Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout20190315DSM Supplement 2.pdfIt/ ANNUAL REPORT I -rffii:mir*_ SUPPLEMENT 2= EVALUATION RIC ilVIt) I0l9 H&R l5 Pt{ h: 0l+ a DEMA f.MEN / \- ,r- C \MARCH 15 7 -- \ \I t ----1 .il!ffi Printed on recycled paper Idaho Power Company Supplement 2: Evaluation Demand-Side Management 2018 Annual Report Page i LIST OF CONTENTS Evaluation and Research Summary .............................................................................................................1 Evaluation Plan ............................................................................................................................................3 Energy Efficiency Advisory Group Notes ...................................................................................................5 NEEA Market Effects Evaluations ............................................................................................................25 Integrated Design Lab ................................................................................................................................27 Research/Surveys .....................................................................................................................................163 Evaluations ...............................................................................................................................................195 Other Reports ...........................................................................................................................................283 Supplement 2: Evaluation Idaho Power Company Page ii Demand-Side Management 2018 Annual Report Idaho Power Company Supplement 2: Evaluation Demand-Side Management 2018 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 Corporate Services. 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 2018, Idaho Power contracted with Tetra Tech MA to conduct three program impact evaluations and one program process evaluation, DNV GL to conduct a program savings determination analysis, Resource Action Programs to conduct two program summary analyses, and Aclara to conduct one program summary analysis. Impact evaluations were performed for Energy Efficient Lighting, Multifamily Energy Savings Program, and the Custom option of the Commercial and Industrial Energy Efficiency Program. A process evaluation was performed for the Multifamily Energy Savings Program and a savings determination analysis was conducted for the Shade Tree Project. Program summary analyses were performed for the Energy-Savings Kit Program, the Energy Wise Program, and the Home Energy Reports pilot project. Idaho Power conducted internal analyses of the 2018 demand response events for A/C Cool Credit, Irrigation Peak Rewards, and Flex Peak Program. Throughout 2018, 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. Supplement 2: Evaluation Idaho Power Company Page 2 Demand-Side Management 2018 Annual Report An evaluation schedule and final reports from all evaluations, research, and surveys completed in 2018 are provided in Supplement 2: Evaluation. Idaho Power Company Supplement 2: Evaluation Demand-Side Management 2016 Annual Report Page 3 EVALUATION PLAN Energy Efficiency 2010–2020 Program Evaluation Plans Im p a c t Pr o c e s s Oth e r Im p a c t Pr o c e s s Oth e r Im p a c t Pr o c e s s Oth e r Im p a c t Pr o c e s s Oth e r Im p a c t Pr o c e s s Oth e r Im p a c t Pr o c e s s Oth e r Im p a c t Pr o c e s s Oth e r Im p a c t Pr o c e s s Oth e r Im p a c t Pr o c e s s Oth e r Im p a c t Pr o c e s s Oth e r Im p a c t Pr o c e s s Oth e r                                           1 Does not include Green Motors or Oregon Residential Weatherization. 3 Energy efficiency programs evaluated in 2015 have since been eliminated or combined into another program. 20172016 Educational Distributions Program Evaluation Schedule1 20142011201220102013 20153 Weatherization Solutions for Eligible Customers Shade Tree Project Rebate Advantage Weatherization Assistance for Qualified Customers 2018 2019 N/A2 Residential Energy Efficiency Education Initiative ENERGY STAR® Homes Northwest Energy House Calls Heating & Cooling Efficiency Program Residential Programs 2020 2 N/A indicates program not yet in existence. Home Energy Reports N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Simple Steps, Smart Savings™ Multifamily Energy Savings Program Residential New Construction Pilot Program Home Energy Audit Demand Response Programs New Construction Custom Projects Commercial/Industrial Programs Irrigation Programs Retrofits Irrigation Peak Rewards Irrigation Efficiency Rewards A/C Cool Credit Flex Peak Program Supplement 2: Evaluation Idaho Power Company Page 4 Demand-Side Management 2018 Annual Report Idaho Power Company Supplement 2: Evaluation Demand-Side Management 2016 Annual Report Page 5 ENERGY EFFICIENCY ADVISORY GROUP NOTES The following pages include notes from EEAG meetings held on February 8, May 1, August 9, and October 20, 2018. Supplement 2: Evaluation Idaho Power Company Page 6 Demand-Side Management 2018 Annual Report 1 Energy Efficiency Advisory Group (EEAG) Notes dated 2/8/2018 Present: Pete Pengilly*-Idaho Power Don Strickler–Simplot Tina Jayaweera-Northwest Power & Conservation Council Connie Aschenbrenner-Idaho Power Jim Hall-Bodybuilding.com Resources Not Present: Kent Hanway-CSHQA Ken Robinette–South Central Comm. Action Partnership Nadine Hanhan–Public Utility Commission of Oregon Guests and Presenters*: Quentin Nesbitt*-Idaho Power Annie Meyer*–Idaho Power Tracey Burtch*–Idaho Power Theresa Drake–Idaho Power Shelley Martin–Idaho Power Andrea Simmonsen–Idaho Power Billie McWinn*–Idaho Power Debra Leithauser*-Idaho Power Gary Grayson–Idaho Power Cheryl Paoli–Idaho Power Todd Greenwell–Idaho Power Zeke VanHooser-Idaho Power Chellie Jensen–Idaho Power Chris Pollow–Idaho Power Rachelle Farnsworth-Idaho Public Utilities Commission Dan Johnson (on phone)-Avista Brittany Nixon-Idaho Power Kevin Keyt-Idaho Public Utilities Commission Mindi Shodeen-Idaho Power Commission Note Takers: Shawn Lovewell (Idaho Power) with Kathy Yi (Idaho Power) Meeting Facilitator: Rosemary Curtin 2 Meeting Convened at 9:30am Rosemary started the meeting with introductions of members and guests. Pete expressed appreciation for members of EEAG and their time. All the savings shown in the presentations is preliminary. The upcoming dates for EEAG meetings are: May 1st, August 9th, and October 30th. There were no comments on the November 1st, 2017 meeting notes. 9:35 am Transmission & Distribution Deferral Benefits—Dave Angell Dave addressed the group regarding the ongoing analysis of transmission & distribution deferral benefits. He initially presented to EEAG on this topic in August of 2016. The following points were presented by Tina Jayaweera and Dave Angell: • An action item that came from The Northwest Power and Conservation Council’s (NWPCC) Seventh Power Plan was to improve the methodology of valuing energy efficiency’s ability to defer transmission and distribution. In August of 2017 regional utilities were asked to share with the NWPCC how they were estimating this value. There were ten utilities present and they all had different methodologies. The goal of that meeting was to find a method that would work on a regional level. • Idaho Power’s deferral calculation is based on the present value of capital expenses that are approved by officers and board members. The approvals are for the current year but can span three years. A larger percentage of projects are infrastructure replacement. Originally Idaho Power analyzed energy efficiency benefits out seven years. The feedback was that benefits should have longer than a seven-year life, so calculations will be done for twenty years. • Tina discussed Idaho Power’s involvement in working with the NWPCC. Capital growth varies depending on what is happening in the economy. The NWPCC is looking at broader periods that take in to account the boom and bust cycles. All utility methodologies will be slightly different but the NWPCC will have a regional value to work with. • The purpose is to apply a fair value of transmission and distribution deferral to determine the cost effectiveness of energy efficiency. Idaho Power will update their methodology and continue to support development of a regional approach with understanding that the company’s own methodology will be used in the future. Idaho Power will present at the IRP and will come back to EEAG again. There were questions and comments around the average age of Idaho Power’s infrastructure, average growth rates and average prices, the value of looking at past and future data regarding the assessment of capital spending. 10:05 am -Residential Programs—Billie McWinn Billie’s presentation of the residential programs gave an overview of each program, the differences, and what category they fall in to: direct install, incentives, giveaways, buy-downs, and behavioral. Preliminary participation and year-end savings for each program was provided. • Overall 2017 savings for residential programs is up 56% from 2016 • In the last three years, there have been seven new residential programs and six new offerings within existing residential programs. • Twelve Multifamily projects were completed in 2017. Costs are lower when all units in a complex are done in one day rather than scheduling one at a time. Idaho Power personnel, the contractor, and a representative from the site first walk-through the complex and determine what needs to be done. They 3 then order product and schedule a time to come back and install the items in each unit. One member commented that maybe there could be some efficiencies by combining the walk-through and installation into one visit rather than two. • There is a finite number of manufactured homes in Idaho Power’s service area that can participate in the Energy House Calls program. The company is regularly sending out direct mail. Marketing this program will continue for as long as it is cost-effective. One member suggested having the targeted marketing piece mention “your neighbors have participated in this program, now’s the time to take advantage of it.” Billie pointed out that contractors are commenting that direct installs are decreasing because customers have received and installed items from the Energy Savings Kit. • In 2018, a smart strip will be an available measure added to the Home Energy Audit program. One member asked about follow up with customers after an audit is performed. A report is sent to the customer and the auditor calls them. • At the last meeting, Idaho Power presented the new HVAC tune-up coupon offering in the Easy Savings program. This launched in November of 2017. • The Residential New Custom Home pilot is expected to launch March 2018 in Idaho and April 2018 in Oregon. This offering will replace the Energy Star® program. • The Shade Tree Project will expand into Twin Falls for 2018. This year the company is expecting to start realizing energy savings from this project. • Billie passed around the new residential customer kits. These kits will be sent to customers who have a brand-new account with Idaho Power. • Billie spoke to the group about Energy Savings Kits used for giveaways at high bill calls or events. These are the same as the non-electric mail by request kits and asked if EEAG is in favor of continuing to support the savings from these giveaway kits? Being that the interactions are targeted to a more engaged customer, the consensus of the group was favorable for continuing as is. 10:15 am-Break 10:25 am- Resume Residential presentation • Kathy presented updated numbers regarding future lighting savings from those discussed at the November 2017 EEAG meeting. Jennifer Light of the Regional Technical Forum (RTF) will provide an update on lighting savings at the next meeting. • Billie presented new findings related to showerheads offered in the Simple Steps, Smart Savings program. This was in response to a request at the November meeting where EEAG suggested the Company should consider market indicators before deciding on whether to continue offering the measure in the program. Based on the findings, the group felt that the company should continue offering the showerheads in the program. There were questions and comments about looking at incentives on items for smart homes, including the RTF on analysis findings of Smart Thermostats, and make sure to check in with NEEA before removing Smart Sense showerheads from Simple Steps, Smart Savings program. 4 11:40 am C/I & Irrigation Programs—Quentin Nesbitt Quentin provided preliminary savings and participation for the Commercial, Industrial, and Irrigation programs. Generally, all the programs in the commercial & industrial sector can be categorized under incentive and the cohorts fall under behavioral savings. • The driver for measure updates in 2018 are based on the update of building codes and standards. • The Technical Reference Manual update will be completed in the spring of 2018. • Idaho Power took suggestions and feedback from EEAG and developed the Commercial Energy Saving Kits. There will be three kits that are targeted to three small business customer types; restaurants, offices, and retail. • The amount of capital projects generated from the Wastewater and Water Cohorts has increased. Quentin thanked EEAG for their input on expanding this offering to the eastern region. He passed around informational collateral for the cohorts. • Idaho Power is now sending out a welcome packet to new irrigation customers. This packet informs customers about the agriculture representatives and the current programs. At the last meeting, Quentin asked for feedback on an idea for a dealer incentive. The feedback from EEAG was that it wasn’t a good idea. One member has since reached out and provided input and ideas on how to achieve better installation rates. There was a question about whether Idaho Power is looking at a whole building approach in the New Construction Program. Idaho Power offers a whole building approach through energy modeling and the custom portion of its program. There was also a question about Dedicated Outdoor Air Systems (DOAS). Idaho Power is currently evaluating DOAS as an incentive measure for the New Construction program. Idaho Power currently offers technical Lunch & Learn training on DOAS systems through the Integrated Design Lab, however the Company does not claim savings for trainings. One member thanked Idaho Power for the continuation and expansion of the Wastewater & Water Cohort offering. Due to new regulations on the horizon, this will be very helpful for these customers. Quentin and Billie presented information on the types of communication devices each demand response program uses. Billie provided preliminary information regarding a limited number of non-communicating devices identified in the residential DR program. Billie discussed that a new testing device was available that would help determine the cause of some communication issues. She asked for input on how the Company should proceed with non-communicating devices and the consensus was to continue with testing of the devices before any changes to participation were made. Billie will bring a testing process plan to the group in May. 12:30 Lunch 1:15 Meeting Reconvened 1:15 pm-Customer Solutions Advisor Activities—Roger Lawless 5 Roger presented the Customer Solutions Advisor (CSA) activities and how they support energy efficiency efforts. The CSA’s make outbound calls to commercial customers and irrigation customers, and as a part of those calls they discuss Idaho Power’s energy efficiency programs. They also respond to Home Energy Report inquiries, actively working with customers to update their My Account information to improve the accuracy of the reports or addressing other concerns or questions. 1:32 pm-My Account/Customer Touchpoints—Todd Schultz Todd updated EEAG on Customer Care Initiatives, My Account registration redesign and energy efficiency promotion within My Account. One member suggested targeting those customers who have viewed energy efficiency pages with specific information. EEAG appreciates the work Idaho Power has done on text alerts and the improvements made to My Account. 1:57 pm-2017 Preliminary Energy Savings Results/Financials—Pete Pengilly Pete briefly highlighted Appendix 1, the 2017 DSM Expenses and Preliminary Energy Savings by program. He presented the 2017 Preliminary Energy Savings Portfolio results. • The company will receive preliminary savings numbers from NEEA at the end of February. • Energy efficiency savings for 2017 was the highest it’s been since 2010. There were comments that the company does a good job exploring future program offerings. 2:20 pm-Marketing—Debra Leithauser, Tracey Burtch, Annie Meyer Debra Leithauser introduced herself as the new Director of Corporate Communications and gave a brief history of how marketing has changed over time. Annie and Tracey presented an update on marketing activities since the last EEAG meeting. The following points were presented: • The company’s marketing tactics were shown in how they fall within the marketing funnel. • At the last EEAG meeting, the group requested more information on how marketing tactics drive participation in programs. Information from a survey was provided to show the percentage of residential customers are familiar with energy efficiency programs and the overall improvement of customers who feel that their energy efficiency needs are met. • Idaho Power is now participating in a new earned media opportunity in Twin Falls. A new energy saving habits video was played. There were questions and comments regarding direct mailings, using My Account as a platform to engage customers rather than using direct mail, and ideas on what is done in other organizations to track people that have engaged with them; databases, social media, direct mailings, and events. 2:56-Break 3:12 pm-Wrap Up/Open Discussion • The morning agenda was very full. Didn’t find the My Account or CSA information relevant to the meeting. • It was a very interesting meeting. We learned a lot about the programs today which helps new members. 6 • Appreciate the topics presented this morning as it was very helpful for new members and attendees. The afternoon session was good. All the broad-based stuff; text alerts, My Account, and marketing is the information that the group has been asking for. It’s nice to see good program results under difficult market conditions. • Enjoyed the entire meeting including; marketing and social media. It is interesting to see how the company is driving people to My Account and how it will translate into energy savings. • The morning session was content heavy. Appreciated how the residential presentation was categorized. I enjoy the evaluation presentations and look forward to seeing M&V results. • The customer topics fit with today’s topics and tied in nicely. It would be nice to see a deeper dive into how it connects. Appreciated being able to go over the programs in more detail. There has been a marketing presentation at every meeting so maybe that can be cut back to every other time. • The EEAG meetings have changed for the better and the presentations have become more meaningful. Rosemary opened the discussion to the group. There were comments and questions about building codes and that there will be more opportunity for people to stay engaged, discussion around the Energy Imbalance Market and what that means for energy efficiency, what Idaho Power plans to regarding the lowered energy savings numbers for lighting and how the group can focus their efforts to find new and interesting ways to drive people to programs, allowing more space on the agenda for brainstorming ideas, and a suggestion to have someone from NEEA speak at a future EEAG meeting. Theresa addressed the group and expressed appreciation for everyone’s contributions and feedback. She thanked the group for their recognition of 2017 results. The company took recommendations that EEAG made throughout the year and has incorporated them. The company is committed to pursuing all cost-effective energy efficiency and is looking to EEAG to assist it in those endeavors. 3:51 Meeting Adjourned 1 Energy Efficiency Advisory Group (EEAG) Notes May 1, 2018 Present: Kent Hanway-CSHQA Don Strickler–Simplot Ken Robinette–South Central Comm. Action Partnership Tina Jayaweera-Northwest Power & Conservation Council-on phone Diego Rivas-Northwest Energy Coalition-on phone Not Present: Jim Hall-Bodybuilding.com Ben Otto-Idaho Conservation League Nadine Hanhan–Public Utility Commission of Oregon Guests and Presenters*: Quentin Nesbitt*-Idaho Power Cory Read–Idaho Power Tracey Burtch*–Idaho Power Ariel Minter–Idaho Power Shelley Martin–Idaho Power Andrea Simmonsen–Idaho Power Billie McWinn*–Idaho Power Annie Meyer*-Idaho Power Gary Grayson–Idaho Power AJ Freeman–Idaho Power Todd Greenwell–Idaho Power Dan Axness-Idaho Power Chellie Jensen–Idaho Power Chris Pollow–Idaho Power Jerry Peterson-Division of Building Safety Kevin Keyt-Idaho Public Utilities Commission Denise Humphreys-Idaho Power Brittany Nixon-Idaho Power Randy Thorn-Idaho Power Bryan Wewers-Idaho Power Phil DeVol-Idaho Power Lynn Tominaga-Idaho Irrigation Pumpers Association Tonja Dyke-Idaho Power Mindi Shodeen-Idaho Power Sheree Willhite-Idaho Power Katie Pegan-Office of Energy and Mineral Resources Cassie Koerner-Idaho Public Utilities Commission Yao Yin-Idaho Public Utilities Commission Mark Rehley*-Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance Jennifer Light*-Northwest Power and Conservation Council Note Takers: Shawn Lovewell (Idaho Power) with Kathy Yi (Idaho Power) Meeting Facilitator: Rosemary Curtin-RBCI 2 Meeting Convened at 9:38 am Pete started the meeting with housekeeping and emergency items, introduction of two new members; Hayley Falconer and Selena O’Neal, EEAG members and guests. There were no comments or questions on the February notes. Pete stated that due to the timing of the earnings release, the financial information will not be presented at this meeting. Those documents will be emailed to members later in the week. Tracey Burtch provided two updates regarding account and outage alerts. 9:44 am-2017 Evaluations—Craig Williamson & Shawn Bodmann-DNV GL Craig introduced himself and Shawn. Several programs were evaluated during 2017, based on program year 2016. The three Commercial and Industrial programs had process evaluations. An impact and process evaluation were done for Residential Heating & Cooling Efficiency (H&CE) and the Residential Home Energy Audits (HEA) had an impact evaluation. Craig and Shawn covered the evaluation objectives, method highlights, and detailed findings for each program. There were questions and comments regarding the benchmarking of program incentives, the evaluation schedule for programs, tracking or testing of the effectiveness of marketing, and how and when the evaluation findings get incorporated into programs. 11:20 am-Idaho Public Utilities Commission—Stacey Donohue-Idaho Public Utilities Commission Stacey provided an overview of the Idaho Public Utilities Commission (IPUC). Her presentation covered the history of the IPUC, who it regulates, what the regulatory compact is, what the role of the commission is, how regulatory cases are processed (including the roles of interveners and the Commission staff, and how the IPUC makes its decisions). Stacey also discussed the IPUC’s role regarding demand side management (DSM). Connie briefly explained the differences between energy efficiency program management in the Company’s Oregon and Idaho jurisdictions. In Oregon, Idaho Power must file tariff schedules and receive approval from the Public Utility Commission of Oregon on program changes. In Idaho, the Company is not limited by tariff schedules; however, it files an annual prudence determination with the IPUC for authority to recover program costs from customers. The Company appreciates the valuable input received from members of EEAG. 12:00 Lunch 1:00 Meeting Reconvened 1:00 pm-Regional Technical Forum Overview—Jennifer Light-Regional Technical Forum Jennifer provided an overview of the Regional Technical Forum (RTF). It included the origins of the RTF, the role of the RTF and its organization, what functions the RTF performs, the structure of the Subcommittees, and the processes of measurement development. Jennifer also focused on residential lighting and the key parameters that are used to establish savings. The presentation included the current practices and market data for establishing baseline savings, estimating savings over time, and the inclusion of federal standards. Idaho Power helps fund the RTF and has a representative on the RTF. 2:01 pm NEEA, Emerging Technology, and RETAC—Mark Rehley-NEEA Mark provided information on the Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance (NEEA), the vision and mission of NEEA and their role on behalf of the numerous companies in the northwest region that they work with. Their 3 work is mostly done with manufactures and supply chains and not with end users. Their goal is to look for products that deliver the same value while also using less energy and eventual market transformation. Mark explained the Regional Emerging Technology Advisory Committee (RETAC) was established in 2010 and provides a regional view, a consistent approach to research and development, and provides product readiness assessment. Idaho Power has representation on the RETAC and has since its inception. 3:17 pm Programs Update—Quentin Nesbitt & Billie McWinn Commercial/Industrial Programs: Energy Saving Kits for Businesses: All Idaho EEAG members received a small office energy saving kit for use at their respective office buildings. These kits were developed with input from EEAG to target Idaho Power’s small business customer, and in addition to the small office kit, a kit for restaurants and small retail were created (the contents of the kit vary by type). The program will be launching in a week, and generally small business customers are contacted by the company’s Customer Solutions Advisors and Customer Representatives. Kits include surveys and flyers providing information on Idaho Power’s energy efficiency programs. Information gathered from the surveys along with savings numbers from the RTF will be used for cost effectiveness. School Cohort: EEAG was asked for input if Idaho Power should continue with year two of the School Cohort. EEAG expressed appreciation that the company is looking at ways to improve and continue this program. A comment was made that the Boise School District was happy to participate in this cohort and are looking forward to year two. The consensus of EEAG was that Idaho Power should continue the School Cohort for year two. C&I Energy Efficiency Program: Quentin presented some changes for prescriptive measures that will be made to the commercial & industrial programs that are based on code changes, savings, measure costs, market acceptance, and cost effectiveness. Residential Programs: Billie led a discussion on the A/C Cool Credit program non-communicating switches and provided an update on the Home Energy Reports. At the EEAG meeting in February the group discussed a limited number of non-communicating devices that were identified in the A/C Cool Credit program, and Billie committed to bring back a plan for testing the non-communicating devices. She provided detailed information of the testing protocol, which would result in participant removal as a last resort, and asked for feedback from EEAG on the new protocol. There were questions and comments regarding the current process to work with customers on non-communicating devices and the process the company goes through to determine unknown causes. EEAG was in favor of Idaho Power moving forward with the new protocol. 4 4:22 pm-Wrap Up/Open Discussion • It was a long day filled with great presentations. The educational presentations were great. These presentations would be great for new members. • There was a lot of great information which helps the group to help Idaho Power work on finding cost effective savings. • The variety of educational topics were appreciated. • It was a great day for new members to start because of the updates and educational material. • Great educational presentations. Thanks to all the out of town presenters for speaking to the group, it’s great to have the experts explain what their organizations do. • The program content was informational and helped the group understand what the organizations do. These topics would be a great “boot camp” to help get new members up to speed. • Appreciated the educational topics and getting updates on what has happened since the last meeting. 4:40 pm Meeting Adjourned 1 Energy Efficiency Advisory Group (EEAG) Notes dated 8/9/2018 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) Connie Aschenbrenner–Idaho Power Lynn Tominaga–Idaho Irrigation Pumpers Association Pete Pengilly*-Idaho Power Nadine Hanhan–Public Utility Commission of Oregon (on phone) Jim Hall-Bodybuilding.com Selena O’Neal-Ada County Operations Council Haley Falconer-City of Boise Public Works Department Not Present: Sid Erwin–Idaho Irrigation Pumpers Association Guests and Presenters*: Quentin Nesbitt*-Idaho Power Cory Read–Idaho Power Annie Meyer*–Idaho Power Theresa Drake–Idaho Power Shelley Martin–Idaho Power Andrea Simmonsen–Idaho Power Billie McWinn*–Idaho Power Randy Thorn-Idaho Power Gary Grayson–Idaho Power Cheryl Paoli–Idaho Power Todd Greenwell–Idaho Power Zeke VanHooser-Idaho Power Chellie Jensen–Idaho Power Chris Pollow–Idaho Power Sheree Willhite-Idaho Power Bill Carr*-Suez Water Company Royce Davis*-City of Boise Don Reading-Industrial Customers of Idaho Power Rachelle Farnsworth-Idaho Public Utilities Commission Paul Goralski-Idaho Power Mindi Shodeen-Idaho Power Katie Pegan-Office of Energy & Mineral Resources Kevin Keyt-Idaho Public Utilities Commission Krista West-Idaho Power Grant Black-Idaho Power Student Intern Cassie Koerner-Idaho Public Utilities Commission Anna Kim-Public Utility Commission of Oregon (on phone) Peter Richardson-Industrial Customers of Idaho Power Jerry Peterson-Division of Building Safety Brittany Nixon-Idaho Power Zach Waterman-Sierra Club Adam Richins-Idaho Power Mary Hacking-Idaho Power Tonja Dyke-Idaho Power Denise Humphreys-Idaho Power Bentley Erdwurm-Idaho Public Utilities Commission Note Takers: 2 Shawn Lovewell (Idaho Power) with Kathy Yi* (Idaho Power) Meeting Facilitator: Rosemary Curtin-RBCI Meeting Convened at 9:34am Pete started the meeting with introduction of members and guests, safety, and housekeeping He informed the group that Ken Robinette will no longer be a member of EEAG. Ken was recently appointed to the Department of Energy’s State Advisory Board by the Secretary of Energy, Rick Perry. Pete presented Ken with an appreciation gift for his 16 years of service to the EEAG. 9:46 Am-Preliminary Cost Effectiveness—Kathy Yi Kathy presented a high-level view of program cost-effectiveness and will provide a more in-depth presentation at the October meeting. She provided a brief explanation of the different cost-effectiveness tests, a DSM alternate cost comparison, and the anticipated changes that may impact programs in 2019. There were questions and discussion about alternative costs, and whether the company includes capacity benefits in its calculations. Kathy answered that in addition to alternative costs, the company applies a load shape and anything that has savings during peak hours is given a capacity value. 10:42-Programs—Billie McWinn and Quentin Nesbitt Residential Programs: Billie provided an update on year-to-date savings for each program and led a discussion on the Home Energy Reports and Multifamily Direct Install program. She provided an update on the Home Energy Reports which included first year savings and the objectives for year two. The attrition rates for year one were due to move-in’s and move-outs, and overall the program had high customer satisfaction. The Multifamily Direct Install program timeline was discussed. A process and impact evaluation are being done on this program in 2018. There were questions and comments asking if Idaho Power has received feedback from customers on the Thermostatic Showerheads and how to use them. A suggestion was made to have the evaluators ask customers if they like the showerheads and if they are still installed. Commercial/Industrial/Irrigation programs: Quentin provided preliminary year-to-date savings and participation for the Commercial, Industrial, and Irrigation programs. • New Construction Program changes have been filed in Oregon and the company anticipates a Commission order by August 15th. There was discussion around using signage for Idaho Power programs at job sites and some of the barriers associated with that. • Retrofits This portion of the program also will change with the Oregon filing. Some incentives are being lowered so there is a push by some contractors to get projects in before program changes are implemented. The program has seen quite a few large non-lighting projects, especially among a few large industrial customers, but lighting continues to comprise most of the savings for retrofits. 3 • Energy Saving Kits The Customer Solutions Advisors are completing outbound calls to all new business customers to introduce them to Idaho Power, the company’s energy efficiency programs, and the Energy Saving Kits. A specific list of Idaho Powers smallest office, retail, and restaurant customers are also specifically being called to promote the Commercial Energy Savings Kits. There was some discussion on how long the company thought it would take to call these customers. Quentin estimated that it would be done by the end of the year. • Custom Projects There was a question about how often the same customer participates with a different facility vs. a customer participating for the first time. Quentin answered that the majority of participation is the same customer with a different location or facility. An example was given of a project that was in the planning stage for 10 years prior to being completed. There are a lot of people and decisions that go into completing upgrade projects. • Demand Response Quentin provided an overview of the season and preliminary savings estimates for the Flex Peak, AC Cool Credit, and Irrigation Peak Rewards programs and explained how the nomination process works for Flex Peak in response to an EEAG member question. There was some discussion around an online dashboard for real time data. Idaho Power is working on a system to provide interval data for all large customers but not real time data. Customers can get real time data through KYZ output from the Idaho Power meter and put it into their own software systems. • Irrigation Efficiency There are some reduced savings assumptions from the Regional Technical Forum (RTF) for the menu portion of this program. The company may have more information to present at the next meeting. 12:00 Lunch 1:00 pm-Municipal Water Supply Optimization Cohort —Bill Carr-Suez Water Co and Royce-City of Boise Quentin introduced Bill Carr of Suez and Royce Davis of the City of Boise. They spoke about their participation in the water supply cohort with Idaho Power. They gave a background of their systems, spoke to the barriers and challenges they encountered, the successful projects they accomplished, and lessons learned. There were comments and questions about reduction in water usage, how they overcame the barriers within their companies, and how capital projects were processed through Idaho Power’s incentive programs. EEAG members thanked Idaho Power for running these cohorts and thanked Bill and Royce for sharing their experiences and how it impacts operations. 2:00 pm-Marketing Update—Annie Meyer Annie updated the group on the latest marketing efforts since the last EEAG meeting. She highlighted the marketing funnel and how it relates to the company’s Spring Awareness Campaign. She also provided definitions for the terms: Reach, Frequency, and Impressions which provided context for the company’s ads on network TV, radio, and digital. She also highlighted the changes to marketing collateral based on feedback that EEAG provided. 4 There were comments and questions about how many customers read the company’s newsletter, Connections, having a pop-up on the company’s website encouraging people to read Connections, creating a pop-up ad to target a customer who is looking to compare their current months’ usage to last year, and a request to get the click thru rate for programs and unique number of users to that site. Annie then spoke to the group about the upcoming fall pledge. She asked EEAG members to form small groups to brainstorm ideas for simple low-cost or no-cost actions customers can pledge to save energy and money. Rosemary explained the expectations of the breakout session and split the members into two groups. She asked for one person from each group to report out once the exercise was complete. Stacey Donohue reported for her group, their ideas were: line dry clothes, install timers on outdoor lights, use an Insta-pot (old pledge listed crockpot), close blinds on hot days, open on cold days, replace your 5 most used light bulbs w/LED, use a robot vacuum, program thermostat. Scott Pugrud reported for his group, their ideas were: increase a/c by 2 degrees, use outdoor light sensors, take a seven minute or less shower, install low flow showerhead, change air filter, sign up for energy saving kit, hang dry clothes, check temperature on hot water heater, unplug cell phone charger when not in use. 3:15 pm-Wrap-up/Open discussion • This was the right sized agenda, liked diving deeper on just a couple topics • Enjoyed the cohort presentation and encourage Idaho Power to consider other areas to continue that model. A presentation on the Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) that has been adopted. • Thank you for the cohort presentation. It was very useful to hear customer perspectives. An IRP presentation would be helpful. • Appreciated the cohort presentations. • Would like to see more examples like the successes of the cohorts. • Thank you for the newspaper insert. Idaho Power does a great job with marketing. • It was interesting to hear about the decision makers and those on the ground trying to get projects done. It was good to hear about the example of it taking 10 years to get a project done. Similar examples like those would be good to hear about. • The cohort presentation was good and hearing about the people on the ground that were able to get things done. • It is intriguing to see Idaho Power and Suez working together, are there plans for Idaho Power, Intermountain Gas and Suez to work more together? • The multi-family project is interesting. From a city perspective, it can be a challenge to provide service. It will be interesting to see how the city can leverage this program. • Looking forward to the cost-effectiveness discussion and to discuss the end goal of programs once the market has been transformed. 3:45 pm-Meeting Adjourned 1 Energy Efficiency Advisory Group (EEAG) Notes dated October 30th, 2018 Present: Kent Hanway-CSHQA Don Strickler–Simplot Jim Hall-Bodybuilding.com 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 Anna Kim–Public Utility Commission of Oregon Haley Falconer-City of Boise Council Guests and Presenters*: Quentin Nesbitt*-Idaho Power Cory Read–Idaho Power Tracey Burtch*–Idaho Power Theresa Drake–Idaho Power Shelley Martin–Idaho Power Andrea Simmonsen*–Idaho Power Billie McWinn*–Idaho Power Becky Andersohn*-Idaho Power Gary Grayson*–Idaho Power Cheryl Paoli–Idaho Power Todd Greenwell–Idaho Power Zeke VanHooser-Idaho Power Chellie Jensen–Idaho Power Chris Pollow–Idaho Power Lisa Grow-Idaho Power Darrel Anderson*-Idaho Power Adam Richins-Idaho Power Brian Buckham-Idaho Power Donn English-Idaho Public Utilities Commission Tonja Dyke-Idaho Power Phil DeVol-Idaho Power Dan Axness-Idaho Power Kevin Keyt-Idaho Public Utilities Commission Cassie Koerner-Idaho Public Utilities Commission Katie Pegan-Office of Energy & Mineral Resources John Anderson-Idaho Power John Chatburn-Office of Energy & Mineral Resources Krista West-Idaho Power Braden Jensen-Idaho Farm Bureau Federation Butch Otter-Governor of Idaho 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. There were no questions or comments on the August 8th notes. 9:35 am-Report out on Smart Saver Pledge—Andrea Simmonsen Andrea updated the group on the status of the Smart Saver Pledge. It runs from October 1st thru November 20th. At the August meeting EEAG members worked in groups to help Idaho Power come up with new low or no-cost items to use in the pledge. Andrea informed the group that four out of the five items came from that break out session. She also explained the different avenues Idaho Power has communicated the pledge with customers. As 2 of today, October 30th, there have been over 4,000 entrants. In prior pledge campaigns, the average has been about 1,000. Follow-up Items Quentin and Billie provided information on follow-up items from the August 9th meeting. 1. When the Customer Solutions Advisors (CSA) are making outbound calls, what do customers see on their caller id? Quentin stated that If they have subscribed to caller ID they will see “Idaho Power Company” on their phone. If they don’t have that feature they will just see the phone number and not the name. 2. A comment was made about sending out a postcard to our list of customers that are being contacted by the CSA. Quentin stated that rather than a postcard, the Company is sending out a letter. 3. A question was asked if Idaho Power has seen increased sign-ups for My Account from customers that receive a Home Energy Report. Billie stated that there is no significant difference between the sign-up rates for the treatment group versus the control group. 9:48 am 2019 Preliminary Cost Effectiveness Results—Kathy Yi Kathy provided an overview of the different tests that Idaho Power uses to determine cost-effectiveness and shared updated preliminary cost-effectiveness results for 2018 and 2019. She also highlighted the changes in the numbers that were presented during the August EEAG meeting. (Kathy’s presentation will continue after Governor Butch Otters Award Presentation) 10:00 am-Award for Excellence in Energy Efficiency—Governor Butch Otter The Governor presented Darrel Anderson and Idaho Power with the Governor’s Award for Excellence in Energy Efficiency, recognizing the Company’s efforts and leadership in energy efficiency. Darrel Anderson thanked the Governor and stated that Idaho Power is very proud and honored to accept this award. Darrel recognized how Idaho Power benefits from a group like EEAG who assists the Company in its pursuit of energy efficiency. In 2017, enough energy was saved to power 17,000 homes for one year. Darrel thanked the Governor again and accepted the award on behalf of Idaho Power customers and employees. Preliminary Cost-Effectiveness presentation continued Kathy highlighted some of the issues facing the Heating & Cooling Efficiency program and the Residential New Construction Pilot. Idaho Power is not making any major changes to the programs and if there are any changes it will be to improve the cost-effectiveness. There were questions and comments regarding avoided costs and if energy efficiency is part of those calculations. A question about whether ductless heat pumps pass the Utility Cost Test (UCT) and the Participant Cost Test (PCT) by themselves, the assumptions for baseline savings for ductless heat pumps, and percentage of new residential construction that would be eligible for the new construction pilot incentive. Idaho Power will provide the answers and information at the next EEAG meeting. Break-10:47am 3 10:59 am-Irrigation Efficiency Savings—Quentin Nesbitt Quentin explained the Irrigation Efficiency Rewards program and the two types of incentives available to customers: the custom option and the menu option. Earlier this year, the Regional Technical Forum (RTF) voted to accept the reduced savings on the irrigation hardware /menu measures. Quentin provided examples of past measure savings methodology, Idaho Power’s understanding of the RTF new methodology, and the modified methodology that Idaho Power is purposing to use for 2019. Quentin asked EEAG for input on using the modified methodology. There were questions and discussion of several topics, including: how and when the original savings methodology was established, the frequency of sprinkler package replacement, if Idaho Power is mandated to use the RTF savings numbers, crop values and savings assumptions, and evaluation strategy. Quentin explained Idaho Power is not mandated to use RTF savings, but because they are available they are highly valued. If the Company doesn’t use those savings numbers, Idaho Power’s regulators may expect it to provide rationale for why they were not used. The majority of EEAG members were supportive of Idaho Power using the modified savings methodology for 2019 and reporting back to EEAG on any further research that is done. One member did not support Idaho Power using the modified savings. It was stated that the RTF savings assumptions may have been misapplied by Idaho Power. 12:05 Lunch 12:48 Meeting Reconvened 12:48 pm-2017 Idaho Prudence Order Overview—Connie Aschenbrenner Connie provided an overview of how Idaho Power manages its programs in Idaho vs. Oregon. In Oregon, programs and incentives are approved by the OPUC and included in schedules contained within the Company’s tariff. An annual cost-effectiveness review is performed. In Idaho, there are no energy efficiency program tariff schedules that are approved by IPUC. Rather, the Company applies for a prudence determination on what was spent the previous year. She highlighted the 2017 prudence filing timeline and the comments that were filed. The Company felt that today’s meeting and a future meeting would be the best opportunity to address the Idaho Commission order directing the Company address each of the topics raised by parties during the case with the EEAG. Topic #1- “Not over-emphasize the results of its empowered community surveys when designing programs for all of its customers.” Becky Andersohn provided the background and function of the empowered community. It is an online panel made up of residential customers. Idaho Power established this community because it is a low-cost opportunity to receive feedback from customers fast. It is not intended to replace Idaho Power’s regular surveys but used as an overall Company resource. It is not the sole source of customer feedback. Some surveys are used for energy efficiency topics and some are used for other Company issues. Once a year the community is reviewed and members that aren’t active participants are given one last chance to participate. If they don’t, they are removed from the pool of participants. Community members also have the option to opt out of a survey when they receive it. Billie provided examples of the types of questions asked in a survey for energy efficiency. 4 Rosemary asked the group if Idaho Power is using the empowered community appropriately, and if not, how it should be used going forward. There was discussion and questions regarding other resources that the Company uses to make program decisions, the reason this topic was part of the comments in the Commission’s order, and that moving forward the Company needs to be clearer on the multiple sources of information and how it uses the empowered community surveys. Topic #2- “Include attic insulation in the multifamily housing program.” Billie briefly discussed the current offerings and qualifications for the Multifamily Energy Savings program. The Company explored adding windows, wall insulation, attic insulation, and floor insulation into this program. There were two combinations that passed cost effectiveness with conditions: attic insulation and floor insulation. Idaho Power stated that from a Company perspective it is a good idea to add attic insulation to the program, but not floor insulation because it requires a more invasive test (drilling holes in floors) and chances of a building meeting the criteria are slim. Rosemary asked the group if Idaho Power should include attic insulation as an option into the multifamily housing program. There was discussion and questions regarding cost sharing between Idaho Power and a building owner, if the incentive would cover the insulation, if the Company looked at low e window attachments, and cost effectiveness. In general, EEAG was in favor of the Company including attic insulation into this program. Topic #3- “Expand cohort group partnerships with municipalities and school districts.” Quentin explained the different cohorts that Idaho Power has offered in its service territory and the timelines of each and the status on how Idaho Power has continued or expanded each of the cohorts. Quentin also explained there is no real industry standard in determining cost effectiveness for the cohorts. Idaho Power is engaged with other utilities and the RTF to establish protocol around how to determine cost-effectiveness. Rosemary asked EEAG for their thoughts on the cohorts. There was discussion and questions regarding the cost of cohorts to the Company, how to determine cost effectiveness, the success of the cohort model and how to continue it in other industries such as data centers or correctional facilities. In general, EEAG encouraged Idaho Power to continue with the cohort model, providing they are cost effective. Topic #4- “Explore small business design options” Quentin presented that Idaho Power currently has programs that small business customers can and do participate in: Commercial & Industrial Efficiency program which has measures for New Construction, Retrofits, and Custom projects for all sizes of business customers. Idaho Power also recently launched the energy savings kits for its smallest customers. Quentin explained basic details of the current Commercial & Industrial program and showed current program participation by customer size. Quentin also stated that Idaho Power is initiating a request for proposal (RFP) for a small business direct install program. This will enable the Company to determine cost effectiveness and potential structure and overlap of an offering. Rosemary asked the group for their thoughts on a small business option. 5 There was discussion and questions regarding the RFP and when the responses would come in, a pay for performance model, the challenges of a building owner vs. building tenant and how to market to each type of customer. There was support from EEAG in looking into additional options for small businesses. Topic #5- “Consider a more frequent evaluation schedule and follow industry norm of two to three years for both impact and process evaluations for each program.” Gary Grayson discussed Idaho Power’s current evaluation strategy and goals. He explained the several types of evaluations, the timing, and schedule of those evaluations. He explained that a variety of vendors are used year after year for evaluations for transparency Rosemary asked for the groups thoughts. There was discussion and questions regarding economies of scale, amortizing evaluation expenses, showing the cost effectiveness of a program with and without the cost of the evaluation included, industry standards for evaluation frequency, and Idaho Power providing a forward-looking schedule for program evaluations. Topic #6- “Explore opportunities to engage customers in energy efficiency when they sign up for MyAccount.” Tracey walked the group through the steps a customer would take when registering for My Account. Step four was recently added to the registration process, asking if the customer wanted to receive information about Company news and energy efficiency. Currently, pop-ups are related to alerts but next month they will be related to energy efficiency There was discussion and questions regarding the frequency of pop-ups, how the Company interacts with customers who are engaged thru My Account and push them toward program participation and saving energy, the use of how-to videos. In general, EEAG agreed that this topic will be an ongoing discussion at future EEAG meetings. 4:30 pm-Meeting Adjourned. Supplement 2: Evaluation Idaho Power Company Page 24 Demand-Side Management 2018 Annual Report Idaho Power Company Supplement 2: Evaluation Demand-Side Management 2018 Annual Report Page 25 NEEA MARKET EFFECTS EVALUATIONS Sector Analysis Performed By Study Manager Study/Evaluation Type Building Commissioning Long-Term Monitoring and Tracking: Update Commercial The Cadmus Group NEEA Market Assessment Commercial Navigant NEEA Market Assessment Industrial The Cadmus Group NEEA Market Assessment All NEEA NEEA Quarterly Report All NEEA NEEA Quarterly Report All NEEA NEEA Quarterly Report Residential Arrow G Consulting NEEA Qualitative Research – Residential NEEA NEEA Analysis Commercial TRC Energy Services NEEA NEEA Assessment tial Furnace Fan Standard Evaluation: Report Residential TRC Energy Services NEEA NEEA Assessment Progress Residential The Cadmus Group NEEA Market Assessment rogress Residential The Cadmus Group NEEA Market Assessment Residential Cadeo Group NEEA Market Assessment Commercial Cadeo Group NEEA Market Assessment Residential The Cadmus Group NEEA NEEA Assessment Residential The Cadmus Group NEEA NEEA Assessment -Family Residential The Cadmus Group NEEA NEEA Assessment m (SGS) Moisture Analysis Validation Residential/ Commercial Berkeley National Lab NEEA Analysis Residential Russell Research NEEA Market Assessment 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/. Supplement 2: Evaluation Idaho Power Company Page 26 Demand-Side Management 2018 Annual Report Idaho Power Company Supplement 2: Evaluation Demand-Side Management 2018 Annual Report Page 27 INTEGRATED DESIGN LAB Report Title Sector Analysis Performed By Study Manager Study/Evaluation Type 2018 Task 1: Foundational Services Commercial IDL Idaho Power EE Assistance & Education 2018 Task 2: Lunch and Learn Commercial IDL Idaho Power EE Training & Education 2018 Task 3: BSUG Commercial IDL Idaho Power EE Training & Education 2018 Task 4: New Construction Verifications Commercial IDL Idaho Power EE Verifications 2018 Task 5: Tool Loan Library Commercial IDL Idaho Power EE Assistance & Education 2018 Task 6 (1.6): Thermal Energy Savings Tool* Commercial IDL Idaho Power EE Assistance & Education 2018 Task 7: Building Energy Analytics Case Commercial IDL Idaho Power EE Research 2018 Task 8: Measuring Indoor Performance at Educational Facilities Commercial IDL Idaho Power EE Research *Task 6 was numbered 1.6 in 2018. Supplement 2: Evaluation Idaho Power Company Page 28 Demand-Side Management 2018 Annual Report Report Number: 1801_001-01 2018 TASK 1: FOUNDATIONAL SERVICES SUMMARY OF PROJECTS IDAHO POWER COMPANY EXTERNAL YEAR-END REPORT December 31, 2018 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. (2018). 2018 TASK 1: Foundational Services – Summary of Projects (1801_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 2018 Task 1: Foundational Services- Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report (Report #1801_001-01) 1. INTRODUCTION The University of Idaho Integrated Design Lab (UI-IDL) provided technical assistance in 2018 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 2018, 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 2018 Task 1: Foundational Services- Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report (Report #1801_001-01) 2. PROJECT SUMMARY In addition to sixteen on-going projects from 2017, thirty new projects were submitted for technical assistance through the Foundational Services program in 2018. Projects ranged from short phone call consultations to detailed building simulations and Level 2 Energy Analyses. 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 sixteen Phase I projects, six Phase II projects, and one Phase III project (proposed), and seven projects that were proposed for potential future work. The full list of projects is shown in the appendix below. Details on Phase II projects are included in the individual project reports submitted to IPC and are included as Appendix B. Eleven of the projects were for work to be completed in existing buildings, and twelve were for new construction projects. The remaining projects were not building specific. There was an increase in the number of projects identified from 2017 to 2018. In 2018, the IDL assisted with approximately 250,000 square feet of buildings. Table 1: 2018 Foundational Services Project Summary Planning - - - Integrated Design Lab | Boise 9 2018 Task 1: Foundational Services- Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report (Report #1801_001-01) Review - - - Civic/government 24,145 New Boise Civic/government 10,000 Existing Boise Educational - New Boise/Nampa Civic/government 15,000 Existing Boise Civic/government - - Boise Educational 15,000 Existing Boise Hotel 12,500 Existing Riggins Planning - - - Educational - New Boise Medical - new/existing Boise/McCall Mixed-use - New Boise Industrial 100 Existing Salmon Educational - - - Office 14,215 Existing Meridian Office 4,000 New Meridian Office 1,344 Existing Payette Civic/government 10,000 Existing Boise Civic/government 15,000 Existing Boise Office 30,000 Existing Boise Civic/government 1,500 Existing Boise Industrial - - - Report Number: 1801_002-01 2018 TASK 2: LUNCH AND LEARN SUMMARY OF EFFORT AND OUTCOMES IDAHO POWER COMPANY EXTERNAL YEAR-END REPORT December 31, 2018 Prepared for: Idaho Power Company Authors: Elizabeth Cooper Dylan Agnes 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 Prepared for: Idaho Power Company Contract Number: # Please cite this report as follows: Agnes, D., (2018). 2018 TASK 2: Lunch and Learn – Summary of Effort and Outcomes (1801_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. 2018 Summary and Cumulative Analysis .................................................................................... 8 2. Session Summaries ................................................................................................................... 13 2.1 Session 1: Indoor Air Quality (IAQ) and Energy Efficiency in Buildings (03/23/2018) ........ 13 2.2 Session 2: Daylight Performance Metrics for Human Health, Productivity, and Satisfaction (04/13/2018) ............................................................................................................................. 13 2.3 Session 3: Daylight in Buildings: Getting the Details Right (04/13/2018) ........................... 14 2.4 Session 4: Indoor Air Quality (IAQ) and Energy Efficiency in Buildings (04/27/2018) ........ 15 2.5 Session 5: Daylight Performance Metrics for Human Health, Productivity, and Satisfaction (06/05/18) ................................................................................................................................. 15 2.6 Session 6: Radiant Heating and Cooling Design (06/14/18) ............................................... 16 2.7 Session 7: Indoor Air Quality (IAQ) and Energy Efficiency in Buildings (06/20/18) ............ 17 2.8 Session 8: Daylight in Buildings: Getting the Details Right( 06/21/18) ............................... 17 2.9 Session 9: Indoor Air Quality (IAQ) and Energy Efficiency in Buildings (07/12/18) ............ 18 2.10 Session 10: Daylight in Buildings: Getting the Details Right (08/02/18) ........................... 18 2.11 Session 11: Radiant Heating and Cooling Design (08/07/18) ........................................... 19 2.12 Session 12: Hybrid Ground Source Heat Pump System (08/08/2018) ............................. 20 2.13 Session 13: Chilled Beams (08/21/18) .............................................................................. 20 2.14 Session 14: Daylight Performance Metrics for Human Health, Productivity, and Satisfaction (08/23/18) ............................................................................................................. 21 2.15 Sessions 15: Daylight Performance Metrics for Human Health, Productivity, and Satisfaction (08/30/18) ............................................................................................................. 21 2.16 Session 16: Radiant Heating and Cooling Design (09/05/2018) ....................................... 22 2.17 Session 17: Indoor Air Quality (IAQ) and Energy Efficiency in Buildings (09/06/2018) .... 23 2.18 Session 18: VRFs & Heat Pumps (09/17/18) .................................................................... 23 2.19 Session 19: Chilled Beams (10/09/2018) .......................................................................... 24 2.20 Session 20: Indoor Air Quality (IAQ) and Energy Efficiency in Buildings (10/30/2018) .... 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. 2018 SUMMARY AND CUMULATIVE ANALYSIS Table 1: 2018 Lunch and Learn Summary Date Title Presenter Group / Location Attendees 1 03/23 Indoor Air Quality (IAQ) and Energy Efficiency in Buildings Elizabeth Engineering Firm 1 4 2 04/13 Elizabeth Architectural Organization 1 10 5 06/05 Elizabeth Architectural Firm 2 7 14 08/23 Elizabeth Engineering Firm 3 18 15 08/30 Elizabeth Architectural Firm 6 9 9 Table 1 above summarizes all Lunch and Learn presentations given in 2018. The statistics in this section are cumulative for the 20 presentations. At each presentation participants were asked to sign in and fill out an evaluation form. Presentations were judged on a scale of 1 to 5, please see table 2. 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 Needs Improvement Good Excellent Table 3: Overall Attendance Breakdown Architect: 136 Electrician: Engineer: 10 Contractor: Mech. Engineer: 12 Other: 6 Elec. Engineer: 7 None Specified: 23 Total (In-Person): 194 10 Figure 1: Attendee Profession Architect 70% Engineer5% Mech. Engineer 6% Elec. Engineer 4% Other3%None Specified12% Profession of Attendee Breakdown 11 Figure 2: Attendee Count by Title and Number of Session 4 10 8 13 3 6 5 14 7 6 9 48 8 18 10 2 6 9 3 5 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Indoor Air Quality Syatem (IAQ) & Energy Efficiency in Builldings Daylight Performance Metrics for Human Health, Productivity, and Satisfaction Daylight in Buildings: Getting the Details Right Radiant Heating and Cooling Design Considerations Hybrid Ground Source Heat Pump System Chilled Beams VRFs & Heat Pump System 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 Indoor Air Quality Syatem (IAQ) & Energy Efficiency in Builldings Daylight Performance Metrics for Human Health, Productivity, and Satisfaction Daylight in Buildings: Getting the Details Right Indoor Air Quality Syatem (IAQ) & Energy Efficiency in Builldings Daylight Performance Metrics for Human Health, Productivity, and Satisfaction Radiant Heating and Cooling Design Considerations Indoor Air Quality Syatem (IAQ) & Energy Efficiency in Builldings Daylight in Buildings: Getting the Details Right Indoor Air Quality Syatem (IAQ) & Energy Efficiency in Builldings Daylight in Buildings: Getting the Details Right Radiant Heating and Cooling Design Considerations Hybrid Ground Source Heat Pump System Chilled Beams Daylight Performance Metrics for Human Health, Productivity, and Satisfaction Daylight Performance Metrics for Human Health, Productivity, and Satisfaction Radiant Heating and Cooling Design Considerations Indoor Air Quality Syatem (IAQ) & Energy Efficiency in Builldings VRFs & Heat Pump System Chilled Beams Indoor Air Quality Syatem (IAQ) & Energy Efficiency in Builldings 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: 4.57 4.46 4.66 4.79 4.90 4.68 3.49 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: Indoor Air Quality (IAQ) and Energy Efficiency in Buildings (03/23/2018) Title: Indoor Air Quality (IAQ) and Energy Efficiency in Buildings. Description: In an effort to make buildings operate in the most energy efficient manner, we are designing building envelopes to be as airtight as possible with as little outside air as allowable. In this presentation the following issues are addressed: significance of IAQ to human health and productivity, the link between IAQ and building energy demands, and efficient technologies for optimizing IAQ. Presentation Info: Attendance: 4 2.2 Session 2: Daylight Performance Metrics for Human Health, Productivity, and Satisfaction (04/13/2018) 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 14 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: Attendance: 10 2.3 Session 3: Daylight in Buildings: Getting the Details Right (04/13/2018) Title: Daylight in Buildings: Getting the Details Right. Description: This session is intended to instruct on the process of creating high quality and comfortable day-lit spaces focuses on getting the details right. After the schematic design is formed to appropriately deliver daylight to the important surfaces within a space, there are several details that can make or break the overall success of the project. This presentation discussed several details, ranging from interior surface colors and reflectance, to interior space layouts, furniture design, window details (including glazing specifications), and shading strategies. The presentation introduces concepts of lighting control systems to ensure that energy is saved from the inclusion of daylight. Presentation Info: 15 Attendance: 8 2.4 Session 4: Indoor Air Quality (IAQ) and Energy Efficiency in Buildings (04/27/2018) Title: Indoor Air Quality (IAQ) and Energy Efficiency in Buildings. Description: In an effort to make buildings operate in the most energy efficient manner, we are designing building envelopes to be as airtight as possible with as little outside air as allowable. In this presentation the following issues are addressed: significance of IAQ to human health and productivity, the link between IAQ and building energy demands, and efficient technologies for optimizing IAQ. Presentation Info: Attendance: 14 2.5 Session 5: Daylight Performance Metrics for Human Health, Productivity, and Satisfaction (06/05/18) 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 16 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: Attendance: 7 2.6 Session 6: Radiant Heating and Cooling Design (06/14/18) 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: Attendance: 17 13 2.7 Session 7: Indoor Air Quality (IAQ) and Energy Efficiency in Buildings (06/20/18) Title: Indoor Air Quality (IAQ) and Energy Efficiency in Buildings. Description: In an effort to make buildings operate in the most energy efficient manner, we are designing building envelopes to be as airtight as possible with as little outside air as allowable. In this presentation the following issues are addressed: significance of IAQ to human health and productivity, the link between IAQ and building energy demands, and efficient technologies for optimizing IAQ. Presentation Info: Date: 06/20/2018 Location: Architecture Firm 2 - Boise, ID Presenter: Elizabeth Cooper Attendance: Architect: 8 Electrician: Engineer: Contractor: Mech. Engineer: Other: Elec. Engineer: None Specified: Total (In-Person): 2.8 Session 8: Daylight in Buildings: Getting the Details Right( 06/21/18) Title: Daylight in Buildings: Getting the Details Right Description: This session is intended to instruct on the process of creating high quality and comfortable day-lit spaces focuses on getting the details right. After the schematic design is formed to appropriately deliver daylight to the important surfaces within a space, there are several details that can make or break the overall success of the project. This presentation discussed several details, ranging from interior surface colors and reflectance, to interior space layouts, furniture design, window details (including glazing specifications), and shading strategies. The presentation introduces concepts of lighting control systems to ensure that energy is saved from the inclusion of daylight. Presentation Info: 18 , ID Attendance: 6 2.9 Session 9: Indoor Air Quality (IAQ) and Energy Efficiency in Buildings (07/12/18) Title: Indoor Air Quality (IAQ) and Energy Efficiency in Buildings. Description: In an effort to make buildings operate in the most energy efficient manner, we are designing building envelopes to be as airtight as possible with as little outside air as allowable. In this presentation the following issues are addressed: significance of IAQ to human health and productivity, the link between IAQ and building energy demands, and efficient technologies for optimizing IAQ. Presentation Info: Presenter: Elizabeth Cooper Attendance: Architect: Electrician: Engineer: 4 Contractor: Mech. Engineer: Other: 1 Elec. Engineer: None Specified: 1 Total (In-Person): 6 2.10 Session 10: Daylight in Buildings: Getting the Details Right (08/02/18) Title: Daylight in Buildings: Getting the Details Right. Description: This session is intended to instruct on the process of creating high quality and comfortable day-lit spaces focuses on getting the details right. After the schematic design is formed to appropriately deliver daylight to the important surfaces within a space, there are several details that can make or break the overall success of the project. This presentation discussed several details, ranging from interior surface colors and reflectance, to interior space layouts, furniture 19 design, window details (including glazing specifications), and shading strategies. The presentation introduces concepts of lighting control systems to ensure that energy is saved from the inclusion of daylight. Presentation Info: Attendance: 10 2.11 Session 11: Radiant Heating and Cooling Design (08/07/18) 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: Attendance: 9 20 2.12 Session 12: Hybrid Ground Source Heat Pump System (08/08/2018) Title: Hybrid Ground Source Heat 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: Attendance: 3 2.13 Session 13: Chilled Beams (08/21/18) Title: Chilled Beams. Description: How to incorporate chilled beams into building design: the costs, the energy savings, and the impacts on the architectural program and HVAC system. Presentation Info: Attendance: 21 6 2.14 Session 14: Daylight Performance Metrics for Human Health, Productivity, and Satisfaction (08/23/18) 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: Attendance: 18 2.15 Sessions 15: Daylight Performance Metrics for Human Health, Productivity, and Satisfaction (08/30/18) Title: Daylight Performance Metrics for Human Health, Productivity, and Satisfaction. 22 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: , ID Attendance: 9 2.16 Session 16: Radiant Heating and Cooling Design (09/05/2018) 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. 23 Presentation Info: Attendance: 2 2.17 Session 17: Indoor Air Quality (IAQ) and Energy Efficiency in Buildings (09/06/2018) Title: Indoor Air Quality (IAQ) and Energy Efficiency in Buildings. Description: In an effort to make buildings operate in the most energy efficient manner, we are designing building envelopes to be as airtight as possible with as little outside air as allowable. In this presentation the following issues are addressed: significance of IAQ to human health and productivity, the link between IAQ and building energy demands, and efficient technologies for optimizing IAQ. Presentation Info: Attendance: 3 2.18 Session 18: VRFs & Heat Pumps (09/17/18) Title: VRFs & Heat Pumps. Description: Designing features of decoupled buildings. Sizing VRF and heat pump systems for Idaho’s climates. Including ERVs with DOAS. 24 Presentation Info: Attendance: 5 2.19 Session 19: Chilled Beams (10/09/2018) Title: Chilled Beams Description: How to incorporate chilled beams into building design: the costs, the energy savings, and the impacts on the architectural program and HVAC system. Presentation Info: Attendance: 48 2.20 Session 20: Indoor Air Quality (IAQ) and Energy Efficiency in Buildings (10/30/2018) Title: Indoor Air Quality (IAQ) and Energy Efficiency in Buildings. Description: In an effort to make buildings operate in the most energy efficient manner, we are designing building envelopes to be as airtight as possible with as little outside air as allowable. In this presentation the following issues are addressed: significance of IAQ to human health and productivity, the link between IAQ and building energy demands, and efficient technologies for optimizing IAQ. Presentation Info: 25 Attendance: 5 3. FUTURE WORK Feedback was gathered from the 79 Lunch and Learn evaluations received throughout 2018. The comments from these were valuable in defining possible future Lunch and Learn topics and informed the list of suggestions below. Potential Future Topics: • Envelope Design to meet energy code • Natural Ventilation, Passive Heating & Cooling • Update on LEED • Photocontrols Basic & Advanced • 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: 1801_003-01 2018 TASK 3: BSUG SUMMARY OF EFFORT AND OUTCOMES IDAHO POWER COMPANY EXTERNAL YEAR-END REPORT December 31, 2018 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: JKB168 Please cite this report as follows: Agnes, D. (2018). 2018 TASK 3: BSUG – Summary of Effort and Outcomes (1801_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. 2018 Summary and Cumulative Analysis .................................................................................... 3 3.1 2018 Attendance ................................................................................................................... 4 3.2 2018 Evaluations ................................................................................................................... 5 4. Session Summaries ..................................................................................................................... 6 4.1 Session 1: Sensor Suitcase (02/28/18) .................................................................................. 6 4.2 Session 2: Code Compliance through Energy Modeling (03/22/18) ..................................... 7 4.3 Session 3: Energy Modeling Workflow – Creating Energy and Daylight Simulations from CAD Drawings (04/26/18) ........................................................................................................... 7 4.4 Session 4: Energy Modeling for LEED v4 in OpenStudio (05/24/18) .................................... 8 4.5 Session 5: Modeling Tools to Inform Early Design (10/25/18) ............................................. 9 4.6 Session 6: Building Performance Simulation – What’s in the Black Box (12/12/18) .......... 10 5. Website Maintenance and Statistics ........................................................................................ 11 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 2018 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. 2018 SUMMARY AND CUMULATIVE ANALYSIS In 2018, six sessions were coordinated and hosted. Sessions are summarized below with details in the following sections. Table 1: Overall Summary of Sessions Presenter Company Date Title Presenter In-person Online In-person Online 2/22 Sensor Suitcase 13 41 12 17 4/26 IDL 15 58 10 21 Total: 57 215 72 85 272 157 Integrated Design Lab | Boise 4 3.1 2018 Attendance Figure 1: Attendee Count by Session and Type Table 2: Overall Attendance Breakdown Architect: 20 Electrician: Engineer: 62 Contractor: Mech. Engineer: 9 Other: 3 Elec. Engineer: None Specified: 70 Total (In-Person): 72 Total (Online): 85 Total (Combined): 157 12 10 10 11 5 24 17 13 21 19 15 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Sensor Suitcase Code Compliance through Energy Modeling Energy Modeling Workflow - Creating Energy and DaylightSimulations from CAD Energy Modeling for LEED v4 in OpenStudio Modeling Tools to Inform Early Design Building Performance Simulation: What's in the Black Box Number of Attendees In-Person Online Figure 2: Attendee Profession Breakdown Figure 3: Attendee Type Breakdown Architect 21% Engineer 66% Mech. Engineer 10% Other 3% Profession of Attendee Breakdown In-Person 36% Online 64% Attendee Type Breakdown Integrated Design Lab | Boise 5 3.2 2018 Evaluations Figure 4: Average Evaluations by Session Figure 5: Average Evaluation Scores for All Sessions 0 1 2 3 4 5 Sensor Suitcase Code Compliance through Energy Modeling Energy Modeling Workflow - Creating Energy and Daylight Simulations from CAD Energy Modeling for LEED v4 in OpenStudio Modeling Tools to Inform Early Design Average Evaluation Scores By Session 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: 3.82 3.95 4.24 3.94 4.46 4.23 3.42 0 1 2 3 4 5 In general, today's presentationwas: 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: Sensor Suitcase (02/28/18) Title: Sensor Suitcase Date: 02/28/18 Description: The Sensor Suitcase is a portable diagnostic toolkit with sensors that gather information about how a building operates. The result of a collaborative effort by PNNL, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL), and Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL), it serves as a tool to simplify and streamline the retro-commissioning process by enabling non-experts to identify energy-saving operational changes, while keeping the costs of this service low. Total energy cost savings for retro- commissioning are estimated to be 15 percent. The service provider enters a commercial building with the sensor suitcase and a tablet computer. The tablet, on which the suitcase software application is installed, wirelessly communicates with the suitcase to guide the service provider/user through sensor installation. Sensors are placed in designated locations, some on lighting fixtures, others near thermostats, and still others on rooftop HVAC systems. Once installation is complete, the user exits the building site, leaving the sensors in place for 4-6 weeks. When the sensors are configured during the installation process, data that identifies the building, the location at which the sensor is installed (e.g., the room name or number), and the type of measurement being taken – such as temperature of air coming out of a register, or when lights are on or off – are stored on the sensor. Throughout the measurement period, the sensor collects sensed data. At the end of the measurement period, the user simply collects the sensors and places them back into slots in the suitcase, from where the data are transferred to a computer for analysis. The user-friendly software then provides an output of recommended actions for reducing energy use, including expected costs savings. Presenter: Michael Brambley & Samuel Graham Attendance: Architect: 2 Electrician: Engineer: 6 Contractor: Mech. Engineer: Other*: Elec. Engineer: None Specified: 21 Total (In-Person): Total (Online): *If 'Other' was noted: Explanation of the use of the product. Having the presenter live feed to the webinar and the slides up simultaneously was really nice. Learning about the suitcase, and the possibilities to use it for POE studies. Integrated Design Lab | Boise 7 4.2 Session 2: Code Compliance through Energy Modeling (03/22/18) Title: Code Compliance through Energy Modeling Date: 03/22/18 Description: Have you submitted an energy model to a building department to demonstrate code compliance? Now you can. In their goal to increase energy conservation the City of Boulder, CO is requiring new commercial construction projects to exceed ASHRAE 90.1-2010 by 30%, and 14% for residential projects. Explore the progression of the energy code in the City of Boulder, examine the current code, and dive into three examples from a single site exploring the range of project aspects from multi-family residential, new construction, renovation, and addition. The presentation will cover specific code language, the challenges of energy modeling for a new code requirement, modeling guidelines utilized to create a model for code compliance, results from three different project examples, and a summary of thoughts on code compliance energy simulation. Presenters: Rebecca Reel Attendance: Architect: 2 Contractor: Mech. Engineer: 10 Other*: 2 Elec. Engineer: None Specified: 9 Total (In-Person): Total (Online): *If 'Other' was noted: Accounting, Performance Design Evaluation Highlights (What attendees found most valuable): • • • • 4.3 Session 3: Energy Modeling Workflow – Creating Energy and Daylight Simulations from CAD Drawings (04/26/18) Title: Energy Modeling Workflow – Creating Energy and Daylight Simulations from CAD Drawings Date: 04/26/18 Description: This presentation is for anyone who wants to know how to take an Autodesk (Revit & AutoCAD) based project and turn it into a preliminary study to inform early design, or for more detailed analysis through OpenStudio or Radiance software. Dylan Agnes and Damon Woods from IDL will cover Integrated Design Lab | Boise 8 what information is needed for an energy and/or daylighting model. We will share lessons we’ve learned and recommendations for anyone who is looking to gain LEED credits for their project or just a better sense of the energy or lighting impacts of different design iterations. This talk is intended for anyone who is just beginning energy modeling, as well as experienced users. For experienced modelers, we will share tips and tricks that we use at the lab to make the process as simple and robust as possible. The need for energy modeling, and controls/standards for daylighting and electric lighting, is growing due to the requirements of standards such as LEED, and is now required in some jurisdictions. The IDL aims to encourage more architects and engineers in Boise to provide energy and daylighting modeling in house. This presentation aims to answer your questions, prevent headaches for new users, and remove the mystery of getting from plans to energy and daylight findings. Presenter: Damon Woods & Dylan Agnes Attendance: Architect: 5 Electrician: Engineer: 8 Contractor: Mech. Engineer: Other*: Elec. Engineer: None Specified: 18 Total (In-Person): Total (Online): *If 'Other' was noted: Evaluation Highlights (What attendees found most valuable): Good resource for getting into Radiance later How the daylight simulations could be linked to, and integrated with, the CAD drawings output. 4.4 Session 4: Energy Modeling for LEED v4 in OpenStudio (05/24/18) Title: Climate Design Tools Date: 06/28/17 Description: USGBC’s Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) helped push energy efficiency in commercial buildings far beyond minimum code requirements. The latest version, LEED v4, is continuing to advance energy efficiency with the adoption of ASHRAE 90.1-2010 Appendix G for baseline modeling. In order for whole building simulations to accurately inform design teams, the code must be correctly reflected in the energy model. This presentation will address several potential issues with using OpenStudio for LEED v4 energy modeling and provides solutions and best practices for practitioners. These issues include; several of the defaults in OpenStudio do not comply with ASHRAE, some requirements in ASHRAE are not explicitly identified leaving modelling these parameters up to interpretation, and there are program-specific issues in meeting the ASHRAE requirements. Presenter: Taylor Roberts Integrated Design Lab | Boise 9 Attendance: Architect: 4 Electrician: Engineer: 9 Contractor: Mech. Engineer: Other*: 2 Elec. Engineer: None Specified: 15 Total (In-Person): Total (Online): *If 'Other' was noted: Energy Modeler, Energy Consultant Evaluation Highlights (What attendees found most valuable): Info about New LEED standard 4.5 Session 5: Modeling Tools to Inform Early Design (10/25/18) Title: Modeling Tools to Inform Early Design Date: 10/25/18 Description: Designing high performance buildings requires an integrated design process. Design teams are looking for building performance analysis to inform the ever evolving design and time is critical in this process. This session will highlight analysis tools that work seamlessly with design tools allowing for timely analysis results. Case studies will also be shared to demonstrate how these tools were applied in the design process. Presenter: Justin Shultz Attendance: Architect: 5 Electrician: Engineer: 7 Contractor: Mech. Engineer: Other*: 1 Elec. Engineer: None Specified: 7 Total (In-Person): Total (Online): *If 'Other' was noted: Sustainability consultant Evaluation Highlights (What attendees found most valuable): Examples that the presenter gave - real case studies. References to the software tools for each early design analysis performed The number of energy modeling tools available the variety of case studies and informative results Integrated Design Lab | Boise 10 4.6 Session 6: Building Performance Simulation – What’s in the Black Box (12/12/18) Title: Building Performance Simulation – What’s in the Black Box Date: 12/12/18 Description: Over the last 50 years, building simulation has evolved into a powerful tool for evaluating the energy performance of potential or existing buildings. Building simulation allows easy comparison of the energy and environmental performance of many hundreds of design or retrofit options. This presentation provides an overview of building performance simulation fundamentals and history, Building Information Modeling, what’s in the black box of key simulation programs, as well as comparing underlying simulation methods. Presenters: Drury B. Crawley Attendance: Architect: 2 Electrician: Engineer: 22 Contractor: Mech. Engineer: Other*: Elec. Engineer: None Specified: Total (In-Person): Total (Online): *If 'Other' was noted: Evaluation Highlights (What attendees found most valuable): No Evaluations were collected – Joint session with ASHRAE. Integrated Design Lab | Boise 11 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 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, 2018 and December 18, 2018, total page views summed to 709 with unique page views at 586 for 323 total sessions at the site. Of the 323 sessions, 14 (4.33%) 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 2018 134 69 56 49 45 40 31 30 22 21 117 42 44 39 41 28 22 24 19 17 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 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 2018 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec (18th) 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 2018 6. OTHER ACTIVITIES AND SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE IMPROVEMENTS We saw an increase in average attendance for each session this year gaining 39 in- person (54%) for overall attendance from 2017. Additionally, we saw an increase in online attendance by 44 online-attendees (51%) from last year even though we offered one less webinar. This year was successful for the BSUG task with 6 sessions completed and 157 total attendees – 72 in-person and 85 online. Feedback was provided by attendees via the evaluation forms, 53 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 Integrated Design Lab | Boise 14 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: 1801_004-01 2018 TASK 4: NEW CONSTRUCTION VERIFICATIONS SUMMARY OF PROJECTS IDAHO POWER COMPANY EXTERNAL YEAR-END REPORT December 31, 2018 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: Elizabeth Cooper Prepared for: Idaho Power Company Contract Number: 5277 Please cite this report as follows: Cooper, E. (2018). 2018 TASK 4: New Construction Verifications – Summary of Projects (1801_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 2018 Task 4: New Construction Verifications - Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report (Report #1801_004-01) vi TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 1 2. 2018 New Construction Verification Projects ............................................................................. 1 3. 2018 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 2018 Task 4: New Construction Verifications- Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report (Report #1801_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 2018. The primary role was to conduct on-site verification reports for approximately 10%, typically twelve to fifteen, 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 are intended to increase energy savings and quality of design through the inclusion of additional design and commissioning recommendations. 2. 2018 NEW CONSTRUCTION VERIFICATION PROJECTS The UI-IDL completed twelve New Construction Verification projects in 2018. A detailed report for each project was submitted to IPC, including claimed and actual installation for each specific incentive the project applied for. All of the projects reviewed in 2018 were finalized and paid in 2018 but resided under the 2016 program format. The specific incentives for this program are outlined in Table 1. Table 2 summarizes the twelve projects and respective qualified incentive measures which were verified by UI-IDL. For the projects listed, more than 41% were conducted outside the Boise area. Integrated Design Lab | Boise 2 2018 Task 4: New Construction Verifications- Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report (Report #1801_004-01) 2 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 16-033 Industrial Caldwell, ID L1, L2 11/05/18 16-064 Educational Star, ID A1, A5, B1, C1, 11/02/18 Integrated Design Lab | Boise 3 2018 Task 4: New Construction Verifications- Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report (Report #1801_004-01) 3 3. 2018 PHOTO CONTROLS REVIEW PROJECTS In 2018, the UI-IDL received at least eight 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 five of these projects including offices, schools, mixed-use, industrial, and civic buildings. Report Number: 1801_005-05 2018 TASK 5: TOOL LOAN LIBRARY SUMMARY OF EFFORT AND OUTCOMES IDAHO POWER COMPANY EXTERNAL YEAR-END REPORT December 31, 2018 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: #### Please cite this report as follows: Agnes, D. (2018). 2018 TASK 5: Tool Loan Library – Summary of Effort and Outcomes (1801_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. 2018 Summary Of Loans ........................................................................................................... 13 5. Appendices ................................................................................................................................ 18 ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS AC Air Conditioning AIA American Institute of Architects AHU Air Handling Unit Amp Ampere ASHRAE American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air-Conditioning Engineers BOMA Building Owners and Managers Association BSU Boise State University CO2 Carbon Dioxide CT Current Transducer Cx Commissioning DCV Demand Control Ventilation EE Energy Efficiency EEM(s) Energy Efficiency Measure(s) fc Foot-Candle HVAC Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning IAC Industrial Assessment Center IBOA Intermountain Building Operators Association IDL Integrated Design Lab Int. International IPC Idaho Power Company kW Kilowatt kWh Kilowatt-Hour M&V Measurement and Verification OSA Outside Air vii PG&E Pacific Gas and Electric Company PPM Parts Per Million RPM Rotations Per Minute RTU Rooftop Unit TLL Tool Loan Library TPS Third Party Service UI University of Idaho USGBC U.S. Green Building Council Verif. Verification VOC Volatile Organic Compound 3P Third Party Integrated Design Lab | Boise 8 2018 Task 5: Tool Loan Library - Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report (Report #1801_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. Equipment in the library is tracked via excel, website databases, and in the Energy Resource Catalog that is being redesigned and reviewed by the Idaho Power marketing team. 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 creates a user account at idlboise.com. The customer the has access to the tool loan portal where they fill out a tool loan proposal form. This form 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 Integrated Design Lab | Boise 9 2018 Task 5: Tool Loan Library - Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report (Report #1801_005-05) communicate to verify and finalize equipment needs. An approval email is sent and tools are picked up at the UI-IDL or shipped at the customer’s expense. 2. MARKETING Marketing for the TLL was done at various UI-IDL and IPC activities throughout 2018, as well as on the UI-IDL website. The flyer layout was unchanged from 2013: it is in Figure 1 and Figure 2 below. After submitting several drafts for approval it is now being redesigned and reviewed by Idaho Power marketing team. The Energy Resource Catalog is intended to be a complete listing of all tools available to Idaho Power customers, but also, as an in-house reference to assist Architects and Engineering in deciding if a tool would be beneficial to the project. The TLL was promoted in presentations given by the UI-IDL staff, including the Lunch and Learn series and lectures to professional organizations. 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 to request tools, all online. In 2018, the TLL home page had 2,045 visitors. Integrated Design Lab | Boise 10 2018 Task 5: Tool Loan Library - Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report (Report #1801_005-05) Figure 1: TLL Flyer Front Figure 2: TLL Flyer Back Integrated Design Lab | Boise 11 2018 Task 5: Tool Loan Library - Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report (Report #1801_005-05) 3. NEW TOOLS & TOOL CALIBRATION PLAN In 2018, twenty new tools were added to the TLL to replace old data logging models as well as a new FLIR thermal camera that is portable with an external power supply for extended periods of use. In addition, the FLIR E50bx thermal imaging camera was calibrated during the third quarter. 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 2018 Task 5: Tool Loan Library - Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report (Report #1801_005-05) The IDL will perform the following to ensure items are within specified calibration tolerances: 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. Integrated Design Lab | Boise 13 2018 Task 5: Tool Loan Library - Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report (Report #1801_005-05) 4. 2018 SUMMARY OF LOANS In 2018, loan requests totaled 38 with 34 loans completed, 4 loans are on-going. The third quarter had the highest volume of loans at 12 total. Loans were made to 14 different locations and 22 unique users and 11 new TLL 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 2018. Table 1: Project and Loan Summary Request Date Location Project Type of Loan Tools 1/11/2018 Boise ID EWDC Audit 7 1/11/2018 Burley ID AOTP Audit 34 2/5/2018 Emmett ID IGCLNGP Audit 1 4 2/9/2018 Lewiston ID TCMS 1 5 6 2/23/2018 ID CSFS Audit 4 7 2/26/2018 Boise ID NRCS measurement 1 8 9 10 3/21/2018 Meridian ID SLLDD measurement 3 11 12 13 14 6/12/2018 Boise ID HHSSU 1 15 Integrated Design Lab | Boise 14 2018 Task 5: Tool Loan Library - Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report (Report #1801_005-05) 16 8/10/2018 McCall ID CADW measurement 8 17 7/13/2018 Boise ID OTYDW measurement 34 18 7/24/2018 Salmon ID GCA 1 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 9/19/2018 Boise ID MCPBAP measurement 17 27 28 29 30 11/6/2018 Boise ID UICBC 20 31 11/7/2018 Boise ID MFPB measurement 29 32 33 11/21/2018 Burley ID INTI 1 34 35 36 37 12/10/2018 Caldwell ID CLA 7 38 Integrated Design Lab | Boise 15 2018 Task 5: Tool Loan Library - Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report (Report #1801_005-05) Figure 3: Loans by Type Figure 4: Number of Loans per Quarter Figure 5: Number of Loans per Month 6 2 1 5 1 8 3 1 7 1 3 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 1. Preliminary Investigation / Audit / Study to Identify Energy Efficiency Measures (EEMs) 2. Pre-implementation / Baseline Measurements of Particular EEMs 3. Post-implementation / Verification Measures of Particular EEMs Loans by Type Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 9 6 12 11 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Number of Loans per Quarter 0 2 4 6 8 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Number of Loans per Month Total Integrated Design Lab | Boise 16 2018 Task 5: Tool Loan Library - Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report (Report #1801_005-05) Figure 6: Number of Loans by Location Figure 7: Number of Loans by User 18 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 0 5 10 15 20 Boise Garden City McCall Nampa Twin Falls Caldwell Burley Meridian Emmett Lewiston Canyon County Salmon Idaho City Ketchum ID Loans by Location 2018 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 7 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Homeowner Engineering Firm 2 University 1 Company 4 Architecture Firm 4 Engineering Firm 3 Engineering Firm 5 Company 8 Company 3 Company 5 Company 6 Real Estate 1 Architecture Firm 5 Architecture Firm 2 Utilties 1 Company 2 Company 1 Engineering Firm 4 Architecture Firm 1 Engineering Firm 1 Company 7 Civic 1 Loans by User Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Integrated Design Lab | Boise 17 2018 Task 5: Tool Loan Library - Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report (Report #1801_005-05) 390 Figure 8: Summary of Tools Loaned 12 2 10 1 4 4 28 4 3 1 4 2 3 2 3 1 1 1 2 2 3 107 119 11 1 1 10 14 10 8 6 1 5 4 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 Accu-CT 60-600 Amps Carbon Dioxide and Temperature Monitor Carbon Dioxide and Temperature Monitor w/ Data Logging CEM Sound Level Meter CONTACT Logger Continental Control Systems, LLC ACT Split-Core CT Dent ElitePro Energy Logger, High Memory, Line Power Dent Flexible AC Current Probe, 3000A Dent RoCoil Flexible CT Energy Logger, Standard Memory (512k) Extech Light Meter FLEXIM Ultrasonic Flow Meter FLIR C2 Portable Thermal Imaging Camera FLIR E50bx FLIR ONE Thermal Imaging Camera - Droid FLIR ONE Thermal Imaging Camera - iOS Flow Meter, Dynasonics UFX Fluke 1730 Energy Logger Fluke 43B Handheld Instrument Fluke Infrared Thermometer GE Sensing Flow Meter HOBO Temperature Sensor HOBO U12-012 Data Logger HOBO U12-013 Data Logger IR Thermometer, Raynger PM50 Power Adapter Split-core CT, 100 Amp Split-core CT, 200 Amp Split-core CT, 50 Amp Split-Core Mini CT, 50 Amp TU-S9 Data Cable Ultrasound Leak Detector VOC and Temperature Monitor w/ Data Logging Watts up Pro ES Meter Tool Summary 2018 Integrated Design Lab | Boise 18 2018 Task 5: Tool Loan Library - Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report (Report #1801_005-05) 5. APPENDICES APPENDIX A: Equipment List The equipment in the library is tracked via excel, website, and in the soon completed ERL Catalog. Report Number: 1801_010-06 2018 TASK 1.6: THERMAL ENERGY SAVINGS TOOL SUMMARY OF PROGRESS IDAHO POWER COMPANY EXTERNAL YEAR-END REPORT December 31, 2018 Prepared for: Idaho Power Company Authors: Damon Woods 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: Damon Woods Prepared for: Idaho Power Company Contract Number: 5277 Please cite this report as follows: Woods, D. (2018). TASK 6: Thermal Energy Savings Tool - Summary of Progress (1801_010- 06). 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 ............................................................................................................. 2 3. Code Updates .............................................................................................................................. 3 4. References .................................................................................................................................. 4 5. Appendices .................................................................................................................................. 5 Appendix A: Code Updates ......................................................................................................... 5 ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS GSHP Ground-Source Heat Pump HP Heat Pump IDL Integrated Design Lab IPC Idaho Power Company TEST Thermal Energy Savings Tool UI University of Idaho VRF Variable Refrigerant Flow WSHP Water-Source Heat Pump Integrated Design Lab | Boise 1 2018 Task 1.6: Thermal Energy Savings Tool - Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report (Report #1801_010-06) 1. INTRODUCTION The 2018 Thermal Energy Savings Tool (TEST) development task was a continuation of work done by the University of Idaho Integrated Design Lab (UI-IDL) for Idaho Power Company (IPC). The original tool development began 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 incorporates several climate design tools and has been improved over time. Tool improvements have included the following: 2014 – Methods verified and user feedback incorporated 2015 – Residential space-type added 2016 – Climate design tools and new weather files included 2017 – Outreach, education, and customization provided for users 2018 – Code defaults updated and continued maintenance and outreach Details of the 2018 outreach and improvements are outlined in this report. Integrated Design Lab | Boise 2 2018 Task 1.6: Thermal Energy Savings Tool - Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report (Report #1801_010-06) 2. OUTREACH AND EDUCATION Outreach was the main focus of the 2017 task. Outreach continued in 2018, but was not the main emphasis of the task. Even so, there were several new inquiries and tool downloads. The IDL included information on the TEST in many of the Lunch and Learn presentations delivered at architecture and engineering firms in Idaho. Whenever a user requested access to the tool, the IDL sent the TEST spreadsheet through the service WeTransfer as it is too large to attach in a traditional email. A disclaimer is included with each tool download that makes clear that the tool does not guarantee savings and that the user is responsible for verifying their own calculations. Rather than sending out the tool based on individual requests, the goal for next year is for the IDL to host the tool online when the new IDL website is launched. Once there, the tool will be available for free download by those who create an account with IDL and agree to the disclaimer. Tool requests were received from the following organizations in 2018: • A municipality • A university • An engineering consulting firm • A utility research organization Integrated Design Lab | Boise 3 2018 Task 1.6: Thermal Energy Savings Tool - Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report (Report #1801_010-06) 3. CODE UPDATES One of the requests the lab received last year was to update the code defaults in the TEST spreadsheet. While a user may manually edit any of the numbers within the tool, there are default numbers provided for insulation, glazing properties, and lighting levels. These defaults had been referenced to ASHRAE 90.1-2007. These defaults have now been updated to the IECC 2015 code cycle to make it current with Idaho’s commercial energy code requirements for new construction. Since the tool is primarily designed for iterating potential new construction designs, this reduces the user’s time in updating the default values used. These included U-Values, F-Factors, Glazing SHGCs, power densities, and lighting requirements. In 2017, IDL provided users the ability to define custom curves for heating and cooling equipment. The functionality of this feature has been improved. There are still ways that the tool could be customized and improved. For example, for heat-pump selections, there could be a cut-off for low temperature operation so that the equipment is not over-sized. Some of the tool’s features could also be streamlined depending on the desired function. No major adjustments are planned for 2019, but the lab will continue to fix any errors users may identify and maintain its functionality. In its current form, the TEST spreadsheet remains effective at demonstrating the energy impacts of early-design decisions and presents these implications with clear and engaging graphics. Integrated Design Lab | Boise 4 2018 Task 1.6: Thermal Energy Savings Tool - Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report (Report #1801_010-06) 4. REFERENCES A. Nezamdoost, E. Cooper and D. Woods, Using a passive design toolset to evaluate low-cost cooling strategies for an industrial facility in a hot and dry climate, Energy and Buildings, Vol. 159, pp. 319-331, Jan 2018. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2017.11.011 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 5 2018 Task 1.6: Thermal Energy Savings Tool - Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report (Report #1801_010-06) 5. APPENDICES Appendix A: Code Updates Figure 1: Code cycle and default values updated and changes underlined in red Integrated Design Lab | Boise 6 2018 Task 1.6: Thermal Energy Savings Tool - Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report (Report #1801_010-06) Integrated Design Lab | Boise 7 2018 Task 1.6: Thermal Energy Savings Tool - Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report (Report #1801_010-06) Integrated Design Lab | Boise 8 2018 Task 1.6: Thermal Energy Savings Tool - Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report (Report #1801_010-06) Integrated Design Lab | Boise 9 2018 Task 1.6: Thermal Energy Savings Tool - Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report (Report #1801_010-06) Integrated Design Lab | Boise 10 2018 Task 1.6: Thermal Energy Savings Tool - Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report (Report #1801_010-06) Integrated Design Lab | Boise 11 2018 Task 1.6: Thermal Energy Savings Tool - Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report (Report #1801_010-06) Report Number: 1801_010-07 2018 TASK 7: BUILDING ENERGY ANALYTICS CASE STUDY SUMMARY OF EFFORT AND OUTCOMES IDAHO POWER COMPANY EXTERNAL YEAR-END REPORT December 31, 2018 Prepared for: Idaho Power Company Authors: Damon Woods 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 Authors: Damon Woods Prepared for: Idaho Power Company Contract Number: 5277 Please cite this report as follows: Woods, D. (2018). 2018 TASK 7: Building Energy Analytics Case Study – Summary of Effort and Outcomes (1801_010-07). University of Idaho Integrated Design Lab, Boise, ID. DISCLAIMER While the recommendations in this report have been reviewed for technical accuracy and are believed to be reasonably accurate, the findings are estimates and actual results may vary. All energy savings and cost estimates included in the report are for informational purposes only and are not to be construed as design documents or as guarantees of energy or cost savings. The user of this report, or any information contained in this report, should independently evaluate any information, advice, or direction provided in this report. THE UNIVERSITY OF IDAHO MAKES NO REPRESENTATIONS, EXTENDS NO WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE WITH RESPECT TO THE INFORMATION, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY RECOMMEDATIONS OR FINDINGS, CONTAINED IN THIS REPORT. THE UNIVERSITY ADDITIONALLY DISCLAIMS ALL OBLIGATIONS AND LIABILITIES ON THE PART OF UNIVERSITY FOR DAMAGES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DIRECT, INDIRECT, SPECIAL AND CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES, ATTORNEYS’ AND EXPERTS’ FEES AND COURT COSTS (EVEN IF THE UNIVERSITY HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBLITIY OF SUCH DAMAGES, FEES OR COSTS), ARISING OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE MANUFACTURE, USE OR SALE OF THE INFORMATION, RESULT(S), PRODUCT(S), SERVICE(S) AND PROCESSES PROVIDED BY THE UNIVERSITY. THE USER ASSUMES ALL RESPONSIBILITY AND LIABILITY FOR LOSS OR DAMAGE CAUSED BY THE USE, SALE, OR OTHER DISPOSITION BY THE USER OF PRODUCT(S), SERVICE(S), OR (PROCESSES) INCORPORATING OR MADE BY USE OF THIS REPORT, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO DAMAGES OF ANY KIND IN CONNECTION WITH THIS REPORT OR THE INSTALLATION OF RECOMMENDED MEASURES CONTAINED HEREIN. This page left intentionally blank. TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 2 2. Executive Summary ..................................................................................................................... 2 3. Case Study Identification ............................................................................................................ 3 3.1 Case Study 1 – A Campus ...................................................................................................... 4 3.2 Case Study 2 – a Government Office .................................................................................... 6 4. Results ......................................................................................................................................... 7 4.1 Findings at the Campus ......................................................................................................... 7 4.2 Findings at the Government Office ....................................................................................... 8 5. Conclusion ................................................................................................................................... 9 6. Appendices ................................................................................................................................ 11 Appendix A: Initial findings from IDL analysis of SkySpark data at the campus ....................... 11 ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ASHRAE American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air-Conditioning Engineers BAS Building Automation System CBECS Commercial Building Energy Consumption Survey DDC Direct Digital Controls DOE Department of Energy EMS Energy Management System EUI Energy Use Index HVAC Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning IAQ Indoor Air Quality IEQ Indoor Environmental Quality IDL Integrated Design Lab IPC Idaho Power Company UI University of Idaho VAV Variable Air Volume Integrated Design Lab | Boise 2 1. INTRODUCTION The 2018 Idaho Power scope of work for the Building Energy Analytics Case Study was to identify potential savings from the implementation of a new type of energy management software. Several companies are promoting new software capabilities that monitor many control points within a building. Some examples of these analytic software packages include SkySpark, EnergyCap and BuildingIQ. These data analysis software packages can overlay traditional Building Automation Systems (BAS) or Energy Management Systems (EMS). The analytic software does not directly control any building equipment. Instead, its primary use is to filter through the many control signals and identify potential operational problems within the building. This continuous monitoring has the potential to help maintain building commissioning and limit performance degradation through the building’s life. The first part of the IDL task included identifying a case study – a site that was considering adding an analytics system within 2018. The IDL team worked with the facility owners and control teams to document any implementation issues. The last step of the project was to identify whether the installation of the analytics software led to any operational changes and to estimate potential savings resulting from those changes. 2. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The use of energy analytics software at two case study sites proved key to identifying several energy efficiency measures and equipment faults. However, its full potential can only be realized when there is an existing DDC system, and a party that is dedicated to monitoring the system and follows through on communicating issues with the facilities team. The IDL project in 2018 shed light on both the strengths and weaknesses of building energy analytics. Integrated Design Lab | Boise 3 Energy analytics systems work well in the following areas: • Quickly calculating and tracking annual energy performance • Understanding baseline energy operations and energy signatures • Identifying operational anomalies Energy Analytics do not work well in the following situations: • Buildings with pneumatic controls or non-DDC systems • Buildings without a trained operator dedicated to monitoring the system • Building teams without a clear communication line between the analytics team and the operations team. 3. CASE STUDY IDENTIFICATION The IDL team identified a set of buildings linked to a campus meter as an initial case study. The campus had several advantages for selection as a case study. The facilities manager had seen a presentation on the capabilities of energy analytics and was eager to have it implemented. The campus also included a set of several different buildings which had the potential to provide a view on how effective the SkySpark program would be in generating savings within several different building types. A limited version of the SkySpark software had been implemented at the site in 2017. The IDL team met with the controls contractor and the facilities manager to do a walk-through of the site and identify how the SkySpark program could be expanded to improve the energy performance at the site. The initial SkySpark set-up only included monitoring of each of the power meters at the buildings. Since the whole campus is billed by IPC on one central meter, Integrated Design Lab | Boise 4 the SkySpark software helped the facilities team better understand the energy patterns for individual buildings at the site. 3.1 Case Study 1 – A Campus The campus includes an overnight facility, several maintenance buildings, a medical wing, and offices. SkySpark was used to quantify the annual energy use at each of the sub- metered sites. Information about each building was included in the Department of Energy (DOE) EnergyStar program to determine an Energy Star score from 0-100. This helped the facility managers at the complex identify particular areas on which to focus. Several of the buildings were grouped with other meters so no scores could be given to those structures. Information on the main buildings for which data was available are shown in Table 1. Table 1: Annual energy use information collected through SkySpark Building Area [ft2] EUI [kBtu/ft2] Energy Star Score Estimate Shop 2,414 225 4 Vehicle Maintenance 5,247 23 N/A Housing 1 10,980 40 N/A Medical Unit 24,607 57 69 Office 1 26,673 77 17 Office 2 45,276 121 N/A Housing 2 167,610 91 N/A Of the buildings listed in Table 1, three had remarkably high EUI’s with correspondingly low EnergyStar scores, which indicated poor performance. These included the shop, office 2, Integrated Design Lab | Boise 5 and housing 2. The research team examined each of these in detail by using data from SkySpark. The shop is a very small maintenance shop with heavy equipment and is used to repair items around the campus. It is open from Monday to Saturday but is not in continuous use. It is a workshop/repair space with a gas furnace and a DX rooftop unit that is controlled by a programmable thermostat. The building has a welding shop inside that is rarely used. When there is welding, there are large exhaust fans that run to maintain adequate indoor air quality. When SkySpark was used to plot the energy use, the typical profile of the shop showed times of very high use during the day, but little to no use at night. These high readings indicate simply that welding was occurring within the shop which skewed the typical energy one would expect. No operational changes were recommended for this site. The Office 1 building functions as a set of offices for many of the campus employees and personnel. While it has perimeter heating, there is no interior heating and the core can become quite cold. The perimeter heating is driven by pneumatic controls and there is no central management of the HVAC system. This building’s operational hours are M-F 8-5 with little to no weekend use. The poor comfort and high energy use of this building as identified by SkySpark should make it a campus priority for controls and HVAC upgrades. The Office 2 building serves as the main intake and processing facility at the campus. The heating and cooling is provided by a Variable Air Volume (VAV) system with electric reheat. The data collection system at the site is in its 3rd generation and overlays some much older legacy equipment. This building includes a lab which has a walk-in cooler and several freezers. Without a more detailed walkthrough and limited details from the controls, it is unknown what Integrated Design Lab | Boise 6 makes this building such a high energy consumer although the labs and operational hours of the facility may be contributing factors. Operational changes for much of the rest of the complex are limited as many of the operations are governed by housing standards for fresh air, setpoints, and lighting times. The air handlers for these buildings must remain on at all hours to maintain fresh air for the occupants. The external lighting has recently been upgraded to LED’s. Interior pod lighting upgrades to LEDs are currently underway. While the SkySpark software was helpful for sub-metering at the campus, many of the controls were tied to a legacy system without a central Energy Management System interface. The old age and autonomous setup of the existing controls limited the information that could be viewed or accessed by a building analytics software. Therefore the team shifted the focus away from the campus as a case study and towards a new building. 3.2 Case Study 2 – a Government Office The facility selected for the second case study was completed in 2002 and it has 356,000 ft2 of conference rooms and offices. The building is heated by a geothermal system and cooled by multi-staged chillers. The major pumps and motors are equipped with VFDs and the building has fully Direct Digital Controls (DDC). In 2004, the building was EnergyStar certified, with a score of 83. Since the DOE has updated the metrics with the latest CBECS data, the facility no longer qualifies for certification – it no longer performs 75% better than most other buildings of the same age and type. This performance degradation is exactly what an energy analytics program like SkySpark is intended to correct. Integrated Design Lab | Boise 7 The team met with the facility manager, the controls contractor, and a SkySpark provider to look at the possibility of installing SkySpark at the site. A stand-alone modem was installed at the site to beta-test the equipment so that several hundred points at the site could be mapped to SkySpark without a full installation cost to the owner. This modem was installed by a SkySpark vendor who was able to map many of the control points in the building very quickly. That modem is still in operation at the site, but it is due for removal in January 2019. 4. RESULTS 4.1 Findings at the Campus The first way that the energy analytics system was put to use at the campus was to provide the annual energy consumption at each of the campus buildings as shown earlier in Table 1. This allowed the campus energy specialist to identify which buildings to focus on for energy retrofits and informed the industrial survey implementation plan that is now underway at the site to retrofit and update existing equipment. Unfortunately, much of the campus control system still relies on legacy hardware and pneumatic controls, which severely limits the capabilities of an analytics system. A building analytics system like SkySpark requires access to many clearly defined digital control points to be effective at identifying operational anomalies. Without such, it is only able to provide sub- metering and some energy signature analysis. Several of the graduate students at IDL worked with the SkySpark data to identify energy signatures and operation times for the individual campus buildings as shown in Appendix A. However, without regular communication with the facilities managers or training in the analytics software, the usefulness of this exercise was limited. Integrated Design Lab | Boise 8 4.2 Findings at the Government Office The facility in the second case study had a full DDC system in place and so mapping the control points on the SkySpark system was intuitive and relatively quick (within a few days) for a knowledgeable installer. Using proprietary code within the analytics software, the SkySpark provider was able to see a list of immediate operational schemes that might be causing issues. These included chiller over-cycling, high loop temperatures, and poor economizer operation. The analytics commissioning team shared these findings with the controls team. The controls team noted that some of the automated analytics had misdiagnosed some problems. The analytics software code from the commissioning team assumes several control points are associated with standard pieces of equipment like chillers. However, the controls at this site did not include several of these control points which showed up as static values. This interaction highlighted the need for close coordination between the controls contractor and the analytics provider to understand these possible discrepancies. While several operational changes were discussed at the meeting including looking into the chiller cycling and loop temperatures, no further actions were taken that IDL is aware of. There was limited coordination between the controls provider and the facilities management at the site during the time of this project. Without a clear line of communication or personnel dedicated to following up, the information was not acted upon. Integrated Design Lab | Boise 9 5. CONCLUSION While each case study showed the potential for building analytics to be an asset, neither project was able to realize its full capabilities. Energy analytics in software such as SkySpark can be powerful tools for keeping buildings commissioned and operating efficiently. They provide both an overall image of performance by calculating Energy Use Indices (EUIs) and estimating savings by including weather normalization features. However, to target the performance of specific pieces of equipment, the software must be deployed at a site with a DDC system, and set up in close coordination with the controls contractor. After installation, it is key to have personnel who are trained in how to use the software dedicated to regularly checking in on the system and are in regular communication with the facilities team at the site. The IDL team found that in both of these case studies, there was an abundance of data, but few resources dedicated to analysis or implementation. At the campus, the installation was limited by the age of the controls at the site. The analytics software was helpful at providing baseline energy signatures. The analytics helped to inform the retrofit implementation plan at the site. The IDL team provided only a small amount of assistance in going through the data. However, the facilities team had limited time resources available to spend on such analysis. At the government office, the analytics software was installed quickly and was able to immediately identify several operational changes to improve energy efficiency. However, some of the analytics must be tuned specifically to each building to eliminate phantom anomalies from unused control points. This is best done by close coordination with the controls Integrated Design Lab | Boise 10 contractor. Lastly, although several items were identified, without dedicated personnel to follow-up on the analytics report, it is unknown if any actions were taken. The IDL team found that it is not enough to merely install analytics software and expect savings. There must be three elements in place for energy analytics to be successful. The software must be installed at an appropriate building – one with a DDC system and properly labeled control points. The installation must be carried out by a knowledgeable team who can coordinate with the controls contractor for the site. Most importantly, there must be someone within the team whose job it is to follow up on the analytics reports and to coordinate with the facilities manager to implement the operational changes. Sometimes these follow-up services are provided by those who install the analytics software, and sometimes they are not. If the correct elements are in place, the IDL team believes that energy analytics could be very effective at preventing building performance degradation and maintaining building commissioning. If one of the preceding conditions is missing, then the analytics software will likely underperform its energy savings potential. Integrated Design Lab | Boise 11 6. APPENDICES Appendix A: Initial findings from IDL analysis of SkySpark data at the campus 1. Building 1 a. There is a minimum of 20kW of lighting and plug loads on at all times. This is a significant amount of power – it might be worth a nighttime walkthrough to verify that all of the nighttime loads are necessary. b. Team should follow-up on nighttime HVAC power/setbacks during unoccupied periods by cross-referencing the expo schedule. 2. Building 2 a. Max load 124 kW, minimum of 72 kW b. Operational schedule is M-F 8-5 (little to no weekend use). Perimeter heating only with pneumatic controls. c. Upgrades: improve supply air temperatures as internal offices can become quite cold – perhaps with an ERV. 3. Building 3 a. An old housing unit now used for training. It has only a very small load: 8 kW max, 3.3 kW min. b. Recommendation: a slightly smaller load on the weekend indicates about 1kW of equipment is left on at night during the week. 4. Building 4 a. Maximum 57kW (3pm-5pm), Minimum 39kW (3am). b. This is a 24-hour facility, so no walk-through was performed and there are no recommendations at this time. 5. Building 5 a. The shop has irregular use Mon – Saturday. b. The facilities manager is in the shop regularly and keeps an eye out for equipment left on. A programmable thermostat manages the furnace and DX rooftop unit. No recommendations at this time. 6. Building 6 a. The maintenance shop has 4-5 bays that are in operation M-F 8-5 PM b. The maximum load is 12 kW, with a minimum of 0 kW, so if in the future a load appears at night, it is an indication that equipment has been left on. Integrated Design Lab | Boise 12 7. Building 7 a. Residential building of approximately 100 occupants – vacant during the day and has one washer and one dryer. Maximum 28 kW (weekends around 4:00pm) minimum of 10 kW at night. No walkthrough performed and no recommendations at this time. 8. Building 8 a. All on standards for fresh air, thermostats and lighting. AHUS are on 24/7 to maintain fresh air. b. Since the operation and schedule is so regulated, there are few efficiency recommendations at this time. The largest benefits are likely to be lighting upgrades to LED (underway) and ensuring the AHUs are maintained and replaced with high-efficiency equipment when possible as these see heavy use. 9. Building 9 a. This is a 10x10 unit with AC installed to keep the equipment in a safe operating range. b. Facilities suspected there may be a ghost load – possibly tapped into by a prior construction project c. IDL should perform further analysis to quantify the AC unit power and operation (the tower load should be steady). 10. Building 10 a. Max load 950 kW, minimum of 680 kW. b. There was some discrepancy between the main line and the total of the other loads indicating some power is being used that is not accounted for. IDL will study the data to verify this, but it may require a site visit from an IPC representative. Other Notes: a) The team should identify good baseline operation for reference b) A back-up generator test is performed every Thursday morning from 6-7 am. c) A new transformer that arrived in April should smooth out some of the power signature irregularities. The team should run a comparison to verify this improvement. Report Number: 1701_003-01 2018 TASK 8: MEASURING INDOOR PERFORMANCE AT EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES SUMMARY OF EFFORT AND OUTCOMES IDAHO POWER COMPANY EXTERNAL YEAR-END REPORT December 31, 2018 Prepared for: Idaho Power Company Authors: Damon Woods 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 Authors: Damon Woods Prepared for: Idaho Power Company Contract Number: 5277 Please cite this report as follows: Woods, D. (2018). 2018 TASK 8: Measuring Indoor Performance at Educational Facilities – Summary of Effort and Outcomes (1801_010-08). University of Idaho Integrated Design Lab, Boise, ID. DISCLAIMER While the recommendations in this report have been reviewed for technical accuracy and are believed to be reasonably accurate, the findings are estimates and actual results may vary. All energy savings and cost estimates included in the report are for informational purposes only and are not to be construed as design documents or as guarantees of energy or cost savings. The user of this report, or any information contained in this report, should independently evaluate any information, advice, or direction provided in this report. THE UNIVERSITY OF IDAHO MAKES NO REPRESENTATIONS, EXTENDS NO WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE WITH RESPECT TO THE INFORMATION, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY RECOMMEDATIONS OR FINDINGS, CONTAINED IN THIS REPORT. THE UNIVERSITY ADDITIONALLY DISCLAIMS ALL OBLIGATIONS AND LIABILITIES ON THE PART OF UNIVERSITY FOR DAMAGES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DIRECT, INDIRECT, SPECIAL AND CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES, ATTORNEYS’ AND EXPERTS’ FEES AND COURT COSTS (EVEN IF THE UNIVERSITY HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBLITIY OF SUCH DAMAGES, FEES OR COSTS), ARISING OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE MANUFACTURE, USE OR SALE OF THE INFORMATION, RESULT(S), PRODUCT(S), SERVICE(S) AND PROCESSES PROVIDED BY THE UNIVERSITY. THE USER ASSUMES ALL RESPONSIBILITY AND LIABILITY FOR LOSS OR DAMAGE CAUSED BY THE USE, SALE, OR OTHER DISPOSITION BY THE USER OF PRODUCT(S), SERVICE(S), OR (PROCESSES) INCORPORATING OR MADE BY USE OF THIS REPORT, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO DAMAGES OF ANY KIND IN CONNECTION WITH THIS REPORT OR THE INSTALLATION OF RECOMMENDED MEASURES CONTAINED HEREIN. This page left intentionally blank. TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 2 2. Summary of Findings ................................................................................................................... 2 3. Thermal Performance Analysis ................................................................................................... 3 3.1 2018 Evaluations ................................................................................................................... 7 4. Prototype Models ....................................................................................................................... 8 4.1 Matching Setpoints and Conditions ...................................................................................... 8 5. Results ....................................................................................................................................... 12 6. Conclusions and Future Steps ................................................................................................... 12 7. Appendices ................................................................................................................................ 14 Appendix A: Indoor air quality of the classrooms ..................................................................... 14 ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ASHRAE American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air-Conditioning Engineers CBECS Commercial Building Energy Consumption Survey DOE Department of Energy HVAC Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning IAQ Indoor Air Quality IEQ Indoor Environmental Quality IDL Integrated Design Lab IPC Idaho Power Company LEED Leadership in Energy & Environmental Design PMV Predicted Mean Vote PNNL Pacific Northwest National Laboratory PPD Percentage of Population Dissatisfied TMY Typical Meteorological Year UI University of Idaho Integrated Design Lab | Boise 2 1. INTRODUCTION The Integrated Design Lab (IDL) proposed a task to Idaho Power Company (IPC) on Measuring Indoor Performance at Educational Facilities. The purpose of this task was to determine the effectiveness of HVAC systems at providing adequate conditioning in typical secondary school classrooms. The data was used to quantify energy savings that could be achieved through operational changes without adversely affecting occupant comfort. Four classrooms at two separate high schools were intensively monitored for several weeks. The measurements from these classrooms were used to extrapolate cooling required in the schools during the spring and fall when the buildings are still using air conditioning. Department of Energy (DOE) prototype models of the schools were used to show how adjustments to the HVAC operations could reduce peak loads and overall energy consumption at typical Idaho high schools while maintaining high thermal and environmental quality for the students. 2. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Most classrooms measured in this project were over-cooled. They fell below the recommended comfort parameters as specified by ASHRAE Standard 55. Enhancing thermal performance of the classrooms will save on unnecessary cooling and could increase student productivity. The classrooms could be brought into compliance by raising the cooling setpoint by 4oF. Adjusting the default thermostat setpoint is estimated to save an Idaho school $4 per student in annual energy bills. Raising the cooling setpoint will save the utility an estimated 60 kWh of electrical energy per student and reduce electrical demand by 30 Watts per student. Integrated Design Lab | Boise 3 3. THERMAL PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS Thermal performance is defined by ASHRAE Standard 551. This standard includes air temperature, air velocity, relative humidity, mean radiant temperature, occupant clothing and activity levels. Based on these readings, one may estimate whether most occupants would be comfortable in that environment. The standard uses two metrics for gauging compliance: the Predicted Mean Vote (PMV) and the Percentage of People Dissatisfied (PPD). Both PMV and PPD are related through a series of equations. The PMV is an estimate of comfort on a sliding scale with -3 being very cold, 0 being comfortable, and +3 being too warm. Standard 55 specifies that occupants should be within + 0.5 PMV for the space to be considered comfortable. The PPD is another way of predicting comfort by estimating the percentage of people in the room who are satisfied with the thermal environment. If more than 20% of people are predicted to be unsatisfied (a PMV greater than 0.5), then the space is considered uncomfortable. It is important to note that these metrics are based on environmental conditions as inputs to a series of equations – not based on people’s opinions. While testing on human subjects was used to develop these original comfort standards in the 1970’s, no occupant surveys were conducted during this project. The comfort numbers provided in this report are merely predictions of what most people would state their comfort to be when in that environment. 1 ASHRAE, "ASHRAE, ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 55-2013. Thermal Environmental Conditions for Human Occupancy," American Society of Heating Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc., Atlanta, 2013. Integrated Design Lab | Boise 4 While a thermostat is often used as a proxy for thermal comfort, it misses the nuance of many other interacting features – most importantly the mean radiant temperature. The Mean Radiant Temperature (MRT) is the average of the surrounding surface temperatures and has nearly twice the impact on comfort than air temperature. Most thermostats do not incorporate the surface temperatures and therefore many HVAC systems over-cool the rooms they are meant to condition, which wastes energy. The PMV calculations were based on the set of equations laid out in ASHRAE Standard 55. The equations can be strung together in computer code and within the standard, these equations are listed in the language of BASIC. This code was re-written in Excel so that time- series graphs could be produced for this project. The equations include several assumptions and measurements. The equation inputs are listed in Table 1. Table 1: Measurements used to estimate comfort level in classrooms Input Value Meaning Activity Level 1.1 [Mets] Sitting and writing Clothing Level 0.5 [Clo] Shoes, socks, pants, and short-sleeved shirt External Work 0 [Mets] No weight-lifting Air Velocity 20 [ft/min] Default indoor velocity based on ASHRAE 55 Dry Bulb Air Temperature Measured [oF] Air temperature Relative Humidity Measured [%] Relative humidity Mean Radiant Temperature Measured [oF] Average of surface temperatures The thermal performance as measured at four classrooms in two high schools is shown in the following figures. In each graph, the PMV is shown along the vertical axis. Any measurements above 0.5 are considered too warm (as indicated by the red bars) and measurements below -0.5 are considered too cold (as indicated by the blue bars). Integrated Design Lab | Boise 5 -3 -2.5 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 Predicted Mean Vote: High School #1 -Room A Wed - 19 Thu - 20 Fri - 21 Mon - 24 Tue - 25 Wed - 26 Thu - 27 Fri - 28 Mon - 1 Tue - 2 Wed - 3 -3 -2.5 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 Predicted Mean Vote: High School #1 -Room B Wed - 19 Thu - 20 Fri - 21 Mon - 24 Tue - 25 Wed - 26 Thu - 27 Fri - 28 Mon - 1 Tue - 2 Wed - 3  Co l d Ho t  Integrated Design Lab | Boise 6 -3 -2.5 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 Predicted Mean Vote: High School #2 -Room A Mon - 22 Tue - 23 Wed - 24 Thu - 25 Fri - 26 Mon - 29 Tue - 30 Wed - 31 Thu - 1 -3 -2.5 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 Predicted Mean Vote: High School #2 -Room B Mon - 22 Tue - 23 Wed - 24 Thu - 25 Fri - 26 Mon - 29 Tue - 30 Wed - 31 Thu - 1 Integrated Design Lab | Boise 7 3.1 2018 Evaluations Every classroom that was measured indicated generally cold conditions. These cold conditions persisted even though the measurements were taken during the fall at a time when the outdoor air temperature rose above the balance point each day and the buildings were in cooling mode. In Figure 1, the outdoor temperature is shown on the same graph as the indoor temperature. Figure 1: The measured air and surface temperatures of a classroom at one of the high schools During the measurement period, the outdoor temperature regularly rose above 70oF and even up to 80oF, while the indoor temperature peaked at 72oF. The peaks of the indoor air temperature are staggered showing that the air conditioning system is active. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 65 67 69 71 73 75 77 79 Ou t d o o r A i r T e m p e r a t u r e [ oF] In d o o r A i r T e m p e r a t u r e [ oF] High School #1 Room -A: Indoor and Outdoor Temperatures HS1 Class A Air Temp HS1 Class A MRT OAT Integrated Design Lab | Boise 8 4. PROTOTYPE MODELS 4.1 Matching Setpoints and Conditions Since each of the classrooms measured showed a tendency towards overcooling, the IDL team proposed raising the cooling setpoints. The team used an energy model to estimate the savings from the setpoint adjustments. The model was a DOE prototype for a secondary school constructed to 90.1 – 2004 code standards. An image of the model is shown below. Figure 2: The DOE prototype model used to estimate energy savings This model is used as a representation for a generic high school in Idaho. It is based on data collected by the Commercial Building Energy Consumption Survey (CBECS) data and the specific energy model was produced by Pacific Northwest National Lab (PNNL). Since this model is a stand-in for a generic high school, it was not calibrated for a specific building monitored in this project. These DOE prototype models by PNNL have been used in the development of energy codes around the country. The measurements taken at the classrooms formed the baseline setpoints. The average recorded indoor cooling setpoints were between 70oF – 72oF. Integrated Design Lab | Boise 9 One example is shown in Figure 3, where the temperature falls during the occupied period and rises when unoccupied. This indicates that the classroom is being cooled between about 6:00 AM – 4:00 PM. Figure 3: The average indoor air temperatures recorded at one of the high school classrooms Three of the classrooms had similar thermal profiles to what is shown in Figure 3 with setpoints near or below 72oF and low comfort performance. Only one classroom that was measured showed times when the indoor conditions rose into the comfort zone as defined by Standard 55. This was at High School #1 in Classroom B. This room has a much higher cooling setpoint of 76oF-78oF as shown in Figure 4. 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 Ai r T e m p e r a t u r e [ oF] High School #2 Room -A Weekday Indoor Air Temperatures Mon - 22 Tue - 23 Wed - 24 Thu - 25 Fri - 26 Mon - 29 Tue - 30 Wed - 31 Thu - 1 Integrated Design Lab | Boise 10 Figure 4: The indoor temperatures measured at the one classroom that showed thermal comfort Figure 5: The comfort metrics for the classroom with higher setpoints 68 70 72 74 76 78 80 Ai r T e m p e r a t u r e [ oF] High School #1 Room -B Weekday Indoor Air Temperature Wed - 19 Thu - 20 Fri - 21 Mon - 24 Tue - 25 Wed - 26 Thu - 27 Fri - 28 Mon - 1 Tue - 2 Wed - 3 -3 -2.5 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 Predicted Mean Vote: High School #1 -Room B Wed - 19 Thu - 20 Fri - 21 Mon - 24 Tue - 25 Wed - 26 Thu - 27 Fri - 28 Mon - 1 Tue - 2 Wed - 3 Comfortable Too Cold Integrated Design Lab | Boise 11 The measurements at this particular classroom, as shown in Figure 4 and Figure 5, formed the basis for the proposed change in setpoints. The classroom only approached the thermal comfort range once the indoor temperature reached above 75oF. Another observation was that the average surface temperatures started out cooler and rose throughout the afternoon. This meant that in the morning, the space could have a higher air temperature and maintain the same level of thermal comfort because the cool surfaces in the morning offset the higher air temperature. The proposed setpoint is contrasted with the original setpoint observed in the rest of the classrooms as shown in Figure 6. Figure 6 Proposed adjustment for the cooling setpoint in classrooms to improve thermal comfort The adjustment to the cooling setpoint is to raise the original setpoint at the schools by 4oF from 72oF to 76oF with a 5oF setback and a staggered start to the cooling to account for the low surface temperatures in the space. This improved both the predicted energy savings and the occupant comfort in the model. 70 72 74 76 78 80 82 Measured vs. Proposed Cooling Setpoints Original Clg Setpoint Proposed Clg Setpoint Integrated Design Lab | Boise 12 5. RESULTS Raising the cooling setpoint by 4oF is expected to increase comfort in the classrooms and save on annual energy consumption. Since each school is unique and ranges by size, the prototype model was used as a stand-in for a generic high school in southern Idaho run for a Typical Meteorological Year (TMY). To provide a common metric between schools, the savings are estimated per student. The energy savings calculated are shown in Table 2. Table 2: Energy simulation results of setpoint adjustment Category Annual Estimated Savings Electricity Cost $4.44/student Electricity Consumption 63 kWh/student Electricity Demand 0.03 kW/student 6. CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE STEPS The measurements showed that clear energy efficiency improvements could be made through simple operational adjustments. While both high schools were in Southern Idaho, neither school was part of the IPC Schools Cohort and so there is room for them to further connect with IPC’s energy efficiency initiatives. The readings for each site will be sent back to the science teachers and facilities managers at each school. Adjustments to the setpoints may be implemented at any point and could potentially begin saving energy as soon as April of this coming year. The adjusted setpoints not only improve energy performance but also increase comfort, making a strong case for the facilities managers to implement these changes and maintain these new setpoint guidelines to reduce occupant complaints. Integrated Design Lab | Boise 13 While this study highlights potential savings, Idaho Power could choose to build upon this study in several ways. One way to engage schools would be to work with science teachers to incorporate a project like this into the curriculum so that students may see the relationship between building operations, comfort, and energy bills. A second way IPC could work with schools is to identify facilities that require HVAC improvements if the current equipment cannot properly condition the classrooms or provide adequate fresh air. The IDL team included several air quality monitors within the classrooms to measure whether the HVAC systems were providing adequate ventilation. One provided only fair performance, while the other showed poor performance. Details are shown in Appendix A. The IDL team achieved the goals of the task by measuring HVAC performance at four classrooms. IDL was able to identify operational changes that can improve energy efficiency while enhancing occupant satisfaction. This study engaged the schools on several levels including: facilities managers, teachers, and students at each of the buildings. Results of the energy simulations showed that there is room for energy savings of over $4 per student in high schools throughout the Idaho Power service territory that have sub-optimal setpoints. These savings could be realized by further outreach and engagement with school facilities personnel. Integrated Design Lab | Boise 14 7. APPENDICES Appendix A: Indoor air quality of the classrooms As part of the assessment for thermal quality, the IDL team also installed CO2 sensors to monitor the indoor air quality of the classrooms. One of the schools appeared to have adequate fresh air, while the other did not. Schools equipped with Dedicated Outdoor Air Systems (DOAS) can provide much more consistent indoor air quality and be paired with high efficiency heating and cooling systems like Variable Refrigerant Flow (VRF) systems. Neither of these schools had a DOAS or VRF. 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 CO 2 [ p p m ] Indoor Air Quality at High School #1 CO2 HS1 Room A CO2 HS1 Room B Poor > 1,500 Fair > 1,000 Good < 1000 Integrated Design Lab | Boise 15 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 CO 2 [ p p m ] Indoor Air Quality at High School #2 CO2 HS2 Room A CO2 HS2 Room B Poor > 1,500 Fair > 1,000 Good < 1000 Idaho Power Company Supplement 2: Evaluation Demand-Side Management 2018 Annual Report Page 163 RESEARCH/SURVEYS Report Title Sector Analysis Performed By Study Manager Study/Evaluation Type 2018 Home Energy Audit Program Survey Residential Idaho Power Idaho Power Survey 2018 Idaho Power Shade Tree Project Survey Residential Idaho Power Idaho Power Survey 2018 Smart-Saver Pledge Follow-Up Survey Residential Idaho Power Idaho Power Survey 2018 WAQC Survey Results Residential Idaho Power Idaho Power Survey 2018 Weatherization Solutions Survey Results Residential Idaho Power Idaho Power Survey Multifamily Direct-Install Project Customer Survey Residential Idaho Power Idaho Power Survey Supplement 2: Evaluation Idaho Power Company Page 164 Demand-Side Management 2018 Annual Report 2018 Home Energy Audit Program Survey How easy was it for you to apply for the Home Energy Audit program? Answer Choices Percent Responses Very easy ............................................................................. 80.77% 126 Somewhat easy .................................................................... 16.03% 25 Somewhat difficult ................................................................ 3.21% 5 Very difficult .......................................................................... 0.00% 0 Answered ................................................................................................. 156 If the application process was difficult what was it about that process that made it difficult? Answered ............................................................................ 15 Please identify the auditor that you used for your home audit. Answer Choices Percent Responses Brian Bennett, The Energy Auditor ....................................... 1.31% 2 Chris Callor, Professional Inspection Services, LLC ............ 18.95% 29 Dallen Ward, H.E.E.T. .......................................................... 4.58% 7 Rod Burk, Home Energy Management ................................ 0.00% 0 Tad Duby, On Point, LLC ..................................................... 37.91% 58 I don't know/I don't remember .............................................. 37.25% 57 Answered ................................................................................................. 153 Please rate your home auditor on each of the following: Excellent Good Fair Poor Total Courteousness ......................................................................... 84.97% 13.73% 1.31% 0.00% 153 Professionalism ........................................................................ 80.92% 15.79% 3.29% 0.00% 152 Explanation of work/measurements to be performed as part Overall experience with auditor (from scheduling an If you have additional comments you would like to offer about your home auditor, please enter them in the space below. Answered ......................................................................................... 36 How much did the audit influence you to reduce the amount of electricity you consume? Answer Choices Percent Responses Influenced me a lot .......................................................................... 38.56% 59 Influenced me some ........................................................................ 44.44% 68 Didn't influence me much ................................................................ 11.76% 18 Didn't influence me at all .................................................................. 5.23% 8 Answered .............................................................................................................. 153 As a result of the Home Energy Audit program, please indicate how strongly you agree or disagree with the following statements. Strongly agree Somewhat agree Somewhat disagree Strongly disagree N/A Total I am more informed about energy usage in my home 56.38% 36.91% 3.36% 3.36% 0.00% 149 Other members of my household are more informed I am more informed about energy efficiency programs After receiving your audit through the Home Energy Audit program, please indicate if you have taken any of the following actions: Yes No Total Visited the Idaho Power website .................................................. 54.93% 45.07% 142 Unplugged appliances when not in use ....................................... 60.42% 39.58% 144 Signed up for My Account ............................................................ 39.86% 60.14% 138 Shared my energy audit experience with relatives and/or friends 76.87% 23.13% 147 Other ............................................................................................ 55.07% 44.93% 69 If you selected "other", please specify what other actions you have taken: ………… 40 Answered ..................................................................................................................... 147 Since receiving your audit through the Home Energy Audit program, please indicate when, or if, you will complete any of the following improvements: Already completed in next 6 months in 6-12 months but not sure when plan to at all does not need Replace additional incandescent light bulbs with Replace an older, inefficient appliance with a For any improvements you indicated you do not plan to do, please tell us why. Answered ........................................................................................... 47 What benefits did you experience from the Home Energy Audit program? (Check all that apply) Answer Choices Percent Responses Cost savings ....................................................................................... 52.94% 72 Personal satisfaction .......................................................................... 71.32% 97 Raised awareness of energy use ....................................................... 75.00% 102 Benefit to the environment ................................................................. 35.29% 48 Home improvement ............................................................................ 57.35% 78 Comfort ............................................................................................... 39.71% 54 Other .................................................................................................. 7.35% 10 (please specify) .................................................................................. 12 Answered ................................................................................................................ 136 What barriers do you encounter in making energy savings changes in your home? (Check all that apply) Answer Choices Percent Responses Cost .................................................................................................... 78.52% 106 Time ................................................................................................... 40.00% 54 Convenience ...................................................................................... 20.74% 28 Lack of necessity ................................................................................ 14.81% 20 Do not know who to contact ............................................................... 19.26% 26 Other (please specify) ........................................................................ 8.89% 12 Answered ................................................................................................................ 135 The most effective method for Idaho Power to provide information about energy efficiency is to: (Check all that apply) Answer Choices Percent Responses Offer classes in convenient locations ................................................. 20.44% 28 Communicate information in local newspapers .................................. 11.68% 16 Communicate information on the Idaho Power website ..................... 40.15% 55 Communicate information on social media ........................................ 17.52% 24 Offer a minimal cost home audit service ............................................ 56.93% 78 Send newsletters or information directly to homeowners ................... 42.34% 58 Send email communications to homeowners ..................................... 34.31% 47 Send information in monthly Idaho Power bill .................................... 66.42% 91 Other (please specify) ........................................................................ 5.84% 8 Answered ................................................................................................................ 137 How much do you agree with the following statements: Strongly agree agree disagree disagree My Home Energy Audit report contained valuable I would recommend the Home Energy Audit program to I am satisfied with my overall experience with the Home If you disagree with any of these statements, please tell us why. Answered ................................................................................. 15 Please identify your age in the ranges below: Answer Choices Percent Responses Under 25 ...................................................................... 0.69% 1 26-35 ........................................................................... 6.90% 10 36-50 ........................................................................... 19.31% 28 51-65 ........................................................................... 36.55% 53 Over 65 ........................................................................ 36.55% 53 Answered ...................................................................................... 145 What is the highest level of education you completed? Answer Choices Percent Responses Less than high school ................................................... 0.00% 0 Some high school ......................................................... 0.00% 0 High school graduate or equivalent ................................. 8.33% 12 Some college ............................................................... 18.75% 27 Two year Associate degree or Trade/Technical school ....... 11.11% 16 Four year college degree ............................................... 28.47% 41 Some graduate courses ................................................ 10.42% 15 Advanced degree .......................................................... 22.92% 33 Answered ...................................................................................... 144 2018 Idaho Power Shade Tree Project Survey How did you hear about Idaho Power's Shade Tree Project? (Check all that apply) Answer Choices Percent Respondents Letter from Idaho Power .............................................. 65.66% 457 Friend or relative ........................................................ 20.40% 142 Neighbor ................................................................... 5.17% 36 Idaho Power employee ............................................... 2.87% 20 Other (please specify) ................................................ 9.20% 64 Answered ........................................................................................ 696 What was the primary reason you participated in the program? (Mark one) Answer Choices Percent Respondents Tree was free ............................................................. 16.52% 115 Home too warm in the summer ................................... 12.36% 86 Reduce energy bill ..................................................... 21.26% 148 Improve landscape/property value ................................ 17.24% 120 Wanted a tree ........................................................... 20.11% 140 Help the environment .................................................. 7.61% 53 Other (please specify) ................................................ 4.89% 34 Answered ........................................................................................ 696 What kept you from planting a tree prior to the Shade Tree Project? (Mark one) Answer Choices Percent Respondents Lack of knowledge ..................................................... 17.08% 118 Cost ......................................................................... 44.86% 310 Time ......................................................................... 11.87% 82 Other (please specify) ................................................ 26.19% 181 Answered ........................................................................................ 691 Where would you typically purchase a new tree? (Mark one) Answer Choices Percent Respondents Garden section of a do-it-yourself/home improvement store 30.47% 209 Nursery/garden store .................................................. 65.74% 451 Other (please specify) ................................................ 3.79% 26 Answered ........................................................................................ 686 How long did you spend on the online enrollment tool? (Mark one) Answer Choices Percent Respondents 10 minutes or less ..................................................... 66.14% 457 11-20 minutes ........................................................... 23.59% 163 21-30 minutes ........................................................... 6.22% 43 31 minutes or more .................................................... 2.32% 16 Not applicable ........................................................... 1.74% 12 Answered ........................................................................................ 691 Overall, how easy was it for you to use the online enrollment tool? Answer Choices Percent Respondents Very easy ................................................................. 74.78% 516 Somewhat easy ......................................................... 21.16% 146 Somewhat difficult ...................................................... 2.32% 16 Very difficult .............................................................. 0.58% 4 Not applicable ........................................................... 1.16% 8 Answered .................................................................. 690 How many trees did you pick up at the Shade Tree event? Answer Choices Percent Respondents One .......................................................................... 33.67% 233 Two .......................................................................... 66.33% 459 Answered ........................................................................................ 692 When did you plant your shade tree? Answer Choices Percent Respondents Same day as the tree pickup ...................................... 28.76% 67 1-3 days after the tree pickup ...................................... 49.79% 116 4-7 days after the tree pickup ...................................... 13.30% 31 More than 1 week after the tree pickup ........................ 5.58% 13 Did not plant the tree .................................................. 2.58% 6 Answered ........................................................................................ 233 On which side of your home did you plant your shade tree? Answer Choices Percent Respondents North ........................................................................ 4.04% 9 Northeast .................................................................. 5.83% 13 East ......................................................................... 13.00% 29 Southeast ................................................................. 6.28% 14 South ....................................................................... 8.52% 19 Southwest ................................................................. 17.49% 39 West ........................................................................ 35.87% 80 Northwest ................................................................. 8.97% 20 Answered ........................................................................................ 223 How far from the home did you plant your shade tree? Answer Choices Percent Respondents 20 feet or less ........................................................... 34.67% 78 21-40 feet .................................................................. 54.22% 122 41-60 feet .................................................................. 8.44% 19 More than 60 feet ....................................................... 2.67% 6 Answered .................................................................. 225 How many shade trees did you plant? Answer Choices Percent Respondents One tree ................................................................... 2.39% 11 Both trees ................................................................. 95.22% 438 Did not plant trees ..................................................... 2.39% 11 Answered ........................................................................................ 460 When did you plant your shade tree? Answer Choices Percent Respondents Same day as the tree pickup ...................................... 30.00% 3 1-3 days after the tree pickup ...................................... 30.00% 3 4-7 days after the tree pickup ...................................... 0.00% 0 More than 1 week after the tree pickup ........................ 40.00% 4 Answered ........................................................................................ 10 On which side of your home did you plant your shade tree? Answer Choices Percent Respondents North ........................................................................ 11.11% 1 Northeast .................................................................. 22.22% 2 East ......................................................................... 0.00% 0 Southeast ................................................................. 0.00% 0 South ....................................................................... 0.00% 0 Southwest ................................................................. 22.22% 2 West ........................................................................ 44.44% 4 Northwest ................................................................. 0.00% 0 Answered ........................................................................................ 9 How far from the home did you plant your shade tree? Answer Choices Percent Respondents 20 feet or less ........................................................... 10.00% 1 21-40 feet .................................................................. 70.00% 7 41-60 feet .................................................................. 10.00% 1 More than 60 feet ....................................................... 10.00% 1 Answered ........................................................................................ 10 When did you plant your shade trees? Same day as the tree pickup the treepickup after the tree pickup week after the tree pickup Tree 1 ....... 16.51% 55.28% 18.12% 10.09% 436 Tree 2 ....... 15.62% 53.15% 19.90% 11.34% 397 Answered ................................................................................................................. 436 On which side of your home did you plant your shade trees? N NE E SE S SW W NW Total Tree 1 .... 9.18% 4.59% 14.49% 6.52% 8.45% 14.25% 35.27% 7.25% 414 Tree 2 .... 6.14% 6.88% 10.81% 11.55% 10.32% 17.20% 31.45% 5.65% 407 Answered ............................................................................................................................ 414 How far from the home did you plant your shade trees? 20 feet or less 21-40 feet 41-60 feet More than 60 feet Total Tree 1 ................... 30.97% 50.83% 14.42% 3.78% 423 Tree 2 ................... 23.08% 52.11% 18.61% 6.20% 403 Answered ................................................................................................................... 423 How satisfied are you with the information you received on the planting and care of your shade tree? Answer Choices Percent Respondents Very satisfied ........................................................... 88.04% 596 Somewhat satisfied .................................................. 9.45% 64 Somewhat dissatisfied .............................................. 0.59% 4 Very dissatisfied ...................................................... 0.44% 3 Not applicable .......................................................... 1.48% 10 Answered ................................................................................................. 677 What information did you find most valuable? Answer Choices Percent Respondents Planting depth .......................................................... 53.69% 364 Circling roots ........................................................... 12.83% 87 Staking ................................................................... 9.44% 64 Watering ................................................................. 9.00% 61 Not applicable .......................................................... 9.14% 62 Other (please specify) ............................................... 5.90% 40 Answered ................................................................................................. 678 How much do you agree with the following statements? Strongly agree agree disagree disagree I am satisfied with the Shade It was easy to plant my shade I would recommend the Shade Tree Project to a friend or I am satisfied with my overall experience with the Shade Tree If you have additional comments you would like to offer about the Shade Tree Project, please enter them in the space below. Answered ........................................................................................................ 209 When was this residence originally built? (Select when the building was originally constructed, not when it was remodeled, added to, or converted.) Answer Choices Percent Respondents Before 1950 ................................................................ 4.29% 27 1950–1959 ................................................................. 2.38% 15 1960–1969 ................................................................. 1.59% 10 1970–1979 ................................................................. 6.67% 42 1980–1989 ................................................................. 3.81% 24 1990–1999 ................................................................. 6.03% 38 2000–2006 ................................................................. 18.25% 115 2007–2015 ................................................................. 51.27% 323 Don't know ................................................................. 5.71% 36 Answered ........................................................................................................ 630 What one fuel is most often used to heat this residence? (Mark one) Answer Choices Percent Respondents Electricity .................................................................. 33.03% 220 Natural gas ................................................................ 56.16% 374 Propane ..................................................................... 3.15% 21 Fuel Oil ...................................................................... 0.00% 0 Wood ........................................................................ 4.20% 28 Other (please specify) ................................................. 3.45% 23 Answered ........................................................................................................ 666 What type of air conditioning system is used at this residence? (Check all that apply) Answer Choices Percent Respondents None ......................................................................... 2.11% 14 Central air conditioner ................................................. 79.37% 527 Heat pump ................................................................. 16.57% 110 Individual room or window air conditioner ....................... 3.92% 26 Evaporative/swamp cooler ............................................ 0.90% 6 Other (please specify) ................................................. 0.90% 6 Answered ........................................................................................................ 664 What is your gender? Answer Choices Percent Respondents Female ...................................................................... 59.45% 390 Male .......................................................................... 40.55% 266 Answered ........................................................................................................ 656 Which of the following best describes your age? Answer Choices Percent Respondents Under 18 .................................................................... 0.15% 1 18-24 ......................................................................... 1.06% 7 25-34 ......................................................................... 21.12% 140 35-44 ......................................................................... 27.15% 180 45-60 ......................................................................... 26.70% 177 Over 60 ...................................................................... 23.83% 158 Answered ........................................................................................................ 663 What is the highest level of education you have completed? Answer Choices Percent Respondents Less than high school ................................................. 0.31% 2 High school or equivalent ............................................. 9.19% 60 Some college/technical school ..................................... 42.11% 275 4-year college degree .................................................. 24.66% 161 Some graduate courses .............................................. 7.81% 51 Graduate degree ......................................................... 15.93% 104 Answered ........................................................................................................ 653 Answer Choices Percent Responses Change the porch light to an LED or add a sensor ...................................45.96%1,058Use a programmable pressure cooker once a week instead of the oven or stove 27.32%629 them running 67.25%1,548 2,302 Answer Choices Percent Responses Yes ............................................................................................................94.44%2,173 No ..............................................................................................................5.56%128 2,301 Answer Choices Percent Responses Comfort .....................................................................................................7.09%9 Time ..........................................................................................................14.96%19 Low priority ................................................................................................7.87%10 Other individuals in my household were not aligned .................................29.13%37 Other (please specify) ...............................................................................62.99%80 127 Answer Choices Percent Responses Yes ............................................................................................................99.72%2,168 No ..............................................................................................................0.28%6 2,174 Answered ........................................................................................................................... 2018 Smart-Saver Pledge Follow-Up Survey 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) Were you able to meet your pledge(s) for the full 21 days? What kept you from meeting the Smart-saver Pledge? (Select all that apply) Will you continue with your energy-saving change(s) now that the pledge has ended? Answer Choices Percent Responses Save energy ..............................................................................................15.88%344 Save money ..............................................................................................38.83%841 Help the environment ................................................................................12.83%278 It's the right thing to do ..............................................................................27.01%585 Other (please specify) ...............................................................................5.45%118 2,166 Answer Choices Percent Responses Comfort .....................................................................................................0.00%0 Time ..........................................................................................................40.00%2 Low priority ................................................................................................0.00%0 Other individuals in my household are not aligned ....................................0.00%0 Other (please specify) ...............................................................................60.00%3 5 Answer Choices Percent Responses Made me much more aware .....................................................................32.18%736 Made me somewhat more aware ..............................................................49.41%1,130 Did not affect my awareness .....................................................................18.41%421 2,287 Answer Choices Percent Responses Very likely ..................................................................................................61.10%1,398 Somewhat likely ........................................................................................36.93%845 Not very likely ............................................................................................1.79%41 Not likely at all ...........................................................................................0.17%4 2,288 How did taking the Smart-saver Pledge affect your awareness of your energy habits? What is the primary reason you will continue with the energy-saving change(s)? Answered ........................................................................................................................... After taking the Smart-saver Pledge, how likely are you to seek out additional ways to save energy? Answered ........................................................................................................................... Answered ........................................................................................................................... Answered ........................................................................................................................... What is the primary reason why you won't continue with the energy-savings change(s)? Answer Choices Percent Responses Very aware ................................................................................................14.23%325 Somewhat aware .......................................................................................58.36%1,333 Not very aware ..........................................................................................23.51%537 Not aware at all .........................................................................................3.90%89 2,284 Answer Choices Percent Responses Very likely ..................................................................................................54.21%889 Somewhat likely ........................................................................................43.29%710 Not very likely ............................................................................................2.44%40 Not likely at all ...........................................................................................0.06%1 1,640 Answer Choices Percent Responses Bill insert ....................................................................................................41.16%941 Facebook ..................................................................................................3.32%76 Twitter ........................................................................................................0.17%4 TV ..............................................................................................................0.52%12 Idaho Power website .................................................................................37.75%863 Idaho Power employee ..............................................................................1.27%29 Friend, relative or neighbor .......................................................................2.67%61 Other (please specify) ...............................................................................13.12%300 2,286 Answer Choices Percent Responses Electricity ...................................................................................................29.90%682 Natural gas ................................................................................................62.25%1,420 Propane .....................................................................................................2.37%54 Wood .........................................................................................................3.86%88 Other .........................................................................................................1.62%37 2,281Answered ........................................................................................................................... What is your level of awareness of other Idaho Power Energy Efficiency programs? After taking the Smart-saver Pledge, how likely are you to participate in an Idaho Power Energy Efficiency program? Answered ........................................................................................................................... Answered ........................................................................................................................... Answer Choices Percent Responses Own ...........................................................................................................83.61%1,903 Rent ...........................................................................................................16.39%373 2,276 Answer Choices Percent Responses 1 …………………………………………………………………………. .........18.68%426 2 …………………………………………………………………………… .......38.46%877 3 …………………………………………………………………………… .......14.61%333 4 …………………………………………………………………………… .......14.65%334 5 …………………………………………………………………………… .......8.51%194 More than 5 ...............................................................................................5.09%116 2,280 Answer Choices Percent Responses Male ...........................................................................................................35.18%794 Female ......................................................................................................64.82%1,463 2,257 Answer Choices Percent Responses Under 25 ....................................................................................................3.67%83 26-35 .........................................................................................................22.98%520 36-50 .........................................................................................................28.41%643 51-65 .........................................................................................................26.82%607 Over 65 ......................................................................................................18.12%410 2,263 Do you own or rent your home? How many people (including yourself) are in your household? What is your gender? Answered ........................................................................................................................... Which of the following best describes your age? Answer Choices Percent Responses Less than high school ...............................................................................0.27%6 Some high school ......................................................................................0.57%13 High school graduate or equivalent ...........................................................10.64%241 Some college ............................................................................................23.63%535 Two year Associate degree orTrade/Technical school .............................15.37%348 Four year college degree ..........................................................................27.78%629 Some graduate courses ............................................................................5.74%130 Advanced degree ......................................................................................15.99%362 2,264 What is the highest level of education you completed? 2018 WAQC Survey Results Agency/Contractor Name: Answer Choices Percent Responses Metro Community Services ........................................................... 14.19% 22 Eastern Idaho Community Action Partnership ................................. 0.65% 1 El Ada Community Action Partnership ........................................... 54.19% 84 South Central Community Action Partnership ................................. 16.77% 26 Southeastern Idaho Community Action Agency .............................. 12.26% 19 Community Connection of Northeast Oregon .................................. 0.00% 0 Community in Action .................................................................... 1.94% 3 Answered .................................................................................................... 155 How did you learn about the weatherization program(s)? Answer Choices Percent Responses Agency/Contractor flyer ................................................................ 18.75% 27 Idaho Power employee ................................................................. 7.64% 11 Idaho Power web site ................................................................... 11.81% 17 Friend or relative .......................................................................... 35.42% 51 Letter in mail .............................................................................. 4.86% 7 Other (please specify) .................................................................. 21.53% 31 Answered .................................................................................................... 144 What was your primary reason for participating in the weatherization program? Answer Choices Percent Responses Reduce utility bills ....................................................................... 79.33% 119 Improve comfort of home ............................................................... 39.33% 59 Furnace concerns ........................................................................ 30.67% 46 Water heater concerns ................................................................. 5.33% 8 Improve insulation ........................................................................ 28.67% 43 Other (please specify) .................................................................. 5.33% 8 Answered .................................................................................... 150 If you received any energy efficiency equipment upgrade as part of the weatherization, Completely .................................................................................. 86.52% 122 Somewhat ................................................................................... 11.35% 16 Not at all ..................................................................................... 2.13% 3 Answered .................................................................................................... 141 Which of the following did you learn about from the auditor or crew during the How air leaks affect energy usage ................................................. 76.92% 110 How insulation affects energy usage ............................................. 66.43% 95 How to program the new thermostat .............................................. 46.85% 67 How to reduce the amount of hot water used ................................ 32.87% 47 How to use energy wisely .............................................................. 60.84% 87 How to understand what uses the most energy in my home ......... 48.25% 69 Other (please specify) .................................................................... 4.20% 6 Answered .................................................................................................... 143 Based on the information you received from the agency/contractor about energy use, Very likely ................................................................................... 85.42% 123 Somewhat likely .......................................................................... 13.89% 20 Not very likely .............................................................................. 0.00% 0 Not likely at all ............................................................................ 0.69% 1 Answered .................................................................................................... 144 How much of the information about energy use have you shared with other members of All of it ........................................................................................ 68.49% 100 Some of it ................................................................................... 15.07% 22 None of it .................................................................................... 1.37% 2 N/A ............................................................................................ 15.07% 22 Answered .................................................................................... 146 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 Percent Responses Very likely ................................................................................... 53.42% 78 Somewhat likely .......................................................................... 23.97% 35 Somewhat unlikely ....................................................................... 2.05% 3 Very unlikely ............................................................................... 2.74% 4 N/A ............................................................................................ 17.81% 26 Answered .................................................................................................... 146 What habits are you and other members of your household most likely to change to save Washing full loads of clothes ........................................................ 67.36% 97 Washing full loads of dishes ......................................................... 43.06% 62 Turning off lights when not in use ................................................... 84.03% 121 Unplugging electrical equipment when not in use ............................ 52.08% 75 Turning the thermostat up in the summer ....................................... 54.17% 78 Turning the thermostat down in the winter ...................................... 58.33% 84 Other (please specify) .................................................................. 4 Answered .................................................................................................... 144 How much do you think the weatherization you received will affect the comfort of your Significantly ................................................................................ 91.03% 132 Somewhat ................................................................................... 6.21% 9 Very little .................................................................................... 1.38% 2 Not at all ..................................................................................... 1.38% 2 Answered .................................................................................................... 145 Rate the Agency/Contractor based on your interactions with them. Excellent Good Fair Poor Total Courteousness............................................................................ 95.17% 4.14% 0.69% 0.00% 145 Professionalism........................................................................... 93.01% 6.99% 0.00% 0.00% 143 Explanation of work to be performed on your home .................. 91.67% 7.64% 0.69% 0.00% 144 Overall experience with Agency/Contractor .............................. 94.41% 5.59% 0.00% 0.00% 143 Answered ................................................................................................................................................ 145 Were you aware of Idaho Power's role in the weatherization of your home? Answer Choices Percent Responses Yes ............................................................................................ 76.81% 106 No .............................................................................................. 23.19% 32 Answered .................................................................................................... 138 Overall how satisfied are you with the weatherization program you participated in? Answer Choices Percent Responses Very satisfied .............................................................................. 97.24% 141 Somewhat satisfied ...................................................................... 1.38% 2 Somewhat dissatisfied ................................................................. 0.00% 0 Very dissatisfied .......................................................................... 1.38% 2 Answered .................................................................................................... 145 How has your opinion of Idaho Power changed as a result of its role in the weatherization Improved ..................................................................................... 85.51% 118 Stayed the same ......................................................................... 13.77% 19 Decreased .................................................................................. 0.72% 1 Answered .................................................................................................... 138 How many people beside yourself live in your home year-round? Answer Choices Percent Responses 0 33.10% 47 1 15.49% 22 2 17.61% 25 3 13.38% 19 4 7.75% 11 5 4.23% 6 6 or more .................................................................................... 8.45% 12 Answered .................................................................................................... 142 How long have you been an Idaho Power customer? Answer Choices Percent Responses Less than 1 year .......................................................................... 4.29% 6 1 - 10 years ................................................................................. 27.86% 39 11 - 25 years ............................................................................... 30.00% 42 26 years or more ......................................................................... 37.86% 53 Answered .................................................................................................... 140 Please select the category below that best describes your age: Answer Choices Percent Responses Under 25 ..................................................................................... 2.13% 3 25 - 34 ........................................................................................ 14.18% 20 35 - 44 ........................................................................................ 19.86% 28 45 - 54 ........................................................................................ 8.51% 12 55 - 64 ........................................................................................ 19.15% 27 65 - 74 ........................................................................................ 21.99% 31 75 or older ................................................................................... 14.18% 20 Answered .................................................................................................... 141 Select the response below that best describes the highest level of education you have Less than High School ................................................................. 22.14% 31 High School graduate or GED ....................................................... 30.71% 43 Some College or Technical School ................................................ 32.14% 45 Associate Degree ........................................................................ 7.14% 10 College Degree (including any graduate school or graduate degrees) 7.86% 11 Answered .................................................................................... 140 Answer Choices Percent Responses Metro Contractor Services .................................27.52%30 Home Energy Management ...............................48.62%53 Savings Around Power .......................................3.67%4 Power Savers .....................................................20.18%22 109 Answer Choices Percent Responses Agency/Contractor flyer ......................................17.59%19 Idaho Power employee ......................................6.48%7 Idaho Power web site .........................................7.41%8 Friend or relative ................................................24.07%26 Letter in mail ......................................................37.04%40 Other (please specify) ........................................7.41%8 108 Answer Choices Percent Responses Reduce utility bills ...............................................80.73%88 Improve comfort of home ...................................29.36%32 Furnace concerns ..............................................14.68%16 Water heater concerns ......................................0.92%1 Improve insulation ..............................................15.60%17 Other (please specify) ........................................9.17%10 109 Answer Choices Percent Responses Completely .........................................................76.77%76 Somewhat ..........................................................7.07%7 Not at all .............................................................16.16%16 99 If you received any energy efficiency equipment upgrade as part of the weatherization, how well was the equipment's operation explained to you? Answered .................................................................................... Answered .................................................................................... Answered .................................................................................... What was your primary reason for participating in the weatherization program? Answer Choices Percent Responses How air leaks affect energy usage .....................88.35%91 How insulation affects energy usage .................77.67%80 How to program the new thermostat ..................39.81%41 How to reduce the amount of hot water used ....53.40%55 How to use energy wisely ...................................65.05%67 59.22%61 Other (please specify) ........................................0.97%1 103 Answer Choices Percent Responses Very likely ...........................................................74.07%80 Somewhat likely .................................................24.07%26 Not very likely .....................................................0.93%1 Not likely at all ....................................................0.93%1 108 Answer Choices Percent Responses All of it ................................................................68.52%74 Some of it ...........................................................12.04%13 None of it ............................................................1.85%2 N/A .....................................................................17.59%19 108 Answer Choices Percent Responses Very likely ...........................................................50.93%55 Somewhat likely .................................................21.30%23 Somewhat unlikely .............................................0.93%1 Very unlikely .......................................................1.85%2 N/A .....................................................................25.00%27 108 How much of the information about energy use have you shared with other members of your household? Based on the information you received from the agency/contractor about energy use, how likely are you to change your habits to save energy? Answered .................................................................................... Answered .................................................................................... Which of the following did you learn about from the auditor or crew during the weatherization process? (Check all that apply) Answer Choices Percent Responses Washing full loads of clothes .............................59.55%53 Washing full loads of dishes ..............................48.31%43 Turning off lights when not in use ......................73.03%65 53.93%48 Turning the thermostat up in the summer ..........57.30%51 Turning the thermostat down in the winter .........71.91%64 Other (please specify) ........................................10 89 Answer Choices Percent Responses Significantly ........................................................84.26%91 Somewhat ..........................................................13.89%15 Very little .............................................................0.93%1 Not at all .............................................................0.93%1 108 Rated Excellent Good Fair Poor Total Courteousness ...................................................95.37%4.63%0.00%0.00%108 Professionalism ..................................................93.52%6.48%0.00%0.00%108 Explanation of work to be performed on your home………………………………………… 86.11%12.96%0.93%0.00%108 108 Answer Choices Percent Responses Yes .....................................................................94.34%100 No .......................................................................5.66%6 106 What habits are you and other members of your household most likely to change to save energy? (check all that apply) Rate the Agency/Contractor based on your interactions with them. Were you aware of Idaho Power's role in the weatherization of your home? How much do you think the weatherization you received will affect the comfort of your home? Answer Choices Percent Responses Very satisfied ......................................................94.50%103 Somewhat satisfied ............................................4.59%5 Somewhat dissatisfied .......................................0.92%1 Very dissatisfied .................................................0.00%0 109 Answer Choices Percent Responses Improved ............................................................86.24%94 Stayed the same ................................................13.76%15 Decreased ..........................................................0.00%0 109 Answer Choices Percent Responses 0 24.77%27 1 37.61%41 2 11.93%13 3 15.60%17 4 3.67%4 5 5.50%6 6 or more ............................................................0.92%1 109 Answer Choices Percent Responses Less than 1 year .................................................0.93%1 1 - 10 years ........................................................21.50%23 11 - 25 years ......................................................29.91%32 26 years or more ................................................47.66%51 107 Overall how satisfied are you with the weatherization program you participated in? Answered .................................................................................... How has your opinion of Idaho Power changed as a result of its role in the weatherization program? Answered .................................................................................... Answered .................................................................................... Answer Choices Percent Responses Under 25 ............................................................3.67%4 25 - 34 ................................................................9.17%10 35 - 44 ................................................................20.18%22 45 - 54 ................................................................8.26%9 55 - 64 ................................................................16.51%18 65 - 74 ................................................................26.61%29 75 or older ..........................................................15.60%17 109 Answer Choices Percent Responses Less than High School .......................................4.63%5 High School graduate or GED ............................28.70%31 Some College or Technical School ....................48.15%52 Associate Degree ...............................................11.11%12 7.41%8 108 Select the response below that best describes the highest level of education you have attained: Answered .................................................................................... Answered .................................................................................... Multifamily Direct-Install Project Customer Survey Aspen Grove (Filer) .................................................................................... 30.77% 16 Autumn Lane (Wendell) .............................................................................. 1.92% 1 Briarwood (Blackfoot) ................................................................................. 0.00% 0 Brown Gables (Wendell) ............................................................................ 21.15% 11 Camas Street (Blackfoot) ........................................................................... 1.92% 1 Colonia Cesar Chavez (Blackfoot) ............................................................. 0.00% 0 Colonia de Colores (Twin Falls) ................................................................. 1.92% 1 Columbia Garden (Caldwell) ...................................................................... 1.92% 1 Curtis Meadow (Boise) ............................................................................... 0.00% 0 El Rancho Grande (American Falls) ........................................................... 0.00% 0 Fawnbrook (Twin Falls) .............................................................................. 0.00% 0 Glenns Landing (Glenns Ferry) .................................................................. 0.00% 0 Green Properties (Pocatello) ...................................................................... 0.00% 0 Harrison Hills (Boise) .................................................................................. 9.62% 5 North River (Boise) ..................................................................................... 0.00% 0 Owyhee Place (Boise) ................................................................................ 3.85% 2 Park Center (Boise) .................................................................................... 1.92% 1 Park Hill (Boise) .......................................................................................... 0.00% 0 Park Lane (Boise) ....................................................................................... 0.00% 0 Sister's Villa Eagle Senior Living (Eagle) ................................................... 19.23% 10 Sundown Square (Ontario) ......................................................................... 1.92% 1 5th Ave Apartments (Ontario) ..................................................................... 0.00% 0 9th Street Apartments (Ontario) ................................................................. 3.85% 2 19th Street Apartments (Ontario) ............................................................... 0.00% 0 Answered ...................................................................................................................... 52 LED Bulbs ....................................................... 5.77% 3.85% 3.85% 7.69% 78.85% 52 4.5 High-efficiency showerhead ………………..... 17.24% 3.45% 6.90% 13.79% 58.62% 29 3.93 Kitchen and bathroom faucet aerators……….. 6.00% 2.00% 10.00% 8.00% 74.00% 50 4.42 Overall satisfaction with the quality of the Overall satisfaction with the Idaho Power How would you describe the brightness of the LED light bulbs? Answer Choices Percent Responses Too Bright .............................................................................................. 7.69% 4 Somewhat Bright ................................................................................... 21.15% 11 Just Right ............................................................................................... 63.46% 33 Somewhat Dim ...................................................................................... 3.85% 2 Too Dim ................................................................................................. 3.85% 2 Answered .................................................................................................................... 52 Supplement 2: Evaluation Idaho Power Company Page 194 Demand-Side Management 2018 Annual Report Idaho Power Company Supplement 2: Evaluation Demand-Side Management 2018 Annual Report Page 195 EVALUATIONS Report Title Sector Analysis Performed By Study Manager Study/Evaluation Type Idaho Power Company Commercial and Industrial Efficiency Program — Custom Projects Commercial/Industrial Tetra Tech, MA Idaho Power Impact Evaluation Idaho Power Company Energy Efficient Lighting Program Residential Tetra Tech, MA Idaho Power Impact Evaluation Idaho Power Company Multifamily Energy Savings Program Residential Tetra Tech, MA Idaho Power Impact and Process Evaluation Shade Tree Project Evaluation Residential DNV GL Idaho Power Savings Determination Analysis Supplement 2: Evaluation Idaho Power Company Page 196 Demand-Side Management 2018 Annual Report Idaho Power Company Idaho Power Company Commercial and Industrial Efficiency Program – Custom Projects 2017 Impact Evaluation Results January 4, 2019 ii Idaho Power C&I Custom Projects – 2017 Evaluation Results. January 4, 2019 6410 Enterprise Lane, Suite 300 | Madison, WI 53719 Tel 608.316.3700 | Fax 608.661.5181 tetratech.com Copyright © 2018 Tetra Tech, Inc. All Rights Reserved. iii Idaho Power C&I Custom Projects – 2017 Impact Evaluation Results. January 4, 2019 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................................. 1-1 1.1 Program Description ............................................................................................................... 1-1 1.2 Methodology ........................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.3 Findings and Recommendations ............................................................................................. 1-1 1.3.1 Impact Recommendations .............................................................................................. 1-3 2.0 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 2-1 2.1 Program Overview .................................................................................................................. 2-1 2.1.1 Marketing & Outreach ..................................................................................................... 2-2 2.1.2 Tracking & Reporting ...................................................................................................... 2-2 2.2 Evaluation Activities ................................................................................................................ 2-2 2.2.1 Evaluation Goals ............................................................................................................ 2-3 3.0 IMPACT EVALUATION ................................................................................................................ 3-1 3.1 Methodology ........................................................................................................................... 3-1 3.1.1 Data Review and Sampling ............................................................................................ 3-1 3.1.2 Schedule Site Visits ........................................................................................................ 3-2 3.1.3 Complete Desk Reviews and Site Visits ......................................................................... 3-2 3.1.4 Verify kWh Savings ........................................................................................................ 3-3 3.2 Impact Review Results ............................................................................................................ 3-3 3.2.1 Variable Speed Drives .................................................................................................... 3-4 3.2.2 Lighting........................................................................................................................... 3-5 3.2.3 Compressed Air .............................................................................................................. 3-6 3.2.4 Refrigeration ................................................................................................................... 3-6 3.2.5 HVAC ............................................................................................................................. 3-7 3.2.6 Pump .............................................................................................................................. 3-7 3.2.7 Fan ................................................................................................................................. 3-8 3.2.8 Motors ............................................................................................................................ 3-8 3.2.9 Wastewater Energy Efficiency Cohort ............................................................................ 3-8 3.2.10 Streamlined Process .................................................................................................... 3-9 3.3 Impact Recommendations ..................................................................................................... 3-11 iv Idaho Power C&I Custom Projects – 2017 Impact Evaluation Results. January 4, 2019 LIST OF TABLES Table 1-1. PY2017 Realization Rates ................................................................................................. 1-2 Table 2-1. PY2017 Custom Option Summary by Primary Project Measure ......................................... 2-1 Table 2-2. PY2017 Custom Program Evaluation Activities .................................................................. 2-3 Table 3-1. PY2017 Custom Sampling Summary ................................................................................. 3-2 Table 3-2. PY2017 Custom Project Review Summary ........................................................................ 3-3 Table 3-3. PY2017 Realization Rates ................................................................................................. 3-4 Table 3-4. PY2017 Custom VFD Impact Results Summary ................................................................ 3-4 Table 3-5. PY2017 Custom Lighting Impact Results Summary ........................................................... 3-5 Table 3-6. PY2017 Custom Compressed Air Impact Results Summary .............................................. 3-6 Table 3-7. PY2017 Custom Refrigeration Impact Results Summary ................................................... 3-6 Table 3-8. PY2017 Custom HVAC Impact Results Summary .............................................................. 3-7 Table 3-9. PY2017 Custom Pump Impact Results Summary .............................................................. 3-7 Table 3-10. PY2017 Custom Fan Impact Results Summary ............................................................... 3-8 Table 3-11. PY2017 Custom Motors Impact Results Summary ........................................................... 3-8 Table 3-12. PY2017 Custom WWEEC Impact Results Summary ....................................................... 3-8 Table 3-13. PY2017 Custom Streamlined Impact Results Summary ................................................... 3-9 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1-1. Process for Verifying Program Savings ............................................................................. 1-1 Figure 1-2. Relative Program Savings ................................................................................................ 1-2 Figure 3-1. Process for Verifying Program Savings ............................................................................. 3-1 Figure 3-2. Custom Project Files ......................................................................................................... 3-1 Figure 3-3. Site Visit Scheduling Summary ......................................................................................... 3-2 v Idaho Power C&I Custom Projects – 2017 Impact Evaluation Results. January 4, 2019 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We would like to acknowledge the many individuals who contributed to the 2017 impact evaluation of the Custom Projects component of the Idaho Power Commercial and Industrial Efficiency program. This evaluation effort would not have been possible without their help and support. We would like to specifically thank Gary Grayson and Engineers Chris Pollow, Chellie Jensen, and Randy Thorn of Idaho Power, who provided invaluable insight into the program and operations. These individuals participated in ongoing evaluation deliverable reviews and discussions and graciously responded to follow-up questions and data and documentation requests. Tetra Tech received valuable assistance from Customer Representatives with scheduling verification site visits. The Tetra Tech Evaluation Team was made up of the following individuals: Kimberly Bakalars, Mark Bergum, Adam Jablonski, Katie Hanlon, Dallas McCoy, Tom Saxton, and Luke Ramirez. 1-1 Idaho Power C&I Custom Projects – 2017 Impact Evaluation Results. January 4, 2019 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Tetra Tech is pleased to provide Idaho Power Company (Idaho Power) with a report for the 2018 impact evaluation of the 2017 Custom Projects component of the Idaho Power Commercial and Industrial Efficiency program. This section of the report consists of an introduction describing the program, evaluation activities, and key findings and recommendations. The detailed impact results can be found in section 3, along with recommendations. 1.1 PROGRAM DESCRIPTION The Custom Option of the Commercial and Industrial Efficiency program provides monetary incentives and energy auditing services to help identify and evaluate potential energy saving modifications or projects in new and existing facilities. The goal is to encourage commercial and industrial energy savings in Idaho and Oregon service areas. The Custom Option offers an incentive level of up to 70 percent of the project cost or 18 cents per kWh for first year estimated savings, whichever is less. Interested customers submit applications to Idaho Power for potential modifications. Idaho Power reviews each application and works with the customer and vendors to gather sufficient information to support the energy-savings calculations. Once projects are completed, customers submit a payment application and each project is reviewed by Idaho Power engineering staff, or a third-party consultant, to verify the energy savings methods and calculations. An Idaho Power lighting tool is used to determine all lighting savings and incentives. End-use measure information, project photographs, and project costs are collected through the verification process. On many projects, especially the larger and more complex projects, Idaho Power or a third-party consultant conducts on-site power monitoring and data collection before and after project implementation to ensure energy savings are obtained and are within program guidelines. If changes in scope take place on a project, Idaho Power recalculates the energy savings and incentive amount based on the actual installed equipment and performance. The measurement and verification reports provided to Idaho Power include a verification of energy savings, costs, estimates of measure life, and any final recommendations. 1.2 METHODOLOGY In order to address the evaluation objectives, which included verifying energy impacts attributable to the 2017 program, providing estimates of realization rates, and suggesting enhancements to the savings analysis and reporting, the evaluation team conducted the evaluation activities shown in Figure 1-1. Figure 1-1. Process for Verifying Program Savings 1.3 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The impact evaluation for the Custom Projects program revealed a successfully run program. The majority of savings adjustments were made as a result of customer changes to the operation of the equipment after installation. Based on the detailed evaluation activities, Tetra Tech provides some Data Review and Sampling Schedule Site Visits Complete Desk Reviews Complete Site Visits Verify kWh savings 1-2 Idaho Power C&I Custom Projects – 2017 Impact Evaluation Results. January 4, 2019 minor areas of improvement for Idaho Power to consider as they continue the program. All findings and recommendations should be considered in the context of the program size and contribution to the Commercial & Industrial sector (52 percent) and overall portfolio savings (23 percent), shown in Figure 1-2. Figure 1-2. Relative Program Savings Overall, findings from the impact evaluation show the program savings calculations are reasonable. The evaluation found accurate equipment descriptions, well substantiated and conservative assumptions, and technically correct calculations for most evaluated projects. As Table 1-1 below indicates, Tetra Tech found a 100.4 percent realization rate overall for the Custom C&I program. Table 1-1. PY2017 Realization Rates1 Category Measure Ex-Ante kWh Ex-Post kWh Realization Rate Lighting Lighting 1,321,437 1,311,121 99.2% Streamlined Cohort SCE - VFD 1,158,673 1,393,909 120.3% SCE - Doors 386,021 309,130 80.1% SCE - Comp Air 379,678 369,239 97.3% SCE-Refrig Ctrlr 21,007 18,267 87.0% W/WW Cohort WWEEC 1,169,362 1,169,362 100.0% Custom VFD 11,693,386 11,826,855 101.1% Compressed Air 979,090 654,382 66.8% Refrigeration 568,627 568,627 100.0% HVAC 400,965 389,047 97.0% Pump 267,044 414,348 155.2% Fan 53,325 53,325 100.0% Motors 9,074 8,865 97.7% Overall 18,407,689 18,486,478 100.4% 1 Results reflect a confidence and precision of 90% +/- 3.2%. 44,756 85,425 191,471 0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 140,000 160,000 180,000 200,000 Custom Projects Program Savings Commercial/Industrial Savings Portfolio Savings Savings in MWh 1-3 Idaho Power C&I Custom Projects – 2017 Impact Evaluation Results. January 4, 2019 The documentation provided for the program showed both Pre-Application submittal and analysis and the post-install final application and analysis. When a change occurred, an explanation of the adjustment was included. The IPC files provided included: • Pre-Application • Pre-Application third-party analysis and calculations • Pre-Approval notice • Documentation for integration coordination with the IPC grid, when necessary • Final Application • Final third-party analysis and calculations • Incentive check • Incentive check cover letter for mailing The IPC files did not originally include the spreadsheet calculation files completed by the third-party engineer. These files were obtained over the course of the evaluation. Obtaining these files when receiving a report from the third party will create a more robust and flexible system. 1.3.1 Impact Recommendations The following impact recommendations are provided for Idaho Power’s consideration: Collect and file electronic calculators. For the project savings calculated by the third-party contractor, Idaho Power should collect and file the Excel calculators. The calculators were available from the third-party engineer but having them in-house once each project is completed will facilitate any additional quality control or adjustments that Idaho Power would like to make to improve accuracy. Consider including post-verification customer follow-up for control-based projects. Based on the variation found in savings for projects with controls, and the value Idaho Power places on customer relationships, Tetra Tech recommends that the engineering team identify customers for post-verification visits to discuss control settings and the potential adjustment impacts. This is most useful for projects that have easily adjusted controls such as; variable frequency drives, fast acting doors, and compressed air upgrades. Not only will it help Idaho Power report more accurate savings, it will assist the customer in maximizing savings from their investment in the project. Review goals for the Streamlined process. The Streamlined process is used to market to customers with a less customized project and provide a more efficient application process. However, the evaluation found that the assumptions for the streamlined projects resulted in more variation from actual conditions than their more “custom” counterpart projects. Idaho Power should continue to monitor the benefits of the process efficiency with the potential variation in savings rigor. Continue close communications with Wastewater Cohort contacts. The Wastewater cohort has developed a process to claim annual savings from behavioral improvements, but the conditions of the projects and baselines continue to evolve. Changes in project managers at customer facilities and the addition of other capital projects may affect future savings. Idaho Power staff should continue to closely monitor and communicate with their Wastewater project contacts. 1-4 Idaho Power C&I Custom Projects – 2017 Impact Evaluation Results. January 4, 2019 Review various energy calculation components for improved accuracy. Idaho Power calculations are currently found to be accurate and well-documented. However, for particular measure categories, the calculation accuracy could be further improved with the following adjustments: • Use Regional Technical Forum (RTF) method for New Construction Baseline. The RTF issues new construction baselines based upon market research. Use the RTF baseline, when available, for project calculations to minimize risk associated with variable baselines per project. This was found specifically in the sample for Compressed Air new construction projects, although it will apply across many different new construction equipment types. • Use rated capacity and wattage for equipment. Lighting and Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning (HVAC) equipment have third party certification agencies which provide rated wattage and capacities of specific equipment models. Utilizing this information will reduce the risk that a manufacturer spec sheet may misrepresent the performance. This was noticed for an HVAC project which did not utilize the rated Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration (AHRI) capacity and energy consumption metrics. • Consider requiring a pump curve submission for pumping projects. Pump curves detail the pump efficiency at various operating conditions. Many pumping projects change pump conditions and the pump efficiency will generally have a large impact on the energy savings of the project. To estimate pump performance at multiple condition points, a pump curve is necessary. • Monitor specific dairy projects for adjustments to incoming milk temperature. The RTF states to use 98 degrees based on industry standard practice of milk temperature production unless otherwise measured. Dairies collect milk at approximately 98 degrees in the milking parlor and need to transfer the milk to the chilling system through uninsulated piping. This fluid transfer results in heat dissipation and therefore lower milk temperature at the start of chilling. For at least one of the projects reviewed, the milk traveled a lengthy distance to reach the chilling system which would have resulted in a lower incoming milk temperature assumption of 95 degrees. 2-1 Idaho Power C&I Custom Projects – 2017 Impact Evaluation Results. January 4, 2019 2.0 INTRODUCTION 2.1 PROGRAM OVERVIEW The Custom Option provides monetary incentives and energy auditing services to help identify and evaluate potential energy saving modifications or projects in new and existing facilities. The goal is to encourage commercial and industrial energy savings in Idaho and Oregon service areas. The Custom Option offers an incentive level of up to 70 percent of the project cost or 18 cents per kWh for first year estimated savings, whichever is less. Interested customers submit applications to Idaho Power for potential modifications that have been identified by the customers, Idaho Power, or by a third-party consultant. Idaho Power reviews each application and works with the customer and vendors to gather sufficient information, through audits if needed, to support the energy-savings calculations. Idaho Power currently has eleven third-party contractors assisting them with audits and savings estimates. Once projects are completed, customers submit a payment application and each project is reviewed by Idaho Power engineering staff, or a third-party consultant, to verify the energy savings methods and calculations. An Idaho Power lighting tool is used to determine all lighting savings and incentives. End- use measure information, project photographs, and project costs are collected through the verification process. On many projects, especially the larger and more complex projects, Idaho Power or a third-party consultant conducts on-site power monitoring and data collection before and after project implementation to ensure energy savings are obtained and are within program guidelines. If changes in scope take place on a project, Idaho Power recalculates the energy savings and incentive amount based on the actual installed equipment and performance. The measurement and verification reports provided to Idaho Power include a verification of energy savings, costs, estimates of measure life, and any final recommendations. Table 2-1 shows the 2017 projects and annual energy savings by primary project measure: Table 2-1. PY2017 Custom Option Summary by Primary Project Measure Program Summary by Measure Number of Projects kWh Saved Percent of Program Savings Lighting 84 9,868,688 22.0% Refrigeration 13 7,454,336 16.7% HVAC 6 509,777 1.1% Compressed Air 32 6,650,953 14.9% Commissioning 6 2,454,702 5.5% Controls 3 1,832,897 4.1% Pump 1 850,203 1.9% VFD 24 14,049,196 31.4% Other 1 1,094,602 2.4% Total 170 44,765,354 100.0% 2-2 Idaho Power C&I Custom Projects – 2017 Impact Evaluation Results. January 4, 2019 2.1.1 Marketing & Outreach The Custom program is promoted through Idaho Power’s existing account management and program management relationships with customers and trade allies, including engineers and equipment providers. The Custom program is also utilizing a cohort system to focus on outreach and participation for specific customer types to provide more meaningful projects. Program engineers are building training into the program with cohorts to create behavioral savings. The Water/Wastewater Cohort (W/WW) was reviewed for PY2017. Additionally, the Streamlined Process is available to provide customers a more efficient custom process for projects with less uncertainty. 2.1.2 Tracking & Reporting The Project Pre-Approval and Payment Applications for the Custom program collect information from the program applicant, including the following: • Account information including business name and account number, installation address and contact information • Project description • Estimated project costs and savings • Project timeline information (dates) • Payee information if different from the account holder This information is stored in the program tracking database, CLRIS. In addition to the information above, the CLRIS database includes: • Project ID • Customer rate class and SIC code • Application and approval dates with Idaho Power contacts • Measure description and category • Gross kWh savings estimates for application, post-install, and final • Project cost and incentive amounts 2.2 EVALUATION ACTIVITIES The evaluation activities conducted for the Custom program are summarized in Table 2-2. Researchable issues and the sampling strategy for desk reviews and on-site visits are also discussed in this section. 2-3 Idaho Power C&I Custom Projects – 2017 Impact Evaluation Results. January 4, 2019 Table 2-2. PY2017 Custom Program Evaluation Activities Activity Sample Size Objective Interviews with program staff 3 Understand program design and delivery. Obtain program staff perspective on program successes and challenges. Identify researchable issues. Tracking system review NA The tracking system was reviewed to determine if all necessary inputs are tracked and if reporting tools contain sufficient information for program review. Desk reviews 31 projects Review project documentation and calculations to assess the accuracy of savings claimed for each project. This included review of the custom calculators and the project documentation for agreement with RTF calculators and guidelines for custom projects. Site visits 29 projects Visited a sample of sites to verify installation of measures and check assumptions used in savings calculations. The locations were matched to projects that had a completed desk review. 2.2.1 Evaluation Goals The following impact evaluation goals were addressed through the various evaluation activities: • Determine and verify the energy impacts attributable to the 2017 program. Ex-ante savings estimates are determined using various sources including the RTF deemed savings, program technical reference manuals, lighting calculator, VFD calculator, and internal/external engineering estimates. • Provide credible and reliable program energy impact estimates and ex-post realization rates attributed to the program for the 2017 program year. • Report findings and observations. Provide recommendations that enhance the effectiveness of future ex-ante savings analysis and the accurate and transparent reporting of program savings. Additional researchable issues were identified during the program staff interviews: • Are there custom measures that could become prescriptive or streamlined measures? • What are best practices for Custom programs and how can Idaho Power improve? • What can be done to increase realization rates of Custom projects? • How do program staff confidently claim savings on behavioral activity past the first year? How long is reasonable? • Are Idaho Power baselines set appropriately compared with industry standards? • How are measure life assumptions affecting cost effectiveness, and is Idaho Power using the correct assumptions? • Are there any changes that Idaho Power should make to their Measurement and Verification (M&V) process? Does that vary by site or type of project? 3-1 Idaho Power C&I Custom Projects – 2017 Impact Evaluation Results. January 4, 2019 3.0 IMPACT EVALUATION The following sections provide a detailed review of the impact evaluation methodology, evaluation results, and recommendations from the evaluation activities. 3.1 METHODOLOGY The impact methodology consisted of the five primary evaluation activities shown in Figure 3-1. Each activity is explained in more detail below. Figure 3-1. Process for Verifying Program Savings 3.1.1 Data Review and Sampling Idaho Power program staff made the following files in Figure 3-2 available to the Tetra Tech team for review. Figure 3-2. Custom Project Files Most review was based upon the documentation folder which was copied and securely delivered to the evaluation team. This folder included the project steps from initial application through pre-install and post-install calculations of savings, description of projects through to the award of incentive, and a copy of the checks delivered. In addition, for most of the projects evaluated, Idaho Power delivered the calculation spreadsheets utilized to create the savings information detailed in the documentation file. Critical components relating to onsite data collection were delivered to onsite staff to minimize customer disruption. Due to the previous review of lighting projects through the Retrofit program evaluation in 2017, and the prescriptive method for claiming lighting savings, Idaho Power and Tetra Tech agreed to exclude the lighting-only projects from the Custom sampling process, to focus on the custom measures with the most uncertainty. The stratum was selected to isolate lighting projects from the cohorts and other custom projects as summarized in Table 3-1. Data Review and Sampling Schedule Site Visits Complete Desk Reviews Complete Site Visits Verify kWh savings General Materials •CLRIS database for 2017•CEP Program Handbook 2017•CIP Procedures Manual•Non-lighting Pre-Approval and Payment Application forms Project Files •Streamlined efficiency calculators•Applications•Submitted project documents•Savings estimation files/calculators/reports •M&V reports, Idaho Power internal reviews and reports, QA/QC notes, site inspection notes and photographs 3-2 Idaho Power C&I Custom Projects – 2017 Impact Evaluation Results. January 4, 2019 Table 3-1. PY2017 Custom Sampling Summary Sampling Stratum Addresses (Unique Qty.) Projects (Total Qty.) Final Total kWh Savings percentage Sample Participants Lighting only 47 84 22.1% 0 Streamlined Process 39 42 9.1% 40 W/WW Cohort 10 11 13.9% Custom 29 33 54.9% Total 125* 170 100.00% 40 * There are 117 unique addresses, but some fall into multiple categories. Sampling was conducted at the service point level[1]. Using tracking data from the 2017 CLRIS database, we drew participants into the sample with a probability proportionate to size, with kWh savings at each site representing its size. Using this approach, every participant had a known probability of selection, but the probability was no longer equal. Rather, a participant with twice the kWh savings as another participant had twice the probability of being selected. The resulting evaluated savings and realization rates are unbiased and represent the population more efficiently, i.e., with a smaller sampling error. 3.1.2 Schedule Site Visits An oversample of 40 sites was pulled to allow more flexibility in scheduling the 30 site visits needed to achieve 90/10 confidence and precision. The Idaho Power customer representatives were provided with all 40 addresses and were requested to schedule site visits for the sample in three different geographic regions. One to two weeks ahead of each of the weeks designated for site visits, Tetra Tech and Idaho Power staff participated in a conference call to review the logistics and goals for scheduling site visits. Schedules were set up with four time periods per day to choose from and visit duration and drive time were factored into the scheduling process. This process worked well to avoid overlapping appointments and the scheduling overall was very smooth and successful, resulting in 30 sites scheduled over a three-week period, with 29 completed, as shown in Figure 3-3. Figure 3-3. Site Visit Scheduling Summary 3.1.3 Complete Desk Reviews and Site Visits To provide guidance to onsite staff on what to look for during the site visits, Tetra Tech staff conducted an initial review of the project files. This engineering review of documentation was conducted to [1] Each service point is a participant facility with a unique address. •Eastern Region/East side of Southern Region •10 site visits scheduled -10 completed September 24 to September 28 •Southern Region •11 site visits scheduled -11 completedOctober 1 to October 5 •Western/Canyon/Capitol Regions •9 site visits scheduled -8 completedOctober 8 to October 12 3-3 Idaho Power C&I Custom Projects – 2017 Impact Evaluation Results. January 4, 2019 describe the project, confirm tracking data, identify key assumptions, and determine critical questions prior to the site visits. Site inspectors then reviewed equipment installation and interviewed customer to identify equipment installed, ask key questions and confirm assumptions, and identify or collect other relevant information. The data gathered from the site visits was reconciled with the information from the initial desk reviews. There were 29 sites that had a completed desk review and site visit and an additional two sites had only a desk review completed, for a total of 31 projects which were evaluated. For each project, we reviewed all measures for each site, resulting in the review of 57 measures as shown in Table 3-2. Table 3-2. PY2017 Custom Project Review Summary Sampling Stratum Reviewed Addresses Reviewed Projects (Total Qty.) Reviewed kWh Savings Percentage Reviewed kWh Lighting 31 19 7.2% 1,321,437 Streamlined Process 18 10.6% 1,945,379 W/WW Cohort 2 6.3% 1,169,362 Custom 18 75.9% 13,971,511 Total 31 57 18,407,689 The amount of time spent at each site to review equipment and gather the information required ranged from one hour to four hours. A Tetra Tech engineer conducted each site visit and was frequently accompanied by an Idaho Power customer representative. 3.1.4 Verify kWh Savings The final step of the impact evaluation combined desk review and site inspection information to provide quality assurance for each reviewed project, describe any revisions to project assumptions and actual conditions, and update calculations to finalize evaluated savings. 3.2 IMPACT REVIEW RESULTS Overall, the evaluation found that the C&I Custom Energy Efficiency Program had a relative precision of 3.23 percent at the 90 percent confidence interval and an impact realization rate of 100.4 percent as shown in Table 3-3. 3-4 Idaho Power C&I Custom Projects – 2017 Impact Evaluation Results. January 4, 2019 Table 3-3. PY2017 Realization Rates Category Measure Ex-Ante kWh Ex-Post kWh Realization Rate Lighting Lighting 1,321,437 1,311,121 99.2% Streamlined Cohort SCE - VFD 1,158,673 1,393,909 120.3% SCE - Doors 386,021 309,130 80.1% SCE - Comp Air 379,678 369,239 97.3% SCE-Refrig Ctrlr 21,007 18,267 87.0% W/WW Cohort WWEEC 1,169,362 1,169,362 100.0% Custom VFD 11,693,386 11,826,855 101.1% Compressed Air 979,090 654,382 66.8% Refrigeration 568,627 568,627 100.0% HVAC 400,965 389,047 97.0% Pump 267,044 414,348 155.2% Fan 53,325 53,325 100.0% Motors 9,074 8,865 97.7% Overall 18,407,689 18,486,478 100.4% The Custom Energy Efficiency Program has many types of measures installed, and although the overall realization rate was 100 percent, this result does not indicate that each measure category had a realization rate near 100 percent. The following sections will provide more detail on differences within measure categories. 3.2.1 Variable Speed Drives Variable Speed Drive projects account for 31 percent of the 2017 C&I Custom program. The sample included four projects which accounted for 64 percent of the sampled kWh. Two of the projects claimed 8 million and 3 million kWh per year respectively and themselves accounted for nearly all the VFD claimed efficiency savings. The overall realization rate in Table 3-4 for the savings claimed is 101.1 percent. Table 3-4. PY2017 Custom VFD Impact Results Summary Project ID Claimed kWh Evaluated kWh Realization Rate 1869 8,207,124 8,340,593 101.6% 1687 3,109,500 3,109,500 100.0% 1566 312,833 312,833 100.0% 1759 63,929 63,929 100.0% Overall 11,693,386 11,826,855 101.1% Project ID 1869: The site visits confirmed the equipment and control settings were equal to what was identified in the documentation. The site inspection verified that the actual energy consumption at the operating condition was slightly lower than the claimed baseline, therefore the savings increased slightly when that finding was multiplied over the hours of operation. 3-5 Idaho Power C&I Custom Projects – 2017 Impact Evaluation Results. January 4, 2019 3.2.2 Lighting Lighting projects account for 22 percent of the 2017 C&I Custom Energy Program. The sample included 19 projects which accounted for seven percent of the sampled kWh. All projects sampled were at five sites that completed another non-lighting project in 2017. Table 3-5 shows realization rates for each project with the total realization rate for lighting savings claimed at 99.2 percent. Table 3-5. PY2017 Custom Lighting Impact Results Summary Project ID Claimed kWh Evaluated kWh Realization Rate 1593* 411,172 411,172 100.0% 1639* 354,997 354,997 100.0% 1673 152,652 152,652 100.0% 1768 103,136 103,136 100.0% 1727* 91,040 89,000 97.8% 1450 64,330 64,330 100.0% 1650 37,802 28,909 76.5% 1737 22,180 25,793 116.3% 1785 13,314 13,314 100.0% 1856 13,314 13,314 100.0% 1554* 13,089 13,089 100.0% 1656 12,382 12,382 100.0% 1603 10,354 8,620 83.3% 1828 8,830 7,568 85.7% 1854 4,457 4,457 100.0% 1750 2,992 2,992 100.0% 1733 2,991 2,991 100.0% 1697 1,496 1,496 100.0% 1753 909 909 100.0% Overall 1,321,437 1,311,121 99.2% *The customer for which only a desk review was completed had a significant amount of lighting in the sample under project IDs, 1554, 1593, 1639, and 1727. Project ID 1727: The review of the submitted documentation noted that the DesignLights Consortium® (DLC) database contained a rated energy consumption value for high bay fixtures of 102 watts versus the claimed value of 95 watts per fixture. In addition, the explosion proof lighting noted that the DLC database contained a rated energy consumption value for high bay fixtures of 72 watts versus the claimed value of 67 watts per fixture. Project ID 1650: The site visit found that 14 fixtures were removed and 15 fixtures were installed. This is less than the claimed amount of 18 fixtures. 3-6 Idaho Power C&I Custom Projects – 2017 Impact Evaluation Results. January 4, 2019 Project ID 1737: The site visit found that occupancy sensors were included on the high bay lighting, increasing the savings for the project over the claimed amount. Project ID 1603: The site visit found that the controls for the lighting were not installed. Project ID 1828: The site visit found that there were six fixtures replaced, less than the claimed seven fixtures. 3.2.3 Compressed Air Compressed Air projects account for 10 percent of the 2017 C&I Custom Energy Program. The sample included three projects which accounted for 3.7 percent of the sampled kWh. All three projects were retrofits of existing equipment. The realization rate for the savings claimed is 66.8 percent in Table 3-6. Table 3-6. PY2017 Custom Compressed Air Impact Results Summary Project ID Claimed kWh Evaluated kWh Realization Rate 1598 505,344 180,636 35.8% 1422 452,981 452,981 100.0% 1630-1 20,765 20,765 100.0% Overall 979,090 654,382 66.8% Project ID 1598: The site visit found that the intended control structure for the two compressors to work in conjunction using a lead-lag programming was not operating. Both compressors were operating at the same power level. This adjustment in the programming control eliminated a majority of the claimed savings for this project. 3.2.4 Refrigeration Refrigeration projects account for 16 percent of the 2017 C&I Custom Energy Program. The sample included four projects which accounted for 3.1 percent of the sampled kWh. The four projects were retrofits of existing refrigerated food storage at two locations. Table 3-7 shows the realization rates for the savings claimed is 100 percent for all projects. Table 3-7. PY2017 Custom Refrigeration Impact Results Summary Project ID Claimed kWh Evaluated kWh Realization Rate 1222 264,975 264,975 100.0% 1770 201,277 201,277 100.0% 1769 75,539 75,539 100.0% 1893 26,836 26,836 100.0% Overall 568,627 568,627 100.0% 3-7 Idaho Power C&I Custom Projects – 2017 Impact Evaluation Results. January 4, 2019 Food storage refrigeration requires many assumptions based upon the heat load in the food brought into storage. The assumptions claimed in this calculation were made conservatively and the evaluation team agrees with the savings calculations. 3.2.5 HVAC HVAC projects account for one percent of the 2017 C&I Custom Energy Program. The sample included three projects which accounted for 2.1 percent of the sampled kWh. All three projects were retrofits of existing equipment. Table 3-8 shows the realization rate for the savings claimed is 97.0 percent. Table 3-8. PY2017 Custom HVAC Impact Results Summary Project ID Claimed kWh Evaluated kWh Realization Rate 1440 218,937 218,937 100.0% 1706 123,908 114,072 92.1% 1906 58,120 56,038 96.4% Overall 400,965 389,047 97.0% Project ID 1706: The project was intended to provide heat to keep pipes from freezing in an entry area. The claimed savings used the occupancy hours. The evaluation team adjusted the hours of use to match the freezing temperature hours from the weather file. Project ID 1906: The claimed savings did not use the AHRI rated capacity of the installed units, the evaluation team adjusted these capacities. In addition, one heat pump was adjusted to claim savings for a <1.5 ton unit from the “1.5 ton – 5 ton” category. This adjustment also required that the unit have a COP of 4.6, which it did not. Therefore, the unit savings were removed from project savings. 3.2.6 Pump Pump projects account for less than one percent of the 2017 C&I Custom Energy Program. The sample included one project which accounted for 1.3 percent of the sampled kWh. Table 3-9 shows the realization rate for the savings claimed is 155.1 percent. Table 3-9. PY2017 Custom Pump Impact Results Summary Project ID Claimed kWh Evaluated kWh Realization Rate 1622 236,885 384,189 162.2% 1630-2 30,159 30,159 100.0% Overall 267,044 414,348 155.1% Project ID 1622: The claimed savings did not appear to account for variable pump efficiencies as the pumping conditions change. The claimed calculation used 80.1% efficiency and the evaluated savings used an average of 76% efficiency to approximate changing conditions. A pump curve was not available and therefore exact values could not be identified. In addition to the reduction of pumping efficiency, the claimed savings assumed that the pump hours would remain constant before and after the improvement. The 3-8 Idaho Power C&I Custom Projects – 2017 Impact Evaluation Results. January 4, 2019 evaluated savings utilized an assumption that the pumping was volume based and therefore the new pump will operate less hours than the baseline. These combined adjustments increased the energy savings for this project. 3.2.7 Fan Fan projects account for less than one percent of the 2017 C&I Custom Energy Program. The sample included one project which accounted for 0.3 percent of the sampled kWh. The realization rate for the savings claimed is 100 percent, as shown in Table 3-10. The industrial fan calculator was used to claim savings for this project. Table 3-10. PY2017 Custom Fan Impact Results Summary Project ID Claimed kWh Evaluated kWh Realization Rate 1864 53,325 53,325 100.0% 3.2.8 Motors Motor projects account for less than one percent of the 2017 C&I Custom Energy Program. The sample included one project which accounted for 0.05 percent of the sampled kWh. The realization rate for the savings claimed is 97.7 percent, as shown in Table 3-11. Table 3-11. PY2017 Custom Motors Impact Results Summary Project ID Claimed kWh Evaluated kWh Realization Rate 1456 9,074 8,865 97.7% Project ID 1456: The evaluated savings adjusted hours of operation from 3,000 to 2,931 to match operations. 3.2.9 Wastewater Energy Efficiency Cohort The Wastewater Energy Efficiency Cohort (WWEEC) accounted for five percent of the 2017 C&I Custom program savings. The sample included two projects which accounted for 6.3 percent of the sampled kWh. Both projects received 100 percent realization rates, as shown in Table 3-12. Table 3-12. PY2017 Custom WWEEC Impact Results Summary Project ID Claimed kWh Evaluated kWh Realization Rate 1121 814,638 814,638 100.0% 1089 354,724 354,724 100.0% Overall 1,169,362 1,169,362 100.0% The projects positively identified best practices and relatively quickly were able to support the transition to focus effort on energy efficiency through daily operations at the plant. The M&V process to compare savings utilizes the energy consumed normalized to flow volumes and then subtracting out the raw values of any capital projects was reasonable. The program took a conservative approach to remove the energy savings from capital improvements which received incentives outside the cohort. In Year 3 & 4 of the program, the energy savings may be more complicated as the staff begins to change at the participating wastewater treatment plants and additional capital improvement projects are 3-9 Idaho Power C&I Custom Projects – 2017 Impact Evaluation Results. January 4, 2019 constructed at the facilities. As the energy savings occurs from multiple pathways, such as capital improvements, operational efficiency variations of previous process adjustments, and new operational decisions, the claimed savings values from the WWEEC will need to be balanced between multiple interconnected projects claiming savings. The decision to break up the energy savings may not be clear, so it will be important to detail assumptions for sources of energy savings and how they are attributed, with a portion of the total savings values of all these projects attributed to WWEEC. 3.2.10 Streamlined Process The Streamlined projects account for 10 percent of the overall 2017 C&I Custom Energy Program. The sample included 18 projects which accounted for 10 percent of the sampled kWh. These projects included VFDs, fast acting doors, compressed air upgrades, and dairy pre-cooling. Table 3-13 shows the individual realization rates and an overall realization rate for the savings claimed of 106.2 percent. Table 3-13. PY2017 Custom Streamlined Impact Results Summary Project Type Project ID Claimed kWh Evaluated kWh Realization Rate VFD 1754 397,844 397,844 100.0% 1690 364,723 566,409 155.3% 1685 216,370 241,170 111.5% 1576 47,720 47,720 100.0% 1833 38,861 42,708 109.9% 1698 37,670 37,670 100.0% 1577 35,790 35,790 100.0% 1812 19,695 24,598 124.9% 1754 397,844 397,844 100.0% Fast Acting Door 1469 185,512 185,512 100.0% 1699 120,931 44,040 36.4% 1913 79,578 79,578 100.0% Compressed Air 1767 85,948 85,948 100.0% 1746 77,101 71,380 92.6% 1504 73,851 73,851 100.0% 1726 73,432 74,205 101.1% 1795 43,335 37,856 87.4% 1834 26,011 25,999 100.0% Dairy Pre-Cooling 1734 21,007 18,267 87.0% Overall 2,343,223 2,488,389 106.2% Overall the streamlined project calculations varied more than the projects which followed the standard Custom program process. This is expected as they are smaller projects and were not calculated with the same amount of rigor. There were several reasons for adjustments, but many focused around the control of equipment post-installation. 3-10 Idaho Power C&I Custom Projects – 2017 Impact Evaluation Results. January 4, 2019 Project ID 1690: The site visit found a different operation profile for both the mixer and the grinder. The mixer increased both the baseline energy consumption and decreased the efficient case energy consumption with increased savings. The grinder baseline and efficient energy consumption both increased, which led to slightly decreased savings. Project ID 1685: The site visit found the length of storage to be longer than claimed. The increased hours of operation led to increased savings. Project ID 1833: The site visit found a different operation profile for the farm. This is a 24-hour milking operation, although 2-4 hours of this is not milking and therefore the cooling system would not be necessary during that time. The site inspection verified baseline consumption was higher than claimed and the maximum consumption was lower than claimed. Using the hours of operation and the VFD programming, these factors combined to increase savings slightly. Project ID 1812: The site visit noted that the thermostat for control of this project was located inside the milking parlor and barn which would be at an elevated temperature compared with the outdoor temperature. Therefore, the hours of operation increased for the project which increased the savings. Project ID 1699: The site visit noted several discrepancies for the installation of this project. The doors were smaller than claimed, the controls were site adjusted to allow the door to stay open longer when activated, and the gap between the door and wall was larger than anticipated. It appears that the site staff is working to figure out the best control for the door because the activation sensor is opening the door when employees pass by the door without intending to exit. Combining all these effects, the energy savings for this door is significantly decreased. Project ID 1746: The claimed calculation utilized a custom baseline for this new construction project. The calculation was updated to utilize the RTF regional baseline for new construction. In addition, the site visit report noted that the operating profile was most often at 50 percent for the integrated VFD. This adjusted the operating profile slightly which reduced savings. Project ID 1795: The claimed calculation included a typo which used 5,880 hours per year instead of the intended 5,088 hours per year. Correcting this resulted in lower savings. Project ID 1734: The current savings calculation assumes that there would be no heat loss as the milk was transported to the pre-cooler. Due to the distance of the piping, and the typical associated heat loss, the entering milk temperature was reduced to 95 degrees. This decreased the energy savings. 3-11 Idaho Power C&I Custom Projects – 2017 Impact Evaluation Results. January 4, 2019 3.3 IMPACT RECOMMENDATIONS The following impact recommendations are provided for Idaho Power’s consideration: Collect and file electronic calculators. For the project savings calculated by the third-party contractor, Idaho Power should collect and file the Excel calculators. The calculators were available from the third-party engineer but having them in-house once each project is completed will facilitate any additional quality control or adjustments that Idaho Power would like to make to improve accuracy. Consider including post-verification customer follow-up for control-based projects. Based on the variation found in savings for projects with controls, and the value Idaho Power places on customer relationships, Tetra Tech recommends that the engineering team identify customers for post-verification visits to discuss control settings and the potential adjustment impacts. This is most useful for projects that have easily adjusted controls such as; variable frequency drives, fast acting doors, and compressed air upgrades. Not only will it help Idaho Power report more accurate savings, it will assist the customer in maximizing savings from their investment in the project. Review goals for the Streamlined process. The Streamlined process is used to market to customers with a less customized project and provide a more efficient application process. However, the evaluation found that the assumptions for the streamlined projects resulted in more variation from actual conditions than their more “custom” counterpart projects. Idaho Power should continue to monitor the benefits of the process efficiency with the potential variation in savings rigor. Continue close communications with Wastewater Cohort contacts. The Wastewater cohort has developed a process to claim annual savings from behavioral improvements, but the conditions of the projects and baselines continue to evolve. Changes in project managers at customer facilities and the addition of other capital projects may affect future savings. Idaho Power staff should continue to closely monitor and communicate with their Wastewater project contacts. Review various energy calculation components for improved accuracy. Idaho Power calculations are currently found to be accurate and well-documented. However, for particular measure categories, the calculation accuracy could be further improved with the following adjustments: • Use Regional Technical Forum (RTF) method for New Construction Baseline. The RTF issues new construction baselines based upon market research. Use the RTF baseline, when available, for project calculations to minimize risk associated with variable baselines per project. This was found specifically in the sample for Compressed Air new construction projects, although it will apply across many different new construction equipment types. • Use rated capacity and wattage for equipment. Lighting and HVAC equipment have third party certification agencies which provide rated wattage and capacities of specific equipment models. Utilizing this information will reduce the risk that a manufacturer spec sheet may misrepresent the performance. This was noticed for an HVAC project which did not utilize the rated Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration (AHRI) capacity and energy consumption metrics. • Consider requiring a pump curve submission for pumping projects. Pump curves detail the pump efficiency at various operating conditions. Many pumping projects change pump conditions and the pump efficiency will generally have a large impact on the energy savings of the project. To estimate pump performance at multiple condition points, a pump curve is necessary. • Monitor specific dairy projects for adjustments to incoming milk temperature. The RTF states to use 98 degrees based on industry standard practice of milk temperature production 3-12 Idaho Power C&I Custom Projects – 2017 Impact Evaluation Results. January 4, 2019 unless otherwise measured. Dairies collect milk at approximately 98 degrees in the milking parlor and need to transfer the milk to the chilling system through uninsulated piping. This fluid transfer results in heat dissipation and therefore lower milk temperature at the start of chilling. For at least one of the projects reviewed, the milk traveled a lengthy distance to reach the chilling system which would have resulted in a lower incoming milk temperature assumption of 95 degrees. Idaho Power Company Idaho Power Company Energy Efficient Lighting Program 2017 Impact Evaluation Results January 16, 2019 ii Idaho Power Energy Efficient Lighting Program – 2017 Impact Evaluation Results. January 16, 2019 6410 Enterprise Lane, Suite 300 | Madison, WI 53719 Tel 608.316.3700 | Fax 608.661.5181 tetratech.com Copyright © 2018 Tetra Tech, Inc. All Rights Reserved. iii Idaho Power Energy Efficient Lighting Program – 2017 Impact Evaluation Results. January 16, 2019 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................................. 1-1 1.1 Program Description ............................................................................................................... 1-1 1.2 Methodology ........................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.3 Findings and Recommendations ............................................................................................. 1-1 2.0 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 2-1 2.1 Program Overview .................................................................................................................. 2-1 2.1.1 Marketing & Outreach ..................................................................................................... 2-1 2.1.2 Tracking & Reporting ...................................................................................................... 2-2 2.2 Evaluation Activities ................................................................................................................ 2-2 3.0 IMPACT EVALUATION RESULTS .............................................................................................. 3-1 3.1 Methodology ........................................................................................................................... 3-1 3.1.1 Program Staff Interview .................................................................................................. 3-1 3.1.2 Database Review ........................................................................................................... 3-1 3.1.3 RTF Compliance ............................................................................................................ 3-1 3.1.4 Verification of kWh Savings ............................................................................................ 3-2 3.1.5 Retailer Invoice Checks .................................................................................................. 3-2 3.2 Impact Review Results ............................................................................................................ 3-2 3.2.1 Database Review ........................................................................................................... 3-2 3.2.2 Regional Technical Forum Compliance .......................................................................... 3-5 3.2.3 Retail Sales Report Quality Control ................................................................................ 3-6 3.3 Impact Recommendations ....................................................................................................... 3-6 LIST OF TABLES Table 2-1. Energy Efficient Lighting Program Evaluation Activities ..................................................... 2-2 Table 3-1. Overview of 2017 Program Realization Rate ...................................................................... 3-2 Table 3-2. RTF v4.2 Savings Comparisons ......................................................................................... 3-4 Table 3-3. RTF v5.2 Savings Comparisons ......................................................................................... 3-5 Table 3-4. Examples of Difference in Claimed and Evaluated Savings Totals ........ Error! Bookmark not defined. Table 3-5. Example of QC Checks .......................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined. iv Idaho Power Energy Efficient Lighting Program – 2017 Impact Evaluation Results. January 16, 2019 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1-1. Process for Verifying Program Savings ............................................................................. 1-1 Figure 2-1. Payment Process .............................................................................................................. 2-1 Figure 3-1. Process for Verifying Program Savings ............................................................................. 3-1 Figure 3-2. Lighting Project Files ........................................................................................................ 3-1 v Idaho Power Energy Efficient Lighting Program – 2017 Impact Evaluation Results. January 16, 2019 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We would like to acknowledge the many individuals who contributed to the impact evaluation of the Idaho Power Energy Efficient Lighting program savings from 2017. This evaluation effort would not have been possible without their help and support. We would like to specifically thank Gary Grayson, Mindi Shodeen, and Kathy Yi of Idaho Power, who provided invaluable insight into the program and operations. These individuals participated in ongoing evaluation deliverable reviews and discussions and graciously responded to follow-up questions and data and documentation requests. The Tetra Tech Evaluation Team was made up of the following individuals: Kimberly Bakalars, Mark Bergum, and Josh Verbeten. 1-1 Idaho Power Energy Efficient Lighting Program – 2017 Impact Evaluation Results. January 16, 2019 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Tetra Tech is pleased to provide Idaho Power Company (Idaho Power) with a report for the 2018 impact evaluation of the 2017 Energy Efficient Lighting (EEL) program, a component of the Simple Steps, Smart Savings program. This section of the report consists of an introduction describing the program, evaluation activities, and key findings and recommendations. The detailed impact results can be found in Section 3, along with recommendations. 1.1 PROGRAM DESCRIPTION Idaho Power and other regional utilities participate in the Simple Steps, Smart Savings™ program. Idaho Power promotes Simple Steps, Smart Savings offerings to customers for both lighting and appliance promotion. Initiated in 2002, the Energy Efficient Lighting program follows a markdown model that provides incentives directly to manufacturers or retailers, with discounted prices passed on to the customer at the point of purchase. The program goal is to help Idaho Power’s Idaho and Oregon residential customers afford more efficient lighting technology. The EEL program is managed by CLEAResult. In addition to managing the program’s promotions, which include special product placement, additional discounts, and other retail merchandising tactics designed to increase sales, CLEAResult is responsible for contracting with retailers and manufacturers, providing marketing materials at the point of purchase, and supporting and training retailers. 1.2 METHODOLOGY To address the evaluation objectives, the impact methodology consisted of the four primary evaluation activities shown in Figure 1-1. Figure 1-1. Process for Verifying Program Savings 1.3 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Tetra Tech found no issues with the savings calculations other than a similar rounding issue that was identified through the Multifamily Energy Savings program evaluation. However, there is evidence that Idaho Power applied what was found during the Multifamily evaluation to the EEL program savings and this substantially improved the accuracy of the savings claimed for the EEL program. The quality control processes already in place for the EEL program result in a realization rate very close to 100 percent. It also appears that Idaho Power has applied many of the previous EEL evaluation recommendations to improve program tracking and savings accuracy. The evaluation team has no recommendations for the program related to claimed savings other than to continue the current processes and rigorous QA/QC. Program Staff Interview Database Review RTF Compliance Verify kWh savings 2-1 Idaho Power Energy Efficient Lighting Program – 2017 Impact Evaluation Results. January 16, 2019 2.0 INTRODUCTION 2.1 PROGRAM OVERVIEW Idaho Power and other regional utilities participate in the Simple Steps, Smart Savings™ program. Idaho Power promotes Simple Steps, Smart Savings offerings to customers for both lighting and appliance promotion. Initiated in 2002, the Energy Efficient Lighting (EEL) program follows a markdown model that provides incentives directly to manufacturers or retailers, with discounted prices passed on to the customer at the point of purchase. The benefits of this model are low administration costs, better availability of products to the customer, and the ability to provide an incentive for specific products. The program goal is to help Idaho Power’s Idaho and Oregon residential customers afford more efficient lighting technology. The EEL program is managed by CLEAResult. In addition to managing the program’s promotions, which include special product placement, additional discounts, and other retail merchandising tactics designed to increase sales, CLEAResult is responsible for contracting with retailers and manufacturers, providing marketing materials at the point of purchase, and supporting and training retailers. CLEAResult negotiates bulb prices directly with each retail store and contracts can vary by retailer. Idaho Power pays a flat fee for each kWh of energy savings achieved. A portion of the funding Idaho Power provides is used to buy down the price of the product, and a portion is applied to administration and marketing which varies and can be used for retailer promotions. Figure 2-1. Payment Process 2.1.1 Marketing & Outreach In 2017, CLEAResult conducted special product placement and signage promotions for Simple Steps, Smart Savings. CLEAResult staff conducted monthly store visits to check on stock, point-of-purchase signs, and displays, and staffed 13 lighting events at local Home Depot and Costco stores to educate customers about the importance of using LED lightbulbs and the Simple Steps promotion. Additional activities in 2017 involved education and marketing. During events where Idaho Power sponsored a booth and distributed LED lightbulbs, customers were informed about the importance of using energy-efficient lighting, the quality of LED lightbulbs, and the special pricing available for the Simple Steps, Smart Savings products. The company continued to host an Energy Efficient Lighting program website; to make available a Change a Light program brochure designed to help customers select the right lightbulb for their needs; and to discuss energy-efficient lighting with customers at community events. Also, ads for the Fridge and Freezer Recycling Program promoted the free LED lightbulb offer. Several #TipTuesday posts on social media throughout the year also focused on energy-efficient lighting. The Idaho Power winter Energy Efficiency Guide and the January issue of Connections also recommended using ENERGY STAR certified light bulbs. Customer receives reduced price Manufacturer invoices CLEAResult CLEAResult invoices Idaho Power 2-2 Idaho Power Energy Efficient Lighting Program – 2017 Impact Evaluation Results. January 16, 2019 2.1.2 Tracking & Reporting In 2017, through the Simple Steps, Smart Savings program, Idaho Power worked with 19 participating retailers, representing 129 individual store locations throughout its service area. Of those participating retailers, 58 percent were smaller grocery, drug, and hardware stores, and the remaining 42 percent were large retailers. LED lightbulbs comprised 90 percent of lightbulb sales for 2017, an increase from 59 percent in 2016, while LED fixtures remained at approximately five percent of lighting sales. CFL lightbulbs manufactured before January 1, 2017 that had the ENERGY STAR certification did qualify for the Simple Steps markdown price; however, after May 2017 no CFL lightbulbs were included in the Energy Efficient Lighting program. 2.2 EVALUATION ACTIVITIES The evaluation activities for the Energy Efficient Lighting program are summarized in Table 2-1 below. The impact evaluation of the 2017 Idaho Power EEL program included a database analysis of reported savings with a comparison to Regional Technical Forum (RTF) deemed savings. Table 2-1. Energy Efficient Lighting Program Evaluation Activities Activity Sample Size Objective Interviews with Idaho Power staff 3 Understand program design and delivery. Obtain program staff perspective on program successes and challenges. Identify researchable issues. Database analysis Census The tracking system was reviewed to determine if all necessary inputs are tracked and if reporting tools contain sufficient information for program review. A comparison with RTF deemed savings was included. RTF compliance Census Review adoption of new RTF versions. Retailer invoice checks Review QA/QC procedures for data entry of retail sales and invoicing information. 3-1 Idaho Power Energy Efficient Lighting Program – 2017 Impact Evaluation Results. January 16, 2019 3.0 IMPACT EVALUATION RESULTS This chapter discusses the methodology and results of the impact evaluation of the 2017 EEL program. The impact evaluation was based on discussions with program staff as well as a review of the program tracking database. 3.1 METHODOLOGY The impact methodology consisted of the four primary evaluation activities shown in Figure 3-1. Each activity is explained in more detail below. Figure 3-1. Process for Verifying Program Savings 3.1.1 Program Staff Interview Tetra Tech began the evaluation with a meeting with the Idaho Power evaluation lead to outline goals for the evaluation and identify key issues and Idaho Power personnel for subsequent interviews. Tetra Tech interviewed the program specialist and program analyst to understand data tracking, data availability, and program policies and to develop an ongoing dialogue to discuss questions that may emerge from the initial data review and findings. 3.1.2 Database Review To review tracking data, Tetra Tech applied a census approach to the review of per-lamp savings tracked in the program’s tracking system. The census approach avoids sampling error, resulting in an outcome that exceeds the minimum 90 percent ± 10 percent confidence required of the evaluation findings. Idaho Power program staff made the following files available to the Tetra Tech team for review. Figure 3-2. Lighting Project Files 3.1.3 RTF Compliance The RTF periodically updates savings values. Because Bonneville Power Administration maintains the master contract with CLEAResult, Idaho Power follows their timing on when new savings are adopted. Program Staff Interview Database Review RTF Compliance Verify kWh savings Materials Provided •2017 YTD Lighting •ResLighting_Bulbs_v4_2 •ResLighting_v5.2 •Production_UES_Measures_List (v5.0) (Effective 2016-10-01) •UES_Measures_List_Version 6-1 (Effective 2017-10-01) 3-2 Idaho Power Energy Efficient Lighting Program – 2017 Impact Evaluation Results. January 16, 2019 Tetra Tech utilized the program tracking system and RTF workbooks to verify compliance with RTF savings based on this policy. 3.1.4 Verification of kWh Savings Idaho Power tracks energy savings for the EEL program in a Microsoft Excel® workbook for each program year. Idaho Power provided the 2017 tracking system to Tetra Tech for review as a foundation for verifying program savings. The tracking system contained itemized sales, allocation, incentive payment, and energy savings for each retailer and lamp stock keeping unit (SKU), with 46,884 records. The data spanned retail sales reported to Idaho Power for August 2016 through December 2017. Idaho Power calculated savings using RTF version 4.2 from October 2016 to September 2017 and updated to RTF version 5.2 from October 2017 to September 2018. The savings verification process compared column AW (Total Savings) in the Idaho Power tracking database with a Verified Total Savings column that Tetra Tech calculated by multiplying Savings per Unit based on the RTF calculator times column AP (Units Counted for Energy Savings). 3.1.5 Retailer Invoice Checks A portion of the impact review would typically focus on an independent quality control check of retailer sales data and invoices submitted to the program. However, given the description of the quality control and data entry process used by the EEL program staff, this review was determined by the evaluation team and Idaho Power to be an unnecessary burden on busy program staff. We spoke with the program specialist and program analyst to understand the tracking process for the program as well as any quality control checks that were applied as the sales reports and invoices from CLEAResult were received. The internal quality control procedure is described further in Section 3.2.3. 3.2 IMPACT REVIEW RESULTS Overall, the evaluation found that the EEL program calculations were accurate with little variation by individual measure type. As shown in Table 3-1, realization rates for each RTF version were very close to 100 percent and became even more accurate when RTF version 5.2 was adopted. Much of this increase in accuracy occurred because Idaho Power discontinued rounding of the unit savings to the nearest whole number after moving to RTF version 5.2. Table 3-1. Overview of 2017 Program Realization Rate RTF Applied to Savings Ex-Ante kWh Ex-Post kWh Realization Rate RTF version 4.2 Applied (10/2016-9/2017) 33,238,503.67 33,506,134.22 1.01 RTF version 5.2 Applied (10/2017-9/2018) 4,526,238.22 4,526,468.65 1.00 Program Year 2017 37,764,741.89 38,032,602.87 1.01 3.2.1 Database Review The tracking system is comprehensive and allowed Tetra Tech to conduct a census review of all lamp types and aggregate reported energy savings. Tetra Tech found the tracking database to be very clean and consistently complete. In addition to tracking the program participation, the database included a tab 3-3 Idaho Power Energy Efficient Lighting Program – 2017 Impact Evaluation Results. January 16, 2019 with a data legend that explained what each column is used for and identified which column data comes directly from contractors. This is considered a best practice when tracking data and will ensure consistency if someone other than the current user needs to work with the database. Review of the savings values by RTF version resulted in high realization rates for almost all measures. Table 3-2 below shows the measure level realization rates for savings claimed during the application of RTF version 4.2 and Table 3-3 shows the measure level realization rates for savings claimed during the application of RTF version 5.2. 3-4 Idaho Power Energy Efficient Lighting Program – 2017 Impact Evaluation Results. January 16, 2019 Table 3-2. RTF v4.2 Savings Comparisons Bulb Type Ex-Ante kWh Ex-Post kWh Realization Rate Fixtures LED Decorative Ceiling Flush Mount Retail 724,704.00 724,704.00 1.00 Fixtures LED Downlight Retrofit Kit Retail 1,372,920.00 1,372,920.00 1.00 Fixtures LED Exterior Porch Light Retail 283,498.77 283,498.77 1.00 Fixtures LED Exterior Security Retail 665,336.88 665,336.88 1.00 Fixtures LED Linear Flush Mount Retail 297.00 297.00 1.00 Fixtures LED Linear Shop Light Retail 4,781.70 4,781.70 1.00 Fixtures LED Track Light Retail 1,478.32 1,478.32 1.00 Retail Compact Fluorescent Decorative and Mini-Base1490 to 2600 lumens ANY 28.00 22.93 0.82 Retail Compact Fluorescent Decorative and Mini-Base250 to 1049 lumens ANY 4,290.00 4,347.18 1.01 Retail Compact Fluorescent General Purpose, Dimmable, and Three-Way1050 to 1489 lumens any 82,348.00 82,176.49 1.00 Retail Compact Fluorescent General Purpose, Dimmable, and Three-Way1490 to 2600 lumens any 153,350.00 152,083.81 0.99 Retail Compact Fluorescent General Purpose, Dimmable, and Three-Way250 to 1049 lumens any 505,540.00 509,178.65 1.01 Retail Compact FluorescentGlobe250 to 1049 lumens ANY 576.00 586.29 1.02 Retail Compact Fluorescent Reflectors and Outdoor1050 to 1489 lumens ANY 1,620.00 1,629.06 1.01 Retail Compact Fluorescent Reflectors and Outdoor1490 to 2600 lumens ANY 360.00 377.15 1.05 Retail Compact Fluorescent Reflectors and Outdoor250 to 1049 lumens ANY 108,030.00 108,205.54 1.00 Retail LED Decorative and Mini-Base250 to 1049 lumens ANY 1,523,184.00 1,545,641.85 1.01 Retail LED General Purpose, Dimmable, and Three-Way1050 to 1489 lumens any 187,374.00 188,282.43 1.00 Retail LED General Purpose, Dimmable, and Three-Way1490 to 2600 lumens any 1,591,234.00 1,607,029.90 1.01 Retail LED General Purpose, Dimmable, and Three-Way250 to 1049 lumens any 8,672,820.00 8,767,537.65 1.01 Retail LED Globe250 to 1049 lumens ANY 139,146.00 137,846.48 0.99 Retail LED Reflectors and Outdoor1050 to 1489 lumens ANY 301,872.00 303,412.19 1.01 Retail LED Reflectors and Outdoor1490 to 2600 lumens ANY 24,140.00 23,786.40 0.99 Retail LED Reflectors and Outdoor250 to 1049 lumens ANY 16,889,575.00 17,020,973.56 1.01 Total 33,238,503.67 33,506,134.23 1.01 3-5 Idaho Power Energy Efficient Lighting Program – 2017 Impact Evaluation Results. January 16, 2019 Unit savings were rounded to the nearest whole number while Version 4.2 of the RTF calculator was being used to calculate savings (from October 2016-September 2017). Rounding to whole numbers stopped after Version 5.2 of the RTF calculator was applied (October 2017 - September 2018). The rounding to two decimal places greatly improves the accuracy of the claimed savings, as highlighted in Table 3-3 below. Table 3-3. RTF v5.2 Savings Comparisons Bulb Type Ex-Ante kWh Ex-Post kWh Realization Rate Retail_Ceiling and Wall Flush Mount _1000 to 1999 lumens 33,716.78 33,716.78 1.00 Retail_Ceiling and Wall Flush Mount _2000 to 3999 lumens 18,914.26 18,914.26 1.00 Retail_Ceiling and Wall Flush Mount _4000 to 7999 lumens 66,808.36 66,808.36 1.00 Retail_Ceiling and Wall Flush Mount _500 to 999 lumens 9,845.33 9,845.33 1.00 Retail_Downlight Fixture_1000 to 1999 lumens 4,267.39 4,267.39 1.00 Retail_Downlight Fixture_250 to 499 lumens 87.38 87.38 1.00 Retail_Downlight Fixture_500 to 999 lumens 237,416.64 237,416.64 1.00 Retail_Exterior Porch_500 to 999 lumens 104.99 104.99 1.00 Retail_Exterior Security_2000 to 3999 lumens 23,443.13 23,443.13 1.00 Retail_Linear Flush Mount_500 to 999 lumens 3.79 3.79 1.00 Retail_Linear Shop_4000 to 7999 lumens 11.19 11.19 1.00 Retail LED Decorative and Mini-Base250 to 1049 lumens ANY 215,968.32 216,049.90 1.00 Retail LED General Purpose, Dimmable, and Three-Way1050 to 1489 lumens any 54,276.16 54,266.44 1.00 Retail LED General Purpose, Dimmable, and Three-Way1490 to 2600 lumens any 275,782.50 275,795.42 1.00 Retail LED General Purpose, Dimmable, and Three-Way250 to 1049 lumens any 1,757,189.16 1,757,641.62 1.00 RetailLEDGlobe250 to 1049 lumens ANY 89,641.76 89,617.52 1.00 Retail LED Reflectors and Outdoor1050 to 1489 lumens ANY 75,243.93 75,253.00 1.00 Retail LED Reflectors and Outdoor1490 to 2600 lumens ANY 20,409.96 20,409.62 1.00 Retail LED Reflectors and Outdoor250 to 1049 lumens ANY 1,643,107.20 1,642,815.90 1.00 Total 4,526,238.23 4,526,468.66 1.00 3.2.2 Regional Technical Forum Compliance The RTF periodically updates savings values. Because Bonneville Power Administration maintains the master contract with CLEAResult, Idaho Power follows their timing on when new savings are adopted. BPA was using RTF version 4.2 from October 2016-September 2017 and used RTF version 5.2 from October 2017-September 2018. Tetra Tech utilized the program tracking system and RTF workbooks to verify compliance with RTF savings based on this policy. 3-6 Idaho Power Energy Efficient Lighting Program – 2017 Impact Evaluation Results. January 16, 2019 3.2.3 Retail Sales Report Quality Control During discussions with the program specialist and program analyst to understand the tracking process for the program, it became clear that there is an extensive process for quality control applied as the sales reports and invoices from CLEAResult are received. Idaho Power asks for raw sales data from each of the stores on a monthly basis. Their program specialist then verifies that the numbers provided by the contractor match the raw sales data. If there are any discrepancies, the program specialist follows up with the contractor until the discrepancies are resolved. The program specialist also maintains a SKU lookup tab as part of the tracking database. Lighting SKUs are constantly changing, but the program specialist checks the ENERGY STAR list periodically to make adjustments. In addition, there are lookups in place to verify if a SKU from a store is part of the approved list. If a new SKU appears, the program specialist will do further research to determine if the item qualifies for an incentive. 3.3 IMPACT RECOMMENDATIONS Tetra Tech found no issues with the savings calculations other than a similar rounding issue that was identified through the Multifamily Energy Savings program evaluation. However, there is evidence that Idaho Power applied what was found during the Multifamily evaluation to the EEL program savings and this substantially improved the accuracy of the savings claimed for the EEL program. The quality control processes already in place for the EEL program result in a realization rate very close to 100 percent. It also appears that Idaho Power has applied many of the previous EEL evaluation recommendations to improve program tracking and savings accuracy. The evaluation team has no recommendations for the program related to claimed savings other than to continue the current processes and rigorous QA/QC. Idaho Power Company Idaho Power Company Multifamily Energy Savings Program 2017 Impact and Process Evaluation Results December 5, 2018 ii Idaho Power Multifamily Energy Savings Program – 2017 Evaluation Results. December 5, 2018 6410 Enterprise Lane, Suite 300 | Madison, WI 53719 Tel 608.316.3700 | Fax 608.661.5181 tetratech.com Copyright © 2018 Tetra Tech, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 3 Idaho Power Multifamily Energy Savings Program – 2017 Evaluation Results. December 5, 2018 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................. 6 1.1 Program Description .................................................................................................................. 6 1.2 Methodology .............................................................................................................................. 6 1.3 Findings and Recommendations ................................................................................................ 6 1.3.1 Impact Recommendations ................................................................................................. 8 1.3.2 Process Recommendations ............................................................................................... 9 2.0 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................... 10 2.1 Program Overview ................................................................................................................... 10 2.1.1 Marketing and Outreach .................................................................................................. 10 2.1.2 Tracking and Reporting ................................................................................................... 11 2.1.3 Evaluation Goals ............................................................................................................. 11 2.1.4 Evaluation Activities ........................................................................................................ 11 3.0 IMPACT EVALUATION RESULTS ............................................................................................... 13 3.1 Methodology ............................................................................................................................ 13 3.1.1 Program Documentation and Tracking Review ................................................................ 13 3.1.2 Verify kWh Savings Amounts .......................................................................................... 13 3.1.3 Check Savings Calculations ............................................................................................ 14 3.1.4 Review Materials Invoices ............................................................................................... 14 3.2 Impact Review Results ............................................................................................................. 15 3.2.1 Savings Inputs ................................................................................................................. 15 3.2.2 Savings Accuracy ............................................................................................................ 16 3.2.3 Invoice Review ................................................................................................................ 18 3.3 Impact Recommendations ........................................................................................................ 18 4.0 PROCESS EVALUATION RESULTS ............................................................................................ 20 4.1 Methodology ............................................................................................................................ 20 4.2 Process Review Results........................................................................................................... 20 4.2.1 Program Documentation .................................................................................................. 20 4.2.2 Program Tracking ............................................................................................................ 21 4.2.3 Contractor Characteristics ............................................................................................... 22 4.2.4 Communication and Support ........................................................................................... 23 4.2.5 Program Processes ......................................................................................................... 24 4.3 Process Recommendations ..................................................................................................... 24 4 Idaho Power Multifamily Energy Savings Program – 2017 Evaluation Results. December 5, 2018 LIST OF TABLES Table 1-1. Realization Rates .................................................................................................................. 7 Table 2-1. Multifamily Measures Installed in 2017 ................................................................................ 10 Table 2-2. Multifamily Program Evaluation Activities ............................................................................ 12 Table 3-1. Units Reviewed for Savings Calculation Accuracy .............................................................. 14 Table 1-1. Realization Rates ................................................................................................................ 15 Table 4-1. Contractor Summary Characteristics................................................................................... 23 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1-1. Impact and Process Evaluation Activities ............................................................................. 6 Figure 1-2. Relative Program Savings ................................................................................................... 7 Figure 3-1. Process for Verifying Program Savings .............................................................................. 13 Figure 3-2. Current Lighting Columns – From Installation Log Excerpt ................................................ 17 Figure 3-3. Suggested Lighting Columns – From Installation Log Excerpt ........................................... 17 Figure 3-4. Current Showerhead Column – From Installation Log Excerpt ........................................... 18 Figure 3-5. Suggested Showerhead Columns – From Installation Log Excerpt .................................... 18 Figure 4-1. Process for Reviewing Program Processes ....................................................................... 20 Figure 4-2. Multifamily Energy Savings Program Files Reviewed ........................................................ 21 Figure 4-3. Multifamily Energy Savings Program Process Overview .................................................... 24 APPENDICES APPENDIX A: CONTRACTOR INTERVIEW GUIDE ........................................................................ 26 APPENDIX B: DETAILED IMPACT TABLE ..................................................................................... 30 APPENDIX C: PROJECT TRACKING FILE EXAMPLE ................................................................... 32 5 Idaho Power Multifamily Energy Savings Program – 2017 Evaluation Results. December 5, 2018 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We would like to acknowledge the many individuals who contributed to the 2017 impact and process evaluation of the Idaho Power Multifamily Energy Savings program. This evaluation effort would not have been possible without their help and support. We would like to specifically thank Gary Grayson and Becky Arte-Howell of Idaho Power, who provided invaluable insight into the program and operations. These individuals participated in ongoing evaluation deliverable reviews and discussions and graciously responded to follow-up questions and data and documentation requests. The Tetra Tech Evaluation Team was made up of the following individuals: Kimberly Bakalars, Mark Bergum, Josh Verbeten, and Katie Hanlon. 6 Idaho Power Multifamily Energy Savings Program – 2017 Evaluation Results. December 5, 2018 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Tetra Tech is pleased to provide Idaho Power Company (Idaho Power) with this report covering evaluation of current processes and 2017 program impacts for the Multifamily Energy Savings (Multifamily) program. This section of the report consists of an introduction describing the program, evaluation activities, and key findings and recommendations. Both the impact and process evaluations for the program are detailed in separate sections, along with their respective findings and recommendations. 1.1 PROGRAM DESCRIPTION The Multifamily Energy Savings program began in March 2016 with a pilot project in Pocatello, ID, followed by direct install projects in Boise, ID and Twin Falls, ID in September and December 2016 respectively. There were a total of 196 apartment units served in 2016 and over 700 units were served in 2017, the first full year of the program. The Multifamily Energy Savings program supports property owners and managers in helping their residents save on monthly energy bills while increasing the comfort of residents. The program allows for the direct installation of energy-saving products in multifamily dwellings consisting of five or more rental units with electric heating and water heating. Direct install products include: ENERGY STAR® LED lightbulbs, thermostatic shut-off valve showerheads, kitchen and bathroom faucet aerators, and water heater pipe insulation. These are installed by insured contractors at no cost to the property owner/property manager or the tenant. 1.2 METHODOLOGY In order to address the evaluation objectives, which included verifying energy impacts attributable to the 2017 program, providing estimates of realization rates, suggesting enhancements to the savings analysis and reporting, evaluating program design (including implementation, management, outreach, and quality control) and program tracking, the evaluation team conducted several evaluation activities as shown in Figure 1-1. Figure 1-1. Impact and Process Evaluation Activities 1.3 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The impact and process evaluations for the Multifamily Energy Savings program revealed a successful first-year program. There was one error transcribed for prescriptive savings values and no errors were identified in the calculated savings values. Installation contractors could offer no suggested changes to processes or communication. Based on the detailed evaluation activities, Tetra Tech provides some areas of improvement for Idaho Power to consider as they continue, and potentially expand, the Impact •Documentation and tracking review •Verify savings amounts •Check savings calculations •Review invoices Process •Documentation review •Tracking review •Contractor interviews 7 Idaho Power Multifamily Energy Savings Program – 2017 Evaluation Results. December 5, 2018 program. All findings and recommendations should be considered in the context of the program size and contribution to the Residential sector (1%) and overall portfolio savings (.3%). Figure 1-2. Relative Program Savings1 Overall, findings from the impact evaluation show the program savings calculations are reasonable. The evaluation found just one savings value error in the summary tracking spreadsheet or individual project tracking spreadsheets, resulting in the following realization rates for all measures included in the Multifamily program and an overall realization rate of 84 percent. Table 1-1. Realization Rates Measure Ex-Ante kWh Ex-Post kWh Realization Rate2 9 W Bulb - 800 lumens 90,448 90,448 100% 15 W Bulbs - 1600 lumens 28,920 28,920 100% 6 W Globes - 450 lumens 61,264 61,264 100% 11 W Reflectors - 850 lumens 61,993 61,993 100% 6.5 W Decorative - 325 lumens 5,691 5,691 100% Kitchen Aerator 71,232 43,116 61% Bath Aerator 86,814 52,547 61% Showerhead 105,922 105,922 100% Thermostatic Combo 6,408 6,408 100% Water Heater Pipe Wrap 98,850 60,154 61% Total Savings 617,542 516,463 84% While not errors, there are a few areas the evaluation team would like to mention where Idaho Power could increase the accuracy of their savings estimates. 1 From Idaho Power’s Demand-Side Management 2017 Annual Report. March 15, 2018 2 Reductions to the realization rates for kitchen and bath aerators and the pipe wrap were all based on the use of single-family instead of multifamily unit savings values. 8 Idaho Power Multifamily Energy Savings Program – 2017 Evaluation Results. December 5, 2018 • The savings values from the Regional Technical Forum (RTF)3 are out to two decimal places, but the Idaho Power calculations round savings values to the nearest whole number. • Designation of primary and secondary showerhead status is not recorded at the time of installation. It is assigned using a formula based on number of bathrooms and showerheads installed. The “Any” category and savings value used in the spreadsheet is an average of Primary and Secondary. • Lighting quantities are not recorded for each area of the home during installation. The current counts do not match the RTF categories, but are an average of savings values across multiple categories. 1.3.1 Impact Recommendations The following impact recommendations are provided for Idaho Power’s consideration: Ensure that all 2018 calculations are using the most updated potential study information and clearly referenced. We understand that a few of the 2017 calculations referenced the 2014 potential study, as the 2016 potential study was not final until April 2017. Upgrading at the beginning of the next program year is sufficient for these measures. In addition, the deemed values should be clearly sourced since the program is using a 20-year average for the proper residence type. This includes specifying the date range used for the average. Update the savings calculator to use the RTF savings values out two decimal places. Rounding the deemed savings numbers to the whole kWh is affecting the accuracy of the measure savings, especially for 9 W and 6 W lighting categories where a high number of lamps are installed. Doing so will ensure that savings calculated by the program are more accurate. Consider having installation contractors track the type of showerhead needed for savings calculations. The 2017 savings for showerheads was calculated using an underlying formula to assign showerheads as “primary’, “secondary”, or “any” instead of indicating specifics on the installation log. Adding one more column to the installation log spreadsheet would allow the installation contractor to indicate how many “primary” and how many “secondary” showerheads were installed in each unit. That would alleviate the need for the “any” category, which averages the savings amounts from “primary” and “secondary” and will improve savings accuracy as the number of units increases. Consider having installation contractors track the area where 9 W lamps are installed. The 2017 savings for the 9 W lamps uses an average of the high use area and moderate use area savings values since contractors are not reporting actual installation location. Adding one more column to the installation log spreadsheet would allow the installation contractor to indicate how many lamps were installed in high use areas and how many were installed in moderate use areas, improving the accuracy of the savings estimates. This is particularly important as the number of units is expected to increase. Work with the equipment supplier to investigate options for improved tracking of equipment distribution and provide a reduced cost to contractors that order directly. There are two contractors that are currently ordering supplies directly from the same vendor Idaho Power uses. However, contractors reported that the price is slightly higher for them to order directly as they do not get the bulk advantage that Idaho Power receives. In addition, as the program expands, it will be important for the program specialist to have clear counts on the inventory of program materials installed. The cleanest may be the invoices from the suppliers to the contractors for equipment they 3 https://rtf.nwcouncil.org/measures 9 Idaho Power Multifamily Energy Savings Program – 2017 Evaluation Results. December 5, 2018 order directly for the Multifamily program. This will create a single process and minimize Idaho Power risk associated with the equipment use and storage. 1.3.2 Process Recommendations The Idaho Power program specialist and installation contractors work well together to deliver the program to multifamily properties. Contractors indicated that the current process with screening and installation visits is working well to streamline the activity and reduce additional visits and burden on property managers and tenants. In general, communication and program processes are working well for contractors. They find the program materials to be professional, informative, and educational. The following process recommendations are provided for Idaho Power’s consideration: Expand the project tracking spreadsheet to contain more complete information. The tracking spreadsheet used for savings calculations is appropriate. However, the tracking for projects and contractors is not collected in a master spreadsheet. This could be problematic if someone other than the program specialist needed to access project information, and this will become more complicated as the program expands. Combining the separate information for evaluation purposes also exposed a few areas of potential errors. For instance, interviews with installation contractors revealed disagreement on who had served two sites. Contractors were not included with the projects but matched by region. The evaluation team has provided an example of a master tracking list of variables in Appendix C as well as an example spreadsheet. The tracking system can be as simple as an Excel spreadsheet, but should include the following information: property information (name, location, property manager contacts), the number of units served, dates of screening visits and installation, installation contractor (name, address, contact information), savings associated with each measure type installed and overall savings for the property, program year, region, and project status. We would not restrict the project status to those projects completed, but also include leads, those determined to be ineligible, projects in the screening phase, sites that declined to participate, and those in the installation phase. Incorporate questions into customer surveys to gather feedback from Property Managers and tenants regarding the satisfaction with and benefits of the program. Gathering participant feedback was not within the scope of the current process evaluation, as Idaho Power already has multiple outreach methods for obtaining feedback from customers. However, it could provide additional insights into potential program improvements and keep the program on track as it expands. 10 Idaho Power Multifamily Energy Savings Program – 2017 Evaluation Results. December 5, 2018 2.0 INTRODUCTION 2.1 PROGRAM OVERVIEW The Multifamily Energy Savings program began in March 2016 with a pilot project in Pocatello, ID. This was followed by direct install projects in Boise, ID and Twin Falls, ID in September and December 2016 respectively. There were measures directly installed at 73 units in Pocatello, 43 units in Boise, and 80 units in Twin Falls. Between all three projects, a total of 196 apartment units received the associated measures. 2017 was the first full year of operation for the program. The Multifamily Energy Savings program supports property owners and managers in helping their residents save on monthly energy bills and increase residents’ comfort, while improving the appearance of rental units, and adding value to their multifamily property. The program allows for the direct installation of energy-saving products in multifamily dwellings consisting of five or more rental units. In 2017, eligible buildings were required to have electric heating and water heating. For 2018, the program was adjusted to only require electric water heating. The products installed are: ENERGY STAR® LED lightbulbs, thermostatic shut-off valve showerheads, kitchen and bathroom faucet aerators, and water heater pipe insulation. These are installed at no cost to the property owner/property manager or the tenant. To ensure energy savings and applicability, each building is pre-approved by the program specialist and contracted energy efficiency measure installation contractor. Items are installed at no cost to the property manager by an insured contractor. A representative from the property must accompany the installation contractor during the visits. In 2017, 12 projects were completed as program participation increased. Between these projects, a total of 772 apartment units received measures. 2018 participation has been steady and on track to exceed 2017 participation. The table below shows the total number of measures installed in 2017. Table 2-1. Multifamily Measures Installed in 2017 Activity 2017 Number of Projects 12 Number of Tenant Units 772 LEDs 12,101 Kitchen Aerators 672 Bath Aerators 819 Showerheads (Including Thermostatic Combo Measure) 685 Pipe Wrap 659 2.1.1 Marketing and Outreach Idaho Power promotes the Multifamily program component via a number of methods including a web page specifically promoting the program and brochures mailed to landlords and property owners. Materials used on-site to alert tenants of dates and equipment to be installed were revised based on initial pilot participant feedback. 11 Idaho Power Multifamily Energy Savings Program – 2017 Evaluation Results. December 5, 2018 2.1.2 Tracking and Reporting Idaho Power staff record interest from multifamily property managers and transfers this information to one of four contractors, depending on regional location, to conduct a walkthrough to determine eligibility and gather information on the number of measures needed. Installation log spreadsheets for each site are created by Idaho Power staff for the contractor and are used to record the quantity of each measure installed in each unit. Reasons for not installing measures are also tracked. Idaho Power analysts use these spreadsheets to calculate the energy savings for each location. 2.1.3 Evaluation Goals The following impact valuation goals were addressed through the various evaluation activities: • Determine and verify the energy impacts attributable to the 2017 program. Ex-ante savings estimates are determined using various sources including the Regional Technical Forum deemed savings, program technical reference manuals, lighting calculator, and internal/external engineering estimates. • Provide credible and reliable program energy and non-electric impact estimates and ex-post realization rates attributed to each program for the 2017 program year with a 90/10 confidence and precision. • Report findings and provide recommendations that enhance the effectiveness of future ex-ante savings analysis and the accurate and transparent reporting of program savings. Because the program is new, a process evaluation was also conducted for the Multifamily program with the following objectives: • 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. Additional researchable issues were identified during the program staff interviews: • Are there ways to streamline the current processes? Any processes that can be discontinued? • Do contractors have enough bandwidth to handle increased volume if the program expands? • How does the tracking system accommodate activity entry and tracking for the program? 2.1.4 Evaluation Activities The process and impact evaluation activities for the Multifamily Energy Savings program are summarized in the table below. Researchable issues and the sampling strategy for desk reviews are also discussed in this section. 12 Idaho Power Multifamily Energy Savings Program – 2017 Evaluation Results. December 5, 2018 Table 2-2. Multifamily Program Evaluation Activities Activity Sample Size Objective Interviews with implementation staff 1 Understand program design and delivery. Obtain program staff perspective on program successes and challenges. Identify researchable issues. Review of program materials NA Provide feedback on documentation, quality control, project tracking, and use of best practices. Process interviews with installation contractors 4 Contractor interviews were conducted to understand product ordering, interaction with customers, ability to handle additional projects, and communication. The interview guide can be found in Appendix A. Tracking system review 2017 tracking database The tracking system was reviewed to determine if all necessary inputs were tracked, if tabs rolled up to the overview correctly, and if reporting tools contained sufficient information for program review. Impact review 204 of 772 units Covering all four contractors Determine the program level energy impacts through an engineering desk review of savings calculators from RTF and confirm the installation log and tracking data for a sample of installation logs and invoices. 13 Idaho Power Multifamily Energy Savings Program – 2017 Evaluation Results. December 5, 2018 3.0 IMPACT EVALUATION RESULTS The impact evaluation sought to answer the following researchable issues: • What were the energy impacts attributable to the 2017 program? • How accurate are the savings and what are the realization rates attributable to the 2017 program? • How can the reporting of savings improve and become more transparent? 3.1 METHODOLOGY The impact methodology consisted of the four primary evaluation activities shown in Figure 3-1. Each activity is explained in more detail below. Figure 3-1. Process for Verifying Program Savings 3.1.1 Program Documentation and Tracking Review The first step in the evaluation of the Multifamily program for program year 2017 was to review the program documentation and energy savings tracking system provided by Idaho Power. To review tracking data, Tetra Tech applied a census approach to the review of the savings tracked in the program’s tracking spreadsheet. The census approach avoids sampling error, resulting in an outcome that exceeds the minimum 90 percent ± 10 percent confidence and precision required of the evaluation findings. The tracking system was provided to the evaluation team in an excel spreadsheet and included a summary worksheet with counts of measures installed at each individual apartment unit that the program served. An amount of kWh savings was given for each individual measure. The verification of these kWh savings amounts was the first objective of the evaluation team. 3.1.2 Verify kWh Savings Amounts To verify the savings amounts, the evaluation team retrieved savings calculators from the appropriate online sources. The sources of the calculators that were used by Idaho Power were noted in the column headers for each individual measure in the summary spreadsheet. For instance, the kWh savings number for the 9 W bulb – 800 lumens came from the RTF V4.2 calculator. Additionally, the notes in the column header also describe the installation and usage rate, which directly affect the kWh savings number that was looked up and used from the calculators. Review program docs/tracking Verify kWh savings amounts Check savings calculations Review invoices 14 Idaho Power Multifamily Energy Savings Program – 2017 Evaluation Results. December 5, 2018 Tetra Tech retrieved the appropriate calculators from the Regional Technical Forum (RTF) website.4 Calculators for residential lighting, showerheads, and thermostatic shower restriction valves were downloaded for this verification activity. The kWh savings for the remainder of the measures installed through the multifamily program (kitchen and bath aerators and pipe wrapping) were verified through the AEG 2014 potential study. 3.1.3 Check Savings Calculations Once kWh savings were verified for the measures that were installed through the Multifamily program, the verification of kWh savings calculations was performed. Tetra Tech selected six out of the twelve projects that were completed through the Multifamily program in 2017. At least one project was selected from each of the four contractors that worked as part of the Multifamily program with the largest project in terms of housing units served, selected for evaluation. Table 3-1. Units Reviewed for Savings Calculation Accuracy Apartment Name Units Contractor Site 1 – Twin Falls 36 Home Energy Management Site 2 - Hailey 42 Home Energy Management Sire 3 - Pocatello 70 Savings Around Power Site 4 - Boise 162 Momentum, LLC Site 5 - Boise 24 Momentum, LLC Site 6 - Nampa 204 Metro Contractor Services Total Units 538 These projects were used to confirm the accuracy of the claimed quantities for each unit as well as to confirm energy savings claimed by the program. The analysis was combined with the technical savings analysis for each measure to create a realization rate for each project. First, the evaluation team verified the kWh savings calculations from the summary sheet for all six sampled projects. This was completed by taking the quantity of measures installed from the summary worksheet in the tracking system and multiplying that number by the savings for each measure that was verified from the calculators in the previous step. The resulting savings numbers were compared to the savings numbers that were calculated by Idaho Power. In addition, the numbers of measures installed at each individual apartment unit for each of the six sampled projects were taken from their individual project sheets within the tracking system. These numbers were multiplied by the savings verified from the savings calculators and were compared to the savings numbers that were calculated by Idaho Power. 3.1.4 Review Materials Invoices Once the kWh savings were verified for each of the six sampled projects, an invoice review was completed to verify that the actual number of measures installed through the program were purchased and tracked by the Idaho Power Program Specialist and to verify that the correct measure attributes were used when calculating savings through the calculators. This was completed by verifying that the total number of measures installed through the program, as noted in the tracking system, was less than or equal to the total number of each individual measure documented in the program invoices. In 4 https://rtf.nwcouncil.org/measures 15 Idaho Power Multifamily Energy Savings Program – 2017 Evaluation Results. December 5, 2018 addition to verifying the quantity of measures bought, the invoices were also used to verify that the equipment purchased were identical to what were looked up in the calculators for kWh savings verification purposes. 3.2 IMPACT REVIEW RESULTS Overall, findings from the impact evaluation show the program savings calculations are reasonable. The evaluation found just one transcription error in the summary tracking spreadsheet or individual project tracking spreadsheets, resulting in the following realization rates for all measures included in the Multifamily program and an overall realization rate of 84 percent. Table 3-2. Realization Rates Measure Ex-Ante kWh Ex-Post kWh Realization Rate5 9 W Bulb - 800 lumens 90,448 90,448 100% 15 W Bulbs - 1600 lumens 28,920 28,920 100% 6 W Globes - 450 lumens 61,264 61,264 100% 11 W Reflectors - 850 lumens 61,993 61,993 100% 6.5 W Decorative - 325 lumens 5,691 5,691 100% Kitchen Aerator 71,232 43,116 61% Bath Aerator 86,814 52,547 61% Showerhead 105,922 105,922 100% Thermostatic Combo 6,408 6,408 100% Water Heater Pipe Wrap 98,850 60,154 61% Total Savings 617,542 516,463 84% Although they are not errors, there are a few areas the evaluation team would like to mention where Idaho Power can increase the accuracy of their savings estimates. • While the savings values in the RTF are out to two decimal places, the Idaho Power calculations round savings values to the nearest whole number. • Designation of primary and secondary showerhead status is not recorded at the time of installation. It is assigned using a formula based on number of bathrooms and showerheads installed. The “Any” category and savings value used in the spreadsheet is an average of primary and secondary savings values. • Lighting quantities are not recorded for each area of the home during installation. The current counts do not match the RTF categories, but are an average of savings values across multiple categories. 3.2.1 Savings Inputs The individual measure calculators provided a table of kWh savings for each combination of measure attributes, usage rate, and installation type. The evaluation team noted that this information was 5 Reductions to the realization rates for kitchen and bath aerators and the pipe wrap were all based on the use of single-family instead of multifamily unit savings values. 16 Idaho Power Multifamily Energy Savings Program – 2017 Evaluation Results. December 5, 2018 provided by Idaho Power in the column headers in the summary page of the tracking system excel spreadsheet. The evaluation team looked up the kWh savings in the calculator savings tables to verify that the correct kWh savings from the RTF was used in the tracking system. The evaluation team found that Idaho Power did indeed look up and use the correct kWh savings for all residential lighting, showerheads, and thermostatic shower restriction valves. The only concern that the evaluation team came across when verifying the kWh savings values was that Idaho Power did seem to round to the nearest kWh. For example, for the 9 W bulb – 800 lumens, the measure description in the tracking system reads – “RTF. V4.2. Direct Install - LED General Purpose. 250 to 1049 lumens. Avg of High & Moderate Use”. From this measure description, the evaluation team needed to retrieve the kWh savings for high and moderate use lamps and average them together. Again, the kWh savings was looked up correctly by Idaho Power with the high use bulb saving 22 kWh and the moderate use saving 10 kWh. When averaging these savings together, the result is 15.9 kWh compared with 16 kWh used in the savings calculations. While this difference only works out to be 0.1 kWh, there were additional examples of rounding that were more substantial. In the case of the 6 W LED Globe lamps, the difference in kWh savings between the calculator (13.67 kWh) and the kWh savings used in the tracking system (14 kWh) is approximately 0.33 kWh per lamp. Additional detail on the rounding differences can be found in Appendix B. The deemed savings values from the remaining three measures, kitchen aerators, bath aerators, and water heater pipe wrap, were sourced from the 2014 Potential Study. Kitchen and bath aerators used a 20-year average value of 106 kWh – the single-family value – not the multifamily value of 64 kWh. Water heater pipe wrap savings was also calculated using the single-family 20-year average of 150 kWh, not the multifamily value of 91 kWh. The 20-year average range was not specifically noted as well, which would provide more accuracy if recorded in future calculators. These changes resulted in a realization rate of 61 percent for each of the three measures using the 2014 Potential Study as a source. 3.2.2 Savings Accuracy Once the evaluation team verified that the correct kWh savings were used in the tracking system, the next step was to verify savings calculations for all installed measures through the Multifamily program. The savings calculation was performed for six of the sampled projects both through the summary worksheet in the tracking system and through the individual project tracking sheets within the tracking system excel spreadsheet. The evaluation team found that Idaho Power was consistent in calculating kWh savings for all aerators, thermostatic shower restriction valves, and pipe wrap measures. The only complication that the evaluation team encountered was that Idaho Power averaged savings across a few RTF categories for 9W bulbs and showerheads installed through the Multifamily program. Details are provided in the Lighting and Showerheads sections below. Lighting As previously mentioned, 9 W LED lamps at 800 lumens were installed through the program and the savings associated with these lamps were averaged between a high and moderate use category because installation areas were not recorded. In the RTF calculator that was used to calculate program savings, lamps are classified as high use when they are installed in a family room, kitchen, or living room fixture whereas moderate use lamps are those that are installed into all other rooms, except for closets. 17 Idaho Power Multifamily Energy Savings Program – 2017 Evaluation Results. December 5, 2018 Figure 3-2. Current Lighting Columns – From Installation Log Excerpt While Idaho Power averaged high and moderate use savings correctly, there could be greater accuracy achieved in the savings calculation by having contractors record the number of lamps installed under high and moderate use categories while on site, and then carrying that distinction through when calculating savings in the tracking system. Doing so would also alleviate the problem of not using the exact savings numbers that are found in the lighting calculator. Figure 3-3. Suggested Lighting Columns – From Installation Log Excerpt Showerheads As with the lighting, the way showerheads are recorded on the installation log does not directly match how they are referenced in the RTF for savings values. The tracking system summary sheet shows that there are three possible kWh savings numbers that can be used in the calculation for showerhead savings. The correct value to use is prescribed by which shower the showerhead is installed in (primary, secondary, or any). While the summary worksheet in the tracking system did note this information, the individual worksheets for each project did not. Leaving this information out of the individual worksheets made it difficult to follow and confirm which value was used to calculate the kWh savings. It was determined that the calculation in the spreadsheet compares the number of showerheads installed with the number of bathrooms to assign “primary”, “secondary”, and “any”, which are used to apply savings. However, when noting the distinction in showerheads from the summary spreadsheet, it was confirmed that Idaho Power was using the correct kWh savings in the calculation of showerhead savings. PATIO/ STANDARD ENTRY GLOBES CANS SCONCES 9w LED 15w LED bulbs 6w LED 11w LED 6.5w LED bulbs (A19) bulbs (A21) globes can lights small base FLOOR PLAN installed installed installed installed installed 3 Bed - 2 bath Townhome 9 1 20 4 3 2 bed - 1 bath 9 1 12 4 1 STANDARD STANDARD High Moderate PATIO/ Kitchen/Family/ Living rm All other except closets ENTRY GLOBES CANS SCONCES 9w LED 9w LED 15w LED bulbs 6w LED 11w LED 6.5w LED bulbs (A19) bulbs (A19) bulbs (A21) globes can lights small base FLOOR PLAN installed installed installed installed installed installed 3 Bed - 2 bath Townhome 3 6 1 20 4 3 2 bed - 1 bath 4 5 1 12 4 1 18 Idaho Power Multifamily Energy Savings Program – 2017 Evaluation Results. December 5, 2018 Figure 3-4. Current Showerhead Column – From Installation Log Excerpt Similar to the tracking of the 9 W lamps, one additional column could be added to the installation log to capture the number of “primary” and “secondary” showerheads that would eliminate the need for a formula and the averaged “any” category. Figure 3-5. Suggested Showerhead Columns – From Installation Log Excerpt 3.2.3 Invoice Review A review of the invoices for the purchase of measures installed through the Multifamily program was the last step in the evaluation process. The invoices available for review included the Idaho Power purchased materials for the Multifamily program and at least one other program. In addition to these purchases, two contractors did their own purchasing, although those invoices were not available. Because the invoices were not available, the evaluation team attempted to identify purchases of equipment that exceeded the quantity claimed in the program. Of the measures listed in the invoices provided, four of the five different LED light bulb types and both types of aerators were found to have more units purchased than what the tracking system noted was installed through the program. Conversely, there was no record of any 6.5 W decorative lamps in the invoices provided. For showerheads, thermostatic shower restriction valves, and pipe wrap, the total number recorded in the program’s invoices were less than the number that were noted to be installed through the program in the tracking system. Tetra Tech has encountered instances where contractors take advantage of lenient tracking protocols in other programs to redirect equipment or funds. Although we do not believe that is the case at this point, a tighter tracking process will ensure it does not become an issue. The invoice review also had the evaluation team investigating whether the measures reported in the invoices matched the measure attributes that were noted in the tracking system. When comparing these two pieces of documentation, the evaluation team found that the purchased equipment met measure attributes. 3.3 IMPACT RECOMMENDATIONS The following impact recommendations are provided for Idaho Power’s consideration: kitchen # bathroom # shower pipe wrap aerator aerators heads installed FLOOR PLAN installed (y/n)installed installed 3 Bed - 2 bath Townhome 1 2 2 1 2 bed - 1 bath 1 2 1 1 kitchen # bathroom # Primary # Secondary pipe wrap aerator aerators showerheads showerheads installed FLOOR PLAN installed (y/n)installed installed installed 3 Bed - 2 bath Townhome 1 2 1 1 1 2 bed - 1 bath 1 2 1 0 1 19 Idaho Power Multifamily Energy Savings Program – 2017 Evaluation Results. December 5, 2018 Ensure that all 2018 calculations are using the most updated potential study information and clearly referenced. We understand that a few of the 2017 calculations referenced the 2014 potential study, as the 2016 potential study was not final until April 2017. Upgrading at the beginning of the next program year is sufficient for these measures. In addition, the deemed values should be clearly sourced since the program is using a 20-year average for the proper residence type. This includes specifying the date range used for the average. Update the savings calculator to use the RTF savings values out two decimal places. Rounding the deemed savings numbers to the whole kWh is affecting the accuracy of the measure savings, especially for 9 W and 6 W lighting categories where a high number of lamps are installed. Doing so will ensure that savings calculated by the program are more accurate. Consider having installation contractors track the type of showerhead needed for savings calculations. The 2017 savings for showerheads was calculated using an underlying formula to assign showerheads as “primary’, “secondary”, or “any” instead of indicating specifics on the installation log. Adding one more column to the installation log spreadsheet would allow the installation contractor to indicate how many “primary” and how many “secondary” showerheads were installed in each unit. That would alleviate the need for the “any” category, which averages the savings amounts from “primary” and “secondary” and will improve savings accuracy as the number of units increases. Consider having installation contractors track the area where 9 W lamps are installed. The 2017 savings for the 9 W lamps uses an average of the high use area and moderate use area savings values since contractors are not reporting actual installation location. Adding one more column to the installation log spreadsheet would allow the installation contractor to indicate how many lamps were installed in high use areas and how many were installed in moderate use areas, improving the accuracy of the savings estimates. This is particularly important as the number of units is expected to increase. Work with the equipment supplier to investigate options for improved tracking of equipment distribution and providing a reduced cost to contractors that order directly. There are two contractors that are currently ordering supplies directly from the same vendor Idaho Power uses. However, contractors reported that the price is slightly higher for them to order directly as they do not get the bulk advantage that Idaho Power receives. In addition, as the program expands, it will be important for the program specialist to have clear counts on the inventory of program materials installed. The cleanest may be the invoices from the suppliers to the contractors for equipment they order directly for the Multifamily program. This will create a single process and minimize Idaho Power risk associated with the equipment use and storage. 20 Idaho Power Multifamily Energy Savings Program – 2017 Evaluation Results. December 5, 2018 4.0 PROCESS EVALUATION RESULTS Because the program is new, with a pilot in 2016 and the first full year of activity in 2017, a process evaluation was also conducted for the Multifamily Energy Savings program. The process evaluation served as a check on the program design compared with industry best practices, marketing and outreach, the implementation process, contractor engagement and quality control, and program administration and tracking. The process evaluation sought to answer the following researchable issues: • Is the program design following industry best practice? • How successful is the program implementation in terms of staffing, quality control, management, communication, and outreach? • Are there ways to streamline the current processes? • How does the tracking system accommodate activity entry and tracking for the program? 4.1 METHODOLOGY The evaluation team conducted a number of activities in order to address the key process evaluation questions. First, we reviewed the program documentation, including the program description, 2017 reporting, and all materials used at the project sites (door hangers, brochures, and showerhead instruction cards). There is no documented logic model or process flow for the Multifamily program. Figure 4-1. Process for Reviewing Program Processes After the documentation review, we collected program tracking information from the program specialist. This included files such as the 2017 and 2018 list of projects completed as well as the contractor contact information. The last step in the process review was to conduct interviews with the four installation contractors. They were asked to characterize their organization and role in the program as well as provide feedback on how they felt processes were implemented, communication effectiveness, and tracking ease. 4.2 PROCESS REVIEW RESULTS The process evaluation activities indicate the program is operating smoothly for the first full year following a pilot year, with just a few opportunities for improvement, mostly associated with project tracking. 4.2.1 Program Documentation The program description is complete and details the program delivery process. Materials provided to property managers have been revised since the program pilot and are professional, educational, and informative. Review program documentation Review program tracking Interview installation contractors 21 Idaho Power Multifamily Energy Savings Program – 2017 Evaluation Results. December 5, 2018 Tenant notification door hangers are provided to the property managers in advance of the screening and installation visits. The door hangers indicate when the direct installation will occur and what energy saving equipment will be installed. Upon completion of the direct install visit, contractors leave behind materials provided by Idaho Power. Showerhead usage cards describe how to use the thermostatic showerheads. Leave-behind brochures provide additional detail on what was done, who to call with questions, and additional energy saving tips. A direct install survey postcard is also furnished to encourage tenants to provide feedback on the service provided. At the time of the evaluation, the program specialist reported that not many of the 772 tenants had completed and returned the postcard. 4.2.2 Program Tracking As part of the process evaluation, we looked at how the projects were tracked and what information was collected. We received three files from the program specialist: a 2017 list of completed projects, a 2018 list of completed projects, and an email with the contractor contact information. Savings data are tracked in a separate file containing a program summary spreadsheet as well as individual spreadsheets containing installation details for each project. Figure 4-2. Multifamily Energy Savings Program Files Reviewed While the 2017 and 2018 project lists are clean summaries of completed projects for 2017, they do not track as much detail as we are accustomed to seeing in a typical program tracking spreadsheet or database. Separate files also increase the likelihood of tracking errors and missing information. For example, to match up information, key variables were required such as “Complex name” and “Region” shown in Figure 4-2 above. This was sufficient in most cases. However, during interviews with contractors, one contractor reported working at two properties that matched to another contractor based on Region. Entering that information for each property will result in fewer errors than matching separate files on key variable. The layout of the file also makes it difficult to filter on a region, date range, or other information to understand participation and efficiently report. To understand which contractors provided installation services and what each property received, the evaluation team compiled the individual information into a master tracking spreadsheet. The list below outlines what the evaluation team would anticipate as part of a typical program tracking spreadsheet. • Program Year • Status (e.g. Lead, Ineligible, Screening, Declined, Installing, Completed) • Property Name "MFDI Completed Jobs" spreadsheet •Property name •Region •City •Units •Date range Participant Information •Property name •Contact name •Address •Phone •Email "2017 Multifamily Savings" spreadsheet •Property name •Measure columns with quantities•Measure columns with savings •Individual log sheets for each complex Contractor Information •Company name •Contact name •Phone •Address •Region 22 Idaho Power Multifamily Energy Savings Program – 2017 Evaluation Results. December 5, 2018 • Units Served (may track units at complex as well as units served) • Property Address • Property Contact Name • Property Contact Phone • Property Contact Email • Region • Contractor Name • Contractor Contact Name • Contractor Contact Phone • Contractor Contact Email • Screening visit date • Installation visit date • Installation counts by measure • Savings by measure • Total savings When tracking the project status, we would recommend not restricting the tracking spreadsheet to completed projects only. For a program of this size, it is often useful to track projects that are in process, especially with the eligibility requirements and screening visit. It may also be useful to track properties that were eligible but ultimately declined the service. Because of the relatively low participation in the program, a rolling tracking spreadsheet could be used by including a program year variable. Reporting by program year could be done using a simple filter and in addition to annual savings might show how contractors have contributed over multiple program years, if some property owners are more active than others, and what is in the pipeline. 4.2.3 Contractor Characteristics Idaho Power is currently working with four installation contractors, each serving a specific region. Three of the four contractors work closely with weatherization agencies, while the fourth’s primary business activity is conducting audits and HERS ratings for residential new construction. Each contractor has completed multiple projects in both 2017 and 2018. Two of the four contractors source their supplies from Idaho Power storage, but the other two order directly from the same supplier as Idaho Power. 23 Idaho Power Multifamily Energy Savings Program – 2017 Evaluation Results. December 5, 2018 Table 4-1. Contractor Summary Characteristics Contractor Type Region 2017 Projects 2018 Projects Materials Momentum LLC NC Capital 5 (300 units) 8 (301 units) From Idaho Power storage Savings Around Power (SEICAA) Wx Eastern 3 (150 units) 5 (168 units) Order directly Home Energy Management Wx Southern 2 (78 units) 4 (122 units) 1st from Idaho Power, now from same provider Metro Contractor Services Wx Canyon/West 2 (244 units) 6 (134 units) some pending Inventory from Idaho Power All four contractors have worked with other Idaho Power programs and program specialists. That is how they all learned of the Multifamily program and were asked to provide installation services. For three of the contractors, the installations through the Multifamily program represent less than 10 percent of their workload. The fourth contractor indicated the Multifamily work represented a much higher proportion of their work during the year. Three of the four contractors indicated they had the capacity to complete more projects if the program expanded and volume increased. 4.2.4 Communication and Support Contractors have been working with Idaho Power on other programs and have developed good working relationships with Idaho Power. The pilot process helped to work out any issues and communication between the Idaho Power program specialist and the contractors is working well. Contractors had nothing but good things to say about the support from Idaho Power and how they interact with the program specialist. They find it reasonable that Idaho Power takes the lead on getting projects started and is appreciative that Idaho Power includes them as part of the screening visit so they can establish a relationship with the property manager. In addition, one of the contractors mentioned that Idaho Power took their recommendation for different pipe wrap into consideration and eventually upgraded to a better product. So far, the program specialist reports that most of the activity has been generated through word of mouth between property managers. Idaho Power marketing has set up a “promo pod” with a link to the website with program information and Facebook ads have been used. Contractors associated with community action agencies and weatherization programs are able to provide suggestions to the Idaho Power program specialist regarding potential properties that may benefit from the program. While the current contractors are now comfortable with how the program works, they did learn a few things from their first few projects. Contractors suggested that new contractors take time to prepare a calendar and timeline for each project so that their presence impacts the property for as short a time as possible. In addition, due to the type of customers served by the program and the multifamily nature, contractors need to be flexible and patient, preparing for property manager changes and schedule changes. 24 Idaho Power Multifamily Energy Savings Program – 2017 Evaluation Results. December 5, 2018 4.2.5 Program Processes The program does not currently have a logic model or process flow to review. However, the process is outlined in Figure 4-3. Figure 4-3. Multifamily Energy Savings Program Process Overview The Idaho Power program specialist identifies interested multifamily properties and checks them against eligibility requirements of the program. Once they are determined to be eligible, the program specialist alerts the contractor in the region and schedules the screening visit at the property. Once there, the Idaho Power program specialist and contractor confirm eligibility, establish a relationship with property manager, and collect material counts. The screening visit also enables contractors to understand potential installation barriers and talk with property managers about working with tenants to resolve them if possible before the installation visit. Materials are left with the property manager to alert tenants of the installation visit. Next, the contractors will order their equipment directly from Idaho Power’s supplier or collect equipment from Idaho Power stock. Materials are either ordered directly from a supplier or taken from Idaho Power inventory. It is slightly more costly for contractors ordering directly from the supplier, as they do not get the “bulk” discounts that Idaho Power gets, but it is more convenient for a couple of them. They then schedule the installation visit with the property manager. Most contractors have evolved their installation visit process to take a team of two to six installers so they can get through the property in one day, reducing the burden on the tenants and the property manager who must accompany them. Finally, the contractors install the equipment and populate the installation log, leave behind program materials including a showerhead instruction card and feedback postcard, and address any property manager questions. Contractors believe this process, particularly the screening visit, greatly improves the experience for everyone involved and results in fewer visits to properties. 4.3 PROCESS RECOMMENDATIONS The following recommendations are provided for Idaho Power’s consideration: •Identifies interested properties•Confirms eligibilty•Alerts contractor•Schedules screening visit Idaho Power •Visit for supply count•Establish relationship with property manager •Leave for tenant notification Idaho Power/Contrator •Order equipment needed for property•Schedule installation visit Idaho Power/Contractor •Install equipment•Complete install log•Leave information wtih tenants•Address property manager questions Contractor 25 Idaho Power Multifamily Energy Savings Program – 2017 Evaluation Results. December 5, 2018 Expand the project tracking spreadsheet to contain more complete information. The tracking spreadsheet used for savings calculations is appropriate. However, the tracking for projects and contractors is not collected in a master spreadsheet. This could be problematic if someone other than the program specialist needed to access project information, and this will become more complicated as the program expands. Combining the separate information for evaluation purposes also exposed a few areas of potential errors. For instance, interviews with installation contractors revealed disagreement on who had served two sites. Contractors were not included with the projects but matched by region. The evaluation team has provided an example of a master tracking list of variables in Appendix C as well as an example spreadsheet. The tracking system can be as simple as an Excel spreadsheet, but should include the following information: property information (name, location, property manager contacts), the number of units served, dates of screening visits and installation, installation contractor (name, address, contact information), savings associated with each measure type installed and overall savings for the property, program year, region, and project status. We would not restrict the project status to those projects completed, but also include leads, those determined to be ineligible, projects in the screening phase, sites that declined to participate, and those in the installation phase. Incorporate questions into customer surveys to gather feedback from Property Managers and tenants regarding the satisfaction with and benefits of the program. Gathering participant feedback was not within the scope of the current process evaluation, as Idaho Power already has multiple outreach methods for obtaining feedback from customers. However, a customer survey could provide additional insights into potential program improvements and keep the program on track as it expands. 26 Idaho Power Multifamily Energy Savings Program – 2017 Evaluation Results. December 5, 2018 APPENDIX A: CONTRACTOR INTERVIEW GUIDE IDAHO POWER MULTIFAMILY ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROGRAM INSTALLATION CONTRACTOR INTERVIEW GUIDE In-depth interviews will be conducted by senior Tetra Tech staff via telephone. The interviews will be semi-structured. Therefore, the following interview protocol is only a guide to ensure certain topics are covered, but evaluators will follow the flow of the interview and modify questions as needed to fit the interviewee’s circumstance and flow of conversation. This guide will be used to understand the perspectives of installation contractors involved with the Idaho Power Multifamily Energy Efficiency Program during 2017-2018. We expect the interviews to take approximately 30 minutes. We will attempt to schedule interviews with respondents in advance to accommodate each contractor’s schedule. A. Background The program began in March 2016 with a pilot project in Pocatello, ID. This was followed by direct install projects in Boise, ID and Twin Falls, ID in September and December 2016 respectively. There were measures directly installed at 73 units in Pocatello, 43 units in Boise, and 80 units in Twin Falls. Between all three projects, a total of 196 apartment units received the associated measures. The Multifamily Energy Savings program provides for the direct installation of energy-saving products in multi-family dwellings consisting of five or more rental units. In 2017, eligible buildings were required to have electric heating and water heating. For 2018, the program was adjusted to only require electric water heating. The products installed are: ENERGY STAR® LED lightbulbs, high-efficiency showerheads, kitchen and bathroom faucet aerators, and water heater pipe insulation. These are installed at no cost to the property owner/property manager or the tenant. To ensure energy savings and applicability, each building is pre-approved by the contracted energy efficiency measure installation contractor. A representative from the property must accompany the installation contractor during the visits. NOTE TO INTERVIEWER: Check the sample information and website for each contractor prior to calling. B. Introduction Hello, may I speak to [______]? My name is ______, and I’m calling from Tetra Tech on behalf of Idaho Power. We are conducting interviews with firms that install equipment and provide services through the Multifamily Energy Efficiency Program to get their feedback on the program, including what worked well and what improvements you might recommend. Are you the best person at [COMPANY] to talk to about experience with Idaho Power’s Multifamily program? 1 Yes -> [Continue] 2 No -> Can you tell me who I should speak with? 27 Idaho Power Multifamily Energy Savings Program – 2017 Evaluation Results. December 5, 2018 The interview should last less than 30 minutes. The information you provide will be treated as confidential and will help Idaho Power improve their program in the future. Is this a convenient time for you to talk, or would you prefer to schedule another time? [If needed: Offer the contact name from below as the person to contact with any questions about the validity of this research.] Name Phone # Becky Arte-Howell 208-388-2785 With your permission, I would like to record the interview. Do I have your permission to do so? [IF NEEDED: We will use the recording to help us compile the results, in order to make sure we accurately represent your responses. No one but Tetra Tech staff will listen to the recording.] C. Business Scope I understand from viewing your website that your company… (Overview what was found through website search. Then start as needed with questions below.) 1) I have a few additional questions about your business. Could you tell me… • How long have you been in business? • How many employees (full-time equivalents) does your company employ? • What market does your firm typically serve? For example: residential, commercial, industrial, multifamily, etc. 2) What proportion (or percent) of your total projects in 2017 did the projects completed through Idaho Power’s Multifamily program represent? 3) For 2018, do you expect this percentage to be higher, lower, or about the same? 1 Higher -> Why is that? How many more projects are you staffed to handle? 2 Lower -> Why is that? 3 About the same D. Program Awareness, Marketing, and Recruitment 1) When did you first get involved with the Idaho Power Multifamily program? • How did you first hear about it? • Who do you get most of your program information from? 2) Do you feel adequately informed of program requirements and/or changes? 1 Yes -> What communication method is working best for you? 2 No -> How would you like to be better informed of program requirements and/or changes? 28 Idaho Power Multifamily Energy Savings Program – 2017 Evaluation Results. December 5, 2018 3) Are you aware of other Idaho Power (or other utility) energy efficiency programs? 1 No 2 Yes -> Which ones? Do you have any involvement with these programs? Why or why not? E. Participation Process and Support For Interviewer: Number of projects per year and geographic location # of 2017 projects: # of 2018 projects: Area: 1) We understand this program consists of a screening visit where you determine eligibility and collect counts for items as well as a separate installation visit. Phone screening is not allowed. Is that correct? • If NOT: What is the current process you follow? • Who schedules the screening visit? • Who schedules the installation visit? 2) Please describe the typical screening visit process… • What do you look for during the screening visit? How many sites do not pass the screening visit? • What is the benefit of the onsite screening visit? • What are the pros and cons of screening over the phone? 3) Please describe the typical installation visit process… • What are common barriers to installing items? • What processes work well during the installation visits? • Do you think the updated site materials (door hangers and shower cards) helped with tenant cooperation? 4) What type of reporting is required once you complete the installation visit? 5) Next I’m going to ask you a few scale questions. First, using a scale of 1 to 5 where 1 is “not at all satisfied” and 5 is “very satisfied,” how satisfied are you with the program’s technical support? • [IF RATING IS A 1 OR 2, ASK] What could be done to improve the program’s technical support? 6) On a scale of 1 to 5 where 1 is “not at all difficult” and 5 is “very difficult,” how would you rate the program’s administrative requirements (e.g., paperwork) for you? • [IF RATING IS A 4 OR 5, ASK] What could be done to improve these requirements and/or process? 7) Thinking of a typical Idaho Power Multifamily project… • What is the easiest part of the process? 29 Idaho Power Multifamily Energy Savings Program – 2017 Evaluation Results. December 5, 2018 • What is the most challenging? 8) Are there any energy saving opportunities that you identify during the visit that are not covered through the Multifamily program? Which are most common? 9) Is there anything in the current market or coming soon that would affect program participation, either positively or negatively? What are they? [PROBE: example issues (e.g., changes to building codes and standards, market for MF housing, low income requirements, etc.)]. G. Overall Program Now I’d like to wrap up with a few final questions. 1) Using a five-point scale where 1 means “not at all satisfied,” and 5 means “very satisfied,” overall, how satisfied are you with Idaho Power’s Multifamily Energy Efficiency program? 2) If you were to recommend anything to Idaho Power regarding the program design or operations, what would it be? 3) Is there anything else you’d like to share with us about Idaho Power’s Multifamily Energy Efficiency program? 4) In case we would like to clarify anything we discussed, would it be alright if I contacted you again? If YES, get best phone number and email address Those are all the questions I have today. If you think of anything you would like to add, please feel free to contact us. Thank you very much for your time. 30 Idaho Power Multifamily Energy Savings Program – 2017 Evaluation Results. December 5, 2018 APPENDIX B: DETAILED IMPACT TABLE Measure In Tracking System Measure in Calculator Calculator Savings (kWh/yr) Final Calculator Savings (kWh/yr) Tracking System Savings (kWh/yr) Quantity Installed 9W 800 lumens - Direct Install - LED General Purpose. 250 to 1049 lumens. Avg of High & Moderate Use. Direct install - High Use_LED_General Purpose, Dimmable, and Three-Way_250 to 1049 lumens 21.55 15.90 16 5,653 Direct install - Moderate Use_LED_General Purpose, Dimmable, and Three-Way_250 to 1049 lumens 10.25 15W 1600 lumens - Direct Install - LED General Purpose. 1490 to 2600 lumens. Exterior. Direct install - Exterior_LED_General Purpose, Dimmable, and Three-Way_1490 to 2600 lumens 60.10 60.10 60 482 6W Globes 450 lumens - Direct Install - LED Globe. 250 to 1049 lumens. Moderate Use. Direct install - Moderate Use_LED_Globe_250 to 1049 lumens 13.67 13.67 14 4,376 11W Reflectors 850 lumens - Direct Install - LED Reflectors and Outdoor. 250 to 1049 lumens. High Use. Direct install - High Use_LED_Reflectors and Outdoor_250 to 1049 lumens 46.88 46.88 47 1,319 6.5W Decorative 325 lumens - Direct Install - LED Decorative and Mini-base. 250 to 1049 lumens. Moderate Use. Direct install - Moderate Use_LED_Decorative and Mini-Base_250 to 1049 lumens 21.48 21.48 21 271 Thermostats Thermostatic Combo - Measure_Table tab. Residential. Electric Resistance. Direct Install. 1.75 gpm. Residential_Direct install_Valve and 1.75 gpm showerhead_Electric resistance DHW - Water Heating 256.48 266.64 267 24 Residential_Direct install_Valve and 1.75 gpm showerhead_Electric resistance DHW - Water Treatment 10.15 Showerhead Savings - Residential Showerhead Replacement. Electric Water heat. Direct Install. 2.0 gpm. Combined Water heating and water treatment savings. Primary Residential Showerhead Replacement_2_00gpm_Primary Shower_ Electric Water Heating_Direct Install 182.29 182.29 182 465 31 Idaho Power Multifamily Energy Savings Program – 2017 Evaluation Results. December 5, 2018 Showerhead Savings - Residential Showerhead Replacement. Electric Water heat. Direct Install. 2.0 gpm. Combined Water heating and water treatment savings. Any Residential Showerhead Replacement_2_00gpm_Any Shower_ Electric Water Heating_Direct Install 145.08 145.08 145 64 Showerhead Savings - Residential Showerhead Replacement. Electric Water heat. Direct Install. 2.0 gpm. Combined Water heating and water treatment savings. Secondary Residential Showerhead Replacement_2_00gpm_Secondary Shower_ Electric Water Heating_Direct Install 91.14 91.14 91 132 32 Idaho Power Multifamily Energy Savings Program – 2017 Evaluation Results. December 5, 2018 APPENDIX C: PROJECT TRACKING FILE EXAMPLE As an example of what could be tracked in terms of program participation, we have included the table below as suggested tracking variables and values. During the evaluation, Tetra Tech also compiled the current information available into a Master Tracking Spreadsheet and will provide that to the Idaho Power Multifamily Energy Savings program specialist. Table C-1. Suggested Tracking Variables and Description of Values Tracking Variables Values Program Year 2016, 2017, or 2018 Status Lead, Ineligible, Screening, Declined, Installing, Completed Property Name Units at Property # Units Served # Property Address Property Contact Name Property Contact Phone Property Contact Email Region Capital, Eastern, Southern, Canyon/West Contractor Name Contractor Contact Name Contractor Contact Phone Contractor Contact Email Screening visit date Installation visit date Installation counts by measure Pull from Multifamily Savings spreadsheet Savings by measure Pull from Multifamily Savings spreadsheet Total savings Pull from Multifamily Savings spreadsheet DNV GL – Energy 155 Grand Ave., Suite 500 Oakland, CA 94612 Shade Tree Project Evaluation Prepared for Idaho Power December 21, 2018 DNV GL – Energy www.dnvgl.com/energy Idaho Power Shade Tree Project Evaluation Page i Table of Contents 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Evaluation activities ................................................................................................. 1 1.2 Key findings ............................................................................................................. 1 2 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................ 3 2.1 Program background .............................................................................................. 3 2.2 Evaluation overview ................................................................................................ 3 3 FINDINGS .......................................................................................................................... 4 3.1 Enrollment and audit data analysis ........................................................................ 4 3.2 Evaluated savings calculations ............................................................................... 6 3.3 Industry shade tree program review ....................................................................... 8 ADDITIONAL METHOD DETAIL ...................................................................... 10 SHADE TREE PROGRAM STUDY BIBILOGRAPHY ......................................... 13 Table of Tables Table 1. Recommended kWh savings summary .............................................................................. 1 Table 2. Recommended non-electric impacts summary ................................................................ 2 Table 3. Enrollment species by audit selection and completion ..................................................... 5 Table 4. Claimable kWh savings by calendar year ........................................................................... 7 Table 5. Recommended non-electric impacts summary ................................................................ 8 Table 6. Original and analysis data records by year ...................................................................... 10 Table 7. Tree species categories ..................................................................................................... 11 Table of Figures Figure 1. Savings per tree by year ................................................................................................... 6 Figure 2. Annual kWh savings trend lines by planting year .......................................................... 12 DNV GL – Energy www.dnvgl.com/energy Idaho Power Shade Tree Project Evaluation Page 1 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY According to the U.S. Department of Energy, a well-placed shade tree can reduce energy used for summer cooling by 15 percent or more. Idaho Power implements the Shade Tree Project in partnership with the Arbor Day Foundation’s Energy-Saving Trees program. Arbor Day Foundation provides a software tool that estimates energy savings at enrollment based on the tree species, orientation, and distance from home. The Shade Tree Project has been active since beginning as a pilot in 2013. Idaho Power records contained usable data for 9,830 enrolled trees. Idaho Power conducted two rounds of onsite audits to verify survivorship and tree placement relative to the home. Idaho Power provided usable records for 1,748 trees selected for audits and 1,196 trees that received an audit. 1.1 Evaluation activities DNV GL reviewed benefits calculations based on enrollment data provided by Idaho Power for program years 2013-2018. We reconciled the enrollment data with data obtained during audits of a random selection of 2013-2016 program year trees conducted by Idaho Power in 2015 and 2017. The audits recorded actual orientation and distance from home and recalculated savings based on those actual values. The audits also provided mortality data. The i-Trees software estimates kWh savings (and other benefits) for years 5, 10, 15, and 20 after the tree planting year. DNV GL calculated average realization rates for each of these four quinquennial benefits, for each planting year, by audited tree species. We then assigned these average realization rates to the unaudited trees and calculated evaluated savings by multiplying the enrollment savings by the realization rates. We then averaged all values per planting year to calculate the average per-tree benefits. Next, we used linear interpolation to calculate annual per-tree average benefits for the inter-quinquennial years. Finally, we calculated total benefits by multiplying the per-tree average benefits by the number of trees planted each year (based on original enrollment data counts) and an estimated survival rate for that year. 1.2 Key findings Claimable savings: DNV GL recommends Idaho Power claim the following energy savings. Additional calendar year savings recommendations are provided in the accompanying Excel workbook. Table 1. Recommended kWh savings summary Planting Years Saving Year kWh Savings 2013 2017 3,724 2013, 2014 2018 39,095 2013, 2014, 2015 2019 80,212 Mortality: The audits resulted in a mortality rate of 36% at 3-5 years since planting. DNV GL – Energy www.dnvgl.com/energy Idaho Power Shade Tree Project Evaluation Page 2 Enrollment savings calculations: Davey, the primary developer of i-Trees, periodically updates their algorithms to keep pace with Forestry science. They made a substantial update in late 2015 that cut calculated benefits approximately in half. The realization rates in this study account for this change. However, Idaho Power should stay alert for other significant software updates in the future. Additional non-electric impacts calculations: The i-Trees software provides estimated impacts for therms, air pollutants, carbon, and stormwater runoff in addition to kWh. If Idaho Power chooses to claim additional non-electric impacts from the sponsored trees, DNV GL recommends the following numbers. Note that the Therms and Carbon impacts are negative, while the Air pollution and Stormwater imapcts are positive. Additional calendar year impact recommendations are provided in the accompanying Excel workbook. Table 2. Recommended non-electric impacts summary Planting Years Saving Year Therms Air Pollutant $ Carbon $ Stormwater Runoff $ 2013 2017 (195)$9 ($12)$71 2013, 2014 2018 (2,049)$99 ($127)$743 2013, 2014, 2015 2019 (4,364)$203 ($257)$1,537 DNV GL – Energy www.dnvgl.com/energy Idaho Power Shade Tree Project Evaluation Page 3 2 INTRODUCTION 2.1 Program background The Shade Tree Project began as a pilot in 2013. According to the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), a well-placed shade tree can reduce energy used for summer cooling by 15 percent or more. Utility programs throughout the country report high customer satisfaction with shade tree programs and an enhanced public image for the utility related to sustainability and environmental stewardship. Other utilities report energy savings between 40 kWh per year (coastal climate San Diego) and over 200 kWh per year (Phoenix) per tree planted. To be successful, trees should be planted to maximize energy savings and ensure survivability. Two technological developments in urban forestry—the state-sponsored Treasure Valley Urban Tree Canopy Assessment and the Arbor Day Foundation’s Energy-Saving Trees tool—provided Idaho Power with the information to facilitate a shade tree project. Arbor Day’s tool is based on the i-Trees software package, developed by Davey and the U.S. Forestry Service (USFS). The Shade Tree Project operates in a small geographic area each spring and fall, offering free shade trees to Idaho Power’s residential customers. Participants enroll using the online Energy- Saving Trees tool and pick up their tree at specific events. Unclaimed trees are donated to cities and schools. Using the online enrollment tool, participants locate their home on a map, indicate the basic outline of their exterior walls, select from a list of available trees, and evaluate the potential energy savings associated with planting in different locations. During enrollment, participants learn how trees planted to the west and east save more energy over time than trees planted to the south and north. Ensuring the tree is planted properly helps it grow to provide maximum energy savings. At the tree pickup events, participants receive additional education on where to plant trees for maximum energy savings and other tree care guidance from experts. Local specialists include city arborists from participating municipalities; Idaho Power utility arborists; county master gardeners; and College of Western Idaho horticulture students. Idaho Power records contained usable data for 9,830 enrolled trees. Idaho Power conducted two rounds of onsite audits to verify survivorship and tree placement relative to the home. Idaho Power provided usable records for 1,748 trees selected for audits and 1,196 trees that received an audit. 2.2 Evaluation overview The primary goals of the evaluation were to: ·Review the available data for participants for all available program years, ·Confirm the energy savings and non-energy benefits recorded are correctly calculated using the Arbor Day Foundation’s Energy Saving Trees Tool, which is based on the Davey/USFS i- Tree design tool, DNV GL – Energy www.dnvgl.com/energy Idaho Power Shade Tree Project Evaluation Page 4 ·Review the audit information collected by Idaho Power on random samples of participants in 2015 and 2017, ·Derive adjustments to the claimed savings to reflect differences between the original i-Tree data in the tracking system and what was eventually done at customer homes, and to adjust for mortality, and ·Apply those adjustments to calculate recommended savings across all program years. To achieve these goals, DNV GL received and combined the following data from Idaho Power: ·Enrollment data, which includes the inputs to the savings tool, and the estimated savings in 5-year increments for 20 years ·Audit data, from audits conducted in 2015 and 2017, with the updated tree and placement information and the resulting updated savings estimates After combining these data, DNV GL performed the following analyses: ·Reviewed the enrollment data and calculations for accuracy, appropriate use of the tool, and consistency of data ·Assessed the similarity of the sample audited to the total participant population to ensure that the audit sample is representative of that total population ·For the participants audited, compared the audit results with the enrollment data, and developed appropriate adjustment factors based on the differences between the two datasets ·Developed adjustments for mortality based on the audit data results and the survey data ·Applied all adjustments to the i-Trees output to provide evaluated benefits metrics. Additionally, DNV GL searched for and reviewed publicly available evaluations and peer- reviewed papers on the energy savings from similar shade tree programs to provide a secondary check on the savings estimates. 3 FINDINGS 3.1 Enrollment and audit data analysis 3.1.1 Enrollment population versus audited sample DNV GL split the trees into three groups and compared enrollment data for tree orientation and species for the trees. The three groups were: trees that were not selected for an audit, trees selected for an audit but that did not receive one (usually because the customer reported that the tree died), and trees that were selected for an audit and received one. The distribution of enrollment orientation was similar across the three groups with one exception. Trees that were selected for an audit but did not receive one (10%) were slightly more likely to be enrolled with a “North” orientation than those not audited (6%) or those selected and audited (7%). For species, the trees selected for audit differed somewhat from those not selected (Table 3). These differences appear to be within reasonable thresholds for random selection. DNV GL – Energy www.dnvgl.com/energy Idaho Power Shade Tree Project Evaluation Page 5 Table 3. Enrollment species by audit selection and completion Species Not selected Selected, no Audit Audited Birch 13%20%19% Elm 14%8%10% Ginkgo 3%2%2% Hackberry 7%3%4% Linden 5%4%3% Oak 28%22%24% Other 4%8%7% Planetree 4%1%2% Sweetgum 11%18%13% Tuliptree 11%12%15% Unknown 1%2%1% 3.1.2 Mortality rates Approximately 36% (589 trees) were confirmed as dead by the audit process. Based on conversation with Davey (the company that develops the i-Trees software) and review of the i- Trees program manual, the algorithms i-Trees uses to calculate benefits do not factor in an estimated mortality rate. 3.1.3 Enrollment benefits calculations changes Davey reported that they made significant changes to their benefits calculation algorithms in late 2015. Davey reported that they periodically update the algorithm to keep pace with the state-of-the-art in Forestry science, so the new benefits calculations should be more accurate than the older ones. The result of this change is a substantial decrease in calculated benefits for trees entered into i-Trees after 2015. Figure 1 shows this effect using the 20 year cumulative kWh savings calculated during enrollment. The effect occurs across all benefits and all species in Idaho Power’s program. DNV GL – Energy www.dnvgl.com/energy Idaho Power Shade Tree Project Evaluation Page 6 Figure 1. Savings per tree by year The data re-entry and savings calculations for all audited trees occurred after the 2015 change to the tool. This means that all re-entry calculations were based on the updated (changed) i-Trees algorithm. This has two effects on our calculation of the audit realization rate: 1. Trees ordered before 2016 have low realization rates because they are and should be affected by the change to the benefits calculations. 2. Trees ordered after 2016 have a separate realization rate, which is greater than the realization rate for the pre-2016 trees because both the enrollment and audit savings calculations used the same, updated algorithm. 3.2 Evaluated savings calculations The i-Trees software calculates annual kWh and cumulative kWh savings at 5, 10, 15, and 20 year increments based on tree species, orientation to home, and distance from home. DNV GL’s review of these calculations revealed the following: ·Annual savings estimates follow a nearly linear trend, increasing approximately 30 kWh each five-year period. ·Reported cumulative savings in years 10, 15, and 20 match very closely to the values obtained by summing the annual savings over the same periods. ·Reported cumulative savings in year 5 did not match the sum of individual annual savings for years 1 through 5 based on any interpolation method that DNV GL tried for estimating annual savings in years 1 to 5. Based on these findings, DNV GL decided to base evaluated savings estimates on i-Tree’s reported annual savings values using the following method: 3,059 2,810 2,253 1,160 1,105 1,291 2013 (n=220) 2014 (n=1942) 2015 (n=1874) 2016 (n=2051) 2017 (n=2690) 2018 (n=951) 20 y e a r c u m u l a t i v e k W h s a v i n g s ( m e a n ) Enrollment Year DNV GL – Energy www.dnvgl.com/energy Idaho Power Shade Tree Project Evaluation Page 7 1. Calculate an audit realization rate by tree species for each planting year based on the audit results. Planting years 2013 – 2016 received realization rates. Audits were not conducted for trees planted in 2017 or 2018, so those years received realization rates of 1 for all species. 2. Audited trees received individual realization rates based on actual audit results. Unaudited trees received the average realization rate of the other trees of the same species, planted in the same year, that were audited.1 Thus all enrolled trees received a realization rate. 3. Calculate adjusted savings by multiplying savings calculated during enrollment by the realization rate. 4. We repeat steps 1-3 for each of the five-year periods for which i-Trees reported annual savings. Thus, each enrolled tree gets an adjusted annual savings for years 5, 10, 15, and 20. 5. Calculate the per-tree average adjusted annual savings for years 5, 10, 15, and 20 across all enrolled trees. 6. Use linear interpolation to calculate the per-tree average adjusted annual savings for all intermediate years. We assumed zero savings per year for years 1-3. 7. Estimate tree survival rate starting at 66% for year 4, based on the audit results, and subtract 1% per year up to year 20. This approach results in a 50% survival rate for year 20.2 This process resulted in a per-tree average annual savings for each year for years 4 through 20. We calculated total program year savings claimable by Idaho Power by multiplying the number of trees planted (based on the original data set) in a particular year by per-tree average annual savings for the tree age represented by any particular calendar year relative to the planting year (e.g. 2018 is year 5 for trees planted in 2013 and year 4 for trees planted in 2014). We then multiplied this number by survival rate for that year of life. We calculated total kWh savings claimable by Idaho Power for each calendar year by summing all planting year savings applicable to that calendar year (Table 4). An accompanying workbook provides calculations up to calendar year 2033. Table 4. Claimable kWh savings by calendar year Number of Trees Year Planted Calendar Year 2017 2018 2019 220 2013 3,724 4,584 5,367 2,039 2014 -34,511 42,485 1,912 2015 --32,361 2,061 2016 --- 2,711 2017 --- 952 2018 --- Annual Claimable kWh 3,724 39,095 80,212 Total Cumulative Claimable kWh 3,724 42,818 123,030 1 There were three exceptions: ·Trees with species grouping of “Unknown” received the average ratio across all audited trees in their year. ·Linden trees planted in 2016 received a ratio of 1 because none were audited after 2016 and giving them the same ratios as 2013-2015 Lindens would unfairely penalize them for the benefits calculation change. ·Trees planted in 2017 and 2018 all received realization rates of 1 because none were audited. 2 A 50% survival rate is close to but slightly more conservative than the 22-year 52% savings rate adjustment based on survivability found by Ko, et al (2015) based on their review of the SMUD trees planted in 1997 on which the i-Trees algorithms were originally based. DNV GL – Energy www.dnvgl.com/energy Idaho Power Shade Tree Project Evaluation Page 8 Note: The number of trees in this table represent the total enrolled, which is slightly higher than the total used to compute the average savings per tree. See Appendix A for detail on why the numbers differ. 3.2.1 Non-electric impacts DNV GL used the same method to calculate the non-electric impacts for four additional metrics provided by the i-Trees software: Therms, air pollution dollars, carbon dollars, and stormwater runoff dollars. Table 5 summarizes DNV GL’s recommendations for annual claimable impacts for these metrics. Impacts for additional years are included in the accompanying workbook. Table 5. Recommended non-electric impacts summary Planting Years Saving Year Therms Air Pollutant $ Carbon $ Stormwater Runoff $ 2013 2017 (195)$9 ($12)$71 2013, 2014 2018 (2,049)$99 ($127)$743 2013, 2014, 2015 2019 (4,364)$203 ($257)$1,537 3.3 Industry shade tree program review DNV GL attempted to review evaluations of similar shade tree programs across the country. The purpose of this activity was to provide a check on the reasonableness of the impact results. DNV GL searched the following sources for relevant information: ·Our own internal report libraries ·Calmac.org ·ACEEE and IEPEC proceedings online databases ·Elsevier press ·Google Our search turned up 13 relevant studies and peer-reviewed papers (see Appendix B for bibliography). These studies produce a consensus annual electricity savings of approximately 140 kWh per tree. However, DNV GL observed several limitations that lead us to recommend against using this consensus value as a check on Idaho Power electricity savings: ·The consistency occurs because all the programs use the same basis to estimate savings. All of the savings estimates appear to be based on the i-Trees software package, which is itself based on Simpson and McPherson (1997) that used shadow pattern simulations to estimate the home-cooling effects of shade produced by trees in Sacramento. ·We found no evidence of independent verification of the accuracy of these estimates using alternative methods such as billing analysis or experimental designs. ·Davey updates the algorithsm in the i-Trees software on a regular basis to keep pace with new Forestry science findings. Several studies found that factors such as tree size, orientation to home, distance from home, and mortality affected the savings. These findings support the practice of using audits to confirm DNV GL – Energy www.dnvgl.com/energy Idaho Power Shade Tree Project Evaluation Page 9 characteristics of the trees after they have been planted and adjust savings according to the audit findings. ·DNV GL (2011) found that approximately 14% of trees were planted at a site other than the home of the person participating in the program. ·Zebedee & Associates (2009) study of San Diego Gas & Electric’s program: o found a first year mortality rate of 8.1% o eliminated 31% of trees from impact calculations because of orientation and distance from home, tree size, and climate zone ·Donovan & Butry (2009) study of the Sacremento Municipal Utility District’s (SMUD’s) program found significantly less savings for trees planted on the north side of home (~55 kWh annually) compared to those planted on the west or south sides (~185 kWh annually). ·Ko, et al. (2015) revisited the 1997 Sacramento study sites and found that annual cooling savings were about half (52% or 80 kWh per tree) their original estimates, mostly due to mortality. While DNV GL recommends against a strong interpretation of the fact there is consensus in savings estimates, we also did not find any evidence to invalidate the commonly used i-Trees software. The group maintaining the i-Trees software clearly makes periodic updates to the software and savings algorithms, and through the years has added factors such as tree orientation and distance from home to the savings estimates. Two additional findings bear mention, although at this point in time, DNV GL does not recommend any adjustments to program savings estimates based upon them: ·Sawka and colleagues (2013) adjusted the Sacramento results to Toronto and estimated per tree savings of 167 kWh annually. A notable finding from this study was that approximately half of the savings came from shading of neighboring homes. ·At this point in time, the Arbor Day Energy-Saving Trees program is a dominant player in the implementation of tree programs. According to Arbor Day Foundation records, approximately 60 utilities in 36 states are partnered with the program. DNV GL – Energy www.dnvgl.com/energy Idaho Power Shade Tree Project Evaluation Page 10 ADDITIONAL METHOD DETAIL A.1.1 Data preparation The first step in data preparation was to match enrollment records with audit records. These matches were done based on a numeric identifier that Idaho Power assigned to both data sets and tree species. In cases where the same id had two trees of the same species, we chose the pairing that resulted in the shortest combined distance between the latitude and longitude coordinates in the enrollment and audit data. Idaho Power provided enrollment records for 9,895 trees that it sponsored between 2013 and Spring 2018 and audit records for 1,856 trees. After merging the enrollment and audit data and removing records with data and matching issues, there were usable records for 9,830 enrolled trees, 1,748 trees selected for audits, and 1,196 trees that received audits. The final data contained records for 102 trees without enrollment benefits data because they were an additional tree taken at pickup or workshop trees (and therefore never went through the i-Trees tool at enrollment). Table 6 provides a summary of the number of original and analysis records by program year. Table 6. Original and analysis data records by year Year Original Data Analysis Data Total records Selected for Audit Received Audit Total records Selected for Audit Received Audit 2013 220 134 79 220 134 79 2014 2,039 945 586 2,005 877 554 2015 1,912 487 370 1,887 458 347 2016 2,061 290 227 2,055 279 216 2017 2,711 0 0 2,711 0 0 2018 952 0 0 952 0 0 Total 9,895 1,856 1,262 9,830 1,748 1,196 DNV GL – Energy www.dnvgl.com/energy Idaho Power Shade Tree Project Evaluation Page 11 We then grouped the trees into species groups based on the tree ordered (as recorded in the data) as shown in Table 7. As can be seen in the table, some of the differences in the data entered are clearly data entry inconsistencies such as “Bur Oak” and “Burr Oak”. We used the species group for the trees’ species throughout the rest of the methods. Table 7. Tree species categories Species Group Tree Ordered Frequency Birch Heritage River Birch 197 River Birch (clump form) 281 River Birch Clump 846 Elm Frontier Elm 495 New Harmony Elm 394 Princeton Elm 201 Valley Forge Elm 248 Ginkgo Ginkgo 169 Hackberry Common Hackberry 543 Hackberry 218 Linden Greenspire Linden 524 Greenspire Littleleaf Linden 139 Redmond Linden 53 Oak Bur Oak 826 Burr Oak 188 Northern Red Oak 861 Swamp White Oak 940 Other Kentucky Coffeetree 39 Kentucky coffeetree 87 Red Maple Armstrong 34 Sourwood 87 Suncole" Sunburst Honeylocust" 46 Planetree Exclamation London Planetree 59 London Planetree Bloodgood"" 114 London planetree 13 Sweetgum Happidaze Sweetgum 105 Moraine Sweetgum 143 Worplesdon Sweetgum 731 Tuliptree Tulip Tree 852 Tuliptree 280 Unknown1 5 NA 20 None 92 Total 9,830 1 Trees with an unknown species were predominately workshop trees. A few were also extras taken at pickup. DNV GL – Energy www.dnvgl.com/energy Idaho Power Shade Tree Project Evaluation Page 12 A.1.2 Review of annual and cumulative kWh The i-Trees software calculates annual kWh and cumulative kWh savings at 5, 10, 15, and 20 year increments based on tree species, orientation to home, and distance from home. DNV GL’s review of these calculations revealed that annual savings estimates follow a nearly linear trend. Annual savings increase by approximately 30 kWh each five-year period (Figure 2). The gap in the upper and lower groups of lines in this figure also demonstrates the savings discontinuity caused by the algorithm update in late 2015. Figure 2. Annual kWh savings trend lines by planting year DNV GL – Energy www.dnvgl.com/energy Idaho Power Shade Tree Project Evaluation Page 13 SHADE TREE PROGRAM STUDY BIBILOGRAPHY Arizona Public Service: Green Choice. (2013). “APS Shade Tree Program.” Summary reported in Arbor Day Foundation Energy-Saving Trees Spring Workshop Proceedings, April 2013. (Original could not be located). CPS Energy. (2012) “Green Shade Tree Rebates.” Summary reported in Arbor Day Foundation Energy-Saving Trees Spring Workshop Proceedings, April 2013. (Original could not be located). DNV GL (2011). Trees Program Evaluation Report. Prepared for Alliant Energy – Interstate Power & Light Donovan, G.H. and D.T. Butry. (2009). “The Value of Shade: Estimating the Effect of Urban Trees on Summertime Electricity Use.” Energy and Buildings Vol. 41. Pp. 662-668. Elsevier Science. Hildebrandt, E.W. and M. Sarkovich. (1997). “Assessing the Cost-effectiveness of SMUD’s Shade Tree Program.” Atmospheric Environment Vol. 32, No. 1. Pp. 85 – 94. 1998. Elsevier Science. New Jersey Board of Public Utilities, Office of Clean Energy. (2009). “New Jersey Clean Energy Program Protocols to Measure Resource Savings – Revisions to June 2009 Protocols.” 12/09 Online. Pandit, R. and D.N. Laband. (2010). “Energy Savings from Tree Shade.” Ecological Economics Vol. 69. Pp. 1324-1329. 2010. Elsevier Science. Sawka, M., et al. (2013) Growing summer energy conservation through residential tree planting. Landscape and Urban Planning, Volume 113, Pages 1-9. ISSN 0169-2046. (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169204613000133) Simpson, J.R. and E.G. McPherson. (1997). “Simulation of Tree Impacts on Residential Energy Use for Space Conditioning in Sacramento.” 10/97. Online. State of New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. (2008). “New Jersey’s Clean Energy Program Report Submitted to the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities.” 8/08 Online. Stone River Project (2013). “Planting shade trees can save you up to $50 on your annual energy bill.” Summary reported in Arbor Day Foundation Energy-Saving Trees Spring Workshop Proceedings, April 2013. (Original could not be located). Ko, Y. et al. (2015) Long-term monitoring of Sacramento Shade program trees: Tree survival, growth and energy-saving performance. Landscape and Urban Planning 143 (2015) 183–191. Zebedee & Associates. (2009). “EM&V Report for San Diego Cool Communities Shade Tree Program (1306-04).” 4/09 Online. Supplement 2: Evaluation Idaho Power Company Page 282 Demand-Side Management 2018 Annual Report Idaho Power Company Supplement 2: Evaluation Demand-Side Management 2018 Annual Report Page 283 OTHER REPORTS Report Title Sector Analysis Performed By Study Manager Study/Evaluation Type 2018 Flex Peak Program End-of-Season Annual Report Commercial/Industrial Idaho Power Idaho Power Other 2018 Irrigation Peak Results Irrigation Idaho Power Idaho Power Other A/C Cool Credit: 2018 Demand Response Analysis Residential Idaho Power Idaho Power Other Energy-Saving Kit Program Summary Report, 2018 Residential Resource Action Programs Idaho Power Summary Historical DSM Expense and Performance, 2002–2018 Residential, Commercial/Industrial, and Irrigation Idaho Power Idaho Power Other Home Energy Report Program Summary Report (Year One) Residential Aclara Idaho Power Summary Idaho Power Energy Wise Program Summary Report, 2017–2018 Residential Resource Action Programs Idaho Power Summary Technical Reference Manual 2.2 Commercial/Industrial ADM Associates Idaho Power Other 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/. Supplement 2: Evaluation Idaho Power Company Page 284 Demand-Side Management 2018 Annual Report November 2, 2018 2018 Flex Peak Program End-of-Season Annual Report 2018 Flex Peak Program Report Page i Table of Contents Table of Contents ............................................................................................................. i List of Tables .................................................................................................................... ii List of Figures ................................................................................................................... ii Executive Summary ........................................................................................................ 1 Background ..................................................................................................................... 1 Program Details ......................................................................................................... 2 Program Incentives .................................................................................................... 3 Program Results ............................................................................................................. 3 Participation ............................................................................................................... 4 Operations ................................................................................................................. 8 Load Reduction Analysis ........................................................................................... 8 Program Costs ......................................................................................................... 13 Benefit-Cost Analysis ............................................................................................... 14 Customer Satisfaction Results ...................................................................................... 15 Program Activities for 2019 ........................................................................................... 15 Conclusion .................................................................................................................... 16 Idaho Power Page ii 2018 Flex Peak Program Report List of Tables Table 1. 2018 Incentive Structure. ........................................................................... 3 Table 2. Realization Rate per Event - 2018. ............................................................ 9 Table 3. Realization Rate per Participant for Each Event - 2018. .......................... 11 Table 4. Annual Program Costs - 2018. ................................................................. 15 List of Figures Figure 1. Idaho Power Service Area ......................................................................... 5 Figure 2. 2018 Site Participation by Region Based on Nomination ........................... 6 Figure 3. 2018 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 2018 Flex Peak Program Report Page 1 Executive Summary 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 2018 Program season, the Company’s fourth year of operating the Program. In its fourth year, the Program maintained similar load reduction and realization rates as the prior year (2017). There were five new sites added and overall participation resulted in the highest hourly load reduction for the season of 33 megawatts (“MW”). The average realization rate for the three load reduction events that occurred in the 2018 Program season was 89 percent. Enrollment in the Program virtually stayed the same for the 2018 Program season and 96 percent of previously participating sites re-enrolled in the Program. The total Program costs through October 1, 2018, were $417,819. The cost of having this resource available was $12.66 per kilowatt (“kW”) based on the maximum demand reduction of 33 MW achieved on July 31, 2018. 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. 33292,1 and the Public Utility Commission of Oregon (“OPUC”) accepted the proposal from Advice No. 15-03.2 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 1 In the Matter of Idaho Power’s Company’s Application for Approval of New Tariff Schedule 82, A Commercial and Industrial Demand-Response Program (Flex Peak Program), Case No. IPC-E-15-03, Order No. 33292 (May 7, 2015). 2 Schedule 76, Flex Peak Program, Docket No. ADV 7/Advice No. 15-03 (approved April 28, 2015). Idaho Power Company Page 2 2018 Flex Peak Program Report • 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 • 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 optional Program are set forth in Schedule 763 in Oregon and Schedule 824 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. 3 Idaho Power Company, P.U.C. ORE. No. E-27, Schedule 76. 4 Idaho Power Company, I.P.U.C. No. 29, Tariff No. 101, Schedule 82. Idaho Power Company 2018 Flex Peak Program Report Page 3 • 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. 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 2018. The incentive structure offered for the 2018 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 2018. The first event occurred on July 16, the second on July 25, and the third on July 31. The maximum realization rate during the season was 108 percent and the average for all three events combined was 89 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 July 31 event at 33 MW. Idaho Power Company Page 4 2018 Flex Peak Program Report Participants had a committed load reduction of 29.4 MW in the first week of the Program. This weekly commitment, or “nomination”, was comprised of customers participating in the Program totaling 140 sites. Out of the total number of sites, 135 sites participated in the 2017 season, and five sites were newly added in 2018. The committed load reduction at the end of the season was 29.6 MW and was the peak committed load reduction for the season. The first event was called on Monday, July 16. Participants were notified at 2 p.m. for a four-hour event from 4-8 p.m. The total nomination for this event was 29.4 MW. The average load reduction was 26 MW. The highest hourly load reduction was 27 MW during hour two. The realization rate for this event was 88 percent. The second event was called on Wednesday, July 25. Participants were notified at 2 p.m. for a four-hour event from 4-8 p.m. The total nomination for this event was 29.3 MW. The average load reduction was 21 MW. The highest hourly load reduction was 22 MW during hour one. The realization rate for this event was 72 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. The third event was called on Tuesday, July 31. Participants were notified at 2 p.m. for a four-hour event from 4-8 p.m. The total nomination for this event was 29.5 MW. The average load reduction was 32 MW. The highest hourly load reduction was 33 MW during hour one. The realization rate for this event was 108 percent. Enrollment specific to the Oregon service territory included six participants totaling nine sites enrolled. These nine sites had a nominated capacity of 5.6 MW and achieved a maximum reduction during the season of 6.3 MW during hour four on the July 16 event. Participation The number of sites enrolled in the Program for 2018 was 140 sites from 65 participants, with five new sites enrolling for the Program season. The average number of sites enrolled per participating customer was 2.1. The Program did not experience significant attrition and re-enrollment in the Program was high as 135 of the 141 sites participating from the prior season re-enrolled. Four sites did not re-enroll from the 2017 season because the vendor supporting the site’s demand response control platform no longer offered that service. The remaining two sites did not enroll as one business closed and the other site reduced its operating hours significantly such that it no longer was a good program candidate. This past season Idaho Power continued the auto-enrollment option with good success. Existing participants were re-enrolled in the Program automatically and mailed a confirmation packet early in March based on the prior year’s enrollment information. Participants notified the Company in writing if they no longer wanted to participate as well as to change their nomination amount or update/change contact information regarding personnel for event notification. The auto-enrollment implementation was successful and the Company will continue to utilize this process in the future. Idaho Power Company 2018 Flex Peak Program Report Page 5 While Idaho Power did not actively market the Program, the Company has worked to maintain the number and size diversity (in terms of nominated load reduction) of sites enrolled. The breakout of nomination groups among the sites has stayed very consistent from the 2017 season with the largest quantity of sites falling within the 0-50 kW segment followed by 51-200 kW. Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement approved in IPUC Case No. IPC-E-13-145 and OPUC Docket No. UM 16536 (“Settlement”), Idaho Power did not actively market the Program prior to the 2018 season as enrolled capacity was maintained at approximately 35 MW, which was the amount agreed upon in the 2013 Settlement. However, the Program did have reduced capacity for the 2018 season as one single large customer reduced its nomination significantly a week prior to the season starting. The Company did not deny any Program applications in 2018. Figure 1 represents Idaho Power’s service area divided into three regional areas with two sub areas: Canyon (Canyon West), Capital, and Southern (South East). Figure 1. 5 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 (Nov. 12, 2013). 6 In the Matter of Idaho Power Company, Staff Evaluation of the Demand Response Programs, UM 1653, Order No. 13-482 (Dec. 19, 2013). Idaho Power Company Page 6 2018 Flex Peak Program Report Figure 2 represents the enrolled capacity (total nominations) that were enrolled in 2018 and the distribution by Idaho Power’s regional service areas. Figure 2. Canyon 10% Capital 27% South-East 14% Southern 26% Canyon-West 23% 2018 Participation by Region (and sub areas) based on Nomination Idaho Power Company 2018 Flex Peak Program Report Page 7 Figure 3 represents the enrolled capacity in 2018 and the diversity based on business type. Figure 3. Agriculture 6%Commercial Property 9% Other 3% Education 4% Refrigerated Warehouse 14% Government 5% Water & Wastewater Treatment Facility 16% Asphalt, Concrete, Gravel 15% Light Industrial 7% Food Processing 21% 2018 Participation by Customer Segment based on Nomination Idaho Power Company Page 8 2018 Flex Peak Program Report Operations Interval metering data provides Idaho Power the ability to view all participants’ load after events, and 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 assists 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 2018 was 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 2018 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. Idaho Power Company 2018 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 39 percent of the sites. Figure 4. Table 2 shows the Program realization rates for 2018 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* July 16 4-8 pm 29.4 26 27 88% July 25 4-8 pm 29.3 21 22 72% July 31 4-8 pm 29.5 32 33 108% Average 29.4 26.3 27.3 89% * 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) 2018 2017 54 56 52 50 25 26 99 Idaho Power Company Page 10 2018 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 22 MW for the July 25 event to a high of 33 MW for the July 31 event. The July 25 event’s 22 MW reduction achieved a realization rate of 72 percent, while the July 31 event’s 33 MW reduction achieved a realization rate of 108 percent. Combined, the three events had an average realization rate of 89 percent. The realization rate analysis shows that maximum load reduction was achieved in the middle to late portion of the Program season during the third event. Figure 5. 26 21 32 27 22 33 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 July 16th July 25th July 31st Average & Maximum Reduction per Event Average Demand Reduction Maximum Demand Reduction Idaho Power Company 2018 Flex Peak Program Report Page 11 Table 3 shows the realization rate for each participant in the Program for 2018. Table 3. Participant Number July 16 Event Realization July 23 Event Realization July 31 Event Realization 2018 Season Realization 1 140% 77% 172% 130% 2 17% 70% 9% 32% 3 74% 74% 98% 82% 4 25% 0% 44% 23% 5 13% 0% 11% 8% 6 101% 52% 87% 80% 7 557% 150% 5% 237% 8 132% 150% 146% 142% 9 106% 120% 114% 113% 10 196% 168% 140% 168% 11 0% 0% 0% 0% 12 45% 40% 44% 43% 13 113% 130% 121% 121% 14 139% 126% 69% 111% 15 102% 103% 97% 101% 16 28% 0% 0% 9% 17 54% 41% 30% 42% 18 30% 216% 293% 180% 19 104% 139% 141% 128% 20 127% 204% 182% 171% 21 137% 88% 107% 111% 22 65% 76% 64% 68% 23 97% 100% 112% 103% 24 0% 45% 11% 19% 25 59% 38% 75% 57% 26 101% 83% 42% 76% 27 74% 90% 97% 87% 28 15% 38% 8% 20% 29 18% 0% 86% 35% 30 455% 132% 123% 237% 31 8% 180% 180% 122% 32 114% 140% 109% 121% 33 0% 55% 16% 24% 34 124% 45% 129% 100% 35 932% 639% 1832% 1134% 36 14% 20% 76% 37% Idaho Power Company Page 12 2018 Flex Peak Program Report 37 74% 47% 78% 66% 38 80% 180% 9% 89% 39 209% 171% 864% 415% 40 18% 0% 0% 6% 41 31% 77% 0% 36% 42 119% 44% 57% 74% 43 153% 42% 73% 89% 44 124% 130% 15% 90% 45 25% 40% 44% 36% 46 2% 55% 14% 23% 47 119% 23% 326% 156% 48 50% 67% 97% 71% 49 0% 0% 0% 0% 50 4% 19% 0% 8% 51 8% 22% 38% 23% 52 102% 112% 111% 108% 53 36% 3% 35% 25% 54 61% 70% 64% 65% 55 64% 0% 58% 41% 56 206% 43% 0% 83% 57 59% 74% 57% 63% 58 17% 3% 0% 7% 59 119% 89% 96% 101% 60 63% 123% 124% 104% 61 144% 96% 149% 130% 62 11% 0% 67% 26% 63 2% 0% 12% 4% 64 94% 103% 117% 105% 65 74% 97% 91% 87% 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 112 percent. The 0-50 kW group had the largest portion of sites enrolled in the Program, totaling 54 sites that accounted for 39 percent of total enrolled sites. The second smallest size class, 51–200 kW, had 52 sites enrolled and achieved the lowest average realization rate at 65 percent. The 201-500 kW group had 25 sites enrolled and achieved a realization rate of 100 percent. The largest size class, 501+ kW, had nine sites enrolled and achieved a realization rate of 109 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 2018 Flex Peak Program Report Page 13 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 $417,819 through October 1, 2018. 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 2018 Program season. The fixed capacity payments total was $371,496 and the variable energy payment 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,7 the total Program costs for 2018 are estimated to be $12.66 per kW based on the maximum demand reduction of 33 MW, or $15.89 per kW, based on average load reduction for the season of 26.3 MW. 7 Final Program costs for 2018 will be available after the close of the Company’s 2018 financial reporting year, December 31, 2018. 112% 65% 100% 109% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120% 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) Average Realization Rate by Each Nomination Size Class Idaho Power Company Page 14 2018 Flex Peak Program Report Table 4 below displays the 2018 year-to-date (“YTD”) Program costs by expense category. Table 4. Expense Category 2018 YTD Program Costs Materials & Equipment $1,001 Marketing & Administration $45,322 Incentive payments $371,496 Total $417,819 Benefit-Cost Analysis 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 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 most recently acknowledged Integrated Resource Plan (“IRP”) available during budgeting for the upcoming Program year, the 2015 Integrated Resource Plan. 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. The annual value calculation is updated with each IRP based on changes that include, but are not limited to, need, capital cost, or financial assumptions. This amount was re- evaluated in the 2015 IRP to be $18.5 million. Under the 2017 IRP, this value is $19.8 million. In 2018, the preliminary cost estimate of operating all three of Idaho Power’s DR programs was $7.9 million through October 1, 2018. It is estimated that if the three programs were dispatched for the full 60 hours, the total costs would have been approximately $11.1 million, which is below the total annual costs agreed upon in the Settlement as revised in both the 2015 and 2017 IRP. 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 2018 Flex Peak Program Report Page 15 during the 2018 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 Load Serving Operators balancing the forecast when it did not align with actual peak load, as well as potentially avoid additional market purchases. Based on market prices for each of the days in 2018 the Program was dispatched, Idaho Power estimates the Program saved a total of $20,000 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. 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 2018 Annual Report when all the final 2018 financial data will be available. 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 three seasons. The prior two surveys conducted in 2015 and 2016 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. The Company plans to conduct a post season survey after the 2019 season to re- evaluate customer satisfaction with the Program offering. Program Activities for 2019 The primary improvement Idaho Power and the Program could benefit from is a larger enrolled nominated capacity and more consistent load reduction when events are called. The Company will continue to communicate the value proposition with enrolled participants and the importance of active participation when events are called. Recruitment efforts for the 2019 season will begin the fourth 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 Specialist has already started meeting with new potential candidates for the 2019 season. The Program will be jointly marketed along with Idaho Power’s applicable energy efficiency programs as needed. The Company will utilize its field representatives to retain the currently enrolled sites and encourage new sites to participate. Idaho Power Company Page 16 2018 Flex Peak Program Report Both the nomination and achieved reduction amounts decreased in 2018 due to one large customer that reduced its nominated amount in the Program by 65 percent due to market conditions. This specific customer reduced its enrolled nomination amount on June 5, 2018, after the auto-enrollment had been sent out in early March. This allowed the Company only 10 days to seek out new candidates to make up the 5 MW reduction. For the upcoming season, Idaho Power plans to focus on retaining currently enrolled participants and will actively market the Program. The Company is not seeking to expand the capacity of the FlexPeak Program, but recognizes there is attrition over time and many participants may reduce their nomination based on operational and business needs so it is important to consistently have at least 37-40 MW of nominated capacity available. This level of nominated capacity will allow events to achieve 35 MW of load reduction considering the typical realization rate of nominated capacity ranging from 85-95 percent. 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 cost of having this resource available was $15.89 per kW based on average reduction (26.3 MW) for the season. 2018 Irrigation Peak Rewards Program Report © 2019 Idaho Power Idaho Power Company Irrigation Peak Rewards Program Report Page i TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction ......................................................................................................................................1 Details ........................................................................................................................................1 Participation .....................................................................................................................................3 Operations ........................................................................................................................................5 Equipment ..................................................................................................................................5 Monitoring .................................................................................................................................6 Analysis............................................................................................................................................6 Data Gathering and Processing ..................................................................................................7 Individual Pump Location Load Reduction Results ..................................................................7 Baseline Calculations and Event Reduction Calculations .........................................................7 Potential Realization Rate Analysis ...........................................................................................8 Load Reduction Results – Total System Load Data ..................................................................9 Costs ...............................................................................................................................................10 Conclusions ....................................................................................................................................11 Appendix ........................................................................................................................................12 Abbreviations ...........................................................................................................................12 Automatic Dispatch Option .....................................................................................................12 Manual Dispatch Option ..........................................................................................................12 LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Monthly incentive rates for manual and automatic options ............................................3 Table 2. Eligible pump locations, nominated MW and participation levels by area ....................5 Table 3. Hourly demand reduction results (MW) for each event including line losses. ...............7 Table 4. Results for all options by percentage ..............................................................................8 Table 5. Annual program costs by category ...............................................................................10 Irrigation Peak Rewards Program Report Idaho Power Company Page ii LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Idaho Power service area ...............................................................................................4 Figure 2. Distribution of participants by service area ...................................................................4 Figure 3. Potential realization rate per day excluding Sunday’s and July 4th ...............................9 Figure 4. Load reduction results – total system load data ...........................................................10 Idaho Power Company 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 potentially high system load periods (summer peak). IPC estimates future capacity needs through the Integrated Resource Plan and then plans resources to mitigate these shortfalls. IPR is a result of this planning process and the success of the program is measured by the amount of demand reduction available to IPC during potential system peak periods. Details Interruption Options IPR is available to Idaho Power irrigation customers receiving service under Schedules 24 and 84 in Idaho and Oregon respectively. 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 be controlled. Communication is sent to the device during a load control event to turn off the pump. Nearly 90% of the devices use IPC’s Automated Metering Infrastructure (AMI) to send the signal to the demand response unit (DRU). If the meter at the service location is an AMI meter, then the pump panel will have a DRU installed. If AMI technology is not available, a cellular network device (cell device) is installed on the pump panel. Approximately 12% of the automatic dispatch option pumps have a cell device installed. The device has the same load 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 select a nominated load reduction of kilowatts (kW) they plan to turn off during load control season. Irrigation Peak Rewards Program Report Idaho Power Company Page 2 Parameters • Season dates June 15th – August 15th • Minimum of three load control events • Load control events may occur any weekday or Saturday, excluding July 4th holiday between the hours of 1:00 pm and 9:00 pm • 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 • Two ways to participate; Automatic or Manual • IPC provides notification via phone, email and/or text messaging 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 June 15th through August 15th. 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 allow the later dispatch time until 9:00 pm 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 2018. Incentives are calculated for Manual and Automatic dispatch participants using IPC metered billing data. Monthly billing credits are calculated and applied using IPC’s billing software. Manual credits are calculated using interval metering data and nominated kW and issued via mail in the form of a check. The incentive rates for 2018 are listed in Table 1. Idaho Power Company Irrigation Peak Rewards Program Report Page 3 Table 1. Monthly incentive rates for manual and automatic options Fixed Demand Credit ($/billing Fixed Energy Credit ($/billing Variable Energy Credit ($/billing Extended Variable Energy Credit* $5.00 $0.0076 $0.148 $0.198 *(5-9 pm group) Opt-Outs Under the rules of the automatic dispatch option, participants have the option to opt-out of a load control event up to five times per pump per season. Opt-out fees are equal to $5.00 multiplied by the billed kW for that billing cycle. An explicit opt-out occurs when the participant asks IPC to remove the pump for that specific load control event. PARTICIPATION IPR enrollment packets were mailed to all past participants in February 2018. 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 presented IPR details at irrigation workshops across the service area. IPC also had the opportunity to communicate program details while staffing the IPC booth at four agricultural shows across the service territory. IPC continues to make a concerted effort to encourage past participants to re-enroll. 2018 total billing demand enrollment was 416.8 MW with 2,335 pumps. The pump count and nominated kW increased over 2017 numbers. A total of 85.2% of the eligible pumps enrolled, an increase over last year of 1.7%. Figure 1 shows IPC’s service area divided into three regional areas; Canyon-West, Capital and South-East. Five areas within the three regions will be referenced throughout this report; Western, Canyon, Capital, Southern and Eastern. Irrigation Peak Rewards Program Report Idaho Power Company Page 4 Figure 1. Idaho Power service area Figure 2. Distribution of participants by service area 6% 14% 41% 35% 2% 2% 2018 Participation by Area Canyon Idaho Canyon Oregon Capital Idaho Eastern Idaho Southern Idaho Western Idaho Western Oregon Idaho Power Company Irrigation Peak Rewards Program Report Page 5 Table 2. Eligible pump locations, nominated MW and participation levels by area IPC Regional Area Eligible Service Locations Manual Dispatch Option Automatic Dispatch Option Total Enrolled by Area Eligible Enrolled Nominated MW 154 11 126 137 89.0% 38.1 4 0 3 3 75.0% 0.2 374 30 306 336 89.8% 91.1 1,118 0 946 946 84.6% 133.7 971 5 821 826 85.1% 138.9 60 0 40 40 66.7% 3.3 59 3 44 47 79.7% 11.5 2,740 49 2,286 2,335 85.2% 416.8 OPERATIONS Equipment IPC has expanded 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. AMI technology 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. During the 2018 season 2438 DRU’s were active and installed at 1998 pump locations. In addition to using AMI technology, IPC developed its own load control device. These devices utilize a cellular network signal to communicate with and shut off the pump during a load control event. The data available from the cellular device systems allows IPC to view status information for each location and successful cellular communication. Hourly usage data is not available at these sites. During the 2018 season 319 cellular devices were active and installed at 275 pump locations. In order to spread load reduction out over a period long enough to utilize full program capacity, IPC has four dispatch groups. Each group is a four-hour block of time. The 5:00 – 9:00 pm option may have an additional variable payment should four or more events be dispatched during the season. The four options for dispatch groups are as follows: • 2:00 – 6:00 pm • 3:00 – 7:00 pm • 4:00 – 8:00 pm • 5:00 – 9:00 pm Irrigation Peak Rewards Program Report Idaho Power Company Page 6 Monitoring Identification and correction of device failure is an ongoing effort before the season begins and throughout the season. The AMI hourly data and the AMI communication reports provide information as to which DRU’s are malfunctioning and need repair and/or replacement. A variety of issues with the DRU’s and Cellular devices were identified including: • Inoperable • Damaged or missing fuse in the DRU • DRU serial number had been recorded inaccurately and the system could not find the correct communication path • New panel install at the pump site • Water damage to the DRU • DRU missing - no longer at the pump location ANALYSIS The load reduction analysis or program performance for the season is calculated utilizing six primary sources: 1. Program participant list 2. AMI hourly usage data 3. Interval metering data 4. Cellular device data 5. Cellular device event communication data 6. Total system load data for event days and surrogate days The IPR participant data for each load reduction event day includes the following: • Pump number • Meter number • 2018 dispatch option • 2018 dispatch group • Nominated kW • Cellular device or DRU number IPC system load monitoring was used as a comparison for impact of the load reduction during the event. The total system load monitoring provides megawatt hour (MW) readings in five-minute increments on event days as well as comparative nonevent days. Idaho Power Company Irrigation Peak Rewards Program Report Page 7 Data Gathering and Processing Troubleshooting, customer payments and program performance are informed by data analysis. The first steps of the data analysis are gathering and processing the data. This included AMI Data, cellular device data, MV-90 hourly data and logged data from manually read meters. The data was then separated into three data sets: 1.Pumps with AMI technology and hourly usage data 2.Pumps with cellular device data3.Pumps running on the manual dispatch option with interval data Individual Pump Location Load Reduction Results Calculating the performance of the program requires a comparison between usage prior to the event and usage during the event. •Average of the hourly interval readings in the second, third and fourth hours of each dispatch group. The first hour is not considered in the baseline data due to the potential for a delay in AMI communications and the message may take up to 10 minutes to register at any specific pump location to shut down for the event therefore showing usage data in the first hour. •Each pump’s usage during the baseline hours is summed to arrive at a combined baseline for each dispatch group (reference Appendix for the demand reduction calculation method and definition of terms). Table 3. Hourly demand reduction results (MW) for each event including line losses. Event Date 2 - 3 PM 3 - 4 PM 4 - 5 PM 5 - 6 PM 6 - 7 PM 7 - 8 PM 8 - 9 PM 7/13/2018 75.9 149.3 231.8 296.7 218.0 139.3 58.3 7/17/2018 71.3 125.9 206.8 256.6 180.9 121.5 43.6 8/1/2018 54.3 117.3 206.8 263.8 208.5 142.7 54.6 Baseline Calculations and Event Reduction Calculations July 13th For the first event, some pumps that should have been active were still listed as inactive due to 2017 information that had not been written over. This occurred due to a modification file not being uploaded for the 2018 enrollments listing active and inactive Table 3 displays the load reduction results for each event day. Each event day includes the four dispatch groups. The load reductions at generation level include a 9.7 percent line loss. Irrigation Peak Rewards Program Report Idaho Power Company Page 8 participants. The modification file is tied to IPC customer information system (CR&B). CR&B holds the record throughout the program season. Without the update some of the pumps were not sent the communication for the DRU to turn the pump off. The mislabeled DRU’s were 1.08% of the 2018 program’s nominated kW. The modification file was uploaded after the first event and a process put in place to ensure timely uploading in the future. July 17th The second event communication to the DRU’s for multiple pumps failed due to a vendor provided software issue. This issue impacted the 4:00 pm dispatch group the most, of the DRU’s enrolled in the program 6.12% did not receive the communication due to this issue. IPC substations contain equipment to transmit the communication to the service points/ DRU’s served in that area. After the issue was identified through the metering department, the technical expert reinstated the communications in time for the 5:00 pm dispatch group to work successfully. In addition to the communication failure on the July 17th event, there were also three substations with no communication to the DRU’s. Two substations provided no communication due to power outages in the area and one substation provided no communication because the AMI communication equipment was not operating. August 1st The third event of the season went smoothly. The notifications to participants went out as designed and the communication to the DRU’s occurred without delays. Overall, the event had lower load reduction due to being scheduled later in the season when many of the participants were done watering their crops for the year. Potential Realization Rate Analysis 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 on and available for shut off during the demand response event. Potential realization rate is reduced by device failures, opt-outs and small loads left on during an event. These reductions averaged 3.59% for the 2018 season. Table 4 shows results for each event and identifies and categorizes the load left on at participating service locations. Table 4. Results for all options by percentage Percentage of MW on during each event by reason Event Date Small Load Opt Out Device Failure Total Idaho Power Company Irrigation Peak Rewards Program Report Page 9 The potential realization rate is the percentage of enrolled demand expected to result in an actual load reduction on the system during a given interruption period in a typical summer. This rate is highest at the end of June and the beginning of July when a larger percentage of irrigation pumps are operating nearly 24 hours per day seven days per week. The potential realization rate is lower later in the season when many pumps are not operating due to crop maturity and reduced watering demands, primarily for grain crops. Figure 3 shows eligible days in the season and the pumping load of participating pumps. The percentage of load running is reduced by the average percentage of load left on during the three load control event days. The graph shows a maximum potential realization rate of 68.5% which results in a maximum potential load reduction for IPR of 313.5 MW. Figure 3. Potential realization rate per day excluding Sunday’s and July 4th Load Reduction Results – Total System Load Data Idaho Power measures system load data in five-minute intervals. These data were also used to estimate load reduction for IPR. Each event day is considered to evaluate the results of the program operation. The reduction is considered an estimate due to the magnitude of what would have happened absent an event. Figure 4 shows an 63 . 5 % 58 . 3 % 45 . 5 % 47 . 2 % 51 . 3 % 60 . 7 % 65 . 2 % 60 . 5 % 64 . 1 % 67 . 4 % 66 . 1 % 65 . 8 % 67 . 2 % 67 . 6 % 68 . 1 % 68 . 5 % 64 . 1 % 65 . 9 % 66 . 4 % 65 . 3 % 64 . 9 % 61 . 8 % 61 . 6 % 59 . 0 % 60 . 9 % 54 . 3 % 49 . 5 % 55 . 5 % 56 . 7 % 55 . 6 % 52 . 8 % 51 . 8 % 51 . 3 % 49 . 5 % 50 . 5 % 52 . 1 % 50 . 5 % 50 . 7 % 50 . 9 % 49 . 5 % 50 . 2 % 49 . 5 % 50 . 5 % 51 . 2 % 50 . 4 % 46 . 7 % 48 . 0 % 49 . 4 % 49 . 0 % 46 . 7 % 47 . 0 % 46 . 5 % 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0% 100.0% 2018 Potential Realization Rate Irrigation Peak Rewards Program Report Idaho Power Company Page 10 approximate reduction of 300 MW at 6:00 pm which correlates well with the interval metering data analysis. Figure 4. Load reduction results – total system load data COSTS IPR spent a total of $6,891,737.00 with the incentive credit being the largest portion at 96.2% of total program costs. Incentives paid for the 2018 season totaled $6,636,510. Table 5. Annual program costs by category Expense Item 2018 Total Cost 1500 1700 1900 2100 2300 2500 2700 2900 3100 3300 3500 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 7/13/2018 7/13/2018 - Expected 7/17/2018 7/17/2018 - Expected 8/1/2018 8/1/2018 - Expected Idaho Power Company Irrigation Peak Rewards Program Report Page 11 CONCLUSIONS 2018 Irrigation Peak Rewards had a demand reduction potential reduction of 313.5 MW and an actual reduction of 296.7 including line losses. Idaho Power Company runs three demand response programs; Irrigation Peak Rewards - Irrigation, Flex Peak - Commercial/Industrial and A/C Cool Credit - Residential. The total load reduction for all three demand response programs was 384.5. Irrigation Peak Rewards presents approximately 81.5% of the total load reduction for the company. Highlights listed below: • 2,335 pumps enrolled • 2,438 active AMI DRU’s • 319 active IPC cellular devices • 85.2% of eligible pump locations participated • Event 1 – July 13th - max reduction 296.7 MW • Event 2 – July 17th - max reduction 256.6 MW • Event 3 – August 1st - max reduction 263.8 MW • The cost of having this resource available was $21.98 per kW • The cost of running the program for three events this season was $6.9 million • The estimated additional cost of running the program at the full 60 hours per season or an additional 48 hours is approximately $2.9 million Irrigation Peak Rewards Program Report Idaho Power Company Page 12 APPENDIX This appendix is a detailed account of the 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 MV-90—Specific Meter Package with Interval Data Σ—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 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 = Σ DRpump (groups 1-4) Load reduction for the automatic dispatch option was calculated as follows: DRado = Σ DRgroup Manual Dispatch Option Data utilized for manual dispatch option participants is AMI hourly usage or MV-90 interval data. Load reduction for manual dispatch option was calculated as follows: Idaho Power Company Abbreviated Title Page 13 DRgroup = Σ DRpump AMI + Σ DRpump MV-90 The total demand reduction for the Manual Dispatch Option was calculated as follows: DRMDO = Σ 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 2018 Demand Response Analysis Prepared by: Idaho Power December 2018 2 3 Executive Summary Four three-hour AC Cool Credit events were run July 16, 25, 31, and August 6. Peak program demand reduction occurred July 16th (1.05 kW/participant, 26.5 MW). Accounting for system average energy losses at peak of 9.7% between generation facilities and customers, the max 2018 peak reduction in reduction was 29.1 MW. The average hourly meter level demand reduction between the four events ranged from 0.33 kW per participant on August 6th to 0.98 on July 16th. The August 6th event was called despite lower temperatures to help regional reliability following a major power line outside of Idaho Power service area went out of service. Analysis Methodology AC Cool Credit participants’ hourly consumption data was used to estimate demand reduction for all events. The hourly consumption data approach was validated in the 2012 impact evaluation, which analyzed both AMI and logger data, and demonstrated that both sources produced similar estimations of energy reduction per curtailment event. The analytical approach was established through 3rd party evaluations from 2014-2016. Data Cleaning Participants were merged with hourly consumption data for each event day and the 10 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 the 4-7 pm event hours or 3 pm prior to the event was removed from the analysis. 96% of all customer sites were preserved after data cleaning. The sub-sections below describe the project’s methodology related to the sampling plan, demand reduction analysis, and updating of the predictive model. 4 Table 1. 2018 Summary of events and participation Curtailment Event Event Hours AC units enrolled Sites Analyzed for Reduction* July 16 4pm – 7pm 26,180 25,175 July 25 4pm – 7pm 26,059 25,063 July 31 4pm – 7pm 25,975 24,981 Aug 6 4pm – 7pm 25,975 24,981 Notes: Customer sites may have more than one AC unit enrolled in program. 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 ten non- curtailment days, as ranked by the highest hourly demand occurring during the 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 four curtailment events were completed as part of the 2018 A/C Cool Credit program. Table 2 below details the characteristics of these events, including daily high temperature, event time period, and cycling percent. 5 Table 2. 2018 Summary Results of Curtailment Events Event Date and High Temp Cycling % Region Avg. kW Reduction per Participant Max kW Reduction per Participant Avg. Total kW Reduction Max Total kW Reduction July 16 Boise: 97 Poc/TF: 91 55% All .98 1.05 24,578 26,468 Boise 1.05 1.14 22,458 24,393 Poc/TF 0.55 0.57 -2,064 -2,108 July 25 Boise: 100 Poc/TF: 94 55% All 0.94 0.99 24,436 24,893 Boise 1.00 0.95 20,193 21,419 Poc/TF 0.89 0.96 3,396 3,632 July 31 Boise: 97 Poc/TF: 93 55% All 0.55 0.59 13,884 14,661 Boise 0.57 0.61 12,218 12,939 Poc/TF 0.49 0.45 1,686 1,710 August 6 Boise: 93 Poc/TF: 87 55% All 0.33 0.38 8,148 9,520 Boise .37 .39 7,759 8,693 Poc/TF 0.13 0.22 475 846 6 Figure 1. July 16th 2018 Figure 2. July 25th 2018 7 Figure 3 July 31st 2018 Figure 4 August 6th 2018 IDAHO POWER ENERGY-SAVING KIT PROGRAM SUMMARY REPORT 2018 SUBMITTED BY: RESOURCE ACTION PROGRAMS® Submitted by: January 2019 Idaho Power Energy-Saving Kit Program Summary Report 2018 Sponsored by: Idaho Power Energy-Saving Kit Program Summary Report2 “Shower timer: 3 people — 40 gallon water heater — you do the math. :)” – 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 ...................................10 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 Evolve TSV Combo 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 Served .....................................................................34 Oregon Cities & Towns Served ..................................................................35 Idaho Power Regions Served ....................................................................36 Idaho Power Energy-Saving Kit Program Summary Report4Executive Summary “Really love all the bulbs! Thank you for helping us out!” – 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 2018 Energy-Saving Kit program, which was implemented by forty-three thousand, eight-hundred forty nine (43,849) Idaho households and eight-hundred forty two (842) 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 43,849 Idaho and 842 Oregon households. • Affected all five regions of the Idaho Power service territory • Affected 107 cities & towns in Idaho • Affected 19 cities & towns in Oregon REGIONS HOUSEHOLDS ELECTRIC KIT NON-ELECTRIC KIT Canyon 7,182 3,334 3,848 Capital 27,341 8,317 19,024 Eastern 3,049 1,805 1,244 Southern 3,878 2,426 1,416 Western 3,241 2,465 776 TOTALS 44,691 18,383 26,308 2. Generated residential energy and water savings. Projected annual savings: • 214,488,146 gallons of water saved • 16,823,689 kWh of electricity saved • 103,394 therms of gas saved Executive Summary (continued on next page) Idaho Power Energy-Saving Kit Program Summary Report6Executive Summary 3. Idaho Power supported their customers through utilization of the following diverse marketing methods. ● Direct Mail ● Other: ● Email from Idaho Power ✔ Fair/Expo/Tradeshow ✔ School ● Idaho Power employee ✔ Fit One ✔ Senior Center ● Idaho Power website ✔ Home and Garden Show ✔ Smart Women Smart Money Conf. ● Info in bill ✔ Home Energy Report ✔ TV ● Facebook/Twitter ✔ Energy Savings Booklet ✔ WICAP Head Start ● Friend or Family ✔ Flyer ✔ Miscellaneous ✔ New customer Welcome Kit ✔ Other ✔ Nextdoor ✔ Blank ✔ Reddit 4. Designed and provided complementary educational materials and incentives to maximize installation of targeted efficiency measures (Installation rates ranged from 44 – 96 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 was launched in January. Direct mailings were distributed in January (49,288), April (47,537) and September (92,500) and resulted in immediate positive response from Idaho Power customers. Program content on the Idaho Power website, mention on the Idaho Power Infomercial combined with community events generated a steady demand for the energy-saving kit. The program served a total of 44,691 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 (in-kit). The purpose of the survey was to increase educational retention and impact while serving as a data collection tool. New to 2018, a second follow-up survey was distributed two months after participants’ kit receipt. The objective being to determine if those initially responding they had not yet installed but will followed through. The installation responses in the follow-up surveys confirmed they did as overall installation percentages improved. (continued) OPTING-IN METHODS HOUSEHOLDS % Website 16,256 36.4% Phone 1,638 3.7% Postcards 26,797 60.0% Resource Action Programs®7Executive Summary PROJECTED ANNUAL SAVINGS 214,488,146 gallons of water saved 16,823,689 kWh of electricity saved 103,394 therms of gas saved PROJECTED ANNUAL SAVINGS PER HOME 11,668 gallons of water saved 376 kWh of electricity saved 2 therms of gas saved PROJECTED LIFETIME SAVINGS 1,845,124,456 gallons of water saved 156,010,094 kWh of electricity saved 206,787 therms of gas saved PROJECTED LIFETIME SAVINGS PER HOME 100,371 gallons of water saved 3,491 kWh of electricity saved 5 therms of gas saved Survey responses indicated high participant satisfaction and participation in product retrofits and adoption of new energy saving behaviors. Total 16,078 households returned completed surveys and the responses were overwhelmingly positive. Highlights include: 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: 57+43+F Reported households with the Evolve TSV & Showerhead installed. 57%56+44+F Reported households who used the Shower Timer. 56%50+50+F Reported households with ALL 9 LED Light Bulbs installed. 50%96+4+F Reported households with the LED Night Light installed. 96% Idaho Power Energy-Saving Kit Program Summary Report8RAP Direct-to-Customer Programs “Love the showerhead.” – 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 650,000 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 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. HEARD ABOUT PROGRAM HOUSEHOLDS % Direct Mail 31,937 71.46% Email from Idaho Power 1,112 2.49% Idaho Power employee 1,371 3.07% Idaho Power Website 1,372 3.07% Info in Bill 1,330 2.98% Facebook/Twitter 323 0.72% Friend or Family 3,509 7.85% Other - Fair/Expo/Tradeshow 70 0.16% Other - Fit One 46 0.10% Other - Home and Garden Show 75 0.17% Other - Home Energy Report 15 0.03% Other - Energy Savings Booklet 12 0.03% Other - Flyer 22 0.05% Other - New Customer Welcome Kit 10 0.02% Other - Nextdoor 33 0.07% Other - Reddit 11 0.02% Other - School 20 0.04% Other - Senior Center 15 0.03% Other - Smart Women Smart Money Conference 10 0.02% Other - TV 157 0.35% Other - WICAP Head Start 17 0.04% Other - Miscellaneous 446 1.00% Other 196 0.44% Blank 2,582 5.78% TOTALS 44,691 100% Resource Action Programs®11Program Overview 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 16,078 participating households, representing an average response rate of 36% of the 44,691 energy-saving kits distributed. A monthly drawing for a $100 gift card provided the incentive for returning the household installation surveys. OPTING-IN METHODS HOUSEHOLDS % Website 16,256 36.4% Phone 1,638 3.7% Postcards 26,797 60.0% 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 (excluding 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 wa 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 kit? 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 about 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 g i f t 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 A009 2 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/Manu f a c t u r e d h o m e 2. How many peo 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 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 install, 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 t h 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 140 ° F Did not check w a t e r t e m p e r a t u r e 120° F to 130 ° 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 9. Electric wate r h e a t e r ? 10. Refrigerator? 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 satisfi e d Somewhat d i s s a t i s f i e d Somewhat satisfi e d Very dissat i s f i e d 13. Did you rece 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 un l i k e l y Somewhat l i k e l y Very unlikely 15. Prior to hearing ab 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 No16. 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 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 unlikel y 18. If you did not 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 survey 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 ente r 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-paid 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 bu 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 Idaho_ 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 “Installed all and happy with all.” – Idaho Power Energy-Saving Kit Program Participant Resource Action Programs®17Program Impact The program impacted 107 cities and towns throughout Idaho and 19 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 - 50% Did you install the LED Night Light? Yes - 96% Did you install the Evolve TSV & Showerhead? Yes - 57% Did you use the Shower Timer? Yes - 56% Idaho Power Energy-Saving Kit Program Impact 57+43+F Reported households with the Evolve TSV & Showerhead installed. 57%56+44+F Reported households who used the Shower Timer. 56%50+50+F Reported households with ALL 9 LED Light Bulbs installed. 50%96+4+F Reported households with the LED Night Light installed. 96% 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 surveys as the basis for this calculation, 44,691 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:44,691 Number of Electric Only Participants:18,383 Number of Non-Electric Participants:26,308 Annual Lifetime Projected reduction from Showerhead retrofit:102,246,454 1,022,464,540 gallons Measure Life: 10 years 4,411,920 44,119,200 kWh Projected reduction from Shower Timer installation:37,469,625 74,939,250 gallons Product Life: 2 years 2,806,400 5,612,800 kWh 103,394 206,787 therms Projected reduction from Kitchen Faucet Aerator retrofit:43,472,132 434,721,318 gallons Measure Life: 10 years 2,463,322 24,633,220 kWh Projected reduction from Bathroom Faucet Aerator retrofit:31,299,935 312,999,349 gallons Measure Life: 10 years 2,757,450 27,574,500 kWh Projected reduction from 9-watt LED Light Bulbs:2,198,797 28,804,243 kWh Measure Life: 13.1 years Projected reduction from 6-watt LED Light Bulbs:1,099,399 14,402,122 kWh Measure Life: 13.1 years Projected reduction from LED Night Light:1,086,401 10,864,009 kWh Measure Life: 10 years TOTAL PROJECTED PROGRAM SAVINGS:214,488,146 1,845,124,456 gallons 16,823,689 156,010,094 kWh 103,394 206,787 therms TOTAL PROJECTED PROGRAM SAVINGS PER HOUSEHOLD:11,667.74 100,371.24 gallons 376 3,491 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 IN-KITSURVEYSRECEIVED IN-KITSURVEY RESPONSE % FOLLOW-UPSURVEYS RECEIVED* FOLLOW-UPSURVEY RESPONSE%* Electric 18,383 2,051 11.2%6,220 33.8% Non-Electric 26,308 4,084 15.5%9,858 37.5% TOTAL 44,691 6,135 13.7%16,078 36.0% 85+15+F Reported households that were very likely to tell a friend or family member to order a kit. 85%78+22+F Reported households that were very likely to participate in another energy efficiency program. 78%93+7+F Reported households that were very satisfied with the ordering process. 93%96+4+F Reported households that received their kits within 3 weeks. 96% How satisfied were you with the kit ordering process? Very Satisfied - 93% Did you receive your kit within 3 weeks? Yes - 96% How likely would you be to tell a friend or family member to order a kit? Very Likely - 85% How likely are you to participate in another energy efficiency program? Very Likely - 78% *Includes Q3 2017 served, excludes November & December 2018 served due to every other month distribution. Idaho Power Energy-Saving Kit Program Summary Report20Program Impact Really love all the LED bulbs! Thank you for helping us out! :) Thank you so much for sending all these helpful items. I’m sure they will be a big change for the better. Again — thank you. We installed them in all of our lights :) Thank you! I liked it and went and got more light bulbs to complete the house. Thank you. I was very satisfied with all the products you supplied. Idaho Power has done an excellent job of informing consumers of cost-energy savings — thanx. I put them in and I love them all. Thank you. My kids told me about it. And I am so glad. Will use as needed, just replaced kitchen and bath aerator. Showerhead goes in today. Checking freezer temp but turned down hot water heater and freezer after talking to Idaho Power representative, prior to receiving kit, which we are so pleased with. Thank you. Installed all items, thank you very much for this program. I hope more ID Power Company customers will take advantage of the program. So excited about these items — we are always looking for ways to reduce our footprint and save money! Thank you! I will use or share everything. I am very energy conscious. I installed what I could. Would like solar power incentives. All lights had been changed! I installed all of them and I think this is one of the finest programs available to the public. We are very delighted with the kit. The light is so much brighter and the kids are having a blast trying to keep their showers to 5 minutes, so we appreciate our gift very much. Great kit! Thank you. We’ve been in our home since 1974. Thank you for such a great service. We’re in our 80s, so it really helps us. I installed everything but the LED light bulbs, but will when the old ones need replacing. I’m 100% LED now. I really looked forward to having you pick up my old refrigerator. I just replaced — why did you end that program!? Participant Responses Resource Action Programs®21Program Impact Plan on installing all of it. Already had some installed. Thanks so much for the kit. I now have them all installed. Kitchen faucet aerator already installed. We have CFL bulbs in some of our lights. As soon as they burn out we will replace them with the LEDs. I installed everything. Thank you for the great energy-saving kit. Thank you for making me more aware of energy saving items and ideas. I use all of the kit items… I love it because it did save me energy. We plan to use all. Thank you. Going to install everything. :) We’ve already implemented many of these features — the biggest help was the webpage and its “hour usage” function. Wow — we cut our power in half! Everything is installed. Thank you for the kit. Used all of the LED bulbs, plus went out and bought more. All lights in our house are now LED. The other items we did not need and gave to less fortunate family member to use. Thank you so much! Awesome kit! We used and loved everything. The thermometer is/was excellent. We have adjusted many things because of it. Thanks! Great program! Kids love shower timer! Thank you! Please keep this kind of program going! We are very grateful for our energy kit and have used everything we can. We will try our best to continue saving energy with your help! Each household needs one of these kits!! :) 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 Evolve TSV Combo 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 Served ..........................................................................34 Oregon Cities & Towns Served .......................................................................35 Idaho Power Regions Served .........................................................................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:44,691 Deemed savings per lamp (kWh):8.20 kWh1 Measure life:13.1 years1 Projected Electricity Savings: The LED retrofit projects an annual reduction of:2,198,797 kWh2 The LED retrofit projects a lifetime reduction of:28,804,243 kWh3 1 Based on Regional Technical Forum. By request. General purpose and Three-Way. 250 to 1049 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). 6-watt LED Light Bulb retrofit inputs and assumptions: Lamps per participant: 3 Number of participants:44,691 Deemed savings per lamp (kWh):8.20 kWh1 Measure life:13.1 years1 Projected Electricity Savings: The LED retrofit projects an annual reduction of:1,099,399 kWh2 The LED retrofit projects a lifetime reduction of:14,402,122 kWh3 1. Based on Regional Technical Forum. By request. General purpose and Three-Way. 250 to 1049 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 Evolve TSV Combo showerhead retrofit inputs and assumptions: Showerheads per electric DHW kit: 1 Number of electric DHW participants:18,383 Domestic electric hot water reported:100%1 Number of people per household: 2.59 1 Deemed Savings: 240.00 2 Length of average shower: 7.84 minutes3 Showerhead (baseline): 2.50 gpm3 TSV Combo showerhead new (retrofit): 1.75 gpm Measure life: 10.00 years2 Projected Electricity Savings: TSV Combo showerhead retrofit projects an annual reduction of:4,411,920 kWh5 TSV Combo showerhead retrofit projects a lifetime reduction of:44,119,200 kWh5 Potential Water Savings with 100 Percent Installation: TSV Combo showerhead retrofit projects an annual reduction of:102,246,454 gallons4 TSV Combo showerhead retrofit projects a lifetime reduction of:1,022,464,540 gallons4 1. Data Reported by Program Participants. 2. Based on Regional Technical Forum. ThermostaticShowerRestrictionValve_1_3.xlsm. 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 Evolve TSV Combo 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:18,383 Domestic electric hot water reported:100%1 Number of people per household:2.59 1 Savings:134 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 Electricity Savings: Kitchen Faucet Aerator retrofit projects an annual reduction of:2,463,322 kWh4 Kitchen Faucet Aerator retrofit projects a lifetime reduction of:24,633,220 kWh5 Potential Water Savings with 100 Percent Installation: Kitchen Faucet Aerator retrofit projects an annual reduction of:43,472,132 gallons6 Kitchen Faucet Aerator retrofit projects a lifetime reduction of:434,721,318 gallons6 1. Data Reported by Program Participants. 2. Provided by Idaho Power. From Measure Approval Document for Energy Saver Kits. January 1, 2018-December 31, 2018. Energy Trust of Oregon. 3. (March 20, 2014). Blessing Memo for LivingWise Kits for 2014, Paul Sklar, E.I., Planning Engineer Energy Trust of Oregon. 4. Kitchen Aerators kWh formula (Number of Participants x Savings). 5. Kitchen Faucet Aerator kWh lifetime savings formula (Annual savings x Measure life). 6. 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). 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:18,383 Domestic electric hot water reported:100%1 Number of people per household:2.59 1 Savings:75 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 Electricity Savings: Bathroom Faucet Aerator retrofit projects an annual reduction of:2,757,450 kWh4 Bathroom Faucet Aerator retrofit projects a lifetime reduction of:27,574,500 kWh5 Potential Water Savings with 100 Percent Installation: Bathroom Faucet Aerator retrofit projects an annual reduction of:31,299,935 gallons6 Bathroom Faucet Aerator retrofit projects a lifetime reduction of:312,999,349 gallons6 1. Data Reported by Program Participants. 2. Provided by Idaho Power. From Measure Approval Document for Energy Saver Kits. January 1, 2018-December 31, 2018. Energy Trust of Oregon. 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 kWh formula (Number of participants x savings x Bathroom Faucet Aerators per electric DHW kit). 5 Bathroom Faucet Aerator kWh lifetime savings formula (Annual savings x Measure life). 6. 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). 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:44,691 3 Projected Electricity Savings: The Energy Efficient Night Light retrofit projects an annual reduction of:1,086,401 kWh4 The Energy Efficient Night Light retrofit projects a lifetime reduction of:10,864,009 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:44,691 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:37,469,625 gallons6 Shower Timer installation projects a lifetime reduction of:74,939,250 gallons7 Projected Electricity Savings: Shower Timer installation projects an annual reduction of:2,806,400 kWh8 Shower Timer installation projects a lifetime reduction of:5,612,800 kWh9 Projected Natural Gas Savings: Shower Timer installation projects an annual reduction of:103,394 therms10 Shower Timer installation projects a lifetime reduction of:206,787 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 41% Gas 58% Other 1% 2 Do you own or rent your home? Own 88% Rent 12% 3 What is the primary method of heating your home? Gas forced air 68% Heat pump 6% Electric forced air 17% Baseboard or ceiling cable 4% Other 5% 4 What is the primary method of cooling your home? Central A/C 77% Window A/C 11% Heat pump 6% Other 2% None 4% 5 What, if any, energy-saving improvements are you planning to make in the next two years? Windows 27% Furnace or A/C 16% Insulation 11% Appliances 19% Smart thermostat 16% Other 11% 6 How did you hear about this kit offering? Direct mail 77% Idaho Power employee 3% Idaho Power website 3% Info in bill 3% Facebook/Twitter 1% Friend or Family 9% Other 3% 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 86% Apartment, Condo, Townhouses, or Multi-family with 2-3 units 5% Apartment, Condo, Townhouses, or Multi-family with 4 or more units 2% Mobile/Manufactured home 7% 2 How many people live in your home? 5 or more 8% 4 11% 3 13% 2 48% 1 20% 3 How many of the LEDs did you install? All of them 48% 7-8 5% 5-6 16% 3-4 17% 1-2 8% None 6% 4 If you did not install all of the LEDs, what did you do with the remainer? 29% Stored for later use 65% Gave them to someone else 2% Other _________5% 5 Have you installed the Evolve Showerhead? Yes 46% Not yet, but will 40% No, won't use 14% 6 Have you installed the Kitchen Faucet Aerator? 47% Not yet, but will 29% 23% 7 Have you installed the Bathroom Faucet Aerator #1? 55% Not yet, but will 33% 12% 8 Have you installed the Bathroom Faucet Aerator #2? Yes 38% Not yet, but will 37% 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 87% Not yet, but will 11% No, won't use 2% 10 Have you used the Shower Timer? Yes 50% Not yet, but will 32% No, won't use 18% 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% < 121 F 26% Did not check water temperature 39% 13 Did you adjust the temperature of your electric water heater? Yes, I lowered it 20% Yes, I raised it 2% No, I did not adjust 79% 14 Did you adjust the temperature of your refrigerator? Yes, I lowered it 24% Yes, I raised it 12% No, I did not adjust 64% 15 Did you adjust the temperature of your freezer? Yes, I lowered it 19% Yes, I raised it 10% No, I did not adjust 71% 16 How satisfied were you with the kit ordering process? Very satisfied 93% Somewhat satisfied 5% Somewhat dissatisfied 0% Very dissatisfied 1% 17 Did you receive your kit within 3 weeks? Yes 96% No 4% 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 85% Somewhat likely 13% 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 31% No 69% 21 How likely are you to participate in another energy efficiency program? Very likely 78% Somewhat likely 19% Somewhat unlikely 2% Very unlikely 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 Served IDAHO CITIES & TOWNS SERVED ABERDEEN GLENNS FERRY NEW MEADOWS AMERICAN FALLS GOODING NEW PLYMOUTH ARBON GRANDVIEW NORTH FORK BANKS GREENLEAF NOTUS BELLEVUE HAGERMAN OAKLEY BLACKFOOT HAILEY OLA BLISS HAMMETT OREANA BOISE HANSEN PARMA BRUNEAU HAZELTON PAUL BUHL HOMEDALE PAYETTE BURLEY HORSESHOE BEND PICABO CALDWELL IDAHO CITY PINE CAMBRIDGE INDIAN VALLEY PINGREE CAREY INKOM PLACERVILLE CARMEN JEROME POCATELLO CASCADE KETCHUM POLLOCK CASTLEFORD KIMBERLY RICHFIELD CENTERVILLE KING HILL RIGGINS CHUBBUCK KUNA ROCKLAND CORRAL LAKE FORK ROGERSON COUNCIL LEADORE RUPERT DIETRICH LEMHI SALMON DONNELLY LETHA SHOSHONE EAGLE LOWMAN SPRINGFIELD EAST MAGIC MARSING STAR EDEN MCCALL STERLING EMMETT MELBA SUN VALLEY FAIRFIELD MERIDIAN SWEET FEATHERVILLE MESA TENDOY FILER MIDDLETON TWIN FALLS FORT HALL MIDVALE WEISER FRUITLAND MONTOUR WENDELL FRUITVALE MOUNTAIN HOME WEST MAGIC GARDEN CITY MURPHY WILDER GARDEN VALLEY MURTAUGH YELLOW PINE GIBBONSVILLE NAMPA TOTAL NUMBER OF CITIES & TOWNS SERVED: 107 TOTAL NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS SERVED: 43,849 Resource Action Programs®35Appendix C Ap p e n d i x C Oregon Cities & Towns Served OREGON CITIES & TOWNS SERVED ADRIAN HEREFORD ONTARIO AROCK HUNTINGTON OXBOW BROGAN IRONSIDE RICHLAND DREWSEY JAMIESON UNITY DURKEE JORDAN VALLEY VALE HALFWAY JUNTURA HARPER NYSSA TOTAL NUMBER OF CITIES & TOWNS SERVED: 19 TOTAL NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS SERVED: 842 Idaho Power Energy-Saving Kit Program Summary Report36Appendix C Ap p e n d i x C REGIONS (IDAHO)ELECTRIC NON-ELECTRIC CANYON 3,315 3,848 CAPITAL 8,317 19,024 EASTERN 1,805 1,244 SOUTHERN 2,462 1,416 WESTERN 1,789 629 NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS IMPACTED: 17,688 26,161 TOTAL NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS IMPACTED:43,849 REGIONS (OREGON)ELECTRIC NON-ELECTRIC CANYON 19 0 WESTERN 676 147 NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS IMPACTED:695 147 TOTAL NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS IMPACTED:842 REGIONS (IDAHO POWER)ELECTRIC NON-ELECTRIC NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS IMPACTED: 18,383 26,308 TOTAL NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS IMPACTED:44,691 Idaho Power Regions Served ©2019 Resource Action Programs N30000 976 United Circle • Sparks, NV 89431 www.resourceaction.com • (888) 438-9473 ©2019 Resource Action Programs® Historical DSM Expense and Performance 2002–2018 Historical DSM Expense and Performance 2002–2018 Idaho Power Company Page ii Demand-Side Management 2018 Annual Report Idaho Power Company Historical DSM Expense and Performance 2002–2018 Demand-Side Management 2018 Annual Report Page 1 Historical DSM Expense and Performance, 2002–2018 Total Costs Savings and Demand Reductions Measure Life (Years) Levelized Costs a Program/Year Participants Utility Cost b Resource Cost c Annual Energy (kWh)Peak Demand d (MW)Total Utility ($/kWh)Total Resource ($/kWh) Demand Response A/C Cool Credit 2003 ...................204 $275,645 $275,645 0.0 2004 ...................420 287,253 287,253 0.5 2005 ...................2,369 754,062 754,062 3 2006 ...................5,369 1,235,476 1,235,476 6 2007 ...................13,692 2,426,154 2,426,154 12 2008 ...................20,195 2,969,377 2,969,377 26 2009 ...................30,391 3,451,988 3,451,988 39 2010 ...................30,803 2,002,546 2,002,546 39 2011 ....................37,728 2,896,542 2,896,542 24 2012 ...................36,454 5,727,994 5,727,994 45 2013 ...................n/a 663,858 663,858 n/a 2014 ...................29,642 1,465,646 1,465,646 44 2015 ...................29,000 1,148,935 1,148,935 36 2016 ...................28,315 1,103,295 1,103,295 34 2017 ...................28,214 936,272 936,272 29 2018 ...................25,845 844,369 844,369 29 Total .......................$28,189,412 $$28,189,411 Flex Peak Program 2009 ...................33 528,681 528,681 19 2010 ...................60 1,902,680 1,902,680 48 2011 ....................111 2,057,730 2,057,730 59 2012 ...................102 3,009,822 3,009,822 53 2013 ...................100 2,743,615 2,743,615 48 2014 ...................93 1,563,211 1,563,211 40 2015 ...................72 592,872 592,872 26 2016 ...................137 767,997 767,997 42 2017 ...................141 658,156 658,156 36 2018 ...................140 433,313 433,313 33 Total .......................$$14,258,076 $$14,258,076 Historical DSM Expense and Performance 2002–2018 Idaho Power Company Page 2 Demand-Side Management 2018 Annual Report Total Costs Savings and Demand Reductions Measure Life (Years) Levelized Costs a Program/Year Participants Utility Cost b Resource Cost c Annual Energy (kWh) Peak Demand d (MW) Total Utility ($/kWh) Total Resource ($/kWh) Irrigation Peak Rewards 2004 ...................58 344,714 344,714 6 2005 ...................894 1,468,282 1,468,282 40 2006 ...................906 1,324,418 1,324,418 32 2007 ...................947 1,615,881 1,615,881 37 2008 ...................897 1,431,840 1,431,840 35 2009 ...................1,512 9,655,283 9,655,283 160 2010 ...................2,038 13,330,826 13,330,826 250 2011 ....................2,342 12,086,222 12,086,222 320 2012 ...................2,433 12,423,364 12,423,364 340 2013 ...................n/a 2,072,107 2,072,107 n/a 2014 ...................2,225 7,597,213 7,597,213 295 2015 ...................2,259 7,258,831 7,258,831 305 2016 ...................2,286 7,600,076 7,600,076 303 2017 ...................2,307 7,223,101 7,223,101 318 2018 ...................2,335 6,891,737 6,891,737 297 Total .......................$92,323,895 $92,323,895 Residential Efficiency Ductless Heat Pump Pilot 2009 ...................96 202,005 451,605 409,180 18 0.031 0.086 2010 ...................104 189,231 439,559 364,000 20 0.044 0.103 2011 ....................131 191,183 550,033 458,500 20 0.028 0.081 2012 ...................127 159,867 617,833 444,500 20 0.024 0.094 2013 ...................215 237,575 992,440 589,142 15 0.032 0.132 2014 ...................179 251,446 884,211 462,747 15 0.042 0.148 Total .......................852 $1,231,307 $3,935,681 2,728,069 15 $0.044 $0.138 Easy Savings : Low-Income Energy Efficiency Education 2015 ...................2,068 127,477 127,477 624,536 10 0.021 0.021 2016 ...................2,001 127,587 127,587 402,961 9 0.035 0.035 2017 ...................2,470 149,813 149,813 280,049 8 0.064 0.064 2018 ...................282 147,936 147,936 29,610 3 1.37 1.37 Total .......................6,821 $552,812 $552,812 1,337,156 3 $0.138 $0.138 Idaho Power Company Historical DSM Expense and Performance 2002–2018 Demand-Side Management 2018 Annual Report Page 3 Total Costs Savings and Demand Reductions Measure Life (Years) Levelized Costs a Program/Year Participants Utility Cost b Resource Cost c Annual Energy (kWh) Peak Demand d (MW) Total Utility ($/kWh) Total Resource ($/kWh) Educational Distributions 2015 ...................28,197 432,185 432,185 1,669,495 10 0.026 0.026 2016 ...................67,065 2,392,884 2,392,884 15,149,605 10 0.016 0.016 2017 ...................84,399 3,466,027 3,466,027 21,187,261 11 0.016 0.016 2018 ...................94,717 3,180,380 3,180,380 16,051,888 11 0.019 0.019 Total .......................274,378 $9,471,476 $9,471,476 54,058,249 11 $0.020 $0.020 Energy Efficiency Packets 2002 ...................2,925 755 755 155,757 7 0.001 0.001 Total .......................2,925 $755 $755 155,757 7 $0.001 $0.001 Energy Efficient Lighting 2002 ...................11,618 243,033 310,643 3,299,654 7 0.012 0.015 2003 ...................12,662 314,641 464,059 3,596,150 7 0.014 0.021 2004 ................... 2005 ...................43,760 73,152 107,810 1,734,646 7 0.007 0.010 2006 ...................178,514 298,754 539,877 6,302,794 7 0.008 0.014 2007 ...................219,739 557,646 433,626 7,207,439 7 0.012 0.017 2008 ...................436,234 1,018,292 793,265 14,309,444 7 0.011 0.013 2009 ...................549,846 1,207,366 1,456,796 13,410,748 5 0.020 0.024 2010 ...................1,190,139 2,501,278 3,976,476 28,082,738 5 0.020 0.031 2011 ....................1,039,755 1,719,133 2,764,623 19,694,381 5 0.015 0.024 2012 ...................925,460 1,126,836 2,407,355 16,708,659 5 0.012 0.025 2013 ...................1,085,225 1,356,926 4,889,501 9,995,753 8 0.016 0.058 2014 ...................1,161,553 1,909,823 7,148,427 12,882,151 8 0.018 0.066 2015 ...................1,343,255 2,063,383 4,428,676 15,876,117 10 0.013 0.028 2016 ...................1,442,561 3,080,708 10,770,703 21,093,813 11 0.014 0.049 2017 ...................1,766,758 4,872,888 11,078,990 37,765,190 12 0.012 0.026 2018 ...................1,340,842 2,435,130 3,277,039 18,856,933 14 0.011 0.014 Total .......................12,747,921 $24,778,988 $54,847,866 230,816,609 12 $0.012 $0.026 Energy House Calls 2002 ...................17 26,053 26,053 25,989 20 0.082 0.082 2003 ...................420 167,076 167,076 602,723 20 0.023 0.023 2004 ...................1,708 725,981 725,981 2,349,783 20 0.025 0.025 2005 ...................891 375,610 375,610 1,775,770 20 0.017 0.017 Historical DSM Expense and Performance 2002–2018 Idaho Power Company Page 4 Demand-Side Management 2018 Annual Report Total Costs Savings and Demand Reductions Measure Life (Years) Levelized Costs a Program/Year Participants Utility Cost b Resource Cost c Annual Energy (kWh) Peak Demand d (MW) Total Utility ($/kWh) Total Resource ($/kWh) 2006 ...................819 336,701 336,701 777,244 20 0.035 0.035 2007 ...................700 336,372 336,372 699,899 20 0.039 0.039 2008 ...................1,099 484,379 484,379 883,038 20 0.045 0.045 2009 ...................1,266 569,594 569,594 928,875 20 0.052 0.052 2010 ...................1,602 762,330 762,330 1,198,655 20 0.054 0.054 2011 ....................881 483,375 483,375 1,214,004 20 0.027 0.027 2012 ...................668 275,884 275,884 1,192,039 18 0.016 0.016 2013 ...................411 199,995 199,995 837,261 18 0.016 0.016 2014 ...................297 197,987 197,987 579,126 18 0.029 0.029 2015 ...................362 214,103 214,103 754,646 18 0.020 0.020 2016 ...................375 206,437 206,437 509,859 18 0.029 0.029 2017 ...................335 183,035 183,035 428,819 16 0.032 0.032 2018 ...................280 160,777 160,777 374,484 16 0.032 0.032 Total .......................12,131 $5,705,689 $5,705,689 15,132,214 16 $0.035 $0.035 ENERGY STAR® Homes Northwest (gas heated) 2014 ................... 282 195,372 22 2015 ................... 69 46,872 22 Total .......................351 $0 $0 242,244 22 Fridge and Freezer Recycling Program 2009 ...................1,661 305,401 305,401 1,132,802 22 0.041 0.041 2010 ...................3,152 565,079 565,079 1,567,736 8 0.054 0.054 2011 ....................3,449 654,393 654,393 1,712,423 8 0.046 0.046 2012 ...................3,176 613,146 613,146 1,576,426 8 0.046 0.046 2013 ...................3,307 589,054 589,054 1,442,344 8 0.061 0.061 2014 ...................3,194 576,051 576,051 1,390,760 6 0.062 0.062 2015 ...................1,630 227,179 227,179 720,208 6 0.048 0.048 2016 ...................1,539 257,916 257,916 632,186 6 0.062 0.062 2017 ...................2,031 265,942 265,942 498,513 6 0.080 0.080 2018 ...................304 33,907 33,907 73,602 7 0.061 0.061 Total .......................23,443 $4,088,068 $4,088,068 10,747,000 7 $0.062 $0.062 Heating & Cooling Efficiency Program 2006 ...................17,444 17,444 2007 ................... 4 488,211 494,989 1,595 18 27.344 27.710 Idaho Power Company Historical DSM Expense and Performance 2002–2018 Demand-Side Management 2018 Annual Report Page 5 Total Costs Savings and Demand Reductions Measure Life (Years) Levelized Costs a Program/Year Participants Utility Cost b Resource Cost c Annual Energy (kWh) Peak Demand d (MW) Total Utility ($/kWh) Total Resource ($/kWh) 2008 ................... 359 473,551 599,771 561,440 18 0.073 0.092 2009 ................... 349 478,373 764,671 1,274,829 18 0.034 0.054 2010 ................... 217 327,669 1,073,604 1,104,497 20 0.025 0.083 2011 ....................130 195,770 614,523 733,405 20 0.018 0.056 2012 ...................141 182,281 676,530 688,855 20 0.018 0.066 2013 ...................210 329,674 741,586 1,003,730 20 0.022 0.050 2014 ...................230 362,014 1,247,560 1,099,464 20 0.022 0.075 2015 ...................427 626,369 2,064,055 1,502,172 20 0.028 0.092 2016 ...................483 594,913 1,404,625 1,113,574 20 0.040 0.040 2017 ...................654 597,198 1,433,357 1,138,744 15 0.041 0.099 2018 ...................712 585,211 1,686,618 1,556,065 15 0.029 0.085 Total .......................3,916 $5,258,678 $12,819,332 11,778,370 15 $0.043 $0.104 Home Energy Audits 2013 ...................88,740 88,740 2014 ...................354 170,648 170,648 141,077 10 2015 ...................251 201,957 226,806 136,002 10 2016 ...................539 289,812 289,812 207,249 11 0.13 0.13 2017 ...................524 282,809 353,385 175,010 12 0.146 0.182 2018 ...................466 264,394 321,978 211,003 12 0.113 0.137 Total .......................2,134 $1,298,360 $1,451,369 870,341 12 $0.164 $0.183 Home Energy Reports Pilot Program 2018 ...................23,914 194,812 194,812 3,281,780 1 0.046 0.046 Total .......................23,914 $194,812 $194,812 3,281,780 1 $0.046 $0.046 Home Improvement Program 2008 ...................282 123,454 157,866 317,814 25 0.029 0.037 2009 ...................1,188 321,140 550,148 1,338,876 25 0.019 0.032 2010 ...................3,537 944,716 2,112,737 3,986,199 45 0.016 0.035 2011 ....................2,275 666,041 2,704,816 917,519 45 0.038 0.155 2012 ...................840 385,091 812,827 457,353 45 0.044 0.093 2013 ...................365 299,497 1,061,314 616,044 45 0.025 0.090 2014 ...................555 324,717 896,246 838,929 45 0.020 0.055 2015 ...................408 272,509 893,731 303,580 45 0.046 0.152 Historical DSM Expense and Performance 2002–2018 Idaho Power Company Page 6 Demand-Side Management 2018 Annual Report Total Costs Savings and Demand Reductions Measure Life (Years) Levelized Costs a Program/Year Participants Utility Cost b Resource Cost c Annual Energy (kWh) Peak Demand d (MW) Total Utility ($/kWh) Total Resource ($/kWh) 2016 ...................482 324,024 1,685,301 500,280 45 0.034 0.177 2017 ...................355 166,830 1,345,002 415,824 45 0.021 0.167 2018 ...................2,926 2,926 Total .......................10,287 $3,830,946 $12,222,915 9,692,418 45 $0.025 $0.079 Multifamily Energy Savings Program 2016 ...................3 59,046 59,046 149,760 10 0.040 0.040 2017 ...................12 168,216 168,216 617,542 11 0.026 0.026 2018 ...................25 205,131 205,131 655,953 11 0.030 0.030 Total .......................40 $432,394 $432,394 1,423,255 11 $0.035 $0.035 Oregon Residential Weatherization 2002 ...................24 -662 23,971 4,580 25 0.010 0.389 2003 ...................-943 2004 ...................4 1,057 1,057 2005 ...................4 612 3,608 7,927 25 0.006 0.034 2006 ...................4,126 4,126 2007 ...................1 3,781 5,589 9,971 25 0.028 0.042 2008 ...................3 7,417 28,752 22,196 25 0.025 0.096 2009 ...................1 7,645 8,410 2,907 25 0.203 0.223 2010 ...................1 6,050 6,275 320 30 0.011 0.062 2011 ....................8 7,926 10,208 21,908 30 0.021 0.027 2012 ...................5 4,516 11,657 11,985 30 0.022 0.056 2013 ...................14 9,017 14,369 14,907 30 0.035 0.055 2014 ...................13 5,462 9,723 11,032 30 0.028 0.050 2015 ...................4 5,808 10,388 11,910 30 0.028 0.050 2016 ...................7 3,930 5,900 2,847 30 0.079 0.118 2017 ...................7 2,384 3,755 2,154 30 0.063 0.099 2018 ...................5 5,507 5,507 Total .......................101 $73,633 $153,295 124,644 30 $0.041 $0.085 Rebate Advantage 2003 ...................73 27,372 79,399 227,434 45 0.008 0.022 2004 ...................105 52,187 178,712 332,587 45 0.010 0.034 Idaho Power Company Historical DSM Expense and Performance 2002–2018 Demand-Side Management 2018 Annual Report Page 7 Total Costs Savings and Demand Reductions Measure Life (Years) Levelized Costs a Program/Year Participants Utility Cost b Resource Cost c Annual Energy (kWh) Peak Demand d (MW) Total Utility ($/kWh) Total Resource ($/kWh) 2005 ...................98 46,173 158,462 312,311 45 0.009 0.032 2006 ...................102 52,673 140,289 333,494 45 0.010 0.027 2007 ...................123 89,269 182,152 554,018 45 0.010 0.021 2008 ...................107 90,888 179,868 463,401 45 0.012 0.025 2009 ...................57 49,525 93,073 247,348 25 0.015 0.029 2010 ...................35 39,402 66,142 164,894 25 0.018 0.031 2011 ....................25 63,469 85,044 159,325 25 0.024 0.033 2012 ...................35 37,241 71,911 187,108 25 0.012 0.024 2013 ...................42 60,770 92,690 269,891 25 0.014 0.021 2014 ...................44 63,231 89,699 269,643 25 0.014 0.020 2015 ...................58 85,438 117,322 358,683 25 0.014 0.020 2016 ...................67 111,050 148,142 411,272 25 0.016 0.022 2017 ...................66 104,996 229,104 214,479 45 0.025 0.055 2018 ...................107 147,483 355,115 284,559 45 0.027 0.064 Total .......................1,143 $1,121,168 $2,267,124 4,790,447 45 $0.015 $0.030 Residential New Construction Pilot Program (ENERGY STAR® Homes Northwest) 2003 ...................13,597 13,597 0 2004 ...................44 140,165 335,437 101,200 25 0.103 0.246 2005 ...................200 253,105 315,311 415,600 25 0.045 0.056 2006 ...................439 469,609 602,651 912,242 25 0.038 0.049 2007 ...................303 475,044 400,637 629,634 25 0.056 0.047 2008 ...................254 302,061 375,007 468,958 25 0.048 0.059 2009 ...................474 355,623 498,622 705,784 25 0.039 0.055 2010 ...................630 375,605 579,495 883,260 25 0.033 0.051 2011 ....................308 259,762 651,249 728,030 32 0.020 0.051 2012 ...................410 453,186 871,310 537,447 35 0.046 0.089 2013 ...................267 352,882 697,682 365,370 36 0.053 0.104 2014 ...................243 343,277 689,021 332,682 36 0.057 0.114 2015 ...................598 653,674 1,412,126 773,812 36 0.046 0.099 2016 ...................110 142,158 297,518 150,282 36 0.051 0.107 2017 ...................277 323,520 603,420 608,292 45 0.029 0.054 2018 ...................307 400,912 926,958 777,369 36 0.027 0.061 Total .......................4,864 $5,314,179 $9,270,041 8,389,962 36 $0.042 $0.073 Historical DSM Expense and Performance 2002–2018 Idaho Power Company Page 8 Demand-Side Management 2018 Annual Report Total Costs Savings and Demand Reductions Measure Life (Years) Levelized Costs a Program/Year Participants Utility Cost b Resource Cost c Annual Energy (kWh) Peak Demand d (MW) Total Utility ($/kWh) Total Resource ($/kWh) Simple Steps, Smart Savings 2007 ...................9,275 9,275 0 2008 ...................3,034 250,860 468,056 541,615 15 0.044 0.082 2009 ...................9,499 511,313 844,811 1,638,038 15 0.031 0.051 2010 ...................16,322 832,161 1,025,151 1,443,580 15 0.057 0.070 2011 ....................15,896 638,323 1,520,977 1,485,326 15 0.034 0.080 2012 ...................16,675 659,032 817,924 887,222 14 0.061 0.075 2013 ...................13,792 405,515 702,536 885,980 12 0.041 0.071 2014 ...................10,061 227,176 302,289 652,129 12 0.031 0.041 2015 ...................9,343 139,096 397,898 770,822 10 0.018 0.053 2016 ...................7,880 153,784 379,752 577,320 11 0.025 0.063 2017 ...................12,556 191,621 484,380 900,171 11 0.020 0.051 2018 ...................7,377 90,484 133,101 241,215 12 0.034 0.050 Total .......................122,435 $4,108,640 $7,086,150 10,023,419 11 $0.045 $0.078 Weatherization Solutions for Eligible Customers 2008 ...................16 52,807 52,807 71,680 25 0.057 0.057 2009 ...................41 162,995 162,995 211,719 25 0.059 0.059 2010 ...................47 228,425 228,425 313,309 25 0.056 0.056 2011 ....................117 788,148 788,148 1,141,194 25 0.042 0.042 2012 ...................141 1,070,556 1,070,556 257,466 25 0.254 0.254 2013 ...................166 1,267,791 1,267,791 303,116 25 0.240 0.240 2014 ...................118 791,344 791,344 290,926 25 0.163 0.163 2015 ...................171 1,243,269 1,243,269 432,958 25 0.175 0.175 2016 ...................147 1,323,793 1,323,793 621,653 25 0.130 0.130 2017 ...................164 1,108,862 1,121,071 604,733 23 0.115 0.117 2018 ...................141 1,022,471 1,022,471 571,741 25 0.112 0.112 Total .......................1,269 $9,060,460 $9,072,669 4,820,495 25 $0.139 $0.139 Window AC Trade Up Pilot 2003 ...................99 6,687 10,492 14,454 12 0.051 0.079 Total .......................99 $6,687 $10,492 14,454 12 $0.051 $0.079 Idaho Power Company Historical DSM Expense and Performance 2002–2018 Demand-Side Management 2018 Annual Report Page 9 Total Costs Savings and Demand Reductions Measure Life (Years) Levelized Costs a Program/Year Participants Utility Cost b Resource Cost c Annual Energy (kWh) Peak Demand d (MW) Total Utility ($/kWh) Total Resource ($/kWh) Residential—Weatherization Assistance for Qualified Customers (WAQC) WAQC—Idaho 2002 ...................197 235,048 492,139 2003 ...................208 228,134 483,369 2004 ...................269 498,474 859,482 1,271,677 25 0.029 0.050 2005 ...................570 1,402,487 1,927,424 3,179,311 25 0.033 0.045 2006 ...................540 1,455,373 2,231,086 2,958,024 25 0.037 0.056 2007 ...................397 1,292,930 1,757,105 3,296,019 25 0.029 0.040 2008 ...................439 1,375,632 1,755,749 4,064,301 25 0.025 0.032 2009 ...................427 1,260,922 1,937,578 4,563,832 25 0.021 0.033 2010 ...................373 1,205,446 2,782,597 3,452,025 25 0.026 0.060 2011 ....................273 1,278,112 1,861,836 2,648,676 25 0.036 0.052 2012 ...................228 1,321,927 1,743,863 621,464 25 0.157 0.208 2013 ...................245 1,336,742 1,984,173 657,580 25 0.150 0.223 2014 ...................244 1,267,212 1,902,615 509,620 25 0.184 0.276 2015 ...................233 1,278,159 2,072,901 529,426 25 0.179 0.290 2016 ...................234 1,254,338 1,870,481 722,430 25 0.129 0.192 2017 ...................196 1,269,507 1,721,632 654,464 30 0.134 0.182 2018 ...................190 1,254,630 1,795,301 641,619 30 0.136 0.194 Total .......................5,263 $19,215,073 $29,179,331 29,770,469 30 $0.045 $0.068 WAQC—Oregon 2002 ...................31 24,773 47,221 68,323 25 0.027 0.051 2003 ...................29 22,255 42,335 102,643 25 0.016 0.031 2004 ...................17 13,469 25,452 28,436 25 0.035 0.067 2005 ...................28 44,348 59,443 94,279 25 0.035 0.047 2006 ...................25 2007 ...................11 30,694 41,700 42,108 25 0.054 0.074 2008 ...................14 43,843 74,048 73,841 25 0.040 0.068 2009 ...................10 33,940 46,513 114,982 25 0.023 0.031 2010 ...................27 115,686 147,712 289,627 25 0.030 0.038 2011 ....................14 46,303 63,981 134,972 25 0.025 0.035 2012 ...................10 48,214 76,083 26,840 25 0.133 0.210 2013 ...................9 54,935 67,847 24,156 25 0.168 0.208 Historical DSM Expense and Performance 2002–2018 Idaho Power Company Page 10 Demand-Side Management 2018 Annual Report Total Costs Savings and Demand Reductions Measure Life (Years) Levelized Costs a Program/Year Participants Utility Cost b Resource Cost c Annual Energy (kWh) Peak Demand d (MW) Total Utility ($/kWh) Total Resource ($/kWh) 2014 ...................11 52,900 94,493 24,180 25 0.162 0.289 2015 ...................10 36,873 46,900 20,595 25 0.133 0.169 2016 ...................12 35,471 63,934 23,732 25 0.111 0.199 2017 ...................7 37,978 61,052 15,074 30 0.175 0.281 2018 ...................3 18,344 24,191 7,886 30 0.161 0.213 Total .......................243 $660,025 $982,905 1,091,674 30 $0.042 $0.062 WAQC—BPA Supplemental 2002 ...................75 55,966 118,255 311,347 25 0.013 0.028 2003 ...................57 49,895 106,915 223,591 25 0.017 0.036 2004 ...................40 69,409 105,021 125,919 25 0.041 0.062 Total .......................172 $175,270 $330,191 660,857 25 $0.020 $0.037 WAQC Total ...........$20,050,368 $30,492,426 31,523,000 25 $0.047 $0.072 Commercial Air Care Plus Pilot 2003 ...................4 5,764 9,061 33,976 10 0.021 0.033 2004 ...................344 344 Total .......................4 $6,108 $9,405 33,976 10 $0.022 $0.034 New Construction 2004 ...................28,821 28,821 2005 ...................12 194,066 233,149 494,239 12 0.043 0.052 2006 ...................40 374,008 463,770 704,541 12 0.058 0.072 2007 ...................22 669,032 802,839 2,817,248 12 0.015 0.040 2008 ...................60 1,055,009 1,671,375 6,598,123 12 0.017 0.028 2009 ...................72 1,327,127 2,356,434 6,146,139 12 0.024 0.043 2010 ...................70 1,509,682 3,312,963 10,819,598 12 0.016 0.035 2011 ....................63 1,291,425 3,320,015 11,514,641 12 0.010 0.026 2012 ...................84 1,592,572 8,204,883 20,450,037 12 0.007 0.036 2013 ...................59 1,507,035 3,942,880 10,988,934 12 0.012 0.032 2014 ...................69 1,258,273 3,972,822 9,458,059 12 0.012 0.037 2015 ...................81 2,162,001 6,293,071 23,232,017 12 0.008 0.024 2016 ...................116 1,931,222 4,560,826 12,393,249 12 0.014 0.033 Idaho Power Company Historical DSM Expense and Performance 2002–2018 Demand-Side Management 2018 Annual Report Page 11 Total Costs Savings and Demand Reductions Measure Life (Years) Levelized Costs a Program/Year Participants Utility Cost b Resource Cost c Annual Energy (kWh) Peak Demand d (MW) Total Utility ($/kWh) Total Resource ($/kWh) 2017 ...................121 2,433,596 4,265,056 17,353,820 12 0.013 0.022 2018 ...................104 2,069,645 5,054,215 13,378,315 12 0.014 0.034 Total .......................973 $19,403,515 $48,483,120 146,348,960 12 $0.015 $0.036 Retrofits 2006 ...................31,819 31,819 2007 ...................104 711,494 1,882,035 5,183,640 0.8 12 0.015 0.040 2008 ...................666 2,992,261 10,096,627 25,928,391 4.5 12 0.013 0.043 2009 ...................1,224 3,325,505 10,076,237 35,171,627 6.1 12 0.011 0.032 2010 ...................1,535 3,974,410 7,655,397 35,824,463 7.8 12 0.013 0.024 2011 ....................1,732 4,719,466 9,519,364 38,723,073 12 0.011 0.022 2012 ...................1,838 5,349,753 9,245,297 41,568,672 12 0.012 0.020 2013 ...................1,392 3,359,790 6,738,645 21,061,946 12 0.014 0.029 2014 ...................1,095 3,150,942 5,453,380 19,118,494 12 0.015 0.025 2015 ...................1,222 4,350,865 7,604,200 23,594,701 12 0.017 0.029 2016 ...................1,577 5,040,190 8,038,791 28,124,779 12 0.016 0.026 2017 ...................1,137 4,343,835 12,500,303 23,161,877 12 0.017 0.049 2018 ...................1,358 5,990,179 16,253,716 34,910,707 12 0.015 0.042 Total .......................14,880 $47,340,509 $105,095,811 332,372,370 12 $0.016 $0.035 Holiday Lighting 2008 ...................14 28,782 73,108 259,092 10 0.014 0.035 2009 ...................32 33,930 72,874 142,109 10 0.031 0.066 2010 ...................25 46,132 65,308 248,865 10 0.024 0.034 2011 ....................6 2,568 2,990 66,189 10 0.004 0.005 Total .......................77 $111,412 $214,280 716,255 10 $0.019 $0.037 Oregon Commercial Audit 2002 ...................24 5,200 5,200 2003 ...................21 4,000 4,000 2004 ...................7 0 0 2005 ...................7 5,450 5,450 2006 ...................6 2007 ...................1,981 1,981 2008 ...................58 58 Historical DSM Expense and Performance 2002–2018 Idaho Power Company Page 12 Demand-Side Management 2018 Annual Report Total Costs Savings and Demand Reductions Measure Life (Years) Levelized Costs a Program/Year Participants Utility Cost b Resource Cost c Annual Energy (kWh) Peak Demand d (MW) Total Utility ($/kWh) Total Resource ($/kWh) 2009 ...................41 20,732 20,732 2010 ...................22 5,049 5,049 2011 ....................12 13,597 13,597 2012 ...................14 12,470 12,470 2013 ...................18 5,090 5,090 2014 ...................16 9,464 9,464 2015 ...................17 4,251 4,251 2016 ...................7 7,717 7,717 2017 ...................13 8,102 8,102 2018 ...................0 1,473 1,473 Total .......................225 $104,634 $104,634 Oregon School Efficiency 2005 ...................86 86 2006 ...................6 24,379 89,771 223,368 12 0.012 0.044 Total .......................6 $24,465 $89,857 223,368 12 $0.012 $0.044 Industrial Custom Projects 2003 ...................1,303 1,303 2004 ...................1 112,311 133,441 211,295 12 0.058 0.069 2005 ...................24 1,128,076 3,653,152 12,016,678 12 0.010 0.033 2006 ...................40 1,625,216 4,273,885 19,211,605 12 0.009 0.024 2007 ...................49 3,161,866 7,012,686 29,789,304 3.6 12 0.012 0.026 2008 ...................101 4,045,671 16,312,379 41,058,639 4.8 12 0.011 0.044 2009 ...................132 6,061,467 10,848,123 51,835,612 6.7 12 0.013 0.024 2010 ...................223 8,778,125 17,172,176 71,580,075 9.5 12 0.014 0.027 2011 ....................166 8,783,811 19,830,834 67,979,157 7.8 12 0.012 0.026 2012 ...................126 7,092,581 12,975,629 54,253,106 7.6 12 0.012 0.021 2013 ...................73 2,466,225 5,771,640 21,370,350 2.4 12 0.010 0.024 2014 ...................131 7,173,054 13,409,922 50,363,052 5.6 12 0.013 0.024 2015 ...................160 9,012,628 20,533,742 55,247,192 6.3 11 0.016 0.035 2016 ...................196 7,982,624 16,123,619 47,518,871 16 0.013 0.026 Idaho Power Company Historical DSM Expense and Performance 2002–2018 Demand-Side Management 2018 Annual Report Page 13 Total Costs Savings and Demand Reductions Measure Life (Years) Levelized Costs a Program/Year Participants Utility Cost b Resource Cost c Annual Energy (kWh) Peak Demand d (MW) Total Utility ($/kWh) Total Resource ($/kWh) 2017 ...................170 8,679,919 17,279,117 44,765,354 16 0.015 0.029 2018 ...................248 8,808,512 16,112,540 46,963,690 16 0.014 0.026 Total .......................1,840 $84,913,388 $181,444,188 614,163,980 12 $0.015 $0.032 Irrigation Irrigation Efficiency Rewards 2003 ...................2 41,089 54,609 36,792 0.0 15 0.106 0.141 2004 ...................33 120,808 402,978 802,812 0.4 15 0.014 0.048 2005 ...................38 150,577 657,460 1,012,883 0.4 15 0.014 0.062 2006 ...................559 2,779,620 8,514,231 16,986,008 5.1 8 0.024 0.073 2007 ...................816 2,001,961 8,694,772 12,304,073 3.4 8 0.024 0.103 2008 ...................961 2,103,702 5,850,778 11,746,395 3.5 8 0.026 0.073 2009 ...................887 2,293,896 6,732,268 13,157,619 3.4 8 0.026 0.077 2010 ...................753 2,200,814 6,968,598 10,968,430 3.3 8 0.030 0.096 2011 ....................880 2,360,304 13,281,492 13,979,833 3.8 8 0.020 0.113 2012 ...................908 2,373,201 11,598,185 12,617,164 3.1 8 0.022 0.110 2013 ...................995 2,441,386 15,223,928 18,511,221 3.0 8 0.016 0.098 2014 ...................1,128 2,446,507 18,459,781 18,463,611 4.6 8 0.016 0.119 2015 ...................902 1,835,711 9,939,842 14,027,411 1.6 8 0.016 0.085 2016 ...................851 2,372,352 8,162,206 15,673,513 8 0.018 0.063 2017 ...................801 2,475,677 8,382,962 16,824,266 8 0.018 0.060 2018 ...................1,022 2,953,706 11,948,469 18,933,831 8 0.019 0.076 Total .......................11,536 $30,951,311 $134,872,559 196,045,862 8 $0.023 $0.101 Other Programs Building Operator Training 2003 ...................71 48,853 48,853 1,825,000 5 0.006 0.006 2004 ...................26 43,969 43,969 650,000 5 0.014 0.014 2005 ...................7 1,750 4,480 434,167 5 0.001 0.002 Total .......................104 94,572 97,302 2,909,167 5 0.007 0.007 Commercial Education Initiative 2005 ...................3,497 3,497 2006 ...................4,663 4,663 2007 ...................26,823 26,823 2008 ...................72,738 72,738 Historical DSM Expense and Performance 2002–2018 Idaho Power Company Page 14 Demand-Side Management 2018 Annual Report Total Costs Savings and Demand Reductions Measure Life (Years) Levelized Costs a Program/Year Participants Utility Cost b Resource Cost c Annual Energy (kWh) Peak Demand d (MW) Total Utility ($/kWh) Total Resource ($/kWh) 2009 ...................120,584 120,584 2010 ...................68,765 68,765 2011 ....................89,856 89,856 2012 ...................73,788 73,788 2013 ...................66,790 66,790 2014 ...................76,606 76,606 2015 ...................65,250 65,250 2016 ................... 2017 ................... 2018 ...................146,174 146,174 442,170 Total .......................$815,533 $815,533 442,170 Comprehensive Lighting 2011 ....................2,404 2,404 2012 ...................64,094 64,094 Total .......................$66,498 $66,498 Distribution Efficiency Initiative 2005 ...................21,552 43,969 2006 ...................24,306 24,306 2007 ...................8,987 8,987 2008 ...................-1,913 -1,913 Total .......................$52,932 $75,349 DSM Direct Program Overhead 2007 ...................56,909 56,909 2008 ...................169,911 169,911 2009 ...................164,957 164,957 2010 ...................117,874 117,874 2011 ....................210,477 210,477 2012 ...................285,951 285,951 2013 ...................380,957 380,957 2014 ...................478,658 478,658 2015 ...................272,858 272,858 2016 ...................293,039 293,039 Idaho Power Company Historical DSM Expense and Performance 2002–2018 Demand-Side Management 2018 Annual Report Page 15 Total Costs Savings and Demand Reductions Measure Life (Years) Levelized Costs a Program/Year Participants Utility Cost b Resource Cost c Annual Energy (kWh) Peak Demand d (MW) Total Utility ($/kWh) Total Resource ($/kWh) 2017 ...................1,759,352 1,759,352 2018 ...................1,801,955 1,801,955 Total .......................$5,992,899 $5,992,899 Green Motors Rewind—Industrial 2016 ...................123,700 7 2017 ...................143,976 7 2018 ...................64,167 7 Total .......................331,843 7 Green Motors Rewind—Irrigation 2016 ...................73,617 19 2017 ...................63,783 19 2018 ...................67,676 19 Total .......................205,076 19 Local Energy Efficiency Fund 2003 ...................56 5,100 5,100 2004 ...................23,449 23,449 2005 ...................2 14,896 26,756 78,000 10 0.024 0.042 2006 ...................480 3,459 3,459 19,027 7 0.009 0.009 2007 ...................1 7,520 7,520 9,000 7 0.135 0.135 2008 ...................2 22,714 60,100 115,931 0.0 15 0.019 0.049 2009 ...................1 5,870 4,274 10,340 0.0 12 0.064 0.047 2010 ...................1 251 251 0.0 2011 ....................1 1,026 2,052 2,028 30 0.035 0.070 2012 ................... 2013 ................... 2014 ...................1 9,100 9,100 95,834 18 Total .......................545 $93,385 $142,061 330,160 14 $0.028 $0.043 Other C&RD and CRC BPA 2002 ...................55,722 55,722 2003 ...................67,012 67,012 2004 ...................108,191 108,191 2005 ...................101,177 101,177 2006 ...................124,956 124,956 Historical DSM Expense and Performance 2002–2018 Idaho Power Company Page 16 Demand-Side Management 2018 Annual Report Total Costs Savings and Demand Reductions Measure Life (Years) Levelized Costs a Program/Year Participants Utility Cost b Resource Cost c Annual Energy (kWh) Peak Demand d (MW) Total Utility ($/kWh) Total Resource ($/kWh) 2007 ...................31,645 31,645 2008 ...................6,950 6,950 Total .......................$495,654 $495,654 Residential Economizer Pilot 2011 ....................101,713 101,713 2012 ...................93,491 93,491 2013 ...................74,901 74,901 Total .......................$270,105 $270,105 Residential Education Initiative 2005 ...................7,498 7,498 2006 ...................56,727 56,727 2007 ................... 2008 ...................150,917 150,917 2009 ...................193,653 193,653 2010 ...................222,092 222,092 2011 ....................159,645 159,645 2012 ...................174,738 174,738 2013 ...................416,166 416,166 2014 ...................6,312 423,091 423,091 1,491,225 11 2015 ...................149,903 149,903 2016 ...................290,179 290,179 2017 ...................223,880 223,880 2018 ...................172,215 172,215 Total .......................$2,640,704 $2,640,704 1,491,225 Shade Tree Project 2014 ...................2,041 147,290 147,290 2015 ...................1,925 105,392 105,392 2016 ...................2,070 76,642 76,642 2017 ...................2,711 195,817 195,817 2018 ...................2,093 162,995 162,995 35,571 Total .......................3,966 $688,136 $688,136 35,571 Idaho Power Company Historical DSM Expense and Performance 2002–2018 Demand-Side Management 2018 Annual Report Page 17 Total Costs Savings and Demand Reductions Measure Life (Years) Levelized Costs a Program/Year Participants Utility Cost b Resource Cost c Annual Energy (kWh) Peak Demand d (MW) Total Utility ($/kWh) Total Resource ($/kWh) Solar 4R Schools 2009 ...................45,522 45,522 Total .......................$45,522 $45,522 Market Transformation Consumer Electronic Initiative 2009 ...................160,762 160,762 Total .......................$160,762 $160,762 NEEA 2002 ...................1,286,632 1,286,632 12,925,450 2003 ...................1,292,748 1,292,748 11,991,580 2004 ...................1,256,611 1,256,611 13,329,071 2005 ...................476,891 476,891 16,422,224 2006 ...................930,455 930,455 18,597,955 2007 ...................893,340 893,340 28,601,410 2008 ...................942,014 942,014 21,024,279 2009 ...................968,263 968,263 10,702,998 2010 ...................2,391,217 2,391,217 21,300,366 2011 ....................3,108,393 3,108,393 20,161,728 2012 ...................3,379,756 3,379,756 19,567,984 2013 ...................3,313,058 3,313,058 20,567,965 2014 ...................3,305,917 3,305,917 26,805,600 2015 ...................2,582,919 2,582,919 21,900,000 2016 ...................2,676,387 2,676,387 24,615,600 2017 ...................2,698,756 2,698,756 23,652,000 2018 ...................2,500,165 2,500,165 24,966,000 Total .......................$34,003,521 $34,003,521 337,920,611 Annual Totals 2002 ...................1,932,520 2,366,591 16,791,100 0.0 2003 ...................2,566,228 3,125,572 18,654,343 0.0 2004 ...................3,827,213 4,860,912 19,202,780 6.5 2005 ...................6,523,348 10,383,577 37,978,035 43.9 2006 ...................11,174,181 20,950,110 67,026,303 43.6 Historical DSM Expense and Performance 2002–2018 Idaho Power Company Page 18 Demand-Side Management 2018 Annual Report Total Costs Savings and Demand Reductions Measure Life (Years) Levelized Costs a Program/Year Participants Utility Cost b Resource Cost c Annual Energy (kWh) Peak Demand d (MW) Total Utility ($/kWh) Total Resource ($/kWh) 2007 ...................14,896,816 27,123,018 91,145,357 57.9 2008 ...................20,213,216 44,775,829 128,508,579 74.3 2009 ...................33,821,062 53,090,852 143,146,365 235.5 2010 ...................44,643,541 68,981,324 193,592,637 357.7 2011 ....................44,877,117 79,436,532 183,476,312 415.2 2012 ...................47,991,350 77,336,341 172,054,327 448.8 2013 ...................26,100,091 54,803,353 109,505,690 54.5 2014 ...................35,648,260 71,372,414 145,475,713 389.7 2015 ...................37,149,893 70,467,082 162,533,155 374.5 2016 ...................40,499,570 70,984,604 170,792,152 379.0 2017 ...................44,828,089 78,799,054 191,471,395 383.0 2018 ...................42,926,872 75,797,483 183,377,834 358.7 Total Direct Program ......................$459,623,368 $814,654,650 2,035,663,138 Indirect Program Expenses DSM Overhead and Other Indirect 2002 ...................128,855 2003 ...................-41,543 2004 ...................142,337 2005 ...................177,624 2006 ...................309,832 2007 ...................765,561 2008 ...................980,305 2009 ...................1,025,704 2010 ...................1,189,310 2011 ....................1,389,135 2012 ...................1,335,509 2013 ...................$741,287 2014 ...................1,065,072 2015 ...................1,891,042 2016 ...................2,263,893 2017 ...................2,929,407 2018 ...................1,335,208 Total .......................$17,628,538 Idaho Power Company Historical DSM Expense and Performance 2002–2018 Demand-Side Management 2018 Annual Report Page 19 Total Costs Savings and Demand Reductions Measure Life (Years) Levelized Costs a Program/Year Participants Utility Cost b Resource Cost c Annual Energy (kWh) Peak Demand d (MW) Total Utility ($/kWh) Total Resource ($/kWh) Total Expenses 2002 ...................2,061,375 2003 ...................2,528,685 2004 ...................3,969,550 2005 ...................6,700,972 2006 ...................11,484,013 2007 ...................15,662,377 2008 ...................21,193,521 2009 ...................34,846,766 2010 ...................45,832,851 2011 ....................46,266,252 2012 ...................49,326,859 2013 ...................26,841,378 2014 ...................36,713,333 2015 ...................39,040,935 2016 ...................42,763,463 2017 ...................47,757,496 2018 ...................44,262,080 Total 2002–2018 ....$477,251,906 a Levelized Costs are based on financial inputs from Idaho Power’s 2015 Integrated Resource Plan and calculations include line loss adjusted energy savings. b The Total Utility Cost is all cost incurred by Idaho Power to implement and manage a DSM program. c The Total Resource Cost is the total expenditures for a DSM program from the point of view of Idaho Power and its customers as a whole. d Peak Demand is reported for programs that directly reduce load or measure demand reductions during summer peak season. Peak demand reduction for demand response programs is reported at the generation level assuming 13 percent peak line losses. Historical DSM Expense and Performance 2002–2018 Idaho Power Company Page 20 Demand-Side Management 2018 Annual Report ACLARA ACE™ Adaptive Consumer Engagement Version 1.3 Updated: 3/1/2019 Idaho Power Corporation Home Energy Report Year 1 Public Program Summary Smart Infrastructure www.Aclara.com Expand your vision of the network TABLE OF CONTENTS Revision History ............................................................................................................................................. 3 Document Approval ....................................................................................................................................... 3 1. Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................ 4 1.1 Program Achievements ..........................................................................................................5 2. Program Overview ................................................................................................................................... 5 2.1 Objectives .................................................................................................................................6 2.2 Integration and implementation .............................................................................................7 2.3 Team structure .........................................................................................................................9 3. Methodology ............................................................................................................................................. 9 3.1 Program Design .....................................................................................................................11 4. Customer Satisfaction .......................................................................................................................... 12 4.1 Customer Satisfaction Survey .............................................................................................12 4.2 CSA Results & Opt-outs .......................................................................................................13 4.3 Microsite Engagement ..........................................................................................................14 5. Program savings .................................................................................................................................... 15 5.1 Winter Heating Group M&V Results ...................................................................................15 5.2 Year-Round Group M&V Results ........................................................................................17 6. Lessons Learned ................................................................................................................................... 20 7. Program Recommendations and Decisions for Year 2 ................................................................... 22 Appendix A – NREL Residential Behavioral standard ........................................................................... 23 Appendix B – Report & Microsite Samples .............................................................................................. 24 Appendix C – Customer Satisfaction Survey Report ............................................................................. 30 Appendix D – Customer Satisfaction Survey .......................................................................................... 51 Appendix E – Additional Analysis of Key Customer Satisfaction Survey Questions ...................... 56 7.1 Question 1 Results Analysis ................................................................................................56 7.2 Question 2 Results Analysis ................................................................................................58 7.3 Treatment Group Question 7 Results Analysis .................................................................60 7.4 Treatment Group Question 9 Results Analysis .................................................................62 Appendix F – Quarterly Program Monitoring schedule ......................................................................... 64 Idaho Power Company HER YR1 Final Program Report Smart Infrastructure www.Aclara.com Expand your vision of the network Page 3 of 64 REVISION HISTORY Date Version Description Author/Editor 8/29/18 1.0 Initial Report Created Trudeau 11/4/18 1.1 Revised from Requirement Meeting O’Keefe 02/20/21 1.2 Revised based on IPC edits Cornish 02/20/28 1.3 Additional revisions requested by IPC Cornish DOCUMENT APPROVAL The purpose of this section is to acknowledge approval of the information presented within. Please use the track changes features to indicate any changes necessary before approval of the plan can be made. When ready to approve, please indicate the version number being approved, and complete the fields below. This {insert document name}, version xx approved by: Client Name: Name, Title: Signature: Date: Client Name: Name, Title: Signature: Date: For Aclara: Signature: Date: Idaho Power Company HER YR1 Final Program Report Smart Infrastructure www.Aclara.com Expand your vision of the network Page 4 of 64 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Aclara delivered a Home Energy Report program for Idaho Power Corporation from July 2017 to July 2018. Aclara’s Home Energy Reports (HER) program is a turnkey behavioral program designed to combine feedback on energy use with contextual information that helps to educate and motivate customers to reduce their energy use and increase customer satisfaction and engagement. The visual design of the report includes varying analytical modules, like smart meter disaggregation, along with targeted messaging that provides insights into customer energy use and encourages customers to take action and become more energy efficient and save. The program was optimized to drive measurable results across all of Idaho Power’s program objectives following the Appendix A - NREL Residential Behavior standard attached hereto. In line with these goals, 27,000 customers were initially selected to receive paper Home Energy Reports. These households were split into four treatment groups: Table 1 - Treatment Group Summary Cohort Definition Number in initial treatment group Number of customers receiving 1st Report Number of customers receiving Last Report T1 Winter Heating Group High electric heating 7,900 7,092 6,849 T3 Year-Round Group High User - Use > Average kWh/yr. 8,500 8,295 7,330 T4 Year-Round Group Medium User - Use Average kWh/yr. 4,100 3,985 3,488 T5 Year-Round Group Low User - Use < Average kWh/yr. 6,500 6,305 5,411 TOTAL 27,000 25,677 23,078 The Winter Heating Group were sent four reports: one in November 2017 (along with a welcome letter), one in December 2017, one in January 2018 and one in February 2018. The Year-Round Group received a welcome letter and report in July 2017, and bi-monthly reports starting in August 2017 and ending in June 2018. Figure 1 - Report Delivery Schedule Each report included varying modules and messages to provide clear value propositions and calls to action. The paper reports contained a combination of the following elements: • Customer information – including name, address and account number. Idaho Power Company HER YR1 Final Program Report Smart Infrastructure www.Aclara.com Expand your vision of the network Page 5 of 64 • Smart Meter Disaggregation – Providing targeted groups of residential customers with personalized appliance level usage insights. • Targeted Message(s) – Calls to action with customized messages for each customer segment based on past program participation. These messages were used throughout the report to drive customers to the My Account portal and to relevant program pages at the direction of IPC relative to sales and marketing initiatives. • Peer Comparison – normative messaging designed to motivate people to save by comparing the customer’s energy use to both typical homes and those homes that are highly efficient. The customer’s peer group is derived by taking into account important characteristics of the home. • Personalized savings measures –The collection of tips to be used for any given individual in the campaign is created based on home profile attributes (obtained or assumed) and customer segmentation. The attrition rate for the Year-Round Group was 12%. The attrition rate for the Winter Heating Group was 3.5% from first report to last. 94% of the attrition for the Year-Round Group was caused by move-outs and National Change of Address nondeliverables. After the first report, 86% of the attrition was caused by move-outs and National Change of Address nondeliverables in the Winter Heating Group. 1.1 PROGRAM ACHIEVEMENTS Program achievements include: • 149,546 total reports sent from July 2017 to June 2018 date affecting 25,677 total customers within the Counties of Ada, Bannock, Bingham, Canyon, Cassia, Gem, Gooding, Jerome, Lemhi, Payette, Twin Falls, Valley, and Washington. • 172 customers opted out—representing a low opt out rate of 0.64 percent when compared with an average 1 percent in typical Home Energy Report programs. • Year 1 of the of the program achieved statistically significant energy savings with a 95% confidence interval in 3 out of the 4 treatment groups. The percent saved ranged from 0.5% to 1.7%, and the average energy savings per customer ranged from 28 kWh to 207 kWh. Customer Satisfaction was measured through a customer survey and calls into the CSRs. Call volume was low overall with 411 total calls to the call center during the report period. The full Customer Satisfaction Survey report is included as Appendix C of this report. Highlights of the customer survey include: • 90% of survey respondents indicated they want to continue receiving the report. • 83% of survey respondents felt their utility helps them understand their usage. • 74% of survey respondents indicated they were motivated to save energy. 2. PROGRAM OVERVIEW The Winter Heating Group was selected based on their high electric heating usage in the winter. They received four reports from November 2017 – February 2018 that focused on their electric heating usage and tips to save on electric heating. Table 2 – Winter Heating Group (T1) Report Schedule for Year 1 Report Date Mailed Reporting Period 1 November 17, 2017 2016/11/1 – 2017/3/31 2 December 6, 2017 2016/11/1 – 2017/3/31 3 January 23, 2018 2017/11/1 – 2017/12/31 4 February 22, 2018 2017/11/1 – 2018/1/31 Idaho Power Company HER YR1 Final Program Report Smart Infrastructure www.Aclara.com Expand your vision of the network Page 6 of 64 The Year Round received four reports from July 2017 to July 2018 that focused on their electric usage related to appliances and lights, always on and air conditioning and associated tips to save. Table 3 – Year Round Groups (T3, T4 and T5) Report Schedule for Year 1 Report Date Mailed Reporting Period 1 July 24, 2017 2016/6/1 – 2017/5/31 2016/6/1 – 2016/8/31 2 August 22, 2017 2017/6/1 – 2017/7/31 3 October 27, 2017 2017/8/1 – 2017/9/30 4 December 27, 2017 2017/10/1 – 2017/11/30 5 February 27, 2018 2017/12/1 – 2018/1/31 6 April 24, 2018 2018/2/1 – 2018/3/31 7 July 2, 2018 2018/4/1 – 2018/5/31 2.1 OBJECTIVES Idaho Power identified the following primary objectives for the HER program pilot: • Provide average annual savings of 1-3% across the participant group. • Maintain or enhance the current customer satisfaction levels. • Encourage customer engagement with electric usage, including utilization of online tools and lift for other EE programs. • Meet cost-effectiveness guidelines from a Total Resource Cost (TRC) perspective. Further objectives of the pilot included: • Following industry best practices/protocols for all segments to ensure lessons learned from the pilot appropriately inform program decisions going forward. • Ensuring program design will stand up to the rigors of a 3rd party evaluation on the back end, i.e., sample sizes adequate to detect and claim expected savings, control and treatment group assignments clean and accurate, etc. • Obtaining information to provide insights for the future of the program: o Scalability o Anticipated savings for various customer segments o Best target audiences (energy use, geography, etc.) o Audiences to exclude, etc. o Ability to measure savings Idaho Power Company HER YR1 Final Program Report Smart Infrastructure www.Aclara.com Expand your vision of the network Page 7 of 64 2.2 INTEGRATION AND IMPLEMENTATION Aclara utilizes a phased implementation methodology to include: • Phase 1: Project Initiation & Kickoff • Phase 2: Program Design & Requirements Gathering • Phase 3: Data Acquisition & Analytics • Phase 4: Implementation & Configuration • Phase 5: Report Testing & Approval • Phase 6: Report Preparation & Fulfillment • Phase 7: Program Monitoring • Phase 8: Savings Quantification and Program Summary Report The Aclara methodology has been developed to help reach the following goals: • Overall client satisfaction • Ensure first time implementation success • Clearly set expectations • Ensure buy-in at all levels of the client organization • Enable client’s change request process • Provide avenues for feedback and refinement of the product and process Fundamentals used to develop methodology and meet implementation goals: • Include client feedback throughout the process • Ensure client involvement at all levels (executive to end user) • Ensure timely delivery of the application Aclara worked with Idaho Power to acquire the data needed to support the program and analyzed the data to ensure that there were no quality issues. Aclara leveraged existing and/or purchased third party demographic and property data for Idaho Power electric customer records. The household-level data sources will allow for the creation of more robust control and peer groups for driving behavior change and evaluating program performance. Where gaps occurred in third-party property data, Aclara leveraged its consumption analytics model (ACE) leveraging monthly consumption data to determine the property’s likely fuel use for heating, cooling and water heating to better validate peer group assignment and segmentation. Idaho Power Company HER YR1 Final Program Report Smart Infrastructure www.Aclara.com Expand your vision of the network Page 8 of 64 Table 4- Program Data Integration Integration Point Description Integration Format Frequency Responsible Party - Initiator Responsible Party - Receiver Electric Customer Billing Data Idaho Power will provide electric customer billing data to Aclara incrementally each month as each bill cycle is completed for treatment group customers, selected control customers, and random sample for benchmarking. CSV Batch – one-time Historical & Reoccurring Weekly Idaho Power Aclara Electric Customer AMI Data Idaho Power to provide recurring daily AMI updates of electric AMI data for treatment group customers, selected control customers, and random sample for benchmarking. CSV Batch– one-time Historical & Reoccurring Weekly Idaho Power Aclara Public Record Data Aclara calls Melissa Data for latest property records for treatment group customers, selected control customers, and random sample for benchmarking. CSV Batch– one-time Historical Aclara Aclara Action and Profile Data Aclara extracts customer action and profile data from My Account tools (EnergyPrism) for treatment group customers, selected control customers, and random sample for benchmarking. CSV Batch – one-time Historical & Reoccurring Weekly Aclara Aclara Opt-Outs Idaho Power delivery a weekly opt out report to Aclara for removal of customer prior to next program report. CSV Reoccurring Weekly Idaho Power Aclara Aclara conducted an eligibility screening of potential participants prior to allocating participants to either a treatment group or a corresponding control group. Criteria for removing customers from eligibility included (but were not limited to): Table 5 - Criteria and Rationale for Elibility Screening Criteria Rationale Multi-family Removed multi-family accounts due to difficulty of providing appropriate benchmarking comparisons due to lack of available housing details. Tenant billing mismatch Removing accounts where the landlords might be receiving reports relating to tenants. <1 year of AMI data available More than 1 year of energy data is needed to provide a baseline for EM&V purposes. Oregon Accounts For the pilot period, participation was limited to Idaho customers. Net Metering Accounts Households on a net metering rate would receive an HER that does not accurately reflect their household energy use, so they were not eligible for the HER program. County Regions that did not have sufficient eligible accounts to create robust benchmarks were removed from eligibility to ensure that all customers were compared to robust benchmarks. Idaho Power Company HER YR1 Final Program Report Smart Infrastructure www.Aclara.com Expand your vision of the network Page 9 of 64 Once customer segmentation had been identified, Aclara worked with Idaho Power to define the campaign strategy to customize key messaging in the report. Customer segmentation was leveraged to refine savings tips selections and promotions based on targeting offers that would be both the most relevant and have the highest likelihood of adoption. Aclara, in collaboration with Idaho Power, implemented an iterative report configuration that enables Idaho Power to update the content of the report to ensure the design meets Idaho Power’s program objectives. 2.3 TEAM STRUCTURE Aclara and Ecotagious have been partnering since 2016 to deliver greater value to our customers. We have been successfully integrating our two technologies and have already delivered results exceeding expectations to all our clients. Ecotagious’ ability to segment residential customers on their appliance use plays a key role in Aclara’s behavioral efficiency programs to drive energy savings for gas and electric utilities. Ecotagious and Aclara were pleased partner with Idaho Power Corporation to deliver this Home Energy Report Program. 3. METHODOLOGY In this pilot, the energy savings from different customer segments were tested. Treatment groups of High-users (T3: > Average kWh/year), Medium-users (T4: ~Average kWh/year)) and Low-users (T5: < Average kWh/year) were created to measure the difference in energy savings between them. The savings results are provided in section 5. A Winter Heating Group was also created that included customers with high electricity use for heating in the winter. This group received 4 reports during the heating season. Idaho Power has strong summer and winter periods of high electricity use for A/C & Heating, representing 23% of average residential electricity use. Analyzing the electricity consumption per home per year allowed for identifying Year Round program candidates as well as winter heating and summer AC candidates. Figure 2 - Average kWh electricity use - Jan1, 2016 - Dec 31, 2016 Idaho Power Company HER YR1 Final Program Report Smart Infrastructure www.Aclara.com Expand your vision of the network Page 10 of 64 Figure 3 - Electricity Consumption (% of kWh/year) Figure 4 - Electrcicity consumed per home per year Idaho Power Company HER YR1 Final Program Report Smart Infrastructure www.Aclara.com Expand your vision of the network Page 11 of 64 Figure 5 - Total electricity load across all residential homes 3.1 PROGRAM DESIGN The energy savings from these groups were evaluated following standard industry-accepted evaluation practices. The program was set up as a Randomized Control Trial (RCT) where a third party created the treatment and control groups. 27,000 customers were identified as initial program participants. After taking into consideration exclusionary factors such as move-ins and move-outs, as well as removing a number of the T-1 potential participants due to the lack of adequate county benchmarks, the sample sizes at the time first reports were delivered were: Table 6 – Treatment and Control Group Size at First Report Treatment Control Winter Heating – T1 7,092 14,995 Year-Round – T3 8,295 44,232 Year-Round – T4 3,985 40,830 Year-Round – T5 6,305 66,783 TOTAL 25,677 166,840 The evaluation employed a ‘difference-in-differences’ approach to allow for accurate evaluation of program driven energy savings. Appropriate-sized treatment and control groups were created for each cohort, accounting for an attrition rate of 10 percent and allowing for statistically significant detection of energy savings in excess of 1.2% in the treatment groups. To achieve this objective, all eligible customers were placed in either the treatment group or the control group. Households that moved-out during the evaluation period were taken out of both the treatment and control groups. Customers who opted out or were removed due to being marked nondeliverable by the National Change of Address database were left in both the treatment and control groups. Idaho Power Company HER YR1 Final Program Report Smart Infrastructure www.Aclara.com Expand your vision of the network Page 12 of 64 4. CUSTOMER SATISFACTION 4.1 CUSTOMER SATISFACTION SURVEY The primary goal of the customer satisfaction survey was to measure customer satisfaction. Oraclepoll Research Limited was commissioned to conduct survey research with Idaho Power customers to assess impact of the Home Energy Reports. A total of 400 customers were interviewed, broken down as follows: ◼ N=200 completed interviews for the control group ◼ N=200 completed interviews for the treatment sample, with: o N=100 interviews among the winter heating group (T1) o N=100 interviews among the year-round group (T3, T4 & T5) The survey was conducted by telephone using live person researchers at the Oraclepoll call center. The survey questions are included in Appendix C. The survey was completed between April 15th – April 24th, 2018. The margin of error for the total N=400 sample is ± 4.8%, 19/20 times. The error rates for each of the two N=200 sub-samples are ± 6.9%, 19/20 times. Based on the survey respondents’ answers to the questions posed: a) The Home Energy Reports have not had a negative effect on customer satisfaction. b) Households who received Home Energy Reports perceived that Idaho Power was trying to help them manage their energy use. c) Households who received Home Energy Reports remembered receiving them and said they read “all or most” of them. d) Households who received Home Energy Reports said they acted to save money and electricity. e) Households who received Home Energy Reports would like to continue receiving them. Details of the customer satisfaction survey results are provided in Appendix C. Interestingly, the results of the customer survey suggest that the T5 group is the most interested in continuing to receive reports. 87% of customers in group T5 answered yes to the question “If the program remains in place, would you like to continue receiving Home Energy Reports at no charge?” Idaho Power Company HER YR1 Final Program Report Smart Infrastructure www.Aclara.com Expand your vision of the network Page 13 of 64 Figure 6 - Percentage of each treatment group who answered “yes” to “If the program remains in place, would you like to continue receiving Home Energy Reports at no charge?” A further breakout of the survey results is provided in Appendix D. 4.2 CSA RESULTS & OPT-OUTS IPC Customer Service Agents received a total of 411 calls, which is 1.5% percent of treated customers. This is a low call-in rate. The opt-rate for the program was 0.64%, below the industry average of 1%. CSAs reported excellent feedback on the program, summarized here: • Reports driving customers to update their profiles online • Reports driving customers to have conversations about IPC energy saving programs • Customers calling to say they like the program Few customers were reporting negative feedback. • Customers calling to say they don’t like the report 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% T1 T3 T4 T5 Idaho Power Company HER YR1 Final Program Report Smart Infrastructure www.Aclara.com Expand your vision of the network Page 14 of 64 Table 7 - CSA Results & Opt-Outs Call Reason Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Total General 30 3 1 13 18 10 8 17 3 3 1 4 110 Profile Update 34 9 1 4 13 20 4 2 2 2 0 3 94 Opt-Out 101 11 0 7 23 9 0 2 1 12 0 6 172 Escalation 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Non-Prog Related 9 0 1 1 2 2 1 6 1 1 0 0 24 Other 10 1 0 3 9 1 2 4 1 1 0 3 35 Figure 7 - CSA Dispositions 4.3 MICROSITE ENGAGEMENT Table 8 - Microsite Activity by Month Microsite Activity Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Total Program to Date Unique Clicks 24 10 11 11 7 9 3 6 2 1 0 31 115 Total Clicks 25 10 12 14 7 10 3 9 2 1 0 32 125 25% 22%39% 0% 6% 8% General Question Profile Update Opt-Out Escalation Non-program related Other Idaho Power Company HER YR1 Final Program Report Smart Infrastructure www.Aclara.com Expand your vision of the network Page 15 of 64 The microsite usage is low, as expected. In programs where there is no ability to opt-out or update home profile on the microsite, we expect the usage to be low. The intent of the microsite in this pilot is to help reduce call volumes by providing answers to frequently asked questions. 5. PROGRAM SAVINGS The Winter Heating Group has the highest cumulative aggregate savings due to the intensity of electric heating, even though they only received four reports. Energy savings for the treatment period were statistically significant during this treatment period for T1, T3 and T4, but not T5. Table 9 - Cumulative Savings by Cohort Cohort Avg Energy Savings in kWh per Customer in the Treatment Period 95% Confidence Margin of Error One-Sided Null Hypothesis ~Cumulative Aggregate Savings (kWh) Treatment Period Winter Heating – T1 207 101 3.13E-05 1462, 412 Dec 01, 2017 to July 31, 2018 Year-Round - T3 151 54 2.86E-08 1125, 930 Aug 01, 2017 to July 31, 2018 Year-Round - T4 149 51 7.59E-09 534, 536 Aug 01, 2017 to July 31, 2018 Year-Round - T5 28 35 0.0563 158, 902 Aug 01, 2017 to July 31, 2018 5.1 WINTER HEATING GROUP M&V RESULTS Table 10 - Winter Heating Group Percentage Annualized Savings Winter Heating – T1 1.5% *excludes initial 3 month ramp-up period from Dec 2017-Feb 2018 Idaho Power Company HER YR1 Final Program Report Smart Infrastructure www.Aclara.com Expand your vision of the network Page 16 of 64 The chart below shows the monthly reduction in energy use for the Winter Heating Group (negative values are energy savings). Figure 8 - Winter Heating Monthly Energy Use Reduction in % Figure 9 - Winter Heating Group Monthly Average Reduction in Energy Use by kWh per Household Idaho Power Company HER YR1 Final Program Report Smart Infrastructure www.Aclara.com Expand your vision of the network Page 17 of 64 Figure 10 - Winter Heating Group Approximate Aggregate Energy Use Reduction by Month, kWh Figure 11 - Winter Heating Energy Use Reduction by Month with 95% Confidence Bounds 5.2 YEAR-ROUND GROUP M&V RESULTS Table 11 – Year-Round Group Percentage Annualized Savings Year-Round - T3 1.3% Year-Round - T4 1.7% Year-Round - T5 0.5% *excludes 3 month ramp-up period from Aug-Oct 2017 Idaho Power Company HER YR1 Final Program Report Smart Infrastructure www.Aclara.com Expand your vision of the network Page 18 of 64 Figure 12 - Year-Round Group Monthly Energy Use Reduction in % Figure 83 - Year-Round Group Monthly Average Reduction in Energy Use by kWh per Household Idaho Power Company HER YR1 Final Program Report Smart Infrastructure www.Aclara.com Expand your vision of the network Page 19 of 64 Figure 14 - Year-Round Group Approximate Aggregate Energy Use Reduction by Month, kWh Figure 15 - T3 Energy Use Reduction by Month with 95% Confidence Bounds Idaho Power Company HER YR1 Final Program Report Smart Infrastructure www.Aclara.com Expand your vision of the network Page 20 of 64 Figure 16 - T4 Energy Use Reduction by Month with 95% Confidence Bounds Figure 97 - T5 Energy Use Reduction by Month with 95% Confidence Bounds 6. LESSONS LEARNED During Year One of the pilot there were a number of lesson learned and process improvements, detailed below. 6.1.1 OBJECTIVES There were a number of learnings related to the objectives of the pilot (detailed in 2.1). This included: - Electric heating households (the Winter Heating group) delivered the highest kWh savings by a significant margin, due to the kWh intensity of electric heating. - The low user group (T5) had the lowest kWh savings and did not achieve statistically significant savings. - The program did not have a negative impact on customer satisfaction levels. - In the Customer Satisfaction Survey, despite not having high savings results, the lower user group (T5) did indicate they enjoyed receiving the reports. Idaho Power Company HER YR1 Final Program Report Smart Infrastructure www.Aclara.com Expand your vision of the network Page 21 of 64 - Data analysis found that approximately 13% of accounts in T3, T4, and T5 were under-performing in terms of saving energy. - Evidence from the CSA results suggests that the results do prompt customers to inquire about the Idaho Power energy efficiency programs promoted in the reports. - Based on feedback from the Customer Solutions Advisors, the reports appeared to have encouraged customer engagement with electric usage, including utilization of online tools and lift for other EE programs. 6.1.1.1 HER PROGRAM ELIGIBILITY The ability to include customers identified as high electric heating and potential candidates for the Winter Heating Group was impacted by a lack of the necessary publicly available building data. This is a requirement for accurate benchmarking for inclusion in the Winter Heating program. The Winter Heating program was therefore smaller than it otherwise could have been. In addition, an issue with location data caused 355 accounts to be removed from the Winter Heating Group after eligibility was complete and before the first report went out. Location data is required to benchmark accounts against other households in the same region for an effective benchmark. 6.1.1.2 REPORT TERMINOLOGY There were a number of learnings during Year 1 that lead to improvements in the terminology used in the HER. These include: - Feedback from the CSA results suggested that the inclusion of the word “Space” in Electric Space Heating was confusing. This was updated to “Electric Heating.” - Feedback was received from an account where the household had done a large lighting retrofit and did not notice a large difference in their Lights & Appliance usage. The suggestion was to rename the end-use breakdown to Appliances & Lights to make the relative intensity of the two end uses clearer. - Feedback from the CSA results suggested that the HER could be clearer about what energy use period the HER report referred to. 6.1.1.3 TIMING AND CONTENT OF BIMONTHLY REPORTS A couple issues came up during Year 1 related to sending bimonthly reports where the report period for energy usage was the previous 2 months. • Low users (T5) had very low usage data in some of the 2 month periods. Idaho Power called these customers before they received their reports to explain why their reports did not have a motivational narrative. 6.1.1.4 ATTRITION RATE The program had an overall attrition rate of 12 percent. This is slightly higher than the 10 percent accounted for in the initial program design, but within the range expected for similar programs. In a full program roll-out, the treatment and control groups should be sized to accommodate a minimum attrition of 12 percent and a maximum attrition of 14%. 6.1.1.5 REPORT DELIVERY TIMELINE Idaho Power Company HER YR1 Final Program Report Smart Infrastructure www.Aclara.com Expand your vision of the network Page 22 of 64 In an investigation into how to make the reports received by customers arrive more closely after the end of the report period revealed the major limitation was the weekly AMI files. The weekly AMI files received every Sunday only have data up to Tuesday night, so in some months, depending on how the dates fall in the week, all the data needed to begin report generation is not received until the 2nd Monday of the month. 7. PROGRAM RECOMMENDATIONS AND DECISIONS FOR YEAR 2 Based on the findings from year 1 of the pilot, to enhance the program for Year 2 and beyond, Aclara has the following recommendations: 1. Expand to new customers • To maximize 2019 savings and create a good customer experience, launch an expanded winter-heating group in time for winter – sending two reports at end of 2018. An expanded winter heating group could be made by sourcing additional building data through primary survey techniques. 2. Further enhance cost-effectiveness • Cull existing customers from T3, T4 and T5 to remove sub-optimal customers. • Continue sending reports to T1, and optimized T3, T4 & T5 customers. 3. Continue to include the promotion of Idaho Power energy efficiency programs in the HER to drive uptake in these programs. 4. Improve the clarity of the HER reports by: • Renaming Lights & Appliances to Appliances & Lights and updating the detailed description of this end-use to a descending order of the most energy-intensive appliances: water heaters, dryers, stoves, washers, TV’s, and dishwashers • Increasing the prominence of the period of energy use that the report covers and including it in more places on the report. 5. Consider alternative report content strategies for the spring and fall for focusing on A/C and heating energy use. 6. Align delivery schedules • Place all customers on a year-round bimonthly schedule • Turn the Winter Heating Group into a year-round group to align program delivery schedule o High winter heating users should receive an extra seasonal report in the winter (i.e. T1 and T2) o High summer AC users should receive an extra seasonal report in the summer (all T groups) • Evaluate option of reducing to quarterly reports + 1 seasonal after first year 7. Ensure customer satisfaction continues • Try opt-in approach to allow customers to toggle channel from paper to email Idaho Power Company HER YR1 Final Program Report Smart Infrastructure www.Aclara.com Expand your vision of the network Page 23 of 64 APPENDIX A – NREL RESIDENTIAL BEHAVIORAL STANDARD UMPChapter17-resid ential-behavior.pdf Idaho Power Company HER YR1 Final Program Report Smart Infrastructure www.Aclara.com Expand your vision of the network Page 24 of 64 APPENDIX B – REPORT & MICROSITE SAMPLES Year Round Group – Report 1 Welcome Letter (Delivered July 2017) Idaho Power Company HER YR1 Final Program Report Smart Infrastructure www.Aclara.com Expand your vision of the network Page 25 of 64 Idaho Power Company HER YR1 Final Program Report Smart Infrastructure www.Aclara.com Expand your vision of the network Page 26 of 64 Year Round Group – Report 1a (Delivered July 2017) Idaho Power Company HER YR1 Final Program Report Smart Infrastructure www.Aclara.com Expand your vision of the network Page 27 of 64 Idaho Power Company HER YR1 Final Program Report Smart Infrastructure www.Aclara.com Expand your vision of the network Page 28 of 64 Year Round Group – Report 6 (Delivered April 2018) Idaho Power Company HER YR1 Final Program Report Smart Infrastructure www.Aclara.com Expand your vision of the network Page 29 of 64 Idaho Power Company HER YR1 Final Program Report Smart Infrastructure www.Aclara.com Expand your vision of the network Page 30 of 64 APPENDIX C – CUSTOMER SATISFACTION SURVEY REPORT Idaho Power Survey Report 2018 Idaho Power Company HER YR1 Final Program Report Smart Infrastructure www.Aclara.com Expand your vision of the network Page 31 of 64 Table of contents METHODOLOGY & LOGISTICS 2 EXECUTIVE OVERVIEW – All Respondents 3 Favorability 3 Satisfaction 4 Motivation to Reduce Consumption 5 Efforts to Reduce Use 6 Reasons for Reducing 7 Agreement Statements 8 Actions to Save 9 EXECUTIVE OVERVIEW – Treatment Group 11 Receipt of the Report 11 Reading the Report 12 Experience with The Report 13 Features Seen 14 Acted on Report 15 Continued Receipt 16 Impact of Report 18 Most Useful Elements & Improvements 19 Future Receipt 20 Methodology & Logistics Background Oraclepoll Research Limited was commissioned by Ecotagious to conduct survey research among Idaho Power customers. The purpose of the research was to assess receipt and the impact of Home Energy Reports sent to Idaho Power customers. Within this context, we interviewed a treatment sample of respondents from a “winter heating” that started receiving reports in December 2017 and a “year-round” cohort that first got theirs in July 2017. In addition, a control sample of those that did not receive the report were interviewed – this to look for any variances of option between the groups. Study Sample Idaho Power made a database of its customers available for interviewing. Quotas were set and for each client category, with the completed sample breakdown being as follows. Idaho Power Company HER YR1 Final Program Report Smart Infrastructure www.Aclara.com Expand your vision of the network Page 32 of 64 ◼ N=200 completed interviews for the control group (C1, C3, C4 & C5) ◼ N=200 completed interviews for the treatment sample, with: o N=100 interviews among the winter heating group (T1) o N=100 interviews among the year-round group (T3, T4 & T5) Survey Method The survey was conducted using computer-assisted techniques of telephone interviewing (CATI) using live person to person researchers at the Oraclepoll call centre. An initial call was made to contact respondents, or if requested to set up a suitable call back time to complete the interview. Respondents were screened to ensure they were 18 years of age or older and responsible for making energy related decisions in their home. Logistics Surveys were completed between the days of April 15th and April 24th, 2018. Confidence The margin of error for the total N=400 sample is ± 4.8%, 19/20 times. The error rates for each of the two N=200 sub-samples are ± 6.9%, 19/20 times. Idaho Power Company HER YR1 Final Program Report Smart Infrastructure www.Aclara.com Expand your vision of the network Page 33 of 64 Executive RESULTS – ALL RESPONDENTS Favorability All N=400 respondents were first asked to rate their opinion of Idaho Power using a five-point favorability scale. The graph below combines the total favorable (5-very favorable & 4-favorable) as well a total unfavorable (1-very unfavorable & 2-unfavorable) results. Q1.” Using a scale from one to five where one is very unfavorable and five is very favorable, how would you rate your overall opinion of Idaho Power?” Idaho Power rates high in terms of favorability among eight in ten customers or 82% of all customers (59% very favorable & 24% favorable), compared to only 6% that accorded an unfavorable score (3% very unfavorable & 3% unfavorable), while 12% provided a mid-point “3” neutral rating of neither poor nor good. Results were consistent across the control (83%) and treatment groups (80%). 82%83%80% 12%11%12% 6%6%8% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% TOTAL Control Treatment Total favorable Neutral Total unfavorable Idaho Power Company HER YR1 Final Program Report Smart Infrastructure www.Aclara.com Expand your vision of the network Page 34 of 64 Satisfaction Next, all respondents rated their level of satisfaction with Idaho Power using a five-point scale. The graph below combines the total satisfied (5-very satisfied & 4-satisfied) as well a total dissatisfied (1-very dissatisfied & 2-dissatisfied) results. Q2. “Using a scale from one to five where one is very dissatisfied and five is very satisfied, what is your overall satisfaction with Idaho Power?” There is a strong sense of satisfaction among customers at 85% (60% very satisfied & 25% satisfied) including a similar 86% from the control group (56% very satisfied & 30% satisfied) and 83% from the treatment cohort (63% very satisfied & 20% satisfied). 85%86%83% 9%8%10% 6%6%7% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% TOTAL Control Treatment Total favorable Neutral Total unfavorable Idaho Power Company HER YR1 Final Program Report Smart Infrastructure www.Aclara.com Expand your vision of the network Page 35 of 64 Motivation to Reduce Consumption Customers (N=400) were questioned about how motivated they are to reduce the amount of electricity consumed at their residence. Results from total motivated (5-very motivated & 4-motivated) and total not motivated (1-not at all motivated & 2-not motivated) scores are combined below. Q3. “How motivated are you to reduce the amount of electricity you use in your home? Please respond using a scale from one to five where one is not at all motivated and five is very motivated.” While almost seven in ten (69%) of all customers said they are motivated (27%) or very motivated (42%), there was a significant variance in the findings between the control and treatment groups. Almost three- quarters of the treatment sample or 74% said they were motivated (51% very motivated & 23% motivated) compared to the control group where 65% were motivated (31%) or very motivated (34%). Among those in the treatment group (N=200), 81% of the year-round sample were motivated (25%) or very motivated (56%), in relation to the winter component where 66% were motivated (21%) or very motivated (45%). 69%65% 74% 18%20% 15%13%15%11% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% TOTAL Control Treatment Total motivated Neutral Total not motivated Idaho Power Company HER YR1 Final Program Report Smart Infrastructure www.Aclara.com Expand your vision of the network Page 36 of 64 Efforts to Reduce Use All N=400 respondents were then specifically asked if they make efforts to reduce the electricity that they use. Q4.” Do you make any efforts to reduce your electricity use?” Eighty-two percent (N=326) of all customers claimed that they make efforts to reduce their use of electricity. There was a significant difference among the two cohorts, with 77% of the control group and a +9% higher 86% of the treatment sample saying that they conserve in this area. More of the year-round component of the treatment group (89%) reduce their usage than those from the winter sample (83%). 82% 77% 86% 16%19% 13% 2%4%1% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% TOTAL Control Treatment Yes No Don't know Idaho Power Company HER YR1 Final Program Report Smart Infrastructure www.Aclara.com Expand your vision of the network Page 37 of 64 Reasons for Reducing The N=326 of respondents that said in Q4 that they make efforts to reduce their electricity consumption, were then asked if a series of five areas are contributing factors as to why they conserve. Q5. “Please tell me if each of the following are reasons why you make efforts to reduce your electricity use.” REASONS TO REDUCE TOTAL SAMPLE “YES” CONTROL SAMPLE “YES” TREATMENT SAMPLE “YES” a. Save money 98% 97% 98% b. Reduce waste 86% 83% 88% c. Make your home more comfortable 73% 64% 81% d. Help preserve the environment 76% 69% 83% e. Reduce your dependence on fossil fuels 67% 60% 73% Saving money was named by almost all or 98% and reducing waste by 86%. The next most named areas were helping to preserve the environment by 76% and making their home more comfortable by 73%, while lower mentioned was reducing dependence on fossil fuels (67%). Across all five indicators treatment sample results were higher than those from the control group. Idaho Power Company HER YR1 Final Program Report Smart Infrastructure www.Aclara.com Expand your vision of the network Page 38 of 64 Agreement Statements All N=400 respondents were read and asked to rate their level of agreement with each of nine statements using a five-point rating scale. Figures in the following table include the total agree answers (5-strongly agree & 4-agree) for each indicator. Q6. “I am now going to ask you to rate your level of agreement with a series of statements related to Idaho Power. For each one, please respond using a scale from one to five where one means you strongly disagree and five means you strongly agree.” AGREEMENT STATEMENTS – TOTAL AGREE RESULTS TOTAL SAMPLE CONTROL SAMPLE TREATMENT SAMPLE a. Idaho Power provides excellent customer service 84% 84% 83% b. Idaho Power provides service at a reasonable cost 74% 75% 74% c. Idaho Power cares about its customers 69% 70% 68% d. Idaho Power helps me understand how I’m using energy 71% 59% 83% e. Idaho Power provides helpful tools to help me save money 68% 61% 75% f. Idaho Power is a trusted resource for information on how to save energy 65% 60% 70% g. Idaho Power helps me manage my energy usage 58% 45% 71% h. Idaho Power helps me save electricity by providing useful energy-saving recommendations and programs 62% 53% 72% I. I feel like my smart meter is providing valuable information 45% 39% 52% Idaho Power rated highest in terms of agreement for providing excellent service at 84% and then for providing service at a reasonable cost (74%), with consistent results from both the control and treatment samples. While 68% agreed Idaho Power provides tools to help them save money, +24% more in the treatment sample agreed with this statement than those in the control sample. Caring for customers rated next at 69% (no variance among the sub-samples), followed by proving tools to help save money (68%) with 75% in the treatment group agreeing compared to 61% in the control cohort. In the three areas that next followed, the treatment sample results were significantly higher in relation to the control group. This included, being a trusted resource to save money (65%-total, 70%-treatment & 60%-control), providing useful energy-saving recommendations and programs (62%-total, 72% treatment & 53% control) and helping to manage energy use (58%-total, 71% treatment & 45% control). Only 45% agreed that with the smart meter statement related to providing them valuable information, but findings were higher among the treatment sample at 52% (39% control). Actions to Save Idaho Power Company HER YR1 Final Program Report Smart Infrastructure www.Aclara.com Expand your vision of the network Page 39 of 64 Next, all N=400 respondents were asked if they have completed a series of nine conservation actions. Q7. “Please indicate if you have completed or done any of the following actions at your residence within the last 6 months to save energy.” ACTIONS TAKEN TO SAVE ENERGY TOTAL SAMPLE “YES” CONTROL SAMPLE “YES” TREATMENT SAMPLE “YES” a. Set your thermostat to a lower or higher temperature 74% 75% 72% b. Avoided heating unused rooms 84% 81% 88% c. Installed a high efficiency showerhead 41% 37% 44% d. Added insulation to your home 21% 13% 29% e. Used a clothesline to dry clothing 25% 20% 31% f. Only used dryer when it’s full 85% 83% 87% g. Washed clothes in cold water 71% 67% 76% h. Checked air ducts for leaks 37% 38% 37% i. Purchased LEDs to install in your home 83% 82% 83% Customers were most likely to have used their dryer when full (85%), avoided heating unused rooms (84%) and purchased LEDs (83%) and washing clothes in cold water (71%). Fewer said they took the remaining actions, but results were higher for installing an efficient showerhead (41%) and checking air ducts for leaks (37%). They were lowest for using a clothesline (25%) and adding insulation (21%). The 83% or N=330 of those that said they purchased LEDs were asked a follow-up question about how many they acquired. Sixteen percent said 1-3 LEDs, 21% 4-6, 13% 7-9 and most or 50% named 10 or more. Idaho Power Company HER YR1 Final Program Report Smart Infrastructure www.Aclara.com Expand your vision of the network Page 40 of 64 The final question asked to all N=400 customers probed about any other actions they have done at their residence to help save electricity. “Q8. Did you do anything else to save electricity at your residence within the last 6 months?” No N=257 64.3 Turned off lights N=83 20.8 Unplugged items N=20 5.0 Reduced shower time N=15 3.8 Upgraded furnace / air N=7 1.8 Changed appliances N=6 1.5 Changed windows / doors N=6 1.5 Solar panels N=3 .8 Burn wood / pellets N=3 .8 While a majority said no other actions were taken, the most named by those providing a mention was turning off lights, next followed by unplugging items and reducing shower time. Executive RESULTS – TREATMENT GROUP The N=200 treatment group was then asked a series of question relating specifically to the Home Energy Reports. They were first read the following short introductory statement. “Next, we have some questions about the Home Energy Reports you receive from Idaho Power. Over the last couple months, Idaho Power sent Home Energy Reports to select customers in the mail. These reports provide a breakdown of your electricity use by major appliance, a comparison of your electricity use in relation to other homes similar to yours and recommendations on how you can save electricity.” Receipt of Report They were then asked if they recalled receiving a Home Energy Report. T1. “Do you recall receiving a Home Energy report?” Idaho Power Company HER YR1 Final Program Report Smart Infrastructure www.Aclara.com Expand your vision of the network Page 41 of 64 An 84% majority or N=168 said they remember receiving a Home Energy Report, including 85% from the year round and 83% from the winter sample. The N=168 that answered yes were then asked a follow-up question, while those that said no (14%, N=27) or don’t know (2%, N=5) skipped the remaining questions asked to the treatment sample. 84% 14% 2% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Yes No Don't know Idaho Power Company HER YR1 Final Program Report Smart Infrastructure www.Aclara.com Expand your vision of the network Page 42 of 64 Reading the Report The N=168 that recalled receiving the Report were then asked about how thoroughly they read them. “T2. How thoroughly did you read the Reports you received? Did you read…” More than eight in ten or 82% (N=139) said they read all or most of the report, 14% (N=23%) some of it and 4% (N=6) little or none. The N=6 that stated they read little or none of the report skipped the remaining questions asked to the treatment sample. All or most 82% Little or none 4% Some 14% Idaho Power Company HER YR1 Final Program Report Smart Infrastructure www.Aclara.com Expand your vision of the network Page 43 of 64 Experience with the Report N=162 respondents (that received the Report & read some or all it) were asked to rate their level of agreement with each of three statements using a five-point rating scale. Figures in the following table include the total agree answers (5-strongly agree & 4-agree) for each indicator. T3. “I am now going to read three statements related to your experience with the Reports. Please rate your level of agreement with each one using a scale from one to five where one means you strongly disagree and five means you strongly agree.” AGREEMENT STATEMENTS – TOTAL AGREE RESULTS TOTAL SAMPLE WINTER SAMPLE YEAR-ROUND SAMPLE a. The information presented in my Home Energy Report was easy to understand 85% 82% 87% b. The information presented in my Home Energy Report seemed accurate 61% 57% 66% c. The recommendations and tips on how to conserve were useful 64% 66% 63% Those in the treatment sample surveyed most agreed that the information in the Report was easy to understand (85%) with a higher percentage of the year-round sample agreeing at 87%, compared to 82% for the winter group. Sixty-four percent agreed the recommendations and tips were useful (rough equal distribution) and slightly more than six in ten or 61% agreed the information appeared accurate – 66% for year-round versus 57% for the winter group. Idaho Power Company HER YR1 Final Program Report Smart Infrastructure www.Aclara.com Expand your vision of the network Page 44 of 64 Features Seen Next, the N=162 respondents (that received the Report & read some or all it) were asked if they saw three features. T4. “Do you recall seeing each of the following features of the Home Energy Report?” FEATURES SEEN IN HOME ENERGY REPORT TOTAL SAMPLE “YES” WINTER SAMPLE “YES” YEAR-ROUND SAMPLE “YES” a. The comparison of your electricity uses in relationship to homes of similar type and size in your area 91% 87% 94% b. The breakdown of your electricity use providing insights into how much your electricity uses 88% 85% 92% c. Saving tips including personalized savings tips just for you 78% 73% 83% There was strong recall for all three areas, with results overall being higher among the year-round sample. Most seen by 91% was the comparison of electricity uses in relation to other similar sized homes, closely followed by the breakdown of electricity use by 88%. Seventy-eight percent said they saw personalized savings tips. There were N=146 customers that named more than one feature in T4 and these respondents were then asked to state which one they found most useful. T5. “Which one of the features you named did you find the most useful?” Savings tips were most mentioned by 49% (Winter – 43% & Year-Round – 54%) Comparison of electricity use to other homes was next named by 27% (Winter – 28% & Year-Round – 27%) The breakdown of your electricity use followed at 24% (Winter – 28% & Year-Round – 19%) Idaho Power Company HER YR1 Final Program Report Smart Infrastructure www.Aclara.com Expand your vision of the network Page 45 of 64 Acted on Report Those that that received the Report & read some or all it (N=162) were questioned if they acted on any of the money and electricity suggestions or information provided. T6. “Have you acted on any of the information and suggestions to save money and electricity that were included in the report?” Three-quarters (75%) of all asked said that they took actions to save money or electricity. This included a very high 82% of the year-round sample and a lesser but still strong 68% of the winter group. Continued Receipt 75% 68% 82% 25% 32% 18% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Total Treatment Winter Year-Round Yes No Idaho Power Company HER YR1 Final Program Report Smart Infrastructure www.Aclara.com Expand your vision of the network Page 46 of 64 The N=162 respondents (that received the Report & read some or all it) were probed about their interest in continuing to receive the Report. T7. “If the program remains in place, would you like to continue receiving Home Energy Reports at no charge?” There is very strong interest among nine in ten or 90% (N=145) for continuing to receive the Reports with no significant variance among the sub-samples. 90%89%91% 10%11%9% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Total Treatment Winter Year-Round Yes No Idaho Power Company HER YR1 Final Program Report Smart Infrastructure www.Aclara.com Expand your vision of the network Page 47 of 64 Those interested in wanting to continue to receive the Report (N=145) were then asked about how often they want to receive it. T8. “At what frequency would you prefer to receive the Report?” FREQUENCY TOTAL SAMPLE WINTER SAMPLE YEAR- ROUND SAMPLE Monthly 35% 46% 25% Bi-Monthly 8% 4% 11% Quarterly 26% 22% 29% Twice a year 32% 28% 36% Among all respondents there was a split between monthly (35%) and twice a year (32%), with more than a quarter or 26% naming quarterly – only 8% favor a bi-monthly schedule. Winter sample participants were most inclined to name monthly, while those from the year-round group had a higher preference for a longer time frame such as twice a year (36%) or quarterly (29%). Idaho Power Company HER YR1 Final Program Report Smart Infrastructure www.Aclara.com Expand your vision of the network Page 48 of 64 Impact of Report The N=162 respondents that received and read the Report were asked how if at all it changed their opinion of Idaho Power. A five-point rating scale was used, and the graph below combines the total worse (1-much worse & 2-somewhat worse) as well as the total better (5-much better & 4-somewhat better) results. T9. “How, if at all, has your opinion of Idaho Power changed since receiving the Home Energy Reports? Would you say it is: READ”? (1=much worse, 2=somewhat worse, 3=stayed the same, 4=somewhat better, 5= much better) The Report has had a positive impact on perceptions of Idaho Power with 57% saying they now have a better opinion of the utility, this especially among the year-round group (67%). Almost four in ten or 38% said their opinion has stayed the same, higher among the winter sample (47%) and only 6% stated their opinion is worse. 6%6%5% 38% 47% 29% 57% 46% 67% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Total Treatment Winter Year round Total Worse Stayed the same Total better Idaho Power Company HER YR1 Final Program Report Smart Infrastructure www.Aclara.com Expand your vision of the network Page 49 of 64 Most Useful Elements & Improvements In an open-ended or unaided question, the N=162 respondents that received and read the Report were asked to name what they felt was its most useful element. T10. “What was the most useful element in the Home Energy Reports received?” Breakdown of usage & savings tips / how to save N=71 44% Amount used N=24 15% Comparison with other homes N=19 12% Comparison of use over time N=16 10% Information (in general) N=14 9% Don't know N=11 7% Everything N=7 4% Respondents find areas such as their consumption as well as comparisons and how to save most useful. In another open-ended or unaided question, the N=162 respondents that received and read the Report were asked what aspects could be improved. T11. “What aspect of the Reports could be improved?” Nothing else N=58 36% Don't know N=55 34% More information / detail (in general) N=12 7% Clearer to read / understand N=11 7% Digital / electronic reports N=9 6% Explain why bill is still high (even after conserving) N=8 5% More info / details about other homes being compared N=7 4% Have month by month breakdown over time N=1 1% Send to different areas at different times N=1 1% Most claimed that nothing needed to be improved or did not know, while those with opinions provided varied answers from having more detail to explaining why their bill is still high. Idaho Power Company HER YR1 Final Program Report Smart Infrastructure www.Aclara.com Expand your vision of the network Page 50 of 64 Future Receipt In a final question, respondents were asked how else that they would like to receive the Report in addition to the paper copy in the mail. T12. “You are currently receiving the paper Home Energy Reports in the mail. Which other ways would you be interested in receiving the report?” Responses TOTAL SAMPLE WINTER SAMPLE YEAR-ROUND SAMPLE Email 48% 53% 43% My account Online 21% 17% 25% Continue receiving them in the mail only 32% 31% 32% Email was most named by almost half (48%), almost one-third (32%) prefer to maintain the hard copy format and 21% said their online account. Idaho Power Company HER YR1 Final Program Report Smart Infrastructure www.Aclara.com Expand your vision of the network Page 51 of 64 APPENDIX D – CUSTOMER SATISFACTION SURVEY HOME ENERGY REPORT CUSTOMER SURVEY Goals: • Measure change in customer satisfaction with IPC between treatment and control • Solicit feedback on reports Methodology: Telephone survey – requires 7 to 10 days Population: 200 Treatment and 200 Control Timing: 5-7min Number of questions: 20-25 Survey introduction: Hello, my name is [Interviewer] and I’m calling from the research firm Oraclepoll on behalf of Idaho Power. We’re conducting a brief survey to evaluate customer feedback on communications from Idaho Power. The survey should take less than 7 minutes to complete and your input will help us improve our communications to customers regarding their energy use. Please be assured that this call is for research and all individual responses from participants will be kept in strict confidence. May I please speak to <NAME>? (IF NOT AVAILABLE: Or may I speak with someone in your household who is responsible for making energy related decisions in your home? [Screening Questions] Are you a customer of Idaho Power that is 18 years of age or older? (TERMINATE IF AGE IS LESS THAN 18] • Yes [CONTINUE] • No [TERMINATE] • (Don’t know) [TERMINATE] • (Refused) [TERMINATE] [If terminated]: Currently, we are looking for customers who meet a specific set of criteria to complete this survey. Thank you for your time and interest. Have a great day! [SECTION 1. ALL RESPONDENTS] Q1. Using a scale from one to five where one is very unfavorable and five is very favorable, how would you rate your overall opinion of Idaho Power? Q2. Using a scale from one to five where one is very dissatisfied and five is very satisfied, what is your overall satisfaction with Idaho Power? Q3. How motivated are you to reduce the amount of electricity you use in your home? Please respond using a scale from one to five where one is not at all motivated and five is very motivated. Idaho Power Company HER YR1 Final Program Report Smart Infrastructure www.Aclara.com Expand your vision of the network Page 52 of 64 Q4. Do you make any efforts to reduce your electricity use? • Yes ASK Q5 • No SKIP TO Q6 • (Don’t know) SKIP TO Q6 • Refused SKIP TO Q6 • Q5. Please tell me if each of the following are reasons why you make efforts to reduce your electricity use. [READ - LIST TO BE ROTATED] [Yes, No, (Don’t know), (Refused) for each option] a. Save money b. Reduce waste c. Make your home more comfortable d. Help preserve the environment e. Reduce your dependence on fossil fuels (propane, coal, wood, etc.) Q6. I am now going to ask you to rate your level of agreement with a series of statements related to Idaho Power. For each one, please respond using a scale from one to five where one means you strongly disagree and five means you strongly agree. [IF NEEDED READ: [1-Strongly Disagree, 2-Somewhat Disagree, 3-Neither Agree nor Disagree, 4- Somewhat Agree, 5-Strongly Agree] 8-(Don’t know), 9-(Refused)] a. Idaho Power provides excellent customer service. b. Idaho Power provides service at a reasonable cost. c. Idaho Power cares about its customers. d. Idaho Power helps me understand how I’m using energy. e. Idaho Power provides helpful tools to help me save money. f. Idaho Power is a trusted resource for information on how to save energy. g. Idaho Power helps me manage my energy usage. h. Idaho Power helps me save electricity by providing useful energy-saving recommendations and programs. i. I feel like my smart meter is providing valuable information. Idaho Power Company HER YR1 Final Program Report Smart Infrastructure www.Aclara.com Expand your vision of the network Page 53 of 64 Q7 Please indicate if you have completed or done any of the following actions at your residence within the last 6 months to save energy. (YES / NO ACCEPTED)  A. Set your thermostat to a lower or higher temperature  B. Avoided heating unused rooms  C. Installed a high efficiency showerhead  D. Added insulation to your home  E. Used a clothesline to dry clothing  F. Only used dryer when it’s full  G. Washed clothes in cold water  H. Checked air ducts for leaks  I. Purchased LEDs to install in your home [YES] How many? a) 1-3 b) 4-6 c) 7-9 d) 10 or more [NO] GO TO T8 Q8. Did you do anything else to save electricity at your residence within the last 6 months? [OPEN ENDED] [SECTION 2. TREATMENT GROUP ONLY] Next, we have some questions about the Home Energy Reports you receive from Idaho Power. T1. Over the last couple months, Idaho Power sent Home Energy Reports to select customers in the mail. These reports provide a breakdown of your electricity use by major appliance, a comparison of your electricity use in relation to other homes similar to yours and recommendations on how you can save electricity. Do you recall receiving a Home Energy report? 1 Yes [Go to T2] 2 No [Go to D1] 8 (Don’t know) [Go to D1] 9 (Refused) [Go to D1] T2. How thoroughly did you read the Reports you received? Did you read… 1 All or most of them 2 Some of them or 3 Little to none of them? [SKIP to D1] 8 (Don’t know) 9 (Refused) T3. I am now going to read three statements related to your experience with the Reports. Please rate your level of agreement with each one using a scale from one to five where one means you strongly disagree and five means you strongly agree. [IF NEEDED READ: [1-Strongly Disagree, 2-Somewhat Disagree, 3-Neither Agree nor Disagree, 4- Somewhat Agree, 5-Strongly Agree] 8-(Don’t know), 9-(Refused)] [Prompt with scale if needed] a. The information presented in my Home Energy Report was easy to understand. b. The information presented in my Home Energy Report seemed accurate. c. The recommendations and tips on how to conserve were useful Idaho Power Company HER YR1 Final Program Report Smart Infrastructure www.Aclara.com Expand your vision of the network Page 54 of 64 T4. Do you recall seeing each of the following features of the Home Energy Report? [YES / NO ACCEPTED] [READ / ROTATE] a. The comparison of your electricity use in relationship to homes of similar type and size in your area b. The breakdown of your electricity use providing insights into how much your electricity use goes towards the different major appliance categories in your home c. Saving tips including personalized savings tips just for you IF MORE THAN ONE FEATURE NAMED ASK T5 / OTHERS SKIP TO T6 T5. Which one of the features you named did you find the most useful? CATI WILL DISPLAY ONLY MENTIONS PROVIDED IN T5 (TO INTERVIEWER) AND THEY WILL BE READ BACK TO RESPONDENT – ONE RESPONSE ACCEPTED a. The comparison of your electricity use in relationship to homes of similar type and size in your area b. The breakdown of your electricity use providing insights into how much your electricity use goes towards the different major appliance categories in your home c. Saving tips including personalized savings tips just for you T6 Have you acted on any of the information and suggestions to save money and electricity that were included in the report? 1 Yes 2 No T7 If the program remains in place, would you like to continue receiving Home Energy Reports at no charge? 1 Yes 2 No [SKIP TO T9] T8 At what frequency would you prefer to receive the report: 1 Monthly 2 Bi-monthly 3 Quarterly, 4 Twice a year 5 other? T9 How, if at all, has your opinion of Idaho Power changed since receiving the Home Energy Reports? Would you say it is: READ (1=much worse, 2=somewhat worse, 3=stayed the same, 4=somewhat better, 5= much better) T10 What was the most useful element in the Home Energy Reports received? [OPEN ENDED] T11. What aspect of the Reports could be improved? [OPEN ENDED] (Interviewer Note: Probe for additional detail. Ask “is there anything else?”) Idaho Power Company HER YR1 Final Program Report Smart Infrastructure www.Aclara.com Expand your vision of the network Page 55 of 64 T12 You are currently receiving the paper Home Energy Reports in the mail. Which other ways would you be interested in receiving the report? ACCEPT MULTIPLE RESPONSES 1 Email 2 My Account online 3 Continue receiving them in the mail only 4 Other RECORD (Optional Demographic Questions (ALL)) The final few questions are of a personal nature and involve collecting demographic information. Please be assured that this information will remain strictly confidential and will be used for statistical purposes only. D1. Which of the following age groups may I place you in? READ / STOP WHEN REACHED 1 18-24 2 25-34 3 35-44 4 45-54 5 55-64 6 65-74 7 75 or older 9 Prefer not to answer (Refused) [SHOW ON WEB] D3. What is the highest level of education that you have completed? READ / STOP WHEN REACHED 1 Some high school or less 2 Graduated high school or GED 3 Some college or technical school 4 Associate Degree 5 Bachelor’s Degree (4 year) 6 Some graduate school 7 Graduate Degree 9 Prefer not to answer (Refused) D5. Including yourself, how many people live in your home? [Numeric Open End] D7. (Interviewer to record gender) 1 Male 2 Female [Those are all the questions I have. Thank you for your time and help with this study Idaho Power Company HER YR1 Final Program Report Smart Infrastructure www.Aclara.com Expand your vision of the network Page 56 of 64 APPENDIX E – ADDITIONAL ANALYSIS OF KEY CUSTOMER SATISFACTION SURVEY QUESTIONS 7.1 QUESTION 1 RESULTS ANALYSIS If the program remains in place, would you like to continue receiving Home Energy Reports at no charge? 7.1.1.1 BY TREATMENT GROUP Treatment 1-Very unfavourable 2-Unfavourable 3-Neither favourable nor unfavourable 4-Favourable 5-Very favourable Grand Total No treatment group indicated 4 8 22 46 120 200 T1 6 4 8 26 56 100 T3 4 1 6 10 23 44 T4 1 7 6 19 33 T5 3 6 14 23 Grand Total 15 13 46 94 232 400 7.1.1.2 BY GENDER 1-Very unfavourable 2-Unfavourable 3-Neither favourable nor unfavourable 4-Favourable 5-Very favourable Grand Total Female 5 6 14 47 120 192 Male 10 7 32 47 112 208 Grand Total 15 13 46 94 232 400 Idaho Power Company HER YR1 Final Program Report Smart Infrastructure www.Aclara.com Expand your vision of the network Page 57 of 64 7.1.1.3 BY AGE 1-Very unfavourable 2-Unfavourable 3-Neither favourable nor unfavourable 4-Favourable 5-Very favourable Grand Total 18-24 1 7 8 25-34 2 2 2 7 50 63 35-44 10 4 12 16 52 94 45-54 7 24 46 77 55-64 2 5 14 15 26 62 65-74 1 7 6 29 43 75 or older 3 19 9 31 Prefer not to answer (Refused) 1 1 1 6 13 22 Grand Total 15 13 46 94 232 400 7.1.1.4 BY EDUCATION 1-Very unfavourable 2-Unfavourable 3-Neither favourable nor unfavourable 4-Favourable 5-Very favourable Grand Total Associate Degree 1 7 28 36 Bachelor's Degree (4 year) 4 4 21 21 48 98 Graduate Degree 4 2 1 1 24 32 Graduated high school or GED 2 5 15 29 68 119 Prefer not to answer (Refused) 1 1 2 9 15 28 Some college or technical school 1 1 1 23 34 60 Some graduate school 2 6 1 5 14 Some high school or less 3 10 13 Idaho Power Company HER YR1 Final Program Report Smart Infrastructure www.Aclara.com Expand your vision of the network Page 58 of 64 Grand Total 15 13 46 94 232 400 7.2 QUESTION 2 RESULTS ANALYSIS Using a scale from one to five where one is very dissatisfied and five is very satisfied, what is your overall satisfaction with Idaho Power? 7.2.1.1 BY TREATMENT GROUP Treatment 1-Very dissatisfied 2-Dissatisfied 3-Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied 4-Satisfied 5-Very satisfied Grand Total No treatment group indicated 6 6 16 60 112 200 T1 1 9 5 21 64 100 T3 1 2 9 9 23 44 T4 1 5 6 21 33 T5 1 4 18 23 Grand Total 8 18 36 100 238 400 7.2.1.2 BY GENDER 1-Very dissatisfied 2-Dissatisfied 3-Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied 4-Satisfied 5-Very satisfied Grand Total Female 6 4 16 34 132 192 Male 2 14 20 66 106 208 Grand Total 8 18 36 100 238 400 Idaho Power Company HER YR1 Final Program Report Smart Infrastructure www.Aclara.com Expand your vision of the network Page 59 of 64 7.2.1.3 BY AGE 1-Very dissatisfied 2-Dissatisfied 3-Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied 4-Satisfied 5-Very satisfied Grand Total 18-24 1 7 8 25-34 2 2 1 13 45 63 35-44 2 10 11 19 52 94 45-54 14 63 77 55-64 3 4 16 18 21 62 65-74 1 5 12 25 43 75 or older 1 2 18 10 31 Prefer not to answer (Refused) 1 1 5 15 22 Grand Total 8 18 36 100 238 400 Idaho Power Company HER YR1 Final Program Report Smart Infrastructure www.Aclara.com Expand your vision of the network Page 60 of 64 7.2.1.4 BY EDUCATION 1-Very dissatisfied 2-Dissatisfied 3-Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied 4-Satisfied 5-Very satisfied Grand Total Associate Degree 1 1 8 26 36 Bachelor's Degree (4 year) 2 5 17 22 52 98 Graduate Degree 3 3 5 21 32 Graduated high school or GED 3 4 11 28 73 119 Prefer not to answer (Refused) 1 2 9 16 28 Some college or technical school 1 3 23 33 60 Some graduate school 3 2 4 5 14 Some high school or less 1 12 13 Grand Total 8 18 36 100 238 400 7.3 TREATMENT GROUP QUESTION 7 RESULTS ANALYSIS If the program remains in place, would you like to continue receiving Home Energy Reports at no charge? 7.3.1.1 BY TREATMENT GROUP Treatment No response No Yes Grand Total Percentage Yes 200 200 T1 22 9 69 100 69% T3 8 5 31 44 70% T4 7 1 25 33 76% T5 1 2 20 23 87% Grand Total 238 17 145 400 Idaho Power Company HER YR1 Final Program Report Smart Infrastructure www.Aclara.com Expand your vision of the network Page 61 of 64 7.3.1.2 BY GENDER No response No Yes Grand Total Percentage Yes Female 98 13 81 192 42% Male 140 4 64 208 31% Grand Total 238 17 145 400 7.3.1.3 BY AGE No response No Yes Grand Total Percentage Yes 18-24 2 1 5 8 63% 25-34 37 1 25 63 40% 35-44 50 2 42 94 45% 45-54 31 1 45 77 58% 55-64 58 1 3 62 5% 65-74 32 4 7 43 16% 75 or older 13 6 12 31 39% Prefer not to answer (Refused) 15 1 6 22 27% Grand Total 238 17 145 400 7.3.1.4 BY EDUCATION No response No Yes Grand Total Percentage Yes Associate Degree 20 16 36 44% Bachelor's Degree (4 year) 60 2 36 98 37% Graduate Degree 17 3 12 32 38% Graduated high school or GED 63 4 52 119 44% Prefer not to answer (Refused) 21 1 6 28 21% Some college or technical school 38 7 15 60 25% Some graduate school 13 1 14 7% Some high school or less 6 7 13 54% Grand Total 238 17 145 400 Idaho Power Company HER YR1 Final Program Report Smart Infrastructure www.Aclara.com Expand your vision of the network Page 62 of 64 7.4 TREATMENT GROUP QUESTION 9 RESULTS ANALYSIS How, if at all, has your opinion of Idaho Power changed since receiving the Home Energy Reports? 7.4.1.1 BY TREATMENT GROUP Treatment No response Much better Much worse Somewhat better Somewhat worse Stayed the same Grand Total No treatment group indicated 200 200 T1 22 18 2 18 3 37 100 T3 8 12 1 9 1 13 44 T4 7 14 7 5 33 T5 1 5 1 9 1 6 23 Grand Total 238 49 4 43 5 61 400 7.4.1.2 BY GENDER Gender No response Much better Much worse Somewhat better Somewhat worse Stayed the same Grand Total Female 98 41 2 21 2 28 192 Male 140 8 2 22 3 33 208 Grand Total 238 49 4 43 5 61 400 Idaho Power Company HER YR1 Final Program Report Smart Infrastructure www.Aclara.com Expand your vision of the network Page 63 of 64 7.4.1.3 BY AGE No response Much better Much worse Somewhat better Somewhat worse Stayed the same Grand Total 18-24 2 2 2 2 8 25-34 37 7 1 10 1 7 63 35-44 50 17 1 10 2 14 94 45-54 31 16 1 13 1 15 77 55-64 58 1 1 2 62 65-74 32 5 3 3 43 75 or older 13 1 1 3 1 12 31 Prefer not to answer (Refused) 15 1 6 22 Grand Total 238 49 4 43 5 61 400 7.4.1.4 BY EDUCATION No response Much better Much worse Somewhat better Somewhat worse Stayed the same Grand Total Associate Degree 20 13 1 2 36 Bachelor's Degree (4 year) 60 6 14 3 15 98 Graduate Degree 17 1 6 8 32 Graduated high school or GED 63 22 2 15 17 119 Prefer not to answer (Refused) 21 1 6 28 Some college or technical school 38 4 1 5 2 10 60 Some graduate school 13 1 14 Some high school or less 6 3 1 3 13 Grand Total 238 49 4 43 5 61 400 Idaho Power Company HER YR1 Final Program Report Smart Infrastructure www.Aclara.com Expand your vision of the network Page 64 of 64 APPENDIX F – QUARTERLY PROGRAM MONITORING SCHEDULE Report # Date Presented Report Period Q1 Nov 16, 2017 July 24, 2017 – September 30, 2017 Q2 Feb 7, 2018 July 24, 2017 – December 31, 2017 Q3 April 26, 2018 July 24, 2017 – March 31, 2018 Q4 July 31, 2018 July 24, 2017 – June 30, 2018 IDAHO POWER ENERGY WISE® PROGRAM SUMMARY REPORT 2017-2018 SUBMITTED BY: Submitted by: July 2018 Idaho Power Energy Wise® Program Summary Report 2017-2018 Made possible by: Idaho Power Energy Wise® Program Summary Report2 “The students loved being able to make a difference. This is something tangible they can do to make a difference in their homes and in the community.” 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 “This is my second child that has gone through the program and both of them were really eager about installing the kit and saving money.” , Parent Hunter Elementary School l Resource Action Programs®5Executive Summary Resource Action Programs® (RAP) is pleased to present this Program Summary Report to Idaho Power, which summarizes the 2017-2018 Idaho Power Energy Wise® Program. The program was implemented in the Idaho Power service area in the state of Idaho by 9,439 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 95+5+F Teachers who indicated parents supported the program. 95% 99+1+F Teachers who indicated they would recommend this program to other colleagues. 99% 99+1+F Teachers who indicated they would conduct this program again. 99% 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 61% to 76%. 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.39+61+F Students who reported they installed the High- Efficiency Showerhead. 39%73+27+F Students who reported they used the Shower Timer. 73%79+21+F Students who indicated they installed the LED Night Light. 79% 62+38+F Students who reported they installed the first 9-watt LED. 62%42+58+F Students who reported they installed the third 9-watt LED. 42%51+49+F Students who reported they installed the second 9-watt LED. 51% _______________________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 61 % Po s t - P r o g r a m S c o r e 76 % 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 13,069,285 gallons of water saved 1,993,950 kWh of electricity saved 51,442 therms of gas saved 13,069,285 gallons of wastewater saved PROJECTED ANNUAL SAVINGS PER HOME 1,385 gallons of water saved 211 kWh of electricity saved 5 therms of gas saved 1,385 gallons of wastewater saved PROJECTED LIFETIME SAVINGS 130,692,848 gallons of water saved 21,415,686 kWh of electricity saved 514,415 therms of gas saved 130,692,848 gallons of wastewater saved PROJECTED LIFETIME SAVINGS PER HOME 13,846 gallons of water saved 2,269 kWh of electricity saved 54 therms of gas saved 13,846 gallons of wastewater saved Total Capital Canyon Eastern Southern Western Total Participants 9,439 2,678 3,067 1,212 1,408 1,074 Students 9,107 2,585 2,965 1,168 1,358 1,031 Surveys Received 5,252 1,133 2,139 737 766 477 Percent Response 56%42% 70% 61% 54% 44% Student Survey Response by Region Idaho Power Energy Wise® Program Summary Report8Program Overview “I would like to say thank you. My child learned a lot from this program and I am also learning some great information about energy, etc.” , Parent Sherman 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 2017-2018 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 Energy Wise 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 “This made my child aware of the dangers of electricity and that the power we use comes at some kind of cost. The timer was especially a point of interest.” , Parent Desert Sage Elementary Resource Action Programs®11Program Materials Each participant in the Idaho Power Energy Wise® Program receives classroom materials and energy efficiency kits containing high-efficiency measures to perform the program’s take-home activities. Program materials for students, parents/guardians, and teachers are outlined below. Program Materials Each Student & Teacher Receives Student Guide Student Workbook Parent 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 Energy 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 99 % 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 97 % Idaho Power’s Energy Wise Progra m p r o v i d e s 4th – 6th grade students in schools serv e d b y Idaho Power with quality, age - a p p r o p r i a t e 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 2017-2018 Idaho Power E n e r g y W i s e ® Program © 2017 Resource Action Programs® 1840 Andie RootOffice: 208-465-8619 Cell: 208-961-0316 aroot@idahopower.com Each Student/Teacher Receives: Student GuideStudent Workbook Parent Letter/Pledge Form Student Survey Form Certificate of Achievement Energy Wise Kit: • Idaho Power LED Night Light • (3) 9-Watt LED Light Bulbs (800 Lumens, 60 - W a t t E q u i v a l e n t ) • 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 “Energy Wise” Wristband Reward Unlimited Access to Program Website Toll-Free HELP Line Each Teacher/Classroom Receives: Teacher Book with Lesson Plans Include d Step-By-Step Program Checklist Teacher Materials Folder: • Flash Drive (Video Presentation) • State Education Standard Correlation C h a r t s • Pre/Post Student Survey Answer Keys • Extra Activities Booklet • Electricity Poster for Classroom • Mini-Grant Requirements • Teacher Program Welcome Letter/Evalu a t i o n F o r m • Self-Addressed Postage-Paid Envelop e Website Access for Additional Program A c t i v i t i e s Toll-Free Telephone Support Mini-Grant e-Card of Up to $100 (See Back fo r D e t a i l s ) There is no cost to participate and a great chance to win a mini-grant! When you enroll, you will be asked t o p r o v i d e a s t u d e n t c o u n t and the month you would like to r e c e i v e y o u r m a t e r i a l s . 1Percentage calculated based on number of kits delivered. 2Results derived from the Program Summary Report produced by Resource Act i o n P r o g r a m s , s p r i n g 2 0 1 7 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 August–November will be eligible for 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 t h e i r Student Survey forms in the postage-paid envelope by Decembe r 3 1 , 2 0 1 7 . 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 w h e n surveys are returned before May 15, 2018. Mini-grant e-Cards 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 Results1:• Of teachers, 95% indicated parents supported the program and 100% said they woul d r e c o m m e n d t h e program to colleagues.• Of parents, 100% indicated the program was easy for them and their child to us 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 in local schools.• The 2016-2017 school year’s participants saved 2,018,151 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 5 0 h o m e s ’ electricity use for one year or avoided CO 2 emissions of 3,284 barrels of oil.2 Return Rate1 Mini-Grant Award 80-100 percent $10065-79 percent $7550-64 percent $50 25-49 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 • (888) 438-9473©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 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 Take-Home Workbook Teacher Evaluation Form Certificate of Achievement Kit Box Introduction Video (flash drive) Pen 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 = STUDENT TAKE-HOME WORKBOOK 117329 Energy Wise® is a registered trademark of Resource Action Programs Energy Wise® is developed by: 976 United Circle • Sparks, NV 89431www.resourceaction.com • (888) 438-9473©2017 Resource Action Programs® TEACHER BOOK N30205 117319 1840 Energy Wise® is a registered trademark of Resource Action Programs Energy Wise® is developed by: 976 United Circle • Sparks, NV 89431www.resourceaction.com • (888) 438-9473©2017 Resource Action Programs® Idaho Power Energy Wise® Program Summary Report14Program Implementation “The students really liked that it was a project they could share with their families. They talked about the discussions they had with their parents.” Debbie Peterson, Teacher Wilson Elementary School Resource Action Programs®15Program Implementation The 2017-2018 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 2017-2018 school year. Program Implementation Idaho Power Energy Wise® Program Summary Report16Program Team For more than 25 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 650,000 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 “The kit was very exciting for the students. The students asked several times if it was free. I believe the kit gave ownership to the students to conserve energy.” Marie Rockwood, Teacher Melba Elementary 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 93 participating teachers in the Capital region, 34 (37%) returned survey results for the program. Parents and students were asked to install the kit measures and complete the home activities. Of the 2,585 participating children in the Capital region, 1,133 (42%) returned completed surveys. Did your family install the first 9-watt LED Light Bulb? Yes - 59% Did your family install the new High-Efficiency Showerhead? Yes - 35% Did your family change the way they use energy? Yes - 64% Program Impact 59+41+F Students who indicated they installed the first 9-watt LED Light Bulb. 59% Yes 41% No 35+65+F Students who indicated they installed the High-Efficiency Showerhead. 35% Yes 65% No 64+36+F Students who indicated their family changed the way they use energy. 64% Yes 36% No Idaho Power Energy Wise® Program Summary 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 102 participating teachers in the Canyon region, 64 (63%) returned survey results for the program. Parents and students were asked to install the kit measures and complete the home activities. Of the 2,965 participating children in the Canyon region, 2,139 (70%) 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 - 62%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 62+38+F Students who indicated their family changed the way they use energy. 62% Yes 38% 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 44 participating teachers in the Eastern region, 25 (57%) returned survey results for the program. Parents and students were asked to install the kit measures and complete the home activities. Of the 1,168 participating children in the Eastern region, 737 (61%) returned completed surveys. Did your family install the first 9-watt LED Light Bulb? Yes - 60% Did your family install the new High-Efficiency Showerhead? Yes - 39% Did your family change the way they use energy? Yes - 63% 60+40+F Students who indicated they installed the first 9-watt LED Light Bulb. 60% Yes 40% No 39+61+F Students who indicated they installed the High-Efficiency Showerhead. 39% Yes 61% No 63+37+F Students who indicated their family changed the way they use energy. 63% Yes 37% 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 50 participating teachers in the Southern region, 20 (40%) returned survey results for the program. Parents and students were asked to install the kit measures and complete the home activities. Of the 1,358 participating children in the Southern region, 766 (54%) 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 - 38% Did your family change the way they use energy? Yes - 73%69+31+F Students who indicated they installed the first 9-watt LED Light Bulb. 69% Yes 31% No 38+62+F Students who indicated they installed the High-Efficiency Showerhead. 38% Yes 62% No 73+27+F Students who indicated their family changed the way they use energy. 73% Yes 27% 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 43 participating teachers in the Western region, 16 (37%) returned survey results for the program. Parents and students were asked to install the kit measures and complete the home activities. Of the 1,031 participating children in the Western region, 477 (44%) returned completed surveys. Did your family install the first 9-watt LED Light Bulb? Yes - 59% Did your family install the new High-Efficiency Showerhead? Yes - 43% Did your family change the way they use energy? Yes - 62%59+41+F Students who indicated they installed the first 9-watt LED Light Bulb. 59% Yes 41% No 43+57+F Students who indicated they installed the High-Efficiency Showerhead. 43% Yes 57% No 62+38+F Students who indicated their family changed the way they use energy. 62% Yes 38% 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 6.1 questions correctly prior to being involved in the program and then improved to answer 7.6 questions correctly following participation. Of the 9,107 student households participating, 5,252 returned survey responses. Scores improved from 61% to 76%. Pre-Program Score 61% Post-Program Score 76% 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 70%87% Mantle 7%3% Inner Core 7%2% Outer Core 17%7% 2 Non-Potable water is safe to drink. True 23%13% False 77%87% 3 Which of these is not a renewable resource? Wind 19%8% Plants 5%3% Gold 59%80% Animals 17%8% 4 Saving water saves energy. True 86%94% False 14%6% Resource Action Programs®25Program Impact Pre-Program and Post-Program Test Questions Pre Post 5 Which are fossil fuels? Coal 22%14% Oil 12%6% Natural Gas 13%6% All of the above 54%74% 6 Which type of energy is created in the process of Photosynthesis? Nuclear Energy 19%13% Thermal Energy 26%22% Chemical Energy 30%53% Electric Energy 24%11% 7 Which Kit item will save the most natural resources? Compact Fluorescent Lamp 39%37% High-Efficiency Showerhead 31%48% FilterTone® Alarm 15%7% LED Night Light 15%8% 8 Which major appliance uses the most energy? Dishwasher 19%13% Refrigerator 61%67% Dryer 20%20% 9 An LED (light emiting diode) light bulb uses more energy than an incandescent bulb. True 32%17% False 68%83% 10 On-peak time is the best time to play video games. True 28%16% False 72%84% 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, 9,439 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 9,107 student households participating, 5,252 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:9,439 Annual Lifetime Projected reduction from Showerhead retrofit:13,069,285 130,692,848 gallons Product Life: 10 years 865,119 8,651,186 kWh 42,609 426,093 therms Projected reduction from first 9-watt LED Light Bulb:295,924 3,551,092 kWh Product Life: 25,000 hours (12 years) Projected reduction from second 9-watt LED Light Bulb:243,629 2,923,553 kWh Product Life: 25,000 hours (12 years) Projected reduction from third 9-watt LED Light Bulb:198,541 2,382,496 kWh Product Life: 25,000 hours (12 years) Projected reduction from LED Night Light retrofit:212,475 2,124,751 kWh Product Life: 10,000 hours Projected reduction from FilterTone® installation:178,261 1,782,608 kWh Product Life: 10 years 8,832 88,323 therms Projected reduction from Shower Timer installation:8,613,793 17,227,586 gallons Estimated Life: 2 years 28,083 56,166 therms 570,188 1,140,376 kWh TOTAL PROGRAM SAVINGS:13,069,285 130,692,848 gallons 1,993,950 21,415,686 kWh 51,442 514,415 therms TOTAL PROGRAM SAVINGS PER HOUSEHOLD:1,385 13,846 gallons 211 2,269 kWh 5 54 therms *Projected reduction from Shower Timer installation not included in Total Program Savings. 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 332 participating teachers, 159 returned teacher program evaluation surveys. Teacher Response (A summary of responses and regional data can be found in Appendix D) 99% of participating teachers indicated they would conduct the program again given the opportunity. 99% of participating teachers indicated they would recommend the program to their colleagues. What did students like best about the program? Explain. “They honestly loved the ability to take new things home. Some loved that they even got a new night light. They also enjoyed teaching their parents about easy ways to save money at home.” Tyler Keefe, Sherman Elementary School “Students were very excited about the kits. Several of them indicated installing the light bulbs and other items immediately.” Octavio Dario, West Canyon Elementary “The presentation and the at home kits.” Lauren Denny, Mill Creek Elementary School “The students enjoyed the energy saving wise kit items the most because they got to help install them.” Brittany Woodworth, West Canyon Elementary “They enjoyed the presentation and the hands-on activities.” Eva Filas, Pillar Falls Elementary School “They loved the kits and getting to install the items using the instruction book.” Laura VanDerschaaf, Lake Ridge Elementary School “The students enjoyed the take home kits and being able to teach their families at home.” Nicole Gibbs, Willow Creek Elementary School “The free home kits are a great way to hook the students interest into their personal energy consumption.” Nick Channer, Willow Creek Elementary School “The student interest was genuine, they were excited.” Judy Swain, Trail Wind Elementary School “They liked the vocabulary activities, they also liked reading about how much energy appliances use.” Tanya Scheibe, Lake Ridge 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) “The kits were a hit! They loved having something tangible to work with.” Robyn Flint, Filer Intermediate School “They liked the activities best, specifically the “how much do we use.” They were amazed by what they learned.” Becki Wheeler, Owyhee Elementary What did you like best about the program? Explain. “I liked that everything was there to teach it. Even connecting it to the standards.” Debbie Peterson, Wilson Elementary School “I loved that my students had the opportunity to take learning home and share it with their families.” Kayden Tague, Whitney Elementary School “I liked how informational the student workbooks are. We easily read all of the materials I swear. I enjoyed receiving a kit for each student.” Jennifer Zamora, Filer Intermediate School “I liked the presentation before I started teaching the program. I also liked the ease of the program.” Zachary Dwello, Nampa Christian School “I loved the energy wise kits! My kids were so excited to change their light bulbs and put in their new showerheads and the timer!” Sue Weber, Meadows Valley School “I liked the vocabulary, pictures, and diagrams. Students need to expand their vocabulary. Also, students need to be able to interpret the materials.” Julie Rider, Groveland Elementary What would you change about the program? Explain. “Nothing! I love it!” Carol Briggs, Birch Elementary School “I wish the lessons were a little easier. The students book is a little challenging.” Sara Walsh, Owyhee Elementary School “Put the post-test on a different page.” Judie Bradburn, Gateway School of Language “Nothing! I would love to start the year with the kits. I will request them in August next year.” Laurie Harvey, Gateway School of Language 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 9,107 participating families, 92 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. 99% of participating parents indicated they would continue to use the kit items after the completion of the program. 97% 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? “That my son got to bring home items that we use everyday. He was so excited to help install them.” , Blackfoot Charter Community Learning Center “Checklist for children and parents — doing it together. Light bulbs, signs, and night light.” Edahow Elementary School “Water saver items. Items were a cool variety and peaked interest. He read the entire handout!” , Grace Jordan Elementary School “I liked the high efficiency shower head it will help save water and energy with all the showers we take.” , Greenhurst Elementary School “The fact it brought awareness to my son about waste and the need to help the world.” , Indian Creek & Ross Elementary School “I like the work book and the kit. The combo shows kids items, hands-on, that help save and the math that gives numbers to compare.” , Prospect Elementary “The math exercises to find cost savings was really eye-opening. We loved the hands-on learning that took place.” , Prospect Elementary Idaho Power Energy Wise® Program Summary Report30Program Impact Are there any comments you would like to express to your child’s program sponsor? “Thank you for making our children aware that energy is important to save. Turning off the lights, shorter showers, etc... My child immediately had ideas for the items in the kit and went right to ‘work’.” , Desert Sage Elementary “This is a great efficiency program to get the kids involved at home. Everything could be completed easily. Great interactive project.” , Fruitland Elementary School “This was a fun, educational, and interesting activity. It’s a great way to teach children about effects of our resource usage and ways we can effect change. Thanks!” , Grace Jordan Elementary School “Great program! We are always trying to teach our kids to not leave lights on and not take very long showers was very helpful to have it taught elsewhere and not just from nagging parents.” Homedale Elementary “Thank you for helping to teach children as well as helping parents conserve energy and save. Keep this program going. Thank you!” , Hunter Elementary School “Two of my kids have done this. They both came home very excited about checking our energy consumption. I think it is a wonderful concept to introduce and the kit. Tools are great!” , Lakevue Elementary School “This was a wonderful alternative to the weekly homework assignment. The real world application of math skills and environmental lessons of conservation were fantastic!!” , Prospect Elementary “This is a great program. I encourage you to keep engaging kids to help build a better tomorrow.” , Prospect Elementary “I hope to see this program continue. The kids need this education. Thank you.” , West Middle School “Thank you for taking time to show your students these valuable lessons.” , William Thomas Middle School “A list of where to purchase the items would be good and cost of them.” ., West Canyon 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) 4/19/18 oear 1oaHo Power, THanK �OU For THe KITS I LOVeo THem ver� mucH. 1 useo THe sHower Heao For m� sHower Because m� OLD sHower Heao was rusT�, never SOUlrTeD OUT a BaTHTUBS WOrTH OF waTer, ano TOOK Forever To GeT Hair weT. 1 useo THe sHower Timer For m� sHower Because I useo To TaKe a 20-40 m1nuTes 1n THe sHower ano Because OF THe Timer I onL� can TaKe a s min sHower. THanK �ou For THe sHower Timer ano sHower. THe OTHer THlnGs I useo were THe room THemonlTOr THlnG� ano nlGHT LIGHT ano THe LIGHT BULBS. I use THe nlGHT LIGHT For m� room LIGHT ITS THaT GOOD. I use THe room THamon1TorTo �eLL aT m� mom wHen m� room IS 30 oeGrees FaHrenHelT. FlnaLL� THe LIGHT BULBS I Haven'T GOT TO �eT BUT I'm GUess1nG THaT THere as GOOD as THe Leo n1GHT LIGHT. THanK �OU I0aHO Power For THe Leo n1GHT LIGHT, THe Leo BULBS, ano THe room THemon1Tor. 1n concLus1on I PersonaLL� THanK 1oaHo Power For THe KITS ano THe amaz1nG THlnGS 1n THem. LIKe THe LIGHT BULBS, n1GHT LIGHT, room THemon1Tor, sHower Heao, ano SHOWer Timer. THanK �OU so mucH IDaHO Power For THe Gs. s1ncereL�, April 17, 2018 Dear Idaho Power Thank you for the idaho power kit it has help me save power. The first reason why it has help me is my basement is super dark so the nightlight has help. The nightlight made it brighter so I don't run into the wall when I'm trying to wake my sisters up. Also the LED lights have made my kitchen way brighter than it use to be. When my kitchen lights are on it makes it super bright until my bedroom. The shower timer has help because I use to take 15 minutes but now I take 5 minutes. It help me save water because I use to just let the water poor on me so I could be warm while I did my hair. Also before I got in the shower I use to let it get warm while I just sat there. It has help my sister for sure SHE TAKES THE LONGEST SHOWER but now my mom said use the shower timer. Thank you for sending Mrs. Boyd she taught us a lot. The very first lesson was about fish and how they help us save energy. Then she taught us about wires and DON'T TOUCH THEM or don't go inside the fence when there is big towers that have wires connected to them. She also let us put on a glove that electrician uses to fix the wires and let us crank a light thing. Sincerely, Dear, Idaho Power 4/19/18 Thank you so much for all you have taught us about this year. Thank you for bringing us the Kit's, the work books, and Mrs. Boyd. Thank you for teaching us the importance of saving energy, water, and plenty of other stuff. I also want to say thanks for bringing Mrs. Boyd to this school. She was really helpful, and made me understand why all this was going to be so important in my life. It's going to be important to me my family my kids. These lessons are going to help me with life in general. Let me just say this, the Kit's are amazing!! I just love the Kit's. On my Kit I used all of the stuff. I used the Filter Tone Alarm, I used the shower head for my restrume, I used the shower timer for when I need to shower, I used the lights for my bedroom because the lights went out yesterday, and finally I used the Thermometer for my bedroom because it has been really cold and I want to see if it gets any warmer. I also used the night light in my hall soi don't trip over my dogs. All this helps me so much in my life. Sincerely 4/19/18 � gou for & IJJ..o ���QA aww,me. 7L � � � aww,me an.ti�� me�� on Aow � I'lH!, Been in & �­ Some£ime,s I tLwe & �on�&�� an.ti� I ewl 'V' � in&� for� 20 �- 'TL�� cooi an.ti;£�� me bii. wAal & � � in ffl9 � or in & famiR.g f100ffl. Ii gels� JJ al: niglr£ in ffl9 ��I� al: tt19 � an.ti -su Aow JJ ;£ � in ffl9 f100ffl al: niglr£. � I go in tt19 .w£er� f100ffl ;£ � � J.J an.ti I� ffl9 � an.ti -su wAa£ � ;£ � in � f100ffl.s�, 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 would like to say thank you for my child learning a lot from this program. I am also learning some great information about the energy, etc.” , Parent Sherman 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: 5.09 people1 Average number of full bathrooms per home:2.01 full bathrooms per home1 % of water heated by gas:49.62%1 % of water heated by electricity:50.38%1 Installation / participation rate of:39.12%1 Average Showerhead has a flow rate of:1.95 gallons per minute1 Retrofit Showerhead has a flow rate of:1.26 gallons per minute1 Number of participants: 9,439 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:13,069,285 gallons4 Showerhead retrofit projects a lifetime reduction of:130,692,848 gallons5 Projected Electricity Savings: Showerhead retrofit projects an annual reduction of:865,119 kWh2,6 Showerhead retrofit projects a lifetime reduction of:8,651,186 kWh2,7 Projected Natural Gas Savings: Showerhead retrofit projects an annual reduction of:42,609 therms2,8 Showerhead retrofit projects a lifetime reduction of:426,093 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:49.62%1 % of water heated by electricity:50.38%1 Installation / participation rate of Shower Timer:72.70%1 Average showerhead has a flow rate of:1.95 gallons per minute1 Retrofit showerhead has flow rate of:1.26 gallons per minute1 Number of participants: 9,439 1 Average of baseline and retrofit showerhead flow rate:1.60 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:8,613,793.12 gallons6 Shower Timer installation projects a lifetime reduction of:17,227,586.23 gallons7 Projected Electricity Savings: Shower Timer installation projects an annual reduction of:570,188 kWh8 Shower Timer installation projects a lifetime reduction of:1,140,376 kWh9 Projected Natural Gas Savings: Shower Timer installation projects an annual reduction of:28,083 therms10 Shower Timer installation projects a lifetime reduction of:56,166 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:24.16%4 Number of participants:9,439 4 Projected Electricity Savings: The FilterTone installation projects an annual reduction of:178,261 kWh5 The FilterTone installation projects a lifetime reduction of:1,782,608 kWh6 Projected Natural Gas Savings: The FilterTone installation projects an annual reduction of:8,832 therms7 The FilterTone installation projects a lifetime reduction of:88,323 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 LED 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:58.29 watts3 Installation / participation rate of:62.01%3 Number of participants: 9,439 3 Projected Electricity Savings: The LED retrofit projects an annual reduction of:295,924 kWh2,4 The LED retrofit projects a lifetime reduction of:3,551,092 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 LED 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:58.11 watts3 Installation / participation rate of:51.25%3 Number of participants: 9,439 3 Projected Electricity Savings: The LED retrofit projects an annual reduction of:243,629 kWh2,4 The LED retrofit projects a lifetime reduction of:2,923,553 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 LED 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:58.11 watts3 Installation / participation rate of:41.76%3 Number of participants: 9,439 3 Projected Electricity Savings: The LED retrofit projects an annual reduction of:198,541 kWh2,4 The LED retrofit projects a lifetime reduction of:2,382,496 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 Retrofit Inputs and Assumptions: Average length of use: 4,380 hours per year1 Average night light uses:7 watts Retrofit night light uses:0.5 watts Product life:10 years2 Energy saved per year:28 kWh per year Energy saved over life expectancy:285 kWh Installation / participation rate of:79.07%3 Number of participants:9,439 3 Projected Electricity Savings: The Energy Efficient Night Light retrofit projects an annual reduction of:212,475 kWh4 The Energy Efficient Night Light retrofit projects a lifetime reduction of:2,124,751 kWh5 1 Assumption (12 hours per day) 2 Product life provided by manufacturer 3 Data reported by program participants 4(kWh per year x Number of participants) x Installation rate 5((kWh per year x Number of participants) x Installation rate) x Effective useful life 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)10%7%10%12%13%13% Single Family Home (Manufactured)8%5%8%8%8%11% Single Family Home (Built)66%70%64%65%63%56% Multi-Family (2-4 units)11%11%11%11%8%11% Multi-Family (5-20 units)5%5%5%4%7%6% Multi-Family (21+ units)2%2%1%1%1%2% 2 Was your home built before 1992? Yes 42%42%34%59%44%53% No 58%58%66%41%56%47% 3 Is your home owned or rented? Owned 70%76%66%74%69%73% Rented 30%24%34%26%31%27% 4 How many kids live in your home (age 0-17)? 1 13%17%11%12%9%15% 2 30%38%27%29%29%27% 3 27%24%27%26%29%26% 4 16%12%17%16%18%17% 5+15%8%18%17%16%16% Total Capital Canyon Eastern Southern Western Total Participants 9,439 2,678 3,067 1,212 1,408 1,074 Students 9,107 2,585 2,965 1,168 1,358 1,031 Surveys Received 5,252 1,133 2,139 737 766 477 Percent Response 56%42% 70% 61% 54% 44% 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 11%11%12%12%11%13% 2 69%76%65%70%69%65% 3 12%8%14%12%14%13% 4 5%3%6%5%4%7% 5+3%2%3%1%3%3% 6 Does your home have a programmable outdoor sprinkler system? Yes 66%80%69%54%59%44% No 34%20%31%46%41%56% 7 Does your home have a programmable thermostat? Yes 78%85%79%73%77%71% No 22%15%21%27%23%29% 8 What is the main source of heating in your home? Natural Gas 43%55%46%43%33%21% Electric Heater 42%37%39%41%49%52% Propane 4%2%3%7%5%5% Heating Oil 1%1%2%1%2%1% Wood 5%2%5%4%6%14% Other 5%4%6%4%4%7% 9 What type of air conditioning unit do you have? Central Air Conditioner 73%87%76%54%66%64% Evaporative Cooler 6%4%5%7%7%8% Room Unit 12%7%11%18%14%19% Don’t Have One 10%3%8%21%13%10% 10 Does your home have a Dishwasher? Yes 84%95%86%78%78%73% No 16%5%14%22%22%27% 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 63%55%58%74%74%73% 1 29%38%33%21%20%21% 2 5%5%6%4%5%4% 3 1%1%2%1%1%1% 4+0%1%1%0%0%1% 12 How many full bathrooms are in your home? 1 23%14%22%28%30%37% 2 57%59%62%44%54%51% 3 16%22%13%24%13%9% 4 3%4%3%3%3%1% 5+1%1%1%1%0%1% 13 How many toilets are in your home? 1 16%8%14%21%22%28% 2 46%37%46%45%52%52% 3 30%43%32%24%18%15% 4 6%10%5%8%5%2% 5+2%3%2%2%2%2% 14 How is your water heated? Natural Gas 50%63%55%44%33%30% Electricity 50%37%45%56%67%70% 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 13%10%11%14%18%17% 1.1 - 1.5 GPM 21%22%19%21%20%26% 1.6 - 2.0 GPM 20%23%20%19%20%16% 2.1 - 2.5 GPM 21%21%23%23%19%16% 2.6 - 3.0 GPM 15%14%17%12%15%16% 3.1+ GPM 10%10%10%11%8%8% 2 Did you install the new High-Efficiency Showerhead? Yes 39%35%41%39%38%43% No 61%65%59%61%62%57% 3 If you answered “yes” to question 2, what is the flow rate of your new showerhead? 0 - 1.0 GPM 26%23%24%23%32%38% 1.1 - 1.5 GPM 40%39%44%39%39%34% 1.6 - 1.75 GPM 33%38%32%38%29%28% 4 Did you use the Shower Timer? Yes 73%72%74%68%78%68% No 27%28%26%31%22%32% 5 Did your family install the first 9-watt LED Light Bulb? Yes 62%59%63%60%69%59% No 38%41%37%40%31%41% Total Capital Canyon Eastern Southern Western Total Participants 9,439 2,678 3,067 1,212 1,408 1,074 Students 9,107 2,585 2,965 1,168 1,358 1,031 Surveys Received 5,252 1,133 2,139 737 766 477 Percent Response 56%42% 70% 61% 54% 44% 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%16%15%19%24% 60-watt 40%42%41%44%35%32% 75-watt 15%14%18%10%15%14% 100-watt 8%10%8%5%7%12% Other 19%19%16%27%24%18% 7 Did your family install the second 9-watt LED Light Bulb? Yes 51%49%52%48%55%50% No 49%51%48%51%45%50% 8 If you answered “yes” to question 7, what is the wattage of the incandescent bulb you replaced? 40-watt 16%14%15%16%20%17% 60-watt 40%41%41%39%37%38% 75-watt 16%18%18%11%14%17% 100-watt 7%8%7%8%6%10% Other 20%19%19%27%23%18% 9 Did your family install the third 9-watt LED Light Bulb? Yes 42%41%42%40%43%41% No 58%59%58%59%57%59% 10 If you answered “yes” to question 9, what is the wattage of the incandescent bulb you replaced? 40-watt 16%14%17%14%18%18% 60-watt 36%40%37%35%31%34% 75-watt 16%14%17%10%17%19% 100-watt 9%11%9%9%7%10% Other 23%21%20%33%27%19% 11 Did your family install the FilterTone® Alarm? Yes 24%22%27%23%21%24% No 76%78%73%77%79%75% 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 20%24%21%17%18%14% 3 - 4 Degrees 18%20%19%15%16%22% 5+ Degrees 13%14%13%11%9%17% Didn’t Adjust Thermostat 49%42%47%57%57%48% 13 How much did your family turn up the thermostat in summer for cooling? 1 - 2 Degrees 18%19%18%14%17%19% 3 - 4 Degrees 17%20%17%12%16%15% 5+ Degrees 15%17%15%9%13%20% Didn’t Adjust Thermostat 51%44%50%64%53%45% 14 Did you install the LED Night Light? Yes 79%76%79%80%84%73% No 21%24%20%19%16%27% 15 Did your family lower your water heater settings? Yes 23%21%24%21%22%25% No 77%79%76%79%78%74% 16 Did your family raise the temperature on your refrigerator? Yes 18%17%22%13%16%17% No 81%83%78%87%84%82% 17 Did you complete the optional online energy use activity? All of it 6%4%8%3%6%8% Some of it 15%15%17%9%15%17% None 78%81%75%87%79%75% 18 Did you work with your family on this Program? Yes 62%64%60%70%64%49% No 38%36%39%30%36%51% 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 56%58%54%55%61%52% No 44%42%45%44%39%47% 20 Did your family change the way they use energy? Yes 64%64%62%63%73%62% No 36%36%38%37%27%38% 21 How would you rate the Idaho Power Energy Wise® Program? Great 52%54%50%52%55%54% Pretty Good 37%35%38%36%38%33% Okay 9%8%10%9%6%10% Not So Good 2%2%2%3%1%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 Southern Alturas Elementary School Kelly Michalec 1 49 Yes Southern Alturas Elementary School Deborah VanLaw 1 25 No Eastern American Falls Intermediate School Kristen Jensen 1 11 No Capital Amity Elementary School Sharon Shaw 1 32 Yes Capital Amity Elementary School Susie Cox 1 32 Yes Capital Amity Elementary School Elizabeth Waldon- Brooks 1 32 Yes Eastern Arbon Valley Elementary School Debbie Curry 1 7 Yes Southern Bickel Elementary Maggie Wright 1 40 No Southern Bickel Elementary Maggie Wright 1 44 No Canyon Birch Elementary School Juilana Lookhart 1 28 Yes Canyon Birch Elementary School MaryJo Pegram 1 28 Yes Canyon Birch Elementary School Carol Briggs 1 28 Yes Canyon Birch Elementary School Brenda Fly 1 28 Yes Eastern Blackfoot Charter Community Learning Center Benjamin Parker 1 19 Yes Eastern Blackfoot Charter Community Learning Center Britani Barrus 1 20 Yes Eastern Blackfoot Charter Community Learning Center Krystal Murdock 1 19 Yes Eastern Blackfoot Charter Community Learning Center Diane Ball 1 19 No Southern Bliss Elementary School Angel Beutler 1 12 Yes Western Cambridge Elementary School Danielle Petitmermet 1 12 Yes Capital Cecil Andrus Elementary Kate Aschenbrenner 1 27 Yes Canyon Centennial Elementary School Diane Gharring 1 28 No Canyon Centennial Elementary School Doris Atherton 1 30 Yes Canyon Centennial Elementary School Jessica Bowman 1 30 No Canyon Central Canyon Elementary School Kim Engelbrecht 1 26 No Canyon Central Canyon Elementary School Jessica Lillquist 1 27 Yes Canyon Central Canyon Elementary School Liz Freeman 1 27 Yes Canyon Central Canyon Elementary School Janet Anderson 1 28 Yes Canyon Central Elementary School Courtney Craner 1 30 Yes Canyon Central Elementary School Amber Vincent 1 29 No Capital Christine Donnell School of Arts Debra Tiffany 1 30 Yes Capital Christine Donnell School of Arts Amy Hymas 1 30 Yes Resource Action Programs®61Appendix C Ap p e n d i x C REGION SCHOOL TEACHER T S SURVEYS RETURNED Capital Christine Donnell School of Arts Cynthia Compton 1 30 Yes Eastern Claude A. Wilcox Elementary School Tricia Hemsley 1 22 Yes Eastern Claude A. Wilcox Elementary School Hailey Herron 1 23 Yes Eastern Claude A. Wilcox Elementary School Krista Campos 1 24 Yes Capital Collister Elementary School Gwendolyn Balmer 1 13 Yes Canyon Crimson Point Elementary Amber Irvine 1 27 No Canyon Crimson Point Elementary Tonia Burbank 1 30 Yes Canyon Crimson Point Elementary Mary Holmes 1 27 Yes Capital Cynthia Mann Elementary School Cindy Sundvik 1 30 Yes Capital Cynthia Mann Elementary School Lisa Stitt 1 25 Yes Capital Cynthia Mann Elementary School Michelle Steen 1 30 No Capital Danette Aston (Homeschool)Danette Aston 1 0 No Capital Desert Sage Elementary Janie Abramovich 1 27 No Capital Desert Sage Elementary Courtney Parker 1 27 No Capital Desert Sage Elementary Kari Porter 1 27 No Capital Desert Sage Elementary Christina Zubizareta 1 27 No Canyon Desert Springs Elementary School Lisa Jauregui 1 26 Yes Canyon Desert Springs Elementary School Lindsay Mangum 1 26 Yes Canyon Desert Springs Elementary School Jackie Sodaro 1 25 Yes Canyon Desert Springs Elementary School Stacey Pearson 1 25 Yes Eastern Donald D. Stalker Elementary School LaNita McRae 1 20 Yes Eastern Donald D. Stalker Elementary School Lisa Clark 1 22 Yes Canyon East Canyon Elementary Trisha Cramer 1 25 Yes Canyon East Canyon Elementary Brett Mizuta 1 25 No Canyon East Canyon Elementary Tiara Shippy 1 25 Yes Canyon East Canyon Elementary Brian Constant 1 25 No Eastern Edahow Elementary School Megan Bullock 1 28 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 Capital Eliza Hart Spalding Elementary School Stefawn Wester 1 27 Yes Eastern Ellis Elementary School Sherry VanEvery 1 27 Yes Eastern Ellis Elementary School Michael Gornichec 1 28 No Eastern Ellis Elementary School Margo Lamont 1 28 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 Southern Ernest Hemingway STEM School Kevin Quaderer 1 21 No Southern Filer Intermediate School Sarah Wendell 1 28 Yes Southern Filer Intermediate School Jennifer Zamora 1 28 Yes Southern Filer Intermediate School Katelynn Hulsey 1 28 Yes Southern Filer Intermediate School Cassie Royse 1 28 Yes Southern Filer Intermediate School Austin Humphries 1 28 Yes Southern Filer Intermediate School Susan Hamby 1 27 Yes Southern Filer Intermediate School Robyn Flint 1 29 Yes Southern Filer Intermediate School Jenni Jacobson 1 28 Yes Southern Filer Intermediate School Jody Meeks 1 28 No Southern Filer Intermediate School Tes Fields 1 28 No Western Fruitland Elementary School Linda Langley 1 27 No Western Fruitland Elementary School Stacy Wescott 1 25 No Western Fruitland Elementary School Heather Heitz 1 26 Yes Western Fruitland Elementary School Amber Bridgewater 1 27 Yes Western Fruitland Elementary School Ish Green 1 26 Yes Western Garden Valley Elementary Shannon Court 1 20 No Eastern Gate City Elementary School Lacey Smart 1 31 No Capital Gateway School of Language Laurie Harvey 1 23 Yes Capital Gateway School of Language Judie Bradburn 1 27 Yes Eastern Gem Prep Pocatello Mallory England 1 28 No Capital Glenns Ferry Elementary Stacie Pollard 1 20 No Capital Grace Jordan Elementary School Darwood Ashmead 1 27 No Eastern Grace Lutheran School Katie Grant 1 30 Yes Eastern Green Acres Elementary School Kathy Walker 1 28 Yes Eastern Green Acres Elementary School Rachel Thomas 1 28 Yes Canyon Greenhurst Elementary School Tami Ashley 1 30 Yes Canyon Greenhurst Elementary School John Stull 1 30 Yes Eastern Groveland Elementary Julie Rider 1 25 Yes Eastern Groveland Elementary Kalli Johns 1 26 No Southern Hailey Elementary Kristin Barsotti 1 20 No Southern Hansen Elementary School Marcie Parkinson 1 30 Yes Capital Hawthorne Elementary School Susie Noland 1 32 Yes Southern Heritage Academy School Martice Fontes 1 14 Yes Capital Highlands Elementary School Eileen Beatty 1 30 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 Capital Highlands Elementary School Angela Troy 1 16 No Capital Hillsdale Elementary School Michelle Montoya 1 31 Yes Capital Hillsdale Elementary School Glenda Torfin 1 28 No Capital Hillsdale Elementary School Jocelyn Robinson 1 31 No Capital Hillsdale Elementary School Angie Fraas 1 32 Yes Western Homedale Elementary School Jamie Bahem 1 26 Yes Western Homedale Elementary School Toby Johnson 1 24 No Western Homedale Elementary School Robyn Chandler 1 25 No Western Homedale Elementary School Kayla Blackstock 1 26 No Capital Horizon Elementary School Sherry Young 1 32 No Capital Horizon Elementary School Jon Parrott 1 32 No Capital Horizon Elementary School Breanna Knight 1 32 No Western Horseshoe Bend Elementary School Suzette Womack 1 20 No Capital Hunter Elementary School Diane Escandon 1 29 Yes Capital Hunter Elementary School Rene Bilkiss 1 29 Yes Capital Hunter Elementary School Angela Zweifel 1 29 Yes Capital Hunter Elementary School Rebecca Lenon 1 29 Yes Capital Hunter Elementary School Cinda Bodell 1 29 No Southern I.B. Perrine Elementary School Rob Weaver 1 30 Yes Southern I.B. Perrine Elementary School Emily Strom 1 30 Yes Southern I.B. Perrine Elementary School Mary Fraley 1 30 No Canyon Indian Creek & Ross Elementary School Karen Stear 1 29 No Canyon Indian Creek & Ross Elementary School Katie Harding 1 30 Yes Canyon Indian Creek & Ross Elementary School Stacy Saunders 1 29 No Eastern Indian Hills Elementary Bridget Durante 1 25 No Eastern Indian Hills Elementary Maria Coleman 1 24 Yes Canyon Iowa Elementary Thea Marie 1 27 Yes Canyon Iowa Elementary Pepper Allen 1 27 Yes Canyon Iowa Elementary Veronica Knutson 1 28 No Capital Joplin Elementary School Kirsten Grover 1 25 No Capital Joplin Elementary School Amy Bass 1 25 No Western Kenneth Carberry Elementary School Marrissa Keenan 1 30 No Western Kenneth Carberry Elementary School Karen Nichols 1 30 Yes Western Kenneth Carberry Elementary School Alissa Combe 1 30 Yes Western Kenneth Carberry Elementary School Vicki Beckman 1 30 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 Southern Kimberly Elementary School Nicole Kindred 1 27 No Capital Lake Hazel Elementary Courtney Randall 1 26 No Capital Lake Hazel Elementary Michelle Roach 1 26 No Capital Lake Hazel Elementary Elizabeth McLaughlin 1 26 No Canyon Lake Ridge Elementary School Deanna Menssen 1 27 Yes Canyon Lake Ridge Elementary School Laura Crawford 1 28 Yes Canyon Lake Ridge Elementary School Tanya Scheibe 1 28 Yes Canyon Lake Ridge Elementary School Laura VanDerschaaf 1 28 Yes Canyon Lakevue Elementary School Kimberly Reinecker 1 30 No Canyon Lakevue Elementary School Heather Stanton 1 30 Yes Canyon Lakevue Elementary School Nicole Underwood 1 30 Yes Canyon Lakevue Elementary School Tara Daniel 1 30 Yes Canyon Lewis & Clark Elementary Adam Trowbridge 1 30 Yes Canyon Lewis & Clark Elementary Caitlyn McConnell 1 30 Yes Canyon Lewis & Clark Elementary Meghan Willard 1 30 Yes Eastern Lewis and Clark Elementary Tamara Palmer 1 25 Yes Eastern Lewis and Clark Elementary Breanna Parker 1 27 Yes Eastern Lewis and Clark Elementary Sabrina Mathews 1 26 Yes Capital Longfellow Elementary School Toni Novotny 1 26 Yes Capital Longfellow Elementary School Julie Albert 1 26 No Capital Maple Grove Elementary Kaitlyn Ilg 1 25 No Capital Maple Grove Elementary Erin Luthy 1 25 No Capital Maple Grove Elementary Scott Roe 1 25 No Western Marsing Elementary School Carol Dewitt 1 24 Yes Western Marsing Elementary School Tammy Aranzamendi 1 24 No Western Marsing Elementary School Scott Thornton 1 24 No Western May Roberts Elementary School Patty Edison 1 18 No Western May Roberts Elementary School Brenda Corder 1 20 No Western Meadows Valley School Sue Weber 1 9 Yes Canyon Melba Elementary Katie Strawser 1 34 Yes Canyon Melba Elementary Marie Rockwood 1 34 Yes Canyon Mill Creek Elementary School Lyna Butler 1 25 Yes Canyon Mill Creek Elementary School Anne Kinley 1 25 Yes Canyon Mill Creek Elementary School Kim Platt 1 25 Yes Canyon Mill Creek Elementary School Lauren Denny 1 25 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 Canyon Mill Creek Elementary School Terri Domme 1 25 Yes Southern Murtaugh Middle School Brooke Stranger 1 31 Yes Southern Murtaugh Middle School Eli Anderson 1 25 No Canyon Nampa Christian School Zachary Dwello 1 16 Yes Canyon Nampa Christian School Toni Brown 1 16 No Western New Plymouth Elementary School Cherry Meckert 1 27 No Western New Plymouth Elementary School Whitney Cowgill 1 24 Yes Western New Plymouth Elementary School Dorothy Woods 1 27 Yes Capital North Elementary Sherri Redmond 1 22 Yes Capital North Elementary Rosemary Ash 1 24 Yes Capital North Elementary Denise Weis 1 21 Yes Capital North Star Charter School Carol Hendershot 1 30 No Capital North Star Charter School Mariah Rodeghiero 1 31 No Capital North Star Charter School Michelle Obenchain 1 30 No Western Notus Elementary School Yvonne Golden 1 16 No Western Notus Elementary School Amanda Cayler 1 17 No Western Nyssa Elementary School Paula Barnhart 1 25 Yes Western Nyssa Elementary School Trisha Bunker 1 42 Yes Western Ola Elementary School Amy Davis 1 11 Yes Southern Oregon Trail Elementary School Brian Johnson 1 25 No Southern Oregon Trail Elementary School Shannon Youngman 1 25 Yes Southern Oregon Trail Elementary School Charles Day 1 25 No Southern Oregon Trail Elementary School Amy Hartwell 1 25 No Canyon Owyhee Elementary Becki Wheeler 1 30 Yes Canyon Owyhee Elementary Brenda Allen 1 30 Yes Canyon Owyhee Elementary Christa Roesberry- Barber 1 30 Yes Canyon Owyhee Elementary School Sara Walsh 1 20 Yes Western Park Intermediate Grace Sharp 1 23 Yes Western Park Intermediate Jenny Conant 1 21 No Western Park Intermediate Kathleen Cahill 1 24 No Western Park Intermediate Damon Courtois 1 23 No Western Park Intermediate Jessica Mosley 1 24 Yes Capital Peregrine Elementary School Trenna McCashland 1 34 Yes Capital Peregrine Elementary School Barbara Nesbit 1 34 Yes 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 Peregrine Elementary School Britnie Winters 1 34 No Capital Pierce Park Elementary Bill Hoffman 1 27 No Capital Pierce Park Elementary Shannon Nicholson 1 30 Yes Southern Pillar Falls Elementary School Eva Filas 1 24 Yes Southern Pillar Falls Elementary School Stephanie Allred 1 24 No Southern Pillar Falls Elementary School Alexandra Messmer 1 24 Yes Southern Pillar Falls Elementary School Krista Vining 1 24 Yes Southern Pillar Falls Elementary School Noelle Wagner 1 24 No Capital Ponderosa Elementary School La Veny Stoddard 1 27 No Capital Prospect Elementary Tara Skeesuck 1 30 Yes Capital Prospect Elementary Kit Shuman 1 30 No Capital Prospect Elementary Alyssa Finley 1 30 No Capital Prospect Elementary Stephanie Lewis 1 30 No Capital Prospect Elementary Megan Yates 1 30 No canyon Purple Sage Elementary School Jenna Oien 1 22 Yes canyon Purple Sage Elementary School Melody Craw 1 22 Yes canyon Purple Sage Elementary School Melissa McPherson 1 21 Yes canyon Purple Sage Elementary School Madeline Laan 1 21 Yes Western Riggins Elementary School Tracy Travis 1 9 No Capital Riverside Elementary School Courtney Calhoun 1 25 No Capital Riverside Elementary School Tara Leach 1 25 No Southern Rock Creek Elementary Julie Delia 1 23 No Southern Rock Creek Elementary Andy Arenz 1 25 No Southern Rock Creek Elementary Pauli Connelly 1 23 No Southern Rock Creek Elementary Barb Christensen 1 23 Yes Eastern Rockland Elementary School Kristi Thomas 1 25 No Canyon Ronald Reagan Elementary School Lisa Martell 1 26 Yes Canyon Ronald Reagan Elementary School Sheryll Sharp 1 28 Yes Canyon Ronald Reagan Elementary School Kelsey Rogers 1 26 Yes Capital Roosevelt Elementary School Alicia Bradshaw 1 27 Yes Capital Roosevelt Elementary School Elizabeth Mills 1 27 No Canyon Sacajawea Elementary School Deborah Storey 1 24 No Canyon Sacajawea Elementary School Penny Washburn 1 24 Yes Canyon Sacajawea Elementary School Jennifer Howell 1 24 No Capital Sage International School of Boise Jennifer Laird 1 26 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 Capital Sage International School of Boise Kadie Johnson 1 26 Yes Capital Sage International School of Boise Angel Larson 1 26 Yes Eastern Salmon Middle/High School Krystal Smith 1 36 No Western Shadow Butte Elementary School Amberlea Doyle 1 28 No Western Shadow Butte Elementary School Melissa Stringfield 1 27 No Capital Shadow Hills Elementary School Christy Schwehr 1 32 Yes Capital Shadow Hills Elementary School Shannon Cullen 1 32 Yes Canyon Sherman Elementary School Tyler Keefe 1 35 Yes Canyon Sherman Elementary School Kenneth Moore 1 35 Yes Canyon Sherman Elementary School Jennifer Jensen 1 35 Yes Canyon Sherman Elementary School Josephine Fisher 1 25 Yes Canyon Sherman Elementary School Jennifer Castricone 1 24 No Canyon Sherman Elementary School Meribeth Mathews 1 23 No Capital Silver Sage Elementary School Lisa Jimenez 1 24 Yes Capital Silver Sage Elementary School Ashley Rowe 1 27 No Canyon Silver Trail Elementary School Justine Burgess 1 27 Yes Canyon Silver Trail Elementary School Dan Blitman 1 28 Yes Canyon Silver Trail Elementary School Dan Hoehne 1 29 Yes Canyon Snake River Elementary Heather Packer 1 27 Yes Canyon Snake River Elementary Lindsey Strong 1 27 Yes Canyon Snake River Elementary Matea Schindel 1 26 Yes Capital Star Elementary School Candy Franscella 1 29 Yes Capital Star Elementary School Carmi Scheller 1 29 No Capital Star Elementary School Angela Fulkerson 1 29 No Eastern Stoddard Elementary School Kimberly Buck 1 27 No Eastern Stoddard Elementary School Hallie Snyder 1 27 Yes Eastern Stoddard Elementary School Alicia Cody 1 27 Yes Southern Summit Elementary School Kimberly Wallace 1 28 Yes Southern Summit Elementary School Tracy Park 1 28 Yes Southern Summit Elementary School Audra Thompson 1 28 Yes Southern Summit Elementary School Maggie Stump 1 28 Yes Southern Summit Elementary School Trisha Neudorff 1 28 No Southern Summit Elementary School Michele Putnam 1 28 Yes Southern Summit Elementary School Keyli Gonzalez 1 28 Yes Southern Summit Elementary School Jorma Fletcher 1 28 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 Todd Lakey 1 28 No Southern Summit Elementary School Stacey Lakey 1 28 Yes Southern Summit Elementary School Anne Winder 1 28 Yes Southern Summit Elementary School Brad Winder 1 28 Yes Eastern Syringa Elementary School Aubrey Eldredge 1 24 No Eastern Syringa Elementary School Cindel Vasquez 1 21 Yes Eastern Syringa Elementary School Andrea Gulden 1 21 No Capital Taft Elementary School Jessica Rose 1 28 No Capital Taft Elementary School Sarah Wright 1 28 Yes Eastern Tendoy Elementary Diana Son 1 29 Yes Eastern Tendoy Elementary Cody Perry 1 23 Yes Capital Trail Wind Elementary School Chris Dinter 1 32 Yes Capital Trail Wind Elementary School Lora Bushee 1 32 Yes Capital Trail Wind Elementary School Judy Swain 1 32 Yes Capital Trail Wind Elementary School Patti Wiseman-Adams 1 32 Yes Eastern Tyhee Elementary School Jayne Johnson 1 26 Yes Eastern Tyhee Elementary School Stefani Mitchell 1 27 No Eastern Tyhee Elementary School Amy Hoesman 1 27 No Capital Valley View Elementary School Meko Myers 1 25 Yes Capital Valley View Elementary School Shawna Hiller 1 27 Yes Canyon Vision Charter School Debra McDorman 1 30 No Canyon Vision Charter School Andrea Martindale 1 32 No Eastern Wapello Elementary School LaNae Porter 1 18 Yes Eastern Wapello Elementary School Kristine Schnittgen 1 20 Yes Capital Washington Elementary Jerad Relk 1 23 No Capital Washington Elementary Maddie Johnson 1 23 Yes Canyon Washington Elementary School Jalene Gilbert 1 27 Yes Canyon Washington Elementary School Heather Mueller 1 27 Yes Canyon Washington Elementary School Chris Wilcox 1 27 Yes Canyon Washington Elementary School Tyler Maryon 1 25 Yes Canyon Washington Elementary School Jan Damron 1 20 Yes Canyon Washington Elementary School Teresa O'Toole 1 20 Yes Canyon West Canyon Elementary Amy Ellis 1 25 Yes Canyon West Canyon Elementary K'Ann Sanchez 1 25 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 Brittany Woodworth 1 26 Yes Canyon West Canyon Elementary Octavio Dario 1 26 Yes Canyon West Middle School Michelle DiPaula 1 80 Yes Canyon West Middle School Melissa Ross 1 25 Yes Canyon West Middle School Kristin Lira 1 80 No Canyon West Middle School Veronica Maple 1 80 No Canyon West Middle School Megan Kotter 1 80 Yes Western Westside Elementary School Shauna Bain 1 28 Yes Western Westside Elementary School Danielle Hayes 1 28 Yes Western Westside Elementary School Paula McElroy 1 28 Yes Western Westside Elementary School Sarah Nesbitt 1 28 Yes Western Westside Elementary School Amy Brownell 1 28 Yes Capital Whitney Elementary School Eden Rodriguez 1 33 Yes Capital Whitney Elementary School Kayden Tague 1 28 Yes Capital Whitney Elementary School Tasha Crowell 1 29 No Eastern William Thomas Middle School Jamie Clark 1 122 Yes Canyon Willow Creek Elementary School Nick Channer 1 27 Yes Canyon Willow Creek Elementary School Kim Chierici 1 27 Yes Canyon Willow Creek Elementary School Nicole Gibbs 1 27 Yes Canyon Willow Creek Elementary School Kayla Stone 1 27 Yes Canyon Wilson Elementary School Debbie Peterson 1 28 Yes Canyon Wilson Elementary School Melissa Langan 1 28 Yes Canyon Wilson Elementary School Sandra Otero 1 28 Yes TOTALS 332 9,107 TOTAL PARTICIPANTS 9,439 TOTAL PARTICIPATING 2017-2018 TEACHERS 332 213 64% YES 119 36% NO TOTAL STUDENT SURVEYS RETURNED 5,252 TOTAL INCENTIVE PAID OUT $20,100 FULL YEAR SURVEY RETURN PERCENTAGE 58% 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 332 93 102 44 50 43 Surveys Received 159 34 64 25 20 16 Percent Response 48%37% 63% 57% 40% 37% Number Percent 1 The materials were clearly written and well organized. Strongly Agree 113 71% Agree 45 28% Disagree 0 0% Strongly Disagree 1 1% 2 The products in the Kit were easy for students to use. Strongly Agree 93 58% Agree 62 39% Disagree 4 3% Strongly Disagree 0 0% 3 Students indicated that their parents supported the program. Yes 147 95% No 8 5% 4 Would you conduct this Program again? Yes 158 99% No 1 1% 5 Would you recommend this program to other colleagues? Yes 158 99% No 1 1% 6 If my school is eligible for participation next year, I would like to enroll. Yes 157 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 9,439 2,678 3,067 1,212 1,408 1,074 Surveys Received 92 32 27 12 8 13 Percent Response 1.0%1.2% 0.9% 1.0% 0.6% 1.2% Total Parent Responses 92 Number Percent 1 Was the Program easy for you and your child to use? Yes 92 100% No 0 0% 2 Will you continue to use the Kit items after the completion of the Program? Yes 91 99% No 1 1% 3 Would you like to see this Program continued in local schools? Yes 89 97 No 3 3% Parent/Guardian Program Evaluation Data Due to rounding of numbers, percentages may not add up to 100% ©2018 Resource Action Programs 976 United Circle • Sparks, NV 89431 www.resourceaction.com • (888) 438-9473 ©2018 Resource Action Programs®