.23% 0.35%
It was easy to plant my shade tree ......................... 861 88.27% 10.10% 0.23% 0.35% 1.05%
I would recommend the Shade Tree Project to a
friend or relative ................ 863 97.10% 2.43% 0.23% 0.23% 0.00%
I am satisfied with my overall experience with the
Shade Tree Project ........... 863 94.32% 4.40% 1.04% 0.23% 0.00%
Answered .......................... 865

21. If you have additional comments you would like to offer about the Shade Tree Project,
please enter them in the space below.
• 261 participants answered the question.
22. If you disagree with any of these statements, please tell us why.
Answer Choices Responses Percent
Yes ............................................................................................................... 487 57.23%
No ................................................................................................................. 364 42.77%
Answered ..................................................................................................... 851

23. May we follow up with you if we have any questions regarding your responses to the
survey questions?
Answer Choices Responses Percent
Yes ............................................................................................................... 476 56.00%
No ................................................................................................................. 374 44.00%
Answered ..................................................................................................... 850

24. When was this residence originally built? (Select when the building was originally
constructed, not when it was remodeled, added to, or converted.)
Answer Choices Responses Percent
Before 1950 .................................................................................................. 54 6.46%
1950–1959 ................................................................................................... 24 2.87%
1960–1969 ................................................................................................... 31 3.71%
1970–1979 ................................................................................................... 84 10.05%
1980–1989 ................................................................................................... 38 4.55%
1990–1999 ................................................................................................... 113 13.52%
2000–2006 ................................................................................................... 204 24.40%
2007–2015 ................................................................................................... 271 32.42%
Don’t know .................................................................................................... 17 2.03%
Answered ..................................................................................................... 836

25. What one fuel is most often used to heat this residence? (Mark one)
Answer Choices Responses Percent
Electricity ...................................................................................................... 228 26.89%
Natural gas ................................................................................................... 522 61.56%
Propane ........................................................................................................ 34 4.01%
Fuel Oil ......................................................................................................... 8 0.94%
Wood ............................................................................................................ 35 4.13%
Other (please specify) .................................................................................. 21 2.48%
Answered ..................................................................................................... 848

26. What type of air conditioning system is used at this residence?
Answer Choices Responses Percent
None ............................................................................................................. 10 1.18%
Central air conditioner .................................................................................. 732 86.42%
Heat pump .................................................................................................... 77 9.09%
Individual room or window air conditioner .................................................... 41 4.84%
Evaporative/swamp cooler ........................................................................... 18 2.13%
Other (please specify) .................................................................................. 7 0.83%
Answered ..................................................................................................... 847
27. What is your gender?
Answer Choices Responses Percent
Female ......................................................................................................... 517 62.14%
Male .............................................................................................................. 315 37.86%
Answered ..................................................................................................... 832

28. Which of the following best describes your age?
Answer Choices Responses Percent
Under 18 ....................................................................................................... 0 0.00%
18–24 ........................................................................................................... 6 0.72%
25–34 ........................................................................................................... 186 22.17%
35–44 ........................................................................................................... 264 31.47%
45–60 ........................................................................................................... 260 30.99%
Over 65 ......................................................................................................... 123 14.66%
Answered ..................................................................................................... 839

29. What is the highest level of education you completed?
Answer Choices Responses Percent
Less than High School ................................................................................. 2 0.24%
High School or Equivalent ............................................................................ 92 10.97%
Some College/Technical School .................................................................. 347 41.36%
Four-Year College Degree ........................................................................... 219 26.10%
Some Graduate Courses ............................................................................. 53 6.32%
Graduate Degree ......................................................................................... 126 15.02%
Answered ..................................................................................................... 839

2017 WAQC
1. Agency/Contractor Name:
Answer Choices Responses Percent
Metro Community Services .......................................................................... 23 13.61%
Eastern Idaho Community Action Partnership ............................................. 4 2.37%
El Ada Community Action Partnership ......................................................... 91 53.85%
South Central Community Action Partnership ............................................. 20 11.83%
Southeastern Idaho Community Action Agency .......................................... 27 15.98%
Community in Action .................................................................................... 4 2.37%
Answered ..................................................................................................... 169

2. How did you learn about the weatherization program(s)?
Answer Choices Responses Percent
Agency/Contractor flyer ................................................................................ 35 21.47%
Idaho Power employee ................................................................................ 6 3.68%
Idaho Power website .................................................................................... 5 3.07%
Friend or relative .......................................................................................... 70 42.94%
Letter in mail ................................................................................................. 15 9.20%
Other (please specify) .................................................................................. 32 19.63%
Answered ..................................................................................................... 163

3. What was your primary reason for participating in the weatherization program?
Answer Choices Responses Percent
Reduce utility bills ........................................................................... 128 77.58%
63 38.18%
45 27.27%
20 12.12%
39 23.64%
Other (please specify) .................................................................................. 12 7.27%
Answered ..................................................................................................... 165

4. If you received any energy efficiency equipment upgrade as part of the weatherization,
how well was the equipment's operation explained to you?
Answer Choices Responses Percent
Completely ................................................................................................... 142 88.75%
Somewhat .................................................................................................... 15 9.38%
Not at all ....................................................................................................... 3 1.88%
Answered ..................................................................................................... 160

5. Which of the following did you learn about from the auditor or crew during the
weatherization process? (Check all that apply)
Answer Choices Responses Percent
How air leaks affect energy usage. .............................................................. 130 81.25%
How insulation affects energy usage. .......................................................... 101 63.13%
How to program the new thermostat. ........................................................... 82 51.25%
How to reduce the amount of hot water used. ............................................. 54 33.75%
How to use energy wisely. ........................................................................... 89 55.63%
How to understand what uses the most energy in my home. ...................... 75 46.88%
Other (please specify) .................................................................................. 6 3.75%
Answered ..................................................................................................... 160

6. Based on the information you received from the agency/contractor about energy use, how
likely are you to change your habits to save energy?
Answer Choices Responses Percent
Very likely ..................................................................................................... 129 80.12%
Somewhat likely ........................................................................................... 27 16.77%
Not very likely ............................................................................................... 1 0.62%
Not likely at all .............................................................................................. 4 2.48%
Answered ..................................................................................................... 161

7. How much of the information about energy use have you shared with other members of
your household?
Answer Choices Responses Percent
All of it ........................................................................................................... 117 72.67%
Some of it ..................................................................................................... 21 13.04%
None of it ...................................................................................................... 4 2.48%
N/A ............................................................................................................... 19 11.80%
Answered ..................................................................................................... 161
8. If you shared the energy use information with other members of your household, how
likely do you think household members will change habits to save energy?
Answer Choices Responses Percent
Very likely ..................................................................................................... 82 51.57%
Somewhat likely ........................................................................................... 49 30.82%
Somewhat unlikely ....................................................................................... 4 2.52%
Very unlikely ................................................................................................. 2 1.26%
N/A ............................................................................................................... 22 13.84%
Answered ..................................................................................................... 159

9. What habits are you and other members of your household most likely to change to save
energy? (check all that apply)
Answer Choices Responses Percent
Washing full loads of clothes........................................................................ 110 69.62%
Washing full loads of dishes ......................................................................... 85 53.80%
Turning off lights when not in use ................................................................ 133 84.18%
Unplugging electrical equipment when not in use........................................ 89 56.33%
Turning the thermostat up in the summer .................................................... 90 56.96%
Turning the thermostat down in the winter ................................................... 99 62.66%
Other (please specify) .................................................................................. 7
Answered ..................................................................................................... 158

10. How much do you think the weatherization you received will affect the comfort of
your home?
Answer Choices Responses Percent
Significantly .................................................................................................. 153 93.29%
Somewhat .................................................................................................... 9 5.49%
Very little ....................................................................................................... 0 0.00%
Not at all ....................................................................................................... 2 1.22%
Answered ..................................................................................................... 164

11. Rate the agency/contractor based on your interactions with them.
Answer Choices Answered Excellent Good Fair Poor
Courteousness .............................................. 165 95.15% 4.85% 0.00% 0.00%
Professionalism ............................................. 161 93.79% 5.59% 0.62% 0.00%
Explanation of work to be performed on
your home ..................................................... 161 95.03% 4.97% 0.00% 0.00%
Overall experience with agency/contractor ... 160 94.38% 5.00% 0.63% 0.00%

12. Were you aware of Idaho Power’s role in the weatherization of you home?
Answer Choices Responses Percent
Yes ............................................................................................................... 121 75.63%
No ................................................................................................................. 39 24.38%
Answered ..................................................................................................... 160

13. Overall how satisfied are you with the weatherization program you participated in?
Answer Choices Responses Percent
Very satisfied ................................................................................................ 160 96.97%
Somewhat satisfied ...................................................................................... 4 2.42%
Somewhat dissatisfied ................................................................................. 0 0.00%
Very dissatisfied ........................................................................................... 1 0.61%
Answered ..................................................................................................... 165

14. How has your opinion of Idaho Power changed as a result of its role in the
weatherization program?
Answer Choices Responses Percent
Improved ...................................................................................................... 149 91.98%
Stayed the same .......................................................................................... 13 8.02%
Decreased .................................................................................................... 0 0.00%
Answered ..................................................................................................... 162

15. How many people beside yourself live in your home year-round?
Answer Choices Responses Percent
0 ................................................................................................................... 46 28.22%
1 ................................................................................................................... 46 28.22%
2 ................................................................................................................... 21 12.88%
3 ................................................................................................................... 21 12.88%
4 ................................................................................................................... 14 8.59%
5 ................................................................................................................... 2 1.23%
6 or more ...................................................................................................... 13 7.98%
Answered ..................................................................................................... 163

16. How long have you been an Idaho Power customer?
Answer Choices Responses Percent
Less than 1 year ........................................................................................... 5 3.07%
1–10 years .................................................................................................... 41 25.15%
11–25 years.................................................................................................. 46 28.22%
26 years or more .......................................................................................... 71 43.56%
Answered ..................................................................................................... 163

17. Please select the category below that best describes your age:
Answer Choices Responses Percent
Under 25 ....................................................................................................... 1 0.61%
25–34 ........................................................................................................... 18 11.04%
35–44 ........................................................................................................... 25 15.34%
45–54 ........................................................................................................... 20 12.27%
55–64 ........................................................................................................... 36 22.09%
65–74 ........................................................................................................... 40 24.54%
75 or older .................................................................................................... 23 14.11%
Answered ..................................................................................................... 163

18. Select the response below that best describes the highest level of education you have
attained:
Answer Choices Responses Percent
Less than High School ................................................................................. 33 20.37%
High School graduate or GED...................................................................... 58 35.80%
Some College or Technical School .............................................................. 51 31.48%
Associate Degree ......................................................................................... 9 5.56%
College Degree (including any graduate school or graduate degree .......... 11 6.79%
Answered ..................................................................................................... 162

2017 Weatherization Solutions for Eligible Customers
1. Agency/Contractor Name:
Answer Choices Responses Percent
Metro Contractor Services ........................................................................... 56 40.29%
Home Energy Management ......................................................................... 50 35.97%
Savings Around Power ................................................................................. 15 10.79%
Power Savers ............................................................................................... 18 12.95%
Answered ..................................................................................................... 139

2. How did you learn about the weatherization program(s)?
Answer Choices Responses Percent
Agency/Contractor flyer ................................................................................ 15 10.87%
Idaho Power employee ................................................................................ 10 7.25%
Idaho Power website .................................................................................... 22 15.94%
Friend or relative .......................................................................................... 24 17.39%
Letter in mail ................................................................................................. 30 21.74%
Other (please specify) 37 26.81%
Answered ..................................................................................................... 138

3. What was your primary reason for participating in the weatherization program?
Answer Choices Responses Percent
Reduce utility bills ........................................................................................ 110 79.71%
Improve comfort of home ............................................................................. 54 39.13%
Furnace concerns ........................................................................................ 22 15.94%
Water heater concerns ................................................................................. 7 5.07%
Improve insulation ........................................................................................ 31 22.46%
Other (please specify) .................................................................................. 12 8.70%
Answered ..................................................................................................... 138

4. If you received any energy efficiency equipment upgrade as part of the weatherization,
how well was the equipment's operation explained to you?
Answer Choices Responses Percent
Completely ................................................................................................... 95 83.33%
Somewhat .................................................................................................... 10 8.77%
Not at all ....................................................................................................... 9 7.89%
Answered ..................................................................................................... 114

5. Which of the following did you learn about from the auditor or crew during the
weatherization process? (Check all that apply)
Answer Choices Responses Percent
How air leaks affect energy usage. .............................................................. 108 80.60%
How insulation affects energy usage. .......................................................... 83 61.94%
How to program the new thermostat. ........................................................... 52 38.81%
How to reduce the amount of hot water used. ............................................. 58 43.28%
How to use energy wisely. ........................................................................... 84 62.69%
How to understand what uses the most energy in my home. ...................... 73 54.48%
Other (please specify) .................................................................................. 9 6.72%
Answered ..................................................................................................... 134

6. Based on the information you received from the agency/contractor about energy use, how
likely are you to change your habits to save energy?
Answer Choices Responses Percent
Very likely ..................................................................................................... 104 78.79%
Somewhat likely ........................................................................................... 25 18.94%
Not very likely ............................................................................................... 2 1.52%
Not likely at all .............................................................................................. 1 0.76%
Answered ..................................................................................................... 132

7. How much of the information about energy use have you shared with other members of
your household?
Answer Choices Responses Percent
All of it ........................................................................................................... 89 66.92%
Some of it ..................................................................................................... 16 12.03%
None of it ...................................................................................................... 3 2.26%
N/A ............................................................................................................... 25 18.80%
Answered ..................................................................................................... 133

8. If you shared the energy use information with other members of your household, how
likely do you think household members will change habits to save energy?
Answer Choices Responses Percent
Very likely ..................................................................................................... 66 49.25%
Somewhat likely ........................................................................................... 37 27.61%
Somewhat unlikely ....................................................................................... 1 0.75%
Very unlikely ................................................................................................. 0 0.00%
N/A ............................................................................................................... 30 22.39%
Answered ..................................................................................................... 134

9. What habits are you and other members of your household most likely to change to save
energy? (check all that apply)
Answer Choices Responses Percent
Washing full loads of clothes........................................................................ 67 53.17%
Washing full loads of dishes ......................................................................... 53 42.06%
Turning off lights when not in use ................................................................ 103 81.75%
Unplugging electrical equipment when not in use........................................ 79 62.70%
Turning the thermostat up in the summer .................................................... 80 63.49%
Turning the thermostat down in the winter ................................................... 82 65.08%
Other (please specify) .................................................................................. 14
Answered ..................................................................................................... 126

10. How much do you think the weatherization you received will affect the comfort of
your home?
Answer Choices Responses Percent
Significantly .................................................................................................. 107 79.26%
Somewhat .................................................................................................... 25 18.52%
Very little ....................................................................................................... 2 1.48%
Not at all ....................................................................................................... 1 0.74%
Answered ..................................................................................................... 135

11. Rate the agency/contractor based on your interactions with them?
Answer Choices Answered Excellent Good Fair Poor
Courteousness .............................................. 134 94.78% 5.22% 0.00% 0.00%
Professionalism ............................................. 134
94.03% 5.97% 0.00% 0.00%
Explanation of work to be performed on
your home .....................................................
134
88.81% 10.45% 0.75% 0.00%
Overall experience with agency/contractor ... 134 93.28% 5.97% 0.00% 0.75%

12. Were you aware of Idaho Power’s role in the weatherization of you home?
Answer Choices Responses Percent
Yes ............................................................................................................... 114 85.07%
No ................................................................................................................. 20 14.93%
Answered ..................................................................................................... 134

13. Overall how satisfied are you with the weatherization program you participated in?
Answer Choices Responses Percent
Very satisfied ................................................................................................ 125 92.59%
Somewhat satisfied ...................................................................................... 9 6.67%
Somewhat dissatisfied ................................................................................. 1 0.74%
Very dissatisfied ........................................................................................... 0 0.00%
Answered ..................................................................................................... 135

14. How has your opinion of Idaho Power changed as a result of its role in the
weatherization program?
Answer Choices Responses Percent
Improved ...................................................................................................... 109 81.34%
Stayed the same .......................................................................................... 25 18.66%
Decreased .................................................................................................... 0 0.00%
Answered ..................................................................................................... 134

15. How many people beside yourself live in your home year-round?
Answer Choices Responses Percent
0 ................................................................................................................... 42 30.66%
1 ................................................................................................................... 47 34.31%
2 ................................................................................................................... 13 9.49%
3 ................................................................................................................... 13 9.49%
4 ................................................................................................................... 11 8.03%
5 ................................................................................................................... 4 2.92%
6 or more ...................................................................................................... 7 5.11%
Answered ..................................................................................................... 137

16. How long have you been an Idaho Power customer?
Answer Choices Responses Percent
Less than 1 year ........................................................................................... 2 1.50%
1–10 years .................................................................................................... 35 26.32%
11–25 years.................................................................................................. 28 21.05%
26 years or more .......................................................................................... 68 51.13%
Answered ..................................................................................................... 133

17. Please select the category below that best describes your age:
Answer Choices Responses Percent
Under 25 ....................................................................................................... 3 2.19%
25–34 ........................................................................................................... 10 7.30%
35–44 ........................................................................................................... 18 13.14%
45–54 ........................................................................................................... 14 10.22%
55–64 ........................................................................................................... 28 20.44%
65–74 ........................................................................................................... 41 29.93%
75 or older .................................................................................................... 23 16.79%
Answered ..................................................................................................... 137

18. Select the response below that best describes the highest level of education you have
attained:
Answer Choices Responses Percent
Less than High School ................................................................................. 7 5.22%
High School graduate or GED...................................................................... 36 26.87%
Some College or Technical School .............................................................. 57 42.54%
Associate Degree ......................................................................................... 14 10.45%
College Degree (including any graduate school or graduate degree .......... 20 14.93%
Answered ..................................................................................................... 134

Idaho Power Company Supplement 2: Evaluation
Demand-Side Management 2017 Annual Report Page 295
EVALUATIONS
Table 4. 2017 Evaluations
Report Title Sector
Analysis
Performed By
Study
Manager Study/Evaluation Type
Idaho Power Commercial and Industrial Energy Efficiency Program Evaluation C/I DNV-GL Idaho Power Process evaluation
Idaho Power Residential Heating and Cooling Program Evaluation Residential DNV-GL Idaho Power Process and impact evaluation
Idaho Power Residential Home Energy Audit Impact Evaluation Residential DNV-GL Idaho Power Impact evaluation

DNV GL Headquarters, Veritasveien 1, P.O.Box 300, 1322 Høvik, Norway. Tel: [phone]. www.dnvgl.com
© DNV GL 2017

Idaho Power Commercial and Industrial
Energy Efficiency Program Evaluation

1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Idaho Power’s Commercial and Industrial (C&I) program consists of the combination of 3 programs that
were previously separate: New Construction, Retrofits, and Custom Projects. Idaho Power engaged DNV GL
to complete a process evaluation of the C&I program; this report documents that process evaluation. DNV
GL’s evaluation included interviews with program staff from each of the subprograms, review of program
tracking data and project files, and review of program documentation.
Overall, the C&I program is well-run. DNV GL obtained the following key findings:
1. Program staff maintain good awareness of program goals and operations.
2. No formal program logic model exists in the documentation reviewed by DNV GL.
3. Program manuals and instructions are generally well-written and thorough. They could benefit from
some key additions (logic model, risk register, charts/tables) and from consolidation.
4. Program tracking data is comprehensive and generally accurate. It could benefit from a few additions
(e.g., further data fields) and from the correction of a few minor errors/inconsistencies.
5. Program application forms are thorough, well-produced, and contain several labor-saving features. They
could benefit from some additional instructional text.
6. Program marketing materials are appealing and of high quality. Features available through websites
(e.g., embedded videos) could be leveraged as well.

Page 2 of 24

While DNV GL offers several recommendations, we discovered no fundamental shortcomings or major red
flags in the way the program is run. We have organized our recommendations by the estimated amount of
effort they require and the value that Idaho Power would derive from them (Figure 1). Additional details
about these recommendations are provided in Section 5.
Figure 1. Recommendation effort/value diagram

Impact evaluation of Custom Projects Test/track effectiveness of marketing Produce risk register
Create/maintain formal logic model
Consolidate program manuals
Consolidate instructions manuals
Add appealing content to the marketing materials. Use efficiency program marketing
to improve Idaho Power’s image
Create upstream/midstream program
models
Monitor market transformation Minimize human data touches
Correct existing errors in program tracking files Consolidate program tracking files
Revise and add instruction text to application forms.
Consolidate measure specific applications into single file
Consider updating the flow of the
business tip sheets.
Add a few details to the C&I slide
deck and prepare a few anecdotal stories about good experiences
with the program.

Page 3 of 24

2 INTRODUCTION
2.1 Program overview
The C&I program consists of the combination of 3 programs that were previously separate. The 3 programs
were:
New Construction (previously the Building Efficiency program) enables customers to apply energy-efficient
design features and technologies in new C&I construction, expansion, or major remodeling projects. The
program offers a menu of measures and incentives for lighting, cooling, building shell, controls, appliances,
and refrigeration efficiency. Program ex-ante savings are based on a technical reference manual (TRM)
provided by a third-party engineering and evaluation firm and in-house calculations.
Retrofits (previously the Easy Upgrades program) is a prescriptive measure program for the C&I retrofit
market. The program encourages customers to implement energy efficiency retrofits by offering specific
incentives on a defined list of measures. Customers can also apply for incentives for non-standard lighting
measures. Eligible measures cover a variety of energy saving opportunities in lighting, heating ventilation
and air conditioning (HVAC), building shell, variable frequency drives (VFDs), food service equipment, and
other commercial measures. Program ex-ante savings are determined by lighting calculator and a TRM
provided by a third-party engineering and evaluation firms.
Custom Projects (previously the Custom Efficiency program) targets energy savings by implementing
customized energy efficiency projects at customer locations. Program offerings include energy efficiency
training and education, energy auditing services, and financial incentives. Idaho Power engineers work with
customers and vendors to gather sufficient information to support their energy savings calculations. In some
cases, large, complex projects may take up to 2 years or more to complete. Most projects receive an onsite
verification by Idaho Power staff or an Idaho Power contractor.
Idaho Power engaged DNV GL to complete a process evaluation of this program; this report documents that
process evaluation.
2.2 Evaluation overview
The key objectives of the process evaluation include:
 Evaluate program design, including program mission, logic, and use of industry best practices
 Evaluate program implementation, including quality control, operational practice, and outreach
 Evaluate program administration, including program oversight, staffing, management, training,
documentation and reporting
 Report findings, observations, and recommendations to enhance program effectiveness
To achieve these objectives, DNV GL executed the following activities:
 Semi-structured interviews with program staff
 Tracking system review
 Program file review

Page 4 of 24

 Program materials review
 Program logic review
 QA/QC review
2.3 Layout of report
The remainder of the report is organized into the following sections:
Section 3. Methods – Describes the evaluation activities in detail
Section 4. Process findings – Reports findings relevant to program processes and materials
Section 5. Conclusions and recommendations – Lays out conclusions and provides recommendations for
program improvement
3 METHODS
This section provides detailed descriptions of the methods DNV GL used to evaluate the program. The
findings from our analysis are included in Section 4.
3.1 Program staff interviews
The objective of the in-depth interviews was to understand:
 The program history
 How the program is delivered
 The logic and objectives of the program
 The perceived strengths and weaknesses of the program
 What the program staff wants or needs from the evaluation
DNV GL developed instruments to guide the interviews (Appendix A). Senior DNV GL staff conducted the
interviews in person with Idaho Power program staff from each of the previously separate programs in June
2017; each interview lasted approximately one hour.
3.2 Tracking system review
DNV GL reviewed the program’s database, its fields and their uses, and the accuracy of the data. We
assessed the accuracy of the data entry and individual measure savings values, and conducted a broader
assessment of the various ways the tracking information is used to ensure that the data can support
program administration and oversight, program evaluation, and regulatory reporting.
DNV GL assessed the program database in these 4 major areas:
 Structure: Does the database contain all fields needed to track programs, perform evaluations, and
calculate savings?
 Completeness: Are required fields populated with usable data?

Page 5 of 24

 Quality: Are the data in a format that enables analysis and reporting? Do they have consistent,
identified units and mutually exclusive categories?
 Accuracy: Does the database accurately calculate program savings consistent with deemed measure
algorithms?
The evaluation team performed the following actions with the tracking data:
 Compared database savings to match program reporting: We compared the reported savings in
the program reports to those listed in the tracking database.
 Checked data quality: We checked that the database tracks all the relevant fields, including checking
for fields with significant missing data or placeholder data.
 Compared line-by-line records to deemed measure assumptions: We inspected the savings for
each deemed measure for the correct calculation approach.
In addition to reviewing the data contained in the tracking systems, DNV GL reviewed whether the
databases are set up and managed to their fullest potential. Specifically, we:
 Assessed data quality control: We reviewed Idaho Power’s data quality control procedures, including
checking how well the program files and the database match.
 Reviewed data’s ability to support program administration: We verified that the tracking systems
can be leveraged for effective program management. This included:
o Checking to see if costs, number of units, and savings are properly tracked
o Noting whether completed project field verifications are recorded in the tracking system as
having passed the site inspection or not
o Examining the database to see how well it can support evaluation, measurement, and
verification (EM&V) activities and measure installation verification practices
3.3 File review
DNV GL reviewed samples of the project files, including original energy analysis and any follow-up
documents adjusting savings estimates. For each measure, we attempted to determine the key engineering
assumptions involved and the extent to which they were documented. Specifically, we:
 Verified the accuracy of data entry, by comparing the application, the invoice, and the database for key
elements like customer information, incentives, savings, and measures implemented
 Reviewed the project files for all the documents listed in the final application checklist and verified that
these were appropriately accounted for
DNV GL requested a sample of project files for the Retrofits, Custom Projects, and New Construction
programs. For the Custom Projects and New Construction program, the basis for sampling was to cover all
the measure types in the respective programs. At the time of developing the sample, DNV GL did not have
access to measure data for the Retrofits program, so we selected the project with the maximum savings
plus another 5 randomly determined projects.

Page 6 of 24

3.4 Program materials review
The primary purpose of the program materials review was to provide an objective opinion of the clarity and
effectiveness of program-related documents. Program documentation is a critical aspect of program
planning, project management, and communication with stakeholders and trade allies. Table 1 lists the
program materials we reviewed and the core questions associated with each one.
Table 1. Materials reviewed and core issues considered
Program
material Core questions
Program plan
Is program theory clearly articulated?
Are program objectives articulated?
Are program goals recorded and SMART?1
Are program roles and responsibilities clearly recorded?
Are risks and contingencies recorded?
Marketing materials
Are materials visually appealing?
Do they effectively convey the intended information?
Are they easy to understand? Do they have utility logos or branding?
Do they provide a follow-up activity and means to
accomplish it?
Do they utilize any psychological/motivational theories, and
how effective are they at doing so?
Trade ally/ subcontractor
contracts, instructions,
tools/worksheets
Are goals clearly articulated and SMART?
Are program measures and operations clearly articulated? Are the standards/terms by which the trade allies/subcontractors will be evaluated clearly
articulated?
Are tools/worksheets consistent across subcontractors?
Is a communication plan clearly articulated?
Is there a paper trail for information that comes from trade
allies and subcontractors to the utility?
Application forms
Do they cover the necessary information? Are instructions available and clear?
Are they easy to follow and to fill out? Do they use jargon or require technical knowledge?
Websites
Are they visually appealing?
Are they easy to navigate/laid out intuitively?
Are links broken?
Are they accurate?
Do they convey the necessary information?
Do they take advantage of the unique capabilities of the medium?

3.5 Program logic review
Based on the program staff interviews and the review of the program materials, DNV GL developed a single
logic model for the new, combined program.

1 Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Realistic, Time-delineated

Page 7 of 24

3.6 QA/QC review
DNV GL assessed the adequacy of Idaho Power’s savings verification processes, controls, and procedures.
The goal of the assessment was to ensure that an appropriate level of resources is placed on quality control
and quality assurance, that the most effective policies are in place, and that those policies are put into
action via effective and efficient procedures that are continually followed and routinely reviewed.
The evaluation team reviewed each program’s procedural documents and example project files, focusing on
situations where savings are verified. We reviewed the quality of the verification documentation. After
identifying Idaho Power’s verification practices, we compared them with industry best practices based on our
reviews of comparable efficiency programs nationwide.

Page 8 of 24

4 FINDINGS AND
TARGETED
RECOMMENDATIONS
This section provides detailed findings on
program operations and materials. The
section summarizes information about
each program obtained during in-depth
interviews with program staff; provides a
basic logic model for the program;
describes findings from our review of
program materials such as manuals,
instruction sheets, and the tracking
databases; and reviews program
marketing materials. In this section, we
also offer targeted recommendations for
improving individual materials.
4.1.1 Program operations
4.1.1.1 New construction
Staff interviews provided DNV GL with an
overview of the program design and
operations. Program goals are based on
total energy savings. The goals are
further broken down by number of
projects and energy savings on a regional
basis. The program staff proactively
monitors performance and makes sure
the program stays on goal.
Program staff continuously work on building relationships with customers, architect and design firms, and
leverage Idaho Power’s customer representatives for larger accounts. The Program allocates a portion of the
budget every year to facilitate personal interaction with these stakeholders, and tries to focus on 2 regions
every year.
The program utilizes third-party engineering firms to determine savings and incentives values. Internal
program staff monitors cost effectiveness. The program also leverages a TRM that is updated every 2 or 3
years to keep up with building code.
The program markets to customers and to architect and design firms. It tries to get customers to select
from a “menu” of approximately 24 prescriptive measures first, then funds any additional energy saving
measures through the custom projects program.
4.1.1.2 Retrofits
Staff interviews provided DNV GL with an overview of the program design and operations. The majority
(~95% in 2016) of retrofit savings comes from lighting projects. These lighting projects are submitted to the
Key findings

1. Program staff maintain good awareness of program
goals and operations.

2. No formal program logic model exists in the
documentation reviewed by DNV GL.

3. Program manuals and instructions are generally
well-written and thorough. They could benefit from
some key additions (logic model, risk register,
charts/tables) and consolidation.

4. Program tracking data is thorough and generally
accurate. It could benefit from a few additions
(e.g., additional data fields) and the correction of a
few minor errors/inconsistencies.

5. Program application forms are thorough, well-
produced, and contain several labor-saving
features. They could benefit from some additional
instructional text.

6. Program marketing materials are appealing and of
high quality. Features available through websites
(e.g., embedded videos) could be leveraged as
well.

Page 9 of 24

program via the “lighting tool,” which is an Excel worksheet that guides customers or trade allies through
data entry of the information needed for the application. Program staff decide whether to conduct an
inspection of the facility, based on the magnitude of the project and the history of the contractor involved.
Approximately 30% of sites received an inspection.
The lighting tool calculates lighting savings based on wattage reduction and hours of operation (with the
exception of refrigerated case lighting). Non-lighting savings are based on Regional Technical Forum (RTF)
and TRM deemed and prescriptive values.
The program has annual savings and unit goals per each Idaho Power region that are tracked on a
spreadsheet and reviewed monthly. The program staff proactively monitors performance and makes sure
the program stays on goal.
Trade allies are valuable contributors to the marketing and implementation of the program. The program’s
trade ally outreach specialist visits lighting trade allies for the purposes of strengthening relationships,
keeping the program uppermost in their mind, informing them of program adjustments, and helping them
identify and submit projects to the program. The program also provides credited technical lighting training
opportunities for trade allies to increase their knowledge of the latest in energy efficient lighting options.
4.1.1.3 Custom Projects
DNV GL obtained an overview of the program design and operations through staff interviews. The program
is designed to cover any cost-effective measures that are not part of the Retrofit or New Construction
subprograms. Engineers review applications to confirm savings calculations before approval and verify
projects after installation. The program relies on customer service representatives, particularly for the
largest Idaho Power customers, to market the program and identify opportunities. The program sponsors
scoping audits at no cost to high-demand customers to identify opportunities. The program also offers
detailed audits through a shared-cost mechanism. The program staff proactively monitors performance and
makes sure the program stays on goal. Most years, the program exceeds goals. Program Staff spend a
substantial amount of time on customer relations, particularly with the largest customers, and on educating
and training trade allies and customer representatives.
4.1.2 Program logic review
New Construction has an operations manual that partially lays out program logic, but does not contain a
formal logic model. DNV GL obtained additional information about each subprogram from the program staff
interviews. We generated a basic, formal logic model based on these sources of information (Figure 2).

Page 10 of 24

Figure 2. C&I logic model

4.1.3 Program manual and instruction documents
Idaho Power provided many program documents for review.
C&I Procedures Manual.pdf – This is the customer-facing procedures manual available on each of the
sub-program areas of the Idaho Power website. This document contains all the information a customer
needs to start participating in the program. The formatting is visually appealing. It is logically organized and
easy to follow. It makes use of hyperlinks within the document to facilitate navigation. It gives customers
clear instructions about what to do and expect about the program, lists high-level terms and conditions, and
provides program staff contact information. It also includes a revision history section at the end.
New Construction Program Handbook – 2017 Update – Overall, this is a solid document with a strong,
high-level description of the subprogram. This document states program goals in terms of dollars and kWh
savings as well as high-level program objectives. Program logic is partially recorded in an informal manner.
Risks and contingencies are not identified. The handbook describes the key personnel in the New
Construction sector, high level tasks, and step-by-step instructions for several tasks. It appears to be usable
by people working with the program, although it does rely some on institutional knowledge. There is not
enough detail in this document for someone to be able to use it in isolation to administer the program.
2017 Retrofit Procedures.docx manual – This document appears to be the core manual for the Retrofits
subprogram. It is thorough and provides step-by-step instructions for common tasks. While these
instructions are detailed, they are probably not sufficiently detailed to serve as a stand-alone document.
Someone using these instructions would need to have additional institutional knowledge or access to
someone who does to fully conduct the tasks.

Page 11 of 24

Custom Projects Program Manual – This is the core document for the Custom Projects subprogram. It
contains details about the program design and procedures, including defining custom projects, the incentive
structure, customer benefits, contact information, measures covered, a process flow diagram and step-by-
step instructions for key program processes, cost effectiveness analyses, baseline information, and
summaries and links to evaluations.
Directions to Upload Applications.docx – This document contains instructions for entering applications
into CLRIS. It is a well-written document that makes excellent use of shapes drawn on top of screenshots, to
clearly connect instructional text to images to help a user know what to click and when.
Recommendation: Other instructions that include screenshots should emulate this document, not only in the
use of screenshots and shapes, but also in the use of the labels on those shapes to clearly refer to the
instructional text.
Processing Non-lighting Pre-approval Applications – This document provides detailed instructions that
include screenshots and shapes. While these are good, they could be improved by more clearly tying the
shapes over the screenshots to the instructional text the way Directions to Upload Applications.docx does
(see above).
2016 Lighting Inspection Guidelines.docx – This document has thorough, well-written instructions with
a good checklist.
Non Lighting Inspection.docx – This document provides very high-level instructions for how to do an
inspection on non-lighting measures. In its current form, it does not provide much guidance or
standardization for inspections.
Recommendation: This document should provide the same level of detail found in the lighting inspection
checklist.
Add Trade Ally.docx – This is a small document that contains instructions for how to conduct one specific
task. It could be consolidated into a larger procedures manual.
Recommendation: The instructions in these documents (including the program procedures manuals) are
very similar to each other, which is unsurprising considering they involve the same systems. This similarity
provides an opportunity to consolidate the different instruction documents that are maintained separately
across the 3 subprograms into a single C&I manual and procedures document. The customer-facing program
manual available on the website (C&I Procedures Manual.pdf) is a good example of a combined document.
We recommend Idaho Power create a similar, internal-facing document. This combined document should
take collectively less time to maintain and would be easier for staff to find than separate documents. It could
contain appendices or sidebars for instructions that are idiosyncratic to one of the subprograms. The
consolidated document would benefit from the following additional characteristics:
 Include a table at the beginning or end that lists the revision history of the document.
 Emulate the combination of shapes superimposed over screenshots such as those used in “Directions to
upload applications.docx.” All the instruction documents had screenshots, but this one did the best job of
clearly labeling the different areas on the screen in a way that intuitively tied back to the instructional
text (and vice versa).

Page 12 of 24

 Adding graphics that show a program logic model, organizational chart, and process flow would improve
the intuitiveness of the document.
 Include a list of major risks to accomplishing the program’s goals and contingencies for dealing with
those situations if they occur.
4.1.4 Tracking systems
DNVGL reviewed the tracking database for all the programs. DNV GL also verified that the reported savings
in the program reports (2016 Supplement 1: Cost Effectiveness) can be duplicated from the tracking
database.
4.1.4.1 New construction
The findings from the new construction subprogram tracking database are as follows:
 The database is complete and well-organized. It has the incentives and energy savings information filled
in for all the projects.
 There are some missing entries in column AP (Proj Name), column AM (Project App Name), and column
AQ (Proj Description).
DNV GL received 8 project files for the new construction program to verify the savings reported in the
project files match the tracking database entries. For all 8 projects, the measure information, including
which measure was implemented for each project, respective savings, and incentives match the entries in
the tracking database.
The total incentives and 2016 gross annual energy savings reported in the tracking database match the
values reported in the 2016 cost effectiveness report.
4.1.4.2 Retrofits
Per the program staff interview, a macro moves data from the lighting tool into CLRIS. However, non-
lighting information is manually entered by an internal administrator. The tracking database is complete and
well-organized, and all the fields are filled with relevant information. It has the incentives, project costs, and
energy savings information filled in for all projects.
DNV GL received 6 project files for the retrofits program to verify the savings reported in the project files
match the tracking database entries. Out of the 6 projects, only one had an inconsistency between the
database and project files. ID 160030 had pre-approval applications only, and the savings estimate,
incentives and project costs in the tracking database differed slightly from the pre-approval applications.
According to follow-up with Idaho Power, it is common for changes to occur during the review process to
adjust for a variety of factors such as hours of operation and wattage.
The total incentives and 2016 gross annual energy savings reported in the tracking database match the
values reported in the 2016 cost effectiveness report.
4.1.4.3 Custom Projects
The findings from the custom projects program tracking database are as follows:
 The database is mostly complete and well-organized. It has the incentives, project costs, and energy
savings information filled in for all projects.

Page 13 of 24

 Column BH (Final Tot kWh svgs) always matches [kWh before] minus [kWh after] (Column CP-CQ).
However, for some projects the [kWh after] is filled in as “0.” DNV GL raised this question to Idaho
Power and it was clarified that where 0 shows up in the [kWh/yr after], it is likely a situation where the
[kWh/yr before] may not be clear but the energy savings number is. In those situations, the energy
savings is entered as the [kWh/yr before] and 0 entered as kWh/yr after. It also seems that on some
lighting projects, the transition from an Easy Upgrades (Retrofits) project number to a Custom Projects
project number will enter savings the same way with the [kWh/yr before] indicating the kWh/yr saved.
Recommendation: DNV GL recommends using each variable/field for a single purpose, create new fields
as necessary to hold a different type of data, and use a delineated value to represent missing data. The
missing data value should be something that could never be confused for a real value, and it should be
filled in as completely as possible to minimize the number of blank cells.
 Column AP (description) has 56 missing entries out of the 196 records. These missing 56 records have
Column BO (Pre-Measure [2], which seems to represent measure category) populated.
 Some columns have the same titles; this can lead to confusion if using an automated scripting language
to pull data for analysis.
 There are columns for pre-measure descriptions and final-measure descriptions. In some cases, pre-
measure (1), which seems to represent the first measure considered, is blank and the pre-measure (2)
is filled in.
Recommendation: For consistency, we recommend filling in the measure data in chronological order.
DNV GL received 15 project files for the Custom Projects program to verify that the savings reported in the
project files match the tracking database entries. For each of the 15 projects, the measure information,
including which measure was implemented, the respective final savings, and the incentives, matches the
entries in the tracking database. Overall the database matches almost perfectly with the sampled project
files. For one of the project files (id 1495), the project name did not match the application, and the invoice
documents the size of the motor on which the variable frequency drive was installed as 35 hp compared to
25 hp in the application.
The 2016 gross annual energy savings reported in the tracking database matches the value reported in the
2016 cost effectiveness report. However, the total incentives in the report are slightly different from the
tracking database. The 2016 cost effectiveness reports $6,114,243 of incentives, while the value in the
tracking database is $6,103,533. The discrepancy could be due to the Green Motors program. That program
is listed in the cost effectiveness report, but no dollars are listed for it. Alternatively, the amount of
discrepancy suggests 2016 cost effectiveness report included one or two projects that were not reflected in
the 2016 tracking database submitted to the evaluators. This could have occurred if some late-2015 projects
happened to be paid out in 2016, thus getting included in the cost effectiveness report, but not in the data
pull that was limited to 2016 projects.
4.1.5 Application forms
DNV GL reviewed the application forms available on Idaho Power’s website as of October 3, 2017.
New Construction – This application form appears to be complete, well-organized, and mostly easy to
follow. It does use some technical jargon, but that is unavoidable with the level of detail required for these

Page 14 of 24

applications. The Excel sheet is formatted in a visually appealing way and the use of worksheets and
formulas is well-done. There are several positive features included in this application:
 Auto-filling fields (e.g., customer name) after they are entered in one worksheet to other worksheets
 Use of data validation pulldown menus to enforce the use of specific measure types
 Use of formulas that automatically update incentive amounts based on measure specifications
 Links to Idaho Power websites with the specific program requirements and terms and conditions
 Automatically updating cells that need to be filled in as other cells are filled in
Recommendation: The form could benefit from more specific instructions in the areas where applicants need
to input measure specifications to calculate incentives. Choosing the right values to fill in everywhere is not
entirely intuitive. At one point during a trial run through the application, an incentive calculation came up as
“chk box,” but it was not clear what that meant. It took several frustrating minutes to figure out what the
form required. A mouse-over box like the one provided for the operating hours on the variable speed drives
on the Controls Worksheet (Figure 3) would be a good way to provide instructions and explanations for what
applicants need to enter, and for explaining outcomes like “chk box.”
Figure 3. Mouse-over example

Retrofits Lighting – Considering that 90% of program savings come from lighting projects, most Retrofits
participants will use the lighting tool for program application. Like the New Construction application
workbook, this workbook is well-organized and very usable. Positive characteristics include:
 Automatically updating the list of missing information on the Welcome worksheet
 Use of drop down lists (data validation) to enforce standardized data entry

Page 15 of 24

 Auto-fill of cells in the Pre-approval Application and Payment Application worksheets from data entered
in the Data Entry worksheet
 Maintaining all these details in a single file
Recommendations: DNV GL has several recommendations for improvements to the workbook. Mouse-over
instructions such as those illustrated in the New Construction section would be a good way to implement
these recommendations:
 Provide instructions that applicants should not try to type in the light blue cells.
 Provide additional instructions about what to enter in the QPL column of the Product Type worksheet.
 Define acronyms such as QPL, LCL, and DLC.
 Provide additional instructions about what to put in for “hours of operation” on the Data Entry
worksheet. Should the applicant fill in total hours per day (e.g., 12) or the hour of opening and of
closing (e.g., 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m.)?
Retrofits Nonlighting – The pdf worksheets used for non-lighting applications are easy to understand and
use. The use of deemed incentive values helps simplify these worksheets.
Recommendation: Auto-fill the incentive per ton on the HVAC worksheet based on what the customer enters
in the first column of that table for measure number. The sheet already has a pulldown list for the values
that go into the measure number column, so it should also be able to apply a value to the incentive in the
second column rather than requiring the applicant to type that information in.
Custom Projects - The custom projects application is simple and straightforward. It contains several
helpful features such as auto-filling the customer information cells in the Pay App worksheet from the
information entered into the Pre-App worksheet; using pulldown menus to enforce standardized data entry;
and automatically calculating savings, incentives, and payback periods.
Recommendations:
 While the workbook is mostly intuitive, it does not contain much instructional text and it uses several
acronyms. For example, what should an applicant do if they have more than 3 measures?
 Additionally, while the inclusion of the payback period is a nice touch, it might inadvertently be hurting
the program because it is only factoring in energy-related savings. Many measures have additional, non-
energy benefits that are often substantial but also difficult to measure. For example, LED lighting results
in substantial savings in operations and maintenance labor costs because the lamps last so long.
Custom Projects self-audit workbook – The self-audit workbook has a similar look and feel to the other
application forms, and it has pull-down menus to enforce standardized data entry. Lighting and HVAC are
notably absent from the form, and those are likely to make up the bulk of most facilities’ energy use. Even if
the lighting and HVAC are less likely to receive incentives through the Custom Projects approach, the tool
could still be used to identify those opportunities. There are also some cosmetic oddities. For example, there
is an arrow near the hours of operation that points outside the margins of the form.

Page 16 of 24

Recommendation: The copyright mark on this form says 2013; if this form hasn’t been updated in 4 years, it
would probably benefit from review to make sure it still aligns with current program design and offerings.
4.1.6 QA/QC review
New Construction - Per the program handbook, the Integrated Design Lab performs measure verification.
Approximately 10% of projects receive inspection. Per the in-depth interview, program staff have several
checklists to help ensure that applications are complete. DNV GL reviewed one post-inspection form
available in project files, and it appears to be thorough and very detailed.
Retrofits/Custom Projects - The program procedures document contains instructions for scheduling and
conducting lighting inspections. The instructions include a list of information to cover during the scheduling
call and an email template for courtesy notifications to customer representatives. These are good practices.
This document lists inspection criteria, which are all reasonable. Per the Retrofits program staff interview,
approximately 34% of projects receive a pre-inspection and 23% receive post-installation inspections. DNV
GL typically sees inspection rates closer to 10% for deemed measures in mature programs and inspection
rates in the same range as Idaho Power for large, custom projects.
Recommendation: If the current inspections are finding few problems and trade allies are being retained by
the program, Idaho Power could probably reduce the proportion of inspections without adverse effect.
The instructions for how to conduct the inspection are very thorough and contain instructions for activities
that are easily overlooked, such as telling inspectors they should not try to answer program-related
questions, recording the first and last names of all walkthrough attendees, and wearing appropriate
footwear. These are excellent instructions.
Recommendation: The only recommendation DNV GL can make on these instructions is to consider
implementing a tablet-based electronic data entry form that lets inspectors directly enter information as
they walk through the facility.
4.1.7 Program marketing
DNV GL reviewed the program website, marketing materials, application forms, staff and trade ally tools,
and past evaluations and research (i.e., the Burke Report). Overall, DNV GL found these documents to be
very well done.
Website
The websites for the commercial programs are in good condition. They are clean, they contain the
information needed by potential participants, and they are easy to navigate. DNV GL did not find any broken
links. The program pages do not take full advantage of the web medium.
Recommendation: There could be more pictures, such as those of smiling people used in the New
Construction brochures. The website could also benefit from links to more stories or testimonials of satisfied
customers. In particular, Idaho Power should make the YouTube videos about the New Construction program
available in these web pages. The FAQs should include contact information in case the FAQ section is not
sufficient. Note: The entire idahopower.com website was redesigned and relaunched in November 2017. The
new site has more visual elements.

Page 17 of 24

Marketing materials
Like the websites, the marketing materials reviewed by DNV GL are of high quality. We reviewed several
brochures, airport signage, vendor fliers, bill inserts, and the PowerPoint presentation used by C&I program
staff during outreach and lunch-and-learns. These materials all have the essential characteristics that DNV
GL looks for: they are visually appealing, they convey the intended information, they are easy to
understand, they have utility logos and branding, they all provide follow-up activities and contact
information (including both web and phone for the paper collateral).
The New Construction brochures were especially well-done. They featured pictures of smiling people who
have participated in the program. There is a special area in human brains for facial recognition, so smiling
people are an especially effective type of graphic to include in marketing materials. It adds further value
that these people are also members of the community and are essentially offering a testimonial.
The business tips sheets were also very well done, and could serve as an industry example of how to
produce these types of documents. The education sheet was particularly good, and included some non-
energy benefits that are relevant to schools such as learning outcomes.
Recommendations: One potential improvement to these sheets would be to start with the energy use
breakdowns for the facility types, to contextualize the 2 or 3 systems that the sheets focus on. This
reordering would allow the sheet to tell the reader which systems tend to use the most energy, then explain
what to do to make those most energy-intensive systems more efficient. Related to this concept, the sheets
should focus on the most energy-intensive systems. Generally, this is the case, but the hospitality sheet
does not address the “other” category, which is the most intensive system for that sector. Laundry and hot
water are most likely major components of that “other” category, and have efficient equipment options.
Finally, all the sheets should try to mention additional non-energy benefits like the education sheet does. For
example, in convenience stores, improved refrigeration could result in less product spoilage, and improved
lighting could increase worker and customer safety.
The slide deck used during in-person presentations was also well-written overall.
Recommendations: DNV GL’s recommendations are minor: on slide 11, provide a link to the lighting tool; on
slide 12, provide an example of a typical building or office space priced out to the full incentive, rather than
just showing dollars per kWh. For example, something like the following:
“The typical floor of an office building has 400 lighting fixtures. Replacing these fixtures
with LED technology would result in a savings of 16,000 kWh per year ($1,600 on your
electricity bill) and receive an incentive of $2,400.”2
On slide 14, eliminate the redundancy between the last 2 bullets and the previous 2 bullets. We further
recommend that presenters have a story or two they can tell about how participants or trade allies benefited
from their participation in the program. Anecdotal examples will lend credibility to the presentation. These
stories do not need special slides.
Past studies

2 The numbers in this example are completely arbitrary and do not necessarily reflect realistic values.

Page 18 of 24

DNV GL reviewed the Burke Report, which covered market research and customer satisfaction with Idaho
Power generally, rather than focusing only on the C&I program. The major themes of the Burke Report were
that customers are concerned about rates, outages, and the image of Idaho Power as a partner or pro-social
company.
The Burke Report does not point to any specific deficiencies in the efficiency programs. Efficiency programs
are a rare opportunity for utilities to have a positive interaction with customers instead of the much more
common, negative interactions involving bill payments and outages. Participation rates in efficiency
programs are low for most utilities, and the marketing for the efficiency programs reaches a much wider
portion of Idaho Power’s customer base. This marketing can help address all the themes highlighted in the
Burke Report.
Recommendations: Some specific approaches Idaho Power could use include:
 Continue to funnel customers to efficiency programs when they call in with high bill complaints.
 Marketing materials for efficiency programs should include the message that Idaho Power offers these
programs to help customers pay their bills and keep the price of electricity down. This can be used to
convey an “Idaho Power cares” message. Pictures of smiling customers would help drive this message
home.
 Marketing materials can also mention that efficiency programs help with grid stability by reducing peak
demand.
 Try to include non-energy benefits in marketing materials.
 If possible, get more visibility on the Customer Connections newsletter and its content. This newsletter
contains testimonials and content that show that Idaho Power cares about its customers. The map
comparing Idaho Power’s rates to other states’ rates was a good answer to one of the major concerns
expressed in the Burke Survey. The article about not being a victim of scams helps show that Idaho
Power has concern for its customers.
 Participate in community events as much as possible. Booths that give out brochures about the
efficiency programs and possibly also give away free LEDs or showerheads are good ways to get
visibility in the community.
5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Overall, the C&I program is well-run. Program staff know their goals and manage toward them proactively.
There is well-written documentation for many of the administrative tasks. Application forms are easy to
navigate and contain features that reduce applicant burden. The marketing materials are visually appealing
and follow industry best practices. Tracking databases contain all necessary information, and are consistent
with project files except in a few minor instances. QA/QC procedures are well-documented, and the
inspection reports are detailed and thorough. While DNV GL provides several recommendations, we
discovered no fundamental shortcomings or major red flags in the way the program is run.

Page 19 of 24

5.1 General recommendations and best practices
Create and maintain a formal, written logic model. The rationale as to how program activities produce
desired results exists whether or not the program codifies it in a formal, written logic model. The advantage
of writing it down is that the rationale and any assumptions become transparent, which can help current and
future program staff verify whether the program is still operating as intended, or whether some assumptions
need to be revisited. This logic model should be included in a consolidated program manual.
Identify and record major risks to program goal achievement along with mitigation strategies.
Even well-run programs face risks. One example many utilities will soon face is what will happen to lighting
savings as the market more fully embraces LED technology and federal EISA regulations take full effect. It is
better to anticipate these risks and have plans in place for dealing with adversity when it occurs than to
have to scramble at a difficult moment. A well-written risk register will position the program to more
effectively and adroitly deal with adversity as it arises. The risk register should include a list of the
program’s potential unintended consequences. Risks should be ranked based on the likelihood of occurring
multiplied by the impact on the program if they do occur. Generally, each of these dimensions is scored on a
5-point scale, so risks can have a value of 1 to 25. This risk register should be included in the program
manual. Table 2 provides an example basic layout of a risk register.
Table 2. Example risk register
Description Likelihood
(1 to 5)
Impact
(1 to
5)
Total
score
(likelihood
* impact)
Mitigation
Risk 1 5 5 25 <person/position/department>
will do <activity>
Risk 2 4 5 20 <person/position/department>
will do <activity>

If practical and allowed by regulations, test or track the effectiveness of marketing
methods/campaigns. While marketing materials follow industry best practices, that alone does not
guarantee their effectiveness. Testing the effectiveness of marketing materials and campaigns will help
Idaho Power spend finite marketing dollars on the most effective means of outreach. If possible, Idaho
Power should consider setting up a way to test or at least track the effectiveness of various marketing
approaches. There are several methods for collecting this information (ordered here in terms of least to
most effort/cost to implement and least to most reliability):
 Use surveys to ask participants where they first heard of the program
 Ask about sources of information on the application forms
 Put “coupon codes” on marketing materials that customers can enter to get a slightly better incentive or
a small bonus. These codes would be entered on the application and should be unique to each marketing
channel or campaign so that applications can be easily associated with each type of outreach.

Page 20 of 24

 Set up randomized experiments where some customers receive one type of marketing and other
customers receive another type. This approach could leverage a coupon code or similar means of linking
applications back to specific marketing approaches.
Consider moving some measures to an upstream or midstream incentive model. As programs
mature, they tend to evolve from custom models to deemed models to upstream models. Measures with
deemed savings are the best candidates for upstream incentives, and lighting is typically the first end use
that moves upstream. Some programs implemented by other utilities evaluated by DNV GL have also
recently moved HVAC (rooftop units) and water heating measures (domestic and instant water heaters)
upstream. An advantage of upstream programs is administrative simplicity for the program. A disadvantage
is that upstream programs are less visible to participants, which means that Idaho Power might not
generate as much customer satisfaction from them. Upstream programs are also more difficult to evaluate.
While some measures will eventually be able to move upstream, some measures and projects will always
require a custom approach.
Monitor market transformation towards adoption of efficient technologies as standard practice.
This will help Idaho Power prioritize which measures to incentivize and at what level.
Minimize the number of times humans touch the data. Every instance of a human modifying data
introduces a chance for error. Ideally, the only time a human would touch data would be the initial data
entry, and all other data transfers from one system to another would occur automatically. Per the program
staff interview, a macro moves data from the lighting tool into CLRIS. However, non-lighting information is
manually entered by an internal administrator. If possible, this and all other cases of manual entry should be
automated the way the lighting tool is.
5.2 Program-specific recommendations
Correct the errors that exist in the tracking system. While these errors are minor, the tracking system
will be most useful to program staff and easier for evaluators to use for impact evaluations when it is as free
of errors as possible.
New Construction – Make sure all cells have a legal value. If necessary, specify a value to represent
missing data that can be used to eliminate any empty cells.
Retrofits – No recommendations.
Custom Projects –
 Only store one type of information in each column/variable. Create new variables as necessary
to follow this rule.
 Make sure that each column/variable has a unique title.
 Fill in the measure data consistently in chronological order to avoid having missing data in lower
ordered measure variables.
Create a consolidated internal program manual. A consolidated internal program manual would keep
related program information in a single location and help condense the formerly three separate programs

Page 21 of 24

into one. In addition to the information currently contained in the program manuals, the single program
manual should contain:
 A table at the beginning or end that lists the revision history of the document
 Graphics that show a program logic model, organizational chart, and process flows
 A risk register
Consolidate and standardize program operations instructions. Two programs provide high-level
program manuals that described program goals, personnel, and tasks. Several additional documents contain
detailed, step-by-step instructions for executing common program administration activities such as entering
a new application into CLRIS. These documents are very similar across all 3 subprograms. Maintaining 3
separate manuals and sets of instructions is not only redundant, but could cause confusion among program
staff as to which instructions they should use for any specific task. A single document containing all the
instructions would help align the 3 subprograms while reducing redundancy and confusion. DNV GL
recommends the following additional content for the document:
 Include a table at the beginning or end that lists the document’s revision history.
 Emulate the combination of shapes superimposed over screenshots used in “Directions to upload
applications.docx.” All the instruction documents have screenshots, but this one does the best job of
clearly labeling the different areas on the screen in a way that intuitively ties back to the instructional
text (and vice versa).
Consider consolidating the program tracking files. This would further advance the management of the
formerly 3 separate programs as a single program.
Revise and add instruction text to application forms. These will make the forms more intuitive and
usable by participants. Mouse-over text is a good way to add instructions to specific areas of the application
forms. Areas of the application forms that could benefit from additional instructions include:
 Error text for cells that calculate formulas such as “chk box” in the new construction application
 Areas where applicants should not type
 What to enter in columns that request specific information in specific formats
 Define acronyms such as QPL, LCL, and DLC
Consolidate all measure-specific applications into a single file or make sure that each individual
file has a unique identifier that can be used to keep the set together. This will facilitate the tracking
of customers who install multiple measures and will make data entry easier and more consistent.
Add appealing content to the marketing materials. This will help get people to pay attention to the
marketing materials, and the anecdotal evidence is another way to convince customers of the value of
energy efficiency. There could be more pictures, such as those of smiling people used in the New
Construction brochures. The website could also benefit from links to more stories or testimonials of satisfied
customers. Make the YouTube videos about the New Construction program available in these web pages.

Page 22 of 24

Consider updating the flow of the business tip sheets. This will help customers focus on the areas that
will impact them the most. Start with the energy use breakdowns for the facility types, to contextualize the
2 or 3 systems that the sheets focus on. Focus on the most energy intense systems and explain how to
make those systems more efficient. Try to mention additional non-energy benefits.
Add a few details to the C&I slide deck and prepare a few anecdotal stories about good
experiences with the program. These details will make the slide deck a little more informative for
observers, and the anecdotes will help motivate participation.
Use efficiency program marketing activities to enhance Idaho Power’s image. Idaho Power is
providing efficiency programs for the right reasons, and those programs are an opportunity for a positive
interaction with customers. Idaho Power is already investing in marketing the efficiency programs, and that
marketing can be used to address some of the themes highlighted in the Burke Report. Other steps Idaho
Power can take to address the Burke Report’s concerns include:
 Funnel customers to efficiency programs when they call in with high bill complaints.
 Marketing materials for efficiency programs should note that Idaho Power does this to help customers
pay their bills and keep the price of electricity down. This can be used to convey an “Idaho Power cares”
message. Pictures of smiling customers would help drive home this message.
 Marketing materials can also mention that efficiency programs help with grid stability by reducing peak
demand.
 Try to include non-energy benefits in marketing materials.
 If possible, get more visibility on the Customer Connections newsletter and its content. This letter
contains testimonials and content that shows that Idaho Power cares about its customers. The map
comparing Idaho Power’s rates to other states’ rates was a good answer to one of the major concerns
expressed in the Burke Survey. The article about not being a victim of scams helps show that Idaho
Power has concern for its customers. If content like this is not already posted to Idaho Power’s social
media, that would be a way to increase its exposure.
 Participate in community events as much as possible. Booths that give out brochures about the
efficiency programs and possibly also give away free LEDs or showerheads are good ways to get
visibility in the community.
Conduct an impact evaluation on the custom projects subprogram in 2018 or 2019 at the latest.
Of all the subprograms, Custom Projects is probably the one that can benefit the most from an impact
evaluation because each project involved unique energy savings calculations performed by Idaho Power or a
subcontractor rather than drawing on vetted external sources such as RTF for deemed savings values. The
last impact evaluation was in 2014. Best practices suggest a 2-year or 3-year schedule for impact
evaluations of a custom projects program.
DNV GL organized these recommendations by to the estimated amount of effort they require, and the value
that Idaho Power would derive from them (Figure 4).

Page 23 of 24

Figure 4. Recommendation effort/value diagram

Impact evaluation of Custom Projects Test/track effectiveness of marketing Produce risk register
Create/maintain formal logic model
Consolidate program manuals
Consolidate instructions manuals
Add appealing content to the marketing materials. Use efficiency program marketing
to improve Idaho Power’s image
Create upstream/midstream program
models
Monitor market transformation Minimize human data touches
Correct existing errors in program tracking files Consolidate program tracking files
Revise and add instruction text to application forms.
Consolidate measure specific
applications into single file
Consider updating the flow of the
business tip sheets.
Add a few details to the C&I slide deck and prepare a few anecdotal
stories about good experiences with the program.

Page 24 of 24

APPENDIX A. PROGRAM STAFF INTERVIEW GUIDE
The Program Staff interview guide is appended below as a PDF object. Double-click the image to open a PDF
viewer to review the entire guide.

DNV GL Headquarters, Veritasveien 1, P.O.Box 300, 1322 Høvik, Norway. Tel: [phone]. www.dnvgl.com
© DNV GL 2017

Idaho Power Residential Heating and
Cooling Program Evaluation

1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
DNV GL conducted a process and impact evaluation on Idaho Power’s residential Heating and Cooling
Efficiency program. Evaluation activities included:
 Semi-structured interviews with program staff
 Review of program tracking systems
 Review of program logic, files, and materials
 Review of savings algorithms
 Computation of verified savings and realization rates
 Review of QA/QC procedures
DNV GL’s key findings included:
1. The total reported savings for the program were 1,113,574 kWh with total verified savings of 1,126,591
kWh, for a realization rate of 1.01.
2. Ex-ante savings calculations for 12 out of 14 measures were verified accurate.
a. “Air-Source Heat Pump to Open Loop Water Source Heat Pump” used an incorrect baseline.
b. Evaporative coolers used different climate zones for single-family and manufactured homes.
3. Differences in savings for specific reviewed files occurred because of climate zone changes.
4. There were some anomalies on the application forms, but tracking data contained the correct values.
5. Trade allies are a key means of implementing the program.
6. Program documentation was good, and could be improved with several changes:
a. Formatting for improved readability
b. Including program logic model and risk register
c. Adding several fields to applications
7. Print collateral was well done.
The program is operating well and meeting its goals, supported by a savings realization rate just over 100%.
The program specialist is aware of program operations, and program processes are in good working order.

Page 2 of 21

While DNV GL makes several recommendations (Figure 1), we discovered no major red flags during the
evaluation.
Figure 1. Recommendation value * effort map

DNV GL Headquarters, Veritasveien 1, P.O.Box 300, 1322 Høvik, Norway. Tel: [phone]. www.dnvgl.com
© DNV GL 2017

2 INTRODUCTION
2.1 Program overview
The Heating and Cooling Efficiency (H&C) program provides incentives to residential customers in Idaho
Power’s Idaho and Oregon service areas for the purchase and proper installation of qualified heating and
cooling equipment and services.
The program was initiated in 2007. Its objective is to acquire energy savings by providing customers with
energy efficient options for electric space heating and cooling. The available measures in 2016 included
ducted air source heat pumps, ducted open loop water source heat pumps, ductless air source heat pumps,
duct-sealing, whole-house fans, electronically commutated motors, evaporative coolers, and smart
thermostats.
Idaho Power requires licensed contractors to perform the installation services related to these measures,
except for evaporative coolers that can be self-installed. For the ducted air source heat pump, ducted open-
loop water source heat pump, ductless air source heat pump, and duct-sealing measures, the licensed
contractor must also be an Idaho Power participating contractor.
2.2 Evaluation overview
DNV GL conducted an impact and process evaluation. The key objectives of the impact evaluation included:
 Determine and verify the energy (kWh) impacts attributable to the 2016 program. Ex-ante savings
estimates are determined using various sources including the Regional Technical Forum (RTF) deemed
savings, and internal/external engineering.
 Provide credible and reliable program energy impact estimates and ex-post realization rates for the 2016
program year.
 Report findings and observations, and provide recommendations that enhance the effectiveness of future
ex-ante savings analysis and the accurate and transparent reporting of program savings.
The key objectives of the process evaluation included:
 Evaluate program design including program mission, logic, and use of industry best practices.
 Evaluate program implementation including quality control, operational practice, and outreach.
 Evaluate program administration including program oversight, staffing, management, training,
documentation and reporting.
 Report findings and observations and recommendations to enhance program effectiveness.
To achieve these objectives, DNV GL conducted:
 Semi-structured interviews with program staff
 Tracking system review
 Program file review

Page 4 of 21

 Program materials review
 Review of savings algorithms
 Program logic review
 QA/QC review
2.3 Layout of report
The remainder of this report is organized into the following sections:
Section 3. Methods – describes the evaluation activities in detail
Section 4. Impact findings – reports findings relevant to verification of program savings
Section 5. Process findings – reports findings relevant to program processes and materials
Section 6. Conclusions and recommendations – lays out the key findings and provides recommendations for
program improvement
3 METHODS
This section provides detailed descriptions of the methods DNV GL used to evaluate the program.
3.1 Program staff interviews
DNV GL conducted in-depth interviews (IDIs) with Idaho Power program staff, to understand:
 Program history
 How the program is delivered
 Program logic and objectives
 The perceived strengths and weaknesses of the program
 What the program staff wants or needs from the evaluation
DNV GL developed instruments to guide the IDIs (Appendix A). Senior DNV GL staff conducted the IDIs in
person in June 2017.
3.2 Tracking system review
Our tracking system review informed both the impact and the process evaluations. In the review, DNV GL
assessed the program’s database, its fields, their use, and the accuracy of the data. To ensure that the data
can support program administration and oversight, program evaluation, and regulatory reporting, we
assessed the accuracy of the data entry and individual measure savings values, and conducted a broader
assessment of the various ways the tracking information is used.
DNV GL assessed the program database along four major areas, asking the following questions:
 Structure: Does the database contain all needed fields to track programs, perform evaluations, and
calculate savings?

Page 5 of 21

 Completeness: Are required fields populated with usable data?
 Quality: Are the data in a format that enables analysis and reporting? Do they have consistent,
identified units and mutually exclusive categories?
 Accuracy: Does the database accurately calculate program savings that are consistent with deemed
measure algorithms? DNV GL reviewed the sampled projects to determine this.
3.3 File review
DNV GL reviewed a sample of the project files, including original energy analysis and any follow-up
documents adjusting savings estimates. We verified the accuracy of data entry by comparing the
application, the invoice, and the database for key elements of the savings calculation such as quantity, size,
efficiency level, and units of measure.
For each measure, we attempted to determine the key engineering assumptions involved and the extent to
which they were documented. Specifically, we:
 Reviewed calculations for accuracy, appropriateness of methods and use of inputs and assumptions
 Identified areas of concern
 Assessed the appropriateness of baseline equipment/efficiency levels
 Identified whether climate zone assignments are likely to affect the energy savings, and verified that
these were appropriately accounted for
DNV GL requested a sample of project files designed to meet a 90/10 precision requirement (a relative error
of no more than 10%, with 90% confidence) with reasonable assumptions. The sample was designed to
include all the measure types in the program, with preference given to measures that had greater and more
variable savings levels. The final sample included 26 projects (Table 1).

Page 6 of 21

Table 1. Heating and cooling sample plan
Measures Group Stratum Stratum
definition Population count Weight Sample
size
Heat pump
A 1 < 4,000 kWh 92 0.1905 4
A 2 4,001 - 6,999
kWh 73 0.1511 5
A 3 >= 7,000 kWh 1 0.0021 1
OL B 1 < 10,000 kWh 16 0.0331 2
B 2 >= 10,000 kWh 1 0.0021 1
Ductless heat pump
C 1 < 2,200 kWh 24 0.0497 2
C 2 >= 2,200 kWh 125 0.2588 2
Smart
Thermostat D 1 All thermostats 57 0.1180 3
Evaporative
cooler
E 1 Single-family 13 0.0269 1
E 2 Multi-family 9 0.0186 1
Duct sealing E 3 All duct sealing 3 0.0062 1
WH fan E 4 All 19 0.0393 1
ECM E 5 All 50 0.1035 2
Total 483 26
This sample plan was formed using the following assumptions:
 Group A – pulled one largest out as census, and split remainder into 2 strata
 Group B – pulled largest out as census
 Group C – split into 2 strata
 Group D – no stratification
 Measures in group E all had constant savings. The sample was set to size 1, except for ECM, which was
set to 2 due to the large number of projects. Because there is no variability for these measures, the
assumption is that any discrepancies found would be consistent for all project files of the same measure
type.
 Ratio near 1 and a correlation of at least 0.5.
Using these assumptions, the sample achieved better than 90/10 precision.
3.4 Program materials review
The primary purpose of a program materials review is to provide an objective opinion of the clarity and
effectiveness of those documents. Program documentation is a critical aspect of program planning, project
management, and communication with stakeholders and trade allies. Table 2 lists the program materials we
reviewed and the core issues associated with each.

Page 7 of 21

Table 2. Materials reviewed and core issues considered
Program
material Core issues
Program plan
Is program theory clearly articulated?
Are program objectives articulated?
Are program goals recorded and SMART1?
Are program roles and responsibilities clearly recorded?
Are risks and contingencies recorded?
Marketing materials
Are materials visually appealing?
Do they effectively convey the intended information?
Are they easy to understand?
Do they have utility logos or branding?
Do they provide a follow-up activity and means to do it?
Do they utilize any psychological/motivational theories and how effective are they at
doing so?
Application forms Do they cover the minimal information necessary?
Are instructions available and clear?
Are they easy to follow and fill out?
Do they use jargon or require technical knowledge?
Websites
Are they visually appealing? Are they easy to navigate / laid out in an intuitive manner? Are links broken?
Are they accurate?
Do they convey necessary information?
Do they take advantage of the unique capabilities of the medium?
3.5 Review of savings algorithms
DNV GL reviewed the savings algorithms used by Idaho Power to ensure that the savings claimed by each
measure is appropriate. We examined each measure’s savings algorithm to verify the following:
 Baseline efficiency levels are consistent with current codes and standards, and/or industry standard
practices
 Efficiency levels are consistent with program requirements
 Hours of use and run time values are consistent with ASHRAE or other established references
 Appropriate adjustments are made for climate zone and interactivity
 Standard engineering practices have been followed
 All calculations are consistent with RTF requirements
DNV GL recalculated energy savings using the applicable savings algorithms to verify that the equations
were properly documented and to quantify the impact of changes in input assumptions.
3.6 Program logic review
Based on the program specialist interviews and the review of the program materials, DNV GL developed
program theory and logic models for the program.

1 Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Realistic, Time-delineated

Page 8 of 21

3.7 QA/QC review
DNV GL assessed the adequacy of Idaho Power’s savings verification processes, controls, and procedures.
The goal of the assessment was to ensure that adequate resources are dedicated to quality assurance and
quality control, that the most effective policies are in place, and that those policies are enacted through
appropriate, efficient procedures that are routinely reviewed.
The evaluation team reviewed the program’s procedural documents and example project files, focusing on
situations where savings are verified. We reviewed the quality and adequacy of the verification
documentation, including invoices, manufacturer’s cut sheets, and inspection reports.

Page 9 of 21

4 IMPACT FINDINGS
This section provides detailed findings on program savings. The impact evaluation consisted of three primary
activities: reviewing the program tracking system for accuracy and completeness, reviewing savings
algorithms for program measures, and reviewing a sample of project files to verify that calculations and
assumptions are accurate.
4.1.1 Tracking system
review
The tracking system savings matched
the reported savings2 of 1,113,574
kWh.
We assessed the tracking data for
whether it contained the necessary
data to determine if the appropriate
savings were applied across all
measures. We found the database to
be mostly complete and well-
organized, with project costs, measure
description, and energy savings
information filled in for all projects.
The incentive information is available
for all projects except those that had a
connected thermostat measure (for
which no project listed incentives).
4.1.2 Tracking data
review
There are 15 measure types in the
H&C program database. The savings
basis for each measure is listed in Table 3.

2 Reported savings were provided in Supplement 1: Cost-Effectiveness Report, Demand-Side Management 2016 Annual Report, Idaho Power
Company, March 15, 2017
Key impact findings
1. The total reported savings for the
program were 1,113,574 kWh with total
verified savings of 1,126,591 kWh, for a
realization rate of 1.01.
2. Ex-ante savings calculations for 12 out of
14 measures were verified accurate.
a. “Air-Source Heat Pump to Open
Loop Water Source Heat Pump”
used an incorrect baseline.
b. Evaporative coolers used different
climate zones for single-family and
manufactured homes.
3. Differences in savings for specific
reviewed files occurred due to climate
zone changes.
4. There were some anomalies on the
application forms, but tracking data
contained the correct values.

Page 10 of 21

Table 3: Measure type and savings basis
Measure Tracking savings basis
Connected thermostat ResConnectedTstats_v1.1.xlsm
Air-source heat
pump to air-source
heat pump: 8.5
HSPF
ResSFExistingHVAC_v4_1.xlsx
ResHeatingCoolingCommissioningControlsSizingSF_v3_6
ResMHExistingHVAC_v3_3
ResMHHeatingCoolingCommissioningControlsSizing_v3_3
Air-source heat
pump: 8.5 HSPF
ResSFExistingHVAC_v4_1.xlsx
ResHeatingCoolingCommissioningControlsSizingSF_v3_6
ResMHExistingHVAC_v3_3
ResMHHeatingCoolingCommissioningControlsSizing_v3_3
Oil/propane heating
system to air-source
heat pump: 8.5
HSPF
ResSFExistingHVAC_v4_1.xlsx
ResHeatingCoolingCommissioningControlsSizingSF_v3_6
Air-source heat
pump to open loop
water source heat pump: 3.5 COP
ResGSHP_v2_6
Electric heating
system to open loop
water source heat
pump: 3.5 COP
ResGSHP_v2_6 (with exception) *
Oil/propane heating
system to open loop
water source heat
pump: 3.5 COP
ResGSHP_v2_6 (with exception) *
Open loop water
source heat pump:
3.5 COP
ResGSHP_v2_6 (with exception) *
Evaporative cooler -
single family
Savings based on DEER 2004-05 Version 2.01, weighted by vintage, IPC Heating &
Cooling Evap cooler references.

Evaporative cooler -
manufactured home
Savings based on DEER 2004-05 Version 2.01, weighted by vintage, IPC Heating &
Cooling Evap cooler references
Electric heating
system to air-source
heat pump: 8.5
HSPF
ResSFExistingHVAC_v4_1.xlsx
Ductless heat pump ResSFExistingHVAC_v4_1.xlsx
ResMHExistingHVAC_v3_3 (with exception)**
Duct sealing ResSFPerformanceBasedDuctSealing_v3_2.xlsm
Whole house fan AEG. Potential Study
EC motor
Idaho Power engineering calculations based on Integrated Design Lab inputs. 2015
* The 8,927 kWh value comes from the original program modeling in 2009 by a Northwest consulting firm, Ecotope. The 8,927 kWh/unit was used until it was determined that ground source heat pump numbers could be used for open loop systems during 2016. ** Projects that did not have a nameplate HSPF value of 9+ or in one situation where the HSPF value was missing were not assigned tiered savings
from RTF workbook v4_1. The sub 9 HSPF projects were assigned RTF workbook v2 savings which was the sourced workbook prior to 2016.

Page 11 of 21

DNV GL reviewed the savings algorithms for all the measures. The findings for each measure are listed in
Table 4. A general finding for all the measures that involved RTF calculations was that the climate zones
assignments were different than that used by Idaho Power. For the evaluation, DNV GL calculated savings
with climate zone assignments (based on city and zip code) found in the spreadsheet available on the RTF
website.
Table 4. Savings algorithm review by measure
Measure Findings
Connected thermostat The ex-ante savings calculations are accurate.
Air-source heat pump to air-source heat
pump: 8.5 HSPF The ex-ante savings calculations are accurate.
Air-source heat pump: 8.5 HSPF The ex-ante savings calculations are accurate.
Oil/propane heating system to air-source
heat pump: 8.5 HSPF The ex-ante savings calculations are accurate.
Air-source heat pump to open loop water
source heat pump: 3.5 COP
Incorrect baseline was used from the RTF
spreadsheet (FAF was used instead of ASHP).
Electric heating system to open loop water source heat pump: 3.5 COP The savings were verified from the sources provided by Idaho Power and they are reasonable.
Oil/propane heating system to open loop water source heat pump: 3.5 COP The savings were verified from the sources provided by Idaho Power and they are reasonable.
Open loop water source heat pump: 3.5 COP The savings were verified from the sources
provided by Idaho Power and they are reasonable.
Evaporative cooler - single family Reviewed DEER resource provided by Idaho Power. Climate Zone 12 is used for single family home savings assignments and Climate Zone 16 is used
for manufactured home savings assignment. It is
not clear why different climate zones were used for
same measure type. DNV GL used Climate Zone 16
and the latest DEER version for evaluated savings
calculation.
Evaporative cooler - manufactured home
Electric heating system to air-source heat pump: 8.5 HSPF The ex-ante savings calculations are accurate.
Ductless heat pump
The savings for systems above 9 HSPF efficiency
match the source RTF calculator. The savings for
the systems below 9 HSPF efficiency level were
sourced from a previous version of the RTF and
were verified.
Duct sealing
RTF version 1.1 is used instead of 3.2 listed in the
Supplement 1 sources. The savings value used
were verified and matched version 1.1.
Whole house fan The savings value source was provided by Idaho
Power and ex-ante savings were verified.
EC motor
The integrated design study was well researched
and reasonable for hours of use under different motor operating conditions. Idaho Power provided more resources on the power consumptions used
under different operating conditions and they are
reasonable values based on DNV GL's research.

Page 12 of 21

4.1.3 Project file review
DNV GL received 26 sampled project files for file review and to perform impact savings calculations. For
most of the projects, the savings evaluated were the same as the claimed savings. Table 5 has the details of
the project ids where the savings are different and the reason.
Table 5: Summary of sampled projects with different evaluated savings
HCID Reason for different evaluated savings approach
1286 Different savings value due to different climate zones
assignment based on the latest RTF guidelines
1359 Different savings value due to different climate zones
assignment based on the latest RTF guidelines
1363 Used DEER latest version and used climate zone 16 values
1410
The application has a heat pump as an existing system type
instead of furnace listed in tracking. Assigned savings based on
heat pump as an existing system category.
1424 Different savings value due to different climate zones
assignment based on the latest RTF guidelines
1449 Used DEER latest version and used climate zone 16 values
1455 Different savings value due to different climate zones
assignment based on the latest RTF guidelines
1573 Different savings value due to different climate zones
assignment based on the latest RTF guidelines
1658 Different savings value due to different climate zones
assignment based on the latest RTF guidelines

Other findings from the project files review are:
1. DNV GL found two versions of heat pump applications. The project application version used for project
IDs 1222 and 1499 had fields to fill in the existing cooling system type which was missing in the other
sampled heat pump projects. DNV GL recommends using a version similar to HCID 1222 and 1499 that
includes cooling system type for future heat pump projects.
2. For project ID 1424, both the heating system types are selected in the application. Idaho Power
confirmed uses a heat pump as a primary heating system type. DNV GL recommends adding “primary”
heating system type in the application to avoid confusion in the future.
3. On the ECM application worksheet, there is a line for checking which months the fan is on or in
continuous mode. There are several ways that it is unclear how to fill out this part of the form:
a. The form does not make clear that this mode refers to running the fan only, and not the heating
or cooling mechanism.
b. Also, there is no instructions on the form about a threshold for when to check a month (e.g.: If
the fan is on for only one day of the month, should it be checked?)

Page 13 of 21

The application we reviewed had checks on all months. It is unclear if this applicant meant that they ran
their HVAC system in some mode or actually had the fan on continuous mode during all months of the
year. DNV GL recommends adding instructions to this section to clarify what Idaho Power wants
applicants to enter and/or have the contractors fill out this section and provide more explicit training to
those contractors about how to fill in that section.
4. For the ECM measure, Idaho Power calculated savings separately for heating/cooling mode and
continuous operation. Because both calculations are available, instead of providing one deemed value
irrespective of the motor operation mode, DNV GL recommends Idaho Power report savings based on
the mode of operation.
5. For air source heat pump projects, the savings from the RTF depend on the existing heating and cooling
system type. Idaho Power currently collects the existing heating system type in the application but not
the existing cooling system type (except for the two applications mentioned above). However, the
cooling system type is filled in the tracking data. DNV GL recommends to add “primary existing cooling
system type” field in the application so that it can be verified.
6. There were some inconsistencies found between the tracking database and project files.:
a. Some of the sampled projects have different zip code values in the project file compared to the
tracking database. When researched further, the zip codes in the tracking data base are correct
based on the city information. If wrong zip codes are used, it can impact the savings assignments
from the RTF calculators.
b. Phone numbers for some projects listed in the tracking database did not match the values in
tracking data.
c. For Project ID 1410, the project application has heat pump as an existing system type instead of
furnace listed in tracking. Further review by the program specialist confirmed that the application
was incorrect and the existing heating system is correctly an electric forced air furnace. DNV GL
recommends that the tracking database contain a variable that tracks when corrections such as
these occur and make that variable available to evaluators who request tracking data.
Based on the adjustments described above, using the sample design laid out in the methods section, we
expanded the sample results to the population of all projects using a ratio estimate. The ratio estimate
leverages the known reported savings for all projects, since it is correlated with the verified savings, to
estimate the verified program-level savings and the realization rate.
The total reported savings for the program were 1,113,574 kWh. The sample estimate of the total verified
savings is 1,126,591 kWh, for a realization rate (RR) of 1.01. The 90% confidence interval for the verified
savings estimate is +/-6,867 kWh, or 0.6%. This far exceeds the 90/10 target for precision. Because of the
small sample sizes, we used the variance of the population reported savings for both the reported and
verified savings, since it is a more stable estimate of the variance. For the census strata and those strata
with all projects with identical reported savings, the variance is zero, so those strata did not contribute to
the overall uncertainty of the estimates. Table 6 shows the stratum level results for the sample expansion.

Page 14 of 21

Table 6. Strata-level savings calculations
Gr
o
u
p

St
r
a
t
u
m

Po
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n

Co
u
n
t

Sa
m
p
l
e

Si
z
e

We
i
g
h
t

Sa
m
p
l
e

Me
a
n

Re
p
o
r
t
e
d

Va
r
i
a
n
c
e

Re
p
o
r
t
e
d

Sa
v
i
n
g
s

Sa
m
p
l
e

Me
a
n

Ve
r
i
f
i
e
d

Re
a
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n

Ra
t
e

Va
r
i
a
n
c
e

o
f

Ve
r
i
f
i
e
d

(p
r
o
x
y
)

Co
r
r
e
l
a
t
i
o
n

A 1 92 4 0.19048 1,446.50 642,910 1,446.50 1.00 642,910 1
A 2 73 5 0.15114 5,390.80 1,602,001 5,390.80 1.00 1,602,001 1
A 3 1 1 0.00207 9,573.00 0 5,434.00 0.56 0 1
B 1 16 2 0.03313 8,828.50 280,805 8,828.50 1.00 280,805 1
B 2 1 1 0.00207 14,495.00 0 14,228.00 0.98 0 1
C 1 24 2 0.04969 1,566.00 97,852 2,487.50 1.59 97,852 1
C 2 125 2 0.25880 2,753.00 47,916 2,832.50 1.03 47,916 1
D 1 57 3 0.11801 903.33 40,935 731.67 0.81 40,935 0.8003
E 1 13 1 0.02692 554.00 0 257.30 0.46 0 1
E 2 9 1 0.01863 316.00 0 283.00 0.90 0 1
E 3 3 1 0.00621 1,095.00 0 1,095.00 1.00 0 1
E 4 19 1 0.03934 446.00 0 446.00 1.00 0 1
E 5 50 2 0.10352 515.00 0 515.00 1.00 0 1

5 PROCESS FINDINGS AND
TARGETED
RECOMMENDATIONS
This section provides detailed findings on
program operations and materials. The process
evaluation included interviews with program
staff, reviewing program logic, reviewing
program documentation, reviewing the
program’s QA/QC procedures, and assessing
program marketing materials. In this section,
we also offer targeted recommendations for
improving individual materials.
5.1.1 Staff interviews
The staff IDIs revealed that the program is approximately 10 years old, and adds new measures every few
years. Incentives range from $50 to $1000, and the program receives approximately 450 applications per
year. A major focus of program marketing is to simply raise awareness of the program to the point where
homeowners will mention it when they work with contractors on HVAC replacements and repairs.
Trade allies are a key means of implementing the program. Most measures are installed through approved
trade allies, and the program specialist spends a significant amount of time managing and educating the
trade ally network. The trade allies fall into three categories:
Key process findings
1. Trade allies are a key means of
implementing the program
2. Program documentation was good but
could be improved with several changes:
a. Formatting for improved readability
b. Including program logic model and
risk register
c. Adding several fields to applications
3. Print collateral was well-done.

Page 15 of 21

 Top performers, 10-15 companies who install approximately 80% of the program-sponsored measures.
These companies generally have been supporting the program since its inception.
 Dabblers, who install a few projects per year
 Non-performers, who have not submitted an application since joining the program
The barriers for trade allies are well-known by the program staff who has identified approximately 12
barriers, the effects of which differ by trade ally. They include issues such as employee turnover, technical
inadequacies, and apathy. According to the program specialist, the program needs help from Customer
Representatives or additional staff to overcome these barriers.
5.1.2 Program logic review
The program files did not contain a formal logic model. DNV GL generated a draft logic model (Figure 2)
based on information found in the program files and the program specialist IDI.
Figure 2. Residential Heating and Cooling logic model

5.1.3 Program file review
Program manual - The 2016 program handbook contains a high-level description of the program. The
handbook lists program goals with specific metrics, and contains a list of the personnel related to the
program. Some of this description helped generate the logic model (Figure 2). It contains the minimum
amount of information DNV GL looks for in this type of document.
Recommendations: DNV GL recommends the following improvements:
 Include a table at the beginning or end that lists the revision history of the document.

Page 16 of 21

 Add graphics that show a program logic model, organizational chart, and process flow to improve the
intuitiveness of the document. The organizational chart should include a box for the trade ally network.
 Include a list of major risks to accomplishing the program’s goals, and contingencies for dealing with
those situations if they occur.
The incentive measures available document contains a list of the incentives available for the current
group of program measures.
Recommendations: This document would be more readable if this list were converted into a table. It could
also be included in the program manual rather than existing as a separate document.
Application forms- (Note: The forms available on the website have changed since this portion of the
evaluation was conducted.) DNV GL reviewed three application forms on the Idaho Power website: air source
heat pumps, evaporative coolers, and open loop water source heat pumps. All three forms were very similar.
They lacked specific written instructions, but were generally intuitive and easy to follow and fill out. The
areas that would be filled by homeowners were jargon-free. The evaporative cooler form contained all
information necessary for an application form. The other two forms were missing a location to enter in the
specific efficiency or model number of the installed equipment. This would be helpful information to record in
program tracking, and there is a place for it on the evaporative cooler form. Forms lacked information on the
type of house where the measures were installed (single-family, duplex, triplex, fourplex).
The program specialist IDIs suggested that approximately 10% of sites are inspected. The selection is
random. Honeywell reviews the applications, and provides an Excel spreadsheet that tracks this review and
the application status up through entry into CLRIS. This spreadsheet has an acceptable level of detail. DNV
GL did not receive a description of onsite verification protocols or the results of onsite verifications.
5.1.4 Marketing materials
Website
The program’s website is in good condition. It is visually appealing and accurate, conveys the necessary
information, and is easy to navigate with no broken links. However, there are strange characters in the
subheadings of many of the pages for the individual measures when viewed in the Chrome browser (Figure
3).
Figure 3. Strange characters in subheading

Recommendations: Visual appeal could be increased by adding pictures, particularly those of people. The
capabilities of the medium could be better leveraged by linking to videos of success stories if any are
available. A good location for both is under the link labeled “success stories.” That link currently does not
connect to any anecdotal stories about real Idaho Power customers. According to follow up with program

Page 17 of 21

staff, this error was corrected sometime along with an update of the entire Idaho Power website in
November 2017.
Digital ads and Customer Connections newsletter
The digital ads are likewise well done.
Recommendations: If it is possible to track which of these digital ads customers clicked on to enter the
program website, Idaho Power should consider doing so, since this would yield valuable information about
which ads are more effective.
Print collateral3
DNV GL reviewed printed marketing materials that covered the
Residential Heating and Cooling program. These are well done:
they are visually appealing, effectively communicate the
intended information, are easy to understand, have utility
branding and logos, and provide follow-up contact info
including web URLs and phone numbers. A particularly positive
visual characteristic is that they feature smiling people.
Recommendations: DNV GL has several recommendations for
these materials:
 When possible, include pictures of smiling people
 The graphic of the home (Figure 4) used in the print
materials is visually appealing. However, it appears on several different materials, which could cause
customers to overlook a piece because they think they have already seen it. Consider occasionally
changing the graphics on these materials to attract new attention.
 According to the Burke Report, the most important issues for survey respondents are rates (costs),
outages, and seeing Idaho Power as a partner. Marketing materials should address these concepts when
possible. For example, rather than emphasizing energy efficiency for its own sake, stress that energy
efficiency will save customers money. Marketing materials should also reinforce the message that Idaho
Power works with customers as an active partner.
6 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The program is operating well and meeting its goals. The total reported savings for the program were
1,113,574 kWh. The total verified savings is 1,126,591 kWh, for a realization rate (RR) of 1.01. The 90%
confidence interval for the verified savings estimate is +/-6,867 kWh, or 0.6%. The differences were due
primarily to changes in the RTF specifications for calculating savings. Program specialists are aware of
program operations, and most of the program processes are in good working order. While DNV GL makes
several recommendations, we discovered no major red flags during the evaluation.

3 These included: bill Inserts (BILL-INSERT_HeatingAndCooling_07-17_PRINT.pdf), program brochures (BROCHURE_EE-ProgramSummary_53265_03-
17_PRINT.PDF), postcards (DM-POSTCARD_HeatingAndCoolingEE_06-17_PRINT.pdf), and an information card
(InfoCard_EEProgramSummary_48677_03-17_PRINT.pdf).
Figure 4. Home Graphic on Print
Materials

Page 18 of 21

6.1 General recommendations and best practices
Create and maintain a formal, written logic model. Program activities produce desired results according
to a certain rationale whether or not the program codifies this rationale in a formal, written logic model. The
advantage of writing it down is that the rationale and any assumptions become transparent, which can help
current and future program staff evaluate whether the program is still operating as intended, or whether
some assumptions need to be revisited. This logic model should be included in the program manual.
Identify and record major risks to program goal achievement, along with mitigation strategies.
Even well-run programs face risks. It is better to anticipate these risks and have established plans for
mitigating them when they occur than to have to scramble in a crisis. A well-written risk register will
position the program to more effectively and adroitly deal with adversity as it arises. The risk register should
include a list of the program’s potential unintended consequences. Risks should be ranked based on
likelihood of occurrence multiplied by the impact on the program in the case of occurrence. Generally, each
of these dimensions is scored on a 5-point scale, which means that risks can have a value of 1 to 25. This
risk register should be included in the program manual. Table 7 provides an example basic layout of a risk
register.
Table 7. Example risk register
Description Likelihood
(1 to 5)
Impact
(1 to 5)
Total score
(likelihood *
impact)
Mitigation
Risk 1 5 5 25 <person/position/department> will do
<activity>
Risk 2 4 5 20 <person/position/department> will do
<activity>

If practical and allowed by regulations, test or track the effectiveness of marketing
methods/campaigns. While marketing materials follow industry best practices, this alone does not
guarantee their effectiveness. Testing the effectiveness of marketing materials and campaigns will help
Idaho Power spend its finite marketing dollars on the most effective means of outreach. If possible, Idaho
Power should consider setting up a way to test or at least track the effectiveness of various marketing
approaches. There are several methods for collecting this information (ordered here in terms of least to
most effort/cost to implement, and least to most reliability):
 Use surveys to ask participants where they first heard of the program
 Ask about information sources on the application forms
 Put “coupon codes” on marketing materials that customers can enter on applications to get a slightly
better incentive or a small bonus. These codes should be unique to each marketing channel or campaign
so that applications can be easily associated with each type of outreach.

Page 19 of 21

 Set up randomized experiments where some customers receive one type of marketing and other
customers receive another type. This approach could leverage a coupon code or similar means of linking
applications back to specific marketing approaches.
Monitor market transformation towards adoption of efficient technologies as standard practice.
This will help Idaho Power prioritize which measures to incentivize and at what level.
6.2 Program-specific recommendations
Add content to the program manual. The program manual would benefit from the following additional
content:
 Include a table at the beginning or end that lists the revision history of the document.
 Add graphics that show a program logic model, organizational chart, and the process flow. The
organizational chart should include a box for the trade ally network.
 Include a risk register
 Include a table that lists program measures and incentives
Use more pictures of smiling people in marketing materials and consider occasionally using a
graphic other than the house graphic. These changes will help attract attention to the materials.
Fix strange characters and add visual and video content to website. This content will make the
website more appealing and better leverage some of the capabilities of the medium.
Provide space on the application worksheet to indicate type of house: single-family, duplex,
fourplex. This piece of information affects the energy savings attributable to the measure, and without a
record of it, evaluators cannot verify claimed savings.
Add “primary” in front of “heat source” on the application form. This will help customers know what
Idaho Power wants as an answer to that question.
Add primary cooling source to the heat pump installation worksheets. The RTF savings are based on
a combination of primary existing heating and cooling systems; this will help Idaho Power select the most
accurate savings for each home.
Use the latest version of RTFs and climate zone assignments provided on the RTF website and list
all versions of RTF and other documents used for savings values. This will keep program savings up
to date with the latest available information from RTF, and it will facilitate future evaluations by making it
easier for evaluators to find the references used by the program.
For the ECM measure, report savings based on the mode of operation. Idaho Power collects
information and calculates savings for both heating/cooling and continuous operation modes. Thus, a more
precise savings estimate is available for no additional work.
If not already present, add a variable to the tracking database that lists when corrections are
made to records that differ from what is on the application forms and worksheets and make that
variable available to evaluators who request tracking data. This will reduce evaluation risk and help
evaluators know when to use data other than what is on the application and worksheets to verify savings.

Page 20 of 21

DNV GL ranked these recommendations according to an estimate of the effort required to undertake them
and the value that Idaho Power will derive from them (Figure 5).
Figure 5. Recommendation value * effort map

DNV GL Headquarters, Veritasveien 1, P.O.Box 300, 1322 Høvik, Norway. Tel: [phone]. www.dnvgl.com
© DNV GL 2017
APPENDIX A. PROGRAM SPECIALIST INTERVIEW GUIDE

DNV GL Headquarters, Veritasveien 1, P.O.Box 300, 1322 Høvik, Norway. Tel: [phone]. www.dnvgl.com

Idaho Power Residential Home Energy
Audit Impact Evaluation
1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report presents findings and recommendations for Idaho Power’s Home Energy Audit program, based
on the impact evaluation of the program that DNV GL conducted for the 2016 program year. The Home
Energy Audit program provides a third-party in-home energy evaluation along with direct installs of efficient
light bulbs, high-efficiency showerheads, and pipe insulation.
DNV GL’s objectives in the impact evaluation were to determine and verify the energy (kWh) impacts
attributable to the 2016 program, provide credible and reliable ex-post realization rates, and offer
recommendations to enhance the effectiveness of future ex-ante savings analysis and the accuracy and
transparency of program savings. To meet these objectives, DNV GL conducted interviews with program
staff, reviewed the tracking system, and reviewed savings algorithms.
1.1 Findings
After reviewing the calculations for all the direct install measures in the Home Energy Audit program, DNV
GL confirmed that all the energy savings formulas in the tracking database were calculated accurately. The
ex-post savings value for the showerhead and lighting measures use the same deemed per-unit savings
used for the ex-ante savings value. However, we have concluded that the deemed savings value used for
pipe insulation was too high.
DNV GL computes an overall realization rate for the program of 98%. Lighting and showerheads both had
realization rates of 100%; pipe insulation had a realization rate of 87%. The reason for this difference is that
DNV GL used the most recently available AEG potential study for the savings attributable to the pipe
insulation measure, as described in Section 4.2.
1.2 Recommendations
Use the most recent (AEG 2016) available savings estimate for pipe insulation. This will bring Idaho
Power savings estimates more in line with industry standards.
Consider claiming non-energy benefits for pipe insulation and showerheads in homes with gas
water heaters. Based on the tracking data, it appears that the program is providing installation of
measures in homes with gas water heaters, but is not claiming savings for those measures. These savings
are an additional benefit to Idaho Power’s customers that the program is currently not getting any credit for.

Page 2 of 6

2 PROGRAM OVERVIEW
The Home Energy Audit program is an in-home energy evaluation conducted by a third-party certified home
performance specialist (HPS). The audit includes a visual inspection of the crawl space and attic, a health
and safety inspection, and a blower door test. Once it is complete, the customer is supplied with a hard copy
or password-protected electronic copy of the HPS’s findings and specific recommendations for improving the
efficiency, comfort, and health of the home.
In addition to the evaluation, the Home Energy Audit program directly installs some energy-saving
improvements (as appropriate) at no additional cost to the customer, including: 1) up to 20 efficient light
bulbs (CFLs and LEDs), 2) one high-efficiency showerhead, and 3) pipe insulation from the water heater to
the home wall (approximately 3 feet). The program claims savings only from these direct install measures.
The program includes a QA/QC follow-up check on a random sample of 5% of homes. These visits have not
recently revealed any serious or recurring problems.
To qualify for the Home Energy Audit program, a participant must live in Idaho, and must be the Idaho
Power customer of record for a home. The home must be an existing site built home; until 2016, the home
also had to be all-electric (but that requirement is no longer in place). Renters may participate with prior
written permission from their landlord. Single family homes, duplexes, triplexes, and fourplexes qualify,
though multifamily homes must have discrete heating units and meters for each unit.
Participating customers pay $99 (all-electric homes) or $149 (homes using gas, propane or other fuel
sources) for the audit and installation of the direct install measures, with the remaining cost covered by the
Home Energy Audit program.
2.1 Evaluation overview
DNV GL conducted an impact evaluation. The key objectives included:
 Determine and verify the energy (kWh) impacts attributable to the 2016 program
 Provide credible and reliable ex-post realization rates
 Provide recommendations to enhance the effectiveness of future ex-ante savings analysis and the
accuracy and transparency of program savings
To achieve these objectives, DNV GL carried out the following activities:
 Semi-structured interviews with program staff
 Tracking system review
 Review of savings algorithms
DNV GL did not conduct a process evaluation for this program, as it was outside the scope of work for this
project.
2.2 Layout of report
The remainder of the report is organized into the following sections:
 Section 3. Methods – describes the evaluation activities in detail

Page 3 of 6

 Section 0. Impact findings – reports the findings relevant to verification of program savings
 Section 5. Conclusions and recommendations – Lays out the key findings and provides recommendations
for program improvement
3 METHODS
This section provides detailed descriptions of the methods DNV GL used to evaluate the program.
3.1 Program staff interviews
To understand program history, program delivery, program logic and objectives, perceived program
strengths and weaknesses, and what the program staff wants or needs from the evaluation, DNV GL
conducted in-depth interviews with Idaho Power staff. These interviews were done in person, and lasted
about an hour. The instruments DNV GL developed to guide the interviews are presented in Appendix A.
These interviews also helped us craft a data request and determine to conduct impact analysis on the three
direct install measures: lighting, showerheads, and pipe insulation.
3.2 Review of ex-ante savings and savings algorithms
DNV GL assessed the program’s tracking database, its fields, and the accuracy of the data. DNV GL primarily
assessed the accuracy of the program database and savings algorithms. DNV GL reviewed the savings
algorithms used by Idaho Power to ensure that the savings claimed for each measure are accurate and
appropriate. Specifically, we reviewed each measure to confirm the following:
1. All calculations are consistent with the requirements of the Regional Technical Forum (RTF)
2. Program assumptions about deemed savings levels were reasonable
3. Standard engineering practices were followed
DNV GL recalculated energy savings for all the measures using the applicable savings algorithms as a check
to verify that the equations were properly documented and to quantify the impact of changes in input
assumptions.
The requirement for any sampling of tracking database records was that the sample should achieve a 10%
relative error, with 90% confidence (referred to as “90/10”) or better. For this program, all the information
about each project was included in the tracking system – there was no additional information included in any
backup paper files to request. As a result, we checked the completeness, consistency, and accuracy of
savings calculations based on the contents of every record in the database, referred to as a census, so no
sampling was needed. Because we used a census, there is no sampling error, which means that this
analysis satisfies the need for 90/10 or better, in this case, better.
To provide advice on a suitable deemed savings value for pipe insulation, DNV GL reviewed the 2012, 2014,
and 2016 AEG potential studies, information available from the Department of Energy, ASHRAE 90.1, and
the calculations in numerous publicly available TRMs, including Mid-Atlantic, Massachusetts, Vermont,
Indiana, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Maine, Minnesota, Missouri, Connecticut, Iowa, and Arkansas.

Page 4 of 6

4 IMPACT FINDINGS
4.1 Verified savings
DNV GL reviewed the calculations for all the
direct install measures in the Home Energy
Audit program: lighting, showerheads, and
pipe insulation. The tracking database
rigorously documents assumptions as well as
reasons why specific savings values were
chosen. We confirmed that all the energy
savings formulas in the tracking database
were calculated accurately.
The ex-post savings value for the showerhead
and lighting measures use the same deemed per-unit savings used for the ex-ante savings value. However,
we have concluded that the deemed savings value used for pipe insulation was too high. Table 1 provides
the program ex-post savings summary.
Table 1. Impact evaluation savings summary
Measures Ex-ante
savings
Ex-post
savings
Realization
rate
Lighting 150,523 150,523 100%
Showerheads 20,726 20,726 100%
Pipe insulation 36,000 31,399 87%
Total 207,249 202,648 98%

4.2 Review of savings algorithms
The program used RTF deemed savings for lighting and showerheads and an AEG potential study for pipe
insulation. The deemed savings values for lighting and showerhead measures match the savings values
listed in the RTF. DNV GL verified that the calculated savings for lighting and showerhead deemed measures
used the correct calculation approach, and that inputs to the algorithm were present and in the right units.1
For pipe insulation, DNV GL was unable to match the savings value used for savings in the tracking database
from the 2012, 2014, and 2016 AEG potential studies. While there was some degree of variation in the
TRMs, the most common approach was based on the formula derived from ASHRAE 90.1 Fundamentals.
Using the ASHRAE approach with reasonable assumptions2, DNV GL concluded that the value of 130.83
kwh/year reported in the 2016 AEG potential study is a justifiable deemed savings value for pipe insulation.
That value is close to what would be derived through applying the assumed values to the complex ASHRAE
formula, and close to the average savings numbers one could compute based on information from the
Department of Energy.

1 In accordance with the project scope, DNV GL did not review how RTF derived its deemed savings, under the assumption that those results are
already fully validated.
2 3 feet of pipe insulation, ½ inch insulation thickness with an insulating value of R-3, ½ inch diameter copper pipe, and ΔT of 65 degrees Fahrenheit
1. Realization rates for lighting and
showerheads are 100%. DNV GL find
no calculation issues with these
measures.
2. Realization rates for pipe insulation are
87%. The program used a deemed
savings of 150 kWh/year for three feet
of pipe insulation, while the latest AEG
potential study has a value of 131
kWh/year.

Page 5 of 6

5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
DNV GL computes an overall realization rate for the program of 98%. Lighting and showerheads both had
realization rates of 100%; pipe insulation had a realization rate of 87%. The reason for this difference is that
DNV GL used the most recently available AEG potential study for the savings attributable to the pipe
insulation measure, as described in Section 4.2.
Overall, the tracking database for the Home Energy Audit program is well-organized and the details about
assumptions and sources is well-documented.
5.1 Recommendations
Use the most recent (AEG 2016) available savings estimate for pipe insulation. This will bring Idaho
Power savings estimates more in line with industry standards.
Consider claiming non-energy benefits for pipe insulation and showerheads in homes with gas
water heaters. Based on the tracking data, it appears that the program is providing installation of
measures in homes with gas water heaters, but is not claiming savings for those measures. These savings
are an additional benefit to Idaho Power’s customers that the program is currently not getting any credit for.

Page 6 of 6

APPENDIX A. PROGRAM SPECIALIST INTERVIEW GUIDE

Idaho Power Company Supplement 2: Evaluation
Demand-Side Management 2017 Annual Report Page 347
OTHER REPORTS
Table 5. 2017 Other Reports
Report Title Sector
Analysis
Performed By
Study
Manager Study/Evaluation Type
2017 Flex Peak Program End-of-Season Annual Report C/I Idaho Power Idaho Power Impact evaluation
2017 Irrigation Peak Rewards Program Report Irrigation Idaho Power Idaho Power Impact evaluation
A/C Cool Credit 2017 Demand Response Analysis Residential Idaho Power Idaho Power Analysis
Idaho Power Energy Wise™ Program Summary Report 2016–2017 Residential/ Educational Distributions
RAP Idaho Power Year-end report

November 3, 2017

2017 Flex Peak Program
End-of-Season Annual Report

Flex Peak Program Report Page i
Table of Contents

Table of Contents ............................................................................................................. i
List of Tables .................................................................................................................... ii
List of Figures ................................................................................................................... ii
Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 1
Background ..................................................................................................................... 1
Program Details ......................................................................................................... 2
Program Incentives .................................................................................................... 3
Program Results ............................................................................................................. 3
Participation ............................................................................................................... 4
Operations ................................................................................................................. 8
Load Reduction Analysis ........................................................................................... 8
Program Costs ......................................................................................................... 14
Benefit-Cost Analysis ............................................................................................... 15
Customer Satisfaction Results ...................................................................................... 16
Program Activities for 2018 ........................................................................................... 16
Conclusion .................................................................................................................... 17

Idaho Power
Page ii Flex Peak Program Report
List of Tables
Table 1. 2017 Incentive Structure. ........................................................................... 3
Table 2. Realization Rate per Event - 2017. ............................................................ 9
Table 3. Realization Rate per Participant for Each Event - 2017. .......................... 11
Table 4. Annual Program Costs - 2017. ................................................................. 15

List of Figures
Figure 1. Idaho Power Service Area ......................................................................... 5
Figure 2. 2017 Site Participation by Region Based on Nomination ........................... 6
Figure 3. 2017 Site Participation by Business Type Based on Nomination ............... 7
Figure 4. Range of Nominated Load Reduction (kW) ............................................... 9
Figure 5. Average Versus Max Reduction Achieved per Event .............................. 10
Figure 6. Average Realization Rate by Each Nomination Size Class ..................... 14

Idaho Power Company
Flex Peak Program Report Page 1
Introduction
The Flex Peak Program (“Program”) has been operated by Idaho Power Company
(“Idaho Power” or “Company”) since 2015. The Program is a voluntary demand response (“DR”) program available to large commercial and industrial customers that can reduce their electrical energy loads for short periods during summer peak days. By reducing
demand on extreme system load days, the Program reduces the amount of generation
and transmission resources required to serve customers. This Program, along with Idaho
Power’s other DR programs, Irrigation Peak Rewards and the Residential Air Conditioner Cycling Program, have helped delay the need to build supply-side resources.
The results presented in this report are from the 2017 Program season, the Company’s
third year of operating the Program. In its third year, the Program maintained similar load
reduction and realization rates as the prior year (2016). There were five new sites added
and overall participation resulted in the highest hourly load reduction for the season of 36 megawatts (“MW”). The average realization rate for the three load reduction events that occurred in the 2017 Program season was 81 percent. Enrollment in the Program
increased for the 2017 Program season and 99.3 percent of previously participating sites
re-enrolled in the Program. The total Program costs through October 1, 2017, were
$635,453. The cost of having this resource available was $17.65 per kilowatt (“kW”) based on the maximum demand reduction of 36 MW achieved on June 26, 2017.
Background
In 2015, the Company requested approval to implement the Flex Peak Program as an Idaho Power operated program. The Idaho Public Utilities Commission (“IPUC”) approved the Company’s request in Order No. 33292, and the Public Utility Commission of Oregon
(“OPUC”) accepted the proposal from Advice No. 15-03. Prior to 2015, a similar DR
program for commercial and industrial customers was operated by a third-party vendor.
As part of Advice No. 15-03, the OPUC adopted Staff’s recommendation that the Company file an annual end-of-season report with information regarding the Program. The Company was also directed by the IPUC in Order No. 33292 to file an annual end-
of-season report detailing the results of the Program. In compliance with the reporting
requirements, the annual end-of-season report includes the following:
• Number of participating customers
• Number of participating sites
• MW of demand response under contract
• MW of demand response realized and incented per dispatch
• Percent of nominated MW achieved in each dispatch event by participant
• Cost analysis of the Program
• Number of events called
• Total load dropped for each event
• Event duration
• Total capacity payments made
Idaho Power Company
Page 2 Flex Peak Program Report
• Total energy payments made
• Number of customers who failed to meet their load
• Number of Program applications denied due to Program subscription limit
• Benefits identified with each dispatch of the resource
• Assessment of whether the trigger or dispatch price is properly set to utilize the
asset most often
• Participant attrition
• Issues the utility has identified meeting requests to participate in the Program
• Changes in baseline methodology taken or anticipated
• Improvements Idaho Power and the Program might benefit from
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. and 8 p.m. on non-holiday
weekdays.
Customers with the ability to nominate or provide load reduction of at least 20 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 parameters of the Program are in Schedule 761 in Oregon and Schedule 822 in Idaho,
and include the following:
• A minimum of three load reduction events will occur each Program season.
• Events can occur any weekday, excluding July 4, between the hours of 2 p.m. and
8 p.m.
• Events can 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 will provide notification to participants two hours prior to the initiation
of an event.
• If prior notice of a load reduction event has been sent, Idaho Power can choose to cancel the event and notify participants of cancellation 30 minutes prior to the start
of the event.

1 Idaho Power Company, P.U.C. ORE. No. E-27, Schedule 76
2 Idaho Power Company, I.P.U.C. No. 29, Tariff No. 101, Schedule 82
Idaho Power Company
Flex Peak Program Report Page 3
Program Incentives
The 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 received the incentive checks within 30 days of the end of the Program
season. Participants were mailed their incentive checks or had their Idaho Power account
credited by September 15 in 2017. The incentive structure offered for the 2017 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
Program Results
The results presented throughout this report are at the generation level and system losses
have been considered. Idaho Power called three load reduction events in 2017. The first event occurred on June 26, the second on July 14, and the third on August 2. The maximum realization rate during the season was 98 percent and the average for all three
events combined was 81 percent. 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 June 26 event at 36 MW.
Participants had a committed load reduction of 35.1 MW in the first week of the Program. This weekly commitment, or “nomination”, was comprised of 65 customers participating
in the Program totaling 141 sites. Out of the total number of sites, 136 sites participated
in the 2016 season, and five sites were newly added in 2017. The committed load
reduction at the end of the season was 35.8 MW and was the peak committed load reduction for the season.
Idaho Power Company
Page 4 Flex Peak Program Report
The first event was called on Monday, June 26. Participants were notified at 2 p.m. for a four-hour event from 4-8 p.m. The total nomination for this event was 35.1 MW. The
average load reduction was 34.4 MW. The highest hourly load reduction was 36 MW
during hour three. The realization rate for this event was 98 percent.
The second event was called on Friday, July 14. Participants were notified at 2 p.m. for a four-hour event from 4-8 p.m. The total nomination for this event was 35.4 MW. The average load reduction was 26.4 MW. The highest hourly load reduction was 28.4 MW
during hour one. The realization rate for this event was 75 percent. The lower realization
rate for this event was primarily due to some larger sites that ran reduced shifts on Fridays
as well as a lower participation overall due to the timing with the weekend.
The third event was called on Wednesday, August 2. Participants were notified at 2 p.m. for a four-hour event from 4-8 p.m. The total nomination for this event was 35.8 MW. The
average load reduction was 25.1 MW. The highest hourly load reduction was 25.5 MW
during hour two. The realization rate for this event was 70 percent. The lower realization
rate for this event was primarily due to some larger sites that underperformed or had
reduced participation due to operational needs of the sites and one larger customer with seven sites that did not participate at all due to operational constraints for this specific
customer.
Participation
The number of sites enrolled in the Program for 2017 was 141 from 65 customers, with
five new sites enrolling for the Program season. The average number of sites enrolled
per participating customer was 2.2. The Program did not experience significant attrition and re-enrollment in the Program was high as 136 of the 137 sites participating from the
prior season re-enrolled. One site did not re-enroll from the 2016 season because the
site believed the Program would not fit its business operations for the 2017 season due
to major renovation at the site location and an expansion of their business which would
greatly affect their summertime operation.
In response to Program participant requests, Idaho Power utilized a new auto-enrollment
option for the 2017 season. Existing participants were re-enrolled in the Program
automatically and mailed a confirmation packet based on the prior year’s enrollment
information. Participants notified the Company in writing if they no longer wanted to
participate. This new auto-enrollment implementation was successful and many customers voiced positive feedback regarding the change.
While Idaho Power did not actively market the Program, the Company has continued to
strive to increase the number and size diversity (in terms of nominated load reduction) of
sites enrolled. Since the effort was placed on recruiting more diversity in the Program,
the number of sites ranging from 50-200 kW has grown substantially the last two seasons from 32 in 2015 to 69 in 2017.
Idaho Power Company
Flex Peak Program Report Page 5
Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement approved in IPUC Case No. IPC-E-13-143 and OPUC UM 16534 (“Settlement”), Idaho Power did not actively market the Program prior
to the 2017 season as enrolled capacity was maintained at approximately 35 MW, which
was the amount agreed upon in the 2013 Settlement. The Company did not deny any
Program applications in 2017.
Figure 1 represents Idaho Power’s service area divided into five regional areas: Western, Canyon, Capital, Southern, and Eastern.

Figure 1.

3 In the Matter of the Continuation of Idaho Power Company’s A/C Cool Credit, Irrigation Peak
Rewards, and FlexPeak Demand Response Programs for 2014 and Beyond, Case No. IPC-E-13-14, Order No. 32923.
4 In the Matter of Idaho Power Company, Staff Evaluation of the Demand Response Programs, UM 1653, Order No. 13-482.
Idaho Power Company
Page 6 Flex Peak Program Report
Figure 2 represents the enrolled capacity (total nominations) that were enrolled in 2017 and the distribution by Idaho Power’s regional service areas.
Figure 2.

Canyon
8%
Capital
22%
Eastern
12%
Southern
21%
Western
37%
2017 Site Participation By Region Based On
Nomination
Idaho Power Company
Flex Peak Program Report Page 7
Figure 3 represents the enrolled capacity in 2017 and the diversity based on business type.
Figure 3.

Agriculture
5%Commercial Property
8%Other
2%
Education
3%
Refrigerated
Warehouse
11%
Government
4%
Water &
Wastewater
Treatment
Facility
13%
Asphalt, Concrete,
Gravel
30%
Light Industrial
6%
Food Processing
18%
2017 Site Participation By Business Type Based
On Nomination
Idaho Power Company
Page 8 Flex Peak Program Report
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.
The data assisted participants in refining their nomination for future events. This data
also provides information useful in determining which participating sites may have opportunity to provide more reduction or change their reduction strategy if nomination
amounts were not achieved.
Load Reduction Analysis
An evaluation of the potential load reduction impacts in 2017 were conducted internally
by Idaho Power. The goal of the review performed by Idaho Power was to calculate the
load reduction in MW for the Program. The analysis also verified load reduction per site and per event.
The baseline methodology used in 2017 is the same methodology utilized in prior
seasons. 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 adjustment 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 2-3
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 percent of the original baseline kW. The DOA is symmetrical, having either an upward or downward adjustment to the baseline, and is applied to the original baseline kW for each facility site for each hour during the Program
event. The Company does not expect or anticipate any changes to the baseline
methodology for the upcoming season.

Idaho Power Company
Flex Peak Program Report Page 9
As Figure 4 below depicts, the most commonly nominated load reduction was in the 0-50 kW range, accounting for approximately 40 percent of the sites.
Figure 4.

Table 2 shows the Program realization rates for 2017 based on average load reduction
per event.
Table 2.

Curtailment Event Event Timeframe Nominated Demand
Reduction
Average Demand
Reduction (MW)
Max Demand Reduction
(MW)
Realization Rate*
June 26 4-8 pm 35.1 34.4 36 98%
July 14 4-8 pm 35.4 26.4 28.4 75%
August 2 4-8 pm 35.8 25.1 25.5 70%
Average 35.4 28.6 30 81%
* Based on average reduction

0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
0-50 51-200 201-500 501+
Co
u
n
t

o
f

S
i
t
e
s
Nominated amount
Range of Nominated Load Reduction (kW)
2017
2016
56 55
50 48
26 28
9 6
Idaho Power Company
Page 10 Flex Peak Program Report
Figure 5 below shows both the average and peak demand reduction achieved during each of the three curtailment events. The maximum demand reduction achieved ranged
from a low of 25.5 MW for the August 2 event to a high of 36 MW for the June 26 event.
The August 2 event’s 25.5 MW reduction achieved a realization rate of 70 percent, while
the June 26 event’s 36 MW reduction achieved a realization rate of 98 percent. Combined, the three events had an average realization rate of 81 percent.
The realization rate analysis shows that maximum load reduction was achieved in the first
third of the Program season during the first event, which correlates with Idaho Power’s
overall summer system peak of late June/early July.
Figure 5.

0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
June 26th July 14th August 2nd
Me
g
a
w
a
t
t
s

(
M
W
)
Event Date
Average Versus Max Reduction Achieved Per
Event
Average Demand
Reduction
Max Demand
Reduction
Idaho Power Company
Flex Peak Program Report Page 11
Table 3 shows the realization rate for each participant in the Program for 2017.
Table 3.

Participant
Number
June 26 Event
Realization
July 14 Event
Realization
August 2 Event
Realization
Season
Realization
1 106% 34% 71% 71%
2 66% 76% 80% 74%
3 113% 26% 29% 56%
4 56% 90% 101% 82%
5 70% 39% 24% 45%
6 46% 88% 77% 70%
7 141% 143% 118% 134%
8 215% 126% 147% 163%
9 2% 84% 139% 75%
10 1% 4% 20% 9%
11 46% 48% 54% 50%
12 64% 51% 53% 56%
13 97% 63% 2% 54%
14 44% 97% 117% 86%
15 27% 3% 30% 20%
16 0% 49% 35% 28%
17 131% 41% 42% 71%
18 26% 79% 113% 73%
19 179% 143% 154% 159%
20 179% 121% 148% 149%
21 61% 113% 40% 71%
22 154% 104% 15% 91%
Idaho Power Company
Page 12 Flex Peak Program Report
23 15% 63% 0% 26%
24 2% 4% 10% 5%
25 17% 40% 192% 83%
26 195% 0% 89% 95%
27 24% 43% 114% 60%
28 109% 40% 28% 59%
29 140% 113% 135% 129%
30 187% 98% 41% 109%
31 56% 5% 16% 25%
32 147% 140% 123% 137%
33 209% 7% 193% 136%
34 154% 122% 123% 133%
35 76% 112% 115% 101%
36 489% 0% 0% 163%
37 1% 92% 11% 35%
38 97% 67% 82% 82%
39 172% 186% 61% 140%
40 152% 71% 90% 104%
41 2% 0% 15% 6%
42 154% 0% 0% 51%
43 113% 71% 22% 69%
44 58% 7% 88% 51%
45 167% 173% 186% 175%
46 11% 26% 44% 27%
47 273% 125% 131% 176%
Idaho Power Company
Flex Peak Program Report Page 13
48 770% 0% 0% 257%
49 65% 53% 9% 42%
50 24% 20% 29% 24%
51 65% 0% 25% 30%
52 76% 79% 30% 62%
53 102% 82% 89% 91%
54 4% 199% 67% 90%
55 82% 126% 97% 101%
56 163% 14% 0% 59%
57 137% 29% 129% 98%
58 77% 67% 15% 53%
59 94% 91% 101% 96%
60 66% 82% 79% 76%
61 247% 83% 116% 148%
62 76% 19% 0% 32%
63 80% 44% 18% 47%
64 69% 94% 83% 82%
65 72% 70% 2% 48%
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 at 116
percent. The 0-50 kW group had the largest portion of sites enrolled in the Program,
totaling 56 sites that accounted for 40 percent of total enrolled sites. The second smallest size class, 51–200 kW, had 50 sites enrolled and achieved the lowest average realization rate at 74 percent. The 201-500 kW group had 26 sites enrolled and achieved a
realization rate of 79 percent. The largest size class, 501+ kW, had nine sites enrolled
and achieved a realization rate of 89 percent. Idaho Power will continue to work with all
customer segments to help refine nominations to align closer with realistic reduction opportunities which will increase the overall program realization rate.
Idaho Power Company
Page 14 Flex Peak Program Report
Figure 6 below represents the realization rate achieved by each nomination group, averaged across all three events. To calculate the results, each site’s average load
reduction (across three events) was divided by its average nomination across the three
events and then grouped by size.
Figure 6.

Program Costs
Program costs totaled $635,453 through October 1, 2017. Incentive payments were the
largest expenditure comprising approximately 89 percent of total costs. The incentive payments were fixed-capacity payments resulting from the three events called during the 2017 Program season. The fixed capacity payments total was $564,954 and the variable
energy payments total was $0. Variable energy payments were not made during the
season because the variable energy payment is implemented starting with the fourth
event. Preliminarily, the total Program costs for 2017 are estimated to be $17.65 per kW
based on the maximum demand reduction of 36 MW, or $22.22 per kW, based on average load reduction for the season of 28.6 MW.

0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
140%
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)
116%
74%79%
89%
Average Realization Rate By Each Nomination
Size Class
Idaho Power Company
Flex Peak Program Report Page 15
Table 4 below displays the 2017 year-to-date (“YTD”) Program costs by expense category.
Table 4.
Expense Category 2017 YTD Program
Costs
Materials & Equipment $785
Contract Services $11,018
Marketing & Administration $58,696
Incentive payments $564,954
Total $635,453

Benefit-Cost Analysis
The Benefit-Cost analysis for the Program is based on a 20-year model that uses financial
and demand-side management alternate cost assumptions from the 2015 Integrated
Resource Plan (“IRP”). The Settlement, as approved in IPUC Order No. 32923 and
OPUC Order No.13-482, established a new method for valuing DR and defined the annual cost of operating Idaho Power’s three DR programs for the maximum allowable
60 hours as 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.
In 2017, the preliminary cost estimate of operating all three of Idaho Power’s DR programs
was $8.5 million through October 1, 2017. 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, which is below the total annual costs agreed upon in the Settlement as
revised in the 2015 IRP.
Idaho Power’s cost-effectiveness evaluation for DR programs is updated annually. A
more comprehensive cost-benefit analysis will be included in the Company’s Demand-Side Management 2017 Annual Report when all the data will be available.
Idaho Power believes the purpose of demand response is to minimize or delay the need
to build new supply-side peaking generation resources and to reduce load during extreme
system peaks. The benefits of having the Program available, and with each load
reduction event, provide Idaho Power a supply side resource to mitigate any system peak deficits. DR helps fulfill the current system capacity need and prolongs the need to build
new generation resources.
The Company believes by calling at least three events per season the Program will be
more effective in providing consistent and reliable reduction. Having a minimum of three
events allows the Company to test processes and software and helps customers fine tune their curtailment plan. The Company did not call more than three load reduction events
Idaho Power Company
Page 16 Flex Peak Program Report
during the 2017 Program season because Idaho Power’s generation resources were sufficient to satisfy system load. However, in all three events the Program provided a
resource to assist in balancing the wind forecast when that forecast did not always align
with Idaho Power’s peak load, as well as potentially avoiding additional market purchases.
Based on market prices for each of the days in 2017 the Program was dispatched, Idaho Power estimates the Program saved a total of $27,000 worth of energy purchases.
The variable energy price for utilizing the Program after the third event is $0.16/kWh and
could be considered the dispatch price for calling load reduction events beginning with
the fourth event. The price of $0.16/kWh is typically higher than the energy market price.
The Company believes the variable energy price is appropriate because having a dispatch price below $0.16/kWh could cause the Company to call events more frequently resulting in reduced participant performance and event fatigue. The Company also
believes that a lower dispatch price to trigger more load reduction events could send the
wrong signal regarding the purpose of the Program and DR.
Customer Satisfaction Results
Idaho Power did not conduct a post-season survey this year as there were not significant
changes made to the Program from the last two seasons. The prior two year’s surveys
were favorable and the Company believes conducting a survey every 2-3 years will reduce survey fatigue considering this customer segment also participates in the quarterly
Customer Satisfaction Research Survey conducted by Burke, Inc.
Program Activities for 2018
The primary improvement Idaho Power and the Program could benefit from is a more consistent and firm load reduction when events are called. The Company will continue
to communicate the value proposition with enrolled customers and the importance of
active participation when events are called. Recruitment efforts for the 2018 season will
begin the first quarter of 2018 to encourage participation. Idaho Power will meet with existing participants during the off-season to discuss past-season performance and upcoming season details.
The Program will be jointly marketed along with Idaho Power’s applicable energy
efficiency programs as needed. The Company will utilize its Customer Representatives
to retain the currently enrolled sites and encourage new sites to participate.
For the upcoming season, Idaho Power plans to focus on retaining currently enrolled customers. While Idaho Power does not plan to actively market the Program, it will enroll
new customers that show interest and are a good fit for the Program.

Idaho Power Company
Flex Peak Program Report Page 17
Conclusion
The Program currently contributes approximately 10 percent of the Company’s overall
DR portfolio and can be relied on to provide dispatchable load reduction to the electrical grid. When analyzing the Program at the generation level, industrial and commercial customers have made noteworthy contributions to Idaho Power’s DR programs. The
Program had a total of 141 sites reducing peak demand by 36 MW. The Program retained
99.3 percent of past enrolled sites (136 of 137) from the prior season and added five
additional sites in 2017. Load reduction event results showed maximum reductions of 36, 28.4, and 25.5 MW, respectively, for the three events, with an average of 30 MW. The events achieved realization rates of 98 percent, 75 percent, and 70 percent, respectively,
averaging 81 percent for the season. The total Program costs for 2017 through October
1st were $635,453. The cost of having this resource available was $22.22 per kW based
on average reduction (28.6 MW) for the season.

2017 Irrigation Peak
Rewards Program Report

© 2018 Idaho Power
Idaho Power Company 2017 Irrigation Peak Rewards Program Report
Page i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table of Contents ............................................................................................................................. i
List of Tables .................................................................................................................................. ii
List of Figures ................................................................................................................................. ii
Introduction ......................................................................................................................................1
Details ........................................................................................................................................1
Interruption Options .............................................................................................................1
Automatic Dispatch Option ...........................................................................................1
Manual Dispatch Option ................................................................................................1
Program Parameters .............................................................................................................1
Incentives .............................................................................................................................2
Opt Outs ...............................................................................................................................3
Results ..............................................................................................................................................3
Participation ...............................................................................................................................3
Operations ..................................................................................................................................5
Equipment and Monitoring ..................................................................................................5
Analysis......................................................................................................................................5
Data Gathering and Processing ..................................................................................................6
Baseline and Event Calculations for Interval Metering Data ....................................................6
Load Reduction Results .............................................................................................................7
Realization Rate Analysis ..........................................................................................................7
Other Events from the 2017 season .....................................................................................9
Costs .........................................................................................................................................10
Conclusions ....................................................................................................................................10

2017 Irrigation Peak Rewards Program Report Idaho Power Company
Page ii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1
2017 Incentive rates for manual and automatic options ...............................................................3
Table 2 2017 Eligible pump locations and participation levels by area ....................................................5
Table 3
Hourly demand reduction results (MW) for each event ...............................................................7
Table 4 2017 program realization rates ......................................................................................................8
Table 5 Annual program costs by category ..............................................................................................10

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 Idaho Power service area ..............................................................................................................4
Figure 2
Distribution of service area by 2017 participants .........................................................................4
Figure 3 2017 IPR season expected realization rate per day (excluding Sundays and July 4) ...................8
Figure 4
2017 load reduction results—total system load data ....................................................................9

Idaho Power Company 2017 Irrigation Peak Rewards Program Report
Page 1
INTRODUCTION
The Irrigation Peak Rewards Program (IPR) is a voluntary demand response program available
to Idaho Power Company’s (IPC) agricultural irrigation customers since 2004. IPR pays irrigation customers a financial incentive for the ability to turn off participating irrigation pumps at potential high-system load periods (summer peak).
Details
Interruption Options
IPR is available to IPC irrigation customers receiving service under Schedule 24 in Idaho and Oregon. Due to settlement agreements reached in Case No. IPC-13-14 and UM 1653, eligibility
is based on prior program participation at the pump location. The pump location may have a
device installed on the panel to automatically dispatch or remotely turn off the pump when a
demand response event is called or the participant may shut down manually at the event start
time.
Automatic Dispatch Option
Pumps enrolled in the automatic dispatch option have one of two devices installed at the pump
location to allow IPC the ability to send a signal that controls the associated irrigation pump(s).
This option requires all pumps at a site to be controlled. IPC sends a signal to the device during a
load control event to turn off the pump. Nearly 90 percent of the devices use IPC’s Automated Metering Infrastructure (AMI) to send the signal to the demand response unit (DRU). In addition to the DRU, approximately 12 percent of the automatic dispatch option pumps have a cellular
network device installed at the pump panel. The device has the same control feature as the AMI
DRU but a cellular network signal is used to communicate with the device.
Manual Dispatch Option
Pumps with at least 1,000 cumulative horse power (hp) or that IPC has determined to have limited communication availability are eligible for the manual dispatch option (manual).
Participants under this classification choose to manually control which pumps are turned off
during a load control event. Manual participants are required to nominate the amount of
kilowatts (kW) available to dispatch during load control events. IPC uses interval metering data to monitor load reduction at these locations.
Program Parameters
• Season dates are June 15 through August 15
• A minimum of three load control events occur each program season
2017 Irrigation Peak Rewards Program Report Idaho Power Company
Page 2
• Dispatch load control events could occur any weekday or Saturday, excluding July 4
holiday between 1:00 p.m. and 9:00 p.m.
• Four dispatch groups are offered:
• 2:00 to 6:00 p.m.
• 3:00 to 7:00 p.m.
• 4:00 to 8:00 p.m.
• 5:00 to 9:00 p.m.
• Load control events may occur up to four hours per day and up to 15 hours per week,
but no more than 60 hours per program season
• IPC provides notification via phone, email and/or text to Automatic participants four
hours prior to the start of the event whenever possible
• IPC provides notification via phone, email and/or text to Manual participants four hours prior to the start of the event
• IPC could choose to cancel the load control event and notify participants of cancellation
up to 30 minutes prior to the event start time
• Parameters for IPR do not apply to system emergencies
Incentives
Automatic dispatch participants receive incentives in the form of a billing credit. The billing credit is made up of a demand credit and an energy credit applied to the monthly bill from
June 15 to August 15. The demand and energy credits for the manual dispatch participants are
paid with a physical check.
Demand credits are calculated by multiplying the monthly billing kW by the demand-related
incentive amount. The energy credits are calculated by multiplying the monthly billing kilowatt-hour (kWh) usage by the energy-related incentive amount. Credits are prorated for
periods when meter reading/billing cycles do not align with the IPR season dates.
The incentive structure includes fixed and variable incentives. Variable incentives apply if more
than three events occur in the season. Participants who choose the extended 5:00 to 9:00 p.m.
group are paid a larger variable credit incentive if more than three events are called in the same season. No variable incentive payments were made in 2017. Incentives are calculated for manual
and automatic dispatch participants using IPC metered billing data.
Idaho Power Company 2017 Irrigation Peak Rewards Program Report
Page 3
Monthly billing credits are calculated and applied using IPC’s billing software. Manual
incentives are calculated using interval metering data and nominated kW and issued via mail in
the form of a check. The incentive rates for 2017 are listed in Table 1.
Table 1
2017 Incentive rates for manual and automatic options
Fixed Demand Credit ($/billing kW) Fixed Energy Credit ($/billing kW) Variable Energy Credit ($/billing kW) Extended Variable Energy Credit* ($/billing kW)
$5.00 $0.0076 $0.148 $0.198
*(5–9 p.m. group)
Opt Outs
Under the rules of the automatic dispatch option, participants have the freedom to opt out of a
load control event up to five times per pump per season. Opt out fees are equal to $5.00 per billed kW for that billing cycle. Opt outs are defined in one of two categories. The first being an explicit opt out where the irrigator calls on the event date to request to not participate. The
second opt out category is defined as the pump going off with the initial communication but then
being turned back on in the field by over-riding the event turn off command.
RESULTS
Participation
IPR enrollment packets were mailed to all past participants in March 2017. Contents of the
packet included an IPR brochure, program application, incentive structure details, eligible pump locations, and an estimated incentive for each pump location.
IPC agricultural representatives (ag reps) presented IPR information at irrigation workshops
across the service area. Ag reps also communicated program details while staffing the IPC booth
at four agricultural shows across the service area. IPC ag reps continue to make a concerted
effort to encourage past participants to re-enroll.
2017 total billing demand enrollment was 411.4 MW with 2,307 pumps. The total pump count
increased, while the nominated kW decreased 1 percent from 415.1 MW in 2016 to 411.4 MW in
2017. A total of 83.5 percent of the eligible pumps enrolled, an increase over last year of
1.5 percent.
Figure 1 shows IPC’s service area divided into five regional areas; Western, Canyon, Capital, Southern, and Eastern. IPC has three main areas, Canyon-West, Capital and South East. Five regional areas are referenced throughout this report due to how the program areas are defined.
2017 Irrigation Peak Rewards Program Report Idaho Power Company
Page 4

Figure 1
Idaho Power service area

Figure 2
Distribution of service area by 2017 participants
2%
2%6%
0%14%
35%
41%
Western Idaho
Western Oregon
Canyon Idaho
Canyon Oregon
Capital Idaho
Southern Idaho
Eastern Idaho
Idaho Power Company 2017 Irrigation Peak Rewards Program Report
Page 5
Table 2 2017 Eligible pump locations and participation levels by area
IPC Area State
Eligible Service
Locations
Manual Dispatch
Option
Automatic Dispatch
Option
Total Enrolled
by area
Eligible
Enrolled
Western Idaho 62 0 36 36 58%
Oregon 59 4 43 47 80%
Canyon Idaho 156 11 128 139 89%
Oregon 4 0 3 3 75%
Capital Idaho 379 26 304 330 87%
Southern Idaho 978 6 828 834 85%
Eastern Idaho 1,123 0 918 918 82%
Total 2,761 47 2,260 2,307

Operations
Equipment and Monitoring
IPC has been expanding the use of AMI technology with the use of DRUs installed at pump locations. AMI technology provides the ability to turn off pumps during an IPR event by sending
communication through the power line to the DRU and allows IPC to monitor the status of many
participating pumps during load control events through an hourly usage report. These reports
provide data to help determine which DRU’s functioned properly and which pumps were off
during the event.
In addition to using AMI technology, IPC developed its own load control device. This device
uses a cellular network signal to communicate with and shut off the pump during a load control
event and are installed where AMI technology is not available. The data available from the
cellular device systems allow IPC to view run circuit current for each location and successful
cellular communication. Hourly usage data is not available at these sites. Knowledge of the run circuit current allows IPC to determine whether a pump is on or off. During the 2017 season,
336 cellular devices were installed at 293 pump locations.
Analysis
The load reduction analysis (i.e., performance of the program) is calculated using five sources:
1. Program participant list
2. AMI hourly usage data
3. Interval metering (not connected to the AMI system). MV-90 interval usage data
2017 Irrigation Peak Rewards Program Report Idaho Power Company
Page 6
4. Cellular device run circuit data
5. Total system load data for event days and a surrogate day
The IPR participant data for each load reduction event day includes the following the pump
number, meter number, 2017 dispatch option, dispatch group, nominated kW and the cellular device or DRU number. IPC system load monitoring was used as a comparison for impact of the
load reduction during the event. The system load monitoring provides readings (MW) in
five minute increments on event days as well as one comparative nonevent day.
Data Gathering and Processing
Data analysis is the basis for payment, troubleshooting and program performance. The first steps
of the data analysis are gathering and processing the data. The data collected was AMI Data,
cellular device run time, and MV90 data. The data was then separated into three data sets:
1. Pumps with AMI technology and hourly usage data
2. Pumps with cellular devices and run circuit data
3. Pumps running on the manual dispatch option with interval data or hourly AMI data
Baseline and Event Calculations for Interval Metering Data
The performance of the program is calculated by comparing the usage prior to the event and usage during the event. The first step in this calculation is to determine the baseline.
To do that, IPC averages the hourly interval readings in the second, third, and fourth hours after
the first hour of the event. The first hour is not considered in the baseline data due to the
potential for a delay in AMI communications. The message may take up to 10 minutes to register at any specific pump location to shut down for the event. The pumps may not shutoff for that
10 minutes, therefore showing usage data in the first hour.
Each pump’s usage during the baseline hours are summed to arrive at a combined baseline for
each dispatch group (reference the Appendix 1 for the demand reduction calculation method and
definition of terms). The demand reduction for each pump with hourly usage data was calculated during the last three hours of each load control event.
The total load reduction was calculated by summing the Automatic Dispatch Option sites and the
Manual Dispatch Option Sites.
Idaho Power Company 2017 Irrigation Peak Rewards Program Report
Page 7
Load Reduction Results
Table 3
Hourly demand reduction results (MW) for each event
Event Date 2–3 p.m. 3–4 p.m. 4–5 p.m. 5–6 p.m. 6–7 p.m. 7–8 p.m. 8–9 p.m.
6/20/2017 66.4 133.1 192.2 248.0 181.3 114.6 55.5
w/ losses* 72.9 146.1 211.0 272.2 199.0 125.8 60.9
7/6/2017 74.5 149.3 217.4 289.8 215.0 140.1 72.0
w/ losses* 81.7 163.9 238.7 318.1 236.0 153.8 79.0
8/3/2017 45.0 105.2 165.4 214.7 169.4 109.1 49.0
w/ losses* 49.4 115.5 181.5 235.7 185.9 119.8 53.8
*IPC system losses 9.76% added in
Realization Rate Analysis
A potential realization rate is used to determine the IPR potential performance for any day during the season. It is defined as the likelihood that an irrigation pump is shutoff during the demand response event and is reduced by equipment failures, opt outs and small loads left on during
an event.
This rate is typically higher at the end of June and the beginning of July when a large fraction of
irrigation pumps run nearly 24 hours per day seven days per week. Service area wide, irrigation pumps are providing the largest load because nearly all crops in the service area are being irrigated at this time of year. The realization rate is lower later in the irrigation season when
many pumps are not operating due to crop maturity and reduced irrigation demands (primarily
small grain crops).
Device failures also effect realization rates because they reduce how much load reduction can be achieved during an event. Device failures include AMI communication problems, wiring issues, inadequate cellular coverage, administrative errors and inoperable devices. Identification and
correction of device failures is an ongoing effort before season begins and throughout the season.
The AMI hourly data and the AMI communication reports are used to indicate potential
malfunctioning DRU’s.
In the field, a variety of issues with the DRUs were identified:
• Inoperable
• Fuse in the DRU failed or removed and needed replacement
• DRU identification number had been recorded inaccurately and the system could not find the correct communication path
• New panel install at the pump site
2017 Irrigation Peak Rewards Program Report Idaho Power Company
Page 8
• Water damage to the DRU
• DRU was removed entirely
Table 4 shows the 2017 IPR 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.
Table 4
2017 program realization rates
Date Range
Average Pump Off in Baseline Rate Opt-Out Rate Device Failure Rate*
Did not reduce total nominated kW**
Counterfactual Realization Rate Total
June 15–30 34.0% 1.0% 3.5% 1.5% 60.1% 100.0%
July 1–15 24.4% 0.5% 3.4% 1.3% 70.4% 100.0%
July 16–31 24.4% 0.5% 3.4% 1.3% 70.4% 100.0%
August 1–15 43.5% 0.4% 3.2% 1.4% 51.5% 100.0%
*
**

Figure 3
2017 IPR season expected realization rate per day (excluding Sundays and July 4)
Idaho Power Company 2017 Irrigation Peak Rewards Program Report
Page 9

Figure 4 2017 load reduction results—total system load data
Other Events from the 2017 season
IPC brought the entire program in-house over the winter of 2016/17 and contracted with three
electricians to exchange 1587 Enernoc devices with AMI controlled DRU’s and 336 cellular
devices throughout the service area.
Although the initial exchange was expensive due to the labor and materials to convert to AMI
DRU’s and cellular devices, after a year and a half it is anticipated that the program will be saving money by not contracting with an outside vendor.
IPC updated the dispatch interface and added an automated messaging option for the event
notifications. The June 20th event experienced a 25-minute delay in the communication to the
devices due to an internal situation. IPC was monitoring the communication and messaging and
caught the issue shortly after the 2:00 pm event start timeframe, delaying the shutoff by approximately 25 minutes. The issue was fixed and did not occur on the second and third events.
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
4,000
1:
0
0

A
M
1:
4
0

A
M
2:
2
0

A
M
3:
0
0

A
M
3:
4
0

A
M
4:
2
0

A
M
5:
0
0

A
M
5:
4
0

A
M
6:
2
0

A
M
7:
0
0

A
M
7:
4
0

A
M
8:
2
0

A
M
9:
0
0

A
M
9:
4
0

A
M
10
:
2
0

A
M
11
:
0
0

A
M
11
:
4
0

A
M
12
:
2
0

P
M
1:
0
0

P
M
1:
4
0

P
M
2:
2
0

P
M
3:
0
0

P
M
3:
4
0

P
M
4:
2
0

P
M
5:
0
0

P
M
5:
4
0

P
M
6:
2
0

P
M
7:
0
0

P
M
7:
4
0

P
M
8:
2
0

P
M
9:
0
0

P
M
9:
4
0

P
M
10
:
2
0

P
M
11
:
0
0

P
M
11
:
4
0

P
M
12
:
2
0

A
M
1:
0
0

A
M
6/20/17 expected 6/20/2016 7/6/2017 expected
7/6/2017 8/3/2017 expected 8/3/2017
2017 Irrigation Peak Rewards Program Report Idaho Power Company
Page 10
Costs
IPR spent a total of $7,223,101.43 with the incentive credit being the largest portion at $6,412,298.73 of total costs.
Table 5 Annual program costs by category
Expense Item 2017 Total Cost
Materials and equipment $209,060.77
Contract services $504,515.53
Incentive payments $6,412,289.73
Administration $97,266.40
Total $7,223,101.43

CONCLUSIONS
The 2017 IPR program resulted in a total reduction of 318.1 MW for the season. The irrigation
season started out slow overall due to a higher than normal water year and a cooler June.
IPC runs three demand response programs. Of the three IPC load reduction programs the IPR program represents approximately 83 percent of the total load reduction for the company.
Highlights listed below:
• 1587 EnerNOC devices exchanged for AMI DRU’s
• 336 EnerNOC devices exchanged for IPC cellular device
• Increased enrollment to include over 83.5 % of eligible pump locations.
• 2307 pumps enrolled
• 318.1 MW total load reduction
• The cost of having this resource available was $23 per kW

Idaho Power Company 2017 Irrigation Peak Rewards Program Report
Page 11
Appendix 1 Demand Reduction Calculation Method
Abbreviations
ADO—Automatic Dispatch Option AEL—Average Event Load
AMI—Automated Metering Infrastructure
BL—Baseline Load
DR—Demand Reduction
MDO—Manual Dispatch Option MV90—Specific Meter Package with Interval Data
∑—Sum
Automatic Dispatch Option
Load reduction for each event was calculated using hourly data for each pump using the last
three hours of each curtailment event was calculated as follows:
DRpump = BLpump – AELpump
The load reduction for all pumps within a dispatch group is the total hourly reduction for each
group as calculated below:
DRgroup = ∑ DRpump (groups 1-4)
Load reduction for the automatic dispatch option was calculated as follows:
DRado = ∑ DRgroup
Manual Dispatch Option
Data utilized for manual dispatch option participants is AMI hourly usage or MV90 interval data.
Load reduction for manual dispatch option was calculated as follows:
DRgroup = ∑ DRpump AMI + ∑ DRpump MV90
The total demand reduction for the Manual Dispatch Option was calculated as follows:
DRMDO = ∑ DRgroup
The total IPR load reduction was calculated by summing the Automatic Dispatch Option sites
and the Manual Dispatch Option sites calculated reduction:
Total Program DR = DRMDO + DRGroup

A/C Cool Credit
2017 Demand Response Analysis

Prepared by: Idaho Power
November 2017

2
Executive Summary
The three 2017 AC Cool Credit events occurring on June 26, July 14, and August 2 resulted
in max peak meter level kW/participant reductions of 0.97, 0.80, and 0.78 respectively. The 0.97 kW/participant max reduction resulted in 26,349 kW (26.3 MW) of reduction at
customer’s meters and was recorded between 6 and 7 p.m. on June 26. Accounting for system
energy losses between generation facilities and customers, the max peak total generation
reduction was 28.9 MW.
The average hourly meter level demand reduction was 0.86, 0.76, 0.72 kW per participant, respectively, for the three events. The August 2 event was called one hour later at 5 p.m.
and ended one hour later at 8pm than the other two events. All three curtailment events were
three hours in length.
Analysis Methodology
AC Cool Credit participants’ hourly consumption data was used to estimate demand reduction.
The hourly consumption data approach was validated in the 2012 impact evaluation which
analyzed both AMI and logger data, and showed both sources to produce similar estimations of energy reduction per curtailment event.
Data Cleaning
Participants were merged with hourly consumption data for each event day and the ten previous non-weekend days. Error codes were pulled in for all hours and any hour that had an error code, outage flag, or was marked as an estimated read during event hours or one hour prior to the event
was removed prior to analysis. Ninety-nine percent of all customer sites were preserved after
data cleaning.
The sub-sections below describe the project’s methodology related to the sampling plan and demand reduction analysis.
Table 1 2017 Summary of event hours and participation
Curtailment Event Event Hours AC units enrolled Sites Analyzed for Reduction*
June 26** 4 p.m.–7 p.m. 28,214 27,117
July 14** 4 p.m.–7 p.m. 28,214 27,117
August 2 5 p.m.–8 p.m. 28,054 26,964
*Customer sites may have more than one AC unit enrolled in program **Customer participants file from July 17th was used for analysis basis for both events Baseline Data
The load reduction achieved during curtailment events was calculated by comparing the average
load from each curtailment day against the average load developed from non-curtailment days
selected for the baseline. The “previous days” approach was used, which utilizes the average
load data from the previous ten non-weekend, non-curtailment days. Baseline kW was
calculated as the average of the three days with the greatest demand from these previous 10 non-curtailment days, as ranked by the highest hourly demand occurring during the
3
curtailment timeframe. Curtailment days normally occur on hot, high demand days,
thus selecting high demand days for the baseline ensures a similar load profile is used for
the baseline days as the curtailment days.
Offset Factor
To effectively compare baseline and curtailment day loads, the baseline load was adjusted using
an offset factor, calculated as the difference in kW between the baseline and curtailment event
day load during the hour prior to the start of the curtailment. The offset factor was applied to the
baseline day to “normalize” the baseline kW to the curtailment day kW. The offset factor mitigates underlying differences in load due to slight differences in outdoor temperature or other
external factors.
Results
A total of three curtailment events were completed as part of the 2017 A/C Cool Credit program.
Table 2 below details the characteristics of these events, including high temperature, event time
period, and cycling percent.
Table 2 2017 summary results of curtailment events
Date and High Temp Percent Curtailment Region
Avg. kW Reduction per Participant
Max kW Reduction per Participant
Avg. kW Reduction Total
Max kW Reduction Total
June 26
Boise: 95°
Poc/TF: 96°
55% All 0.86 0.97 23,344 26,349
Boise 0.90 1.01 20,705 23,420
Poc/TF 0.74 0.83 2,945 3,318
July 14
Boise: 100°
Poc/TF: 94°
55% All 0.76 0.80 20,547 21,572
Boise 0.81 0.85 18,748 19,729
Poc/TF 0.51 0.54 2,049 2,149
Aug 2
Boise: 100°
Poc/TF: 95°
55% All 0.72 0.78 19,373 21,046
Boise 0.73 0.79 16,744 18,179
Poc/TF 0.54 0.60 2,143 2,391

4

Figure 1 June 26, 2017 participant load profile—all regions

Figure 2 June 26, 2017 participant load profile—Boise
5
Figure 3
June 26, 2017 participant load profile—Pocatello/Twin Falls

Figure 4
July 14, 2017 participant load profile—all regions

6
Figure 5 July 14, 2017 load profile—Boise

Figure 5 July 14, 2017 load profile—Boise

Figure 6
July 14, 2017 load profile—Pocatello/Twin Falls

7

Figure 7
August 2, 2017 participant load profile—all locations

Figure 8
August 2, 2017 load profile—Boise

8

Figure 9 August 2, 2017 load profile—Pocatello/Twin Falls

IDAHO POWER ENERGY WISE®
PROGRAM SUMMARY REPORT
2016-2017
SUBMITTED BY:
Submitted by:
September 2017
Idaho Power Energy Wise®
Program Summary Report
2016-2017
Made possible by:
Idaho Power Energy Wise® Program Summary Report2
“The students really liked the activities
and readings as well as the at home
portion. This is one of my favorite
yearly projects!”
Heather Mueller, Teacher
Washington 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—Summary ...........................................................26
D. Teacher Program Evaluation ..........................................................27
E. Parent/Guardian Program Evaluation ..........................................29
F. Teacher Letters ................................................................................31
G. Student Letters ................................................................................34
Appendix A ..................................................................................................46
Projected Savings from Showerhead Retrofit ...................................46
Projected Savings from Shower Timer Installation ...........................47
Projected Savings from FilterTone® Alarm Installation ....................48
Projected Savings from First 9-watt LED Light Bulb Retrofit .........49
Projected Savings from Second 9-watt LED Light Bulb Retrofit ....50
Projected Savings from Third 9-watt LED Light Bulb Retrofit ........51
Projected Savings from LED Night Light Retrofit .............................52
Appendix B ...................................................................................................53
Home Check-Up......................................................................................53
Home Activities ......................................................................................56
Appendix C ...................................................................................................60
Participant List .......................................................................................60
Appendix D ..................................................................................................70
Teacher Program Evaluation Data .......................................................70
Appendix E ...................................................................................................71
Parent/Guardian Program Evaluation Data ........................................71
Idaho Power Energy Wise® Program Summary Report4Executive Summary
“My son was very interested in all of
your programs. They are hands-on
and the kids appreciate that. They like
to be involved!”
Kathy Kontes, Parent
Eliza Hart Spalding Elementary School
Resource Action Programs®5Executive Summary
Resource Action Programs® (RAP) is pleased to present this Program
Summary Report to Idaho Power, which summarizes the 2016-2017
Idaho Power Energy Wise® Program. The program was implemented
in the Idaho Power service area in the state of Idaho by 8,910
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
96+4+F
Teachers who indicated
parents supported
the program.
96%
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 73%.
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.43+57+F
Students who reported
they installed the High-
Efficiency Showerhead.
43%79+21+F
Students who
reported they used the
Shower Timer.
79%82+18+F
Students who indicated
they installed the LED
Night Light.
82%
65+35+F
Students who reported
they installed the first
9-watt LED.
65%46+54+F
Students who reported
they installed the third
9-watt LED.
46%54+46+F
Students who reported
they installed the second
9-watt LED.
54%
_______________________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

73
%
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
22,099,443 gallons of water saved
2,583,030 kWh of electricity saved
81,062 therms of gas saved
22,099,443 gallons of wastewater saved
PROJECTED ANNUAL
SAVINGS PER HOME
2,480 gallons of water saved
290 kWh of electricity saved
9 therms of gas saved
2,480 gallons of wastewater saved
PROJECTED LIFETIME SAVINGS
152,483,410 gallons of water saved
22,793,540 kWh of electricity saved
586,459 therms of gas saved
152,483,410 gallons of wastewater saved
PROJECTED LIFETIME
SAVINGS PER HOME
17,114 gallons of water saved
2,558 kWh of electricity saved
66 therms of gas saved
17,114 gallons of wastewater saved
Total Capital Canyon Eastern Southern Western
Total Participants 8,910 2,465 2,833 1,511 1,205 896
Students 8,602 2,383 2,734 1,458 1,165 862
Surveys Received 5,150 1,121 1,988 1,056 514 471
Percent Response 58%45% 70% 70% 43% 53%
Student Survey Response by Region
Idaho Power Energy Wise® Program Summary Report8Program Overview
“As a teacher, I liked the understanding
the kids gain about resources, and
how they can conserve energy
personally in the way they conduct
their lives.”
Brenda Fly, Teacher
Birch 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 2016-2017
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
“I loved that the program went along
with our science. The program
provided students with vocabulary
that was meaningful and made
students think.”
Aubrey Eldredge, Teacher
Syringa Elementary School
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 Letter/Pledge Form
Student Survey Form
Certificate of Achievement
Energy Wise Kit Containing:
• High-Efficiency Showerhead
• Shower Timer
• LED Night Light
• (3) 9-watt LED Light Bulbs
• FilterTone® Alarm
• Digital Thermometer
• Reminder Stickers and Magnet Pack
• Flow Rate Test Bag
• Natural Resource Fact Chart
• Parent/Guardian Program Evaluation
• Illustrated Instruction Guide
Idaho Power “Get Wise” Wristband
Website Access at:
http://www.idahopower.com/wise
Toll-Free HELP Line
Each Teacher/Classroom Receives
Teacher Book
Idaho Power Custom Introduction Video Flash Drive
Step-by-Step Program Checklist
Lesson Plans
Idaho State and National Academic
Standards Chart
Extra Activities Booket
Teacher Survey Form
Pre/Post Student Survey Answer Keys
Electricity Poster
Self-Addressed Postage-Paid Envelope
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
Survey Form, Parent Letter/Pledge Form, Student Guide, Student
Workbook, Teacher Book, and Idaho Power exclusive Introduction
Video (flash drive) also feature Idaho Power branding. Further,
a custom Teacher Solicitation Flyer was created for Community
Education Representatives’ program promotion.
_______________________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

w
o
u
l
d

r
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d

t
h
i
s

p
r
o
g
r
a
m

t
o

o
t
h
e
r

c
o
l
l
e
a
g
u
e
s

10
0
%
Pa
r
e
n
t
s

w
h
o

i
n
d
i
c
a
t
e
d

t
h
e
y

w
o
u
l
d

l
i
k
e

t
o

s
e
e

t
h
i
s

p
r
o
g
r
a
m

c
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d

i
n

l
o
c
a
l

s
c
h
o
o
l
s

10
0
%
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
2016-2017 Idaho Power Energy Wise® Program
© 2016 Resource Action Programs®
xxxx
Danielle ReadyOffice: 208-642-6291
Cell: [e-mail]
Each Student/Teacher Receives:
Student GuideStudent Workbook
Parent Letter/Pledge Form
Student Survey FormCertificate of Achievement
Energy Wise Kit:• LED Night Light
• (3) 9-Watt LED Light Bulbs (800 Lumens, 60-Watt Equivalent)
• Shower Timer
• Digital Thermometer
• FilterTone® Alarm
• Water Flow Rate Test Bag
• High-Efficiency Shower Head
• Natural Resource Fact Chart
• Parent/Guardian Program Evaluation
Illustrated Instruction Booklet
“Get Wise” Wristband Reward
Unlimited Access to Program Website
Toll-Free HELP Line
Each Teacher/Classroom Receives:
TTeacher Book with Lesson Plans Included
Step-By-Step Program Checklist
Teacher Materials Folder:
• Flash Drive (Video Presentation)
• 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
Website Access for Additional Program Activities
Toll-Free Telephone Support
Mini-Grant e-Card of Up to $100 (See Back for Details)
There is no cost to participate
and a great chance to
win a mini-grant!
When you enroll, you will be asked to provide a student count
and the month you would like to receive your materials.
1Percentage calculated based on number of kits del
i
v
e
r
e
d
.
2Results derived from the Program Summary Rep
o
r
t

p
r
o
d
u
c
e
d

b
y

R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e

A
c
t
i
o
n

P
r
o
g
r
a
m
s
,

s
p
r
i
n
g

2
0
1
6

a
n
d

h
t
t
p
s
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
e
p
a
.
g
o
v
/
e
n
e
r
g
y
/
g
r
e
e
n
h
o
u
s
e
-
g
a
s
-
e
q
u
i
v
a
l
e
n
c
i
e
s
-
c
a
l
c
u
l
a
t
o
r
.
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

D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r

3
1
,

2
0
1
6
.

S
p
r
i
n
g

p
a
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
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
7
.

M
i
n
i
-
g
r
a
n
t

e
-
C
a
r
d
s

w
i
l
l

b
e

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, 95% indicated parents supported the p
r
o
g
r
a
m

a
n
d

1
0
0
%

s
a
i
d

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% indicated the program was easy fo
r

t
h
e
m

a
n
d

t
h
e
i
r

c
h
i
l
d

t
o

u
s
e

a
n
d

1
0
0
%

i
n
d
i
c
a
t
e
d

t
h
e
y

would like to see the program continued

i
n

l
o
c
a
l

s
c
h
o
o
l
s
.• The 2015-2016 school year’s partici
p
a
n
t
s

s
a
v
e
d

1
,
1
9
8
,
0
9
3

k
W
h

o
f

e
l
e
c
t
r
i
c
i
t
y
,

e
n
o
u
g
h

t
o

p
o
w
e
r

1
1
0

h
o
m
e
s
’

electricity use for one year or avoided CO
2 emissions of 1,949 barrels of oil.
2
Return Rate1 Mini-Grant Award80-100 percent
$10065-79 percent $7550-64 percent
$5025-49 percent
$25
Resource Action Programs®13Program Materials
Program Materials
Pledging to save energy and water is an importa
n
t

s
t
e
p

i
n

c
o
n
s
e
r
v
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

will save your family money on utility bills. As you g
o

t
h
r
o
u
g
h

t
h
e

P
r
o
g
r
a
m
,

y
o
u

w
i
l
l

l
e
a
r
n

w
h
y

i
t

i
s

important to conserve energy and water. The Progra
m

w
i
l
l

t
e
a
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
,

w
a
t
e
r
,

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

r
e
d
u
c
e
your family’s utility bills.
STUDENTS
PLEDGE FORM
TAKE THE PLEDGE

We have helped you out by writing your first pled
g
e
.

A
l
l

y
o
u

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 mo
r
e

p
l
e
d
g
e
s

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

i
s

a

promise. 1.
2.
3.
Name:Date:School:Teacher:
These Kits are made possible by:
Developed by:
SIGN THE PLEDGEI 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 i
m
p
o
r
t
a
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

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, aprenderá por qué es importante ahorrar

e
n
e
r
g
í
a

y

a
g
u
a
.

E
l

P
r
o
g
r
a
m
a

l
e

e
n
s
e
ñ
a
r
á
formas sencillas de ahorrar energía, agua y dinero. Asumir el

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

q
u
i
e
r
e
ahorrar más energía y agua para reducir las facturas de los serv
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.
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

e
l

primer compromiso es instalar los artículos de su kit. Aho
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

d
e
-scriban cómo ahorrará energía y agua en el hogar. Recuerd
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
.
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

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

I pledge to do my part by installing all of the items in m
y

k
i
t

t
o

s
a
v
e

e
n
e
r
g
y

a
n
d

water as well as reduce my family’s utility bills.
Me comprometo a hacer mi parte instalando todos los artículos de
m
i

k
i
t

p
a
r
a

a
h
o
r
r
a
r
energía y agua así como para reducir las facturas de serv
i
c
i
o
s

p
ú
b
l
i
c
o
s

d
e

m
i

f
a
m
i
l
i
a
.

©2016 Resource Action Programs®
©2016 Resource Action Programs®
STUDENT GUIDE
115429
976 United Circle Sparks, NV 89431www.resourceaction.com • [phone]©2016 Resource Action Programs®
Energy Wise® is a registered trademark of Resource Action Programs
is developed by:
115429 Idaho Power EW Student Guide Cover_PRINT.pdf 1 9/8/16 8:03 AM
STUDENT WORKBOOK
115439
976 United Circle Sparks, NV 89431www.resourceaction.com • [phone]©2016 Resource Action Programs®
Energy Wise® is a registered trademark of Resource Action Programs
Energy Wise® is developed by:
115439 Idaho Power EW Student Workbook Cover_0916_PRINT.pdf 1 9/8/16 8:08 AM
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 Candy m Expanding Gasm Heat From Light Bulbs m How Much Do We Use? m Mini Water Cyclem School Survey m Solar Power At Work
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.
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. © 2016 Resource Action Programs®
Please assess the Energy Wise® Program by filling out this Teacher Survey 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.
GET YOUR $100.00 MINI GRANT!
Return the following by December 31, 2016 for fall implementers or May 15, 2017 for spring
• 80% of Student Survey Forms
• This evaluation form• Student thank-you notes
• A letter from you
Date: �������������������������������������
School: �����������������������������������
Teacher name: ������������������������������E-mail: ������������������������������������
Number of Student Survey Forms returned: ������
Teacher Signature: ��������������������������
Program brought to you by:
TEACHER SURVEY
Your feedback is greatly appreciated.
CERTIFICATE OF ACHIEVEMENTAwarded to
for making a difference in your community by successfully
completing the Energy Wise® program.
N30265 1486
©2014 Resource Action Programs®
Energy Wise® is developed by:
Diane Sumner, Ed.D., Director of Education
Teacher BookStudent Guide Student Workbook
Teacher Evaluation Form
Certificate of Achievement Kit Box Introduction Video (flash drive) Pen
TEACHER BOOK
N30205 115429 1667
976 United Circle Sparks, NV 89431www.resourceaction.com • [phone]©2016 Resource Action Programs®
Energy Wise® is a registered trademark of Resource Action Programs
Energy Wise® is developed by:
Parent Letter/Pledge Form
QUESTIONS? • 1-888-GET-WISE • www.idahopo
w
e
r
.
c
o
m
/
w
i
s
e
PARENTS
SIGN INSTALL
=+
CONGRATULATIONS!
Your child’s class has been selected to participate in the excit
i
n
g

E
n
e
r
g
y

W
i
s
e
® Program. The Program
is designed to teach your child the importance of using reso
u
r
c
e
s
,

l
i
k
e

e
n
e
r
g
y

a
n
d

w
a
t
e
r
,

w
i
s
e
l
y

a
n
d

responsibly. This Program is being provided by Idaho Powe
r

a
t

n
o

a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l

c
o
s
t

t
o

y
o
u
,

y
o
u
r

c
h
i
l
d
’
s

school or the school district.
The average U.S. household pays at least $2,000 per ye
a
r

i
n

u
t
i
l
i
t
y

b
i
l
l
s

a
n
d

c
a
n

o
f
t
e
n

r
e
d
u
c
e

t
h
e
s
e

costs with just a few simple changes. Your child will be

g
i
v
e
n

a

k
i
t
,

v
a
l
u
e
d

a
t

o
v
e
r

$
6
0
,

w
h
i
c
h

i
n
c
l
u
d
e
s

free, high-quality products that will help you and you
r

f
a
m
i
l
y

m
a
k
e

t
h
e
s
e

c
h
a
n
g
e
s

a
n
d

b
e
c
o
m
e

m
o
r
e

energy efficient. To participate, please do the following:
n Have your child talk to you about the ways they wo
u
l
d

l
i
k
e

t
o

s
a
v
e

e
n
e
r
g
y

a
n
d

w
a
t
e
r

a
n
d

complete the Pledge Form located on the next pa
g
e
.
n Watch the installation DVD included in your kit.
n Install all of the kit items. You and your child can

d
o

m
o
s
t

o
f

t
h
e

a
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s

i
n

l
e
s
s

t
h
a
n

1
5

minutes. If you need additional help installing the kit items, vis
i
t

w
w
w
.
i
d
a
h
o
p
o
w
e
r
.
c
o
m
/
w
i
s
e

t
o

view installation videos, see the printed instruction booklet o
r

c
a
l
l

1
-
8
8
8
-
G
E
T
-
W
I
S
E
.

n Work with your child to answer all of the survey q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n
s

i
n

t
h
e

S
t
u
d
e
n
t

W
o
r
k
b
o
o
k
.
We hope the Energy Wise® Program will be an easy and fun experience for your ent
i
r
e

f
a
m
i
l
y

a
n
d

will provide an opportunity for your child to be a lead
e
r

i
n

y
o
u
r

h
o
m
e

a
n
d

c
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
.

T
h
a
n
k

y
o
u

for your participation.
LET’S GET STARTED!
1486
$$$Pledging to save energy and water is an import
a
n
t

s
t
e
p

i
n

c
o
n
s
e
r
v
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 th
e

L
i
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. T
h
e

P
r
o
g
r
a
m

w
i
l
l

t
e
a
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
t
o

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. A
l
l

y
o
u

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, wr
i
t
e

t
w
o

m
o
r
e

p
l
e
d
g
e
s

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 pledg
e

i
s

a

promise.
I pledge to do my part by installing all of
t
h
e

i
t
e
m
s

i
n

m
y

K
i
t

t
o

s
a
v
e

e
n
e
r
g
y

a
n
d

water as well as reduce my family’s ut
i
l
i
t
y

b
i
l
l
s
.1.2.
3.
Name:
Date:
School:
Teacher:
©2012 Resource Action Programs®Developed by:
SIGN THE PLEDGE
I have written and reviewed my pledges above a
n
d

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
i
m
p
o
r
t
a
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 famil
i
a

e
n

l
a
s

f
a
c
t
u
r
a
s

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 im
p
o
r
t
a
n
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 e
n
e
r
g
í
a
,

a
g
u
a

y

d
i
n
e
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
f
a
c
t
u
r
a
s

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 COMPR
O
M
I
S
O
ASUMIR EL COMPROMISO

Usted ha ayudado escribiendo su primer compromiso. Todo
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 d
e

s
u

K
i
t
.

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. Recue
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 a
r
t
í
c
u
l
o
s

d
e

m
i

K
i
t

p
a
r
a

ahorrar energía y agua así como para reducir
l
a
s

f
a
c
t
u
r
a
s

d
e

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 al firma
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
PREGUNTAS? • 1-888-GET-WISE • www.idahopow
e
r
.
c
o
m
/
w
i
s
e
PADRES
¡FELICITACIONES!
La clase de su hijo ha sido seleccionada para participar en

e
l

f
a
s
c
i
n
a
n
t
e

P
r
o
g
r
a
m
a

E
n
e
r
g
y

W
i
s
e
®.
El Programa está diseñado para enseñarle a su hijo la im
p
o
r
t
a
n
c
i
a

d
e
l

u
s
o

d
e

l
o
s

r
e
c
u
r
s
o
s
,

c
o
m
o

l
a

energía y el agua, con sabiduría y responsabilidad. Este

P
r
o
g
r
a
m
a

l
o

p
r
o
v
e
e

Idaho Power sin costo
para usted, la escuela de su hijo ni el distrito escolar.
La vivienda promedio estadounidense paga por la m
í
n
i
m
a

$
2
,
0
0
0

p
o
r

a
ñ
o

e
n

f
a
c
t
u
r
a
s

d
e

s
e
r
v
i
c
i
o
s

públicos y puede reducir a menudo estos costos si
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
e

c
o
n

a
l
g
u
n
o
s

c
a
m
b
i
o
s

s
e
n
c
i
l
l
o
s
.

A

s
u

hijo se le dará un kit que tiene un valor de más de

$
6
0

y

i
n
c
l
u
y
e

p
r
o
d
u
c
t
o
s

g
r
a
t
u
i
t
o
s

d
e

a
l
t
a

c
a
l
i
d
a
d

que le ayudarán a usted y a su familia a hacer es
t
o
s

c
a
m
b
i
o
s

y

s
e
r

m
á
s

e
f
i
c
i
e
n
t
e
s

e
n
e
r
g
é
t
i
c
a
m
e
n
t
e
.

Para participar, por favor haga lo siguiente:
nHaga que su hijo hable con usted sobre las form
a
s

e
n

l
a
s

q
u
e

l
e

g
u
s
t
a
r
í
a

a
h
o
r
r
a
r

a
g
u
a

y

energía y complete el Formulario de Compromiso ubicado e
n

l
a

p
r
ó
x
i
m
a

p
á
g
i
n
a
.
nMire el DVD de instalación incluido en su kit.
nInstale todos los artículos del kit. Usted y su hijo pueden h
a
c
e
r

l
a

m
a
y
o
r
í
a

d
e

l
a
s

a
c
t
i
v
i
d
a
d
e
s

en menos de 15 minutos. Si necesita ayuda adicional con
l
a

i
n
s
t
a
l
a
c
i
ó
n

d
e

l
o
s

a
r
t
í
c
u
l
o
s

del kit, visite www.idahopower.com/wise para ver video
s

d
e

i
n
s
t
a
l
a
c
i
ó
n
,

v
e
a

e
l

m
a
n
u
a
l

d
e

instrucciones de instalación o llame al 1-888-GET-WISE
.

nTrabaje con su hijo para responder todas las pregunta
s

d
e

l
a

e
n
c
u
e
s
t
a

e
n

e
l

L
i
b
r
o

d
e

T
r
a
b
a
j
o

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

s
e
a

u
n

l
í
d
e
r

e
n

s
u

h
o
g
a
r

y

c
o
m
u
n
i
d
a
d
.

G
r
a
c
i
a
s

por su participación.
¡COMENCEMOS!
SAVE
FIRMAINSTALACIÓN
+$$$
AHORRO
Pledging to save energy and water is an importan
t

s
t
e
p

i
n

c
o
n
s
e
r
v
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
L
i
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. Th
e

P
r
o
g
r
a
m

w
i
l
l

t
e
a
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

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

y
o
u

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, writ
e

t
w
o

m
o
r
e

p
l
e
d
g
e
s

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
i
s

a

promise.
I pledge to do my part by installing all of th
e

i
t
e
m
s

i
n

m
y

K
i
t

t
o

s
a
v
e

e
n
e
r
g
y

a
n
d

water as well as reduce my family’s util
i
t
y

b
i
l
l
s
.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 pas
o

i
m
p
o
r
t
a
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 fam
i
l
i
a

e
n

l
a
s

f
a
c
t
u
r
a
s

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

i
m
p
o
r
t
a
n
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. As
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 la
s

f
a
c
t
u
r
a
s

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 COMPR
O
M
I
S
O
ASUMIR EL COMPROMISO

Usted ha ayudado escribiendo su primer compromiso. Tod
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 artículo
s

d
e

s
u

K
i
t
.

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. Rec
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

a
r
t
í
c
u
l
o
s

d
e

m
i

K
i
t

p
a
r
a

ahorrar energía y agua así como para reduc
i
r

l
a
s

f
a
c
t
u
r
a
s

d
e

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:He escrito y revisado mis anteriores compromisos y al firm
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
=
QUESTIONS? • 1-888-GET-WISE • www.idahopo
w
e
r
.
c
o
m
/
w
i
s
e
PARENTS
SIGN INSTALL
=+
CONGRATULATIONS!
Your child’s class has been selected to participate in the excit
i
n
g

E
n
e
r
g
y

W
i
s
e
® Program. The program
is designed to teach your child the importance of using reso
u
r
c
e
s
,

l
i
k
e

e
n
e
r
g
y

a
n
d

w
a
t
e
r
,

w
i
s
e
l
y

a
n
d

responsibly. This program is being provided by Idaho Powe
r

a
t

n
o

a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l

c
o
s
t

t
o

y
o
u
,

y
o
u
r

c
h
i
l
d
’
s

school or the school district.
The average U.S. household pays at least $2,060 per ye
a
r

i
n

u
t
i
l
i
t
y

b
i
l
l
s

a
n
d

c
a
n

o
f
t
e
n

r
e
d
u
c
e

t
h
e
s
e

costs with just a few simple changes. Your child will be

g
i
v
e
n

a

k
i
t
,

v
a
l
u
e
d

a
t

o
v
e
r

$
6
0
,

w
h
i
c
h

i
n
c
l
u
d
e
s

free, high-quality products that will help you and you
r

f
a
m
i
l
y

m
a
k
e

t
h
e
s
e

c
h
a
n
g
e
s

a
n
d

b
e
c
o
m
e

m
o
r
e

energy efficient. To participate, please do the following:
n Have your child talk to you about the ways they wo
u
l
d

l
i
k
e

t
o

s
a
v
e

e
n
e
r
g
y

a
n
d

w
a
t
e
r

a
n
d

complete the Pledge Form located on the next pa
g
e
.
n Review the Illustrated Installation Instructions Bo
o
k
l
e
t

i
n

y
o
u
r

k
i
t
.
n Install all of the kit items. You and your child can

d
o

m
o
s
t

o
f

t
h
e

a
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s

i
n

l
e
s
s

t
h
a
n

1
5

minutes. If you need additional help installing the kit items, vis
i
t

w
w
w
.
i
d
a
h
o
p
o
w
e
r
.
c
o
m
/
w
i
s
e

t
o

view installation videos, see the printed instruction booklet o
r

c
a
l
l

1
-
8
8
8
-
G
E
T
-
W
I
S
E
.

n Work with your child to answer all of the survey q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n
s

i
n

t
h
e

S
t
u
d
e
n
t

W
o
r
k
b
o
o
k
.
We hope the Energy Wise® Program will be an easy and fun experience for your ent
i
r
e

f
a
m
i
l
y

a
n
d

will provide an opportunity for your child to be a lead
e
r

i
n

y
o
u
r

h
o
m
e

a
n
d

c
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
.

T
h
a
n
k

y
o
u

for your participation.
LET’S GET STARTED!
N30249 1667
$$$Pledging to save energy and water is an import
a
n
t

s
t
e
p

i
n

c
o
n
s
e
r
v
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 th
e

L
i
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. Th
e

P
r
o
g
r
a
m

w
i
l
l

t
e
a
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

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

m
o
r
e

p
l
e
d
g
e
s

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. R
e
m
e
m
b
e
r
,

a

p
l
e
d
g
e

i
s

a

promise.
I pledge to do my part by installing all of the item
s

i
n

m
y

K
i
t

t
o

s
a
v
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 abov
e

a
n
d

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 ag
u
a

e
s

u
n

p
a
s
o

i
m
p
o
r
t
a
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 fact
u
r
a
s

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

p
o
r

q
u
é

e
s

i
m
p
o
r
t
a
n
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

d
i
n
e
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

r
e
d
u
c
i
r

l
a
s

f
a
c
t
u
r
a
s

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 COMPROM
I
S
O
ASUMIR EL COMPROMIS
O

Usted ha ayudado escribiendo su primer compromis
o
.

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 art
í
c
u
l
o
s

d
e

s
u

K
i
t
.

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 hoga
r
.

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
l
o
s

a
r
t
í
c
u
l
o
s

d
e

m
i

K
i
t

p
a
r
a

ahorrar energía y agua así como para redu
c
i
r

l
a
s

f
a
c
t
u
r
a
s

d
e

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 COMPRO
M
I
S
O
He escrito y revisado mis anteriores compr
o
m
i
s
o
s

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
PREGUNTAS? • 1-888-GET-WISE • www.idahopow
e
r
.
c
o
m
/
w
i
s
e
PADRES
¡FELICITACIONES!
La clase de su hijo ha sido seleccionada para participar en

e
l

f
a
s
c
i
n
a
n
t
e

P
r
o
g
r
a
m
a

E
n
e
r
g
y

W
i
s
e
®.
El programa está diseñado para enseñarle a su hijo la im
p
o
r
t
a
n
c
i
a

d
e
l

u
s
o

d
e

l
o
s

r
e
c
u
r
s
o
s
,

c
o
m
o

l
a

energía y el agua, con sabiduría y responsabilidad. Este

p
r
o
g
r
a
m
a

l
o

p
r
o
v
e
e

Idaho Power sin costo
para usted, la escuela de su hijo ni el distrito escolar.
La vivienda promedio estadounidense paga por la m
í
n
i
m
a

$
2
,
0
6
0

p
o
r

a
ñ
o

e
n

f
a
c
t
u
r
a
s

d
e

s
e
r
v
i
c
i
o
s

públicos y puede reducir a menudo estos costos si
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
e

c
o
n

a
l
g
u
n
o
s

c
a
m
b
i
o
s

s
e
n
c
i
l
l
o
s
.

A

s
u

hijo se le dará un kit que tiene un valor de más de

$
6
0

y

i
n
c
l
u
y
e

p
r
o
d
u
c
t
o
s

g
r
a
t
u
i
t
o
s

d
e

a
l
t
a

c
a
l
i
d
a
d

que le ayudarán a usted y a su familia a hacer es
t
o
s

c
a
m
b
i
o
s

y

s
e
r

m
á
s

e
f
i
c
i
e
n
t
e
s

e
n
e
r
g
é
t
i
c
a
m
e
n
t
e
.

Para participar, por favor haga lo siguiente:
nHaga que su hijo hable con usted sobre las form
a
s

e
n

l
a
s

q
u
e

l
e

g
u
s
t
a
r
í
a

a
h
o
r
r
a
r

a
g
u
a

y

energía y complete el Formulario de Compromiso ubicado e
n

l
a

p
r
ó
x
i
m
a

p
á
g
i
n
a
.
nRevise el Folleto de Instrucciones Ilustradas para Instalación

q
u
e

s
e

e
n
c
u
e
n
t
r
a

e
n

s
u

k
i
t
.
Instale todos los artículos del kit. Usted y su hijo pueden h
a
c
e
r

l
a

m
a
y
o
r
í
a

d
e

l
a
s

a
c
t
i
v
i
d
a
d
e
s

en menos de 15 minutos. Si necesita ayuda adicional con
l
a

i
n
s
t
a
l
a
c
i
ó
n

d
e

l
o
s

a
r
t
í
c
u
l
o
s

del kit, visite www.idahopower.com/wise para ver video
s

d
e

i
n
s
t
a
l
a
c
i
ó
n
,

v
e
a

e
l

m
a
n
u
a
l

d
e

instrucciones de instalación o llame al 1-888-GET-WISE
.

nTrabaje con su hijo para responder todas las pregunta
s

d
e

l
a

e
n
c
u
e
s
t
a

e
n

e
l

L
i
b
r
o

d
e

T
r
a
b
a
j
o

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

s
e
a

u
n

l
í
d
e
r

e
n

s
u

h
o
g
a
r

y

c
o
m
u
n
i
d
a
d
.

G
r
a
c
i
a
s

por su participación.
¡COMENCEMOS!
SAVE
FIRMAINSTALACIÓN
+$$$
AHORRO
Pledging to save energy and water is an important step

i
n

c
o
n
s
e
r
v
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
y
o
u

g
o

t
h
r
o
u
g
h

t
h
e

L
i
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 Prog
r
a
m

w
i
l
l

t
e
a
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 show
s

t
h
a
t

y
o
u

w
a
n
t

t
o

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

f
i
r
s
t

p
l
e
d
g
e
.

A
l
l

y
o
u

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 mor
e

p
l
e
d
g
e
s

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. Reme
m
b
e
r
,

a

p
l
e
d
g
e

i
s

a

promise.
I pledge to do my part by installing all of the items in

m
y

K
i
t

t
o

s
a
v
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 abo
v
e

a
n
d

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
a
g
u
a

e
s

u
n

p
a
s
o

i
m
p
o
r
t
a
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 fa
c
t
u
r
a
s

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, aprend
e
r
á

p
o
r

q
u
é

e
s

i
m
p
o
r
t
a
n
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, agu
a

y

d
i
n
e
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

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 COMPROM
I
S
O
ASUMIR EL COMPROM
I
S
O

Usted ha ayudado escribiendo su primer compr
o
m
i
s
o
.

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. Aho
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
h
o
g
a
r
.

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 m
i

K
i
t

p
a
r
a

ahorrar energía y agua así como para

r
e
d
u
c
i
r

l
a
s

f
a
c
t
u
r
a
s

d
e

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 al firm
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
=
Idaho Power Energy Wise® Program Summary Report14Program Implementation
“The info supplied was very
informative and a great way to
teach kids about energy and its
conservation. We also enjoyed the
home involvement and the ability
to learn and see what the kids are
learning! :)”
Dustin Grough, Parent
Maple Grove Elementary
Resource Action Programs®15Program Implementation
The 2016-2017 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 2016-2017 school year.
Program Implementation
Idaho Power Energy Wise® Program Summary Report16Program Team
For more than 23 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
“As a parent, I liked the excitement my
child had when she brought the kit
home. Maybe now she’ll understand
what I’m talking about when I say to
turn lights off, etc.”
Steve & Pam Rahe, Parent
Morningside 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 82 participating teachers in the Capital region, 44 (54%) returned survey
results for the program. Parents and students were asked to install the kit measures and complete
the home activities. Of the 2,383 participating children in the Capital region, 1,121 (47%) returned
completed surveys.
Did your family install the first 9-watt LED Light Bulb? Yes - 63%
Did your family install the new High-Efficiency Showerhead? Yes - 41%
Did your family change the way they use energy? Yes - 67%
Program Impact
63+37+F
Students who indicated they installed
the first 9-watt LED Light Bulb.
63% Yes
37% No 41+59+F
Students who indicated they installed
the High-Efficiency Showerhead.
41% Yes
59% No 67+33+F
Students who indicated their family
changed the way they use energy.
67% Yes
33% 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 99 participating teachers in the Canyon region, 80 (81%) returned survey
results for the program. Parents and students were asked to install the kit measures and complete
the home activities. Of the 2,734 participating children in the Canyon region, 1,988 (73%) returned
completed surveys.
Did your family install the first 9-watt LED Light Bulb? Yes - 65%
Did your family install the new High-Efficiency Showerhead? Yes - 47%
Did your family change the way they use energy? Yes - 68%65+35+F
Students who indicated they installed
the first 9-watt LED Light Bulb.
65% Yes
35% No 47+53+F
Students who indicated they installed
the High-Efficiency Showerhead.
47% Yes
53% No 68+32+F
Students who indicated their family
changed the way they use energy.
68% Yes
32% 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 53 participating teachers in the Eastern region, 41 (77%) returned survey
results for the program. Parents and students were asked to install the kit measures and complete
the home activities. Of the 1,458 participating children in the Eastern region, 1,056 (72%) returned
completed surveys.
Did your family install the first 9-watt LED Light Bulb? Yes - 65%
Did your family install the new High-Efficiency Showerhead? Yes - 40%
Did your family change the way they use energy? Yes - 69% 65+35+F
Students who indicated they installed
the first 9-watt LED Light Bulb.
65% Yes
35% No 40+60+F
Students who indicated they installed
the High-Efficiency Showerhead.
40% Yes
60% No 69+31+F
Students who indicated their family
changed the way they use energy.
69% Yes
31% 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 40 participating teachers in the Southern region, 23 (58%) returned survey
results for the program. Parents and students were asked to install the kit measures and complete
the home activities. Of the 1,165 participating children in the Southern region, 514 (44%) returned
completed surveys.
Did your family install the first 9-watt LED Light Bulb? Yes - 69%
Did your family install the new High-Efficiency Showerhead? Yes - 43%
Did your family change the way they use energy? Yes - 66%69+31+F
Students who indicated they installed
the first 9-watt LED Light Bulb.
69% Yes
31% No 43+57+F
Students who indicated they installed
the High-Efficiency Showerhead.
43% Yes
57% No 66+34+F
Students who indicated their family
changed the way they use energy.
66% Yes
34% 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 34 participating teachers in the Western region, 20 (59%) returned survey
results for the program. Parents and students were asked to install the kit measures and complete
the home activities. Of the 862 participating children in the Western region, 471 (55%) returned
completed surveys.
Did your family install the first 9-watt LED Light Bulb? Yes - 62%
Did your family install the new High-Efficiency Showerhead? Yes - 37%
Did your family change the way they use energy? Yes - 65%62+38+F
Students who indicated they installed
the first 9-watt LED Light Bulb.
62% Yes
38% No 37+63+F
Students who indicated they installed
the High-Efficiency Showerhead.
37% Yes
63% No 65+35+F
Students who indicated their family
changed the way they use energy.
65% Yes
35% 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
7.3 questions correctly following participation. Of the 8,602 student households participating, 5,150
returned survey responses.
Scores improved from 60% to 73%.
Pre-Program Score 60%
Post-Program Score 73%
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
Pre Post
1 Which layer of Earth do we live on?
Crust 71%86%
Mantle 7%3%
Inner Core 6%3%
Outer Core 16%8%
2 Non-Potable water is safe to drink.
True 25%15%
False 75%84%
3 Which of these is not a renewable resource?
Wind 21%12%
Plants 5%3%
Gold 58%76%
Animals 16%9%
4 Saving water saves energy.
True 88%94%
False 12%6%
Resource Action Programs®25Program Impact
Pre-Program and Post-Program Test Questions
Pre Post
5 Which are fossil fuels?
Coal 24%19%
Oil 10%6%
Natural Gas 13%7%
All of the above 53%68%
6 Which type of energy is created in the process of Photosynthesis?
Nuclear Energy 21%16%
Thermal Energy 24%22%
Chemical Energy 30%48%
Electric Energy 25%13%
7 Which Kit item will save the most natural resources?
Compact Fluorescent Lamp 37%37%
High-Efficiency Showerhead 30%46%
FilterTone® Alarm 16%9%
LED Night Light 16%8%
8 Which major appliance uses the most energy?
Dishwasher 22%17%
Refrigerator 57%65%
Dryer 21%18%
9 An LED (light emiting Diode) light bulb uses more energy than an incandescent bulb.
True 34%19%
False 66%81%
10 On-peak time is the best time to play video games.
True 29%17%
False 71%83%
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, 6,305 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 6,086 student households participating, 4,294 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:8,910
Annual Lifetime
Projected reduction from Showerhead retrofit:13,535,566 135,355,657 gallons
Product Life: 10 years 892,816 8,928,163 kWh
44,288 442,879 therms
Projected reduction from first 9-watt LED Light Bulb:294,673 3,536,072 kWh
Product Life: 25,000 hours (12 years)
Projected reduction from second 9-watt LED Light Bulb:241,508 2,898,093 kWh
Product Life: 25,000 hours (12 years)
Projected reduction from third 9-watt LED Light Bulb:204,957 2,459,485 kWh
Product Life: 25,000 hours (12 years)
Projected reduction from LED Night Light retrofit:207,517 2,075,170 kWh
Product Life: 10,000 hours
Projected reduction from FilterTone® installation:176,680 1,766,796 kWh
Product Life: 10 years 8,754 87,539 therms
Projected reduction from Shower Timer installation:8,563,877 17,127,754 gallons
Estimated Life: 2 years 28,021 56,041 therms
564,880 1,129,760 kWh
TOTAL PROGRAM SAVINGS:22,099,443 152,483,410 gallons
2,583,030 22,793,540 kWh
81,062 586,459 therms
TOTAL PROGRAM SAVINGS PER HOUSEHOLD: 2,480 17,114 gallons
290 2,558 kWh
9 66 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 308 participating teachers, 175 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.
“The lessons are standards-based and interesting. The students loved the kits.”
Rene Bilkiss, Hunter Elementary School
“The students like the kits the best. Thy said their parents were surprised to learn how to save
energy and water.”
Angel Zeimantz, Wilson Elementary School
“Most were fascinated by how much electricity and water they use.”
Katrina Burkhardt, Highlands Elementary School
“Looking at their thank you notes, it seems like they like the night lights! I think they also enjoyed
the class discussions.”
Lisa Jimenez, Silver Sage Elementary School
“The shower head and that the program helps their families save money. It teaches them ways to use energy
efficiently and it gave them activities that they could do with their families.”
Katie Strawser, Desert Springs Elementary School
“Students really enjoyed learning about alternative energy sources.”
Rebecca Davis, Crimson Point Elementary
“The experiments and activities went over very well. The students also liked the materials that went home.”
Jenni Jacobson, Filer Intermediate School
“They loved receiving the kits. The natural resources chapter fascinated them, and they loved the
mini water cycles.”
Elizabeth Waldon-Brooks, Amity Elementary School
“They asked to do this program all the time. They were sad when it was over, they wanted more.”
Teresa O’Toole, Washington Elementary School
Idaho Power Energy Wise® Program Summary Report28Program Impact
Teacher Response
(A summary of responses and regional data can be found in Appendix D)
What did you like best about the program? Explain.
“It’s hard to narrow it down to one thing because it is so well-written, organized, and fun.”
Michelle Jenkins, Roosevelt Elementary
“I love that this program provides great opportunities to discuss conservation, resources,
and the environment.”
Melody Craw, Purple Sage Elementary School
“Many of the concepts are on the Science ISAT — so it is good introduction and learning for the test.”
Megan Bullock, Edahow Elementary School
“I love that the students get to make a difference. They get to be educated on what our resources
are and then work together to help conserve them.”
Heather Mueller, Washington Elementary School
“I like that it ties in with our science and math standards. Also, we have a very low income district,
students may not have access to these things under normal circumstances.”
Katie Strawser, Desert Springs Elementary School
“I like the alignment to science standards and connection to real world needs. It makes conservation
relevant to students.”
Mickie Barrett, Crimson Point Elementary
“The materials really helped explain energy and ways students can make an impact.
Thank you for including the standards for each grade.”
Rhonda Wilson, Roosevelt Elementary
“The program covers our science standards, so we don’t have to ‘make’ a hole in our teaching for it.”
Jenni Jacobson, Filer Intermediate School
What would you change about the program? Explain.
“I really like what Idaho Power has put together. Maybe help with some suggestions for community
service opportunities.”
Sandra Otero, Wilson Elementary School
“My delivery. It is my first year teaching this. Next year will be better. :)”
Sally Blair, Snake River Elementary
“I would give myself more time to prepare and try to do the classroom activities. But I wouldn’t
change the program.”
Danielle Hayes, Westside Elementary School
Resource Action Programs®29Program Impact
E. Parent/Guardian Program Evaluation
Parent involvement with program activities and their children is of paramount interest to both Idaho
Power 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.
The following is feedback from the Parent/Guardian Program Evaluations for the Idaho Power Energy
Wise Program. Of the 8,602 participating families, 101 parents returned program evaluation surveys.
Parent Response
(A summary of responses and regional data can be found in Appendix E)
100% of participating parents indicated that the program was easy to use.
100% of participating parents indicated they would continue to use the kit items after the completion
of the program.
100% 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?
“The hands-on involvement and educational value for my daughter.”
Amanda Kramer, Camas County School
“My daughter was so excited to bring home a box of things to make our home more efficient and set them all up.”
Christine Bennee, Crimson Point Elementary
“I liked that my 4th grader started taking shorter showers and helping us all remember to turn off lights.”
Camela Ehmke, Eliza Hart Spalding Elementary School
“I like that my child was really excited to teach us how to save energy and how we can make a difference.”
Adriana Mesillas, Glenns Ferry Elementary
“I think it’s very important to raise this kind of awareness. My daughter and I learned a lot of interesting
new things.”
Karen Turner, Idaho Arts Charter School
“Teaching the kids why it’s important to save power and helping them want to do it.”
Raeane Blackner, Lakevue Elementary School
“The shower timer was a great visual for my kids. They tried to beat the time. The air filter
prompted me to find my air filter and then realize that it was past due to change.”
Mary Hale, Owyhee Elementary
“The packet was easy to understand. We completed it as a family. Great Program.”
Kate and Lytle Denny, Blackfoot Charter Community Learning Center
Idaho Power Energy Wise® Program Summary Report30Program Impact
“The ease of the kit, the excitement my child had to conserve energy. It was easy to implement
but had high impacts!”
Adriana Olivas, Pierce Park Elementary
“The whole program was beneficial and educational for the whole family.”
Sarah Laurenson, Wilson Elementary School
Are there any comments you would like to express to your child’s program sponsor?
“Keep this up! The more our children understand that they can make choices for better efficiency,
energy saving and how to save money the better off our future environment will be!”
Elixabeth & Bryan Casey, Christine Donnell School of Arts
“Thank you! We live in a new home, but we discovered that our house isn’t quite as energy efficient
as it could be. And all of the kids are on board to use the shower timer, etc.”
Christine Bennee, Crimson Point Elementary
“Thank you! What a wonderful way to help parents see the actually savings from making minor home changes.
And the gifts for this purpose were much appreciated.”
Parent, Cynthia Mann Elementary School
“I think this is a great program to set kids to be aware of energy conservation.”
Stephanie Ely, Cynthia Mann Elementary School
“The program is one of the best I have seen for my son. Everyone in the family is now aware of how
to be energy efficient. Thank you!”
Gary Lillard, Eliza Hart Spalding Elementary School
“Continue sharing this with kids to make them more conscientious of the ways we can help save
the environment. My kid was really excited when he got home. The awareness it brings is amazing
what they can learn and appreciate with this new information.”
Ariam Maldonado, Hunter Elementary School
“My daughter loves summer and was excited to start this program. The program helps our family
to learn how to better use our energy.”
Vallas Payton, Wilson Elementary School
“Really good program to teach our kids the value of things.”
Adriana Mesillas, Glenns Ferry Elementary
“Thank you for stressing the importance of saving energy.”
McKaylon Bronson, Groveland Elementary
Parent Response
(A summary of responses and regional data can be found in Appendix E)
Resource Action Programs®31Program Impact
F.Teacher Letters
Idaho Power Energy Wise® Program Summary Report32Program Impact
Teacher Letters
(continued)
Resource Action Programs®33Program Impact
Teacher Letters
(continued)
Idaho Power Energy Wise® Program Summary Report34Program Impact
G.Student Letters
Resource Action Programs®35Program Impact
Student Letters
(continued)
Idaho Power Energy Wise® Program Summary Report36Program Impact
Student Letters
(continued)
Resource Action Programs®37Program Impact
Student Letters
(continued)
Idaho Power Energy Wise® Program Summary Report38Program Impact
Student Letters
(continued)
Resource Action Programs®39Program Impact
Student Letters
(continued)
Idaho Power Energy Wise® Program Summary Report40Program Impact
Student Letters
(continued)
Resource Action Programs®41Program Impact
Student Letters
(continued)
Idaho Power Energy Wise® Program Summary Report42Program Impact
Student Letters
(continued)
Resource Action Programs®43Program Impact
Student Letters
(continued)
Idaho Power Energy Wise® Program Summary Report44Appendices
“I like the understanding the kids gain
about resources, and how they can
conserve energy personally in the way
they conduct their lives.”
Brenda Fly, Teacher
Birch Elementary School
Resource Action Programs®45Appendices
Appendix A
Projected Savings from Showerhead Retrofit ..................................46
Projected Savings from Shower Timer Installation...........................47
Projected Savings from FilterTone® Alarm Installation ...................48
Projected Savings from First 9-watt LED Light Bulb Retrofit ........49
Projected Savings from Second 9-watt LED Light Bulb Retrofit ...50
Projected Savings from Third 9-watt LED Light Bulb Retrofit ........51
Projected Savings from LED Night Light Retrofit ............................52
Appendix B
Home Check-Up .....................................................................................53
Home Activities .....................................................................................56
Appendix C
Participant List ......................................................................................60
Appendix D
Teacher Program Evaluation Data ......................................................70
Appendix E
Parent/Guardian Program Evaluation Data .......................................71
Appendices
Idaho Power Energy Wise® Program Summary Report46Appendix A
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x

A
Showerhead Retrofit Inputs and Assumptions:
Average household size: 5.12 people1
Average number of full bathrooms per home:2.01 full bathrooms per home1
% of water heated by gas:49.80%1
% of water heated by electricity:50.20%1
Installation / participation rate of:42.89%1
Average Showerhead has a flow rate of:1.97 gallons per minute1
Retrofit Showerhead has a flow rate of:1.27 gallons per minute1
Number of participants: 8,910 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:13,535,566 gallons4
Showerhead retrofit projects a lifetime reduction of:135,355,657 gallons5
Projected Electricity Savings:
Showerhead retrofit projects an annual reduction of:892,816 kWh2,6
Showerhead retrofit projects a lifetime reduction of:8,928,163 kWh2,7
Projected Natural Gas Savings:
Showerhead retrofit projects an annual reduction of:44,288 therms2,8
Showerhead retrofit projects a lifetime reduction of:442,879 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®47Appendix A
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x

A
Shower Timer Inputs and Assumptions:
% of water heated by gas:49.80%1
% of water heated by electricity:50.20%1
Installation / participation rate of Shower Timer:75.79%1
Average showerhead has a flow rate of:1.97 gallons per minute1
Retrofit showerhead has flow rate of:1.27 gallons per minute1
Number of participants: 8,910 1
Average of baseline and retrofit showerhead flow rate:1.62 gallons per minute2
Shower duration:8.20 minutes per day3
Shower timer duration:5.00 minutes per day4
Showers per capita per day (SPCD):0.67 showers per day3
Percent of water that is hot water:73%5
Days per year:365.00 days
Product life:2.00 years5
Projected Water Savings:
Shower Timer installation projects an annual reduction of:8,563,876.91 gallons6
Shower Timer installation projects a lifetime reduction of:17,127,753.82 gallons7
Projected Electricity Savings:
Shower Timer installation projects an annual reduction of:564,880 kWh8
Shower Timer installation projects a lifetime reduction of:1,129,760 kWh9
Projected Natural Gas Savings:
Shower Timer installation projects an annual reduction of:28,021 therms10
Shower Timer installation projects a lifetime reduction of:56,041 therms11
1 Data Reported by Program Participants.
2 Average of the baseline GPM and the retrofit GPM
3 (March 4, 2010). EPA WaterSense® Specification for Showerheads Supporting Statement. Retrieved from http://www.epa.gov/WaterSense/docs/showerheads_
finalsuppstat508.pdf
4 Provided by manufacturer.
5 Navigant EM&V Report for Super Savers Program in Illinois PY7
6 Annual water savings = Water Flow (Average of baseline and retrofit flow) × (Baseline Shower duration - Shower Timer duration) × Participants × Days per year × SPCD
× Installation Rate of Shower Timer
7 Projected Annual Water Savings x Product Life
8 Projected Annual Water Savings x Percent of Water that is Hot Water x 0.18 kWh/gal x % of Water Heated by Electricity x Participants
9 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 x Participants
10 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 Participants
11 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 x Participants
Projected Savings from Shower Timer Installation
Idaho Power Energy Wise® Program Summary Report48Appendix 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:25.37%4
Number of participants:8,910 4
Projected Electricity Savings:
The FilterTone installation projects an annual reduction of:176,680 kWh5
The FilterTone installation projects a lifetime reduction of:1,766,796 kWh6
Projected Natural Gas Savings:
The FilterTone installation projects an annual reduction of:8,754 therms7
The FilterTone installation projects a lifetime reduction of:87,539 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
Resource Action Programs®49Appendix A
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x

A
First 9-Watt LED Light Bulb Retrofit Inputs and Assumptions:
Product life:25,000 hours1
Watts used by the LED light bulb:9 watts1
Hours of operation per day:2.81 hours per day2
Watts used by the replaced incandescent light bulb:58.79 watts3
Installation / participation rate of:64.77%3
Number of participants: 8,910 3
Projected Electricity Savings:
The LED retrofit projects an annual reduction of:294,673 kWh2,4
The LED retrofit projects a lifetime reduction of:3,536,072 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 LED 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 LED light bulb) x 12 years] ÷ 1,000} x Number of participants x Installation rate
Projected Savings from First 9-watt LED Light Bulb Retrofit
Idaho Power Energy Wise® Program Summary Report50Appendix A
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x

A
Second 9-Watt LED Light Bulb Retrofit Inputs and Assumptions:
Product life:25,000 hours1
Watts used by the LED light bulb:9 watts1
Hours of operation per day:2.81 hours per day2
Watts used by the replaced incandescent light bulb:57.80 watts3
Installation / participation rate of:54.15%3
Number of participants: 8,910 3
Projected Electricity Savings:
The LED retrofit projects an annual reduction of:241,508 kWh2,4
The LED retrofit projects a lifetime reduction of:2,898,093 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 LED 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 LED light bulb) x 12 years] ÷ 1,000} x Number of participants x Installation rate
Projected Savings from Second 9-watt LED Light Bulb Retrofit
Resource Action Programs®51Appendix A
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x

A
Third 9-Watt LED Light Bulb Retrofit Inputs and Assumptions:
Product life:25,000 hours1
Watts used by the LED light bulb:9 watts1
Hours of operation per day:2.81 hours per day2
Watts used by the replaced incandescent light bulb:58.00 watts3
Installation / participation rate of:45.77%3
Number of participants: 8,910 3
Projected Electricity Savings:
The LED retrofit projects an annual reduction of:204,957 kWh2,4
The LED retrofit projects a lifetime reduction of:2,459,485 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 LED 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 LED light bulb) x 12 years] ÷ 1,000} x Number of participants x Installation rate
Projected Savings from Third 9-watt LED Light Bulb Retrofit
Idaho Power Energy Wise® Program Summary Report52Appendix A
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x

A
Energy Efficient Night Light Installation 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:81.81%3
Number of participants:8,910 3
Projected Electricity Savings:
The Energy Efficient Night Light installation projects an annual reduction of:207,517 kWh
The Energy Efficient Night Light installation projects a lifetime reduction of:2,075,170 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
Resource Action Programs®53Appendix 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)11%8%12%10%10%11%
Single Family Home
(Manufactured)8%6%6%9%13%15%
Single Family Home (Built)66%73%66%63%64%60%
Multi-Family (2-4 units)9%7%10%10%8%7%
Multi-Family (5-20 units)4%4%5%5%4%4%
Multi-Family (21+ units)2%2%1%2%1%3%
2 Was your home built before 1992?
Yes 45%41%38%57%51%57%
No 55%59%62%43%49%43%
3 Is your home owned or rented?
Owned 73%81%70%72%73%70%
Rented 27%19%30%28%27%30%
4 How many kids live in your home (age 0-17)?
1 13%14%12%12%11%12%
2 29%37%28%24%30%27%
3 25%24%25%26%24%29%
4 18%13%18%22%18%17%
5+15%11%17%16%17%14%
Total Capital Canyon Eastern Southern Western
Total Participants 8,910 2,465 2,833 1,511 1,205 896
Students 8,602 2,383 2,734 1,458 1,165 862
Surveys Received 5,150 1,121 1,988 1,056 514 471
Percent Response 58%45% 70% 70% 43% 53%
Idaho Power Energy Wise® Program Summary Report54Appendix 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%13%13%16%
2 68%74%67%67%64%67%
3 12%10%13%13%15%10%
4 5%3%5%4%6%6%
5+3%1%4%2%2%1%
6 Does your home have a programmable outdoor sprinkler system?
Yes 65%79%72%53%55%41%
No 35%21%28%47%45%59%
7 Does your home have a programmable thermostat?
Yes 76%84%80%69%70%64%
No 24%16%20%31%30%36%
8 What is the main source of heating in your home?
Natural Gas 44%58%49%41%28%16%
Electric Heater 40%34%38%40%52%48%
Propane 4%1%3%6%4%8%
Heating Oil 1%1%1%1%1%3%
Wood 6%2%4%8%10%17%
Other 5%4%5%4%5%7%
9 What type of air conditioning unit do you have?
Central Air Conditioner 70%85%78%51%58%57%
Evaporative Cooler 6%3%6%7%9%10%
Room Unit 14%7%10%22%19%20%
Don’t Have One 10%4%7%20%14%14%
10 Does your home have a Dishwasher?
Yes 85%94%88%79%79%72%
No 15%6%12%21%21%28%
Resource Action Programs®55Appendix 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
11 How many half-bathrooms are in your home?
0 65%52%60%77%76%75%
1 28%40%32%16%16%18%
2 5%6%5%5%5%6%
3 1%2%2%2%1%1%
4+1%1%1%1%2%0%
12 How many full bathrooms are in your home?
1 25%15%23%33%33%37%
2 53%55%62%39%51%50%
3 17%24%13%23%12%11%
4 3%5%2%3%3%1%
5+1%1%1%1%1%1%
13 How many toilets are in your home?
1 19%9%17%26%27%29%
2 42%33%43%41%50%51%
3 29%42%33%23%14%16%
4 7%13%6%7%6%2%
5+2%3%1%2%3%1%
14 How is your water heated?
Natural Gas 50%62%58%43%31%22%
Electricity 50%38%42%57%69%78%
Idaho Power Energy Wise® Program Summary Report56Appendix 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 12%9%13%15%11%13%
1.1 - 1.5 GPM 21%20%21%19%21%23%
1.6 - 2.0 GPM 22%25%21%20%19%24%
2.1 - 2.5 GPM 20%20%20%19%22%20%
2.6 - 3.0 GPM 14%15%14%16%12%12%
3.1+ GPM 11%12%10%11%14%9%
2 Did you install the new High-Efficiency Showerhead?
Yes 43%41%47%40%43%37%
No 57%59%53%60%57%63%
3 If you answered “yes” to question 2, what is the flow rate of your new showerhead?
0 - 1.0 GPM 24%23%22%25%24%33%
1.1 - 1.5 GPM 42%40%47%38%41%36%
1.6 - 1.75 GPM 33%36%31%36%35%31%
4 Did you use the Shower Timer?
Yes 76%76%80%73%71%68%
No 24%24%20%27%29%32%
5 Did your family install the first 9-watt LED Light Bulb?
Yes 65%63%65%65%69%62%
No 35%37%35%35%31%38%
Total Capital Canyon Eastern Southern Western
Total Participants 8,910 2,465 2,833 1,511 1,205 896
Students 8,602 2,383 2,734 1,458 1,165 862
Surveys Received 5,150 1,121 1,988 1,056 514 471
Percent Response 58%45% 70% 70% 43% 53%
Resource Action Programs®57Appendix 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 17%16%19%15%18%16%
60-watt 42%45%41%45%42%32%
75-watt 15%14%13%14%20%18%
100-watt 9%7%10%8%8%11%
Other 17%17%17%19%12%22%
7 Did your family install the second 9-watt LED Light Bulb?
Yes 54%52%56%54%56%48%
No 46%48%44%46%44%52%
8 If you answered “yes” to question 7, what is the wattage of the incandescent bulb you replaced?
40-watt 19%16%19%18%25%20%
60-watt 40%45%40%42%33%34%
75-watt 14%13%14%14%19%18%
100-watt 8%5%9%8%8%8%
Other 18%20%18%18%15%20%
9 Did your family install the third 9-watt LED Light Bulb?
Yes 46%42%49%45%48%40%
No 54%58%51%55%52%60%
10 If you answered “yes” to question 9, what is the wattage of the incandescent bulb you replaced?
40-watt 17%15%18%17%21%15%
60-watt 38%41%38%41%33%31%
75-watt 15%14%14%14%18%22%
100-watt 9%7%10%8%9%7%
Other 21%22%21%21%18%25%
11 Did your family install the FilterTone® Alarm?
Yes 25%22%30%25%18%21%
No 75%78%70%75%81%79%
Idaho Power Energy Wise® Program Summary Report58Appendix 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 19%22%18%21%14%24%
3 - 4 Degrees 19%19%21%19%14%20%
5+ Degrees 14%11%16%12%12%14%
Didn’t Adjust Thermostat 48%48%46%48%60%41%
13 How much did your family turn up the thermostat in summer for cooling?
1 - 2 Degrees 17%18%18%15%17%18%
3 - 4 Degrees 17%16%20%15%15%14%
5+ Degrees 14%13%15%13%13%14%
Didn’t Adjust Thermostat 52%53%47%56%55%54%
14 Did you install the LED Night Light?
Yes 82%82%84%80%83%73%
No 18%18%16%20%16%27%
15 Did your family lower your water heater settings?
Yes 25%23%28%24%20%23%
No 75%77%72%76%80%77%
16 Did your family raise the temperature on your refrigerator?
Yes 18%16%22%15%17%17%
No 82%84%78%85%83%83%
17 Did you complete the optional online energy use activity?
All of it 8%5%9%10%8%8%
Some of it 15%13%18%13%12%11%
None 77%82%73%77%80%81%
18 Did you work with your family on this Program?
Yes 67%69%66%72%65%53%
No 33%31%34%28%34%47%
Resource Action Programs®59Appendix 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
19 Did your family change the way they use water?
Yes 59%58%59%61%58%55%
No 41%42%41%39%42%45%
20 Did your family change the way they use energy?
Yes 67%67%68%69%66%65%
No 33%33%32%31%34%35%
21 How would you rate the Idaho Power Energy Wise® Program?
Great 54%53%54%56%54%54%
Pretty Good 36%37%36%34%36%32%
Okay 8%8%8%8%8%10%
Not So Good 2%2%2%2%2%3%
Idaho Power Energy Wise® Program Summary Report60Appendix 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
Western Alameda Elementary School Julie Alexander 1 25 No
Western Alameda Elementary School Cindy Turner 1 26 No
Western Alameda Elementary School Irene Olivo 1 25 No
Eastern American Falls Intermediate School Kristen Jensen 1 7 No
Capital Amity Elementary School Sharon Shaw 1 29 Yes
Capital Amity Elementary School Susie Cox 1 29 Yes
Capital Amity Elementary School Elizabeth Waldon-
Brooks 1 29 Yes
Western Annex Charter School Tricia Swank 1 17 Yes
Capital Barbara Morgan STEM Academy Melissa Webb 1 27 Yes
Capital Barbara Morgan STEM Academy Ricky Clark 1 27 Yes
Capital Barbara Morgan STEM Academy Amy Hecht 1 27 No
Canyon Birch Elementary School Juilana Lookhart 1 26 Yes
Canyon Birch Elementary School Mary Jo Pegram 1 26 Yes
Canyon Birch Elementary School Carol Briggs 1 26 Yes
Canyon Birch Elementary School Brenda Fly 1 27 Yes
Eastern Blackfoot Charter Community Learning
Center Middle Alyson Paice 1 29 Yes
Southern Bliss Elementary School Angel Beutler 1 12 Yes
Southern Bliss Elementary School Stephanie Taylor 1 7 Yes
Southern Bliss Elementary School Stephanie Caudill 1 16 Yes
Western Cairo Elementary Linda Erlebach 1 25 No
Southern Camas County School Melissa Doramus 1 14 Yes
Southern Camas County School Kristie Olsen 1 25 Yes
Western Cascade Elementary School Monica Stone 1 19 No
Western Cascade Elementary School Amanda DiLenge 1 23 Yes
Western Cascade Elementary School Heather Landa 1 9 No
Western Cavalry Christian Academy Mindy Peper 1 15 No
Capital Cecil Andrus Elementary Kate Aschenbrenner 1 33 Yes
Canyon Centennial Elementary School Diane Gharring 1 29 Yes
Canyon Centennial Elementary School Doris Atherton 1 29 Yes
Canyon Centennial Elementary School Meredith Churchwell 1 30 No
Canyon Central Elementary School Courtney Davlin 1 25 Yes
Resource Action Programs®61Appendix C
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x

C
REGION SCHOOL TEACHER T S SURVEYS
RETURNED
Canyon Central Elementary School Courtney Craner 1 25 Yes
Canyon Central Elementary School Amber Vincent 1 23 Yes
Capital Christine Donnell School of Arts Debra Tiffany 1 94 Yes
Eastern Chubbuck Elementary School Lori Schmitt 1 30 No
Eastern Claude A. Wilcox Elementary School Tricia Hemsley 1 30 Yes
Eastern Claude A. Wilcox Elementary School Hailey Herron 1 30 Yes
Eastern Claude A. Wilcox Elementary School Krista Campos 1 30 Yes
Western Council Elementary School Janice Paradis 1 24 Yes
Canyon Crimson Point Elementary Mickie Barrett 1 30 Yes
Canyon Crimson Point Elementary Rebecca Davis 1 30 Yes
Canyon Crimson Point Elementary Jamie Lang 1 30 Yes
Capital Cynthia Mann Elementary School Cindy Sundvik 1 24 Yes
Capital Cynthia Mann Elementary School Lisa Stitt 1 25 Yes
Capital Cynthia Mann Elementary School Michelle Steen 1 25 No
Capital Cynthia Mann Elementary School Wendy Frost 1 20 Yes
Canyon Desert Springs Elementary School Katie Strawser 1 28 Yes
Canyon Desert Springs Elementary School Lisa Jauregui 1 30 Yes
Canyon Desert Springs Elementary School Lindsay Mangum 1 29 Yes
Canyon Desert Springs Elementary School jacqueline Sodaro 1 29 Yes
Canyon Desert Springs Elementary School Jessica Lillquist 1 29 Yes
Eastern Donald D. Stalker Elementary School Sarah Condon 1 26 Yes
Eastern Donald D. Stalker Elementary School LaNita McRae 1 24 Yes
Western Donnelly Elementary Melissa Maini 1 24 No
Canyon East Canyon Elementary Debra Watson 1 25 Yes
Canyon East Canyon Elementary Trisha Cramer 1 26 No
Canyon East Canyon Elementary Mark Elli 1 26 No
Canyon East Canyon Elementary Tiara Shippy 1 26 Yes
Eastern Edahow Elementary School Megan Bullock 1 29 Yes
Eastern Edahow Elementary School Debbie Nickel 1 28 Yes
Capital Eliza Hart Spalding Elementary School Shawna Brenna 1 32 Yes
Capital Eliza Hart Spalding Elementary School Jessica Burkhart 1 32 No
Capital Eliza Hart Spalding Elementary School Rachel Lindquist 1 32 Yes
Participant List
(continued)
Note: “T” represents number of teachers and “S” represents number of students
Idaho Power Energy Wise® Program Summary Report62Appendix 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
Capital Eliza Hart Spalding Elementary School Stefawn Wester 1 32 Yes
Eastern Ellis Elementary School Sherry VanEvery 1 26 Yes
Eastern Ellis Elementary School Mike Gornichec 1 26 Yes
Eastern Ellis Elementary School Julie Cogan 1 26 Yes
Canyon Endeavor School Rebecca Franks 1 100 Yes
Southern Filer Intermediate School Susan Hamby 1 27 Yes
Southern Filer Intermediate School Robyn Flint 1 27 Yes
Southern Filer Intermediate School Jenni Jacobson 1 26 Yes
Southern Filer Intermediate School Jody Meeks 1 27 Yes
Southern Filer Intermediate School Tes Fields 1 27 Yes
Southern Filer Intermediate School Sarah Wendell 1 23 Yes
Southern Filer Intermediate School Cassie Royse 1 25 No
Southern Filer Intermediate School Jennifer Zamora 1 25 Yes
Western Fruitland Elementary School Linda Langley 1 31 No
Western Fruitland Elementary School Stacy Wescott 1 29 Yes
Western Fruitland Elementary School Heather Heitz 1 29 Yes
Western Fruitland Elementary School Amber Bridgewater 1 29 Yes
Western Fruitland Elementary School Yish Green 1 29 No
Capital Galileo STEM Academy Jolene Gunn 1 32 Yes
Capital Galileo STEM Academy Jennifer Sebesta 1 32 Yes
Capital Galileo STEM Academy Lori Murphy 1 32 Yes
Western Garden Valley Elementary Denise Breckenridge 1 42 Yes
Eastern Gate City Elementary School Lacey Smart 1 31 Yes
Capital Glenns Ferry Elementary Brenna Fisher 1 23 No
Capital Glenns Ferry Elementary Stacy Pollard 1 25 Yes
Capital Glenns Ferry Elementary Michael Price 1 28 No
Capital Glenns Ferry Elementary Liza Martin 1 32 Yes
Eastern Grace Lutheran School Katie Grant 1 26 Yes
Eastern Green Acres Elementary School Kathy Walker 1 29 Yes
Eastern Green Acres Elementary School Rachel Thomas 1 29 Yes
Eastern Groveland Elementary Benjamin Parker 1 24 Yes
Eastern Groveland Elementary Julie Rider 1 24 Yes
Participant List
(continued)
Resource Action Programs®63Appendix 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
Southern Hansen Elementary School Jolinda Solosabal 1 32 No
Southern Hansen Elementary School Heidi Skinner 1 28 No
Southern Harrison Elementary School Allyson Bisby 1 67 No
Capital Hawthorne Elementary School Susie Noland 1 25 Yes
Capital Highlands Elementary School Katrina Burkhardt 1 24 Yes
Capital Highlands Elementary School Eileen Beatty 1 24 Yes
Capital Highlands Elementary School Matt Brown 1 18 No
Capital Highlands Elementary School Dani Andrus 1 22 No
Capital Hillsdale Elementary School Sarah Baker 1 29 Yes
Capital Hillsdale Elementary School Michelle Montoya 1 32 Yes
Western Horseshoe Bend Elementary School Suzette Womack 1 20 Yes
Capital Hunter Elementary School Diane Escandon 1 32 Yes
Capital Hunter Elementary School Rene Bilkiss 1 31 Yes
Capital Hunter Elementary School Angela Zweifel 1 31 Yes
Capital Hunter Elementary School Rebecca Lenon 1 31 No
Capital Hunter Elementary School Anna Houchin 1 31 No
Southern I.B. Perrine Elementary School Rob Weaver 1 26 Yes
Southern I.B. Perrine Elementary School Cherie Lavin 1 29 Yes
Southern I.B. Perrine Elementary School Emily Strom 1 26 Yes
Canyon Idaho Arts Charter School Karie Yost 1 31 Yes
Canyon Idaho Arts Charter School Brecca Chabot-Olson 1 30 Yes
Canyon Idaho Arts Charter School Emily Ball 1 30 No
Canyon Idaho Arts Charter School Laura Leigh Brewster 1 30 No
Canyon Idaho Arts Charter School Lindsey Corey 1 30 No
Canyon Idaho Arts Charter School Lauren Menger 1 30 No
Canyon Idaho Arts Charter School Hilary Fallon 1 30 No
Canyon Idaho Arts Charter School Amanda Pearcy 1 30 No
Canyon Indian Creek & Ross Elementary School Karen Stear 1 28 Yes
Canyon Indian Creek & Ross Elementary School Melissa Erickson 1 28 No
Canyon Indian Creek & Ross Elementary School Katie Harding 1 28 No
Eastern Indian Hills Elementary Maria Coleman 1 24 Yes
Eastern Inkom Elementary School Natalie Hunt 1 24 Yes
Participant List
(continued)
Idaho Power Energy Wise® Program Summary Report64Appendix 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
Eastern Inkom Elementary School Lori Anderson 1 22 Yes
Eastern Inkom Elementary School Lisa Hall 1 24 Yes
Eastern Jefferson Elementary Cathy Leavitt 1 22 No
Eastern Jefferson Elementary Christopher Richardson 1 22 No
Eastern Jefferson Elementary Ellen Laggis 1 22 Yes
Capital Joplin Elementary School Lili Saum 1 29 No
Capital Joplin Elementary School Kathy Werner 1 29 No
Capital Joplin Elementary School Kirsten Grover 1 29 No
Capital Joplin Elementary School Amy Bass 1 28 No
Capital Lake Hazel Elementary Courtney Randall 1 25 No
Capital Lake Hazel Elementary Michelle Roach 1 25 No
Capital Lake Hazel Elementary Elizabeth McLaughlin 1 25 No
Canyon Lake Ridge Elementary School Deanna Menssen 1 30 Yes
Canyon Lake Ridge Elementary School Laura Crawford 1 30 Yes
Canyon Lake Ridge Elementary School Tanya Scheibe 1 30 Yes
Canyon Lake Ridge Elementary School Laura VanDerschaaf 1 30 Yes
Canyon Lakevue Elementary School Kimberly Reinecker 1 21 Yes
Canyon Lakevue Elementary School Heather Stanton 1 22 Yes
Canyon Lakevue Elementary School Nicole Underwood 1 21 Yes
Canyon Lakevue Elementary School Tara Daniel 1 21 No
Canyon Lakevue Elementary School Joyce Miller 1 21 No
Canyon Lewis & Clark Elementary Adam Trowbridge 1 30 Yes
Canyon Lewis & Clark Elementary Caitlyn Froemming 1 30 Yes
Canyon Lewis & Clark Elementary Bonny Smith 1 30 No
Eastern Lewis and Clark Elementary Tamara Palmer 1 29 Yes
Eastern Lewis and Clark Elementary Breanna Parker 1 28 Yes
Capital Longfellow Elementary School Michelle Fluckiger 1 25 Yes
Capital Longfellow Elementary School Emily Hammond 1 25 Yes
Capital Maple Grove Elementary Kaitlyn Ilg 1 29 Yes
Capital Maple Grove Elementary Erin Luthy 1 29 No
Capital Maple Grove Elementary Scott Roe 1 28 Yes
Capital Maple Grove Elementary Amber Bigelow 1 63 Yes
Resource Action Programs®65Appendix 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 Loretta Rost 1 31 No
Western Marsing Middle School Petra Vawter 1 60 Yes
Western May Roberts Elementary School Patty Edison 1 21 No
Western May Roberts Elementary School Dottie Brown 1 20 Yes
Capital Meridian Elementary Dianna Johnson 1 24 No
Capital Meridian Elementary Jeffrey Anderson 1 24 No
Capital Meridian Elementary Shantel Hush 1 24 No
Canyon Mill Creek Elementary School Anne Kinley 1 25 Yes
Canyon Mill Creek Elementary School Anna Miller 1 25 Yes
Canyon Mill Creek Elementary School Kim Platt 1 25 Yes
Canyon Mill Creek Elementary School Lauren Denny 1 25 Yes
Canyon Mill Creek Elementary School Terri Domme 1 25 Yes
Capital Monroe Elementary School Shawn Duggan 1 20 No
Capital Monroe Elementary School Jason Evans 1 18 No
Capital Monroe Elementary School Sabrina Gary 1 15 No
Southern Morningside Elementary School Danielle Ashby 1 120 No
Southern North Valley Academy Brianne Garner 1 21 Yes
Southern North Valley Academy Amy Anderson 1 23 Yes
Western Nyssa Elementary School Paula Barnhart 1 24 Yes
Western Nyssa Elementary School Trisha Bunker 1 25 Yes
Southern Oregon Trail Elementary School Brian Johnson 1 27 Yes
Southern Oregon Trail Elementary School Mark Chandler 1 26 No
Southern Oregon Trail Elementary School Shannon Youngman 1 26 No
Canyon Owyhee Elementary Rebecca Wheeler 1 28 Yes
Canyon Owyhee Elementary Brenda Allen 1 28 Yes
Canyon Owyhee Elementary Christa Roesberry-
Barber 1 28 Yes
Canyon Owyhee Elementary School Sara Walsh 1 20 No
Western Park Intermediate Grace Sharp 1 26 Yes
Western Park Intermediate Jessica Mosley 1 26 Yes
Western Park Intermediate Kathleen Cahill 1 24 No
Capital Peregrine Elementary School Trenna McCashland 1 29 No
Idaho Power Energy Wise® Program Summary Report66Appendix 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 Pierce Park Elementary Shannon Nicholson 1 26 Yes
Capital Pierce Park Elementary Bradley Fackrell 1 30 No
Capital Pierce Park Elementary Bill Hoffman 1 28 No
Capital Pierce Park Elementary Jesse Randolf 1 28 No
Western Pine Eagle Elementary School Kathy Peer 1 21 No
Capital Prospect Elementary Tara Skeesuck 1 28 Yes
Capital Prospect Elementary Cheryl Smith 1 29 No
canyon Purple Sage Elementary School Jenna Oien 1 25 Yes
canyon Purple Sage Elementary School Melody Craw 1 25 Yes
canyon Purple Sage Elementary School Ashley Gross 1 25 Yes
Canyon Reed Elementary Cindy Berg 1 23 Yes
Canyon Reed Elementary Michaele Fonnesbeck 1 22 Yes
Canyon Reed Elementary Arielle Jensen 1 30 Yes
Canyon Reed Elementary Jennifer Dolan 1 23 Yes
Eastern Ridge Crest Elementary School Cheri Warren 1 27 Yes
Eastern Ridge Crest Elementary School Patti Wheatley 1 27 Yes
Eastern Ridge Crest Elementary School Tami Jones 1 21 No
Capital Riverside Elementary School Lila Webster 1 25 No
Southern Rock Creek Elementary Julie Delia 1 30 No
Southern Rock Creek Elementary Andy Arenz 1 30 No
Southern Rock Creek Elementary Pauli Connelly 1 30 No
Eastern Rockford Elementary School Michael Barger 1 22 No
Eastern Rockford Elementary School Rebecca Kelly 1 22 No
Eastern Rockford Elementary School Kirsten Leavitt 1 21 No
Eastern Rockford Elementary School Cory Loveland 1 23 No
Eastern Rockford Elementary School Mavis Nelson 1 22 No
Eastern Rockford Elementary School Jeanette Stander 1 20 Yes
Eastern Rockland Elementary School Kristi Thomas 1 27 No
Canyon Ronald Reagan Elementary School Lisa Martell 1 25 Yes
Canyon Ronald Reagan Elementary School Sheryll Sharp 1 22 Yes
Canyon Ronald Reagan Elementary School Kelsey Rogers 1 24 Yes
Canyon Roosevelt Elementary Michelle Jenkins 1 24 Yes
Resource Action Programs®67Appendix 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
Canyon Roosevelt Elementary Rhonda Wilson 1 26 Yes
Canyon Roosevelt Elementary Michael Palmer 1 24 No
Canyon Roosevelt Elementary Brittany Schultz 1 27 Yes
Canyon Sacajawea Elementary School Kristy Simpson 1 31 Yes
Canyon Sacajawea Elementary School Aimee Stocks 1 30 Yes
Canyon Sacajawea Elementary School Stacy Campbell 1 30 Yes
Capital Sage International School of Boise Jennifer Laird 1 25 Yes
Capital Sage International School of Boise Kadie Johnson 1 25 Yes
Capital Sage International School of Boise Angel Larson 1 25 Yes
Eastern Salmon Middle/High School Krystal Smith 1 55 Yes
Western Shadow Butte Elementary School Susan Pierson 1 33 Yes
Capital Shadow Hills Elementary School Christy Schwehr 1 25 Yes
Capital Silver Sage Elementary School Lisa Jimenez 1 35 Yes
Capital Silver Sage Elementary School Hayley Bernard 1 35 No
Canyon Silver Trail Elementary School Justin Burgess 1 29 Yes
Canyon Silver Trail Elementary School Dan Blitman 1 30 Yes
Canyon Silver Trail Elementary School Dan Hoehne 1 29 Yes
Canyon Silver Trail Elementary School Dawn Meek 1 30 Yes
Canyon Snake River Elementary Heather Packer 1 23 No
Canyon Snake River Elementary Justine Fox 1 26 No
Canyon Snake River Elementary Sally Blair 1 23 Yes
Canyon St. Paul’s Catholic School Annette Wall 1 33 Yes
Capital Star Elementary School Candy Franscella 1 33 No
Capital Star Elementary School Carmi Scheller 1 33 No
Capital Star Elementary School Angela Peterson 1 33 No
Eastern Stoddard Elementary School Kimberly Buck 1 28 Yes
Eastern Stoddard Elementary School Hallie Snyder 1 28 Yes
Eastern Stoddard Elementary School Alicia Cody 1 25 Yes
Southern Summit Elementary School Tracy Park 1 29 Yes
Southern Summit Elementary School Audra Thompson 1 29 Yes
Southern Summit Elementary School Maggie Stump 1 28 Yes
Southern Summit Elementary School Leah Jones 1 29 Yes
Idaho Power Energy Wise® Program Summary Report68Appendix 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 School Valerie Lavender 1 28 No
Southern Summit Elementary School Trisha Neudorff 1 28 No
Southern Summit Elementary School Michele Putnam 1 28 No
Southern Summit Elementary School Keyli Gonzalez 1 27 No
Southern Summit Elementary School Jorma Fletcher 1 30 No
Southern Summit Elementary School Todd Lakey 1 28 No
Southern Summit Elementary School Stacey Lakey 1 29 No
Southern Summit Elementary School Anne Winder 1 30 Yes
Eastern Syringa Elementary School Aubrey Eldredge 1 25 Yes
Eastern Syringa Elementary School Ericka Mann 1 25 Yes
Eastern Syringa Elementary School Cindel Vasquez 1 25 Yes
Capital Taft Elementary School Jessica Rose 1 24 No
Capital Taft Elementary School Sarah Wright 1 24 Yes
Eastern Tendoy Elementary Diana Son 1 26 Yes
Eastern Tendoy Elementary Vickie Reeder 1 27 Yes
Capital Trail Wind Elementary School Tyler Targee 1 30 No
Capital Trail Wind Elementary School Karen Palazzolo 1 30 No
Eastern Tyhee Elementary School Jayne Johnson 1 25 Yes
Eastern Tyhee Elementary School Stefani Mitchell 1 25 Yes
Eastern Tyhee Elementary School Amy Hoesman 1 25 No
Capital Valley View Elementary School Meko Myers 1 30 Yes
Capital Valley View Elementary School Shawna Hiller 1 30 Yes
Eastern Wapello Elementary School LaNae Porter 1 20 Yes
Eastern Wapello Elementary School Kristine Schnittgen 1 21 Yes
Canyon Washington Elementary School Jalene Gilbert 1 24 Yes
Canyon Washington Elementary School Heather Mueller 1 24 Yes
Canyon Washington Elementary School Chris Wilcox 1 27 Yes
Canyon Washington Elementary School Kim Hunter 1 24 Yes
Canyon Washington Elementary School Jan Damron 1 21 Yes
Canyon Washington Elementary School Teresa O’Toole 1 21 Yes
Canyon West Canyon Elementary Amy Mattei 1 32 Yes
Canyon West Canyon Elementary Sally VanderVeen 1 32 Yes
Resource Action Programs®69Appendix 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
Canyon West Canyon Elementary K’Ann Sanchez 1 32 Yes
Canyon West Canyon Elementary Brittany Woodworth 1 32 Yes
Western Westside Elementary School Shauna Bain 1 22 Yes
Western Westside Elementary School Danielle Hayes 1 22 Yes
Western Westside Elementary School Paula McElroy 1 22 Yes
Western Westside Elementary School Sarah Nesbitt 1 22 Yes
Western Westside Elementary School Amy Brownell 1 22 Yes
Capital Whitney Elementary School Jasmine Quezada 1 33 Yes
Capital Whittier Elementary School Hannah Decker 1 33 No
Capital Whittier Elementary School Suzy Forney 1 33 No
Capital Whittier Elementary School Susan Hayes 1 34 Yes
Capital Whittier Elementary School Jessica Arvin 1 25 Yes
Eastern William Thomas Middle School Jamie Clark 1 125 Yes
Canyon Willow Creek Elementary School Nick Channer 1 28 Yes
Canyon Willow Creek Elementary School Kim Chierici 1 27 Yes
Canyon Willow Creek Elementary School Andrea Koenig 1 26 Yes
Canyon Willow Creek Elementary School Nicole Gibbs 1 29 Yes
Canyon Wilson Elementary School Debbie Peterson 1 24 Yes
Canyon Wilson Elementary School Jessica Quier 1 26 No
Canyon Wilson Elementary School Sandra Otero 1 27 Yes
Canyon Wilson Elementary School Amanda Pattee 1 19 Yes
Canyon Wilson Elementary School Angel Zeimantz 1 26 Yes
TOTALS 308 8,602
TOTAL PARTICIPANTS 8,910
TOTAL PARTICIPATING 2016-2017 TEACHERS 308
208 68% YES
100 32% NO
TOTAL STUDENT SURVEYS RETURNED 5,150
TOTAL INCENTIVE PAID OUT $19,775
FULL YEAR SURVEY RETURN PERCENTAGE 60%
Idaho Power Energy Wise® Program Summary Report70Appendix D
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x

D
Teacher Program Evaluation Data
Total Capital Canyon Eastern Southern Western
Participants 308 82 99 53 40 34
Surveys Received 208 44 80 41 23 20
Percent Response 68%54% 81% 77% 58% 59%
Percent Number
1 The materials were clearly written and well organized.
Strongly Agree 118 68%
Agree 55 32%
Disagree 0 0%
Strongly Disagree 1 1%
2 The products in the Kit were easy for students to use.
Strongly Agree 96 55%
Agree 74 43%
Disagree 2 1%
Strongly Disagree 1 1%
3 Students indicated that their parents supported the program.
Yes 164 96%
No 6 4%
4 Would you conduct this Program again?
Yes 175 100%
No 0 0%
5 Would you recommend this program to other colleagues?
Yes 175 100%
No 0 0%
6 If my school is eligible for participation next year, I would like to enroll.
Yes 172 99%
No 2 1%
Due to rounding of numbers, percentages may not add up to 100%
Resource Action Programs®71Appendix E
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x

E
Total Capital Canyon Eastern Southern Western
Participants 8,602 2,383 2,734 1,458 1,165 862
Surveys Received 101 34 32 18 11 6
Percent Response 1.2%1.4% 1.2% 1.2% 0.9% 0.7%
Total Parent Responses 80
Number Percent
1 Was the Program easy for you and your child to use?
Yes 101 100%
No 0 0%
2 Will you continue to use the Kit items after the completion of the Program?
Yes 99 100%
No 0 0%
3 Would you like to see this Program continued in local schools?
Yes 100 100%
No 0 0%
Parent/Guardian Program Evaluation Data
Due to rounding of numbers, percentages may not add up to 100%
976 United Circle • Sparks, NV 89431
www.resourceaction.com • [phone]
©2017 Resource Action Programs®