20200313DSM Annual Report - Supplement 2.pdf

2019Annual Report
DEMAND-SIDE MANAGEMENT
Supplement 2:
EVALUATION
MARCH 15 • 2020
Printed on recycled paper
Idaho Power Company Supplement 2: Evaluation
Demand-Side Management 2019 Annual Report Page i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Evaluation and Research Summary .............................................................................................................1
Evaluation Plan ............................................................................................................................................3
Energy Efficiency Advisory Group Notes ...................................................................................................5
NEEA Market Effects Evaluations ............................................................................................................37
Integrated Design Lab ................................................................................................................................39
Research/Surveys .....................................................................................................................................167
Evaluations ...............................................................................................................................................181
Other Reports ...........................................................................................................................................273
Supplement 2: Evaluation Idaho Power Company
Page ii Demand-Side Management 2019 Annual Report

Idaho Power Company Supplement 2: Evaluation
Demand-Side Management 2019 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.
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, 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 and improve Idaho Power’s DSM programs.
In 2019, Idaho Power contracted with DNV GL to conduct program impact and program process
evaluations for Energy House Calls and the Residential New Construction Pilot Program. They also
conducted impact evaluations for the Commercial/Industrial Energy Efficiency program: Retrofits and
New Construction options. Resource Action Programs conducted a program summary analysis for
residential Energy-Saving Kits (ESK). Aclara conducted a summary analysis for the Home Energy
Report Pilot Program. DNV GL conducted further savings estimates analysis for the Shade Tree Project
to better determine potential tree life and mortality rate. Idaho Power contracted with DNV GL to
determine the 2019 demand reduction from the A/C Cool Credit program and the company conducted
internal analyses of the 2019 demand response events for Irrigation Peak Rewards and Flex Peak
Programs.
Throughout 2019, 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 online Empowered Community.
An evaluation schedule and final reports from all evaluations, research, and surveys are included in this
Demand-Side Management 2019 Annual Report, Supplement 2: Evaluation.
Supplement 2: Evaluation Idaho Power Company
Page 2 Demand-Side Management 2019 Annual Report

Idaho Power Company Supplement 2: Evaluation
Demand-Side Management 2019 Annual Report Page 3
EVALUATION PLAN
Energy Efficiency 2010–2021 Program Evaluation Plans
Program Evaluation Schedule 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017
Residential Energy Efficiency Programs
Educational Distributions .................................................................. I/P
Energy Efficient Lighting ................................................................... I
Energy House Calls ......................................................................... I/P
Heating & Cooling Efficiency Program .............................................. I/P I/P
Home Energy Audit .......................................................................... P I
Home Energy Reports ...................................................................... O P/O O
Multifamily Energy Savings Program ................................................ I/P I/P
Rebate Advantage ........................................................................... I
Residential Energy Efficiency Education Initiative .............................
Residential New Construction Pilot Program .................................... I/P
Shade Tree Project .......................................................................... O O O
Simple Steps, Smart Savings™........................................................
Weatherization Assistance for Qualified Customers ......................... I
Weatherization Solutions for Eligible Customers .............................. I
Commercial/Industrial Energy Efficiency Programs
Commercial Energy-Saving Kits .......................................................
Custom Projects ............................................................................... I/P I P
New Construction ............................................................................. I/P I P
Retrofits ........................................................................................... I/P I P
Small Business Direct-Install ............................................................ P
Irrigation Energy Efficiency Programs
Irrigation Efficiency Rewards ............................................................ I/P
Demand-Response Programs
A/C Cool Credit ................................................................................ I O I O O
Flex Peak Program .......................................................................... I O O O O
Irrigation Peak Rewards ................................................................... I O O O O
Evaluation Type: I = Impact, P = Process, O = Other
:

Supplement 2: Evaluation Idaho Power Company
Page 4 Demand-Side Management 2019 Annual Report
Program Evaluation Schedule 2016 20151 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010
Residential Energy Efficiency Programs
Educational Distributions .........................................................
Energy Efficient Lighting .......................................................... I P
Energy House Calls ................................................................ I P
Heating & Cooling Efficiency Program ..................................... P I P
Home Energy Audit ................................................................. P
Home Energy Reports .............................................................
Multifamily Energy Savings Program .......................................
Rebate Advantage .................................................................. I/P I
Residential Energy Efficiency Education Initiative .................... O P
Residential New Construction Pilot Program ...........................
Shade Tree Project ................................................................. P
Simple Steps, Smart Savings™...............................................
Weatherization Assistance for Qualified Customers ................ O P I
Weatherization Solutions for Eligible Customers ..................... O P I
Commercial/Industrial Energy Efficiency Programs
Commercial Energy-Saving Kits ..............................................
Custom Projects ...................................................................... I/P I P
New Construction .................................................................... I I P
Retrofits .................................................................................. I P I P
Small Business Direct-Install ...................................................
Irrigation Energy Efficiency Programs
Irrigation Efficiency Rewards ................................................... I/P P/O P/I P
Demand-Response Programs
A/C Cool Credit ....................................................................... O O O O P O
Flex Peak Program ................................................................. O O P/O O
Irrigation Peak Rewards .......................................................... O O O O O
Evaluation Type: I = Impact, P = Process, O = Other
:
1 Energy efficiency programs evaluated in 2015 have since been combined with another program or eliminated

Idaho Power Company Supplement 2: Evaluation
Demand-Side Management 2019 Annual Report Page 5
ENERGY EFFICIENCY ADVISORY GROUP NOTES
The following pages include notes from EEAG meetings held on January 23, May 1, August 8,
and November 18, 2019. A copy of the revised notes from the January 23 meeting is included to denote
a section that has been revised.

Supplement 2: Evaluation Idaho Power Company
Page 6 Demand-Side Management 2019 Annual Report

1
Energy Efficiency Advisory Group (EEAG) Notes January 23, 2019
Present:
Kent Hanway-CSHQA Pete Pengilly*-Idaho Power
Wil Gehl–Community Action Partnership Assoc. of ID Ben Otto-Idaho Conservation League (via phone)
Stacey Donohue–Idaho Public Utilities Commission (via phone) Katie Pegan–Office of Energy & Mineral Resources
Diego Rivas–Northwest Energy Coalition Sid Erwin–Idaho Irrigation Pumpers Association
Connie Aschenbrenner–Idaho Power Jim Hall-Bodybuilding.com
Anna Kim–Public Utility Commission of Oregon (via phone)
Haley Falconer-City of Boise
Selena O’Neal-Ada County Operations
Not Present:
Don Strickler–Simplot
Tina Jayaweera-Northwest Power & Conservation Council

Guests and Presenters*:
Quentin Nesbitt*-Idaho Power Brittany Nixon–Idaho Power
Tracey Burtch*–Idaho Power Theresa Drake–Idaho Power
Shelley Martin–Idaho Power Becky Arte-Howell–Idaho Power
Billie McWinn*–Idaho Power Melissa Thom-Idaho Power
Melissa Thom–Idaho Power Tonja Dyke–Idaho Power
Tracey Burtch*–Idaho Power Zeke VanHooser-Idaho Power
Annie Meyer–Idaho Power Chris Pollow–Idaho Power
Brad Iverson-Long-Idaho Public Utilities Commission Donn English-Idaho Public Utilities Commission
Krista West-Idaho Power
Note Takers:
Shawn Lovewell (Idaho Power) with Kathy Yi (Idaho Power)
Meeting Facilitator: Rosemary Curtin
Meeting Convened at 9:32 a.m.
Pete convened the meeting with housekeeping items and announcing Wil Gehl of Community Action Partnership Association of Idaho as a new EEAG member. He informed the group that member, Scott Pugrud, has taken new position within the Office of Energy and Mineral Resources and will no longer be a member of EEAG. Katie Pegan would be sitting in for Scott today. Pete provided the balances for the Idaho and Oregon rider. Connie updated the group on the recent filing made in Oregon to adjust the rider tariff and the solar PV rider tariff. She also stated that Idaho Power is looking at assessing the appropriate level of collection for the Idaho Rider. The company will update EEAG members at a future conference call. Rosemary asked for introductions of members and guests and any comments or questions on the October meeting notes.
2
9:43 a.m. October EEAG meeting Follow-up
Kathy provided an update on weatherization measures that could be included in the multifamily housing program.
This idea was brought up during the October 30 meeting. Kathy stated that Idaho Power looked at savings numbers from the Regional Technical Forum (RTF) and other utilities around the country. The numbers she found were based on single family homes, not multi-family. Preliminarily, these measures could be cost-effective. Idaho Power’s next steps will be to talk to contractors who currently work with the Home Energy Audit and Energy House Calls programs and explore options with them.
Kathy also addressed the topic of the drying racks and how the survey results from empowered community compared with the participant pre and post survey. The type of questions asked were; do you have clothes washer, what is the age of the washer, how many loads of laundry, and how many loads go into the dryer. The survey results were consistent.
Quentin provided an update on the savings numbers from the Irrigation program. At the last meeting he suggested that Idaho Power would use the adjusted savings numbers for 2019 and convene a workgroup to explore options. Based on feedback at the meeting, the company decided to accept the RTF savings numbers instead. The cost-effective exceptions filing in Oregon were approved. The incentives will be the same, but the savings will be adjusted. When the RTF updated the savings, they did not have a workgroup with experts in the area, so Idaho
Power still plans to convene a workgroup moving forward to investigate further if the new RTF savings used the correct assumptions.
Quentin updated the group on the potential Small Business Direct Install program. The request for proposal (RFP)
is in the final edit stage. Once the company receives responses it will evaluate the proposals, look at the cost effectiveness, and bring back those findings to the next EEAG meeting.
10:00 a.m. Evaluation Proposal—Pete Pengilly
Pete provided a historical look at Idaho Power’s evaluations and the company’s proposed 2019-2020 evaluation strategy. At the last EEAG meeting, the company heard from members that there could be cost savings by leveraging multi-year evaluation contracts. He asked for comments and feedback from EEAG.
There were comments regarding frequency, the need for evaluating programs with small percentage of overall portfolio savings, and the comment that the Idaho Public Utilities Commission (IPUC) staff direct other utilities to look at Idaho Power’s evaluations as an example of what to do. There was a comment cautioning the company to not go in the wrong direction since there didn’t seem to be a problem with the frequency and method of previous evaluations.
10:16 a.m. 2017 Idaho Prudence Order—Connie Aschenbrenner
Connie reminded the group of the Idaho Commission’s order to address several issues with the EEAG and highlighted the topics that the company planned to discuss today.
Topic #7- “Consider tailoring its marketing efforts to achieve the micro-targeting proposed by the Company’s evaluator.” Tracey informed the group that Idaho Power does include micro-targeting in its marketing and will do a better job of communicating that with EEAG. The evaluator was making the
recommendation regarding the Rebate Advantage program. Idaho Power conducted research and found that the Rebate Advantage customers have a lower overall adoption of technology, are likely to listen to the radio, and they are an older and more rural population.
Tracey provided examples of other types of micro-targeting that the company has done and asked EEAG members for feedback on 2019 marketing options from slide 13. Those options were: 1. Accept evaluator’s
3
proposal of search and display ads and geofencing, 2. Consider more traditional methods, or 3. Hybrid of option 1 and 2.
There were comments and questions regarding how many manufactured homes were purchased over the internet, whether the company puts flyers in areas where people utilize the internet, and if it was possible to put ads on manufacturer websites. In general, the group was supportive of Idaho Power using a common-sense approach to
the evaluator’s recommendation. One member favored Idaho Power using the hybrid approach of option 1 and 2.
Topic #8- “Apply the UCT, not the TRC, as the best measure of the costs and benefits of efficiency programs as a resource.”
An energy efficiency potential study is used to identify the amount of energy efficiency potential to include in the Company’s Integrated Resource Plan (IRP). The amount of energy efficiency potential included in the IRP establishes the targets to be achieved by energy efficiency programs. Guided by these targets, the energy efficiency programs group designs, implements and evaluates energy efficiency programs. Pete reviewed the cost-effectiveness tests that Idaho Power uses in planning programs.
The Company explained that it believes this topic is most appropriately considered in the context of the IRP, but that it wanted to update the EEAG on the issue and solicit any feedback EEAG members had regarding the cost-effectiveness perspective utilized from a long-term resource planning perspective. The Company shared that from
its perspective, using the Total Resource Cost (TRC) test is preferred because it results selecting resources that will provide the lowest overall energy costs for customers across its system.
There was discussion about the different tests, the differences in how they are used for resource planning vs.
program planning, why the company utilizes the TRC for resource planning, why the company uses all three tests for program planning, and the importance of Idaho Power being a trusted energy advisor for its customers. The Company explained that it does not want to encourage customers to make uneconomical decisions. One member
suggested that it might be helpful for program participants if Idaho Power could provide a cost calculator associated with programs on its website. The Company stated that the IRP discussion is ongoing and committed to following up with the EEAG in the future with the outcome of those discussions.
12:00 Lunch
12:48 Meeting Reconvened Topic #9- “Reconsider the discontinuation of the Home Improvement Program.”
Billie provided a timeline of the Home Improvement Program (HIP) history and its cost-effectiveness. She also provided a slide that outlined what the company looked at when it revisited the cost-effectiveness. Based on past discussions with EEAG on the topic of cost effectiveness of programs, the Company is committed to providing a more transparent proposal for discussions about the future treatment of existing programs at the May EEAG meeting.
There was general agreement from EEAG that the explanation that was provided by Idaho Power on its discontinuation of the HIP was satisfactory and they were happy to see the company committed to presenting a proposal in the May EEAG meeting regarding a framework for future program continuation decision making.
Topic #10 “Rigorously examine the potential for expanded demand response in its 2019 IRP.
Quentin informed the group that the information had previously been presented to the IRP advisory committee (IRPAC), but that it wanted to update the EEAG on the issue and solicit any feedback EEAG members had
regarding how Idaho Power planned to model demand response (DR) in its IRP. Quentin briefly explained the three DR programs and provided a snapshot of all the demand response programs 2018 performance. He
4
provided an abbreviated presentation of the one given to the IRPAC. Quentin explained that the Company has evaluated capacity need outside of the Aurora Model and is putting DR into the Aurora Model with some
constraints and allowing Aurora to determine whether it is needed in different portfolio scenarios.
There were questions and comments regarding expanding the program event hours, customer tolerance for cycling events, and concern over adding additional costs to customers if the demand response programs were expanded. It was stated that once the company pays more for market energy vs. incentives, that would be the time to expand the programs. It was suggested that Idaho Power could pick up additional participants in the irrigation sector in the current timeframe, but they would not go beyond the four-hour cycling event. It is one thing to decide the company needs more demand response and another thing to get more participation. It was also suggested that the irrigation program is a good example of optimizing dispatch times. The same type of spreading customers into multiple groups could be applied to Flex Peak and A/C Cool Credit. That would be utilizing lessons learned and applying those to the other two programs.
Topic #11- “Work with the EEAG to ensure that Energy Independence Security Act program savings remain healthy beyond 2020.
Pete provided the background of the Energy Independence Security Act (EISA) and how it will impact energy savings for the programs that have lighting measures. Billie reminded the group of the numerous presentations
that Idaho Power has given on how EISA will reduce the residential programs savings potential. The energy savings will still occur, but they will be the result of federal standards and not Idaho Power programs.
There were questions and comments regarding the next steps in lighting, controls, Idaho Power providing more
education regarding building codes, and providing more opportunities for the residential customers to participate in. It was suggested that as a group, EEAG could go through activities to work through perceived program constraints to look for opportunities that are “outside the box.” Every program has constraints, is there a way the
group can go through those to find a new opportunity? Billie reiterated that the Company believes a key role of the EEAG is to have these discussions and to have an exchange of ideas. It was suggested that Idaho Power could provide members with information so that they can provide advice and suggestions, such as:
• Reports from organizations like NW Power and Conservation Council and Regional Technical Forum to kick-start a brainstorming session.
• What other utilities, that are struggling with the same issues, are looking towards for new opportunities.
Opportunities that can be explored by the EEAG include:
• Partnering with other utilities or co-branding.
• Behavioral programs
• Ways to work closer with rural areas to capture “low-hanging fruit” in those areas.
Pete stated that Idaho Power staff will talk about these suggestions and can bring back some of the resources that EEAG suggested. Theresa thanked the group for the great conversation and input.
2:24 Meeting Adjourned

1
Energy Efficiency Advisory Group (EEAG) Notes January 23, 2019
Present:
Kent Hanway-CSHQA Pete Pengilly*-Idaho Power
Wil Gehl–Community Action Partnership Assoc. of ID Ben Otto-Idaho Conservation League (via phone)
Stacey Donohue–Idaho Public Utilities Commission (via phone) Katie Pegan–Office of Energy & Mineral Resources
Diego Rivas–Northwest Energy Coalition Sid Erwin–Idaho Irrigation Pumpers Association
Connie Aschenbrenner–Idaho Power Jim Hall-Bodybuilding.com
Anna Kim–Public Utility Commission of Oregon (via phone)
Haley Falconer-City of Boise
Selena O’Neal-Ada County Operations
Not Present:
Don Strickler–Simplot
Tina Jayaweera-Northwest Power & Conservation Council

Guests and Presenters*:
Quentin Nesbitt*-Idaho Power Brittany Nixon–Idaho Power
Tracey Burtch*–Idaho Power Theresa Drake–Idaho Power
Shelley Martin–Idaho Power Becky Arte-Howell–Idaho Power
Billie McWinn*–Idaho Power Melissa Thom-Idaho Power
Melissa Thom–Idaho Power Tonja Dyke–Idaho Power
Tracey Burtch*–Idaho Power Zeke VanHooser-Idaho Power
Annie Meyer–Idaho Power Chris Pollow–Idaho Power
Brad Iverson-Long-Idaho Public Utilities Commission Donn English-Idaho Public Utilities Commission
Krista West-Idaho Power
Note Takers:
Shawn Lovewell (Idaho Power) with Kathy Yi (Idaho Power)
Meeting Facilitator: Rosemary Curtin
Meeting Convened at 9:32 a.m.
Pete convened the meeting with housekeeping items and announcing Wil Gehl of Community Action Partnership Association of Idaho as a new EEAG member. He informed the group that member, Scott Pugrud, has taken new position within the Office of Energy and Mineral Resources and will no longer be a member of EEAG. Katie Pegan would be sitting in for Scott today. Pete provided the balances for the Idaho and Oregon rider. Connie updated the group on the recent filing made in Oregon to adjust the rider tariff and the solar PV rider tariff. She also stated that Idaho Power is looking at assessing the appropriate level of collection for the Idaho Rider. The company will update EEAG members at a future conference call. Rosemary asked for introductions of members and guests and any comments or questions on the October meeting notes.
2
9:43 a.m. October EEAG meeting Follow-up
Kathy provided an update on weatherization measures that could be included in the multifamily housing program.
This idea was brought up during the October 30 meeting. Kathy stated that Idaho Power looked at savings numbers from the Regional Technical Forum (RTF) and other utilities around the country. The numbers she found were based on single family homes, not multi-family. Preliminarily, these measures could be cost-effective. Idaho Power’s next steps will be to talk to contractors who currently work with the Home Energy Audit and Energy House Calls programs and explore options with them.
Kathy also addressed the topic of the drying racks and how the survey results from empowered community compared with the participant pre and post survey. The type of questions asked were; do you have clothes washer, what is the age of the washer, how many loads of laundry, and how many loads go into the dryer. The survey results were consistent.
Quentin provided an update on the savings numbers from the Irrigation program. At the last meeting he suggested that Idaho Power would use the adjusted savings numbers for 2019 and convene a workgroup to explore options. Based on feedback at the meeting, the company decided to accept the RTF savings numbers instead. The cost-effective exceptions filing in Oregon were approved. The incentives will be the same, but the savings will be adjusted. When the RTF updated the savings, they did not have a workgroup with experts in the area, so Idaho
Power still plans to convene a workgroup moving forward to investigate further if the new RTF savings used the correct assumptions.
Quentin updated the group on the potential Small Business Direct Install program. The request for proposal (RFP)
is in the final edit stage. Once the company receives responses it will evaluate the proposals, look at the cost effectiveness, and bring back those findings to the next EEAG meeting.
10:00 a.m. Evaluation Proposal—Pete Pengilly
Pete provided a historical look at Idaho Power’s evaluations and the company’s proposed 2019-2020 evaluation strategy. At the last EEAG meeting, the company heard from members that there could be cost savings by leveraging multi-year evaluation contracts. He asked for comments and feedback from EEAG.
There were comments regarding frequency, the need for evaluating programs with small percentage of overall portfolio savings, and the comment that the Idaho Public Utilities Commission (IPUC) staff direct other utilities to look at Idaho Power’s evaluations as an example of what to do. There was a comment cautioning the company to not go in the wrong direction since there didn’t seem to be a problem with the frequency and method of previous evaluations.
10:16 a.m. 2017 Idaho Prudence Order—Connie Aschenbrenner
Connie reminded the group of the Idaho Commission’s order to address several issues with the EEAG and highlighted the topics that the company planned to discuss today.
Topic #7- “Consider tailoring its marketing efforts to achieve the micro-targeting proposed by the Company’s evaluator.” Tracey informed the group that Idaho Power does include micro-targeting in its marketing and will do a better job of communicating that with EEAG. The evaluator was making the
recommendation regarding the Rebate Advantage program. Idaho Power conducted research and found that the Rebate Advantage customers have a lower overall adoption of technology, are likely to listen to the radio, and they are an older and more rural population.
Tracey provided examples of other types of micro-targeting that the company has done and asked EEAG members for feedback on 2019 marketing options from slide 13. Those options were: 1. Accept evaluator’s
3
proposal of search and display ads and geofencing, 2. Consider more traditional methods, or 3. Hybrid of option 1 and 2.
There were comments and questions regarding how many manufactured homes were purchased over the internet, whether the company puts flyers in areas where people utilize the internet, and if it was possible to put ads on manufacturer websites. In general, the group was supportive of Idaho Power using a common-sense approach to
the evaluator’s recommendation. One member favored Idaho Power using the hybrid approach of option 1 and 2.
Topic #8- “Apply the UCT, not the TRC, as the best measure of the costs and benefits of efficiency programs as a resource.”
An energy efficiency potential study is used to identify the amount of energy efficiency potential to include in the Company’s Integrated Resource Plan (IRP). The amount of energy efficiency potential included in the IRP establishes the targets to be achieved by energy efficiency programs. Guided by these targets, the energy efficiency programs group designs, implements and evaluates energy efficiency programs. Pete reviewed the cost-effectiveness tests that Idaho Power uses in planning programs.
The Company explained that it believes this topic is most appropriately considered in the context of the IRP, but that it wanted to update the EEAG on the issue and solicit any feedback EEAG members had regarding the cost-effectiveness perspective utilized from a long-term resource planning perspective. The Company shared that from
its perspective, using the Total Resource Cost (TRC) test is preferred because it results selecting resources that will provide the lowest overall energy costs for customers across its system. EEAG members discussed the merits of using the UCT for resource planning and energy efficiency program evaluation. The discussion included a few
members suggesting that the UCT is more reflective of the utility costs and benefits, which is what they believe shows up in rates and how they are evaluated at the PUC.
There was discussion about the different tests, the differences in how they are used for resource planning vs. program planning, why the company utilizes the TRC for resource planning, why the company uses all three tests
for program planning, and the importance of Idaho Power being a trusted energy advisor for its customers. The Company explained that it does not want to encourage customers to make uneconomical decisions. One member suggested that it might be helpful for program participants if Idaho Power could provide a cost calculator
associated with programs on its website and some members stated that there are other decision-making factors that individuals consider regarding energy efficiency, including comfort, environment, etc.
The Company stated that the IRP discussion is ongoing and committed to following up with the EEAG in the future with the outcome of those discussions.
12:00 Lunch
12:48 Meeting Reconvened Topic #9- “Reconsider the discontinuation of the Home Improvement Program.”
Billie provided a timeline of the Home Improvement Program (HIP) history and its cost-effectiveness. She also provided a slide that outlined what the company looked at when it revisited the cost-effectiveness. Based on past discussions with EEAG on the topic of cost effectiveness of programs, the Company is committed to providing a more transparent proposal for discussions about the future treatment of existing programs at the May EEAG meeting.
There was general agreement from EEAG that the explanation that was provided by Idaho Power on its discontinuation of the HIP was satisfactory and they were happy to see the company committed to presenting a
proposal in the May EEAG meeting regarding a framework for future program continuation decision making.
4
Topic #10 “Rigorously examine the potential for expanded demand response in its 2019 IRP.
Quentin informed the group that the information had previously been presented to the IRP advisory committee
(IRPAC), but that it wanted to update the EEAG on the issue and solicit any feedback EEAG members had regarding how Idaho Power planned to model demand response (DR) in its IRP. Quentin briefly explained the three DR programs and provided a snapshot of all the demand response programs 2018 performance. He provided an abbreviated presentation of the one given to the IRPAC. Quentin explained that the Company has evaluated capacity need outside of the Aurora Model and is putting DR into the Aurora Model with some constraints and allowing Aurora to determine whether it is needed in different portfolio scenarios.
There were questions and comments regarding expanding the program event hours, customer tolerance for cycling events, and concern over adding additional costs to customers if the demand response programs were expanded. It was stated that once the company pays more for market energy vs. incentives, that would be the time to expand the programs. It was suggested that Idaho Power could pick up additional participants in the irrigation sector in the current timeframe, but they would not go beyond the four-hour cycling event. It is one thing to decide the company needs more demand response and another thing to get more participation. It was also suggested that the irrigation program is a good example of optimizing dispatch times. The same type of spreading customers into multiple groups could be applied to Flex Peak and A/C Cool Credit. That would be utilizing lessons learned and
applying those to the other two programs.
Topic #11- “Work with the EEAG to ensure that Energy Independence Security Act program savings remain healthy beyond 2020.
Pete provided the background of the Energy Independence Security Act (EISA) and how it will impact energy savings for the programs that have lighting measures. Billie reminded the group of the numerous presentations that Idaho Power has given on how EISA will reduce the residential programs savings potential. The energy
savings will still occur, but they will be the result of federal standards and not Idaho Power programs.
There were questions and comments regarding the next steps in lighting, controls, Idaho Power providing more education regarding building codes, and providing more opportunities for the residential customers to participate in. It was suggested that as a group, EEAG could go through activities to work through perceived program constraints to look for opportunities that are “outside the box.” Every program has constraints, is there a way the group can go through those to find a new opportunity? Billie reiterated that the Company believes a key role of the EEAG is to have these discussions and to have an exchange of ideas. It was suggested that Idaho Power could provide members with information so that they can provide advice and suggestions, such as:
• Reports from organizations like NW Power and Conservation Council and Regional Technical Forum to kick-start a brainstorming session.
• What other utilities, that are struggling with the same issues, are looking towards for new opportunities.
Opportunities that can be explored by the EEAG include:
• Partnering with other utilities or co-branding.
• Behavioral programs
• Ways to work closer with rural areas to capture “low-hanging fruit” in those areas.
Pete stated that Idaho Power staff will talk about these suggestions and can bring back some of the resources that EEAG suggested. Theresa thanked the group for the great conversation and input.
5
2:24 Meeting Adjourned

1
Energy Efficiency Advisory Group (EEAG) Notes May 1, 2019
Present:
Jim Hall-Bodybuilding.com Don Strickler–Simplot
Wil Gehl–Community Action Partnership Ben Otto-Idaho Conservation League
Stacey Donohue–Idaho Public Utilities Commission Katie Pegan–Office of Energy & Mineral Resources
Diego Rivas–Northwest Energy Coalition Sid Erwin–Idaho Irrigation Pumpers Association
Connie Aschenbrenner–Idaho Power Pete Pengilly*-Idaho Power
Anna Kim–Public Utility Commission of Oregon (via phone)
John Chatburn–Office of Energy & Mineral Resources
Selena O’Neal-Ada County Operations
Tina Jayaweera-Northwest Power & Conservation Council (via phone)
Haley Falconer-City of Boise
Not Present:
Kent Hanway-CSHQA
Name–Company
Name–Company
Guests and Presenters*:
Quentin Nesbitt*-Idaho Power Cory Read–Idaho Power
Tracey Burtch*–Idaho Power Theresa Drake–Idaho Power
Don Reading-Industrial Customers of Idaho Randy Thorn–Idaho Power
Billie McWinn*–Idaho Power Annie Meyer-Idaho Power
Gary Grayson–Idaho Power Sheree Willhite–Idaho Power
Todd Greenwell–Idaho Power Zeke VanHooser-Idaho Power
Chellie Jensen–Idaho Power Chris Pollow–Idaho Power
Adam Richins*-Idaho Power Melissa Thom*- Idaho Power
Alexis Freeman-Idaho Power
Kresta Davis-Butts-Idaho Power
Krista West-Idaho Power
Peter Richardson-Industrial Customers of Idaho
Tonja Dyke-Idaho Power
Shelley Martin-Idaho Power
Brad Iverson-Long-Idaho Public Utilities Commission
Kevin Keyt-Idaho Public Utilities Commission
Becky Arte-Howell-Idaho Power
Phil DeVol*-Idaho Power
Mary Hacking-Idaho Power
Denise Humphreys-Idaho Power
Donn English-Idaho Public Utilities Commission
Brittany Nixon-Idaho Power
Paul Goralski-Idaho Power
Cassie Koerner-Idaho Public Utilities Commission
Mindi Shodeen-Idaho Power
Note Takers:
Shawn Lovewell (Idaho Power) with Kathy Yi (Idaho Power)
Meeting Facilitator: Rosemary Curtin
Meeting Convened at 9:32 a.m.
2

Pete convened the meeting with housekeeping item, member and guest introductions, and January meeting note
review. One member had some revisions that they would like added to the document. Rosemary suggested that they submit those changes via email and Idaho Power will consider those edits and redistribute. Theresa Drake introduced Adam Richins, Vice President of Customer Operations & Business Development to discuss Idaho
Power’s Clean Energy Goal.
9:38 am-Idaho Power’s Clean Energy Goal—Adam Richins
Adam Richins spoke to members of EEAG about Idaho Power’s Clean Energy Goal, and the company’s current energy mix as compared to the national average. He spoke about how the company plans to reach this goal by the year 2045 and how energy efficiency plays a part. He concluded by thanking members of EEAG for their efforts in assisting the company reach this goal.
9:45 am-2019 Integrated Resource Plan—-Phil DeVol
Phil explained the primary goals of the Integrated Resource Plan (IRP), the technical achievable bundles, the role of demand response in the IRP, portfolio development, the menu of resources options and the different energy efficiency options that were considered, and the preferred portfolio. He also explained the Aurora production cost model that builds various portfolios based on the futures that are inputted.
There were comments and questions on how the bundles were constructed, if there is documentation on what is in the bundle, and if the cost bundles include utility or participant costs. Pete answered that the cost bundles are net total resource cost. One EEAG member thanked Idaho Power for incorporating feedback from stakeholders and
taking an innovative approach in the development of the 2019 IRP.
10:15 am Updates: Residential Campaign & DSM Prudence Filing—Melissa Thom & Connie Aschenbrenner
Melissa presented the new residential campaign and showed the video featuring Joulee and Wattson that has been airing on local television stations.
Connie provided an update on the DSM Prudence filing, the Energy Efficiency Rider decrease, and thanked EEAG for collaborating on the topics from the previous prudence case. Idaho Power has filed their report with the Idaho Public Utilities Commission as directed.
10:21 am-Programs—Billie McWinn & Quentin Nesbitt
Billie provided year-to-date savings and participation for the residential programs. She provided an overview of the Energy Saving Kits, the history, and the several types of kits available. She highlighted the mail by request kits and the installation rates of the water saving showerhead. The savings associated with these kits come from the Regional Technical Forum (RTF). The RTF shows a 90% installation rate but through surveys, Idaho Power is seeing about a 57% installation rate. Due to the installation rate reduction, electric water heating customers are now asked if they want the water savings measure included with their kit when ordering online.
Billie provided an update and overview of the Heating and Cooling Efficiency (H&CE) program. Currently, to qualify for the smart thermostat incentive, a licensed contractor must install thermostats. Idaho Power is
considering changing the contractor requirement and would like feedback from EEAG. Billie provided a list of risks and opportunities for a self-install option and showed a sample of the installation instructions for heat pumps. She asked the group for feedback on whether the company should allow self-install option for electric
furnaces, heat pumps, or both. She also asked if it should be for a trial period or long term and how or when should the company revisit the topic.
3
There were comments and questions on why the company is considering removing the contractor install requirement. Billie answered that this requirement implemented when Idaho Power brought this measure to
EEAG initially, when the market was newer, and that the Company is reviewing the requirement now, in part, because the market and technology have had time to mature. Cost effectiveness of the measure may be helped with the self-install option due to the reduction in installation costs, but Idaho Power would need to look at the assumptions behind the RTF savings numbers to determine that. An increase in the number of smart thermostat incentives could also reduce the overall cost-effectiveness of the program because the cost-effectiveness of smart thermostats is lower than the program cost-effectiveness. Most members of EEAG were in favor of removing the contract install requirement, even after acknowledging the possible difficulties with installing them on a heat pump. Some suggestions were that the company could provide information on the website or marketing material to advise of the potential risks to equipment if not installed properly. The Energy Trust has had a self-install option for years and one member suggested the company reach out to them.
Commercial/Industrial/Irrigation Update
Quentin provided year-to-date savings and participation for the commercial, industrial, and irrigation programs. He also highlighted program performance year-to-date compared to same time in 2018. He updated EEAG on the Small Business Direct Install offering. The company is in the process of selecting a vendor.
There were comments and questions about when energy savings are counted, what types of lighting options might be used in the direct install offering, past participation in the retrofit program and what their return on investment was. Quentin answered that energy savings is counted when the incentive is paid. The lighting options for the
direct install would need to be what is ultimately best for the customer and the needs of their space. There was a comment about the value of the cohorts feeding into other program participation and if there is a way to evaluate that. Quentin answered that cost effectiveness is done differently around the region and currently Idaho Power has
not included capital projects paid through the normal program in cost effectiveness calculations for each cohort. Idaho Power also uses an average administration cost from the overall C & I program rather than the specific cohort costs to determine cost effectiveness. One member stated that there is value in cohort participants sharing
their results and that it can drive engagement with others.
There were comments on the Commercial trainings and how beneficial they are. There was also a question about the status of the savings numbers for the Irrigation Menu measures. Quentin stated that Idaho Power is continuing to work with the RTF but haven’t come to any conclusions yet. One member commented that the RTF numbers are good for knowing what the savings are, but if Idaho Power can come up with more accurate numbers for its service area that those might be better numbers to use. One member received a call from a company that makes LED lamps for non-traditional usage and dark sky compliant. The Sawtooth National Recreation area has this designation and as result surrounding areas may become more interested in lighting that is compliant.
12:00 Lunch
1:00 Meeting Reconvened
1:00 pm Evaluation results—Kim Bakalars-Tetra Tech
Tetra Tech performed evaluations on the Multifamily, Energy Efficient lighting, and the Commercial/Industrial Custom programs. Kim went over the results and recommendations of each program. Th overall results of these evaluations are that Idaho Power staff are committed and conscientious in the way these programs are managed,
and savings calculations were reasonable.
1:37 pm Cost Effectiveness—Pete Pengilly
4
At the last EEAG meeting in January, Idaho Power made a commitment to come back and have a discussion around cost effectiveness for program continuation. Pete briefly explained cost-effectiveness and the several types
of tests the company uses; Total Resource Cost, Utility Cost Test, Participant Cost Test, and the requirements in Oregon.
There was discussion around what the threshold or ratios should be used for program continuation, which tests are more important, the importance of all the test used together, the cost-effectiveness ratios should be higher for a new program or measure vs. a continuation. Adjustments could be made on an established program, but it isn’t a good idea to start a new program that isn’t cost effective. Starting a program that is not cost effective can erode customer confidence in the program. One member commented that they appreciate Idaho Power taking time to create the proposal considering the future of energy efficiency and the changes that are on the horizon. This can help especially with what is in the future for EE and the changes that are coming. This could help EEAG in creating a framework for program development. Connie concluded the discussion and thanked the group for the feedback. Idaho Power will use this information to put together a more detailed proposal and bring it back to EEAG at a future meeting.
2:43 pm DSM Activity—Pete Pengilly
Pete gave the history of the DSM Annual Report. This report is a regulatory requirement, so Idaho Power is not
asking to discontinue the report, the company is seeking input from EEAG on ways to make it meaningful and valuable for stakeholders, are there ways the company can streamline the format.
Discussion.
Group 1 Comments:
Our group found no major changes needed. It is useful and readable. The useful content depends on who is reading it. There seem to be more pictures, tables and graphs that take up space and made it longer. The increase
in marketing discussion could have made it longer, that could be a place to find space saving. EEAG has been asking for marketing for years so having it is nice, but the company could consolidate it. Maybe formatting to make it more comfortable to read it. Having color coded edge to distinguish the different sections. Customer satisfaction and marketing overview were less helpful than the granular level for each program. The company could provide program summaries as a pdf that could be sent out in a more digestible format.
Group 2 Comments:
Once we determined the audience of this report; regulatory and intervenors, they all think it is great. We recommend not changing anything since it works for them. If you want others to use the report, then pull some stuff out, less fluff and do a 20-page executive summary that explains what is in the other report. It could be
something you could use beyond regulatory.
3:33 pm- Wrap-up
I enjoy these meetings and the updates. I liked the discussion on cost effectiveness. The evaluation presentation is important since it shows how these programs are managed. Discussing the DSM Annual Report was helpful because it shows how much work goes into putting it together.
It was a good meeting and I appreciate all the work in putting the annual report together.
I appreciated the deep dives on a couple key programs. For the next meeting it would be nice to see new program ideas or measures as a topic.
5
The flow of agenda was good, not too much. We need to start looking at some new things since IRP process is almost complete. We shouldn’t wait too long even if they are just ideas that need flushing out.
I learned a lot today especially around cost effectiveness.
Thank you for all the feedback on programs and program continuation. Appreciate the nature of discussion and differing opinions and viewpoints.
I am looking forward to version two of cost effectiveness program continuation proposal conversation and what it brings back to the next meeting.
I appreciate the discussion on smart thermostats.

3:40 Meeting Adjourned

1
Energy Efficiency Advisory Group (EEAG) Notes dated August 8th, 2019
Present:
Selena O’Neal-Ada County Operations Don Strickler–Simplot
Wil Gehl–Community Action Partnership Assoc. of Idaho Ben Otto-Idaho Conservation League
Stacey Donohue–Idaho Public Utilities Commission Haley Falconer-City of Boise
Katie Pegan–Office of Energy & Mineral Resources Sid Erwin–Idaho Irrigation Pumpers Association
Connie Aschenbrenner–Idaho Power Pete Pengilly*-Idaho Power
Tina Jayaweera-Northwest Power & Conservation Council

Not Present:
Kent Hanway-CSHQA
Jim Hall-Bodybuilding.com
Diego Rivas–Northwest Energy Coalition
Anna Kim–Public Utility Commission of Oregon
Guests and Presenters*:
Quentin Nesbitt*-Idaho Power Mindi Shodeen-Idaho Power
Tracey Burtch*–Idaho Power Theresa Drake–Idaho Power
Shelley Martin–Idaho Power Andrea Simmonsen–Idaho Power
Billie McWinn*–Idaho Power Annie Meyer*-Idaho Power
Paul Goralski–Idaho Power Cheryl Paoli–Idaho Power
Todd Greenwell–Idaho Power Zeke VanHooser-Idaho Power
Chellie Jensen–Idaho Power Chris Pollow–Idaho Power
Andrea Salazar*-E Source Mark Rehley*-Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance
Kurt Kolnowski*-Applied Energy Group Lynn Tominaga-Idaho Irrigation Pumpers Association
Kevin Keyt-Idaho Public Utilities Commission Jennifer Lightfoot-Ada County Operations
Peter Richardson-Industrial Customers of Idaho Donn Reading-Industrial Customer of Idaho
Tom Lienhard-Avista Corp Ryan Finesilver-Avista Corp
Leslie Cuen-Idaho Power Intern Randy Thorn-Idaho Power
Tonja Dyke-Idaho Power Cheryl Paoli-Idaho Power
Becky Arte-Howell-Idaho Power Brittany Nixon-Idaho Power
John Bernardo-Idaho Power Cassie Koerner-Idaho Public Utilities Commission
Kassie McCool-Idaho Power Serena Lloyd*-Idaho Power Intern
Note Takers:
Shawn Lovewell (Idaho Power) with Kathy Yi (Idaho Power)
Meeting Facilitator: Rosemary Curtin
2
Meeting Convened at 9:33 AM
Pete convened the meeting with housekeeping items, member and guest introductions, and May meeting note
review. One member asked if the revisions from the January 2019 meeting had been incorporated into the notes. At that time, the member who had suggested revisions had not sent those to Idaho Power.
9:45 a.m. Preliminary Cost-Effectiveness—Kathy Yi
Kathy’s presentation covered cost-effectiveness assumptions, DSM alternate cost comparisons, an explanation of the three cost-effectiveness tests that the company uses, 2019 preliminary program cost-effectiveness, and the future of lighting as it relates to the Energy Independence and Security Act 2007 (EISA). In previous meetings,
Idaho Power has shared the potential impacts that EISA will have on programs going forward.
There were questions and comments regarding the sources of determining incremental costs and why Green Motors is not analyzed as its own program. Idaho Power explained green motors is considered a measure within the Irrigation and Custom programs due to the small amount of energy savings. Regarding lighting programs in 2020, Kathy stated that there is uncertainty among many utilities on which savings numbers to use going forward.
10:34 a.m. Residential Programs—-Billie McWinn
Billie provided an update of the Heating & Cooling program improvements, Residential New Construction Pilot, and Residential Education. She thanked EEAG for their input for removing the installer requirement for smart
thermostats in the Heating & Cooling program.
There were questions and comments about smart thermostats being available to small commercial customers. Billie answered that this measure is available through the Retrofit program. One member asked why eligibility for
smart thermostats wasn’t based on the Energy Star® designation rather than a Qualified Products List (QPL). Billie stated that she would research that.
Billie provided a detailed overview of the current Residential New Construction Pilot. This program uses a
regional software tool called REM Rate. With numerous inputs, including current building code, the software calculates energy savings associated with energy efficiency built into new residential construction. The methodology for calculating the percent savings above code is changing, which will impact eligibility for the
current program. Idaho Power would like input from EEAG on several options it is exploring.
There were questions and comments regarding the software, how the REM Rate savings compares to deemed savings, and about the change in calculations of percent savings above code. Most EEAG members liked the 2-tier approach. A couple members suggested having a stretch or reach goal along with the 2-tier approach. One member sated that they liked a non-monetary incentive for a lower percentage above code and then add in the monetary incentive as the percentage increases. Billie thanked the group for their input and stated that at the next
meeting there should be more information for an update.
Billie presented Serena Lloyd, student intern, who has been working on an energy efficiency video game. Serena provided an explanation and demonstration of the game.
11:23 a.m. Commercial/Industrial/Irrigation Programs—Quentin Nesbitt
Quentin provided year-to-date savings and participation for the commercial, industrial, and irrigation programs.
He also highlighted program performance year-to-date compared to same time in 2018. Quentin provided an update on the small commercial customer kits and how many were distributed in 2019. One member commented on receiving one, how impressed they were with the contents and how well put together it was.
3
Quentin stated that Idaho Power selected a vendor and is working on the contract for the Small Business Direct Install program. An audience member asked what the size limit is for a small business. Quentin stated that it is
25,000 kWh/year as the upper limit. Quentin also spoke about the different intern/externships the department had this year and the new Sensor Suitcase that Idaho Power is purchasing for the Integrated Design Lab tool loan library to be used to analyze buildings typically less than 50,000 sq./ft.
There were questions and comments on how the New Construction program calculates energy savings and if the company knows how much of all new construction comes thru this program. Quentin answered that savings are based on code and what the builder does over code. It is hard to track the percentage of all new construction in the
area and how much of that comes through this program.
Idaho Power is currently using the new savings numbers from the Regional Technical Forum (RTF) for the Irrigation Menu program. The company and the RTF are working on a research plan for the impacted prescriptive measures. One member asked that Idaho Power keep EEAG informed on the status of the research and incentive levels.
12:00 p.m. Lunch
1:00 p.m. Meeting Reconvened
1:04 p.m. Marketing—Annie Meyer and Tracey Burtch
Annie explained the “No Sweat Summer Sweepstakes” and showed earned media spot. One member commented on the July edition of Connections. They appreciated how well written and included energy efficiency tips and fun facts. Tracey showed the new Retrofit brochure created in an easy to understand format that Energy Advisors can
use when meeting with customers. She also highlighted the industry specific brochures and passed them around for EEAG members to look at. A new informational brochure has been created for perspective customers who may not be aware of the program offerings available from Idaho Power.
There was conversation about how Idaho Power markets the Green Motors program to the commercial/industrial customers. Quentin mentioned it is marketed to customers on our website and through presentations at workshops. Quentin and Pete indicated that the company has been looking at better ways communicate that information and
welcome any ideas from EEAG.
1:28 p.m. Technologies Panel
Pete introduced each of the panelists and encouraged the group to ask questions.
Andrea Salazar-E Source
• Low-E window films
• The Smart Home
Kurtis Kolnowski-AEG
• Non-intrusive load metering and Sub-metering (NILM)
• Ultraviolet C (UV-C) LED’s for water disinfection

4
Mark Rehley-NEEA
• Phase change materials (PCM)
• Heat Pumps
Questions and comments from EEAG included: Black box technologies, window film energy savings, residential and commercial building automation and the value for Idaho Power programs, heat pump technology in the summer, UV disinfection in the waste water industry, and ultrasonic dryers.
3:30 p.m. Wrap-up/Open Discussion
The panel discussion was enjoyable. I was glad to see Idaho Power provide a current explanation on EISA and the impacts to programs. It would be interesting to get an update in 2020.
I enjoyed the panel discussion
I really enjoyed the industry brochures and would like to receive a link. They are hard to find on the website.
I look forward to hearing more about how lighting changes will affect programs. The emerging technologies panel was interesting.
It was great to hear what else is out there from the panel
I liked the mix of the day, it was a good balance
I enjoyed hearing about lighting issues and how the government issues impact programs and what the company is doing.
I would like to have a discussion of non-energy benefits and how to evaluate them, it’s not about getting the
numbers right.
This current focus of EEAG is on the value of energy efficiency, but there may be more value in controlling customer’s loads. That might require re-thinking the value streams and alternative costs. Over the next several
years we may need to think differently about energy. The role of this group may need to switch focus to the broader subject of demand side management, load shifting.
3:44 Meeting Adjourned
1
Energy Efficiency Advisory Group (EEAG) Notes dated November 13th, 2019
Present:
Jim Hall-Bodybuilding.com Don Strickler–Simplot
Wil Gehl- Community Action Partnership Assoc. of Idaho Haley Falconer-City of Boise
Donn English–Idaho Public Utilities Commission Katie Pegan–Office of Energy & Mineral Resources
Amy Wheeless–Northwest Energy Coalition Selena O’Neal-Ada County Operations
Connie Aschenbrenner–Idaho Power Pete Pengilly*-Idaho Power
Lynn Tominaga–Idaho Irrigation Pumpers Association Tina Jayaweera-Northwest Power & Conservation Council (On phone)
Not Present:
Kent Hanway-CSHQA
Ben Otto-Idaho Conservation League
Anna Kim–Public Utility Commission of Oregon
Stacey Donohue-Idaho Public Utilities Commission (Donn English sitting in for Stacey)
Diego Rivas-Northwest Energy Coalition (Amy Wheeless sitting in for Diego)
Sid Erwin-Idaho Irrigation Pumpers Association (Lynn Tominaga sitting in for Sid)
Guests and Presenters*:
Quentin Nesbitt*-Idaho Power Chad Severson–Idaho Power
Tracey Burtch*–Idaho Power Theresa Drake*–Idaho Power
Shelley Martin–Idaho Power Andrea Simmonsen–Idaho Power
Billie McWinn*–Idaho Power Annie Meyer*-Idaho Power
Bo Hanchey*–Idaho Power Cheryl Paoli–Idaho Power
Todd Greenwell–Idaho Power Zeke VanHooser-Idaho Power
Randy Thorn–Idaho Power Chris Pollow–Idaho Power
Melissa Thom*-Idaho Power Peter Richardson-Industrial Customers of Idaho
Don Reading-Industrial Customers of Idaho Paul Goralski-Idaho Power
Krista West-Idaho Power Ryan Finesilver-Avista (on phone)
Madison Olson-Office of Energy & Mineral Resources Becky Arte-Howell-Idaho Power
Denise Humphreys-Idaho Power Brad Iverson-Long-Idaho Public Utilities Commission
Rachelle Farnsworth-Idaho Public Utilities Commission Sheree Willhite-Idaho Power
Tonja Dyke-Idaho Power Brittany Nixon-Idaho Power
Note Takers:
Shawn Lovewell (Idaho Power) with Kathy Yi (Idaho Power)
Meeting Facilitator: Rosemary Curtin
Meeting Convened at 9:30 am
2
Pete convened the meeting with housekeeping and safety information. He introduced Chad Severson, new Energy Efficiency Analyst. He informed the group of leadership changes at the company and introduced Bo Hanchey,
Vice President of Customer Operations and Chief Safety Officer. Bo shared his background at Idaho Power, highlighted the ranking that Idaho Power just received from JD Power and thanked members of EEAG for their continued input with energy efficiency programs.
Rosemary had guests and EEAG members introduce themselves and asked if there were any comments or questions on the August 8th meeting notes. Haley provided her suggested revisions to the January 2019 meeting notes via email. EEAG members will receive an updated copy of the January 2019 notes before the next meeting.
9:40 am-Updates—Theresa Drake
Theresa provided an update regarding the Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance (NEEA) contract for the 2020-2024 cycle. Idaho Power and NEEA have reached an agreement that has been filed with the Idaho Public Utilities Commission (IPUC).
Idaho Power and Avista have met with a third party to explore new opportunities for market transformation in Idaho. She also updated the group regarding a new App that the company is pursuing. She will keep the group
updated as the company works through the process.
9:45 am-Financials/Evaluation Schedule/2019 Evaluation & Research Progress—Pete Pengilly
Pete showed appendix 1 and 2, provided an update of research that will be complete in 2019, and an overview of current evaluations taking place. Pete also provided the evaluation plan for 2020-2021 and asked for feedback or concerns with the plan.
10:10 am-Connie provided an update on the approval and acknowledgement by the IPUC of Idaho Power’s filing for prudence determination. The IPUC determined the company’s $41 million in 2018 DSM expenditures to be prudently incurred and determined Idaho Power complied with the directives in Order No. 34141. The IPUC also
determined the company should rely on the Utility Cost Test (UCT) perspective for determining the level of energy efficiency that will be included in the Integrated Resource Plan. One member asked what happens if the IPUC disallows the money spent. Connie explained the process and how it ultimately affects the company’s
bottom line.
10:16 am-Prospective Cost Effectiveness 2020/Lighting—Kathy Yi
This presentation was a continuation of the presentation from the August EEAG meeting. Kathy provided a cost effectiveness test refresher, the Demand Side Management (DSM) alternative cost comparisons, 2018-2020 program assumptions, preliminary 2019 cost effectiveness summary, anticipated changes that will impact 2020, and the future of lighting savings.
There were comments and questions on how non-energy benefits are quantified and if greenhouse gasses or carbon reduction were included in those numbers. Pete and Quentin commented that some of the savings numbers from the Regional Technical Forum (RTF) have a carbon dollar benefit. The 10% adder could also have some environmental components included. One member commented that the RTF savings numbers are supposed to cover those non-energy benefits. It is not in-lieu of other non-energy impacts. The Council recommends adding
the 10% adder to the UCT and has a social cost of carbon in its avoided costs.
Idaho Power stated that for residential lighting, it planned to used RTF workbook version 7.1 for program year 2020 to align with the Bonneville Power Administration’s (BPA) version adoption. One member stated that a new
RTF workbook was recently adopted and why Idaho Power could use those newer savings instead of following BPA. Kathy stated that the main reason was due to fact that the payment to the vendor are set by BPA and are
3
based on the kWh savings. Idaho Power wanted to align the payments to the savings. Also, the newest version 8 of the workbook came out in September of 2019 and the hasn’t been through its QA/QC review. However, the
Company will review the newest workbook once it’s released and relook at this decision
Billie informed the group of Idaho Power’s plan for residential programs that include lighting. The company will be using the RTF savings but assuming that nothing is changing with EISA as of Jan 1, 2020. The company has implemented certain contingencies if anything changes. An example would be with the Energy Savings Welcome Kits. Items within the kit can be modified if savings drop significantly.
11:17 am-Marketing/Marketing Analytics—Tracey Burtch/Melissa Thom
Tracey provided a detailed explanation of the information provided to Idaho Power from Google Display Metrics. She explained what an impression is, clicks, click-thru-rates, and size. She provided the search engine marketing results for September and how the company utilizes that information.
Melissa provided an update on the Fall Campaign Digital Ads, the My Account pop-up quiz results, the impacts of the program promo pop-up, and a sneak peak of future pop-ups that the company will be using.
There was a question about the paid ads and a comment on the recent Energy Efficiency Fall/Winter Guide and
how well put together it is and loaded with timely content.
11:30 am Lunch
12:30 pm Meeting Reconvened
12:30 pm-Programs—Billie McWinn and Quentin Nesbitt
Billie provided year-to-date savings for the residential programs. She provided an in-depth update for Energy
House Calls and Residential New Construction programs and an update on the smart thermostat qualifications. At the August 2019 EEAG meeting a question was asked about why Idaho Power didn’t use the Energy Star® qualified products list for the smart thermostat qualification. Billie explained that the list is very limited due, in
part, to their requirements for manufacturers being more stringent. One member asked when smart thermostats will be evaluated. Billie answered that it will be in 2021 to allow a year’s worth of data.
Billie provided an update to EEAG that participation in the Energy House Calls program has seen a steady decline. She provided a 10-year snapshot view of participation levels. There will be a time in the future when this program is no longer cost-effective
At the August 2019 EEAG meeting Billie presented some options the company was considering due to the REM Rate software change that would affect the Residential New Construction program. In her discussion, she provided an overview of the current and the new methodologies and the different options for incentive tiers that were discussed at the August 2019 meeting. She followed up on questions regarding the existing eligibility requirements and incentive amounts. Billie explained the company is considering a 3-tier approach for this program and asked EEAG for input regarding the incentive level for the lowest tier option. There was some discussion on the impacts of setting the level anywhere from $1,000 to $1,300 and while EEAG did not have a
strong opinion on which level was optimal, they supported something in that range.
There were also questions and comments regarding new building codes that will go into effect in 2021 and if that
will change considerations, the company should consider grandfathering projects in the pipeline to preserve customer trust. Billie explained that she will update the group on the status of the final offering at the next EEAG meeting.
4
Billie updated EEAG on the status of some non-communicating devices in the AC Cool Credit program. She reminded EEAG of the process to remove participants from the program that met certain non-communication
criteria and informed EEAG that approximately 130 customers will be receiving communication about their removal from the program, starting in January 2020.
Billie provided a brief update of the energy efficiency video game concept that was previewed at the August 2019 meeting. While the game will not be completed or made available on the company website, Billie explained that the Energy Advisors are reaching the target audience of school-aged children by increasing their presence within the various school districts in the service area.
Idaho Power is planning on a full program roll out of the Home Energy Reports. Billie explained the mechanics of the program, including that there is no need to weather normalize the data since the treatment and control group experience the same weather at the same time. Based on the savings calculated from the treatment group vs. control group, it is cost-effective.
Billie reviewed the Easy Savings pilot and informed the group that the pilot will be transitioning to a full program in 2020.
1:30 pm-Programs—Quentin Nesbitt
Quentin provided year-to-date savings and participation for the commercial, industrial, and irrigation programs.
He also highlighted program performance year-to-date compared to same time in 2018. The Small Business Direct Install program officially launched on November 4th in Aberdeen. Letters were sent to customers and the company is now scheduling appointments for assessments. There was a question about area selection; Quentin
explained that the program will be delivered throughout Idaho Power’s service area, but some of the smaller regions will be targeted first to get a sense of how the program mechanics work. The program was launched in in Eastern Idaho where customers haven’t been as engaged with current retrofit program.
Quentin highlighted that the Water/Wastewater cohort has created numerous capital projects both from participating municipalities as well as non-participants in the cohort. It is because of the relationships that are built with the engineering firms that work for municipalities.
Quentin also highlighted a potential modification to the C & I program that would better target energy management (Operational Energy Savings) opportunities. This offering would target buildings between 25,000-100,000 square feet and would focus on operational behavior type savings. One member stated that the city of Seattle has a successful energy management program that includes a tune-up requirement that is very successful and encouraged Idaho Power to look at their program. It targets buildings under 100,000sqft.
As a follow-up from the August 2019 EEAG meeting, Quentin provided a detailed description of the Green
Motors program and how the program works and is promoted.
2:01pm- Wrap-up/Open Discussion
There are a lot of new things going on and I am looking forward to hearing more about them.
It is exciting to see what is happening with the Home Energy Reports and the new custom offerings.
I enjoyed hearing about the newer initiatives. Having an in-depth walk thru of the lighting was great and very
helpful.
It was a good meeting and there were a lot of good points brought up. I was a little confused with the different workbook versions with lighting.
5
I enjoyed the program cost-effectiveness and results. I enjoy looking ahead at new possibilities and potential for programs. Marketing does reach people, I have had a couple people ask me if I work for Idaho Power.
I’m finally starting to get comfortable and appreciate all the work that Idaho Power does. I am excited about the energy management program.
It was a good meeting. The energy management program is very interesting. Idaho Power has done a good job at
promoting operational efficiency.
It was great to hear what is going on in Idaho. I am happy to share any insights regarding operational management.
Rosemary reminded everyone that Shawn will be sending out a Doodle poll for the 2020 EEAG meetings.
2:20 pm- Meeting Adjourned

Supplement 2: Evaluation Idaho Power Company
Page 36 Demand-Side Management 2019 Annual Report

Idaho Power Company Supplement 2: Evaluation
Demand-Side Management 2019 Annual Report Page 37
NEEA MARKET EFFECTS EVALUATIONS
Analysis Study Study/Evaluation
2014 & 2017 Walk-in Coolers and Freezers Standards
Evaluation: Final Report
Commercial/Industrial TRC NEEA Market Assessment
2019 Manufactured Homes Program Assessment Residential Energy 350 NEEA Qualitative Research
2019 Oregon New Commercial Construction Code
Evaluation Study
Commercial Ecotope NEEA Analysis
2019 Q1: Emerging Technology Quarterly Report Commercial/Industrial,
Residential, Irrigation
NEEA NEEA Quarterly Report
2019 Q2: Emerging Technology Quarterly Report Commercial/Industrial,
Residential, Irrigation
NEEA NEEA Quarterly Report
2019 Q3: Emerging Technology Quarterly Report Commercial/Industrial,
Residential, Irrigation
NEEA NEEA Quarterly Report
2019 Q4: Emerging Technology Quarterly Report Commercial/Industrial,
Residential, Irrigation
NEEA NEEA Quarterly Report
2019 Reduced Wattage Lamp Replacement Transition
Progress Market Evaluation Report
Commercial/Industrial,
Residential
Cadeo Group NEEA Market Assessment
Beverage Vending Machines Standard Evaluation Commercial TRC NEEA Analysis
Building Commissioning—2018 Long-Term Monitoring
and Tracking Report
Commercial/Industrial The Cadmus
Group
NEEA Market Assessment
Ceiling Fan Standard Evaluation Report Commercial,
Residential
TRC NEEA Analysis
Commercial Code Enhancement Audience Research Commercial/Industrial NMR Group NEEA Survey
Commercial High-Performance HVAC Market
Characterization
Commercial/Industrial Opinion
Dynamics
NEEA Market Assessment
Condensing Rooftop Unit Field Study: Baseline and
Final Report—2018–2019 Heating Season
Commercial/Industrial Energy 350 NEEA Analysis
Desktop Power Supplies ENERGY STAR Version 6
Baseline Methodology and Specification Influence
Review
Commercial Apex Analytics NEEA Analysis
Drive Power Initiative—2018 Long Term Monitoring and
Tracking (LTMT) Report
Commercial/Industrial The Cadmus
Group
NEEA Market Assessment
Extended Motor Products Market Characterization Commercial/Industrial The Cadmus
Group
NEEA Market Assessment
Extended Motor Products Savings Validation Research
on Clean Water Pumps and Circulators
Commercial/Industrial Cadeo Group NEEA Analysis
LLLC Savings Methodology Review Commercial/Industrial Energy 350 NEEA Market Assessment
Supplement 2: Evaluation Idaho Power Company
Page 38 Demand-Side Management 2019 Annual Report
Report Title Sector Analysis Performed By Study Manager Study/Evaluation Type
Natural Gas Water Heater and HVAC Installer
Research Report
Residential Illume Advising NEEA Market Assessment
Northwest Ductless Heat Pump Initiative: Market
Progress Evaluation # 8
Residential The Cadmus
Group
NEEA Market Assessment
Northwest Heat Pump Water Heater Initiative Market
Progress Evaluation Report #5
Residential NMR Group NEEA Market Assessment
Q1 2019 Emerging Technology Quarterly Report Residential NEEA NEEA Quarterly Report
Q1 2019 Market Research and Evaluation Quarterly
Newsletter
Commercial/Industrial,
Residential
NEEA NEEA Quarterly Report
Q1 2020 Market Research and Evaluation Quarterly
Newsletter
Commercial/Industrial,
Residential
NEEA NEEA Quarterly Report
Q2 2019 Emerging Technology Quarterly Report Residential NEEA NEEA Quarterly Report
Q2 2019 Market Research and Evaluation Quarterly
Newsletter
Commercial/Industrial,
Residential
NEEA NEEA Quarterly Report
Q3 2019 Emerging Technology Quarterly Report Residential NEEA NEEA Quarterly Report
Q4 2019 Emerging Technology Quarterly Report Residential NEEA NEEA Quarterly Report
Q4 2019 Market Research and Evaluation Quarterly
Newsletter
Commercial/Industrial,
Residential
NEEA NEEA Quarterly Report
Results of 2017-2018 Northwest Residential Lighting
Long-Term Monitoring and Tracking Study
Residential CADEO Group NEEA Market Assessment
Results of the 2018 Northwest Residential Lighting
Long-Term Monitoring and Tracking Study
Residential Apex Analytics NEEA Market Assessment
Retail Product Portfolio Evaluation—Final Report Residential Apex Analytics NEEA Market Assessment
Strategic & Business Plans 2020—2024 Commercial/Industrial,
Residential
NEEA NEEA Planning
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/.

Idaho Power Company Supplement 2: Evaluation
Demand-Side Management 2019 Annual Report Page 39
INTEGRATED DESIGN LAB
Report Title Sector Analysis Performed By Study Manager Study/Evaluation Type
2019 Task 1: Foundational Services Summary of Projects Commercial IDL Idaho Power EE Assistance & Education
2019 Task 2: Lunch and Learn Summary of Effort Outcomes Commercial IDL Idaho Power EE Training & Education
2019 Task 3: BSUG Summary of Effort and Outcomes Commercial IDL Idaho Power EE Training & Education
2019 Task 4: New Construction Verifications Summary of Projects Commercial IDL Idaho Power EE Verifications
2019 Task 5: Tool Loan Library Summary of Effort and Outcomes Commercial IDL Idaho Power EE Assistance & Education
2019 Task 6 (1.6): Thermal Energy Savings Tool Summary of Progress* Commercial IDL Idaho Power EE Assistance & Education
2019 Task 7: BEMS Predictive Control Case Study Summary of Work Commercial IDL Idaho Power EE Research
2019 Task 8: RTU Control Retrofits for Small Commercial Facilities Summary of Work Commercial IDL Idaho Power EE Research
*Task 6 was numbered 1.6 in 2019.

Supplement 2: Evaluation Idaho Power Company
Page 40 Demand-Side Management 2019 Annual Report

Report Number: 1901_001-01

2019 TASK 1: FOUNDATIONAL SERVICES
SUMMARY OF PROJECTS
IDAHO POWER COMPANY EXTERNAL YEAR-END REPORT

December 31, 2019

Prepared for:
Idaho Power Company

Author:
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:
Ken Baker

Author:
Damon Woods

Prepared for:
Idaho Power Company

Contract Number:
5277

Please cite this report as follows: Woods, D. (2019). 2019
TASK 1: Foundational Services – Summary of Projects
(1901_001-01). University of Idaho Integrated Design Lab,
Boise, ID.
iv

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

This page left intentionally blank.

vi

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

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
AIA American Institute of Architects
ASHRAE American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air-conditioning
Engineers
EMS Energy Management System
IDL Integrated Design Lab
IPC Idaho Power Company
LED Light Emitting Diode
LEED Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design
UI University of Idaho
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 1
2019 Task 1: Foundational Services- Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report #1901_001-01)

1. INTRODUCTION
The University of Idaho Integrated Design Lab (UI-IDL) provided technical
assistance in 2019 for energy efficiency building projects through the Foundational
Services task. This program, supported by Idaho Power (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
Information on the Foundational Services program was provided at each Lunch
and Learn and BSUG presentation. Advertising for the program was also offered over
the course of the year to local government officials, developers, and the architects and
engineers that interacted with IDL.
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 2
2019 Task 1: Foundational Services- Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report #1901_001-01)

2. PROJECT SUMMARY
The IDL worked on 13 Foundational Service projects in 2019. Two projects were
for a municipality, while the majority were requested by private companies. There are
currently requests for six new projects that are set to begin in 2020. In total, there were
five Phase I projects, five Phase II projects, one Phase III project, and two internal
requests from Idaho Power. The projects were split evenly between consultations on
retrofits and new construction. The full list of projects is shown in the appendix below.
Details on the projects that resulted in a memo or report are included in the individual
project reports submitted to IPC and are included as the appendix in the internal report.
In 2019, the IDL assisted with approximately 275,000 ft2 of buildings. This is slightly
more than the 250,000 ft2 worked on in 2018.

Integrated Design Lab | Boise 3
2019 Task 1: Foundational Services- Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report #1901_001-01)

Table 1: 2019 Foundational Services Project Summary
Project Type Size Retrofit/New Location
Civic/Government 15,000 Retrofit Boise
Civic/Government 16,300 Retrofit Boise
Hotel 500,000 Retrofit Fort Hall
Civic/Government 20,000 Retrofit Boise
Emerging
Technology N/A Boise
N/A N/A N/A
Aircraft Hangar 17,400 Boise
Hotel 43,200 Ketchum
Civic/Government 73,500 Boise
Office 78,750 Eagle
School Unknown Boise

Report Number: 1901_002-01

2019 TASK 2: LUNCH AND LEARN
SUMMARY OF EFFORT AND OUTCOMES
IDAHO POWER COMPANY EXTERNAL YEAR-END REPORT

December 31, 2019

Idaho Power Company
Dylan Agnes

ii

This page left intentionally blank.
iii

University of Idaho Integrated Design Lab | Boise
322 E Front St. Boise, ID 83702 USA
www.uidaho.edu/idl

Ken Baker

Dylan Agnes

Idaho Power Company
#5277
Agnes, D.,(2019). 2019 TASK
2: Lunch and Learn – Summary of Effort and Outcomes
(1901_002-01). University of Idaho Integrated Design Lab,
Boise, ID.
iv

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. 2019 Summary and Cumulative Analysis ................................................................................ 9
2. Session Summaries ................................................................................................................. 14
2.1 Session 1: The Architect’s Business Case for Energy Performance Modeling
(04/16/2019) .......................................................................................................................... 14
2.2 Session 2: VRFs and Heat Pumps (04/17/2019) .......................................................... 14
2.3 Session 3: The Architect’s Business Case for Energy Performance Modeling
(05/08/2019) .......................................................................................................................... 15
2.4 Session 4: Future of Lighting Controls (05/15/2019) ................................................... 15
2.5 Session 5: Daylight in Buildings – Getting the Details Right (05/30/2019) ................ 16
2.6 Session 6: Chilled Beams (06/05/2019) ........................................................................ 17
2.7 Session 7: Future of Lighting Controls (06/13/2019) ................................................... 17
2.8 Session 8: High Efficiency Heat Recovery ( 07/09/2019) ............................................. 18
2.9 Session 9: Radiant System Design Considerations (07/11/2019) .............................. 18
2.10 Session 10: Hybrid Ground Source Heat Pump System (07/17/2019) ..................... 19
2.11 Session 11: The Architect’s Business Case for Energy Performance Modeling
(07/18/2019) .......................................................................................................................... 19
2.12 Session 12: Cold Feet – Managing Controls and Condensation when Simulating
Radiant Slab Control (07/24/2019) ...................................................................................... 20
2.13 Session 13: Indoor Air Quality (IAQ) and Energy Efficiency in Buildings (08/13/19) . 21
2.14 Session 14: Future of Lighting Controls (08/15/2019) ............................................... 21
2.15 Session 15: The Architect’s Business Case for Energy Performance Modeling
(08/21/2019) .......................................................................................................................... 22
2.16 Session 16: Indoor Air Quality and Energy Efficiency in Buildings (09/05/2019) ..... 22
2.17 Session 17: Daylight in Buildings – Getting the Details Right (09/25/2019) ............ 23
2.18 Session 18: VRFs & Heat Pumps (10/16/2019) ........................................................ 23
2.19 Session 19: High Efficiency Heat Recovery (11/14/2019) ......................................... 24
2.20 Session 20: Daylight in Building – Getting the Details Right (12/05/2019) ............. 25
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

viii

This page left intentionally blank.

9

1. 2019 SUMMARY AND CUMULATIVE ANALYSIS
Table 1: 2019 Lunch and Learn Summary
Date Title Presenter Group / Location Attendees
1 4/16 The Architect's Business Case for Energy Performance Modeling Ken Architectural Firm 1 7
2 4/17 VRFs & Heat Pumps Damon Engineering Firm 1 10
3 5/8 The Architect's Business Case for Energy Performance Modeling Ken Architectural Firm 2 8
4 5/15 Future of Lighting Controls Dylan Architectural Firm 2 8
5 5/30 Daylight in Buildings - Getting the Details Right Dylan Architectural Firm 1 13
6 6/5 Chilled Beams Damon Engineering Firm 2 6
7 6/13 Future of Lighting Controls Dylan Architectural Firm 3 6
8 7/9 High Efficiency Heat Recovery Damon Engineering Firm 1 9
9 7/11 Radiant System Design Considerations Damon Architectural Organization 1 11
10 7/17 Hybrid Ground Source Heat Pump System Damon Engineering Firm 2 6
11 7/18 The Architect's Business Case for Energy Performance Modeling Ken Architectural Firm 4 8
12 7/24 Cold Feet: Managing Controls and Condensation for Radiant Slab Cooling Damon Architectural Organization 2 9
13 8/13 Indoor Air Quality (IAQ) and Energy Efficiency in Buildings Ken Architectural Organization 3 7
14 8/15 Future of Lighting Controls Dylan Architectural Firm 4 8
15 8/21 The Architect's Business Case for Energy Performance Modeling Ken Architectural Firm 5 9
16 9/5 Indoor Air Quality (IAQ) and Energy Efficiency in Buildings Ken Architectural Organization 1 6
17 9/25 Daylight in Buildings - Getting the Details Right Dylan Architectural Firm 5 9
18 10/16 VRFs & Heat Pumps Damon Architectural Firm 2 7
19 11/14 High Efficiency Heat Recovery Damon Architectural Organization 3 5
20 12/5 Daylight in Buildings - Getting the Details Right Dylan Architectural Organization 1 5
Total Attendees 157

10

Table 1 on the previous page summarizes all Lunch and Learn presentations given in 2019. 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.

Please rate the following parts of the presentation:
Organization, Clarity, Opportunity for Questions, Instructor’s Knowledge Needs Improvement Good Excellent

11

Architect
61%
Mech.
Engineer12%
Other
13%
None Specified14%
Profession of Attendee Breakdown

12

7
10
8
13
6
9
11
6
9
7
7
8
6
9
5
6
8
8
5
9
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
The Architect's Business Case for Energy Performance Modeling
VRFs and Heat Pumps
Future of Lighting Controls
Daylight in Buildings: Getting the Details Right
Chilled Beams
High Efficiency Heat Recovery
Radiant System Design Considerations
Hybrid Ground Source Heat Pump System
Cold Feet: Managing Controls and Condensation when Simulating Radiant Slab
Cooling
Indoor Air Quality (IAQ) and Energy Efficency in Buildings
Session 1 Session 2 Session 3 Session 4

13

4.39 4.44 4.52 4.68 4.71 4.55
3.43
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 thesubject matter:
Rate delivery of
presentation:
The content of the
presentation was:
0
1
2
3
4
5
The Architect's
Business Case
for EnergyPerformanceModeling
VRFs and Heat
Pumps
The Architect's
Business Case
for EnergyPerformanceModeling
Future of
Lighting
Controls
Daylight in
Buildings:
Getting theDetails Right
Chilled Beams Future of
Lighting
Controls
High Efficiency
Heat Recovery
Radiant System
Design
Considerations
Hybrid Ground
Source Heat
Pump System
The Architect's
Business Case
for EnergyPerformanceModeling
Cold Feet:
Managing
Controls andCondensationwhen Simulating
Radiant Slab
Cooling
Indoor Air
Quality (IAQ) and
Energy Efficencyin Buildings
Future of
Lighting
Controls
The Architect's
Business Case
for EnergyPerformanceModeling
Indoor Air
Quality (IAQ) and
Energy Efficencyin Buildings
Daylight in
Buildings:
Getting theDetails Right
VRFs and Heat
Pumps
High Efficiency
Heat Recovery
Daylight in
Buildings:
Getting theDetails Right
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:

14

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: THE ARCHITECT’S BUSINESS CASE FOR ENERGY PERFORMANCE MODELING
(04/16/2019)
Title: The Architect’s Business Case for Energy Performance Modeling
Most of us think of energy modeling as an engineering exercise. The truth is that more models
and simulations are performed, and to better result, if the architect understands when and how to support the
process and how to utilize the output. A building energy model can provide the architect an iterative process to
increase the real-world effectiveness of energy systems within a building. This session will explore the value-
add of energy modeling from the architect’s perspective, providing a business case for more active
involvement in advocation for energy performance modeling.
Presentation Info:

Attendance:

2.2 SESSION 2: VRFS AND HEAT PUMPS (04/17/2019)
Title: VRFs and Heat Pumps
Designing features of decoupled buildings. Sizing VRF and heat pump systems for Idaho’s
climates. Including ERVs with DOAS.

15

Attendance:

2.3 SESSION 3: THE ARCHITECT’S BUSINESS CASE FOR ENERGY PERFORMANCE MODELING
(05/08/2019)
Title: The Architect’s Business Case for Energy Performance Modeling
: Most of us think of energy modeling as an engineering exercise. The truth is that more models and
simulations are performed, and to better result, if the architect understands when and how to support the
process and how to utilize the output. A building energy model can provide the architect an iterative process to
increase the real-world effectiveness of energy systems within a building. This session will explore the value-
add of energy modeling from the architect’s perspective, providing a business case for more active
involvement in advocation for energy performance modeling.

Presentation Info:

Attendance:

2.4 SESSION 4: FUTURE OF LIGHTING CONTROLS (05/15/2019)
Title: Future of Lighting Controls

16

Although LEDs have shown, they are a big game changer in the commercial lighting realm; lower lighting power density is not the only area of value when considering lighting. We can further increase savings
from these highly efficient lighting systems by introducing control systems that collect data and user input to
create an evolving feedback loop that seeks peak system operation. While LLLC’s (Luminaire Level Lighting Control) use this feature, they still use the same infrastructure as the lighting and control system that have
come before it, which can be a limitation for expanding the systems efficiency and integration to other building
systems. We believe the internet of things (IoT) will change the lighting and controls industry, providing an excellent medium for an integrated, multi-service IoT platform. Why? Where there are people, there are lights;
where there are people, there will also be the need for connectivity. New and connected lighting controls
provide a means to deliver valuable IoT services and increased energy savings.

Presentation Info:

Attendance:

2.5 SESSION 5: DAYLIGHT IN BUILDINGS – GETTING THE DETAILS RIGHT (05/30/2019)
Title: Daylight in Buildings – Getting the Details Right
This session lays out the process of creating high quality and comfortable day-lit spaces.
Following the schematic design documentation of the key surfaces for daylighting within a space, there are several details that can make or break the overall success of the daylighting design. This presentation
highlights the importance of interior surface colors and reflectance, interior space layouts, furniture design,
window details (including glazing specifications), and shading strategies. Concepts of lighting control systems to ensure that energy is saved from the inclusion of daylight are also presented.

Presentation Info:

Attendance:

17

2.6 SESSION 6: CHILLED BEAMS (06/05/2019)
Title: Chilled Beams
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:

2.7 SESSION 7: FUTURE OF LIGHTING CONTROLS (06/13/2019)
Title: Future of Lighting Controls
Although LEDs have shown, they are a big game changer in the commercial lighting realm; lower
lighting power density is not the only area of value when considering lighting. We can further increase savings from these highly efficient lighting systems by introducing control systems that collect data and user input to
create an evolving feedback loop that seeks peak system operation. While LLLC’s (Luminaire Level Lighting
Control) use this feature, they still use the same infrastructure as the lighting and control system that have
come before it, which can be a limitation for expanding the systems efficiency and integration to other building
systems. We believe the internet of things (IoT) will change the lighting and controls industry, providing an
excellent medium for an integrated, multi-service IoT platform. Why? Where there are people, there are lights; where there are people, there will also be the need for connectivity. New and connected lighting controls
provide a means to deliver valuable IoT services and increased energy savings.
Presentation Info:

18

Attendance:

2.8 SESSION 8: HIGH EFFICIENCY HEAT RECOVERY ( 07/09/2019)
Title: High Efficiency Heat Recovery
This session will cover the role that high efficiency HRV’s play in designing and specifying high-performing Dedicated Outdoor Air systems. Several recent northwest case studies have shown whole-building
savings of 40 to 60% on existing building retrofits using DOAS with high efficiency heat recovery. The current
code requirements of HRVs will be contrasted with the performance of new and emerging products. High efficiency HRV’s can have a high capital cost but can generate large energy savings with increased control of
cooling and ventilation. Several economic models will be presented showing financial impacts of using high
efficiency HRVs in a project.

Presentation Info:

, ID

Attendance:

2.9 SESSION 9: RADIANT SYSTEM DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS (07/11/2019)
Title: Radiant System Design Considerations
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 design reduces loads to levels achievable by radiant systems. This collaboration between the disciplines has a direct relationship to the ultimate performance of the system and comfort of the
building. Key decisions must be made early in the design process to ensure the feasibility and performance of
an installed system. A wide spectrum of configurations and types of radiant systems are available for designers, with each having different capabilities, 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.

19

Presentation Info:

Attendance:

2.10 SESSION 10: HYBRID GROUND SOURCE HEAT PUMP SYSTEM (07/17/2019)
Title: Hybrid Ground Source Heat Pump System
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 while reducing initial cost and maintaining a low
operating cost. The GSHP system should be sized based on coincidental building loads and the system
components including, the heat exchanger and additional central plant equipment.

Presentation Info:

Attendance:

2.11 SESSION 11: THE ARCHITECT’S BUSINESS CASE FOR ENERGY PERFORMANCE MODELING
(07/18/2019)
Title: The Architect’s Business Case for Energy Performance Modeling

20

Most of us think of energy modeling as an engineering exercise. The truth is that more models and simulations are performed, and to better result, if the architect understands when and how to support the
process and how to utilize the output. A building energy model can provide the architect an iterative process to
increase the real-world effectiveness of energy systems within a building. This session will explore the value-add of energy modeling from the architect’s perspective, providing a business case for more active
involvement in advocation for energy performance modeling.

Presentation Info:

Attendance:

2.12 SESSION 12: COLD FEET – MANAGING CONTROLS AND CONDENSATION WHEN
SIMULATING RADIANT SLAB CONTROL (07/24/2019)
Title: Cold Feet – Managing Controls and Condensation when Simulating Radiant Slab Control
Radiant slab systems have the potential to use significantly less energy than conventional all-air
HVAC systems. In a 2012 survey by the New Buildings Institute, roughly 50% of net-zero buildings chose to
pursue radiant designs for their HVAC systems. However, if not controlled properly, radiant slabs can lead to
higher energy use and issues of simultaneous heating and cooling in both energy models and real buildings.
This session will cover current design guidelines for radiant slab systems, particularly when used for cooling.
The lecture will also include a discussion of operational best practices, capacity calculations, and condensation
management based on the current literature. We will present some of the latest research on radiant systems,
their unique load profiles, and control requirements.

Presentation Info:

Attendance:

21

2.13 SESSION 13: INDOOR AIR QUALITY (IAQ) AND ENERGY EFFICIENCY IN BUILDINGS
(08/13/19)
Title: Indoor Air Quality (IAQ) and Energy Efficiency in Buildings
In an effort to operate buildings 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:

2.14 SESSION 14: FUTURE OF LIGHTING CONTROLS (08/15/2019)
Title: Future of Lighting Controls
Although LEDs have shown, they are a big game changer in the commercial lighting realm; lower
lighting power density is not the only area of value when considering lighting. We can further increase savings from these highly efficient lighting systems by introducing control systems that collect data and user input to
create an evolving feedback loop that seeks peak system operation. While LLLC’s (Luminaire Level Lighting
Control) use this feature, they still use the same infrastructure as the lighting and control system that have come before it, which can be a limitation for expanding the systems efficiency and integration to other building
systems. We believe the internet of things (IoT) will change the lighting and controls industry, providing an
excellent medium for an integrated, multi-service IoT platform. Why? Where there are people, there are lights;
where there are people, there will also be the need for connectivity. New and connected lighting controls
provide a means to deliver valuable IoT services and increased energy savings.

Presentation Info:

22

Attendance:

2.15 SESSION 15: THE ARCHITECT’S BUSINESS CASE FOR ENERGY PERFORMANCE MODELING
(08/21/2019)
Title: The Architect’s Business Case for Energy Performance Modeling
Most of us think of energy modeling as an engineering exercise. The truth is that more models
and simulations are performed, and to better result, if the architect understands when and how to support the process and how to utilize the output. A building energy model can provide the architect an iterative process to
increase the real-world effectiveness of energy systems within a building. This session will explore the value-
add of energy modeling from the architect’s perspective, providing a business case for more active involvement in advocation for energy performance modeling.

Presentation Info:

, ID

Attendance:

2.16 SESSION 16: INDOOR AIR QUALITY AND ENERGY EFFICIENCY IN BUILDINGS
(09/05/2019)
Title: Indoor Air Quality and Energy Efficiency in Buildings
In an effort to operate buildings 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

23

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:

2.17 SESSION 17: DAYLIGHT IN BUILDINGS – GETTING THE DETAILS RIGHT (09/25/2019)
Title: Daylight in Buildings – Getting the Details Right
This session lays out the process of creating high quality and comfortable day-lit spaces. Following the schematic design documentation of the key surfaces for daylighting within a space, there are
several details that can make or break the overall success of the daylighting design. This presentation
highlights the importance of interior surface colors and reflectance, interior space layouts, furniture design, window details (including glazing specifications), and shading strategies. Concepts of lighting control systems
to ensure that energy is saved from the inclusion of daylight are also presented.

Presentation Info:

Attendance:

2.18 SESSION 18: VRFS & HEAT PUMPS (10/16/2019)
Title: VRFs & Heat Pumps

24

Designing features of decoupled buildings. Sizing VRF and heat pump systems for
Idaho’s climates. Including ERVs with DOAS.

Presentation Info:

Attendance:

2.19 SESSION 19: HIGH EFFICIENCY HEAT RECOVERY (11/14/2019)
Title: High Efficiency Heat Recovery
This session will cover the role that high efficiency HRV’s play in designing and specifying high-
performing Dedicated Outdoor Air systems. Several recent northwest case studies have shown whole-building
savings of 40 to 60% on existing building retrofits using DOAS with high efficiency heat recovery. The current code requirements of HRVs will be contrasted with the performance of new and emerging products. High
efficiency HRV’s can have a high capital cost but can generate large energy savings with increased control of
cooling and ventilation. Several economic models will be presented showing financial impacts of using high
efficiency HRVs in a project.

Presentation Info:

Attendance:

25

2.20 SESSION 20: DAYLIGHT IN BUILDING – GETTING THE DETAILS RIGHT (12/05/2019)
Title: Daylight in Building – Getting the Details Right
This session lays out the process of creating high quality and comfortable day-lit spaces.
Following the schematic design documentation of the key surfaces for daylighting within a space, there are several details that can make or break the overall success of the daylighting design. This presentation
highlights the importance of interior surface colors and reflectance, interior space layouts, furniture design,
window details (including glazing specifications), and shading strategies. Concepts of lighting control systems to ensure that energy is saved from the inclusion of daylight are also presented.

Presentation Info:

Attendance:

3. FUTURE WORK
Feedback was gathered from the 114 Lunch and Learn evaluations received throughout 2019. The
comments from these were valuable in defining possible future Lunch and Learn topics and informed the list of
suggestions below.
Potential Future Topics:

26

• VAV/VRV/Chillers
• Specific presentations for various types of construction (Multi-Family, Hotels, Retail, Etc..)
• How to take BIM models to BEM model
• FC/Lux recommendations for work tasks
• DOAS
• Passive Strategies/House
• Residential Energy Design/Efficiency
• Why this can help you and here’s how to start type guides
• Thermal Bridges, Envelope Control Layers
• Best solutions by budget
• Residential Solar Design

Report Number: 1901_003-01

2019 TASK 3: BSUG
SUMMARY OF EFFORT AND OUTCOMES
IDAHO POWER COMPANY EXTERNAL YEAR-END REPORT

December 31, 2019

Prepared for:
Idaho Power Company

Author:
Dylan Agnes

This page left intentionally blank.
Prepared by:
University of Idaho Integrated Design Lab | Boise
322 E Front St. Boise, ID 83702 USA
www.uidaho.edu

IDL Director:
Ken Baker

Author:
Dylan Agnes

Prepared for:
Idaho Power Company

Contract Number:
5277

Please cite this report as follows: Agnes, D. (2019). 2019 TASK 3:
BSUG – Summary of Effort and Outcomes (1901_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. 2019 Summary and Cumulative Analysis .................................................................................... 3
3.1 2019 Attendance ................................................................................................................... 4
3.2 2019 Evaluations ................................................................................................................... 5
4. Session Summaries ..................................................................................................................... 6
4.1 Session 1: OpenStudio SDK – Tips and Tricks for Easier Modeling with Ruby Scripts
(3/28/19) ..................................................................................................................................... 6
4.2 Session 2: Sensor Suitcase (04/25/19) .................................................................................. 6
4.3 Session 3: Project StaSIO – Why Beautiful Data Matters (05/23/19) ................................... 7
4.4 Session 4: Maalka Platform (06/27/19) ................................................................................ 8
4.5 Session 5: LLLCs – Luminaire Level Lighting Control (09/26/19)........................................... 8
4.6 Session 6: Achieving Thermal Comfort in Design and Practice (11/13/19) .......................... 9
5. Website Maintenance and Statistics ........................................................................................ 10
6. Other Activities and Suggestions for Future Improvements .................................................... 13

Integrated Design Lab | Boise 2
1. ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
AIA American Institute of Architects
App Application
ARUP London based multi-discipline firm
ASHRAE American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air-Conditioning Engineers
BCVTP Building Controls Virtual Test-Bed
BEMP Building Energy Modeling Professional
BESF Building Energy Simulation Forum (Energy Trust of Oregon)
BIM Building Information Modeling
BOMA Building Owners and Managers Association
BSME Bachelor of Science in Mechanical Engineering
BSUG Building Simulation Users’ Group
CBECS Commercial Building Energy Consumption Survey
Comm Commercial
Elec. Electrical
HePESC Heat Pump Energy Savings Calculator
HVAC Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning
IBPSA International Building Performance Simulation Association
IDL Integrated Design Lab
IPC Idaho Power Company
LBNL Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
LEED Leadership in Energy & Environmental Design
LLLC Luminaire Level Lighting Control
M. Arch Masters of Architecture
ME Mechanical Engineer(ing)
Mech. Mechanical
MEP Mechanical, Electrical, and Plumbing
MS Arch Masters of Science Architecture
NCARB National Council of Architectural Registration Boards
RDA Revit Daylighting Analysis
TMY Typical Meteorological Year
UDC Urban Design Center
UI University of Idaho
USGBC U.S. Green Building Council
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 3
2. INTRODUCTION
The 2019 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. 2019 SUMMARY AND CUMULATIVE ANALYSIS
In 2019, 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
3/28 Eric Ringold kW Engr. 7 22 7 16
Total: 96 137 75 71
233 147
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 4
3.1 2019 Attendance

Figure 1: Attendee Count by Session and Type

Table 2: Overall Attendance Breakdown
Architect: 19 Electrician:
Engineer: 41 Contractor:
Mech. Engineer: 12 Other: 9
Elec. Engineer: None Specified: 65
Total (In-Person): 75
Total (Online): 71 Total (Combined): 146

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Sensor Suitcase
OpenStudio SDK - Tips and Tricks for Easier Modeling with
Ruby Scripts
Project StaSIO - Why Beautiful Data Matters
The Maalka Platform
Luminaire Level Lighting Controls
Achieving Thermal Comfort in Design and Practice
Number of Attendees
In-person attendees Online attendees

Figure 2: Attendee Profession Breakdown

Figure 3: Attendee Type Breakdown
Arch
13%
Engineer28%
Mech.
Eng
8%
Other
6%
None
Specified
45%
Total
(In-
Person)
51%
Total
(Online)
49%
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 5
3.2 2019 Evaluations

Figure 4: Average Evaluations by Session

Figure 5: Average Evaluation Scores for All Sessions
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
OpenStudio SDK - Tips andTricks for Easier Modelingwith Ruby Scripts
Sensor Suitcase Project StaSIO - WhyBeautiful Data Matters The Maalka Platform Luminaire Level LightingControls Achieving Thermal Comfort inDesign and Practice
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:
4.23 4.28 4.27 4.42 4.56 4.23
3.20
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
In general,
today's
presentation
was:
Rate
organization:
Rate clarity:Rate
opportunity for
questions:
Rate instructor's
knowledge of
the subject
matter:
Rate delivery of
presentation:
The content of
the
presentation
was:
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 6
4. SESSION SUMMARIES
4.1 Session 1: OpenStudio SDK – Tips and Tricks for Easier Modeling with Ruby Scripts
(3/28/19)
Title: OpenStudio SDK – Tips and Tricks for Easier Modeling with Ruby Scripts
Date: 03/28/19
Description: The presentation will help demystify the use of the OpenStudio Software Development Kit
(SDK) by energy modelers to save time and improve their modeling workflows, informing architects and
engineers about the capabilities of the simulation tool for design studies. It will address questions such
as: what is the OpenStudio SDK; what are OpenStudio Measures; how do I get started with using Ruby
and OpenStudio for creating and extracting information from energy models; and, what resources are
available to help? The session is geared toward non-programmers who like the idea of letting their
computers do more work.
Presenter: Eric Ringold

Attendance:
Architect: 1 Electrician:
Engineer: 9 Contractor:
Mech. Engineer: Other*: 2
Elec. Engineer: None Specified: 11
Total (In-Person):
Total (Online):
*If 'Other' was noted: Energy Manager/Modeler

Understanding how to interpret the OpenStudio SDK website.
Resources for further reading.
4.2 Session 2: Sensor Suitcase (04/25/19)
Title: Using Analytics to Optimize Equipment Operation and Reduce Energy Use
Date: 04/25/19
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
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 7
operational changes, while keeping the costs of this service low. Total energy cost savings for retro-
commissioning are estimated to be 15 percent.
Presenter: Samuel Graham
Attendance:
Architect: Contractor:
Mech. Engineer: 7 Other*:
Elec. Engineer: None Specified: 8
Total (In-Person):
Total (Online):
*If 'Other' was noted:
Evaluation Highlights (What attendees found most valuable):
•
•

4.3 Session 3: Project StaSIO – Why Beautiful Data Matters (05/23/19)
Title: Project StaSIO – Why Beautiful Data Matters
Date: 05/23/19
Description: Project StaSIO is a website designed to help designers articulate and advocate the value of
early performance modeling. It does this by crowd sourcing the most compelling, beautiful, and
informational performance graphics and case studies from the simulation community. The works are
then displayed in a website that allows a user to navigate by various filters like the ASHRAE 209 cycle,
type of investigation, inputs/outputs, tools, etc. Perhaps most importantly, each graphic upload contains
info from the contributor of not only how the graphic was made---but how it influenced the design
process. The website is currently undergoing a makeover with funding from the Department of Energy
to get it ready to support the 2nd annual Project Stasio competition (check out the winners from the
first round here: https://www.projectstasio.com/new-page-4).

Presenter:
Attendance:
Architect: 13 Electrician:
Engineer: 10 Contractor:
Mech. Engineer: Other*: 3
Elec. Engineer: None Specified: 9
Total (In-Person):
Total (Online):
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 8

Evaluation Highlights (What attendees found most valuable):
Great graphics and insight.
The range of tools available for developing graphics is exciting.
4.4 Session 4: Maalka Platform (06/27/19)
Title: Maalka Platform
Date: 06/27/19
Description: The Maalka Platform is based on the principle of continuous expansion - start with a basic
program that works for you and add new programs when you're ready. Working with lots of data can
get messy. The Maalka Platform is there to guide your organization along automated workflows to
ensure that data across your portfolio is accurate and up-to-date, buildings are progressing towards
goals, and participants are fully engaged. Maalka is helping cities and organizations all across the
country succeed in their sustainability initiatives. Through collaboration with these partners, Maalka is
continuously integrating new tools onto our open platform to help teams effectively manage data,
interact with building owners and program stakeholders, and track progress toward their sustainability
goals.
Presenter: Clay Teeter
Attendance:
Architect: 5 Electrician:
Engineer: Contractor:
Mech. Engineer: Other*: 2
Elec. Engineer: None Specified: 8
Total (In-Person):
Total (Online):
*If 'Other' was noted:
Evaluation Highlights (What attendees found most valuable):
Good info on an innovative new product.
Seeing that its possible to take lots of data and efficiently synthesize it to relevant info.
4.5 Session 5: LLLCs – Luminaire Level Lighting Control (09/26/19)
Title: Using Building Simulation to Analyze Energy Savings from a Smart Thermostat
Date: 09/26/19
Description: LLLCs have sensors and controls within individual fixtures that enable them to be controlled
remotely or on a case by case basis. Remote control allows users to adjust the programming criteria or
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 9
illumination levels without replacing the fixtures. In conventional lighting systems lighting zones are
defined as a collective unit and thus are centrally controlled. LLLCs however, incorporate sensors into
each fixture, such as occupancy, daylight, temperature or receive/broadcast signals. Therefore, each
fixture has the potential to become a semi-autonomous zone that is capable of responding to small
changes in the area under each fixture. Furthermore, individual fixtures can communicate with other
fixtures, using wireless or infrared signals, to share data for an even greater potential to increase energy
savings and user satisfaction.
Presenter: Dylan Agnes
Attendance: Architect: 4 Electrician:
Engineer: 9 Contractor:
Mech. Engineer: Other*: 2 Elec. Engineer: None Specified: 6 Total (In-Person): Total (Online):
*If 'Other' was noted: Energy Manager

Evaluation Highlights (What attendees found most valuable):
Examples were helpful to explain concepts and LLLC’s are used.
Graphics showing the potential combinations of luminaire + zoned control in a actual office
layout.

4.6 Session 6: Achieving Thermal Comfort in Design and Practice (11/13/19)
Title: Achieving Thermal Comfort in Design and Practice
Date: 11/13/19
Description: Human comfort is more than just a number on a thermostat. ASHRAE’s thermal comfort
standard (Standard 55 – 2017) includes many factors that affect occupant satisfaction including air
velocity, clothing levels, and outdoor conditions. This presentation will cover how to size systems to
meet ASHRAE 55, how to commission a building’s comfort level for LEED points, and how to estimate
the financial implications of enhancing occupant comfort.
Presenters: Damon Woods
Attendance:
Architect: 1 Electrician:
Engineer: 1 Contractor:
Mech. Engineer: 10 Other*: 2 Elec. Engineer: None Specified: 23
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 10
23
14

Evaluation Highlights (What attendees found most valuable):
Comparison of cost to optimize thermal comfort vs employee salary cost and the effect on
productivity.
Info on tools to use during design.

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, 2019 and November 21, 2019, total page views summed to 867 with
unique page views at 564 for 353 total sessions at the site. Of the 353 sessions, 37 (10.5%) of
the sessions were by users in Idaho. Below are charts showing a summary of website activity
for the most popular pages, as well as for the site as a whole.
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 11

Figure 6: Number of Page Views for the Ten Most Popular Pages in 2019

Figure 7: Monthly Site-Wide Statistics
116
83 73 72
51 45 41 35 25 24
95
80
65
52
31 30 23 24 19 16
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
Most Popular Pages
Pageviews Unique Pageviews
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
Site-Wide Statistics
Page Views Unique Page Views Avg. Time on Page (sec)Sessions Users
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 12

Figure 8: Heat Map of All U.S. Sessions in 2019

Figure 9: Bubble Maps of Idaho Sessions in 2019

Integrated Design Lab | Boise 13
6. OTHER ACTIVITIES AND SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE IMPROVEMENTS
We saw an increase in average attendance for each session this year and gained 3 in-
person (2.7%) for overall attendance from 2018. However, online attendance is on par for what
it was last year. This year was successful for the BSUG task with 6 sessions completed and 146
total attendees – 75 in-person and 71 online. Feedback was provided by attendees via the
evaluation forms, 77 of which were collected. These offered a starting point for determining
future improvements to the program. Such as, reviewing and revising the mailing list, advertise
with ASHRAE and AIA, host joint session with ASHRAE or AIA, and lastly creating physical flyers
to hand out at lunch and learns.

Report Number: 1901_004-01

2019 TASK 4: NEW CONSTRUCTION VERIFICATIONS
SUMMARY OF PROJECTS
IDAHO POWER COMPANY EXTERNAL YEAR-END REPORT

December 31, 2019

Prepared for:
Idaho Power Company

Author:
Dylan Agnes

ii

This page left intentionally blank.
iii

Prepared by:
University of Idaho Integrated Design Lab | Boise
322 E Front St. Boise, ID 83702 USA
www.uidaho.edu/idl

IDL Director:
Ken Baker

Authors:
Dylan Agnes

Prepared for:
Idaho Power Company

Contract Number:
#5277

Please cite this report as follows: Agnes, D. (2019). 2019 TASK 4:
New Construction Verifications – Summary of Projects (1901_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
2019 Task 4: New Construction Verifications - Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report #1901_004-01)

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 1
2. 2019 New Construction Verification Projects ............................................................................. 1
3. 2019 Photo Controls Review Projects ......................................................................................... 4

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
HP Heat Pump

Integrated Design Lab | Boise 1
2019 Task 4: New Construction Verifications- Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report #1901_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 2019. The primary role was to conduct on-site
verification reports for approximately 10% 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 purpose of the application reviews and audits is to assist
IPC in program quality assurance, the review also looks to capture any inconsistences in the
application of code incentive measures. 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. 2019 NEW CONSTRUCTION VERIFICATION PROJECTS
The UI-IDL completed seventeen New Construction Verification projects in 2019. 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 2019 were
finalized and paid in 2019 and resided under the 2016 and 2018 program format. The specific
incentives for this program are outlined in Table 1 and 2.
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 2
2019 Task 4: New Construction Verifications- Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report #1901_004-01)
2

The table summarize the seventeen projects and respective qualified incentive measures
which were verified by UI-IDL. For the projects listed, more than 59% were conducted outside
the capital service area.
Table 1: 2016 New Construction Program Specific Incentives
Lighting L1 Interior Light Load Reduction
L2 Exterior Light Load Reduction
L3 Daylight Photo Controls
L4 Occupancy Sensors
L5 High Efficiency Exit Signs
Air Conditioning A1 Efficient Air-Cooled AC & Heat Pump Units
A2 Efficient VRF Units
A3 Efficient Chillers
A4
A5
A6
Direct Evaporative Coolers
Evaporative Pre-coolers on Air-cooled
C4
C5
Kitchen Hood Variable Speed Drives
Onion/Potato Shed Ventilation Variable Speed
Heating D1 EnergyStar Undercounter Dishwashers
R2 Floating Suction Controls

Integrated Design Lab | Boise 3
2019 Task 4: New Construction Verifications- Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report #1901_004-01)
3

Table 2: 2018 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 Direct Evaporative Coolers
C4
C5
Kitchen Hood Variable Speed Drives
Onion/Potato Shed Ventilation Variable Speed
Heating D1 EnergyStar Undercounter Dishwashers
R2 Floating Suction Controls

Table 3: Project Summary
IPC Project
#
Facility
Description Location
14-029 Office Building Twin Falls, ID 07/24/19
16-110 Meridian, ID 07/24/19
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 4
2019 Task 4: New Construction Verifications- Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report #1901_004-01)
4

18-085 Industrial – Large Caldwell, ID 11/14/19
18-129 Other Eagle, ID 12/19/19
3. 2019 PHOTO CONTROLS REVIEW PROJECTS
In 2019, the UI-IDL received at least 15 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 8 of these projects including
offices, hospital, mixed-use, multi-family, grocery, warehouse and student union.

Report Number: 1901_005-05

2019 TASK 5: TOOL LOAN LIBRARY 
SUMMARY OF EFFORT AND OUTCOMES 
IDAHO POWER COMPANY EXTERNAL YEAR‐END REPORT 

December 31, 2019

Prepared for:
Idaho Power Company

Authors:
Dylan Agnes

ii

This page left intentionally blank.
iii

Prepared by:
University of Idaho Integrated Design Lab | Boise
322 E Front St. Boise, ID 83702 USA
www.uidaho.edu/idl

IDL Director:
Ken Baker

Authors:
Dylan Agnes

Prepared for:
Idaho Power Company

Contract Number:
5277

Please cite this report as follows: Agnes, D. (2019). 2019 TASK
5: Tool Loan Library – Summary of Effort and Outcomes
(1901_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
PG&E Pacific Gas and Electric Company
PPM Parts Per Million
RPM Rotations Per Minute
RTU Rooftop Unit
TLL Tool Loan Library

vii

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
2019 Task 5: Tool Loan Library - Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report #1901_005-05)

1.  Introduction 
The Tool Loan Library (TLL) is a resource supported by Idaho Power Company (IPC)
and managed by the University of Idaho Integrated Design Lab (UI-IDL). The TLL at the UI-IDL
is modeled after the Lending Library at the Pacific Energy Center, which is supported by
Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E). In the past years interest in these types of libraries has
grown. Recently, the Smart Building Center which is a project of the Northwest Energy
Efficiency Council has started a lending library and they cite other lending libraries spanning
a large range of tools, including non-energy efficiency related tools.
The primary goal of the TLL is to help customers with energy efficiency (EE) needs,
through the use of sensors and loggers deployed in buildings of various types. Loans are
provided to individuals or businesses at no charge to the customer. Over 900 individual
pieces of equipment are available for loan through the TLL. The equipment is focused on
measuring parameters to quantify key factors related to building and equipment energy use,
and factors which can affect worker productivity.
The loan process is started when a customer creates a user account. Then the user
has access to the tool loan portal where they fill out a tool loan proposal form. When
completing a tool loan proposal, the customer includes basic background information,
project and data measurement requirements, and goals. When a proposal is submitted, UI-
IDL staff members are alerted of a pending proposal via email. The customer and a staff
member communicate to verify and finalize equipment needs. An approval email is sent and
tools are picked up at the UI-IDL or shipped at the customer’s expense.

Integrated Design Lab | Boise 9
2019 Task 5: Tool Loan Library - Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report #1901_005-05)

2.  Marketing 
Marketing for the TLL was done at various UI-IDL and IPC activities throughout 2019,
as well as on the UI-IDL website. The flyer layout was changed from a single sheet to a tri-
fold brochure: it is in Figure 1 and Figure 2 on the next page. The ERL catalog was
redesigned by Idaho Power during 2019 and has been returned to the IDL for completion in
2020. For more information about the flyer or the Energy Resource Catalog please refer to
Q4 report. The TLL was promoted in presentations given by the UI-IDL staff, including the
Lunch and Learn series and lectures to professional organizations such as the American
Institute of Architects (AIA), ASHRAE, and the City of Boise.
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 2019, the TLL home page had 2,653
visitors. Changes and progress for the TLL homepage can be found in Appendix D.
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 10
2019 Task 5: Tool Loan Library - Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report #1901_005-05)

FIGURE 1: TLL FLYER INSIDE

FIGURE 2: TLL FLYER OUTSIDE
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 11
2019 Task 5: Tool Loan Library - Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report #1901_005-05)

3.  New Tools & Tool Calibration Plan 
In 2019, forty-nine new tools and five accessories were added to the TLL to replace
old data logging models, to create beta tool loan kits as well as additional analog connectors
for the XC power logger series as it was discovered the previous series connectors are not
compatible.
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.
The IDL will perform the following to ensure items are within specified calibration
tolerances:
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 12
2019 Task 5: Tool Loan Library - Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report #1901_005-05)

1. Equipment will be cross-checked against new equipment of the same type for
accuracy in a test situation where data is logged. The IDL plan would cross-check
older items against multiple newer items at the end of each calibration period (i.e.
every two years) to ensure readings are within specified tolerances.
2. Those items found to be out of tolerance will be assessed for factory re-
calibration or replacement.
Calibration tracking columns have been added to an inventory spreadsheet which will
allow the IDL to determine which items are due for calibration testing. Updates to calibration
and references to testing data will be maintained in the inventory spreadsheet and has been
expanded to include tool use, quotes, and budget estimates, please see Appendix C for
more details.

Integrated Design Lab | Boise 13
2019 Task 5: Tool Loan Library - Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report #1901_005-05)

4.  2019 Summary Of Loans 
In 2019, loan requests totaled 26 with 26 loans completed, 4 loans are on-going.
The first quarter had the highest volume of loans at 8 total. Loans were made to 9 different
locations and 17 unique users and 6 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 2019.
TABLE 1: PROJECT AND LOAN SUMMARY
Request Date Location Project Type of Loan # of
Tools
Loaned
1 1/7/2019 Boise ID EWDC Audit 1
2 1/24/2019 Boise ID AOTP Audit 1
3 1/28/2019 Salmon ID IGCLNGP Audit 16
4 2/5/2019 Boise ID TCMS Audit 16
5 2/27/2019 Meridian ID DTBA Audit 4
6 2/28/2019 Boise ID CSFS Audit 1
7 3/13/2019 Lava Hot
Springs
ID NRCS Audit 6
8 3/26/2019 Murph ID IPDM Audit 6
9 4/1/2019 Boise ID SFTH Audit 7
10 4/3/2019 Salmon ID SLLDD Baseline
measurement
of EEMs
10
11 4/16/2019 Nampa ID PCJD Verification of
EEMs
1
12 4/18/2019 Meridian ID ESS Audit 1
13 5/6/2019 Lava Hot
Springs
ID SDAS Baseline
measurement
of EEMs
5
14 5/7/2019 Twin Falls ID HHSSU Verification of
EEMs
2
15 5/23/2019 Boise ID AOTP2 Audit 19
16 7/11/2019 Burle ID CADW Audit 16
17 8/14/2019 Boise ID OTYDW Baseline
measurement
of EEMs
10
18 8/21/2019 Boise ID GCA Audit 18
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 14
2019 Task 5: Tool Loan Library - Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report #1901_005-05)

19 9/26/2019 Blackfoot ID CCS Audit 1
20 10/3/2019 Salmon ID OTP Verification of
EEMs
14
21 10/14/2019 Boise ID HWP Audit 1
22 11/5/2019 Boise ID IRCBC Audit 11
23 11/8/2019 Boise ID EAAC Baseline
measurement
of EEMs
13
24 11/25/2019 Boise ID BCCC Audit 13
25 12/6/2019 Meridian ID RTSA Audit 1
26 12/17/2019 Boise ID MCPBAP Audit 1
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 15
2019 Task 5: Tool Loan Library - Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report #1901_005-05)

FIGURE 3: LOANS BY TYPE FIGURE 4: NUMBER OF LOANS PER QUARTER
FIGURE 5: NUMBER OF LOANS PER MONTH
8
3
2 2
3
1
5
1 1
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
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
8
7
4
7
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
Number of Loans per Quarter
3 3
2
4
3
1
2
1
2
3
2
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Number of Loans per Month
Total
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 16
2019 Task 5: Tool Loan Library - Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report #1901_005-05)

FIGURE 6: NUMBER OF LOANS BY LOCATION

FIGURE 7: NUMBER OF LOANS BY USER
0 5 10 15
Boise
Nampa
Twin Falls
Burley
Meridian
Salmon
Lava Hot Springs
Murphy
Blackfoot
ID
Loans by Location
2019
1
9
3
1
1
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
0 2 4 6 8 10
Engineering Firm 1
University 1
Company 1
Engineering Firm 2
Architecture Firm 1
Company 2
Architecture Firm 2
Engineering Firm 3
University 2
Company 3
Company 4
Company 5
Company 6
Architecture Firm 3
Tool Summary
2019
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 17
2019 Task 5: Tool Loan Library - Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report #1901_005-05)

TOTAL TOOLS LOANED:
195 Q1=51 Q2=45 Q3=45 Q4=54
FIGURE 8: SUMMARY OF TOOLS LOANED
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Carbon Dioxide and Temperature Monitor w/ Data…
CEM Sound Level Meter
Current Transfomer 50 Amps
Current Transformer 100 Amps
Current Transformer 200 Amps
Dent ElitePro Energy Logger, High Memory, Line Power
Dent ElitePro XC Power Meter
Dent RoCoil Flexible CT
Extech Light 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 Infrared Thermometer
HOBO Current Transformer 100 Amp
HOBO Current Transformer 20 Amp
HOBO Current Transformer 200 Amp
HOBO Current Transformer 50 Amp
HOBO Temperature Sensor
HOBO U12-006 Data Logger
HOBO U12-012 Data Logger
HOBO U12-013 Data Logger
Monarch RHTemp Track-It Logger
Power Bank
Smoke Pen
Split-core CT, 50 Amp
TU-S9 Data Cable
Watts up Pro ES Meter
Tool Summary
2019

Report Number: 1801_010-06

2019 TASK 1.6: THERMAL ENERGY SAVINGS TOOL
SUMMARY OF PROGRESS
IDAHO POWER COMPANY EXTERNAL YEAR-END REPORT

December 31, 2019

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:
Ken Baker

Authors:
Damon Woods

Prepared for:
Idaho Power Company

Contract Number:
5277

Please cite this report as follows: Woods, D. (2019). TASK 6:
Thermal Energy Savings Tool - Summary of Progress (1901_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. Maintenance and Outreach ........................................................................................................ 2
3. Appendix – Tool Images .............................................................................................................. 3

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
2019 Task 1.6: Thermal Energy Savings Tool - Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report #1801_010-06)

1. INTRODUCTION
The 2019 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
2019 – Continued maintenance and outreach

Details of the 2019 maintenance and outreach are outlined in this report.

Integrated Design Lab | Boise 2
2019 Task 1.6: Thermal Energy Savings Tool - Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report #1801_010-06)

2. MAINTENANCE AND OUTREACH
This task was limited to minimal support for IPC staff and other beta version users in
2019. Improvements this year included finalizing the code default option to IECC 2015. The IDL
included information on the TEST in many of the Lunch and Learn presentations delivered at
architecture and engineering firms in Idaho. The IDL also provided it to graduate architecture
and engineering students enrolled in the Building Performance Simulation course at the
University of Idaho. Students used the tool to estimate changes in heat loads based on
envelope alterations as part of a homework assignment. 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. As the IDL website is improved, the tool will be hosted online for registered users
to request and download after accepting a similar disclaimer. Tool requests were received from
the following organizations in 2019:
• Software company in Colorado
• Local architecture firm
• The students of ARCH 574/ME 571 at University of Idaho

Integrated Design Lab | Boise 3
2019 Task 1.6: Thermal Energy Savings Tool - Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report #1801_010-06)

3. APPENDIX – TOOL IMAGES

Integrated Design Lab | Boise 4
2019 Task 1.6: Thermal Energy Savings Tool - Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report #1801_010-06)

Code cycle updates underlined in red
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 5
2019 Task 1.6: Thermal Energy Savings Tool - Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report #1801_010-06)

Integrated Design Lab | Boise 6
2019 Task 1.6: Thermal Energy Savings Tool - Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report #1801_010-06)

Integrated Design Lab | Boise 7
2019 Task 1.6: Thermal Energy Savings Tool - Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report #1801_010-06)

Integrated Design Lab | Boise 8
2019 Task 1.6: Thermal Energy Savings Tool - Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report #1801_010-06)

Integrated Design Lab | Boise 9
2019 Task 1.6: Thermal Energy Savings Tool - Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report #1801_010-06)

Integrated Design Lab | Boise 10
2019 Task 1.6: Thermal Energy Savings Tool - Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report #1801_010-06)

Report Number: 1901_001-07

2019 TASK 7: BEMS PREDICTIVE CONTROL
CASE STUDY
SUMMARY OF WORK
IDAHO POWER COMPANY EXTERNAL YEAR-END
REPORT

December 31, 2019

Prepared for:
Idaho Power Company

Author:
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:
Ken Baker

Author:
Damon Woods

Prepared for:
Idaho Power Company

Contract Number:
5277

Please cite this report as follows: Woods, D. (2019). 2019
TASK 7: BEMS Predictive Control Case Study (1901_001-
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.
vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 1
2. Work Summary ........................................................................................................................... 2
2.1 Literature Review .................................................................................................................. 2
2.2 Building Requirements for PBC ............................................................................................. 4
2.3 How the PBC optimizes for efficiency ................................................................................... 5
2.4 Barriers to implementation ................................................................................................... 7
2.5 Summary and next steps ....................................................................................................... 8

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
API Application Programming Interface
ASHRAE American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air-conditioning
Engineers
BACnet Building Automation Control network
BAS Building Automation System
BEMS Building Energy Management System
BPA Bonneville Power Administration
DDC Direct Digital Control
DOAS Dedicated Outdoor Air System
EMS Energy Management System
HVAC Heating Ventilation and Air Conditioning
IDL Integrated Design Lab
IPC Idaho Power Company
NEEA Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance
PBC Predictive Building Controls
RTU Rooftop Unit
UI University of Idaho
UFAD Under-Floor Air Distribution
VHE Very High Efficiency
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 1
2019 Task 7: BEMS Predictive Control Case Study- Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report #1901_001-07)

1. INTRODUCTION
The University of Idaho Integrated Design Lab (UI-IDL) was introduced to a new
technology that uses weather forecasting to improve building efficiency. Known as
Predictive Building Control (PBC) this product integrates with a Building’s Automation
System (BAS) to reset thermostats to minimize HVAC energy consumption. This
predictive management system is marketed as the next phase of building analytics.
Building analytics receives data and notifies operators of potential issues within the
building as an Energy Management System (EMS). Predictive control takes active
measures without operator involvement to keep the building running in an efficient
manner.
Predictive Building Controls are classified separately from “smart” thermostats in
two main ways: they are predictive and they provide supervisory control for a whole
building. Products such as the Google Nest or Honeywell T9 thermostat offer the ability
to connect to a home’s wifi network and receive commands by voice or mobile
application. While these features are convenient, they can present security concerns to
commercial businesses by having an open wifi access point. Many of these products
are focused on the residential sector and can handle only a few zones. The Ecobee line
of smart thermostats is the leading product in the commercial sector. They offer a
SmartBuildings subscription-based thermostat management software that allows a
building team to access a web portal for thermostat management. While the Ecobee line
provides equipment and temperature alerts, it does not proactively manage setpoints
based on weather forecasts or energy models nor does it use machine learning to
adjust setpoints. The Ecobee commercial subscription will display usage patterns, but it
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 2
2019 Task 7: BEMS Predictive Control Case Study- Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report #1901_001-07)

is up to the facility team to implement those changes. Predictive building controls
consider all thermostats within a building and use energy models, machine learning,
and weather forecasts to actively manage setpoints – no actions are required of the
building operator. The PBC is more comprehensive, active, and anticipatory than a
smart thermostat.
The IDL sought out a building within Idaho Power (IPC) service territory where
this technology could be applied and tested. IDL’s scope of work includes identifying a
case study, noting any barriers to implementation, and monitoring the energy savings
after the predictive management system is installed. The goal of the project is to serve
as a pilot study for potential utility incentives for this or similar technologies.
2. WORK SUMMARY
2.1 Literature Review
The IDL began the work with a short review of other building analytics systems
that can take proactive measures to correct building operations. Building analytics
provide recommendations to operators, but do not proactively regulate building controls.
Examples of analytic software packages for buildings include BuildingIQ, SkySpark, and
EnergyCap. These software overlay the current EMS by accessing their control signals.
ASHRAE has standardized a Building Automation and Control network (BACnet)
communication protocol that allows for system transparency and interoperability. Most
building analytics software uses read-only capabilities of BACnet – they can assess
what is happening in the building, but are not making active changes.
Predictive Building Control software such as the product reviewed by IDL uses
BACnet to both read and write signals. It is designed to actively override the EMS and
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 3
2019 Task 7: BEMS Predictive Control Case Study- Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report #1901_001-07)

write a new set of control signals that according to its internal calculations will provide
the most efficient operation. Analytics with write capabilities are a powerful tool, but they
do require the BEMS to be open to such overrides and that accessibility can vary by
manufacturer. While many control suppliers such as Siemens, Phillips, or Delta may
technically have BACnet capabilities, their ease of access to such protocols is not
always consistent.
The PBC framework uses a calibrated energy model of the building that is based
on at least two years of utility data. This gives an estimate of how the building’s energy
use fluctuates in response to changes in outdoor conditions. The PBC software can be
priced in one of two ways: either the client is charged a flat fee based on the building’s
square footage, or by means of a cost-sharing of utility savings. In the cost-sharing
model, the building owner pays nothing up-front. Instead, the company uses the energy
model to predict what typical energy consumption would look like without PBC. Each
month, the owner pays back to the PBC company 50% of the calculated energy
savings. This is similar to the structure of the Bullitt Center’s agreement with Seattle City
Light. The PBC company bears the risk if savings are less than anticipated, but is
rewarded as the savings increase. Therefore this pricing model is most attractive for
larger facilities where the potential savings are higher.
The IDL reached out to several engineers and building owners to locate a case-
study for implementation of predictive controls. One facility manager in Boise expressed
interest in applying this at one of their properties. After further discussion with the PBC a
case study site was identified where this could be implemented. Coordination with the
facility manager was modestly paced but continued throughout the year. The building
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 4
2019 Task 7: BEMS Predictive Control Case Study- Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report #1901_001-07)

selected for the case study uses Siemens controls that are set to be upgraded in
December of 2019. At that point, they hope to integrate the predictive management
system and start assessing savings. There is ongoing discussion between the company
and the facility team over how PBC savings will be estimated so that they do not include
the savings from the controls upgrade. Over the course of 2019, the IDL worked with
the controls provider and the building manager to identify the specific requirements,
functions, and barriers of this technology.
2.2 Building Requirements for PBC
In order for predictive building controls to be implemented at a facility, the
following items must be in place:
1. Direct Digital Control and a Building Automation System
a. The BAS must allow an open Application Programming Interface (API)
port for an external account. This needs to be set up by the local controls
vendor. Some vendors refuse to do this outright out of cyber-security
concerns. With other vendors, there is more flexibility. Siemens is about
middle of the road – not the worst to work with, not the easiest. A lot
depends on the local team.
b. A heartbeat function has to be written into the BAS by the local controls
vendor. This is a simple routine to ensure that the predictive building
control is active (if it detects that PBC is dead or non-responsive the
controls default to the baseline sequence – i.e. what was in place before
PBC).
2. Real-time electric meter
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 5
2019 Task 7: BEMS Predictive Control Case Study- Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report #1901_001-07)

3. Real-time gas meter
4. Access to current utility bills
5. Two years of historical energy data
6. A set of building plans or drawings – Revit/Autocad etc.

2.3 How the PBC optimizes for efficiency
The PBC functions by providing BAS supervisory control of all of the building’s
thermostats. It does not control at the device level. Each HVAC device determines on its
own how to meet the setpoint that is being called for. The thermostat control is
segmented into 15 minute increments. For example, instead of having a 7:00 AM return
from setback, the PBC might shift the thermostat start-up from setback to 6:45 AM, 7:15
AM, or 5:30 AM depending on the outdoor air temperature and forecast. While a smart
thermostat can learn occupancy patterns, they do not anticipate weather forecasts or
base their decisions on an energy model of the building the way that PBC does. The
PBC runs three different optimizations:
1. Start-up/return from setback – maximizing setback times and
accounting for lags from equipment such as heat pumps
2. Occupied hours – maintaining large deadbands between heating and
cooling setpoints while accounting for any occupancy overrides through
machine learning (similar to a nest thermostat)
3. Shut-down/setbacks – reducing equipment use as much as possible
after occupants have left the facility

Integrated Design Lab | Boise 6
2019 Task 7: BEMS Predictive Control Case Study- Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report #1901_001-07)

The optimization runs based on the energy model and weather forecasts. While
long-term forecasts contain significant uncertainty, forecasts within a 24-hour window
are generally accurate to within a few degrees. Occupants are always allowed
temporary override of the setpoints. Should any comfort issues arise from an inaccurate
estimation, occupants can raise or lower the setpoints as needed. The PBC will
incorporate these overrides into its artificial intelligence-based optimizer over time to
ensure comfort is always maintained when that space is occupied. The weather
forecasting is done in-house by the PBC company. A weather station on the building
can be used and added into the data stream if one is already present, but it is not
necessary for the PBC to function.
The PBC can be very helpful depending on the dedication of the operator at the
site. Some building operators are very proactive at looking at the weather and adjusting
thermostats or outdoor air supply levels regularly. The current building operator at the
case study site is very astute in that regard. However, many other building operators
take a more laissez faire approach and stick to the default thermostat setpoints and
rarely adjust those setpoints or schedules.
The PBC company IDL worked with has been in operation since the start of
2018. Currently their software has been installed in 7 buildings (5 that are currently
operational and 2 that were in campus projects that served as beta testing). The
example site the company uses is a 40,000ft2 mixed-use facility (LEED Gold) that has a
mix of natural gas and electricity for its utility. Two of the buildings they have applied
PBC to are in the 100,000 ft2 range (120k, and 90k). The implementation at their
flagship property saved 40-50% of HVAC energy costs each month and reduced unmet
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 7
2019 Task 7: BEMS Predictive Control Case Study- Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report #1901_001-07)

temperature setpoints to 8% of occupied hours - down from 15%. The company
currently advertises HVAC savings of 10% to 25% based on their projects to date.
2.4 Barriers to implementation
The sales representative from the PBC company had a skype call with the facility
manager and building operators. On the call, the facility team identified several
concerns that could pose a hurdle to implementation.
• There is remaining uncertainty about economizer control interactions and night-flush
capability. Since the system only provides supervisory control of thermostats, would
night-flushing during the summer still have to be done through manual control?
o At the case study site, the building operator likes to use night-flush and
cooling tower strategies to avoid using the chiller if possible.
• Would heating/cooling calls still have to be addressed by the building operator?
o At the case study site, each occupant is given about a 3-4 degree of range on
their individual thermostats.
• Would tenants approve of writing a check to a company that is separate from a
traditional utility?
• The case study site is significantly larger than past PBC sites to date (250k vs 120k)
• How much feedback is required of building operators – will reporting on changes or
overrides for things like conferences in certain rooms take up a lot of time – i.e.
would these changes have to be sent back to the PBC company?
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 8
2019 Task 7: BEMS Predictive Control Case Study- Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report #1901_001-07)

• At the case study site – some of the fire dampers are closed and it is a very unique
building with an Under Floor Air Distribution (UFAD) system which can cause
pressure imbalances within the building if not properly managed.
• The case study building uses geothermal for its heating source. PBC has not been
used with geothermal before. There could be issues with tracking heating usage if
there is not a real-time meter on the geothermal supply.
• GreenPower Labs has worked with the following companies: Siemens, Delta,
Johnson, and is in discussion with Nest and Ecobee, but may not yet be compatible
with other companies/systems.

2.5 Summary and next steps
The IDL was able to assess some of the requirements, capabilities and
limitations of Predictive Building Controls. This technology is currently only capable of
serving certain buildings that are limited by their size and controls vendor. While there is
great potential for this technology, there are several software, cybersecurity, and
operational hurdles to be overcome before it enters the mainstream market. The IDL will
continue to monitor the implementation of the software in 2020 and track its
performance.

Report Number: 1901_001-08

2019 TASK 8: RTU CONTROL RETROFITS FOR
SMALL COMMERCIAL FACILITIES
SUMMARY OF WORK
IDAHO POWER COMPANY EXTERNAL YEAR-END
REPORT

December 31, 2019

Prepared for:
Idaho Power Company

Author:
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:
Ken Baker

Author:
Damon Woods

Prepared for:
Idaho Power Company

Contract Number:
5277

Please cite this report as follows: Woods, D. (2019). 2019
TASK 8: RTU Control Retrofits for Small Commercial
Facilities (1901_001-08). 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.
vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 7
2. Work Summary ........................................................................................................................... 8
2.1 Literature Review .................................................................................................................. 8
2.2 IDL Research Scope ............................................................................................................. 10
3. Bibliography .............................................................................................................................. 13
4. Appendices ................................................................................................................................ 14
4.1 Case Study Baseline Information ........................................................................................ 14

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
ASHRAE American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air-conditioning
Engineers
BPA Bonneville Power Administration
DOAS Dedicated Outdoor Air System
EMS Energy Management System
HVAC Heating Ventilation and Air Conditioning
IDL Integrated Design Lab
IPC Idaho Power Company
NEEA Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance
RTU Rooftop Unit
UI University of Idaho
VHE Very High Efficiency
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 7
2019 Task 8: RTU Control Retrofits: Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report #1901_001-08)

1. INTRODUCTION
The University of Idaho Integrated Design Lab (UI-IDL) began a study of Rooftop
Unit (RTU) control upgrades to assess potential savings. RTU’s provide an all-in one
Heating Ventilating and Air Conditioning (HVAC) system. They have heating coils,
cooling coils, and a fan that supplies conditioned air to the space. RTU’s are used in
more than 40% of all commercial buildings (Hart et al. 2008). RTU’s are also the most
common HVAC system in small commercial buildings (<50,000ft2) and 90% of the
commercial buildings are in this category (Barnes and Parrish, 2016). The RTU’s on
these small commercial buildings are often operated until the end of their life and rarely
receive maintenance attention except for filter changes (Cowen, 2004) (Breuker, Rossi,
and Braun, 2000). Both Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) and ASHRAE have
noted the advantages of retrofitting RTU’s (Wang et al., 2013). The scope of IDL’s study
includes identifying a case study for a controls retrofit on an RTU. The focus is on
reducing cooling power consumption through better scheduling and implementing night-
flush ventilation. The IDL team is to monitor building energy performance, quantify
weather-normalized energy savings, and recommend climate-specific ventilation and
control strategies. The goal of the project is to serve as a pilot study for potential Idaho
Power (IPC) incentives for small commercial RTU and Energy Management System
(EMS) retrofits for business that do not have the immediate capital to replace their aging
RTU’s.
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 8
2019 Task 8: RTU Control Retrofits: Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report #1901_001-08)

2. WORK SUMMARY
2.1 Literature Review
The IDL began the work with a short literature review of the current RTU market
and potential control retrofits. RTU’s are used in 90% of small commercial buildings as
their main source for HVAC. A large majority of these RTU’s (85%) have cooling
capacities of 10 tons or less. The secondary research showed that a 2-point SEER
upgrade saves an average of 2%-7% of HVAC energy, while advanced RTU controls
can save 30% to 48% of HVAC energy (Hart et al., 2008).
Reviews of RTU’s in the Pacific Northwest (Cowan, 2004) identified the five main
faults aging RTU’s experience including:
1. Inadequate refrigerant charge
a. The commercial refrigerant has leaked out, increasing the compressor
power to compensate for the lost pressure and mass flow.
2. Inadequate airflow
a. The air intake or ductwork has been compromised, increasing static
pressure and resulting in poor delivery of conditioned air to the zone.
3. Improper or malfunctioning economizer controls
a. The economizer has been overridden by the facilities manager or never
commissioned to a proper lockout temperature causing the compressor
run even when free cooling is available from the outdoors.
4. Improper thermostat operation
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 9
2019 Task 8: RTU Control Retrofits: Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report #1901_001-08)

a. Thermostat faults included a lack of setbacks, overly tight setpoints, and
poor placement within the facility leading to inadequate comfort and over-
use of HVAC equipment.
5. Sensor degradation
a. Sensors including thermocouples and damper position indicators have
drifted from initial calibration over time or were otherwise compromised
leading the RTU to run on faulty information.

Idaho Power offers the following incentives for improving the efficiency of RTUS:
• New economizer controls
• Economizer repair
• Optimum fan start and stop controls
• Demand controlled ventilation
• Supply air temperature reset

The Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance (NEEA) recommends that aging RTUs
be replaced with Very High Efficiency (VHE) Dedicated Outdoor Air Systems (DOAS).
While replacement of an RTU with a DOAS has shown remarkable energy savings
results, many small commercial facilities do not have the capital to invest in such a
system and rely on their aging HVAC infrastructure for as long as possible.
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 10
2019 Task 8: RTU Control Retrofits: Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report #1901_001-08)

2.2 IDL Research Scope
The IDL aims to address the needs of the small commercial RTU market for
those businesses that do not have the capital to replace the full system with a VHE
DOAS and are either ineligible for the IPC incentives or have already implemented
these, but still have high cooling bills. Therefore, the IDL identified five research
priorities for this task. These five research priorities include:
1. Estimating cooling savings from implementing night-flush during the
summer.
2. Providing thermostat management guidelines to save energy and
maximize comfort.
3. Investigating the cost of such sensor upgrades to existing equipment.
4. Identifying the current market and technical barriers to implementation.
5. Estimating the payback periods for RTU sensor upgrades for night flush
controls and improved thermostat scheduling, which are beyond the scope
of the current IPC RTU incentives.

The IDL worked to locate an appropriate facility that could serve as a case study.
The facility had to be in IPC territory, be a small commercial client with RTU’s, provide
access for data collection, and be willing to implement potential control upgrades.
Through the course of work under the Foundational Services Contract, the IDL identified
two potential sites. The first potential site was a municipal facility that uses two main
RTU’s to condition the building. Utility bill history indicated that HVAC energy use had
been uneven over the past few years. While the IDL was able to benchmark
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 11
2019 Task 8: RTU Control Retrofits: Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report #1901_001-08)

performance, the owner signed a contract with a new facility management company.
While the company appreciated the interest, they indicated that they already had efforts
underway to address some of the HVAC energy consumption issues and wished to
keep any HVAC controls adjustment internal to their contract. As a result, this site is
now unlikely to be open to participating in the study. The municipal contact proposed a
second site for study, but that site was not representative of the small commercial RTU
market.
The second site the IDL identified as a potential case study was a small
commercial office for the Boise chapter of a national non-profit. This site is
approximately 12,000 ft2 and its HVAC consists of 8 RTU’s. The facility manager was
eager to learn how to improve the energy efficiency of his building and was willing to
allow instrumentation and benchmarking and was open to new controls suggestions.
This facility was identified later in the project after it became clear the initial municipal
site was no longer an option for this study.
The IDL research team was able to install sensors within the facility and on
several RTU’s. HOBO data loggers were placed in the supply diffusers and return
plenums within the building to track supply and return temperatures. Loggers were also
placed next to several thermostats that corresponded to the RTU’s. Current
transformers were installed on the fan motor and compressor within the RTU to track
ventilation and cooling operation. The loggers remained in place for over two weeks,
during the summer.
The facility manager provided the IDL with a digital set of the building plans and
two years of utility data. The team also recorded three weeks of RTU operation during
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 12
2019 Task 8: RTU Control Retrofits: Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report #1901_001-08)

the fall. While the outdoor conditions were much cooler during this time, the team did
note occasional compressor operation. The team also researched the current RTU’s
based on their name-plate information and mechanical drawings were provided to the
team. There is no EMS currently in the facility, but there are several thermostats that all
control a single RTU and there is a control sequence associated with those signals that
the facility manager provided to the team. The site information from the baselining study
is available in the appendix. This information will be used in model calibration and
benchmarking of current RTU performance.
Selection of the facility and coordination to install follow-up instrumentation took
longer than initially anticipated – leaving a shortened window of the cooling season
available for implementation and testing. Therefore, the majority of this project including
sequencing new controls and estimating savings will occur in 2020. The team will also
work to follow up on several leads to secure a second test site by March 1st of 2020.
Continuing this project next year will allow the team to complete the controls
upgrade at both sites and allow for a full summer of testing and comparing various
control sequences. An energy model of the initial building has been made in EnergyPlus
and the IDL will use the first part of 2020 to do virtual testing of alternative control
sequences including night-flush. The team will use the summer to implement and track
the effects of the RTU controls retrofit at both sites to conclude this research task in
2020.

Integrated Design Lab | Boise 13
2019 Task 8: RTU Control Retrofits: Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report #1901_001-08)

3. BIBLIOGRAPHY
Anderson, K., & Johanning, P. (2011). Unitary HVAC premium ventilation upgrade. ASHRAE Transactions.
Barnes, E., & Parrish, K. (2015). Small buildings, big impacts: developing a library of small commercial
building energy efficiency case studies. International Conference on Sustainable Design,
Engineering and Construction.
Breuker, M., Rossi, T., & Braun, J. (2000). Smart Maintenance for Rooftop Units. ASHRAE, November.
Cetin, K., Fathollahzadeh, M., Kunwar, N., Do, H., & Tabares-Velasco, P. (2018). Development and
validation of an HVAC on/off controller in EnergyPlus for energy simulation of residential and
small commercial buildings. Energy & Buildings, 183, 467-483.
Cowan, A. (2004). Review of recent commercial roof top unit field studies in the pacific northwest and
california. Prepared for Northwest Power and COnservation Council and Regional Technical
Forum. New Buildings Institute.
EIA. (2012). Commercial Building Energy Consumption Survey - E1. Major fuel consumption by end use.
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Energy Information Administration.
Hart, R., Morehouse, D., Price, W., Taylor, J., Reichmuth, H., & Cherniack, M. (2008). Up on the Roof:
From the past to the future. ACEEE Summer Study on Energy Efficiency in Buildings.
Jacobs, P., Smith, V., Higgins, C., & Brost, M. (2003). Small commercial rooftops: Field problems,
solutions and the role of manufacturers. National Conference on Building Commissioning.
Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance, BetterBricks Program.
https://betterbricks.com/solutions/hvac/dedicated-outside-air-system-doas
Thronton, B., Wang, W., Huang, Y., Lane, M., & Liu, B. (2010). 50% Energy Savings for Small Office
Buildings. Richland: Pacific Northwest National Laboratory.
Wang, W., et al. (2013). Advanced Rooftop Control (ARC) Retrofit: Field-Test Results. Richland: Pacific
Northwest National Laboratory.
Wiggins, M., & Brodrick, J. (2012). HVAC fault detection. ASHRAE, 78-80.

Integrated Design Lab | Boise 14
2019 Task 8: RTU Control Retrofits: Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report #1901_001-08)

4. APPENDICES
4.1 Case Study Baseline Information
Building Description
2 story office of approximately 12,000ft2
Working hours
Monday to Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 pm
Thursday 9:00 am - 7:00 pm
Second Saturday of each month 10:00 am - 2:00 pm
Occupancy Approx. 25-35 people
Energy Data
• Outdoor measurement devices used on RTU 7 and RTU 8 conditioning second floor cube
farm and private offices.
o 4 CTV Hobo Data loggers- To check the current drawn from the compressors and
supply fan motors.
o 2 Track-it temperature loggers on the supply intake.
• Indoor measurement devices used on spaces conditioned by RTU-7 & RTU-8
o 2 Data loggers with TC’s in CEO’s office on 2nd floor, one in supply diffuser and
one in return grate
o 1 data logger above the cube farm office thermostat.
HVAC systems
• 1st floor has 4 zones and 5 thermostats conditioned by RTU’s 1 to 4.
• 2nd floor had 4 zones and 5 thermostats conditioned by RTU’s 5 to 8.
• 7 Exhaust fans (have catalog)
• 8 RTU’s (Heating by gas and DX cooling)
• YORK DCG076N079 – 4 units (2 upper floors and 2 lower floors)
o Single package air conditioner with nominal cooling capacity of 22.2 KW and
heating capacity of 23.1 KW.
o Gas heat COP is 2.4, AFUE of 80%.
• YORK DCG048N060 – 4 units (2 upper floors and 2 lower floors)
o Single package air conditioner with nominal cooling capacity of 14 KW and
heating capacity of 17.6 KW.
o Gas heat COP is 2.7, AFUE of 80%.
Integrated Design Lab | Boise 15
2019 Task 8: RTU Control Retrofits: Idaho Power Company External Year-End Report
(Report #1901_001-08)

RTU features:
• Low Ambient – Can be programmed to lockout the compressors when the outdoor air
temperature is low or free cooling is available.
• Anti-short cycle Prevention – To aid compressor life, minimum run times can be
programmed.
• Fan Delays – On and off delays can be programmable into controls and are independent
of each other.
• Safety monitoring: compressors lockouts, trips etc.
• Nuisance trip protection- High and low-pressure switches must trip 3 times before
locking out the compressor
• On board Diagnostics: Alarm signal on the control board if equipped.
• Single input electronic enthalpy economizers: Capability of introducing 100% outdoor air
with 1% leakage type dampers, contains a sensor that monitors the outdoor air is cool and
dry enough to provide free cooling.
• POWER EXHAUST - Whenever the outdoor air intake dampers are opened for free
cooling, the exhaust fan will be energized to prevent the conditioned space from being
over-pressurized during economizer operation.
TZ-3 Total zone control panel:
Features
• Connects with Programmable/non-programmable thermostats.
• Connects with 5 dampers to each panel.
• Can connect discharge air temperature sensor
• Can be tested onsite
• LED indicators show damper and system status
• Has purge mode
• Single and multi-stage operations capability
• Zone Switch – Has occupied and unoccupied position settings
• Individual fan control
Operation
If calls from different zones occur, the first call is honored. Dampers close to the zone that is
not calling and conditioning of the calling zone is satisfied. After all zones are satisfied, then the
system enters purge mode (fan mode) to the last calling zone. It follows single and multi-stage
operation.
Idaho Power Company Supplement 2: Evaluation
Demand-Side Management 2019 Annual Report Page 167
RESEARCH/SURVEYS
Report Title Sector Analysis Performed By Study Manager Study/Evaluation Type
2019 Flex Peak Program Survey Commercial Idaho Power Idaho Power Survey
2019 Idaho Power Shade Tree Survey Residential Idaho Power Idaho Power Survey
2019 Idaho Power Weatherization Assistance for Qualified Customers Program Survey Report Residential Idaho Power Idaho Power Survey
2019 Idaho Power Weatherization Solutions for Eligible Customers Program Survey Report Residential Idaho Power Idaho Power Survey
2019 Irrigation Peak Rewards Survey Irrigation Idaho Power Idaho Power Survey
2019–2016 Lighting Study Comparison Residential Idaho Power Idaho Power Survey
2019 Multifamily Energy Savings Program Survey Residential Idaho Power Idaho Power Survey

Supplement 2: Evaluation Idaho Power Company
Page 168 Demand-Side Management 2019 Annual Report

2019 Flex Peak Program Survey
1. What is your role at your company?
Answer Choices Percent Responses
Facilities Director/Manager/Supervisor 41.67% 10
Maintenance Director/Manager/Supervisor 16.67% 4
Operations Director/Manager/Supervisor 8.33% 2
Plant Director/Manager/Supervisor 16.67% 4
Other (please specify) 16.67% 4 Answered 24

2. On a scale from 1 (very dissatisfied) to 5 (very satisfied), please rate the following steps in the Flex
Peak Program?
Answer Choices 1 2 3 4 5 N/A Total
Enrollment process 0.00% 0.00% 4.35% 17.39% 73.91% 4.35% 23
Notification process 0.00% 4.35% 8.70% 26.09% 60.87% 0.00% 23
Program support from Idaho Power 0.00% 0.00% 8.70% 13.04% 73.91% 4.35% 23
Post event performance data 0.00% 0.00% 13.04% 13.04% 73.91% 0.00% 23
Timeliness of receiving the incentive payment/bill credits 0.00% 0.00% 8.33% 8.33% 83.33% 0.00% 24
Incentive amount 0.00% 0.00% 17.39% 34.78% 47.83% 0.00% 23 Answered 24

3. How satisfied were you with the ability to reduce demand in your facility during scheduled events?
Answer Choices Percent Responses
Very satisfied 37.50% 9
Somewhat satisfied 37.50% 9
Neither satisfied or dissatisfied 20.83% 5
Somewhat dissatisfied 4.17% 1
Very dissatisfied 0.00% 0 Answered 24

4. How well do you understand how your load reduction is calculated during events?
Answer Choices Percent Responses
Very well 16.67% 4
Well 50.00% 12
Somewhat well 16.67% 4
Slightly well 0.00% 0
Not well at all 16.67% 4 Answered 24

5. How satisfied are you with the number of notifications given when an event is called?
Answer Choices Percent Responses
Very satisfied 50.00% 12
Somewhat satisfied 25.00% 6
Neither satisfied or dissatisfied 16.67% 4
Somewhat dissatisfied 8.33% 2
Very dissatisfied 0.00% 0 Answered 24

6. What would be your prefered number of notifications per event?
Answer Choices Percent Responses
One 25.00% 6
Two 70.83% 17
Three 4.17% 1
More than 3 0.00% 0 Answered 24

7. How satisfied are you with the timing of the advanced notice prior to the start of an event?
Answer Choices Percent Responses
Very satisfied 41.67% 10
Somewhat satisfied 45.83% 11
Neither satisfied or dissatisfied 8.33% 2
Somewhat dissatisfied 0.00% 0
Very dissatisfied 4.17% 1 Answered 24

8. How likely would you be to re-enroll in the Flex Peak Program in the future?
Answer Choices Percent Responses
Very likely 83.33% 20
Somewhat likely 12.50% 3
Neither likely or unlikely 4.17% 1
Somewhat unlikely 0.00% 0
Very unlikely 0.00% 0 Answered 24

9. How satisfied are you with your overall experience with the Flex Peak Program?
Answer Choices Percent Responses
Very satisfied 79.17% 19
Somewhat satisfied 8.33% 2
Neither satisfied or dissatisfied 12.50% 3
Somewhat dissatisfied 0.00% 0
Very dissatisfied 0.00% 0 Answered 24

10. Please provide any additional comments about Idaho Power's Flex Peak Program.
Answered: 11

11. May Idaho Power follow up with you regarding any questions from this survey?
Answer Choices Percent Responses
Yes 75.00% 18
No 25.00% 6 Answered 24

2019 Shade Tree Project Survey
1. How did you hear about Idaho Power's Shade Tree Project? (Check all that apply)
Answer Choices Percent Responses
Letter from Idaho Power 59.08% 309
Friend or relative 27.53% 144
Neighbor 3.63% 19
Idaho Power employee 2.68% 14
Other (please specify) 12.05% 63 Answered 523

2. What was the primary reason you participated in the program? (Mark one)
Answer Choices Percent Responses
Tree was free 16.41% 86
Home too warm in the summer 11.83% 62
Reduce energy bill 17.18% 90
Improve landscape/property value 19.85% 104
Wanted a tree 18.13% 95
Help the environment 11.45% 60
Other (please specify) 5.15% 27 Answered 524

3. What kept you from planting a tree prior to the Shade Tree Project?
Answer Choices Percent Responses
Lack of knowledge 17.78% 93
Cost 47.61% 249
Time 12.43% 65
Other (please specify) 22.18% 116 Answered 523

4. Where would you typically purchase a new tree? (Mark one)
Answer Choices Percent Responses
Garden section of a do-it-yourself/home improvement store 33.97% 177
Nursery/garden store 62.00% 323
Other (please specify) 4.03% 21 Answered 521

5. How long did you spend on the online enrollment tool? (Mark one)
Answer Choices Percent Responses
10 minutes or less 61.57% 322
11-20 minutes 27.72% 145
21-30 minutes 6.88% 36
31 minutes or more 2.29% 12
Not applicable 1.53% 8 Answered 523
6. Overall, how easy was it for you to use the online enrollment tool?
Answer Choices Percent Responses
Very easy 72.08% 377
Somewhat easy 23.71% 124
Somewhat difficult 1.91% 10
Very difficult 0.57% 3
Not applicable 1.72% 9 Answered 523

7. How many trees did you pick up at the Shade Tree event?
Answer Choices Percent Responses
One 13.77% 72
Two 86.23% 451 Answered 523

8. (For those who answered “One” in #7.) When did you plant your shade tree?
Answer Choices Percent Responses
Same day as the tree pickup 30.00% 21
1-3 days after the tree pickup 47.14% 33
4-7 days after the tree pickup 15.71% 11
More than 1 week after the tree pickup 4.29% 3
Did not plant the tree 2.86% 2 Answered 70

9. (For those who answered “One” in #7.) On which side of your home did you plant your shade
tree?
Answer Choices Percent Responses
North 1.47% 1
Northeast 0.00% 0
East 17.65% 12
Southeast 5.88% 4
South 10.29% 7
Southwest 16.18% 11
West 39.71% 27
Northwest 8.82% 6 Answered 68

10. (For those who answered “One” in #7.) How far from the home did you plant your shade
tree?
Answer Choices Percent Responses
20 feet or less 22.06% 15
21-40 feet 66.18% 45
41-60 feet 8.82% 6
More than 60 feet 2.94% 2 Answered 68

11. How many shade trees did you plant?
Answer Choices Percent Responses
One tree 1.33% 6
Both trees 97.11% 437
Did not plant trees 1.56% 7 Answered 450

12. (For those who answered “One tree” in #11.) When did you plant your shade tree?
Answer Choices Percent Responses
Same day as the tree pickup 16.67% 1
1-3 days after the tree pickup 50.00% 3
4-7 days after the tree pickup 16.67% 1
More than 1 week after the tree pickup 16.67% 1 Answered 6

13. (For those who answered “One tree” in #11.) On which side of your home did you plant
your shade tree?
Answer Choices Percent Responses
North 16.67% 1
Northeast 0.00% 0
East 16.67% 1
Southeast 16.67% 1
South 16.67% 1
Southwest 0.00% 0
West 16.67% 1
Northwest 16.67% 1 Answered 6

14. (For those who answered “One tree” in #11.) How far from the home did you plant your
shade tree?
Answer Choices Percent Responses
20 feet or less 33.33% 2
21-40 feet 66.67% 4
41-60 feet 0.00% 0
More than 60 feet 0.00% 0 Answered 6

15. (For those who answered “Both trees” in #11.) When did you plant your shade trees?
Answer Choices Same day as the tree pickup 1-3 days after the tree pickup 4-7 days after the tree pickup More than 1 week after the tree pickup Total
Tree 1 27.48% 51.50% 13.86% 7.16% 433
Tree 2 27.34% 49.26% 15.02% 8.37% 406 Answered 434

16. (For those who answered “Both trees” in #11.) On which side of your home did you plant
your shade trees?
North Northeast East Southeast South Southwest West Northwest Total
Tree 1 4.57% 5.29% 12.74% 9.86% 9.38% 14.42% 36.54% 7.21% 416
Tree 2 5.34% 6.80% 11.65% 9.22% 8.01% 20.63% 31.80% 6.55% 412 Answered 418

17. (For those who answered “Both trees” in #11.) 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 27.03% 50.00% 16.27% 6.70% 418
Tree 2 22.00% 48.66% 20.05% 9.29% 409 Answered 418

18. How satisfied are you with the information you received on the planting and care of your
shade tree?
Answer Choices Percent Responses
Very satisfied 80.32% 404
Somewhat satisfied 16.70% 84
Somewhat dissatisfied 1.39% 7
Very dissatisfied 0.99% 5
Not applicable 0.60% 3 Answered 503

19. What information did you find most valuable?
Answer Choices Percent Responses
Planting depth 50.89% 256
Circling roots 12.92% 65
Staking 11.33% 57
Watering 11.93% 60
Not applicable 7.55% 38
Other (please specify) 5.37% 27 Answered 503

20. How much do you agree with the following statements:
Strongly agree Somewhat agree Somewhat disagree Strongly disagree NA Total
I am satisfied with the Shade Tree Project pick up event 89.68% 8.73% 0.79% 0.60% 0.20% 504
It was easy to plant my shade tree 84.43% 13.37% 0.60% 0.00% 1.60% 501
I would recommend the Shade Tree Project to a friend or relative 95.43% 4.17% 0.40% 0.00% 0.00% 503
I am satisfied with my overall experience with the Shade Tree Project 92.84% 5.96% 0.99% 0.00% 0.20% 503
Answered 504

21. If you have additional comments you would like to offer about the Shade Tree Project,
please enter them in the space below.
Answered: 149

22. 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 Responses
Before 1950 9.69% 47
1950–1959 6.39% 31
1960–1969 4.33% 21
1970–1979 8.87% 43
1980–1989 4.12% 20
1990–1999 5.57% 27
2000–2006 9.69% 47
2007–2015 47.84% 232
Don't know 3.51% 17 Answered 485

23. What one fuel is most often used to heat this residence? (Mark one)
Answer Choices Percent Responses
Electricity 32.33% 161
Natural gas 50.60% 252
Propane 8.23% 41
Fuel Oil 1.20% 6
Wood 4.42% 22
Other (please specify) 3.21% 16 Answered 498

24. What type of air conditioning system is used at this residence?
Answer Choices Percent Responses
None 7.21% 36
Central air conditioner 66.93% 334
Heat pump 14.83% 74
Individual room or window air conditioner 12.02% 60
Evaporative/swamp cooler 3.21% 16
Other (please specify) 2.61% 13 Answered 499

25. What is your gender?
Answer Choices Percent Responses
Female 62.88% 310
Male 37.12% 183 Answered 493

26. Which of the following best describes your age?
Answer Choices Percent Responses
Under 18 0.00% 0
18-24 0.61% 3
25-34 20.00% 99
35-44 32.53% 161
45-60 27.88% 138
Over 60 18.99% 94 Answered 495

27. What is the highest level of education you have completed?
Answer Choices Percent Responses
Less than high school 0.41% 2
High school or equivalent 9.55% 47
Some college/technical school 39.63% 195
4-year college degree 26.83% 132
Some graduate courses 5.69% 28
Graduate degree 17.89% 88
Answered 492

2019 Idaho Power Weatherization Assistance for
Qualified Customers Program Survey
1. Job number.
Answered 189

2. Agency name
Answer Choices Percent Responses
Metro Community Services 23.28% 44
Eastern Idaho Community Action Partnership 1.59% 3
El Ada Community Action Partnership 48.68% 92
South Central Community Action Partnership 13.23% 25
Southeastern Idaho Community Action Agency 11.11% 21
Community Connection of Northeast Oregon 0.53% 1
Community in Action 1.59% 3 Answered 189

3. Idaho Power Program name.
Answer Choices Percent Responses
Weatherization Assistance for Qualified Customers 100.00% 189
Weatherization Solutions for Eligible Customers 0.00% 0 Answered 189

4. How did you learn about the weatherization program(s)?
Answer Choices Percent Responses
Agency/Contractor flyer 17.32% 31
Idaho Power employee 5.59% 10
Idaho Power web site 13.97% 25
Friend or relative 35.75% 64
Letter in mail 11.73% 21
Other (please specify) 15.64% 28 Answered 179
5. What was your primary reason for participating in the weatherization program?
Answer Choices Percent Responses
Reduce utility bills 75.82% 138
Improve comfort of home 40.66% 74
Furnace concerns 27.47% 50
Water heater concerns 8.79% 16
Improve insulation 14.84% 27
Other (please specify) 5.49% 10 Answered 182

6. If you received any energy efficiency equipment upgrade as part of the weatherization, how
well was the equipment's operation explained to you?
Answer Choices Percent Responses
Completely 93.92% 170
Somewhat 3.87% 7
Not at all 2.21% 4 Answered 181

7. 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
How air leaks affect energy usage 75.56% 136
How insulation affects energy usage 57.78% 104
How to program the new thermostat 46.11% 83
How to reduce the amount of hot water used 32.22% 58
How to use energy wisely 60.00% 108
How to understand what uses the most energy in my home 47.22% 85
Other (please specify) 4.44% 8 Answered 180

8. Based on the information you received from the agency/contractor about energy use, how
likely are you to change your habits to save energy?
Answer Choices Percent Responses
Very likely 88.83% 159
Somewhat likely 11.17% 20
Not very likely 0.00% 0
Not likely at all 0.00% 0 Answered 179
9. How much of the information about energy use have you shared with other members of your
household?
Answer Choices Percent Responses
All of it 76.80% 139
Some of it 11.05% 20
None of it 0.55% 1
N/A 11.60% 21 Answered 181

10. 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 62.57% 112
Somewhat likely 25.14% 45
Somewhat unlikely 0.56% 1
Very unlikely 0.56% 1
N/A 11.17% 20 Answered 179

11. What habits are you and other members of your household most likely to change to save
energy? (check all that apply)
Answer Choices Percent Responses
Washing full loads of clothes 66.85% 121
Washing full loads of dishes 45.86% 83
Turning off lights when not in use 79.01% 143
Unplugging electrical equipment when not in use 46.96% 85
Turning the thermostat up in the summer 54.14% 98
Turning the thermostat down in the winter 65.19% 118
Other (please specify) 5 Answered 181

12. How much do you think the weatherization you received will affect the comfort of your
home?
Answer Choices Percent Responses
Significantly 93.85% 168
Somewhat 6.15% 11
Very little 0.00% 0
Not at all 0.00% 0 Answered 179
13. Rate the Agency/Contractor based on your interactions with them. Excellent Good Fair Poor Total
Courteousness 96.69% 3.31% 0.00% 0.00% 181
Professionalism 95.56% 3.33% 0.56% 0.56% 180
Explanation of work to be performed on your home 92.18% 6.15% 1.12% 0.56% 179
Overall experience with Agency/Contractor 94.41% 5.03% 0.00% 0.56% 179 Answered 181

14. Were you aware of Idaho Power's role in the weatherization of your home?
Answer Choices Percent Responses
Yes 82.95% 146
No 17.05% 30 Answered 176

15. Overall how satisfied are you with the weatherization program you participated in?
Answer Choices Percent Responses
Very satisfied 97.24% 176
Somewhat satisfied 2.76% 5
Somewhat dissatisfied 0.00% 0
Very dissatisfied 0.00% 0 Answered 181

16. How has your opinion of Idaho Power changed as a result of its role in the weatherization
program?
Answer Choices Percent Responses
Improved 90.66% 165
Stayed the same 9.34% 17
Decreased 0.00% 0 Answered 182

17. How many people beside yourself live in your home year-round?
Answer Choices Percent Responses
0 22.65% 41
1 23.20% 42
2 14.92% 27
3 12.71% 23
4 9.39% 17
5 5.52% 10
6 or more 11.60% 21 Answered 181
18. How long have you been an Idaho Power customer?
Answer Choices Percent Responses
Less than 1 year 2.23% 4
1 - 10 years 24.02% 43
11 - 25 years 29.61% 53
26 years or more 44.13% 79 Answered 179

19. Please select the category below that best describes your age:
Answer Choices Percent Responses
Under 25 4.55% 8
25 - 34 9.66% 17
35 - 44 19.32% 34
45 - 54 11.36% 20
55 - 64 18.75% 33
65 - 74 26.14% 46
75 or older 10.23% 18 Answered 176

20. Select the response below that best describes the highest level of education you have
attained:
Answer Choices Percent Responses
Less than High School 15.06% 25
High School graduate or GED 42.17% 70
Some College or Technical School 30.12% 50
Associate Degree 6.02% 10
College Degree (including any graduate school or graduate degrees) 6.63% 11
Answered 166

21. Please share any other comments you may have regarding Idaho Power's weatherization
programs.
Answered: 67
2019 Idaho Power Weatherization Solutions for Eligible
Customers Program Survey
1. Job number.
Answered: 119

2. Idaho Power program name:
Answer Choices Percent Responses
Weatherization Assistance for Qualified Customers 0.00% 0
Weatherization Solutions for Eligible Customers 100.00% 119 Answered 119

3. How did you learn about the weatherization program(s)?
Answer Choices Percent Responses
Agency/Contractor flyer 12.82% 15
Idaho Power employee 5.98% 7
Idaho Power web site 11.11% 13
Friend or relative 10.26% 12
Letter in mail 54.70% 64
Other (please specify) 5.13% 6 Answered 117

4. What was your primary reason for participating in the weatherization program?
Answer Choices Percent Responses
Reduce utility bills 76.52% 88
Improve comfort of home 33.91% 39
Furnace concerns 23.48% 27
Water heater concerns 4.35% 5
Improve insulation 25.22% 29
Other (please specify) 7.83% 9 Answered 115

5. If you received any energy efficiency equipment upgrade as part of the weatherization, how well was
the equipment's operation explained to you?
Answer Choices Percent Responses
Completely 77.78% 84
Somewhat 8.33% 9
Not at all 13.89% 15 Answered 108

6. 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
How air leaks affect energy usage 83.19% 94
How insulation affects energy usage 70.80% 80
How to program the new thermostat 43.36% 49
How to reduce the amount of hot water used 51.33% 58
How to use energy wisely 69.91% 79
How to understand what uses the most energy in my home 60.18% 68
Other (please specify) 3.54% 4 Answered 113

7. Based on the information you received from the agency/contractor about energy use, how likely are
you to change your habits to save energy?
Answer Choices Percent Responses
Very likely 67.54% 77
Somewhat likely 30.70% 35
Not very likely 1.75% 2
Not likely at all 0.00% 0 Answered 114

8. How much of the information about energy use have you shared with other members of your
household?
Answer Choices Percent Responses
All of it 62.28% 71
Some of it 16.67% 19
None of it 1.75% 2
N/A 19.30% 22 Answered 114

9. 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 41.59% 47
Somewhat likely 33.63% 38
Somewhat unlikely 0.00% 0
Very unlikely 1.77% 2
N/A 23.01% 26 Answered 113

10. What habits are you and other members of your household most likely to change to save energy?
(check all that apply)
Answer Choices Percent Responses
Washing full loads of clothes 48.57% 51
Washing full loads of dishes 37.14% 39
Turning off lights when not in use 66.67% 70
Unplugging electrical equipment when not in use 58.10% 61
Turning the thermostat up in the summer 49.52% 52
Turning the thermostat down in the winter 54.29% 57
Other (please specify) 17 Answered 105

11. How much do you think the weatherization you received will affect the comfort of your home?
Answer Choices Percent Responses
Significantly 80.87% 93
Somewhat 19.13% 22
Very little 0.00% 0
Not at all 0.00% 0 Answered 115

12. Rate the Agency/Contractor based on your interactions with them. Excellent Good Fair Poor Total
Courteousness 97.41% 2.59% 0.00% 0.00% 116
Professionalism 95.69% 4.31% 0.00% 0.00% 116
Explanation of work to be performed on your home 93.97% 6.03% 0.00% 0.00% 116
Overall experience with Agency/Contractor 95.69% 4.31% 0.00% 0.00% 116
Answered 116

13. Were you aware of Idaho Power's role in the weatherization of your home?
Answer Choices Percent Responses
Yes 93.97% 109
No 6.03% 7 Answered 116

14. Overall how satisfied are you with the weatherization program you participated in?
Answer Choices Percent Responses
Very satisfied 97.44% 114
Somewhat satisfied 2.56% 3
Somewhat dissatisfied 0.00% 0
Very dissatisfied 0.00% 0 Answered 117

15. How has your opinion of Idaho Power changed as a result of its role in the weatherization program?
Answer Choices Percent Responses
Improved 81.90% 95
Stayed the same 18.10% 21
Decreased 0.00% 0 Answered 116

16. How many people beside yourself live in your home year-round?
Answer Choices Percent Responses
0 32.76% 38
1 36.21% 42
2 16.38% 19
3 8.62% 10
4 5.17% 6
5 0.86% 1
6 or more 0.00% 0 Answered 116

17. How long have you been an Idaho Power customer?
Answer Choices Percent Responses
Less than 1 year 2.78% 3
1 - 10 years 24.07% 26
11 - 25 years 30.56% 33
26 years or more 42.59% 46 Answered 108

18. Please select the category below that best describes your age:
Answer Choices Percent Responses
Under 25 2.73% 3
25 - 34 13.64% 15
35 - 44 4.55% 5
45 - 54 9.09% 10
55 - 64 12.73% 14
65 - 74 30.91% 34
75 or older 26.36% 29 Answered 110

19. Select the response below that best describes the highest level of education you have attained:
Answer Choices Percent Responses
Less than High School 2.73% 3
High School graduate or GED 30.91% 34
Some College or Technical School 33.64% 37
Associate Degree 14.55% 16
College Degree (including any graduate school or graduate degrees) 18.18% 20
Answered 110

20. Please share any other comments you may have regarding Idaho Power's weatherization programs.
Answered: 43
2019 Irrigation Peak Rewards Survey
1. Are you an owner or employee of the farm, ranch, or business?
Answer Choices Percent Responses
Owner 78.79% 130
Employee 21.21% 35 Answered 165

2. Are you satisfied with Idaho Power's responsiveness with regard to the Peak Rewards program?
Answer Choices Percent Responses
Yes 97.52% 157
No 2.48% 4 Answered 161

3. Overall, are you satisfied with the Peak Rewards program?
Answer Choices Percent Responses
Yes 95.63% 153
No 4.38% 7 Answered 160

4. Are you satisfied with the timeliness of messages on event days?
Answer Choices Percent Responses
Yes 91.77% 145
No 8.23% 13 Answered 158

5. Are you satisfied with the content of messages on event days?
Answer Choices Percent Responses
Yes 99.37% 158
No 0.63% 1 Answered 159

6. What is your zip code?
Answered: 164

7. Do you have any additional comments about the Peak Rewards program you would like to share?
Answer Choices Percent Responses
Yes 19.25% 31
No 80.75% 130 Answered 161

8. Please provide any additional comments about Idaho Power's Peak Rewards Program.
Answered: 30
2019 Lighting Study Comparison to 2016 Study Results
The purpose of this study was to compare market trends in 2019 to trends from the 2016 Lighting
Study conducted with Idaho Power Empowered Community members. The survey was sent to 2,363
Empowered Community members: 1,002 community members completed the survey for a 42%
response rate.
Respondent Demographics
27% of respondents were from Idaho Power’s Canyon West region, 46% from the Capital region and
27% from the South East region.
45% of respondents were male and 55% female.
11% of respondents were 34 or younger, 35% were between the ages of 35 and 54, 46% were
between the ages of 55 and 74 and 8% were 75 or older.
33% of respondents had been an Idaho Power customer for 10 years or less when they registered for
Empowered Community, 34% had been customers between 10 and 25 years and 33% had been
customers for more than 25 years.
80% of respondents own their home and 12% rent.
Study Summary
The average number of lightbulbs per home as reported by survey respondents was 44 compared to
47 in the 2016 study. The 2019 study showed a much higher percentage of LED bulbs in high use
areas in respondent homes (48%) than in the 2016 study (20%). Consequently the 2019 study showed
lower percentages of incandescent and compact fluorescent bulbs in high use areas than in the 2016
study.
The 2019 study also showed a much higher percentage of LED bulbs in low use areas in respondent
homes (45%) than in the 2016 study (17%). Consequently the 2019 study also showed lower
percentages of incandescent and compact fluorescent bulbs in low use areas than in the 2016 study.
The 2019 study also showed a much higher percentage of LED bulbs in outside areas of use in
respondent homes (43%) than in the 2016 study (15%). Consequently the 2019 study also showed
lower percentages of incandescent and compact fluorescent bulbs in outside areas of use than in the
2016 study.
When asked what types of bulbs they would buy for their home today, 74% of respondents in the
2019 study said LED bulbs compared to 50% in the 2016 study.
When asked what type of spare bulbs they have in their home that aren't currently in a light fixture,
74% of respondents in the 2019 study said LED bulbs compared to only 33% in the 2016 study
saying they had spare LED bulbs in their home. Additionally, 60% of respondents in the 2019 study
said they had spare incandescent bulbs in their home compared to 95% of respondents in the 2016
study stating they had spare incandescent bulbs.
When asked what type of spare bulbs they have in their home that aren't currently in a light fixture,
74% of respondents in the 2019 study said LED bulbs compared to only 33% in the 2016 study
saying they had spare LED bulbs in their home. Additionally, 60% of respondents in the 2019 study
said they had spare incandescent bulbs in their home compared to 95% of respondents in the 2016
study stating they had spare incandescent bulbs.
New questions in 2019
A new question was added to the 2019 study asking where the respondent would most likely
purchase bulbs for their home. Sixty-seven percent said they would purchase bulbs from a Big Box
store. Another question that was added to the 2019 study asked how often the respondent looks for
the ENERGY STAR® label when purchasing new bulbs. Thirty-two percent said "Always" and 32%
said "Most of the time".
Results
1. Approximately how many light bulbs (of all types including fluorescent tubes) do you have in
high-use areas of your home (e.g. kitchen, living room or family room), low-use areas of your home
(e.g. bedroom, bathroom, hallway, garage), and outside of your home?
2019 2016
Mean number of bulbs 44 47
Inside: High Use
Incandescent / Halogen bulbs 25% 41%
Compact fluorescent bulbs (CFLs) 22% 34%
LED bulbs 48% 20%
Other 4% 5%
Inside: Low Use
Incandescent / Halogen bulbs 28% 43%
Compact fluorescent bulbs (CFLs) 23% 36%
LED bulbs 45% 17%
Other 5% 5%
Outside
Incandescent / Halogen bulbs 29% 50%
Compact fluorescent bulbs (CFLs) 23% 31%
LED bulbs 43% 15%
Other 6% 4%

2. If you needed to buy light bulbs for your home tomorrow, which of the following type of bulbs
would you most likely buy?
2019 2016
Total Responses 1002 619
Incandescent / Halogen bulbs 11% 19%
Compact fluorescent bulbs (CFLs) 13% 30%
LED bulbs 74% 50%
Other (please specify) 1% 1%

3. Where would you buy them?
2019 2016
Total Responses 1002 NA
Big Box Store 67% NA
Small Hardware Store 6% NA
Grocery Store 12% NA
Online 9% NA
Other (please specify) 4% NA

4. When purchasing bulbs for your home, how often do you look for the ENERGY STAR® label?
2019 2016
Total Responses 1002 NA
Always 32% NA
Most of the time 32% NA
Some of the time 18% NA
Never 18% NA

5. Do you have any spare light bulbs in your home that are not currently in a light fixture or lamp?
2019 2016
Total Responses 1002 619
Yes 95% 95%
No 4% 4%
Not sure 1% 1%

6. Which of the following types of spare bulbs do you have in your home that are not currently in a
light fixture or lamp?
2019 2016
Total Responses 948 587
Incandescent / Halogen bulbs 60% 95%
Compact fluorescent bulbs (CFLs) 54% 72%
LED bulbs 74% 33%
Other (please specify) 7% 7%

Conclusion
The general conclusion drawn from the response to the 2019 Lighting Study compared to the 2016
study is that the market has definitely shifted in favor of LED bulbs and that respondents to the 2019
survey have embraced the change to LED bulbs.

2019 Multifamily Energy Savings Program Customer
Survey

1. Please select the 2019 project location.
Answer Choices Percent Responses
Benchmark Apartments (Boise) 16.67% 6
Clover Creek I (Jerome) 8.33% 3
Clover Creek II (Bliss) 8.33% 3
Eagle Manor (Eagle) 11.11% 4
Grand Cascade (American Falls) 2.78% 1
Hagerman Country Homes (Hagerman) 8.33% 3
Vineyard Suites at Indian Creek (Caldwell) 44.44% 16 Answered 36

2. Please select the 2018 project location.
Answer Choices Percent Responses
Sister's Villa Eagle Senior Living (Eagle) 100.00% 2 Answered 2

3. On a scale from 1 (very dissatisfied) to 5 (very satisfied), please rate the following:
1 2 3 4 5 Total
LED Bulbs 0.00% 0.00% 10.81% 0.00% 89.19% 37
High-Efficiency Showerhead 4.17% 12.50% 12.50% 12.50% 58.33% 24
Kitchen and bathroom faucet aerators 2.94% 2.94% 5.88% 8.82% 79.41% 34
Overall satisfaction with the quality of the products 2.63% 0.00% 7.89% 10.53% 78.95% 38
Overall satisfaction with the Idaho Power energy-saving project 2.63% 5.26% 2.63% 2.63% 86.84% 38
Answered 38

4. How would you describe the brightness of the LED light bulbs?
Answer Choices Percent Responses
Too Bright 7.89% 3
Somewhat Bright 18.42% 7
Just Right 60.53% 23
Somewhat Dim 5.26% 2
Too Dim 7.89% 3 Answered 38

5. Do you have any comments or feedback to share with us?
Answered: 27
Idaho Power Company Supplement 2: Evaluation
Demand-Side Management 2019 Annual Report Page 181
EVALUATIONS
Report Title Sector Analysis Performed By Study Manager Study/Evaluation Type
A/C Cool Credit Impact Evaluation Report Residential DNV-GL Idaho Power Impact
Idaho Power Commercial and Industrial Energy Efficiency—Retrofits Impact Evaluation PY 2018 Commercial/Industrial DNV-GL Idaho Power Impact
Idaho Power Commercial and Industrial New Construction Impact Evaluation PY 2018 Commercial/Industrial DNV-GL Idaho Power Impact
Idaho Power Energy House Calls PY 2018 Impact and Process Evaluation Residential DNV-GL Idaho Power Impact and Process
Idaho Power Residential New Construction Pilot Program Evaluation PY2018 Residential DNV-GL Idaho Power Impact and Process

Supplement 2: Evaluation Idaho Power Company
Page 182 Demand-Side Management 2019 Annual Report

FINAL REPORT
A/C Cool Credit Impact
Evaluation Report

Date: December 30, 2019

DNV GL – www.dnvgl.com i Page i

Table of contents
1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Results 1
2 ANALYSIS METHOD ......................................................................................................... 2
2.1 Data Cleaning and Selection 2
2.2 Baseline 2
3 RESULTS ....................................................................................................................... 4
1.1 Impacts 4
1.2 Load Impact Graphs 4
List of figures

Figure 3-1 - Load Impact for July 12, 2019 Event ................................................................................. 4
Figure 3-2 - Load Impact for July 22, 2019 Event ................................................................................. 5
Figure 3-3 - Load Impact for August 6, 2019 Event ............................................................................... 5

List of tables

Table 2-1. Data Cleaning Summary ..................................................................................................... 2
Table 3-1. Impact by Event Day ......................................................................................................... 4

1
1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report presents the impact estimates associated with the three A/C Cool Credit event days called in the
summer of 2019. Savings were calculated by comparing the actual average load for participating customers
on each of the three event days with their corresponding baselines. The baselines were the average of the
three highest non-event weekdays from the prior ten non-event weekdays, adjusted to match the event day
in the hour before the start of the event.
1.1 Results
The peak demand savings per participant for the three event days, July 12, July 22, and August 6, were
0.90 kW, 0.57 kW, and 0.70 kW, respectively. Based on the maximum load reduction during the first event,
using the total number of accounts participating for that event, the maximum total peak demand savings is
21,463 kW.

2
2 ANALYSIS METHOD
2.1 Data Cleaning and Selection
After receiving interval data, billing data, and participation data from Idaho Power, DNV GL reviewed and
cleaned the data. Consistency and reasonableness checks were completed, and interval data that did not
approximately match the associated customer billing data and interval data with extreme values were
excluded from the analysis. Because of the unpredictability of the effect of net metered customers’ solar
generation, those customers were also excluded.1 Table 2-1 shows the number of customers excluded at
each step, and the number used in the estimation of impacts for each of the three events.

Table 2-1. Data Cleaning Summary
Data Cleaning Step Customer Count
Original Billing Data (all participants, all events) 23,951
Available Interval Data Matched to Billing Data 23,950
Validated and Cleaned Interval Data 23,860
Excluding Solar Customers 23,445
Data Used by Event Participation
July 12, 2019 20,305
July 22, 2019 20,754
August 6, 2019 22,115

2.2 Baseline
The A/C Cool Credit impact evaluation was done consistently with the impact estimation from the last
several years. The actual average load for participants with good interval data on each event day was
compared with a baseline. The baseline for each event day was calculated as the average of the loads from
the three days with the highest demands from the previous ten non-event weekdays immediately preceding
the event day. This baseline for each event day was then adjusted to better match the event day by
increasing or decreasing the load on that day by applying an offset factor. The offset factor was based on
the difference between the baseline load and the event day load during the hour immediately preceding the
event. This corrected for any difference in magnitude of load between the event day and the baseline.
The analysis was based only on participating customers without solar generation. Including those with solar
generation can cause unstable results, since the solar generation on non-event days is not always a good
proxy for solar generation on event days. Including those customers would add significant variability to the

1 We ran the analysis both with and without the solar customers included, and the results were very close. However, it was still prudent to leave those
customers out of the analysis, but include them in the participation counts for each event.

3
impact estimates. It is a reasonable assumption that the load reduction from an A/C Cycling program should
not be dependent on whether the customer has solar or not.
The impact for each event day was then calculated as the difference between the actual event day load and
the adjusted baseline load.

4
3 RESULTS
This section provides detailed results for the A/C Cool Credit program for 2019.
1.1 Impacts
The impacts for the three events, calculated as described above, are shown in Table 3-1.
Table 3-1. Impact by Event Day
July 12,
2019
July 22,
2019
August 6,
2019
Peak demand reduction per account during event 0.90 0.57 0.70
Average demand reduction per account during event 0.84 0.55 0.67
Number of participants (accounts) for each event 23,848 23,796 23,649
Total peak demand reduction for all participants 21,463 13,564 16,554
Total average demand for all participants 18,029 7,460 11,091
1.2 Load Impact Graphs
This section includes the load graphs showing the impacts for each of the event days, including the baseline
load and average temperature, as well as the event day load and temperature for each event. Figure 3-1
shows the adjusted baseline and the event day load for the average participant for the July 12 event. Figure
3-2 shows the same data for the July 22 event, and Figure 3-3 show the loads for the August 6 event.
Figure 3-1 - Load Impact for July 12, 2019 Event

5
Figure 3-2 - Load Impact for July 22, 2019 Event

Figure 3-3 - Load Impact for August 6, 2019 Event

FINAL REPORT
Idaho Power Commercial and
Industrial Energy Efficiency -
Retrofits Impact Evaluation PY
2018

Date: November 25, 2019

DNV GL – www.dnvgl.com April 16, 2019 Page i

Table of contents
1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Study objectives 1
1.2 Findings 1
1.3 Recommendations 1
1.3.1 Consider requiring pictures of the motor nameplate for the connected motor to VFD
measures. 1
1.4 Methodology overview 1
2 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 2
2.1 Study purpose, objectives, and research questions 2
2.2 Organization of report 2
3 METHODOLOGY AND APPROACH ....................................................................................... 3
1.1 Program staff interviews 3
1.2 Review of ex-ante savings and savings algorithms 3
4 IMPACT FINDINGS .......................................................................................................... 5
4.1 Verified savings 5
4.2 Review of savings algorithms 5
4.3 File review and site visits 7
4.4 Sample expansion 7
4.5 Non-energy Impacts 7
5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................................................... 9
5.1 Conclusions 9
5.2 Recommendations 9
5.2.1 Consider requiring pictures of the motor nameplate for the connected motor to VFD
measures. 9

List of figures

No table of figures entries found.
List of tables

Table 3-1. Stratified sample design ..................................................................................................... 4
Table 4-1. Impact evaluation savings summary .................................................................................... 5
Table 4-2. Projects with adjusted savings ............................................................................................ 5
Table 4-3. Estimated NEIs by measure type ......................................................................................... 8

1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report presents findings and recommendations from an impact evaluation of the Retrofits offering within
Idaho Power’s Commercial and Industrial Energy Efficiency program. The evaluation, conducted by DNV GL
from March to October 2019, covers projects funded in 2018.
1.1 Study objectives
DNV GL’s objectives in the impact evaluation were to:
· Determine and verify the energy (kWh) impacts attributable to the 2018 program
· Provide credible and reliable ex-post realization rates
· Offer recommendations to enhance the effectiveness of future ex-ante savings analysis and the accuracy
and transparency of program savings
1.2 Findings
DNV GL computes an overall realization rate for the program of 99.4%. The reason for this difference is that
DNV GL made adjustments to three projects: we found a calculation error in the lighting controls for one
project, found an error in the per unit savings for the VFDs installed on potato or onion storage shed
ventilation for a second project, and adjusted operating hours for the lighting of one of the sites visited (a
third project).
Overall, the tracking database for the Retrofits offering is well-organized and the details about assumptions
and sources are well-documented. Program staff proactively adjusts savings for special cases such as
equipment being taken out of service.
DNV GL estimates the total annual NEIs for this program to be approximately $764,000.
1.3 Recommendations
1.3.1 Consider requiring pictures of the motor nameplate for the
connected motor to VFD measures.
The application specifies that the quantity is the lesser of the VFD or connected motor horsepower (hp), it
does not collect the motor hp. Motors are often in difficult to access locations, so a picture of the nameplate
would help verify the motor hp.
1.4 Methodology overview
To perform this impact evaluation, DNV GL performed the following tasks:
· Conducted interviews with program staff
· Reviewed the tracking system and a sample of application files
· Reviewed savings algorithms
· Conducted site visits with a sample of the largest projects
· Expanded the sample results to the population
A detailed description of our methodology is provided in Section 3.

2 INTRODUCTION
2.1 Study purpose, objectives, and research questions
DNV GL conducted an impact evaluation of the Retrofits offering within Idaho Power’s Commercial and
Industrial Energy Efficiency program, covering projects funded in 2018.
The objectives of this impact evaluation included:
· Determine and verify the energy (kWh, kW) impacts attributable to the 2018 program
· Provide credible and reliable ex-post realization rates
· Provide recommendations to enhance the effectiveness of future ex-ante savings analysis and the
accuracy and transparency of program savings
To achieve these objectives, DNV GL carried out the following activities:
· Conducted interviews with program staff
· Tracking system review
· Review of a sample of program applications
· Review of savings algorithms
· Onsite inspections of a sample of the larger projects
DNV GL did not conduct a process evaluation for this program, as it was outside the scope of work for this
project.
2.2 Organization of report
The remainder of this report is organized as follows:
· Section 3 Methodology and approach – describes the evaluation activities in detail
· Section 4 Impact findings – reports the findings relevant to verifying program savings
· Section 5 Conclusions and recommendations – presents the key findings and offers recommendations for
program improvement

3 METHODOLOGY AND APPROACH
This section provides detailed descriptions of the methods DNV GL used to evaluate the program.
1.1 Program staff interviews
To understand program history, program delivery, program logic and objectives, perceived program
strengths and weaknesses, and what the program staff wants or needs from the evaluation, DNV GL
conducted interviews with Idaho Power staff. These interviews were conducted over the phone and lasted
about an hour.
1.2 Review of ex-ante savings and savings algorithms
DNV GL assessed the program’s tracking database, its fields, and the accuracy of the data. DNV GL primarily
assessed the accuracy of the program database and savings algorithms. DNV GL reviewed the savings
algorithms used by Idaho Power to verify the accuracy and appropriateness of the savings claimed for each
measure. Specifically, we reviewed each measure to confirm the following:
1. The database savings match program reporting
2. The database includes all variables needed to calculate and evaluate program savings
3. The required variables contain usable data in consistent formats
4. Any programmed formulas used to calculate savings and incentives are accurate
5. The line-by-line records match specifications from the reference material such as the Regional Technical
Forum (RTF) and the relevant Technical Reference Manual (TRM).
DNV GL also conducted a file review of a sample of the program application files. The file review provided a
more in-depth verification of a statistical sample of projects. We verified the accuracy of data entry by
comparing the application, the invoice, and database for key elements of the savings calculation such as
quantity, size, efficiency level, and units of measure. We also verified specific calculations and algorithms
used in these applications.
DNV GL selected a stratified random sample with enough projects to achieve a 90/10 statistical precision1
for our realization rate estimate on the sampled projects, using conservative assumptions about the
eventual realization rate achieved and the correlation between the reported savings and the verified savings.
The sample was stratified based on the reported savings, and random samples were selected within each
stratum. The fourth stratum, which included the projects with the largest savings and represents over 15%
of the total savings, was treated as a census, with all projects included in the sample. DNV GL selected a
total sample of 38 projects. The stratification and sample design are shown in Table 3-1 below.

1 a relative error of no more than 10%, with 90% confidence

Table 3-1. Stratified sample design
Stratum – savings range
1 – Less than 15,000 kWh 5,030,792 864 6
2 – Between 15,000 and 60,000 kWh 11,504,313 369 8
3 – Between 60,000 and 250,000 kWh 12,815,781 109 9
4 – Over 250,000 kWh 5,559,736 15 15
Total 34,910,622 1,357 38

Finally, we conducted site visits with a limited subsample of the projects for which we reviewed application
files. These site visits targeted the largest of the sampled projects. The purpose of the site visits was to
verify measure installation and operating conditions.

4 IMPACT FINDINGS
4.1 Verified savings
The ex-post savings values for all measures
applied the same deemed per-unit savings
sources. The overall realization rate is 99.4%
(Table 4-1).
Table 4-1. Impact evaluation savings summary
Measure Type kWh Rate
Lighting 29,910,737 29,870,258 99.9%
Lighting controls 261,387 260,927 99.8%
Non-lighting 4,738,504 4,578,504 96.6%
Total 34,910,6282 34,709,683 99.4%

There were three projects with adjusted savings. These adjustments are summarized in Table 4-2. These
adjustments are discussed furthur in the following sections.
Table 4-2. Projects with adjusted savings
ID kWh kWh Rate Adjustment
181462 12,400 11,940 96.3%calculation error in lighting control measure
171275 550,889 510,410 92.7%from tracking, sampled project expanded to
population
180160 398,600 238,600 59.9%measure

4.2 Review of savings algorithms
Most lighting and lighting controls savings are calculated using the lighting tool, which is an Excel workbook.
DNV GL verified the savings calculated by the lighting tool by using relevant tracking data fields (existing
and new lamp types, watts, quantities, hours). Cooler case lighting measures rely on RTF savings for the
first half of 2018. These measures were transitioned to calculated savings in the lighting tool for the second
half of 2018.
We were able to verify the lighting measure savings for most entries with the exception of the cooler case
ligting measures that utilize the RTF savings. We did not have enough information in the tracking data to
reproduce these savings. These measures calculate savings on a per foot basis. However, the tracking data
did not provide the fixture wattage on a per foot basis. Without such information, we could not reproduce
the savings calculations. However, moving forward this will not be an issue as the program now uses the
lighting tool to calculate savings and all of the parameters needed to reproduce savings are provided in
tracking data.

2 The 2018 Demand Side Management (DSM) Report savings are 34,910,707. Ex ante savings in this table are directly from tracking data. The
discrepancy between the savings in Table 1 and Supplement 1 are likely due to rounding errors and are negligible.
1. The program realization rate is
99.4%
2. Three projects received
adjustments

Lighting controls savings were verified for all entries in the tracking data. However, savings for one entry
could not be reproduced. This resulted from a calculation error in the lighting tool, identified by program
staff, as follows:
· The calculation error was introduced on the August 2018 version of the lighting tool. August 2018 is
Version 25 of the lighting tool.
· The error does not occur on all ceiling mount occupancy sensor projects, only those where the fixture
quantity exceeds the sensor quantity (one-for-one scenarios calculate correctly).
· The error only affected one project.
· As a result of this finding, program staff said they will review all projects paid in 2019 to determine if
any have this calculation error. Those projects identified with the error will be corrected before year-end
so that 2019 kWh savings will be accurate.
· An updated lighting tool to be rolled out January 1, 2020 (V26) will have the error corrected.

For both lighting and lighting controls measures, the tracking data includes whole wattages for fixture
power. However, the lighting tool uses power to the tenth of a watt. For some entries, this rounding creates
a discrepancy between the tracking savings and the savings reproduced from the tracking parameters.
Program staff are resolving this issue for future program cycles.
We found one lighting project with trackings savings that were manually adjusted by program staff. This
proactive adjustment was for a very unusual case to account for equipment being taken out of service due
to a building being torn down. The adjustment was noted in the tracking data.
For non-lighting measures, most measures use deemed savings from the Idaho Power TRM. One of two
versions of the TRM3 are used, depending on the application date.
There are several measures that were added to the program in 2016 and not included in Version 1.7 of the
TRM. Idaho Power estimated prescriptive savings for these measures based on internal calucations. For
these measures, ex ante savings were calculated using internal program calculations. The new measures are
VFDs on kitchen exhaust and makeup air fans, notched V-belts, stationary pump-driven circulating block
heaters, implement 3 control strategies, implement 5 control strategies4 and VFDs on potato and onion
storage ventilation. For the purposes of the evaluation, we confirmed that the savings in the tracking data
matched the savings documentation calculating the savings5. The new measures were officially added to
Version 2.2 of the TRM.
There are two non-lighting measures that were implemented in 2018 that rely on RTF savings. These are
measures ENERGY STAR electric ovens and residential-type Electric Water Heater - EF 0.95 or higher, 45–54
gallon, respectively. The water heater measure has been removed from the program going forward. The
savings for these measures were verified in the RTF files6.
All of the non-lighting measures matched the calculated savings (using quantity and the tracking per-unit
savings values). One measure was found to have the incorrect per-unit savings. This measure is the VFD

3 Idaho Power Company Technical Reference Manual 1.7, ADM is used for project in 2018 until version 2.2 became effective October 15, 2018.
4 Version 1.7 of the TRM included the other control strategies combinations, but not three and five control strategies.
5 We did not review the savings calculations and methodologies for the internal calculations. These values were only used for a short period of time,
as Version 2.2 of the TRM added these measures.
6 In accordance with the project scope, DNV GL did not review how RTF derived its deemed savings, under the assumption that those results are
already fully validated.

potato or onion storage shed ventilation. The TRM Version 2.2 savings is 1,193 kWh/hp, the tracking savings
appeared to transpose this value to 1,993 kWh. The TRM savings were used in the ex post savings.
4.3 File review and site visits
For a sample of 38 projects, we reviewed the program documentation. Documentation included:
applications, manufacture specification, post inspection reports, and invoices. The application measures and
quantities were compared to the tracking values. We did not find any discrepancies between the tracking
data and the program documentation.
We conducted onsite verifications for a subset of six of the projects for which we conducted file reviews. All
measures were found to be installed and operational. The following summarizes the onsite findings:
· We found minor discrepancies in lighting quantities at a few sites. However, these were within a few
percent of the tracking values. We did not adjust the quantities for the evaluated savings.
· One site had different operating hours for lighting than the tracking value. The project applied the same
operating hours to all fixtures. However, we found that 25% of fixtures were on 24/7. The remainder of
the lighting were on timer controls and had a shorter schedule than indicated in the tracking hours. We
adjusted the operating hours for the ex ante savings calculations to reflect this finding.
· We verified the VFDs installed on potato or onion storage shed ventilation at a facility. The application
quantity was for (7) 20 hp VFDs and (4) 15 hp VFDs. The application was consistent with the invoices.
We found all (11) of the VFDs to be rated to 20 hp. However, we were unable to determine if the
connected motor hp was 15 hp or 20 hp. Without confirming the connected motor hp, we used the
original quantities for the evaluated savings.
4.4 Sample expansion
We expanded the sample to the population using a two-step process. For the differences found in the
tracking review, the difference in the total is the same as the sum of the differences in the two projects with
changes to savings, because the tracking review was done for every project in the database. There was no
sampling error or expansion required because of this. The realization rate from the tracking review was
99.5%.
Based on the sample, there was one correction discovered during the onsite visit, which was for a project
that was part of the census stratum (the lighting hours adjustment described in the previous section). The
projects in the census stratum represented only itself, and so there was no sampling error as a result of this
change. The realization rate from the file review was 99.9%. All of the sampled (non-census) projects were
correct, so there was no way to calculate sampling error, because it is zero.
The overall realization rate from the tracking review and file review is 99.4%. Because there is no sampling
error, we cannot calculate the confidence interval associated with the ex post savings or the realization rate.
4.5 Non-energy Impacts
DNV GL maintains a database of non-energy impacts (NEI) by measure type based on a meta-analysis of
publically available NEI research from across the country. Through this database, we can assign an
approximately NEI dollar value per kWh for major measure types. We averaged the $/kWh NEI value per
measure category for all commercial business types. We then applied these averages to the total evaluated

kWh in the Idaho Power tracking data to estimate NEI dollars for this program (Table 4-3). DNV GL
estimates the total annual NEIs for this program to be approximately $764,000.
Table 4-3. Estimated NEIs by measure type
Measure
type
Evaluated
kWh
Average
NEI $/kWh NEI $
HVAC 555,018 -0.002833 -1,572.55
Lighting 34,769,682 0.021973 763,984.74
Other 3,464,787 -0.000067 -230.99
VSD 470,359 0.005475 2,575.21
Motor 88,340 -0.004800 -424.03
Total 39,348,186 764,332.39

5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 Conclusions
DNV GL computes an overall realization rate for the program of 99.4%. The reason for this difference is that
DNV GL made adjustments to three projects: we found a calculation error in the lighting controls for one
project, found an error in the per unit savings for the VFDs installed on potato or onion storage shed
ventilation for a second project, and adjusted operating hours for the lighting of one of the sites visited (a
third project).
Overall, the tracking database for the Retrofits program is well-organized and the details about assumptions
and sources are well-documented. Program staff proactively adjusts savings for for special cases such as
equipment being removed.
DNV GL estimates the total annual NEIs for this program to be approximately $764,000.
5.2 Recommendations
5.2.1 Consider requiring pictures of the motor nameplate for the
connected motor to VFD measures.
The application specifies that the quantity is the lesser of the VFD or connected motor horsepower (hp), it
does not collect the motor hp. Motors are often in difficult to access locations, so a picture of the nameplate
would help verify the motor hp.

FINAL REPORT
Idaho Power Commercial and
Industrial New Construction
Impact Evaluation PY 2018

Date: November 22, 2019

DNV GL – www.dnvgl.com i Page i

Table of contents
1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Study objectives 1
1.2 Findings 1
1.3 Recommendations 1
1.3.1 Utilize HOUs from the TRM for lighting and HVAC projects started after the TRM was
implemented. 1
1.3.2 Tracking data should include the version of the TRM utilized for each project. 1
1.4 Methodology overview 1
2 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 3
2.1 Study purpose, objectives, and research questions 3
2.2 Organization of report 3
3 METHODOLOGY AND APPROACH ....................................................................................... 4
1.1 Program staff interviews 4
1.2 Review of ex-ante savings and savings algorithms 4
4 IMPACT FINDINGS .......................................................................................................... 6
4.1 Verified savings 6
4.2 Tracking data review 7
4.2.1 Tracked electric savings versus DSM report savings 7
4.2.2 Parameters with blank values 7
4.3 Review of savings 8
4.4 Non-energy Impacts 8
5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................ 10
5.1 Conclusions 10
5.2 Recommendations 10
5.2.1 Utilize HOUs from the TRM for lighting and HVAC projects started after the TRM was
implemented. 10
5.2.2 Tracking data should include the version of the TRM utilized for each project. 10

List of figures

No table of figures entries found.
List of tables

Table 3-1. Stratified sample design ..................................................................................................... 5
Table 4-1. Impact evaluation savings summary .................................................................................... 7
Table 4-2. Tracked electric savings compared to DSM report total ........................................................... 7
Table 4-3. Estimated NEIs per measure type ........................................................................................ 9

1

1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report presents findings and recommendations from an impact evaluation of the new construction
portion of Idaho Power’s Commercial and Industrial (C&I) Energy Efficiency program. The evaluation,
conducted by DNV GL from March to October 2019, covers projects funded in 2018.
1.1 Study objectives
DNV GL’s objectives in the impact evaluation were to:
· Determine and verify the energy (kWh) impacts attributable to the 2018 program
· Provide credible and reliable ex-post realization rates
· Offer recommendations to enhance the effectiveness of future ex-ante savings analysis and the accuracy
and transparency of program savings
1.2 Findings
DNV GL computes an overall realization rate for the program of 100%. DNV GL confirmed that all the energy
savings formulas in the project documentation were utilized accurately. The DNV GL team reviewed the
tracking data received for accuracy, completeness, and intelligibility. While the data was mostly accurate,
complete, and intelligible, we identified some data issues, as detailed in the Recommendations Section 1.3.
During the review, we discovered that the hours-of-use (HOU) values used in calculations for lighting and
HVAC measures come from an uncitable Department of Energy (DOE) source. DNV GL believes it is best
practice to utilize the TRM as detailed in Section 1.3.
DNV GL estimates the program resulted in approximately $223,000 in non-energy benefits.
1.3 Recommendations
1.3.1 Utilize HOUs from the TRM for lighting and HVAC projects started
after the TRM was implemented.
The TRM is the best source for HOUs because its values are more recent and more accurate than the DOE
source currently used. Also, the sources for the TRMs data are clearly cited and can be traced back to
original research.
1.3.2 Tracking data should include the version of the TRM utilized for each
project.
Although IPC provided this information when it was requested, it would increase transparency and expedite
the evaluation process if the information were incorporated into the tracking data. Because new construction
projects have a potential period of years, tracking the source of savings for each project is important to
increase transparency, ensure accuracy, and expedite the program’s evaluation.
1.4 Methodology overview
To perform this impact evaluation. DNV GL performed the following tasks:
· Conducted interviews with program staff
· Reviewed the tracking system and a sample of application files

2

· Reviewed savings algorithms
· Conducted site visits with a sample of the largest projects
A detailed description of our methodology is provided in Section 3.

3

2 INTRODUCTION
2.1 Study purpose, objectives, and research questions
DNV GL conducted an impact evaluation of the new construction portion of Idaho Power’s Commercial and
Industrial (C&I) Energy Efficiency program, covering projects funded in 2018.
The objectives of this impact evaluation included:
· Determine and verify the energy (kWh, kW) impacts attributable to the 2018 program
· Provide credible and reliable ex-post realization rates
· Provide recommendations to enhance the effectiveness of future ex-ante savings analysis and the
accuracy and transparency of program savings
To achieve these objectives, DNV GL carried out the following activities:
· Semi-structured interviews with program staff
· Tracking system review
· Review of a sample of program applications
· Review of savings algorithms
· Onsite inspections of a sample of the larger projects
DNV GL did not conduct a process evaluation for this program, as it was outside the scope of work for this
project.
2.2 Organization of report
The remainder of this report is organized as follows:
· Section 3 Methodology and approach – describes the evaluation activities in detail
· Section 4 Impact findings – reports the findings relevant to verifying program savings
· Section 5 Conclusions and recommendations – presents the key findings and offers recommendations for
program improvement

4

3 METHODOLOGY AND APPROACH
This section provides detailed descriptions of the methods DNV GL used to evaluate the program.
1.1 Program staff interviews
To understand program history, program delivery, program logic and objectives, perceived program
strengths and weaknesses, and what the program staff wants or needs from the evaluation, DNV GL
conducted in-depth interviews with Idaho Power staff. These interviews were conducted over the phone and
lasted about an hour.
1.2 Review of ex-ante savings and savings algorithms
DNV GL assessed the program’s tracking database, its fields, and the accuracy of the data. DNV GL primarily
assessed the accuracy of the program database and savings algorithms. DNV GL reviewed the savings
algorithms used by Idaho Power to verify the accuracy and appropriateness of the savings claimed for each
measure. Specifically, we reviewed each measure to confirm the following:
1. The database savings match program reporting
2. The database includes all variables needed to calculate and evaluate program savings
3. The required variables contain usable data in consistent formats
4. Any programmed formulas used to calculate savings and incentives are accurate
5. The line-by-line records match specifications from the reference material such as the Regional Technical
Forum (RTF) and the relevant Technical Reference Manual (TRM).
DNV GL also conducted a file review of a sample of the program application files. The file review provided a
more in-depth verification of a statistical sample of projects. We verified the accuracy of data entry by
comparing the application, the invoice, and database for key elements of the savings calculation such as
quantity, size, efficiency level, and units of measure. We also verified specific calculations and algorithms
used in these applications.
DNV GL selected a stratified random sample with enough projects to achieve a 90/10 statistical precision1
for our realization rate estimate on the sampled projects, using conservative assumptions about the
eventual realization rate achieved and the correlation between the reported savings and the verified savings.
The sample was stratified based on the reported savings, and random samples were selected within each
stratum. The fourth stratum, which included the projects with the largest savings and represents over 55%
of the total savings, was treated as a census, with all projects included in the sample. DNV GL selected a
total sample of 30 projects. The stratification and sample design are shown in Table 3-1 below.

1 a relative error of no more than 10%, with 90% confidence

5

Table 3-1. Stratified sample design
Stratum – savings range
1 – Less than 45,000 kWh 892,898 58 7
2 – Between 45,000 and 150,000 kWh 1,957,592 25 9
3 – Between 150,000 and 300,000 kWh 3,088,834 14 7
4 – Over 300,000 kWh 7,438,931 7 7
Total 13,378,255 104 30

Finally, we conducted site visits with a limited subsample of the projects for which we reviewed application
files. These site visits targeted the largest of the sampled projects. The purpose of the site visits was to
verify measure installation and operating conditions.

6

4 IMPACT FINDINGS
DNV GL reviewed the tracking database of all the measures for the C&I New Construction program. Some of
these measures include:
· Daylight photo controls
· Direct evaporative coolers
· Efficient air conditioning (AC) or heat pump (HP) units, variable refrigerant flow (VRF) units, chillers,
condensers, and variable speed drives (VSD) for heating ventilation and cooling (HVAC)
· VSD for kitchen hoods and other non-HVAC applications
· Efficient laundry machines and dishwashers
· HVAC energy management systems (EMS) and occupancy sensors
· Floating suction controls and head pressure controls
· High-efficiency exit-signs and interior or exterior light load reduction
· Reflective roofs
The tracking database rigorously documents project-related information such as customers, locations,
completion and incentive payment dates, measure types, and electric savings. However, the database does
not track all the inputs used to calculate energy savings and does not contain the formulas used to
determine energy savings. The energy savings calculations are contained in the application files separate
from the tracking database.
4.1 Verified savings
DNV GL selected a sample of tracked projects
for a more in-depth review and requested
project documentation. The project
documentation we received included
application files containing the energy savings
calculations. An examination of documentation
confirmed that all the energy savings were
calculated correctly. We conducted onsite
verifications for a portion of the sampled projects and verified that all incentivized measures were installed.
Table 4-1 provides the program ex-post savings summary.
1. Realization rates for all measures
are 100%
2. DNV GL recommends improvements
for the hours-of-use utilized in
lighting and HVAC calculations.

7

Table 4-1. Impact evaluation savings summary
Measures
169,671 169,671 100%
4,548 4,548 100%
162,960 162,960 100%
244,629 244,629 100%
26,976 26,976 100%
3,213 3,213 100%
5,446 5,446 100%
767,607 767,607 100%
15,237 15,237 100%
13,260 13,260 100%
4,678,389 4,678,389 100%
27,620 27,620 100%
80,707 80,707 100%
25,716 25,716 100%
33,466 33,466 100%
911,415 911,415 100%
4,966,584 4,966,584 100%
138,168 138,168 100%
539,955 539,955 100%
478,320 478,320 100%
84,368 84,368 100%
4.2 Tracking data review
The evaluation team reviewed the tracking data received for accuracy, completeness, and intelligibility.
While the data was mostly accurate, complete, and intelligible, we identified some problems, as detailed in
the following sections.
4.2.1 Tracked electric savings versus DSM report savings
The tracked electric savings for the program were compared to the values in the 2018 Demand Side
Management (DSM) Report. The total kWh savings in the tracking data were 60 kWh lower than the DSM
report total, a difference of less than 0.1%. This difference was caused by disparities in rounding between
the two sources; see Table 4-2.
Table 4-2. Tracked electric savings compared to DSM report total
Source
Tracking data totals 104 13,378,255 -
DSM 2018 report (C&I new construction) 104 13,378,315 -
Difference between tracking and DSM report - (60)99.9%
4.2.2 Parameters with blank values
There were several parameters in the tracking data with missing values; the most important of these were
the MSMT and UNIT parameters. The MSMT parameter is the measure’s quantity used in savings
calculations; the UNIT parameter defines the dimension for the quantity, e.g., floor area, number of units,
etc. These parameters were blank because the tracking database provided to us reported at the project level
and not at the individual measure level. Therefore, if a project had multiple kitchen hood VSD measures and

8

one of the records had a blank value for any parameter, the resultant aggregated (project level) value for
that parameter was blank. This issue appears to have occurred because the original data were provided to
the evaluator at an aggregated level.
4.3 Review of savings
The program uses deemed savings from the Idaho TRM for most measures. The deemed savings values for
evaporative coolers, reflective roof, HVAC EMS, VFDs, laundry machines, dishwashers, head pressure
controls, floating suction controls, and condenser measures all matched the savings values listed in the
TRM.2 Because the evaluation covers projects from the program’s inception in 2011 through the 2018
program year, it was difficult to determine the appropriate TRM version for each project. Although IPC
provided this information when it was requested, it would increase transparency and expedite the evaluation
process if the information were incorporated into the tracking data.
Savings for lighting and HVAC measures (AC, VRF, chillers, and HPs) were not deemed values; instead,
custom formulas and inputs based on manufacturer performance ratings were used. The formulas were
verified as correct, and all of the inputs were determined to be accurate, except the default lighting and
HVAC HOUs, which can be improved.
The default HOUs used in calculations for lighting and HVAC measures (AC, VRF, chillers, and HPs) did not
match the values in the TRMs. The HOUs used in the calculations are based on DOE data that can no longer
be found online and whose source cannot be cited. The DOE data has been used since before the TRM
existed. Once the TRM was implemented, the DOE data continued to be used because the TRM did not
provide average HOUs for IPC’s service territory.
The TRM states that the lighting HOUs come from the Regional Technical Forum’s (RTF) Standard Protocol
for Non-Residential Lighting Improvements. HVAC HOUs are based on TMY3 data for Idaho stations in
ASHRAE climate zones 5 & 6 and the typical energy savings (weather-dependent measures are based on an
80%-20% weighted average of TMY3 data for zones 5 & 6, respectively). Because the TRM has been
available since April 2014, DNV GL believes that best practice is to utilize HOUs from the TRM for lighting
and HVAC projects started after the TRM was implemented.
4.4 Non-energy Impacts
DNV GL maintains a database of non-energy impacts (NEI) by measure type based on a meta-analysis of
publically available NEI research from across the country. Through this database, we can assign an
approximately NEI dollar value per kWh for major measure types. We averaged the $/kWh NEI value per
measure category for all commercial business types. We then applied these averages to the total evaluated
kWh in the Idaho Power tracking data to estimate NEI dollars for this program (Table 4-3). DNV GL
estimates the total annual NEIs for this program to be approximately $223,000.

2 In accordance with the project scope, DNV GL did not review how TRM derived its deemed savings, under the assumption that those results are
already fully validated.

9

Table 4-3. Estimated NEIs per measure type
Measures
Ex-post
savings
NEI
Measure
Type $ NEI/kwh $ NEI
Daylight Photo Controls 169,671 Lighting 0.02197 3,728.13
Direct Evaporative Coolers 4,548 HVAC -0.00283 (12.89)
Efficient AC or HP Units (air cooled) 162,960 HVAC -0.00283 (461.72)
Efficient Chillers 244,629 HVAC -0.00283 (693.12)
Efficient Condensers 26,976 HVAC -0.00283 (76.43)
Efficient Laundry Machines 3,213 Other -0.00007 (0.21)
Efficient VRF Units (air cooled) 5,446 HVAC -0.00283 (15.43)
Energy Management Control Systems 767,607 Other -0.00007 (51.17)
Energy Star Commercial Dishwasher 15,237 Other -0.00007 (1.02)
Energy Star U/C Dishwasher 13,260 Other -0.00007 (0.88)
Exterior Light Load Reduction 4,678,389 Lighting 0.02197 102,796.97
Floating Suction Controls 27,620 Other -0.00007 (1.84)
Head Pressure Controls 80,707 Other -0.00007 (5.38)
High Efficiency Exit Signs 25,716 Lighting 0.02197 565.05
High Volume Low Speed Fans 33,466 Other -0.00007 (2.23)
HVAC Variable Speed Drives 911,415 VSD 0.00548 4,990.00
Interior Light Load Reduction 4,966,584 Lighting 0.02197 109,129.40
Kitchen Hood VSD 138,168 VSD 0.00548 756.47
Occupancy Sensors 539,955 Other -0.00007 (36.00)
Onion/Potato Shed VSD 478,320 VSD 0.00548 2,618.80
Reflective Roof Treatment 84,368 Other -0.00007 (5.62)
Total 13,378,255 223,220.87

10

5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 Conclusions
DNV GL computes an overall realization rate for the program of 100%. Overall, while the tracking database
and project documentation for the C&I New Construction program are well-organized and intelligible, the
project documentation could improve in the level of details it provides for the algorithms and inputs, and
their sources.
DNV GL estimates the program resulted in approximately $223,000 in non-energy benefits.
5.2 Recommendations
5.2.1 Utilize HOUs from the TRM for lighting and HVAC projects started
after the TRM was implemented.
The TRM is the best source for HOUs because its values are more recent and more accurate than the DOE
source currently used. Also, the sources for the TRMs data are clearly cited and can be traced back to
original research.
5.2.2 Tracking data should include the version of the TRM utilized for each
project.
Although IPC provided this information when it was requested, it would increase transparency and expedite
the evaluation process if the information were incorporated into the tracking data. Because new construction
projects have a potential period of years, tracking the source of savings for each project is important to
increase transparency, ensure accuracy, and expedite the program’s evaluation.

FINAL REPORT
Idaho Power Energy House
Calls PY2018 Impact and
Process Evaluation

Date: November 25, 2019

DNV GL – www.dnvgl.com November 13, 2019 Page i

Table of contents
1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..................................................................................................... 3
1.1 Key findings 3
1.2 Recommendations 4
2 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 5
2.1 Program overview 5
2.2 Evaluation overview 5
2.3 Layout of report 6
3 METHODS ...................................................................................................................... 7
3.1 Program staff and trade ally interviews 7
3.2 Tracking system and project file review 7
3.3 Program logic review 8
3.4 Program materials review 8
3.5 QA/QC review 9
3.6 Program participant surveys 9
3.7 Market saturation assessment 9
4 IMPACT FINDINGS ........................................................................................................ 10
4.1 Tracking system review 10
4.2 Project file review 11
5 PROCESS FINDINGS AND TARGETED RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................ 13
5.1 Program staff and trade ally interviews 13
5.2 Program logic review 13
5.3 Program materials review 14
5.3.1 Program plan 14
5.3.2 Marketing materials and websites 15
5.3.3 Trade ally / subcontractor instructions, tools/worksheets 15
5.4 QA/QC review 16
5.5 Program participant surveys 16
5.5.1 Demographics 16
5.5.2 Program awareness 17
5.5.3 Program experience 17
5.5.4 Satisfaction 17
5.5.5 After program 18
5.6 Market saturation assessment 18
6 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................ 20
6.1 Recommendations 20
PROGRAM STAFF INTERVIEW GUIDE ...................................................................... 22
TRADE ALLY INTERVIEW GUIDE ............................................................................. 23
PROGRAM PARTICIPANT SURVEY INSTRUMENT ....................................................... 25

DNV GL – www.dnvgl.com November 13, 2019 Page ii

List of figures

Figure 5-1. Residential Energy House Calls logic model ........................................................................ 14
Figure 5-2. Percent of Respondents Satisfied (4 or 5 on Five-Point Scale) .............................................. 18

List of tables

Table 3-1. Sample summary .............................................................................................................. 8
Table 3-2. Materials reviewed and core issues considered ...................................................................... 8
Table 4-1: Measure type and savings basis ........................................................................................ 10
Table 4-2. Savings algorithm review by measure ................................................................................ 11
Table 4-3. Evaluated savings adjustments by measure ........................................................................ 12

DNV GL – www.dnvgl.com November 12, 2019 Page 3

1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report presents findings and recommendations from an impact and process evaluation of Idaho Power’s
Energy House Calls program. The evaluation covers the program’s operations in 2018.
DNV GL’s objectives for the impact portion of the evaluation were to determine and verify the energy (kWh)
impacts attributable to the 2018 program, provide credible and reliable ex-post realization rates, and offer
recommendations to enhance the effectiveness of future ex-ante savings analysis and the accuracy and
transparency of program savings. To meet these objectives, DNV GL conducted interviews with program
staff, reviewed the tracking system, and reviewed savings algorithms for several projects.
Our objectives for the process portion of the evaluation were to assess program design, logic, and
operations and compare to industry best practices, and offer recommendations to improve the delivery of
the program.
Evaluation activities included:
· Semi-structured interviews with program staff
· Review of program tracking systems
· Review of program logic, files, and materials
· Review of savings algorithms
· Computation of verified savings and realization rates
· Review of QA/QC procedures
1.1 Key findings
The total reported savings for the program were 374,484 kWh. DNV GL verified total savings of 372,207
kWh, for a realization rate of 0.99. Differences in savings were due to two measures. First, the evaluation
used the updated Regional Technical Forum (RTF) heating zones based on zip codes instead of program
values for PTCS duct sealing which were based on the RTF heating zones based on cities. This changed the
climate zones and savings for several sites. Second, the evaluation used a household value instead of a per
faucet savings value when more than 2 aerators were installed. Other key findings included:
1. Ex-ante savings calculations were verified accurate.
2. There were some minor anomalies on the field worksheets, but tracking data contained the correct
values.
DNV GL’s key process findings included:
3. Trade allies are a key means of implementing the program
4. Print collateral and websites are well-done.
5. The program is nearing realistic saturation of the market. There are approximately 4,000 potential
participants left in Idaho Power territory.
6. The program processes work well and conform to industry best practices.

DNV GL – www.dnvgl.com November 13, 2019 Page 4

1.2 Recommendations
Add “primary” in front of “heating system” on the field worksheets. This will avoid the field
worksheet from having both electric furnace and heat pump selected for homes with a heat pump. While the
field worksheet review did not find any discrepancies between the tracking data and the field worksheets,
implementing this change will decrease the likelihood of an electric furnace being selected for a heat pump.
Do not populate 100% leakage reduction in the tracking data for test only field worksheets. This
parameter is not used directly in the savings calculations; however, this inconsistency may cause some
confusion about what work was completed.
Use the latest version of RTF climate zone assignments provided on the RTF website and list all
versions of RTF and other documents used for savings values. This will keep program savings up to
date with the latest available information from RTF, and it will facilitate future evaluations by making it
easier for evaluators to find the references used by the program.
Consider a means of encouraging households that participated in the program years ago to install
LED lighting. Participants up to a few years ago would have received CFLs instead of LED lighting. The
measure life of some of those CFLs has expired at this point and converting those homes to LEDs would
generate some additional savings. It may not be cost-effective to revisit homes only to install LEDs, so some
other form of outreach that funnels past participants into other programs that sponsor LEDs might be the
most effective way to realize these savings.
When possible, program marketing materials should emphasize energy bill and monthly cost
reductions that could result from participation. According to both the 2014 Program Participant Survey
and our own participant survey, the most prominent reason for customers to participate in the program is to
reduce their energy bills/costs. This is also likely to be a strong selling point for potential participants.
Make some modifications to the program handbook. Add a revision history of the document, a logic
model like the draft that DNV GL created, and move the SWOT analysis to a more prominent location.
Consider making a few slight changes to the program marketing collateral. Visual appeal could be
increased by adding pictures, particularly those of people. Additionally, the capabilities of the medium could
be better leveraged by linking to videos of success stories if any are available.
Include a map on the program website that visually illustrates each contractor’s geographical
range. As it stands, customers may be confused about which contractor to contact if they do not consider
their home to be located in any of the listed regions.

DNV GL – www.dnvgl.com November 13, 2019 Page 5

2 INTRODUCTION
2.1 Program overview
Initiated in 2002, the Energy House Calls program gives homeowners of electrically heated manufactured
homes an opportunity to reduce electricity use by improving the home’s efficiency. Specifically, this program
provides free duct-sealing and additional efficiency measures to Idaho Power customers living in Idaho or
Oregon who use an electric furnace or heat pump. Participation is limited to one service call per residence
for the lifetime of the program.
Services and products offered through the Energy House Calls program include duct testing and sealing
according to Performance Tested Comfort System (PTCS) standards set and maintained by the Bonneville
Power Association; installing up to eight LED lightbulbs; testing the temperature set on the water heater;
installing water heater pipe covers when applicable; installing up to two low-flow showerheads, two
bathroom faucet aerators, and one kitchen faucet aerator; and leaving two replacement furnace filters with
installation instructions and energy efficiency educational materials appropriate for manufactured-home
occupants.
Idaho Power provides contractor contact information on its website and marketing materials. The customer
schedules an appointment directly with one of the certified contractors in their region. The contractor verifies
the customer’s initial eligibility by testing the home to determine if it qualifies for duct-sealing. Additionally,
contractors have been instructed to install LED lightbulbs only in high-use areas of the home, to replace only
incandescent lightbulbs, and to install aerators and showerheads only if the upgrade can be performed
without damage to a customer’s existing fixtures.
The actual energy savings and benefits realized by each customer depend on the measures installed and the
repairs and/or adjustments made. Although participation in the program is free, a typical cost for a similar
service call would be $400 to $600, depending on the complexity of the repair and the specific measures
installed. In 2018, 280 homes received products and/or services through this program, resulting in 374,484
kWh savings claimed.
2.2 Evaluation overview
DNV GL conducted an impact and process evaluation. The key objectives of the impact evaluation included:
· Determine and verify the energy (kWh) impacts attributable to the 2018 program. Ex-ante savings
estimates are determined using various sources including the Regional Technical Forum (RTF) deemed
savings, and internal/external engineering.
· Provide credible and reliable program energy impact estimates and ex-post realization rates for the 2018
program year.
· Report findings and observations and provide recommendations that enhance the effectiveness of future
ex-ante savings analysis and the accurate and transparent reporting of program savings.
The key objectives of the process evaluation included:
· Evaluate program design including program mission, logic, and use of industry best practices.
· Evaluate program implementation including quality control, operational practice, and outreach.
· Evaluate program administration including program oversight, staffing, management, training,
documentation and reporting.

DNV GL – www.dnvgl.com November 13, 2019 Page 6

· Report findings and observations and recommendations to enhance program effectiveness.
To achieve these objectives, DNV GL conducted:
· Semi-structured interviews with program staff
· Tracking system review
· Project file review
· Program materials review
· Program logic review
· QA/QC review
2.3 Layout of report
The remainder of this report is organized into the following sections:
Section 3. Methods – describes the evaluation activities in detail
Section 4. Impact findings – reports findings relevant to verification of program savings
Section 5. Process findings – reports findings relevant to program processes and materials
Section 6. Conclusions and recommendations – lays out the key findings and provides recommendations for
program improvement

DNV GL – www.dnvgl.com November 13, 2019 Page 7

3 METHODS
This section provides detailed descriptions of the methods DNV GL used to evaluate the program.
3.1 Program staff and trade ally interviews
DNV GL conducted in-depth interviews (IDIs) with Idaho Power program staff and the two trade allies that
perform the house calls, to understand:
· Program history
· How the program is delivered
· Program logic and objectives
· The perceived strengths and weaknesses of the program
· What the program staff wants or needs from the evaluation
DNV GL developed instruments to guide the IDIs (APPENDIX A and APPENDIX B). Senior DNV GL staff
conducted the IDIs over the phone in June and September 2019.
3.2 Tracking system and project file review
DNV GL assessed the program’s tracking database, its fields, and the accuracy of the data. DNV GL primarily
assessed the accuracy of the program database and savings algorithms. DNV GL reviewed the savings
algorithms used by Idaho Power to verify the accuracy and appropriateness of the savings claimed for each
measure. Specifically, we reviewed each measure to confirm the following:
1. The database savings match program reporting
2. The database includes all variables needed to calculate and evaluate program savings
3. The required variables contain usable data in consistent formats
4. Any formulas used to calculate savings and incentives are accurate
DNV GL also conducted a file review of a sample of the program application files. The file review provided a
more in-depth verification of a statistical sample of projects. We verified the accuracy of data entry by
comparing the field worksheet and database for key elements of the savings calculation such as quantity,
size, efficiency level, and units of measure. We also verified specific calculations and algorithms used in
these applications.
DNV GL selected a stratified random sample with enough projects to achieve a 90/10 statistical precision1
for our realization rate estimate on the sampled projects, using conservative assumptions about the
eventual realization rate achieved and the correlation between the reported savings and the verified savings.
The sample was stratified first by heating system (heat pump or electric furnace). Then within each heating
system type, we created two strata based on the reported savings. We selected random samples from each
stratum. The stratification and sample design are shown in Table 3-1 below.

1 a relative error of no more than 10%, with 90% confidence

DNV GL – www.dnvgl.com November 13, 2019 Page 8

Table 3-1. Sample summary
Stratum Heating
System
Size Sampled
Projects
Sampled
kWh
Total
Projects
Total
kWh
1 Heat pump Small (<900 kWh) 4 1,758 28 16,381
2 Heat pump Large (≥900 kWh) 4 4,822 41 50,984
3 Ele. furnace Small (<1,300 kWH) 5 4,809 71 68,862
4 Ele. furnace Large (≥1,300 kWh) 5 8,707 140 238,257
Total 18 20,096 280 374,484

3.3 Program logic review
Based on the program staff interviews and the review of the program materials, DNV GL developed a logic
model for the program.
3.4 Program materials review
The primary purpose of a program materials review is to provide an objective opinion of the clarity and
effectiveness of those documents. Program documentation is a critical aspect of program planning, project
management, and communication with stakeholders and trade allies. Table 3-2 lists the program materials
we reviewed and the core issues associated with each.
Table 3-2. Materials reviewed and core issues considered
Program
material
Program plan
Is program theory clearly articulated?
Are program objectives articulated; are goals recorded and SMART2?
Are program roles and responsibilities clearly recorded?
Are risks and contingencies recorded?
Are program measures and operations clearly articulated?
Marketing
materials and
websites
Are materials visually appealing?
Are they easy to understand and convey the intended information?
Do they provide a follow-up activity and means to do it?
Do all hyperlinks work?
Trade ally /
subcontractor
instructions,
tools/worksheets
Are the standards/terms by which the trade allies/subcontractors will be evaluated
clearly articulated?
Are tools/worksheets consistent across subcontractors?
Is a communication plan clearly articulated?
Is there a paper trail for information that comes from trade allies and subcontractors
to the utility?

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

DNV GL – www.dnvgl.com November 13, 2019 Page 9

3.5 QA/QC review
DNV GL assessed the adequacy of Idaho Power’s savings verification processes, controls, and procedures.
The goal of the assessment was to ensure that adequate resources are dedicated to quality assurance and
quality control, that the most effective policies are in place, and that those policies are enacted through
appropriate, efficient procedures that are routinely reviewed.
The evaluation team reviewed the program’s procedural documents and example project files, focusing on
situations where savings are verified. We reviewed the quality and adequacy of the verification
documentation, including field data collection sheets and inspection reports.
3.6 Program participant surveys
DNV GL conducted surveys with recent program participants. Although this program evaluation covers the
program’s operations in 2018, Idaho Power preferred that we use a more “up to date” participant list for the
survey. The provided list included 241 customers participating from the period from July 2018 through June
2019. DNV GL attempted a census of these participants using a mixed-mode approach that included a web-
based and phone-based component. All participants with emails received three invitations. All participants
without email addresses, or who did not respond to the email invitations were called 1 or 2 times each. We
completed surveys with 24 customers that participated in the program during this period of time, for a
response rate of 9.5%.
DNV GL developed an instrument to survey (APPENDIX C). DNV GL conducted the surveys online and over
the phone in October 2019. Surveys included questions about program awareness, measure verification,
program experience, energy attitudes, and demographics.
3.7 Market saturation assessment
Program participation has steadily declined in recent years and participation is limited to one service call per
residence for the lifetime of the program. This has led program staff to question whether participation can
be increased going forward. In response to interest from Idaho Power staff, DNV GL investigated the
possibility that the program is reaching saturation.

DNV GL – www.dnvgl.com November 13, 2019 Page 10

4 IMPACT FINDINGS
This section provides detailed findings
on program savings. The impact
evaluation consisted of three primary
activities: reviewing the program
tracking system for accuracy and
completeness, reviewing savings
algorithms for program measures, and
reviewing a sample of project files to
verify that calculations and
assumptions are accurate.
4.1 Tracking system
review
The tracking system savings matched
the reported savings3 of 374,484 kWh.
We assessed the tracking data for whether it contained the necessary data to determine if the appropriate
savings were applied across all measures. We found the database to be mostly complete and well-organized,
with project costs, measure description, and energy savings information filled in for all projects.
There are 5 measure types in the Residential House Calls program database. The savings basis for each
measure is listed in Table 4-1.
Table 4-1: Measure type and savings basis
Measure
PTCS duct sealing RTF: ResMHHeatingCoolingPrescriptiveDuctSeal_v2_0.xlsm, 2015
General purpose LED
direct install RTF: ResLighting_Bulbs_v5_2.xlsm, 2017
Low-flow faucet
aerator 2016 Idaho Power Company Energy Efficiency Potential Study, AEG
Low-flow
showerheads RTF, Showerheads_v3_1.xlsm, 2016
Water heater
pipe covers 2016 Idaho Power Company Energy Efficiency Potential Study, AEG

DNV GL reviewed the savings algorithms for all the measures. The findings for each measure are listed in
Table 4-2.

3 Reported savings were provided in Supplement 1: Cost-Effectiveness Report, Demand-Side Management 2016 Annual Report, Idaho Power
Company, March 15, 2017
Key impact findings
1. The total reported savings for the
program were 374,484 kWh with total
verified savings of 372,207 kWh, for a
realization rate of 0.99.
2. Ex-ante savings calculations were
verified accurate.
3. There were some minor anomalies on the
field worksheets, but tracking data
contained the correct values.

DNV GL – www.dnvgl.com November 13, 2019 Page 11

Table 4-2. Savings algorithm review by measure
PTCS duct sealing
The savings values are consistent with the source. However, the program
used internal definitions for assigning heating zones. The evaluation used the
RTF zones4 based on the daily TMY 3 data. This resulted in 8 projects having a
different heating zone than the tracking value.5 There are 7 projects that are
heating zone 1 in the tracking data but heating zone 2 or 3 in the adjusted
savings. Additionally, there is 1 project that was adjusted from heating zone 2
or 3 to heating zone 1. Heating zone 1 has lower savings than 2 and 3 for
both electric furnace and heat pump heating systems. The net result of this
discrepancy was a minor increase in savings.
General purpose LED
direct install Savings match the source value
Low-flow faucet
aerator
The referenced savings are based on a per household basis. The program
divided the household savings by 2 to determine the per faucet savings. This
approach is reasonable. However, one household received 6 faucet aerators
and several received 3. For the evaluation, savings were capped at the
household savings levels in the source, regardless of the total number of
faucet aerators installed. There are 35 projects with over 2 faucet aerators. It
should be noted that the 2019 program cycle cites savings from the RTF6
aerators measure. This source documents savings per aerator and does not
specify household-savings. Therefore, this adjustment will not be applicable
going forward.
Low-flow
showerheads Savings match the source value
Water heater
pipe covers Savings match the source value
4.2 Project file review
DNV GL received 18 sampled project files for file review and to perform impact savings calculations. For all
the projects, the savings evaluated were the same as the claimed savings.
Findings from the project files review are:
1. The tracking data and the field worksheets were consistent for all fields that were reviewed, with a few
exceptions that could be explained or did not impact the savings.
2. Two field worksheets (ID 2907 and 3013) had showerheads installed but blank showerhead GPM.
Program staff indicated that the trade allies always install the same capacity showerheads. Therefore,
this value could be implied by the trade ally.
3. All field worksheets with heat pump heating systems also had an electric furnace indicated. In these
cases, the primary heating system is heat pump and “furnace” likely referred to electric resistance
emergency heaters. The tracking data correctly indicated that the primary heating system is a heat
pump.

4 We reviewed earlier versions of RTF climate zones based on zip codes are were not able to match them to the IPC climate zone values. For the
evaluation we used the most recent version, RTF_ClimateZoneCalculation_v2_0.xlsm, available at: https://rtf.nwcouncil.org/work-
products/supporting-documents/climate-zones
5 There is an alternative source for heating zone values published on the same day as the RTF source:
https://nwcouncil.app.box.com/v/ClimateZnCristicsTMY3v1-0. If this source is used to confirm heating zones, 25 sites (some overlapping with
the 8 from the other source) would change. This would result in slightly different verified savings and realization rates than those currently
reported.
6 RTF Aerators savings used for 2019 savings can be found here: https://rtf.nwcouncil.org/measure/aerators

DNV GL – www.dnvgl.com November 13, 2019 Page 12

4. For most of the field worksheets for ducts that were not sealed (test only), the reduction in flow in the
tracking data is 100% (except one for one blank). This is likely a result of the values being calculated in
the tracking data, rather than input from the field worksheet. While savings were not claimed for these
tests only field worksheets, it might avoid confusion to leave this field blank or fill in with a value that
denotes “no change” in the databases, for homes where no sealing occurred.
5. There were a few other places where omitted fields were populated in the tracking data. This occurred in
the fan pressure and ring size fields which could be assumed to be the test pressure and the ring size 1
or A ring, respectively.
Given that the inconstancies between the field worksheets and tracking data could all be explained, the
tracking data does not need any additional adjustments based on the project file review for the sample.
After making the adjustments for climate zones for PCTS Duct Sealing, and household savings for faucet
aerators, the total verified savings for the program were 374,484 kWh. The total verified savings is 372,207
kWh, for a realization rate (RR) of 0.99. Because the adjustments were made as part of the tracking system
review, all projects were checked, so there is no sampling error in the total verified savings. The
adjustments are summarized in Table 4-3.
Table 4-3. Evaluated savings adjustments by measure7
Measure
Name kWh/
unit Count Savings,
kWh
Count Savings,
kWh
Electric FAF; Zone 1 972.81 93 90,471 88 85,624
Electric FAF; Zone 2 or 3 1,248.19 96 119,826 101 126,048
Heat Pump; Zone 1 615.06 35 21,527 34 20,910
Heat Pump; Zone2 or 3 875.72 18 15,763 19 16,644
Direct install 25.3 2,357 59,632 2,357 59,632
1.0-1.5 gpm 105.83 300 31,749 264 27,833
2.00 gpm 176.44 66 11,645 66 11,645
1.75 gpm 232.42 48 11,156 48 11,156
Up to 6 ft 127.14 100 12,714 100 12,714 374,484 372,207

7 The total count of PTCS Duct Sealing records that changed zones appears to be 6 in this table, rather than the 8 reported in Table 4-2. This
difference was caused by two switches cancelling each other out.

DNV GL – www.dnvgl.com November 13, 2019 Page 13

5 PROCESS FINDINGS AND TARGETED RECOMMENDATIONS
This section provides detailed findings on
program operations and materials. The
process evaluation included interviews with
program staff, program logic review,
reviewing program documentation,
reviewing the program’s QA/QC procedures,
assessing program marketing materials,
surveys with program participants, and
interviews with the contractors
implementing the program. In this section,
we also offer targeted recommendations for
improving individual materials.
5.1 Program staff and trade ally interviews
The staff IDIs revealed that the program is approximately 17 years old. It started as a pilot in 2002,
attaining full program status in 2003. Program marketing is done primarily by Idaho Power, and consists of
mailers like postcards and targeted digital advertisements (including on Facebook).
The program utilizes two trade allies to perform all of the house calls. Both of these trade allies have been
involved with the program since its inception, and each has their own assigned regions of Idaho Power’s
service territory. Any feedback that program staff have received about these trade allies in the recent past
has been positive. The trade allies themselves were satisfied with the program overall and had no
substantive suggestions for improving the process, delivery, or their communication with Idaho Power.
Program participation has declined over the past few years. Both program staff and the trade allies
speculated that this could be due to market saturation, particularly since participation is limited to one
service call per residence for the lifetime of the program.8
5.2 Program logic review
The program files did not contain a formal logic model. DNV GL generated a draft logic model (Figure 5-1)
based on information found in the program files and the program staff interview.

8 See Section 5.6 for more discussion of market saturation.
Key process findings
1. Trade allies are a key means of
implementing the program.
2. Print collateral was well-done.
3. The program is nearing realistic
saturation of the market.

DNV GL – www.dnvgl.com November 13, 2019 Page 14

Figure 5-1. Residential Energy House Calls logic model

5.3 Program materials review
5.3.1 Program plan
The EHC Program Handbook contains a high-level description of the program. The handbook contains a list
of the personnel related to the program as well as their responsibilities. Measures provided by the program
are listed. Important program processes and operations are outlined in detail, including checking for
previous participation, performing the actual house call, and processing invoices. The handbook also
contains SMART program goals with specific metrics. Finally, the marketing plan within the handbook
includes a SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats) analysis. DNV GL believes this is an
especially effective tool for the program to employ.
The EHC Program Handbook contains most of the basic information DNV GL looks for in this type of
document. However, it does not include a logic model.
Recommendations: DNV GL recommends the following improvements:
· Include a table at the beginning or end that lists the revision history of the document.
· In addition to the process flow diagram, add a graphic that shows a program logic model like the draft
logic model provided by DNV GL.
· Move the SWOT analysis out of the program marketing plan and into a more prominent location within
the handbook.

DNV GL – www.dnvgl.com November 13, 2019 Page 15

5.3.2 Marketing materials and websites
Print collateral
DNV GL reviewed the direct mail postcards provided by Idaho Power. These postcards are well done: they
are visually appealing, effectively communicate the intended information, are easy to understand, have
utility branding and logos, and provide follow-up contact information including valid web URLs and
contractor phone numbers. Materials were printed in both English and Spanish.
Recommendations: DNV GL has one recommendation for these materials:
· According to both the 2014 Program Participant Survey and our own participant survey, the most
prominent reason for participating is to reduce energy bills/costs. Marketing materials should address
these concepts when possible. For example, in addition to emphasizing the dollar value of the free
assessment, stress that participating could save customers significantly on their energy bills in an
ongoing fashion.
Website and digital advertisements
The program’s website is in good condition. It is visually appealing and accurate, conveys the necessary
information, and is easy to navigate with no broken links. The website provides information for customers
about how to apply.
Recommendations: DNV GL has a couple of recommendations for the website:
· Visual appeal could be increased by adding pictures, particularly those of people. The capabilities of the
medium could be better leveraged by linking to videos of success stories if any are available.
· The program website instructs interested customers to contact the certified contractor in their region to
schedule an appointment and includes a list of regions for each contractor. However, customers may be
confused about which contractor to contact if they are on the edge of these regions or do not consider
their home to be located in any of these regions. This potential issue would be alleviated by including a
map of Idaho Power’s service territory and visually illustrating each contractor’s geographical range.
Similar to the print advertisements, the digital ads are likewise well done. The same recommendations apply
to both.
5.3.3 Trade ally / subcontractor instructions, tools/worksheets
The Field Worksheet, a paper form filled out by the contractor during the house call, serves as a checklist of
all necessary information to collect from the homeowner and all required testing and energy efficiency
improvements to make. In addition to this worksheet, the Renter/Owner permission form, Backdraft Letter,
“Thank You” Letter, and Waiting List Letter are all provided to the contractors. All of these forms and letters
are consistent across subcontractors.
Collected data from the house calls is transferred to Idaho Power through the field worksheets via email, so
there is a “paper trail.”
The program does not have a formal plan for communication between the contractors and the utility.
However, this seems unnecessary given that only two contactors perform the house calls and each
contractor has been involved in the program since its inception.
Recommendations: DNV GL has one recommendation for the field worksheet:

DNV GL – www.dnvgl.com November 13, 2019 Page 16

· To avoid potential confusion, add “primary” in front of “heating system” on the field worksheets. The
current labeling of simply “heating system” increases the likelihood of an electric furnace being selected
for a heat pump.
5.4 QA/QC review
Idaho Power performs QA/QC in several ways and at several stages in the program. The program handbook
contains a highly-detailed QA/QC protocol for verifying that homes have not participated in the program
before. It also includes a highly-detailed step-by-step procedure for processing completed field worksheets
into the program tracking data.
Additionally, Idaho Power employs a third-party inspector to inspect 5% of participating homes on an annual
basis for each of the two contractors performing the house calls.9 Program staff do not prescribe which
participating homes are inspected and which are not. The inspection form used by the inspector lists all of
the ways in which the contractors’ work is checked, including additional blower door tests and checking the
number of direct install measures. These inspection forms are then sent to Idaho Power for processing.
5.5 Program participant surveys
This section details findings from the survey of program participants. Idaho Power provided a list of 241
customer participating in the program from July 2018 through June 2019. DNV GL attempted a census of
these participants using a mixed-mode approach that included a web-based and phone-based component.
We completed surveys with 24 customers that participated in the program during this period of time, for a
response rate of 9.5%.
5.5.1 Demographics
We asked a few demographic questions to help Idaho Power characterize the program participants. It should
be noted that these demographics come from only about 10% of program participants, so it is somewhat
difficult to extrapolate these results to the whole population. Results are distributed as follows:
· The participating address was the primary residence for 88% of respondents.
· Household size: one person (22%), two people (43%), three or four (13%), five or more (9%), did not
answer (13%).
· Age of respondents: over 60 (50%), 45-60 (29%), 35-44 (17%), and under 35 (4%). This largely
followed the results from the 2014 Program Participant Survey.
· Education: High school or equivalent (21%), some college (50%), college degree (17%), graduate
degree (13%). This largely followed the results from the 2014 Program Participant Survey.
Additionally, the survey respondents were relatively conscious of their household energy use. When asked
how often they check the usage when receiving their bill, 63% said they do so every time, 25% said they do
so at least half of the time, and only 4% said they never do so.

9 Idaho Power provided DNV GL with a number of inspection forms that was greater than 5% of the total number of participants in program year 2018
for both contractors.

DNV GL – www.dnvgl.com November 13, 2019 Page 17

5.5.2 Program awareness
When asked where they learned about the Energy House Calls program, most respondents either said they
heard about it from a postcard or letter in the mail (38%) or via information in their energy bill (33%). Most
of the remainder said they did not know where they first heard about the program.
Respondents were hoping to realize numerous benefits from participating in the program. Chief among these
benefits was reducing their energy usage or bills, with nearly all (88%) of the respondents saying they
hoped to get this benefit. Others included improving the comfort of their home (42%), receiving the free
duct sealing (33%), and receiving the free energy-saving direct install equipment (25%).
During our interview, program staff said they suspected that the number of direct install (DI) measures
installed per participant had declined in recent years at least in part due to Idaho Power giving away free
energy-saving kits to its customers. A little more than half (58%) of respondents said they received a free
energy-saving kit from Idaho Power before their participation. However, respondents receiving the kits
before participating did not have fewer DI measures installed than the other respondents.
5.5.3 Program experience
While onsite, Energy House Calls contractors install energy-saving measures such as LED light bulbs,
showerheads, and faucet aerators. DNV GL presented the particular set of measures that each survey
respondent received and asked whether any of those measures had been removed. Among the 24 survey
respondents, just one (4%) said they removed any of the items. That participant had removed a kitchen
faucet aerator, saying they did so because it malfunctioned.
After the contractor finishes the energy efficiency improvements, participants receive paperwork detailing
the improvements made. When we asked about this paperwork, two-thirds (67%) of respondents said they
recalled receiving it. Among those that did recall receiving the paperwork, most (88%) said it was easy to
understand and informative regarding the energy performance of their home.
Next, we asked the participants, “Since participating in the Energy House Calls program, have you noticed a
change in the comfort of your home?” Exactly half of the respondents said they had noticed a change.
Among those, one-third said the comfort of their home was “much better than before” and two-thirds said it
was “somewhat better than before.”
In addition to the overall comfort of their home, we asked a multi-response question about the changes the
participants had experienced in their home since participating. The most common response was a reduction
in their energy bill (42%) followed by a noticeable improvement in the temperature regulation of their home
(33%).
5.5.4 Satisfaction
The survey asked all respondents how satisfied they were with a few different aspects of the program
including the scheduling process, the contractor, the free energy-saving improvements they received, and
the program as a whole. Respondents rated their satisfaction on a five-point scale in which 5 meant “very
satisfied” and 1 meant “not at all satisfied.”

DNV GL – www.dnvgl.com November 13, 2019 Page 18

Figure 5-2 shows the percent of respondents that were satisfied (defined as a 4 or 5 on the five-point scale)
with each aspect of the program. Results were generally positive, as satisfaction with the scheduling process
and the contractors were above 90%, and satisfaction with the program overall was 88%. A slightly lower
percentage were satisfied with the free energy-saving improvements themselves. It is worth noting that all
that only one respondent gave a rating less than three to indicate dissatisfaction with the program.
Figure 5-2. Percent of Respondents Satisfied (4 or 5 on Five-Point Scale)

5.5.5 After program
Finally, we asked a few questions about what has happened since respondents participated in the EHC
program. Only a small minority (21%) said they had taken additional energy efficiency actions since
participating. All 5 of those respondents said they completed more building shell-type measures such as
sealing more leaks and replacing old windows and doors. These actions were motivated by further reducing
energy consumption/bills (4 of 5 respondents) and improving the comfort of their home (3 of 5
respondents).
A higher proportion (46%) of the survey respondents said they planned to make more energy efficiency
improvements over the next year or so. Measures they intended to complete included windows (4
respondents), roofs (3), insulation (2), doors (2), furnaces (1), and appliances (1). All 11 respondents who
planned to take more energy efficiency actions over the next 12 months said that initial costs of those
measures had prevented them from making these improvements so far.
5.6 Market saturation assessment
The program staff and the program trade allies suspected that the program is reaching market saturation.
DNV GL investigated a means of assessing program saturation.
The program had approximately 12,000 participants from 2004 to 2018, and homes are only allowed to
participate once. The level of market saturation represented by this participation depends on the total
number of qualifying homes in Idaho Power’s territory. We used two different approaches to estimate the
number of qualifying homes:
96%92%
79%
88%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Scheduling
process
Contractor Energy
efficiency
measures
Program
overall
Pe
r
c
e
n
t

o
f

R
e
s
p
o
n
d
e
n
t
s

DNV GL – www.dnvgl.com November 13, 2019 Page 19

· Based on the US Census10,
· Idaho has about 700,000 housing units.
· Idaho Power serves approximately 475,000 residential customers, so it serves approximately 5/7ths
of the homes in Idaho.
· The US Census11 estimates 54,000 “mobile homes and RVs” in Idaho. This category does not include
some types of manufactured homes. The Census12 further estimates shipments of approximately
1,750 manufactured homes to Idaho between 2014 and 2018. This figure is consistent with a recent
survey of Idaho Power’s customer base, which showed that approximately 11% of Idaho Power’s
customers live in mobile or manufactured homes.
· The US Census estimates approximately 33% of homes in Idaho have electric heat.13
· Thus, using the US Census estimates, results in approximately 13,000 qualifying homes. Saturation
is approximately 92%.
· Based on Idaho Power’s 2016 Residential End-Use Survey,
· 30% of homes in Idaho Power’s service area have electric heat as the primary heat source.
· Of those that listed electricity as their primary heating source, 6% have a mobile home and 14%
have a manufactured home.
· Using these numbers would result in an estimated 22,800 to 28,500 qualified customers. Saturation
is approximately 50%.
The 2016 Residential End-Use Survey utilized a direct, statistically representative sample of Idaho Power’s
customer base. Therefore, the estimates from that survey are probably more accurate than those derived
from the more general US Census numbers.
Using Rogers’ Diffusion of Innovation theory as a model of market saturation14, 50% market share is
attained after the Innovators, Early Adopters, and Early Majority have participated. The next 34% of the
market are considered “Late Majority” who are described as approaching innovation with skepticism. The
final 16% of the market are “Laggards”, who are described as having aversion to change. Thus, the full,
realistic market saturation point for this program is probably somewhere within the “Late Majority” group
that represents the next 34% of the market. Arbitrarily using the halfway point, this suggests that Idaho
Power might expect to recruit approximately 4,000 more participants. Participants will become increasingly
difficult to recruit as later adopters usually have less positive attitudes towards this kind of program.

10 https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ACS_17_5YR_B25001&prodType=table; retrieved 10/15/2019
11 https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ACS_17_1YR_B25024&prodType=table; retrieved 10/08/2019
12 https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/econ/mhs/annual-data.html; retrieved 10/08/2019
13 https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ACS_17_5YR_B25040&prodType=table; retrieved 10/17/2019
14 Rogers, Everett (2003). Diffusion of Innovations, 5th Edition. Simon and Schuster. ISBN 978-0-7432-5823-4.

DNV GL – www.dnvgl.com November 13, 2019 Page 20

6 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This is a mature program (over 15 years old) with a high realization rate (99%). The program processes are
working well and conform to industry best practices. There is evidence to suggest that the decreased
participation rates over the last few years is due to market saturation. This saturation is in part caused by
the restriction that a home can only participate a single time. Key findings included:
1. The total reported savings for the program were 374,484 kWh. DNV GL verified total savings of 372,207
kWh, for a realization rate of 0.99. Differences in savings were due to two measures: one used the
Regional Technical Forum (RTF) heating zones instead of program values for PTCS duct sealing; the
other used household value instead of a per faucet savings beyond 2 faucets.
2. Ex-ante savings calculations were verified accurate.
3. There were some minor anomalies on the field worksheets, but tracking data contained the correct
values for the sampled projects.
4. Trade allies are a key means of implementing the program
5. Print collateral and websites are well-done.
6. The program is nearing realistic saturation of the market. There are approximately 4,000 potential
participants left in Idaho Power territory.
7. The program processes work well and conform to industry best practices.
6.1 Recommendations
Add “primary” in front of “heating system” on the field worksheets. This will avoid the field
worksheet from having both electric furnace and heat pump selected for homes with a heat pump. While the
field worksheet review did not find any discrepancies between the tracking data and the field worksheets,
implementing this change will decrease the likelihood of an electric furnace being selected for a heat pump.
Do not populate 100% leakage reduction in the tracking data for test only field worksheets. This
parameter is not used directly in the savings calculations; however, this inconsistency may cause some
confusion about what work was completed.
Use the latest version of RTF climate zone assignments provided on the RTF website and list all
versions of RTF and other documents used for savings values. This will keep program savings up to
date with the latest available information from RTF, and it will facilitate future evaluations by making it
easier for evaluators to find the references used by the program.
Consider a means of encouraging households that participated in the program years ago to install
LED lighting. Participants up to a few years ago would have received CFLs instead of LED lighting. The
measure life of some of those CFLs has expired at this point and converting those homes to LEDs would
generate some additional savings. It may not be cost-effective to revisit homes only to install LEDs, so some
other form of outreach that funnels past participants into other programs that sponsor LEDs might be the
most effective way to realize these savings.
When possible, program marketing materials should emphasize energy bill and monthly cost
reductions that could result from participation. According to both the 2014 Program Participant Survey

DNV GL – www.dnvgl.com November 13, 2019 Page 21

and our own participant survey, the most prominent reason for customers to participate in the program is to
reduce their energy bills/costs. This is also likely to be a strong selling point for potential participants.
Make some modifications to the program handbook. Add a revision history of the document, a logic
model like the draft that DNV GL created, and move the SWOT analysis to a more prominent location.
Consider making a few slight changes to the program marketing collateral. Visual appeal could be
increased by adding pictures, particularly those of people. Additionally, the capabilities of the medium could
be better leveraged by linking to videos of success stories if any are available.
Include a map on the program website that visually illustrates each contractor’s geographical
range. As it stands, customers may be confused about which contractor to contact if they do not consider
their home to be located in any of the listed regions.

DNV GL – www.dnvgl.com November 13, 2019 Page 22

PROGRAM STAFF INTERVIEW GUIDE

Program Design

1. How are program energy savings goals determined?

Program Delivery

2. Walk us through program delivery.
3. What kind of QA/QC procedures are in place?
4. Who are the trade allies involved with delivery?
5. What (if any) training or education do you provide to trade allies?

Marketing and Outreach

6. The Annual Report is extremely detailed when it comes to marketing. Were there any marketing
activities in 2018 that are not covered in that document?

Measures and Incentives

7. The TRM was updated in August of 2018. How will this affect our evaluation?
8. Other delivery-related things?

Processing, Paperwork, and Barriers

9. Talk about paperwork aspect of the program – how is that going?
10. Are you aware of, or planning, any paperwork or other requirement changes?

Overall Program Assessment

11. What challenges do you face in delivering this program?
12. Are there any other comments or observations you would like to make about the program that haven’t
already been mentioned? Anything that we should know for our evaluation?
13. Are there any particular things you are hoping to learn from our program evaluation?
14. Are there any particular questions you would like us to ask the program participants or trade allies?

DNV GL – www.dnvgl.com November 13, 2019 Page 23

TRADE ALLY INTERVIEW GUIDE
Program Delivery
1) How do you know when it is time to do a “house call”?
a. Do you do any direct marketing/advertising?
b. Do participants contact you directly?
c. Do you get assignments from Idaho Power?
d. Do you have any suggestions for how to make this process work better?
2) You get a call and schedule a time to go visit the home… what do you do when you’re there?
a. Do you do all the work during that initial visit, or do you sometimes have to make more than
one visit?
b. Do you have any ideas for how the onsite process could work better?
c. What are your thoughts on the direct install items that are currently in the program? These
are the light bulbs, showerheads, kitchen and bathroom aerators, and pipe wrap. Do you
think more of these items should be installed or are they unnecessary?
d. Are there any additional energy-saving items you think the program could cost-effectively
add?
3) After you complete the house call, what happens next?
a. What, if any, information do you send back to Idaho Power?
i. How is data recorded? Are any fields pre-filled?
ii. How is the data transferred to Idaho Power?
iii. How satisfied are you with the Field Worksheet?
iv. In your opinion, how could the Field Worksheet or this process be improved?
b. What, if any, follow up do you do with participants?
i. How do participants contact you after the services are performed?
ii. What is the typical nature of these calls?
c. What is the quality assurance process?
i. Do you have any suggestions regarding the QA process?
d. Is there anything else in these post house call activities that you think could go better?
4) I understand the program is only available once, per home, per the lifetime of the program. How
often are you contacted by a home that has already participated and have to refuse servicing the
home?
a. Do you, or does Idaho Power, notify the person that they are ineligible?

DNV GL – www.dnvgl.com November 13, 2019 Page 24

b. Has the frequency of these situations increased in recent years?
General/Communication
5) Who from Idaho Power do you interact with most frequently?
a. What is the frequency and nature of those interactions?
6) Are you satisfied with the level of communication with Idaho Power?
a. If not, how could it be improved?
Wrap-up
7) In your opinion, what aspects of the program are going well?
8) In your opinion, what aspects of the program show room for improvement?
9) Overall, how satisfied are you with the Energy House Calls program?

DNV GL – www.dnvgl.com November 13, 2019 Page 25

PROGRAM PARTICIPANT SURVEY INSTRUMENT

INTRODUCTION

Hello, this is ________ calling on behalf of Idaho Power Company. I’m calling because your
household participated in Idaho Power’s Energy House Calls program, which included a certified
contractor visiting your home, sealing leaks, and installing some energy-saving products. I’d like
to ask some questions about your experience with the program. This should only take about 10
minutes.

[IF ASKED Your responses will be kept confidential and only reported in aggregate.]
[TO CONFIRM LEGITIMACY OF SURVEY, THEY CAN CONTACT Mindi Shodeen AT [phone]]

IN1. What is your name?
[RECORD FIRST and LAST NAME] A1

PROGRAM AWARENESS

A1. How did you learn about the Energy House Calls program provided by Idaho Power?
[ALLOW MULTIPLE RESPONSES]
A2

A2. What benefits were you hoping to get from your participation in the Energy House Calls
program?
[ALLOW MULTIPLE RESPONSES]
A3

A3. Prior to your participation in the Energy House Calls program, did you receive a free
energy-savings kit from Idaho Power that included some energy-saving measures?
1 [Yes] MEASURE
VERIFICATION

MEASURE VERIFICATION

DNV GL – www.dnvgl.com November 13, 2019 Page 26

V1. As part of the Energy House Calls program, the following energy-saving equipment was
installed in your home:

[LIST OF EQUIPMENT]

Since the time they were installed, did you remove any of these items?
PROGRAM EXPERIENCE

[V2 WILL ONLY BE ASKED IF THEY HAVE MORE THAN JUST LEDS, AND ONLY MEAURES IN THE TRACKING
DATA FOR EACH SPECIFIC PARTICIPANT WILL SHOW UP FOR THIS QUESTION]
V2. Which item(s) did you remove?
V3

[V3 AND V4 WILL REPEAT FOR EVERY MEASURE TYPE INDICATED IN V2]
V3. How many [MEASURE TYPE] did you remove?

V4. Is there a specific reason why the [MEASURE TYPE] was/were removed?

PROGRAM EXPERIENCE

P1. After the certified contractor finished with the energy efficiency testing and energy-
saving measures, did you receive a letter with the test results?
P2

P1a. Were the letter and test results easy to understand and informative regarding the energy
performance of your home?

P1b. How could the letter have been more informative or easier to understand?
[RECORD VERBATIM] P2

P2. Since participating in the Energy House Calls program, have you noticed a change in the
comfort of your home?
P3

DNV GL – www.dnvgl.com November 13, 2019 Page 27

P2a. Is the comfort of your home…
4 Much better than before
P3

P3. Have you experienced any of the following in your home since participating in the
program?
[ALLOW MULTIPLE RESPONSES. DO NOT READ.]
P4

P4. After participating in the program, did you make any additional energy efficiency
improvements to your home?
1 [Yes] P4a
2 [No] SATISFACTION

P4a. What energy efficiency improvements did you make?
[RECORD VERBATIM] P4b

P4b. What prompted you to make these additional energy efficiency improvements?
[ALLOW MULTIPLE RESPONSES. DO NOT READ]
P4

SATISFACTION
Next, I have a few questions about how satisfied you were with different aspects of the program.
For all of these questions, use a 5-point scale where 5 means ‘very satisfied’ and 1 means ‘very
dissatisfied.’

S1. How satisfied or dissatisfied were you with the…?

a. Process for scheduling the Energy House Call
b. Certified contractor that made the energy efficiency improvements
c. Energy-saving measures that were performed and installed in your home
d. Energy House Calls program as a whole
1 Very dissatisfied
S2

DNV GL – www.dnvgl.com November 13, 2019 Page 28

[S2 IS ONLY ASKED FOR ANY PROGRAM ASPECT THAT THE RESPONDENT RATES AS LESS THAN A 3]
S2. Why do you say that?
[RECORD VERBATIM] ENERGY
ATTITUDES

ENERGY ATTITUDES

E1. How often do you look at your home’s total energy use when you receive a bill?
1 [Every time]
E2

E2. Do you plan to make new energy efficient improvements in your home in the near future
(in the next 12 months)?
1 [Yes] E2a
2 [No] DEMOGRAPHICS

E2a. What improvements do you plan to make?
[RECORD VERBATIM] E2b
-97 [Don’t know] DEMOGRAPHICS

E2c. What barriers have prevented you from making these improvements?
[RECORD VERBATIM] DEMOGRAPHICS

DEMOGRAPHICS
We’re almost done. I just have a few more questions about the address where the work was
done.

D1. Is <address> your primary residence?
1 [Yes] D1a
2 [No] D2

D1a. Including yourself and children, how many people live at <address>?
D2

D2. What is your age?
D3

DNV GL – www.dnvgl.com November 13, 2019 Page 29

D3. What is the highest level of education you have completed?
1 No schooling
D4

D4. Do you have any additional comments about your experience with the program?
[RECORD VERBATIM] END

THANK & TERMINATE

END. Those are all of the questions I have for you today. Thank you for your time.

ABOUT DNV GL
Driven by our purpose of safeguarding life, property and the environment, DNV GL enables organizations to
advance the safety and sustainability of their business. We provide classification and technical assurance
along with software and independent expert advisory services to the maritime, oil and gas, and energy
industries. We also provide certification services to customers across a wide range of industries. Operating in
more than 100 countries, our 16,000 professionals are dedicated to helping our customers make the world
safer, smarter, and greener.

FINAL REPORT
Idaho Power Residential New
Construction Pilot Program
Evaluation PY2018

Date: December 30, 2019

DNV GL – www.dnvgl.com November 15, 2019 Page i

Table of contents
1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..................................................................................................... 3
1.1 Key findings 3
1.1 Recommendations 4
2 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 5
2.1 Program overview 5
2.2 Evaluation overview 5
2.3 Layout of report 6
3 METHODS ...................................................................................................................... 7
3.1 Program staff interviews 7
3.2 Tracking system and tracking data review 7
3.3 Project file review 7
3.4 Program logic review 8
3.5 Program materials review 8
3.6 QA/QC review 9
3.7 Program participant and trade ally interviews 9
4 IMPACT FINDINGS ........................................................................................................ 10
4.1 Tracking system review 10
4.2 Tracking data review 10
4.3 Project file review 11
4.4 Impact Results 12
5 PROCESS FINDINGS AND TARGETED RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................ 14
5.1 Program staff interview 14
5.2 Program logic review 14
5.3 Program materials review 15
5.4 QA/QC review 17
5.5 Program participant and trade ally interviews 17
6 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................ 21
6.1 Recommendations 21
PROGRAM STAFF INTERVIEW GUIDE ...................................................................... 23
TRADE ALLY INTERVIEW GUIDE ............................................................................. 24
PROGRAM PARTICIPANT INTERVIEW GUIDE ............................................................ 26

List of figures

Figure 5-1. Residential New Construction program logic model ............................................................. 15
Figure 5-2. Home outline graphic used in digital ads ........................................................................... 16

DNV GL – www.dnvgl.com November 15, 2019 Page ii

List of tables

Table 3-1. Sample summary .............................................................................................................. 8
Table 3-2. Materials reviewed and core issues considered ...................................................................... 8
Table 4-1. Sampled Homes’ Consumption vs. Baselines ....................................................................... 12
Table 4-2. Sampled Homes’ Characteristics ........................................................................................ 13

DNV GL – www.dnvgl.com November 15, 2019 Page 3

1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report presents findings and recommendations from an impact and process evaluation of Idaho Power’s
Residential New Construction pilot program. The evaluation covers the program’s operations in 2018.
DNV GL’s objectives for the impact portion of the evaluation were to determine and verify the energy (kWh)
impacts attributable to the 2018 program, provide credible and reliable ex-post realization rates, and offer
recommendations to enhance the effectiveness of future ex-ante savings analysis and the accuracy and
transparency of program savings. To meet these objectives, DNV GL conducted interviews with program
staff, reviewed the tracking system, and reviewed savings algorithms.
Our objectives for the process portion of the evaluation were to assess program design, logic, and
operations and compare to industry best practices, and offer recommendations to improve the delivery of
the program.
Evaluation activities included:
· Semi-structured interviews with program staff
· Review of program tracking systems
· Review of program logic, files, and materials
· Review of savings algorithms
· Computation of verified savings and realization rates
· Review of QA/QC procedures
1.1 Key findings
The total reported savings for the program were 777,369 kWh with total verified savings of 777,369 kWh,
for a realization rate of 100%. With two minor exceptions, the tracking system contained the information
necessary to perform the evaluation. Additional findings from the impact evaluation included the following:
The database provided to us was missing some critical, and non-critical, parameters from the implementer’s
internal tracking systems (AXIS) which would have increased transparency and expedited the evaluation.
Discussions with IPC confirmed that this situation affected some of the projects specifically reviewed by
evaluators. The AXIS database creator had updated the database software before the evaluation
commenced. The update included the addition of all of the parameters requested by evaluators. Some of
the projects requested for the evaluation were among the first homes certified and were certified before the
AXIS software update, which is why some projects were lacking the parameters.
The key process findings include:
1. Trade allies (raters) are a key means of implementing the program.
2. Program documentation was good and should be converted into a fully-fledged program handbook if the
program moves from pilot to fully-fledged program.
3. Marketing collateral was well-done, but minor improvements are possible.
4. Raters and builders are satisfied with the program administration.

DNV GL – www.dnvgl.com November 15, 2019 Page 4

1.1 Recommendations
Review the tracking database regularly to ensure that all parameters have reasonable and
accurate values. This will improve program transparency and increase the accuracy and speed of
evaluations.
Clearly document the sources for the program’s baseline energy standards. This will also increase
transparency and expedite future evaluations.
If the pilot becomes a fully-fledged program, add to the program marketing plan document to
make it a true program handbook. The handbook should include all of the information in the 2019
Marketing Plan document, plus a logic model, description of program activities, and a listing of the
stakeholders involved.
DNV GL has two recommendations for the marketing materials:
· Ensure all hyperlinks on marketing materials work.
· If possible, track the number of clicks for each digital advertisement. Especially for a program such as
this in the pilot stage, this would yield valuable information that would help guide effective graphics and
messaging for future marketing materials.
Add content to the program website. A “success stories” section of the website that includes
testimonials and endorsements by participating builders and current residents could help sell the program.
Idaho Power already has some of this content in other marketing materials.
Add a URL to the program brochure that links builders with specific contact information for the
raters. The instructions in the program brochure say to hire a RESNET-certified HERS Rater recognized by
Idaho Power without specifically listing which raters are recognized or how to contact them. Because the list
of approved HERS Raters may change over time, future iterations of the brochure could include a footnote
or other note indicating that builders should visit the program website (which can be changed much more
easily) for a list of approved raters along with contact information.
A few changes could improve the application form:
· Be more specific about program requirements on the website and application form by clarifying that
builders with multiple units may submit only one application with an attached list of homes and by using
language such as “at least 20 percent more energy efficient than homes built to standard state energy
code.”
· Modify the name of the application form PDF on the program website from “termsConditions.pdf” to
something more specific such as “IdahoPowerResNCApplication”.

DNV GL – www.dnvgl.com November 15, 2019 Page 5

2 INTRODUCTION
2.1 Program overview
The Residential New Construction Pilot Program began in March 2018, having replaced the ENERGY STAR®
Northwest Homes Program (which was initiated in 2003). The program objective is to increase the efficiency
of newly-constructed residential single-family homes, offering a $1,500 incentive for home builders for each
qualifying home (or unit) constructed.1
Qualifying homes must meet strict requirements, including the use of heat pump technology, that make
their energy performance at least 20% better than homes built to the state energy code.2 These homes
additionally may feature high-efficiency windows, increased insulation values, and tighter building shells to
improve comfort and save energy. Idaho Power claims energy savings based on each home’s individual
modeled savings.
Builders must work with a Residential Energy Services Network (RESNET)-certified Home Energy Rating
System (HERS) Rater to ensure program qualification. These raters work with the builders, perform the
required energy modeling using REM/Rate modeling software, perform site inspections and tests, and submit
all required technical documentation in the REM/Rate modeling software and the AXIS database. This
database, which is maintained by Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance (NEEA), allows Idaho Power to track
and review project information to determine if program requirements are met.
Homes for which construction was started prior to January 31, 2018 and finished by the end of the year
qualified for the ENERGY STAR® Northwest Homes Program and incentive. Homes which started
construction on March 1, 2018 or later qualified for the Residential New Construction Pilot. Altogether, these
programs claimed 307 participants (homes) resulting in 777,369 kWh savings in 2018.
2.2 Evaluation overview
DNV GL conducted an impact and process evaluation. The key objectives of the impact evaluation included:
· Determine and verify the energy (kWh) impacts attributable to the 2018 program. Ex-ante savings
estimates are determined using various sources including the Regional Technical Forum (RTF) deemed
savings, and internal/external engineering.
· Provide credible and reliable program energy impact estimates and ex-post realization rates for the 2018
program year.
· Report findings and observations and provide recommendations that enhance the effectiveness of future
ex-ante savings analysis and the accurate and transparent reporting of program savings.
The key objectives of the process evaluation included:
· Evaluate program design including program mission, logic, and use of industry best practices.
· Evaluate program implementation including quality control, operational practice, and outreach.
· Evaluate program administration including program oversight, staffing, management, training,
documentation and reporting.
· Report findings and observations and recommendations to enhance program effectiveness.

1 The incentive offered through the ENERGY STAR® Northwest Homes Program was $1,000.
2 The energy performance criteria for the ENERGY STAR® Northwest Homes Program was 15% better than state energy code.

DNV GL – www.dnvgl.com November 15, 2019 Page 6

To achieve these objectives, DNV GL conducted:
· Semi-structured interviews with program staff
· Tracking system review
· Project file review
· Program materials review
· Review of savings algorithms
· Program logic review
· QA/QC review
2.3 Layout of report
The remainder of this report is organized into the following sections:
Section 3. Methods – describes the evaluation activities in detail
Section 4. Impact findings – reports findings relevant to verification of program savings
Section 5. Process findings – reports findings relevant to program processes and materials
Section 6. Conclusions and recommendations – lays out the key findings and provides recommendations for
program improvement

DNV GL – www.dnvgl.com November 15, 2019 Page 7

3 METHODS
This section provides detailed descriptions of the methods DNV GL used to evaluate the program.
3.1 Program staff interviews
DNV GL conducted interviews (IDIs) with Idaho Power program staff, to understand:
· Program history
· How the program is delivered
· Program logic and objectives
· The perceived strengths and weaknesses of the program
· What the program staff wants or needs from the evaluation
DNV GL developed instruments to guide the IDIs (0). Senior DNV GL staff conducted the IDIs over the
phone in June 2019.
3.2 Tracking system and tracking data review
DNV GL assessed the program’s database, its fields, their use, and the accuracy of the data. To ensure that
the data can support program administration and oversight, program evaluation, and regulatory reporting,
we assessed the accuracy of the data entry and individual measure savings values, and conducted a broader
assessment of the various ways the tracking information is used.
DNV GL assessed the program database along four major areas, asking the following questions:
· Structure: Does the database contain all needed fields to track programs, perform evaluations, and
calculate savings?
· Completeness: Are required fields populated with usable data?
· Quality: Are the data in a format that enables analysis and reporting? Do they have consistent,
identified units and mutually exclusive categories?
· Accuracy: Does the database accurately calculate program savings that are consistent with deemed
measure algorithms? DNV GL reviewed the sampled projects to determine this.
3.3 Project file review
DNV GL also conducted a file review of a sample of the program application files. The file review provided a
more in-depth verification of a statistical sample of projects. We verified the accuracy of data entry by
comparing the field worksheet and database for key elements of the savings calculation such as quantity,
size, efficiency level, and units of measure. We also verified specific calculations and algorithms used in
these applications.
For the Residential New Construction program, the year was split between the legacy program and the new
pilot. Because the evaluation was focused on the program as it will be operated going forward, we sampled
only from the pilot participants. From those participants, DNV GL selected a stratified random sample with
enough projects to achieve a 90/10 statistical precision3 for the realization rate estimate on the sampled
projects, using conservative assumptions about the eventual realization rate achieved and the correlation
between the reported savings and the verified savings. Because there were participants from only three

3 a relative error of no more than 10%, with 90% confidence

DNV GL – www.dnvgl.com November 15, 2019 Page 8

housing developments, the sample was stratified by development, with random samples selected
approximately proportionally from each development. The stratification and sample design are shown in
Table 3-1 below.
Table 3-1. Sample summary
Stratum Development Sampled
Projects
Sampled
kWh
Total
Projects
Total kWh
1 Idaho Street Townhomes 2 4,348 5 11,560
2 40th Street Cottages 3 12,004 7 30,054
3 Village Oaks 2 14,560 3 23,275
Total 7 30,912 15 64,889

3.4 Program logic review
Based on the program staff interviews and the review of the program materials, DNV GL developed a logic
model for the program.
3.5 Program materials review
The primary purpose of a program materials review is to provide an objective opinion of the clarity and
effectiveness of those documents. Program documentation is a critical aspect of program planning, project
management, and communication with stakeholders and trade allies. Table 3-2 lists the program materials
we reviewed and the core questions associated with each.
Table 3-2. Materials reviewed and core issues considered
Program
material
Program plan
Is program theory clearly articulated?
Are program objectives articulated; are goals recorded and SMART4?
Are program roles and responsibilities clearly recorded?
Are risks and contingencies recorded?
Are program measures and operations clearly articulated?
Marketing
materials and
websites
Are materials visually appealing?
Are they easy to understand and convey the intended information?
Do they provide a follow-up activity and means to do it?
Do all hyperlinks work?
Trade ally /
subcontractor
instructions,
tools/worksheets
Are the standards/terms by which the trade allies/subcontractors will be evaluated
clearly articulated?
Are tools/worksheets consistent across subcontractors?
Is a communication plan clearly articulated?
Is there a paper trail for information that comes from trade allies and subcontractors
to the utility?
Application forms
Do they cover the minimal information necessary?
Are instructions available and clear?
Are they easy to follow and fill out?

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

DNV GL – www.dnvgl.com November 15, 2019 Page 9

3.6 QA/QC review
DNV GL assessed the adequacy of Idaho Power’s savings verification procedures. The goal of the
assessment was to ensure that adequate resources are dedicated to quality assurance and quality control
and that the most effective policies are in place.
3.7 Program participant and trade ally interviews
DNV GL completed IDIs with five of the six builders that had participated in the program as of June 2019 in
addition to all three RESNET-certified HERS Raters recognized by Idaho Power. These interviews were
intended to cover the following topics:
· Program delivery
· Communication and interaction with the program
· Satisfaction
· Recommendations for improvement
DNV GL developed instruments to guide the IDIs (APPENDIX B and APPENDIX C). DNV GL staff conducted
the IDIs over the phone in September 2019.

DNV GL – www.dnvgl.com November 15, 2019 Page 10

4 IMPACT FINDINGS
This section provides detailed findings on program savings. The impact evaluation consisted of three primary
activities: reviewing the program tracking system for accuracy and completeness, and reviewing a sample of
project files to verify that calculations and assumptions are accurate.
4.1 Tracking system review
The tracking system savings matched the
reported savings5 of 777,369 kWh.
We assessed the tracking data to determine if
it contained the necessary data to verify the
DSM report’s total program savings and to
determine if the data included was
intelligible, reasonable, and complete. There
were no savings algorithms nor inputs
utilized in energy savings algorithms found in
the database. We found the database to be
fairly complete and well-organized, with
project costs, measure description, and energy savings information filled in for all projects. The database
provided to us was missing some critical, and non-critical, parameters from the implementer’s internal
tracking systems (AXIS) which would have increased transparency and expedited the evaluation. The AXIS
database creator had updated the database software before the evaluation commenced. The update
included the addition of all of the parameters referred to below. Some of the projects requested for the
evaluation were among the first homes certified and were certified before the AXIS software update, which
is why some of the projects were lacking the parameters. The critical parameters were:
· As-built total consumption: Energy consumption (MMBtu) of the built home
· Reference total consumption: Energy consumption (MMBtu) of the reference baseline home
· Percent improvement: Percent difference between as-built and reference consumption.
Non-critical, but useful, parameters were:
· Style: Type of residence (single-family stand-alone, multifamily, etc.)
· Foundation type: Style of the residence’s base construction (basement, slab, etc.)
· Conditioned area (ft2): The residence’s climate controlled
· Primary heating: The main heating source for occupant comfort (electric air-source heat pump, etc.)
4.2 Tracking data review
The program database covers two distinct programs, a legacy Residential ENERGY STAR program that was
discontinued, and its replacement the Residential New Construction program that is currently operational.
The savings for the projects under these programs are not deemed savings from the Regional Technical

5 Reported savings were provided in Appendix 3. 2018 DSM program activity, Demand-Side Management 2019 Annual Report, Idaho Power Company,
March 15, 2019

Key impact findings
1. The total reported savings for the
program were 777,369 kWh with
total verified savings of 777,369
kWh, for a realization rate of 100%.
2. The tracking system contained the
information necessary to perform the
evaluation.

DNV GL – www.dnvgl.com November 15, 2019 Page 11

Forum’s (RTF) Unit Energy Savings (UES) library6 or Idaho Power’s Technical Reference Manual7 (TRM) but
instead calculated with REM/RateTM software8 which is an industry standard tool for home performance
rating. The tracking data contained the necessary data to verify the DSM report’s total program savings and
it was intelligible and reasonable.
4.3 Project file review
DNV GL received 7 sampled project files for file review. Because the program uses a third party’s proprietary
software DNV GL was unable to review the savings algorithms utilized in the REM/RateTM software. The
documentation received included: Project Location, Dates, Building Characteristics such as dimensions,
HVAC, lighting, DHW, etc. The documentation received was compared against the data in the tracking
databases, and no discrepancies were found.
Review of site documents revealed two sites with as-built and reference energy consumption values of 0
MMBtu; these values were illogical as neither site had renewable generation (solar, wind, etc.) off-setting
their usage. The reason for these erroneous values is that the “as-built consumption” and “reference
consumption” parameters were added to the program’s AXIS database after the projects were submitted.
Calculations for older projects are locked during updates to the AXIS database so they are not accidently
changed, but when new parameters are added to the database, they receive a zero value for locked
projects. DNV GL recommends that the database be reviewed regularly to ensure that all parameters have
reasonable and accurate values, which will improve program transparency and increase the accuracy and
speed of evaluations.
All other sampled sites qualified for program incentives based upon the documentation received because
their as-built energy consumption was 20% (or lower) than the reference baseline consumption. However,
the program’s baseline energy standard was not clearly defined in any of the documentation provided to the
evaluators. After a discussion with IPC about Idaho’s regulatory environment it was determined that the
program’s baseline is the residential new construction standards9 set forth by the Regional Technical Forum
(RTF). It was also unclear whether the documented consumption values represented site-energy, the
electrical energy consumed by the end-user, or source-energy, the energy consumed by the generation
facility to create electricity. IPC was able to confirm that the values are for site-energy consumption. Review
of the RTF standard revealed that the RTF standard has two different heating system baselines:
· Homes with ducted central heating utilize an 80/20 mix of ASHP and electric furnaces.
· Homes with non-ducted zone heating utilize electric resistance heaters.
The specifics of the baseline heating systems (capacities, efficiencies, etc.) were not detailed in either the
program supplied documentation nor the RTF standard for new homes. DNV GL recommends that
information concerning the programs’ baseline energy standards be clearly documented for increased
transparency and to expedite future evaluations.

6 The standard used to verify and evaluate energy efficiency savings created by The Regional Technical Forum; https://rtf.nwcouncil.org/
7 The TRM is created by a third party for Idaho Power to evaluate energy efficiency measures’ savings and costs;
https://www.idahopower.com/energy-environment/ways-to-save/energy-efficiency-program-reports/
8 REM/Rate™ and REM/Design™ desktop applications have been the industry standard for the Home Energy Rating System (HERS®) and home
energy analysis/weatherization; http://www.remrate.com/
9 Regional Technical Forum. (2016, December 6). Standard Savings Estimation Protocol: New Homes Standard Protocol. Retrieved October 6, 2019
from "https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fnwcouncil.app.box.com%2Fv%2FNewHomesProtocol-v1-
1&data=02%7C01%7CEdilson.Abreu%40dnvgl.com%7C6ef1d192486d45171c9508d74cfbf2be%7Cadf10e2bb6e941d6be2fc12bb566019c%7C1
%7C0%7C637062517307401973"

DNV GL – www.dnvgl.com November 15, 2019 Page 12

The International Energy Conservation Code® (IECC®) 2009 edition was determined to be minimum energy
standard in Idaho. Residential Prototype Building Models created by The Pacific Northwest National
Laboratory (PNNL), under the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), for single-family residences in Boise Idaho
were used to check the sensibility of the program’s RTF baseline.
4.4 Impact Results
After selecting DOE models with appropriate heating systems all but one of the sampled sites (Site 14) have
as-built consumption that were 20% (or better) than the DOE baseline model. The DOE models were used
only as references to check the reasonability of the programs’ reference baselines. Seven out of eight of the
sampled sites met or exceeded the DOE baseline evaluators used for the reasonableness check. Table 4-1
shows the as-built, ex-ante baseline, and ex-post baseline for each site, and shows the performance of each
sample site over the various baselines. The median as-built consumption is 58% better than the ex-post
baseline, and 31% better than the ex-ante baselines. The as-built consumption out-performs both baselines
by more than the 20% minimum set by the program, therefore the ex-ante baselines and ex-ante savings
are deemed reasonable, and the realization rate for sampled sites is 100%. Table 4-2 lists the
characteristics of the sampled homes.
Table 4-1. Sampled Homes’ Consumption vs. Baselines
NHID
Tracked
Savings
(kWh)
As-Built
(MMBtu/Sq.
ft.)
Ex-Ante
Baseline
(MMBtu/Sq.
ft.)
Ex-Post
Baseline
(MMBtu/Sq.
ft.)
As-Built vs
Ex-Ante
Baseline
As-Built vs
Ex-Post
Baseline
14 2,810 0.0388 0.0540 0.044 28%12%
7 4,430 0.0352 0.0512 0.044 31%20%
20 4,764 0.0354 0.0530 0.044 33%20%
1 2,174 0.0204 0.0257 0.048 21%58%
2 2,174 0.0204 0.0257 0.048 21%58%
12 5,996 0.0185 0.0300 0.044 38%58%
11 8,564 0.0185 0.0365 0.044 49%58%
Total or
Median 30,912 0.0204 0.0365 0.044 31%58%

DNV GL – www.dnvgl.com November 15, 2019 Page 13

Table 4-2. Sampled Homes’ Characteristics
NHID
Conditioned
Area (sq.
ft.)
Foundation
Type
Heating
System
Baseline Heating System
14 678 Slab Electric ASHP Ductless Zonal - Electric Resistance
7 938 Slab Electric ASHP Ductless Zonal - Electric Resistance
20 938 Slab Electric ASHP Ductless Zonal - Electric Resistance
1 1,524 Enclosed
crawl space Electric ASHP Ducted Central Heating - 80/20
ASHP and Electric Furnace
2 1,524 Enclosed
crawl space Electric ASHP Ducted Central Heating - 80/20
ASHP and Electric Furnace
12 1,870 Slab Electric ASHP Ductless Zonal - Electric Resistance
11 1,927 Slab Electric ASHP Ductless Zonal - Electric Resistance
Total (Median) (1,524)---

DNV GL – www.dnvgl.com November 15, 2019 Page 14

5 PROCESS FINDINGS AND TARGETED RECOMMENDATIONS
This section provides detailed findings on program operations and materials. The process evaluation
included interviews with program staff, review of program logic, review of program documentation, review
of the program’s QA/QC procedures, assessing program marketing materials, and interviews with trade
allies and program participants. In this section, we also offer targeted recommendations for improving the
program.
5.1 Program staff
interview
The program staff interview revealed that
the Residential New Construction Pilot
program was created as a result of the
ENERGY STAR® Northwest Homes
Program ending. While the previous
program utilized a “checkbox” approach in
which instituting each measure produced
deemed savings, the new pilot program
utilizes a more open-ended, whole-home
approach that allows builders more
leeway in design and construction of
homes to meet the overall target of 20% energy performance above code. The incentive for each qualifying
home constructed is $1,500, which was set strategically by Idaho Power to be both low enough to meet
cost-effectiveness and high enough to “get builders’ attention.”
Idaho Power markets the program through the Idaho Building Contractors Association (IBCA) and several of
its local affiliates throughout its service area while also participating in builder’s expos. It also sponsors
Parade of Homes through customer bill inserts, puts print and digital advertisements in the Idaho Business
Review, and offers program brochures on their website.
While Idaho Power’s marketing is important in bringing in builders, the utility recognizes that trade allies
(namely, the 3 HERS Raters involved in the program as of June 2019) are crucial in both increasing
participation and achieving the desired energy savings. Raters each bring along with them longstanding
relationships with several builders. They guide builders through the construction process, ensure the homes
meet program requirements, and submit the modeling and testing data to Idaho Power.
According to program staff, the biggest challenge to program success is a housing boom that is underway in
parts of Idaho is encouraging high-volume homebuilders to produce and sell “cookie-cutter” homes as
quickly as possible and not strongly consider the energy efficiency or fuel source of those homes. The
perception by program staff was that builders that did not already have a disposition or philosophy towards
“green” building were not yet participating in the pilot.
5.2 Program logic review
The program files did not contain a formal logic model. DNV GL generated a draft logic model (Figure 5-1)
based on information found in the program files and the program staff interview.
Key process findings
1. Trade allies (raters) are a key means of
implementing the program
2. Program documentation was good but
should be increased if the program
moves from pilot to fully-fledged program
3. Marketing collateral was well-done, but
minor improvements are possible.
4. Raters and builders are satisfied with the
program administration.

DNV GL – www.dnvgl.com November 15, 2019 Page 15

Figure 5-1. Residential New Construction program logic model

5.3 Program materials review
Program plan
As the Residential New Construction program is still in the pilot stage, it does not yet have a formal or
official written program handbook. Idaho Power’s 2019 Marketing Plan document serves as the closest thing
to a de facto program plan, as it contains some of the types of information that DNV GL looks for in this type
of document. These include metrics for success, research background, a Strengths, Weaknesses,
Opportunities, and Threats (SWOT) analysis, and marketing and messaging strategies. However, it does not
include a detailed description of program operations or a clearly-delineated description of program roles and
responsibilities, which we would expect in a formal program handbook.
Recommendations: DNV GL recommends the following:
· Particularly if the pilot becomes a fully-fledged program, Idaho Power should make a program
handbook. It would include all of the information in the 2019 Marketing Plan document, plus a logic
model, description of program activities, and a listing of the stakeholders involved.
Marketing materials and websites
Marketing materials
DNV GL reviewed marketing materials that covered the Residential New Construction program in 2018 and
2019, including a feature in one edition of the Connections publication, a column in one edition of the weekly
News Scans publication, a bill insert, and other web advertisements. As a whole, these advertisements are
well done: they are visually appealing, effectively communicate the intended information, are easy to
understand, have utility branding and logos, and provide web URLs to learn more about the program. The
Connections and News Scans advertisements are particularly effective, offering testimonials from
Inputs Outputs
Activities Participation
Outcomes
Short Medium Long
Idaho
Power
invests:
Staff time
Marketing
resources
Incentives
paid to
builders
Idaho Power
does:
Marketing to
builders and
residential
customers
Engage trade
allies (raters)
Review and
approve savings
estimates
Inspect some
participating
homes (through
3rd party)
Idaho Power
reaches:
Builders
Customers
Trade allies
Short
term
Improve
efficiency
of newly-
construct’d
electrically-
heated
homes in
service
territory
Long term
Keep rates
low
Minimize
environ-
mental
impact
Improve
customer
satisfaction
Avoid/
defer
building
new
generation
Mid term
Energy
savings
Summer
peak
demand
reduction
Assumptions
Homebuilders generally
do not prioritize energy
efficiency.
Electrically-heated
home construction is
not common, especially
with low gas prices.
External Factors
All high-efficiency
design and construction
decisions made by
builders and raters.
Evaluation
Process: 2019
Impact: 2019

DNV GL – www.dnvgl.com November 15, 2019 Page 16

participating builders and pictures of those builders smiling in front of homes being constructed. Several of
the advertisements use the same home outline graphic (Figure 5-2), which allows for brand recognition
among customers and builders.
Figure 5-2. Home outline graphic used in digital ads

Recommendations: DNV GL has two recommendations for the marketing materials:
· Ensure all hyperlinks on marketing materials work.
· If possible, track the number of clicks for each digital advertisement. Especially for a program such as
this in the pilot stage, this would yield valuable information that would help guide effective graphics and
messaging for future marketing materials.
Program website
The program’s website is in good condition. It is visually appealing and conveys all of the necessary
information including: incentives, qualifications, eligibility, and how to apply. All of the hyperlinks, including
links to the websites of each of the recognized HERS Raters, work.
Recommendation: While the program website is completely functional, its effectiveness could be improved
by leveraging the testimonials included in marketing materials (described above). This could be included
under a heading called “success stories,” and could include endorsements by the participating builders and
as well as testimonials from residents that now live in participating homes.
Trade ally / subcontractor instructions, tools/worksheets
DNV GL reviewed the 2018 program brochure that is targeted towards builders. It is a very comprehensive
document, essentially providing the exact same information as the main program website. Program steps,
requirements, and who builders should communicate with are clearly laid out in this document.
Recommendation: In the “How to Apply” section of the brochure (page 3), the instructions say to hire a
RESNET-certified HERS Rater recognized by Idaho Power. However, the brochure does not specifically call
out which raters are recognized or how to contact them. Since the list of approved HERS Raters may change
over time, future iterations of the brochure should include a footnote or other note indicating that builders
should visit the program website (which can be changed much more easily) for a list of approved raters.
All HERS Raters working with the program are required to use the REM/Rate modeling tool. This is a very
commonly-used software tool for this purpose.

DNV GL – www.dnvgl.com November 15, 2019 Page 17

Application forms
DNV GL reviewed the Residential New Construction application form10, which is available on the program
website. The application is simple, covering the information necessary for program functioning. The form is
easy to fill out and can be done either electronically or on paper. Instructions for filling out and transmitting
the form to Idaho Power (via email and traditional mail) are clear. A separate application form must be filled
out for each qualifying home that builders construct.
Recommendations: DNV GL has some recommendations for the application form:
· Be more specific about program requirements on the program website and the application form.
— Currently, the website states that, “An application is required for each home you are applying for an
incentive on.” This language could be misconstrued such that builders of side-by-side townhomes or
condos may think they would have to submit a separate application for each individual residence.
According to Idaho Power, builders with multiple homes are allowed to fill out one application and
simply attach a list of those homes in these situations. This could be made clearer on the website.
— Currently, the application form simply states that homes must be “20% above Idaho energy code.”
This is less clear than stated in other places like the program website and the builder brochure, the
latter of which states that homes must be “at least 20 percent more energy efficient than homes
built to standard state energy code.” If the current application is a builder’s first introduction to the
program, there may be confusion about the exact requirement.
· Modify the name of the application form PDF on the program website. The application form is currently
titled “termsConditions.pdf”. When builders or raters download the PDF application form, it would be
easier to track and locate if it were titled something more specific such as
“IdahoPowerResNCApplication”.
5.4 QA/QC review
HERS Raters upload the REM/Rate data for each participating home into the regional AXIS database, which
is managed by CLEAResult. A technical resource within CLEAResult checks the data input from the raters. As
of our June 2019 interview with program staff, the program performed QA/QC on the first five completed
files that each rater turned in, and 20% of the files for each rater thereafter. A third-party conducts physical
QA/QC on the first three built homes for each builder and 10% of the homes after that. These 20% and 10%
numbers are subject to increase for raters and builders for which the inspectors uncover recurring issues.
These protocols confirm to industry best practices.
5.5 Program participant and trade ally interviews
This section details findings from the IDIs with participating builders and HERS Raters.
Program awareness and recruiting
The program leverages its relationship with the approved HERS Raters to spread awareness of program
incentives through their network of builders. Unsurprisingly, four of the five participating builders said they
heard about the program from the raters they work with. The other builder heard about the program directly

10 According to program staff, the application form from the 2018 program year was modified slightly for the 2019 program year. In this section, we
review the 2019 application.

DNV GL – www.dnvgl.com November 15, 2019 Page 18

from Idaho Power. Raters said they typically only “pitch” the program and incentives to builders if they are
actively considering or have already decided to heat the home(s) with electric heat.
We asked the builders what motivated them to participate and build homes that would meet the program
requirements. We also inquired about whether the program or the financial incentives drove their decisions
to build these homes with electric heat. The builders’ responses to these questions helped uncover the fact
that all five were already inclined to participate in a program like this. Four of the five said that these homes
or developments were going to be electrically-heated regardless of the program, and all five gave some
version of the same story: their company cares about constructing energy-efficient homes, they are
generally environmentally-motivated, or their philosophies align with program goals.
Program delivery and communication
As mentioned previously, once a builder agrees to participate, they work closely with and rely heavily on the
HERS Rater to ensure the home will meet the minimum energy performance. All five of the builders
described this as a smooth process in which their rater did all of the “heavy lifting” as it relates to the
program. All were satisfied with this arrangement and their individual raters.
As for the three HERS raters themselves, they were generally satisfied with the program processes and the
tools and software used. Two of the three raters mentioned (as relatively minor annoyances) some glitches
with uploading data from the REM/Rate software to the AXIS database. One HERS Rater said that they
wished they had more training or assistance with the REM/Rate software. As the pilot grows, and especially
if Idaho Power intends to make it a fully-fledged program, it may want to consider offering more training or
resources for HERS Raters that may be less familiar with this specific software option.
Asked about their interactions and communication with Idaho Power, all three HERS Raters said they
interact with the same program manager. They generally spoke highly of their communication with Idaho
Power. “You get answers within a small amount of time. Everybody seems friendly and nice,” said one.
Another said, “When I do have problems, they give me the information I need immediately.”
Program requirements and incentives
We asked all of the builders and HERS Raters the same question: ”How difficult is it for builders to attain the
program requirement of 20% more energy efficient than state building code?” All eight of the program
actors said that reaching this threshold was not very difficult. Most importantly, all of the builders said they
already build energy-efficient homes, and meeting this requirement only involves some incremental changes
to the typical home they construct.
Interestingly, however, four of the five builders said the homes they constructed that were incentivized by
the pilot were more energy-efficient than those same homes would have been in the absence of the
program. So while the program requirements were relatively easy to attain, those incremental
improvements would likely not have been completed if not for the pilot.
We also asked the builders whether the current financial incentive - $1,500 for each qualifying home – was
adequate to encourage builders to construct homes to the higher program requirement. Most (four of the
five) builders thought the incentive was a good start, but that a slight increase would more strongly make
the financial case to builders. One said they thought $2,000 was a more adequate level, two said that
around $2,500 was more in line, and one thought $3,000 was adequate. The rationale among a couple of
these builders was that the additional work done by the HERS Raters for meeting this standard cut into the
value of the incentive, and pushing it up would better cover these costs.

DNV GL – www.dnvgl.com November 15, 2019 Page 19

Barriers and motivation
Participating builders discussed a variety of barriers for other builders to participate in the program, but
most agreed on the biggest issue. Four of the five builders said that the biggest issue is other builders (as
well as subcontractors that perform much of the work) being “stuck in their ways” and desiring to stay in
their “comfort zone.” According to participating builders, learning new ways of performing their work (such
as HVAC contractors learning how to install ductless systems) requires an investment of time and resources
that most are not willing to make. The fifth builder pointed towards a perception in the market that
electrically-heated homes are not as efficient and cost more.
We asked the participating builders what, if anything, could increase builders’ prioritizing of energy
efficiency. Respondents were split across two answers. Two said that better education of the homebuilding
community would be most effective, two said that more money or higher incentives would help motivate
builders to prioritize energy efficiency, and one cited both of those factors. It should be noted these are the
perspectives of builders who are already building energy efficient, electrically heated homes.
We also asked the HERS Raters about the barriers that make it difficult for builders to participate. All three
mentioned that the vast majority of homes built in the area use gas heating, which is relatively cheap
compared to traditional (non-heat pump) electric heating. One rater each also said that the extra energy
modeling and testing required for this kind of program are seen in the broader market as a hindrance, that
the current building boom in Idaho makes taking extra time to deal with the program a more difficult “sell,”
and that the program financial incentive is trivial for higher-end builders constructing more expensive
homes. These responses came from the raters and in reference to the broader market, so might be more
representative of the larger builder market than the responses directly from the builders (in the previous
paragraph).
Satisfaction and Recommendations
Overall, the participating builders and HERS Raters were satisfied with the program. One builder summed up
the sentiment as:
“I like that it is easy to comply with, not a ton of paperwork, not hard for homeowners or builders to
get the incentive. If it's extra work for them, they are not going to do it. And it might push builders
to do something a little better.”
Respondents did provide some recommendations. These included:
· Increase the program incentive. All three of the HERS Raters and four of the five participating builders
suggested this. One rater said this is particularly relevant during the current building boom.
· Improve customer awareness of the program.
· Allow stacked units to qualify for program incentives.
· Offer a different type of incentives to builders, such as reduced fees for bringing in electrical lines, if
builders commit to meet these standards for a whole development.
Lastly, we asked the builders directly whether they would support a tiered incentive system for the program
in which builders would receive differing incentive amounts for achieving different levels of energy
performance above Idaho state energy code (10%, 20%, 30%, etc.). Four of the five builders said they
would be in favor of such a system, with the other builder saying this alternative system would introduce
uncertainty in budgeting for their developments.

DNV GL – www.dnvgl.com November 15, 2019 Page 20

DNV GL – www.dnvgl.com November 15, 2019 Page 21

6 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The total reported savings for the program were 777,369 kWh with total verified savings of 777,369 kWh,
for a realization rate of 100%. The tracking database was complete except for two minor exceptions.
The database provided to us was missing some critical, and non-critical, parameters from the implementer’s
internal tracking systems (AXIS) which would have increased transparency and expedited the evaluation.
Discussions with IPC confirmed that this situation affected some of the projects specifically reviewed by
evaluators. The AXIS database creator had updated the database software before the evaluation
commenced. The update included the addition of all of the parameters referred to below. Some of the
projects requested for the evaluation were among the first homes certified and were certified before the
AXIS software update, which is why some projects were lacking the parameters. Critical variables included:
1. As-built total consumption: Energy consumption (MMBtu) of the built home
2. Reference total consumption: Energy consumption (MMBtu) of the reference baseline home
3. Percent improvement: Percent difference between as-built and reference consumption.
Non-critical, but useful, parameters included:
4. Style: Type of residence (e.g.: single-family stand-alone, multifamily)
5. Foundation type: Style of the residence’s base construction (e.g.: basement, slab)
6. Conditioned area (ft2): The residence’s climate controlled
7. Primary heating: The main heating source for occupant comfort (e.g.: electric air-source heat pump,
baseboard heat)
The key process findings include:
1. Trade allies (raters) are a key means of implementing the program.
2. Program documentation was good and should be converted into a full-fledged program handbook if the
program moves from pilot to fully-fledged program.
3. Marketing collateral was well-done, but minor improvements are possible.
4. Raters and builders are satisfied with the program administration.
6.1 Recommendations
Review the tracking database regularly to ensure that all parameters have reasonable and
accurate values. This will improve program transparency and increase the accuracy and speed of
evaluations.
Clearly document the sources for the program’s baseline energy standards. This will also increase
transparency and expedite future evaluations.
If the pilot becomes a fully-fledged program, add to the program marketing plan document to
make it a true program handbook. The handbook should include all of the information in the 2019
Marketing Plan document, plus a logic model, description of program activities, and a listing of the
stakeholders involved.

DNV GL – www.dnvgl.com November 15, 2019 Page 22

DNV GL has two recommendations for the marketing materials:
· Ensure all hyperlinks on marketing materials work.
· If possible, track the number of clicks for each digital advertisement. Especially for a program such as
this in the pilot stage, this would yield valuable information that would help guide effective graphics and
messaging for future marketing materials.
Add content to the program website. A “success stories” section of the website that includes
testimonials and endorsements by participating builders and current residents could help sell the program.
Idaho Power already has some of this content in other marketing materials.
Add a URL to the program brochure that links builders with specific contact information for the
raters. The instructions in the program brochure say to hire a RESNET-certified HERS Rater recognized by
Idaho Power without specifically listing which raters are recognized or how to contact them. Because the list
of approved HERS Raters may change over time, future iterations of the brochure could include a footnote
or other note indicating that builders should visit the program website (which can be changed much more
easily) for a list of approved raters along with contact information.
A few changes could improve the application form
· Be more specific about program requirements on the website and application form by clarifying that
builders with multiple units may submit only one application with an attached list of homes and by using
language such as “at least 20 percent more energy efficient than homes built to standard state energy
code.”
· Modify the name of the application form PDF on the program website from “termsConditions.pdf” to
something more specific such as “IdahoPowerResNCApplication”.

DNV GL – www.dnvgl.com November 15, 2019 Page 23

PROGRAM STAFF INTERVIEW GUIDE

Program Design

1. How are program energy savings goals determined?

Program Delivery

2. Walk us through program delivery.
3. What kind of QA/QC procedures are in place?
4. Who are the trade allies involved with delivery?
5. What (if any) training or education do you provide to trade allies?

Marketing and Outreach

6. The Annual Report is extremely detailed when it comes to marketing. Were there any marketing
activities in 2018 that are not covered in that document?

Measures and Incentives

7. The TRM was updated in August of 2018. How will this affect our evaluation?
8. Other delivery-related things?

Processing, Paperwork, and Barriers

9. Talk about paperwork aspect of the program – how is that going?
10. Are you aware of, or planning, any paperwork or other requirement changes?

Overall Program Assessment

11. What challenges do you face in delivering this program?
12. Are there any other comments or observations you would like to make about the program that haven’t
already been mentioned? Anything that we should know for our evaluation?
13. Are there any particular things you are hoping to learn from our program evaluation?
14. Are there any particular questions you would like us to ask the program participants or trade allies?

DNV GL – www.dnvgl.com November 15, 2019 Page 24

TRADE ALLY INTERVIEW GUIDE

Program Delivery
1) How do you go about recruiting builders into participating in the Residential New Construction
Program?
a. What have you found to be the most effective way(s) to get builders interested?
b. Have builders initiated and gotten in touch with you about participating?
c. What barriers exist that make it difficult for builders to participate?
i. What other competing priorities do builders have?
d. What, if anything, do you think could increase builders’ priority regarding energy efficiency?
e. Currently, the performance level necessary to qualify for program incentives is 20% more
energy efficient than state building code. In your opinion, how difficult is it for builders to
attain this standard?
f. Currently, the financial incentive for participating builders is $1,500 per home constructed.
Do you think this is adequate to encourage builders to build to the higher standard?
i. [IF NOT] What incentive level do you think would be more appropriate?
2) After you get a builder to commit to meeting the program requirements, what happens next?
a. How often do you meet or have discussions with the builder?
i. Describe these meetings. How are the meetings conducted and how is information
presented?
ii. Do you get into the specific details with builders, or are you mostly discussing things
at a higher level?
b. How is data recorded and transferred to Idaho Power?
i. Do you have any ideas for how this process could work better?
c. It is my understanding that the program uses REM/Rate energy modelling software. What is
your opinion of this software tool as it is used for the program?
d. It is my understanding that the program uses the AXIS database for savings calculations.
What is your opinion of this software tool as it is used for the program?
3) What is the quality assurance process?
a. Do you have any suggestions regarding the QA process?
4) The New Construction Program replaced the ENERGY STAR Northwest Homes program. Did you
participate in that program?
a. [IF YES] How would you compare the new pilot program to the previous program?
b. [IF YES] Do you prefer certain aspects of this pilot to the previous program?

DNV GL – www.dnvgl.com November 15, 2019 Page 25

General/Communication
5) Who from Idaho Power do you interact with most frequently?
a. What is the frequency and nature of those interactions?
6) Are you satisfied with the level of communication with Idaho Power?
b. If not, how could it be improved?
Wrap-up
7) In your opinion, what aspects of the program are going well?
8) In your opinion, what aspects of the program show room for improvement?
9) Overall, how satisfied are you with the Residential New Construction program?
10) Idaho Power is interested in expanding this program in the future. Based on your experience with
these programs and the new construction market in general, do you have any insight into how Idaho
Power could best encourage builders to participate?
a. One idea is to institute a tiered incentive system – for example, one incentive for achieving
10% above code, a higher incentive for 15% above code, a higher incentive for 20%, etc.
Do you think builders would be more interested or less interested in participating in the New
Construction program under this alternative system?

DNV GL – www.dnvgl.com November 15, 2019 Page 26

PROGRAM PARTICIPANT INTERVIEW GUIDE
Program Awareness
1) How did you first hear about Idaho Power’s Residential New Construction program?
2) What motivated you to participate and build homes that would meet the program requirements?
a. Did this program or the incentive that it provides cause any of your participating homes to
be built with electric heating, or were they all going to be heated electrically anyway?
Program Participation
3) Please describe the process for “signing up” or committing to meet the program requirements.
a. Did you “sign up” through IPC or through a rater?
b. Do you have any recommendations for improving this process?
4) Please describe, during the building process, your interactions related to the program with the rater.
a. How often did you communicate, and what was the typical nature of those interactions?
b. Was the rater helpful throughout the design/construction process?
c. Did the rater communicate effectively throughout this process?
d. Do you have any recommendations for improving the process during construction?
5) The performance level of the homes necessary to qualify for program incentives in 2018 was 20%
more energy efficient than state building code. In your opinion, how difficult was it to attain this
standard?
a. Do you think the homes you built that received the incentive through the program were
significantly more energy-efficient than those same homes otherwise would have been
(without the program)?
Barriers and Motivation
6) What barriers exist that make it difficult for builders to participate? This could be both program-
related barriers and external (market) barriers.
a. What other competing priorities do builders like yourself have?
b. What, if anything, could increase builders’ priority regarding energy efficiency? This could be
things IPC or the program could do or external factors.
7) The financial incentive for participating builders in 2018 was $1,500 per home constructed. Do you
think this is adequate to encourage builders to build to the higher energy performance standard?
a. [IF NO] What level do you think would be more adequate to encourage this?
8) What are the non-energy benefits to building a home or a community that meet these program
standards? For example, not having to build out a gas line.

DNV GL – www.dnvgl.com November 15, 2019 Page 27

Wrap-up
9) In your opinion, what aspects of the program worked well?
10) In your opinion, what aspects of the program showed room for improvement?
11) Overall, how satisfied are you with the Residential New Construction program?
12) Do you have any other recommendations for program improvement?
13) Idaho Power is interested in expanding this program in the future. Based on your experience with
these programs and the new construction market in general, do you have any insight into how Idaho
Power could best encourage builders to participate?
a. One idea is to institute a tiered incentive system – for example, one incentive for achieving
10% above code, a higher incentive for 15% above code, a higher incentive for 20%, etc.
Would you be more interested or less interested in participating in the New Construction
program under an alternative system like this?

ABOUT DNV GL
Driven by our purpose of safeguarding life, property and the environment, DNV GL enables organizations to
advance the safety and sustainability of their business. We provide classification and technical assurance
along with software and independent expert advisory services to the maritime, oil and gas, and energy
industries. We also provide certification services to customers across a wide range of industries. Operating in
more than 100 countries, our 16,000 professionals are dedicated to helping our customers make the world
safer, smarter, and greener.
Idaho Power Company Supplement 2: Evaluation
Demand-Side Management 2019 Annual Report Page 273
OTHER REPORTS
Report Title Sector Analysis Performed By Study Manager Study/Evaluation Type
2019 Flex Peak Program End-of-Season Annual Report Commercial Idaho Power Idaho Power Other
Historical DSM Expense and Performance, 2002–2019 Residential, Commercial/Industrial, Irrigation
Idaho Power Idaho Power Other
Home Energy Report Year 2 Public Program Summary Report Residential Aclara Idaho Power Summary
Idaho Power Energy Wise® Program Summary Report, 2018-2019 Residential Resource Action Programs Idaho Power Summary
Irrigation Peak Rewards Program Report Irrigation Idaho Power Idaho Power Other
Regional Technical Forum 2020–2024 Business Plan Residential, Commercial/Industrial, Irrigation
RTF RTF Business Plan
Residential Energy-Savings Kit Program Summary Report Residential RAP Idaho Power Summary

Supplement 2: Evaluation Idaho Power Company
Page 274 Demand-Side Management 2019 Annual Report

November 1, 2019

2019 Flex Peak Program
End-of-Season Annual Report

Flex Peak Program Report Page i
Table of Contents

Table of Contents ............................................................................................................. i
List of Tables .................................................................................................................... ii
List of Figures ................................................................................................................... ii
Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 1
Background ..................................................................................................................... 1
Program Details ......................................................................................................... 2
Program Incentives .................................................................................................... 3
Program Results ............................................................................................................. 3
Participation ............................................................................................................... 4
Operations ................................................................................................................. 8
Load Reduction Analysis ........................................................................................... 9
Program Costs ......................................................................................................... 14
Benefit-Cost Analysis ............................................................................................... 15
Customer Satisfaction Results ...................................................................................... 16
Program Activities for 2019 ........................................................................................... 16
Conclusion .................................................................................................................... 17

Idaho Power
Page ii Flex Peak Program Report
List of Tables
Table 1. 2019 Incentive Structure. ........................................................................... 3
Table 2. Realization Rate per Event - 2019. .......................................................... 10
Table 3. Realization Rate per Participant for Each Event - 2019. .......................... 12
Table 4. Annual Program Costs - 2019. ................................................................. 15

List of Figures
Figure 1. Idaho Power Service Area ......................................................................... 6
Figure 2. 2019 Site Participation by Region Based on Nomination ........................... 7
Figure 3. 2019 Site Participation by Business Type Based on Nomination ............... 8
Figure 4. Range of Nominated Load Reduction (kW) ............................................. 10
Figure 5. Average Versus Max Reduction Achieved per Event .............................. 11
Figure 6. Average Realization Rate by Each Nomination Size Class ..................... 14

Idaho Power Company
2019 Flex Peak Program Report Page 1
Introduction
The Flex Peak Program (“Program”) has been operated by Idaho Power Company (“Idaho Power” or “Company”) since 2015. The Program is a voluntary demand response (“DR”) program available to large commercial and industrial customers that can reduce their electrical energy loads for short periods during summer peak days. By reducing demand on extreme system load days, the Program reduces the amount of generation
and transmission resources required to serve customers. This Program, along with Idaho Power’s other DR programs, Irrigation Peak Rewards and the Residential A/C Cool Credit Program, have helped delay the need to build supply-side resources.
The results presented in this report are from the 2019 Program season, the Company’s fifth year of operating the Program. In its fifth year, the Program maintained similar load
reduction and realization rates as the prior year (2018). There were ten new sites added,
and overall participation resulted in the highest hourly load reduction for the season of 31 megawatts (“MW”). The average realization rate for the three load reduction events that occurred in the 2019 Program season was 77 percent. Enrollment in the Program increased slightly for the 2019 Program season and 96 percent of previously participating
sites re-enrolled in the Program. The total Program costs through October 1, 2019 were
$606,129. The cost of having this resource available was $19.55 per kilowatt (“kW”) based on the maximum demand reduction of 31 MW achieved on July 22, 2019.
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
• MW of demand response under contract

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 2019 Flex Peak Program Report
• 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 Program are 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.
• Idaho Power will provide notification to participants two hours prior to the initiation of an event.

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
2019 Flex Peak Program Report Page 3
• 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 were issued the incentives within 30 days of the end of the Program season. Participants can elect to have their incentive checks mailed or their Idaho Power account credited within the 30 days. The incentive structure offered for the 2019 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 2019. The first event occurred on July 12, the second on July 22, and the third on August 6. The maximum realization rate achieved during the season was 86 percent during the event on August 6 and the average for all three events combined was 77 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 22 event at 31 MW.
Participants had a committed load reduction of 36.3 MW in the first week of the Program which was the peak committed load reduction for the season. This was an increase from
Idaho Power Company
Page 4 2019 Flex Peak Program Report
the 2018 season at 29.4 MW. This weekly commitment, or “nomination”, was comprised of customers participating in the Program totaling 145 sites. Out of the total number of sites, 135 participated in the 2018 season, and ten sites were newly added in 2019. The
committed load reduction at the end of the season was 35.5 MW.
The first event was called on Friday, July 12. Participants were notified at 2 p.m. for a four-hour event from 4-8 p.m. The total nomination for this event was 36.3 MW. The average load reduction was 24 MW. The highest hourly load reduction was 25 MW during hour four. The realization rate for this event was 66 percent. The lower realization rate
for this event was partially due to many sites not being able to curtail energy use on a
Friday afternoon heading into the weekend due to operational and staffing constraints.
The second event was called on Monday, July 22. Participants were notified at 2 p.m. for a four-hour event from 4-8 p.m. The total nomination for this event was 35.7 MW. The average load reduction was 28.5 MW. The highest hourly load reduction was 31 MW
during hour one. The realization rate for this event was 80 percent.
The third event was called on Tuesday, August 6. Participants were notified at 2 p.m. for a four-hour event from 4-8 p.m. The total nomination for this event was 35 MW. The average load reduction was 30 MW. The highest hourly load reduction was 30.5 MW during hour three. The realization rate for this event was 86 percent.
Enrollment specific to the Oregon service area included six participants totaling nine sites
enrolled. These nine sites had an average nominated capacity for the season of 10.6 MW and achieved a maximum reduction during the season of 10.9 MW during hour four on the July 22 event.
Participation
The number of sites enrolled in the Program for 2019 was 145 from 64 participants, with ten new sites enrolling for the Program season. The average number of sites enrolled
per participating customer was 2.3. The Program did not experience significant attrition and re-enrollment in the Program was high as 135 of the 140 sites participating from the prior season re-enrolled. Four sites from one participant did not re-enroll from the 2018 season because their businesses closed, and the other one site reduced its operating hours significantly which no longer made it a good program candidate.
This past season Idaho Power continued the auto-enrollment option where 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 anticipates utilizing this process in the future.
Idaho Power Company
2019 Flex Peak Program Report Page 5
Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement approved in IPUC Case No. IPC-E-13-145 and OPUC UM 16536 (“Settlement”), Idaho Power did not actively seek to expand the agreed upon 35 MW enrollment capacity but did recruit nominated capacity slightly above 35 MW
in case any customers would again need to reduce their nomination before the season
started. The Company has continued to strive 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 2018 season with the largest quantity of sites falling within the 0-50 kW segment followed by 51-200 kW. The Company
did not deny any Program applications in 2019.
Below is list of what was conducted in addition to the normal Energy Advisor visits with existing participants and potential future enrollees.
• February: New brochures and reduction tip sheets were created for distribution
• April: Article in Energy@Work print newsletter to over 24,700 customers
• April: Article in Energy@Work email newsletter to over 11,400 customers
• April: LinkedIn post
• April: LinkedIn ad
o 143,673 impressions
o 1,215 clicks to the Flex Peak web page
• August: LinkedIn post thanking participants

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.
6 In the Matter of Idaho Power Company, Staff Evaluation of the Demand Response Programs, UM 1653, Order No. 13-482.
Idaho Power Company
Page 6 2019 Flex Peak Program Report
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.

Idaho Power Company
2019 Flex Peak Program Report Page 7
Figure 2 represents the enrolled capacity (total nominations) that were enrolled in 2019 and the distribution by Idaho Power’s regional service areas.
Figure 2.

Canyon
10%
Capital
23%
South-East
9%
Southern
21%
Canyon-West
37%
2019 Participation by Region (and sub areas)
based on Nomination
Idaho Power Company
Page 8 2019 Flex Peak Program Report
Figure 3 represents the enrolled capacity in 2019 and the diversity based on business type.
Figure 3.

Operations
Interval metering data provides Idaho Power the ability to view all participants’ load after events. This metering data was used to calculate the reduction achieved per site during load reduction events. Using this data, Idaho Power provided participants post-event usage reports that showed hourly baseline, actual usage, and reduction during an event.
This data is provided to assist 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.
Agriculture
4%Commercial Property
8%
Other
2%
Education
4%
Refrigerated
Warehouse
9%
Water & Wastewater
Treatment Facility
16%Asphalt, Concrete,
Gravel
31%
Light Industrial
6%
Food Processing
19%
2019 Participation by Business Type based on
Nomination
Idaho Power Company
2019 Flex Peak Program Report Page 9
Load Reduction Analysis
An evaluation of the potential load reduction impacts in 2019 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 2019 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
Page 10 2019 Flex Peak Program Report
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 2019 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 12 4-8 pm 36.3 24 25 66%
July 22 4-8 pm 35.7 28.5 31 80%
August 6 4-8 pm 35 30 30.5 86%
Average 35.6 27.5 28.8 77%
* 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)
2019
2018
57 54 54 52
25 25
99
Idaho Power Company
2019 Flex Peak Program Report Page 11
Figure 5 below shows both the average and peak demand reduction achieved during each of the three curtailment events. The maximum demand reduction achieved ranged from a low of 25 MW for the July 12 event to a high of 31 MW for the July 22 event. The
July 12 event’s average of 24 MW reduction achieved a realization rate of 66 percent,
while the August 6 event’s average of 30 MW reduction achieved a realization rate of 86 percent. Combined, the three events had an average realization rate of 77 percent.
Figure 5.

0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
July 12th July 22nd August 6th
Me
g
a
w
a
t
t
s

(
M
W
)
Event Date
Average & Max Reduction Achieved per Event
Average Demand Reduction Max Demand Reduction
24 25
28.5
31 30.530
Idaho Power Company
Page 12 2019 Flex Peak Program Report
Table 3 shows the realization rate for each participant in the Program for 2019. Table 3.

Participant Number July 12 Event Realization July 22 Event Realization
August 6 Event Realization
Season Realization
1 0% 103% 86% 63%
2 4% 4% 2% 3%
3 88% 110% 111% 103%
4 10% 76% 19% 35%
5 184% 135% 0% 106%
6 71% 112% 100% 94%
7 54% 69% 30% 51%
8 137% 134% NA 135%
9 82% 111% 107% 100%
10 7% 28% 91% 42%
11 1% 1% 1% 1%
12 55% 53% 9% 39%
13 83% 92% 28% 68%
14 68% 132% 130% 110%
15 21% 35% 74% 43%
16 35% 6% 4% 15%
17 0% 2% 56% 19%
18 173% 85% 89% 116%
19 79% 109% 154% 114%
20 147% 132% 104% 126%
21 82% 323% 191% 199%
22 72% 37% 37% 49%
23 129% 97% 129% 118%
24 5% 10% 0% 5%
25 62% 74% 82% 73%
26 0% 125% 70% 65%
27 16% 105% 85% 69%
28 23% 30% 31% 28%
29 180% 214% 61% 152%
30 290% 126% 713% 377%
31 218% 179% 217% 205%
32 77% 157% 95% 110%
33 1% 41% 132% 58%
34 9% 260% 249% 173%
35 14% 4% 23% 14%
Idaho Power Company
2019 Flex Peak Program Report Page 13
36 82% 82% 70% 78%
37 139% 99% 101% 113%
38 153% 14% 0% 55%
39 0% 87% 70% 52%
40 158% 0% 39% 66%
41 85% 25% 64% 58%
42 98% 64% 169% 111%
43 14% 10% 8% 11%
44 9% 11% 15% 12%
45 4% 0% 110% 38%
46 0% 74% 198% 90%
47 85% 182% 34% 100%
48 122% 0% 0% 41%
49 0% 14% 36% 17%
50 2% NA NA 2%
51 20% 3% 37% 20%
52 259% 0% 0% 86%
53 12% NA NA 12%
54 45% 7% 18% 23%
55 14% 56% 66% 45%
56 16% 30% 37% 28%
57 109% 122% 58% 96%
58 87% 122% 107% 105%
59 83% 28% 80% 64%
60 276% 0% 200% 135%
61 26% 0% 5% 10%
62 66% 52% 72% 63%
63 76% 147% 60% 94%
64 29% 6% NA 18%
NA- signifies participants that opted out for that specific event or disenrolled mid-way through the 2019
season.
Broken out across four size segments, the sites with the smallest nominated load reduction, 0–50 kW, achieved a realization rate across the three events at 75 percent. The 0-50 kW group had the largest portion of sites enrolled in the Program, totaling 57 sites which accounted for 39 percent of total enrolled sites. The second smallest size class, 51–200 kW, had 54 sites enrolled and achieved the lowest average realization rate
at 67 percent. The 201-500 kW group had 25 sites enrolled and achieved a realization rate of 75 percent. The largest size class, 501+ kW, had nine sites enrolled and achieved the highest average realization rate across the three events at 83 percent. Idaho Power will continue to work with all customer segments to help refine nominations to align closer with realistic reduction opportunities which will increase the overall program realization
rate.
Idaho Power Company
Page 14 2019 Flex Peak Program Report
Figure 6 below represents the realization rate achieved by each nomination group, averaged across all three events. To calculate the results, each site’s average load reduction (across three events) was divided by its average nomination across the three
events and then grouped by size.
Figure 6.

Program Costs
Program costs totaled $606,129 through October 1, 2019. Incentive payments were the
largest expenditure comprising approximately 90 percent of total costs.
The incentive payments from the three events called during the 2019 Program season were broken down as follows: the fixed capacity payments total was $547,527 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 2019 are estimated to be $19.55 per kW based on the maximum demand reduction of 31 MW, or $22.00 per kW, based on average load reduction for the season of 27.5 MW.

7 Final Program costs for 2019 will be available after the close of the Company’s 2019 financial reporting year, December 31, 2019.
75%67%
75%83%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
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
2019 Flex Peak Program Report Page 15
Table 4 below displays the 2019 year-to-date (“YTD”) Program costs by expense category.
Table 4.
Expense Category 2019 YTD Program Costs
Materials & Equipment $1,113
Marketing & Administration $57,489
Incentive payments $547,527
Total $606,129

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 2017 Integrated
Resource Plan (“IRP”). The Settlement, as approved in IPUC Order No. 32923 and OPUC Order No. 13-482, established a new method for valuing DR and defined the annual cost of operating Idaho Power’s three DR programs for the maximum allowable
60 hours as no more than $16.7 million.
The annual value calculation will be updated with each IRP based on changes that include, but are not limited to, need, capital cost, or financial assumptions. This amount was reevaluated in the 2017 IRP to be $19.8 million.
In 2019, the preliminary cost estimate of operating all three of Idaho Power’s DR programs
was $8.1 million through October 1, 2019. It is estimated that if the three programs were dispatched for the full 60 hours, the total costs would have been approximately $11.3 million, which is below the total annual costs agreed upon in the Settlement as revised in the 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 during the 2019 Program season because Idaho Power’s generation resources were sufficient to satisfy system load. However, in all three events the Program provided a
Idaho Power Company
Page 16 2019 Flex Peak Program Report
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 2019 the Program was dispatched, Idaho Power
estimates the Program saved a total of $13,000 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 2019 Annual Report when all the data will be available.
Customer Satisfaction Results
Idaho Power conducted a post-season online survey this year which was sent to all
participants. The survey questions were based on a five-point rating scale. Idaho Power received feedback from 24 of 63 (excluding the Idaho Power facility that participates) participants enrolled for a response rate of 38 percent. Overall, the results from the survey were favorable with roughly 96 percent of respondents stating they would likely re-enroll
in the Program in the future and about 88 percent of respondents stating they were
satisfied with their overall experience with the Program. The results from the 2019 survey will be discussed in more detail in Supplement Two of the 2019 Demand-Side Management Annual Report.
In addition to the survey, the Company engaged customers at the end of the season by
sending thank you cards to all participants with an average realization rate of 60 percent
or greater across all three events during the 2019 season.
Program Activities for 2020
The primary improvement Idaho Power and the Program could benefit from is more
consistent load reduction when events are called to achieve a higher realization rate. 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 2020 season will begin the fourth quarter of 2019 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 working with potential candidates for the 2020 season with an increased focus on enrolling national chain stores within our service area. This customer type makes a good candidate for the program due to extended operating hours, non-production load types
and consistent energy usage profiles.
Idaho Power Company
2019 Flex Peak Program Report Page 17
The Program will be jointly marketed along with Idaho Power’s applicable energy efficiency programs as needed. The Company will utilize its Energy Advisors to retain the currently enrolled sites and encourage new sites to participate.
For the upcoming season, Idaho Power plans to focus on retaining currently enrolled
participants and will more pro-actively work with the Marketing Specialist to promote the Program at Company sponsored events and trainings. The Company 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 approximately 37
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 ten 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 $22.00 per kW based on average reduction (27.5
MW) for the season.
Historical DSM Expense
and Performance
2002–2019
Historical DSM Expense and Performance 2002–2019 Idaho Power Company
Page ii Demand-Side Management 2019 Annual Report
Idaho Power Company Historical DSM Expense and Performance 2002–2019
Demand-Side Management 2019 Annual Report Page 1
Historical DSM Expense and Performance, 2002–2019
Total Costs Savings and Demand Reductions
Measure Life (Years)
Levelized Costs a
Program/Year Participants Utility Cost b Resource Cost c
Annual Energy e
(kWh)Peak Demand f
(MW)Total Utility ($/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 ...................26,182 844,369 844,369 29
2019 ...................23,802 877,665 877,665 24
Total .......................$29,067,077 $29,067,077
Flex Peak Program
2009 ...................33 528,681 528,681 19
2010 ...................60 1,902,680 1,902,680 48
2011 ....................111 2,057,730 2,057,730 59
2012 ...................102 3,009,822 3,009,822 53
2013 ...................100 2,743,615 2,743,615 48
2014 ...................93 1,563,211 1,563,211 40
2015 ...................72 592,872 592,872 26
2016 ...................137 767,997 767,997 42
2017 ...................141 658,156 658,156 36
Historical DSM Expense and Performance 2002–2019 Idaho Power Company
Page 2 Demand-Side Management 2019 Annual Report
Total Costs Savings and Demand Reductions
Measure Life
(Years)
Levelized Costs a
Program/Year Participants Utility Cost b Resource Cost c
Annual Energy e
(kWh)
Peak Demand f
(MW)
Total Utility
($/kWh)
Total Resource
($/kWh)
2018 ...................140 433,313 433,313 33
2019 ...................145 626,823 626,823 31
Total .......................$14,884,898 $14,884,899
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
2019 ...................2,332 6,771,708 6,771,708 278
Total .......................$99,095,603 $99,095,603
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 $0.138
Idaho Power Company Historical DSM Expense and Performance 2002–2019
Demand-Side Management 2019 Annual Report Page 3
Total Costs Savings and Demand Reductions
Measure Life
(Years)
Levelized Costs a
Program/Year Participants Utility Cost b Resource Cost c
Annual Energy e
(kWh)
Peak Demand f
(MW)
Total Utility
($/kWh)
Total Resource
($/kWh)
��������������������������
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 1.370 1.370
2019 ...................430 145,494 145,494 45,150 3 0.885 0.885
Total .......................7,251 $698,306 $698,306 1,382,306 9 $0.068 $0.068
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
2019 ...................95,528 2,880,467 2,880,467 10,805,474 11 0.025 0.025
Total .......................369,906 $12,351,943 $$12,351,943 64,863,723 11 $0.022 $0.022
������������
2002 ...................2,925 755 755 155,757 7 0.001 0.001
Total .......................2,925 $755 $755 155,757 7 $0.001 $0.001
������������
2002 ...................11,618 243,033 310,643 3,299,654 7 0.012 0.015
2003 ...................12,662 314,641 464,059 3,596,150 7 0.014 0.021
2004 ...................n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
2005 ...................43,760 73,152 107,810 1,734,646 7 0.007 0.010
2006 ...................178,514 298,754 539,877 6,302,794 7 0.008 0.014
2007 ...................219,739 557,646 433,626 7,207,439 7 0.012 0.017
2008 ...................436,234 1,018,292 793,265 14,309,444 7 0.011 0.013
2009 ...................549,846 1,207,366 1,456,796 13,410,748 5 0.020 0.024
2010 ...................1,190,139 2,501,278 3,976,476 28,082,738 5 0.020 0.031
2011 ....................1,039,755 1,719,133 2,764,623 19,694,381 5 0.015 0.024
2012 ...................925,460 1,126,836 2,407,355 16,708,659 5 0.012 0.025
2013 ...................1,085,225 1,356,926 4,889,501 9,995,753 8 0.016 0.058
2014 ...................1,161,553 1,909,823 7,148,427 12,882,151 8 0.018 0.066
2015 ...................1,343,255 2,063,383 4,428,676 15,876,117 10 0.013 0.028
2016 ...................1,442,561 3,080,708 10,770,703 21,093,813 11 0.014 0.049
Historical DSM Expense and Performance 2002–2019 Idaho Power Company
Page 4 Demand-Side Management 2019 Annual Report
Total Costs Savings and Demand Reductions
Measure Life
(Years)
Levelized Costs a
Program/Year Participants Utility Cost b Resource Cost c
Annual Energy e
(kWh)
Peak Demand f
(MW)
Total Utility
($/kWh)
Total Resource
($/kWh)
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
2019 ...................1,336,440 2,126,262 2,782,039 16,245,551 14 0.011 0.014
Total .......................14,084,361 $26,905,250 $57,629,905 247,062,160 9 $0.015 $0.031
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
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
2019 ...................248 161,894 161,894 309,154 16 0.039 0.039
Total .......................12,379 $5,867,582 $5,867,582 15,441,368 19 $0.032 $0.032
ENERGY STAR® Homes Northwest (gas heated)
2014 ................... 282 195,372 22
2015 ................... 69 46,872 22
Total .......................351 $0 $0 242,244 22
Fridge and Freezer Recycling Program
2009 ...................1,661 305,401 305,401 1,132,802 8 0.041 0.041
2010 ...................3,152 565,079 565,079 1,567,736 8 0.054 0.054
2011 ....................3,449 654,393 654,393 1,712,423 8 0.046 0.046
2012 ...................3,176 613,146 613,146 1,576,426 8 0.046 0.046
Idaho Power Company Historical DSM Expense and Performance 2002–2019
Demand-Side Management 2019 Annual Report Page 5
Total Costs Savings and Demand Reductions
Measure Life
(Years)
Levelized Costs a
Program/Year Participants Utility Cost b Resource Cost c
Annual Energy e
(kWh)
Peak Demand f
(MW)
Total Utility
($/kWh)
Total Resource
($/kWh)
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 $4,088,069 $4,088,069 10,747,000 7 $0.062 $0.062
������������������
2006 ...................17,444 17,444
2007 ................... 4 488,211 494,989 1,595 18 27.344 27.710
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
2019 ...................681 499,179 1,512,183 1,412,183 15 0.028 0.084
Total .......................4,597 $5,757,857 $14,331,515 13,190,713 18 $0.038 $0.094
Home Energy Audits
2013 ...................88,740 88,740
2014 ...................354 170,648 170,648 141,077 10 0.150 0.150
2015 ...................251 201,957 226,806 136,002 10 0.184 0.184
2016 ...................539 289,812 289,812 207,249 11 0.163 0.163
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
2019 ...................421 230,786 282,215 179,754 11 0.122 0.150
Total .......................2,555 $1,529,146 $1,733,584 1,050,095 11 $0.169 $0.192
Historical DSM Expense and Performance 2002–2019 Idaho Power Company
Page 6 Demand-Side Management 2019 Annual Report
Total Costs Savings and Demand Reductions
Measure Life
(Years)
Levelized Costs a
Program/Year Participants Utility Cost b Resource Cost c
Annual Energy e
(kWh)
Peak Demand f
(MW)
Total Utility
($/kWh)
Total Resource
($/kWh)
Home Energy Reports Pilot Program
2018 ...................23,914 194,812 194,812 3,281,780 1 0.046 0.046
2019 ...................24,976 200,406 200,406 8,444,746 1 0.018 0.018
Total .......................48,890 $395,218 $395,218 11,726,526 1 $0.032 $0.032
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
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 42 $0.025 $0.080
Multifamily Energy Savings Program
2016 ...................196 59,046 59,046 149,760 10 0.040 0.040
2017 ...................683 168,216 168,216 617,542 11 0.026 0.026
2018 ...................764 205,131 205,131 655,953 11 0.030 0.030
2019 ...................457 131,306 131,306 346,107 11 0.036 0.036
Total .......................2,100 $563,699 $563,699 1,769,362 11 $0.037 $0.037
Oregon Residential Weatherization
2002 ...................24 -662 23,971 4,580 25 0.010 0.389
2003 ...................-943
2004 ...................4 1,057 1,057
2005 ...................4 612 3,608 7,927 25 0.006 0.034
2006 ...................4,126 4,126
2007 ...................1 3,781 5,589 9,971 25 0.028 0.042
2008 ...................3 7,417 28,752 22,196 25 0.025 0.096
2009 ...................1 7,645 8,410 2,907 25 0.203 0.223
Idaho Power Company Historical DSM Expense and Performance 2002–2019
Demand-Side Management 2019 Annual Report Page 7
Total Costs Savings and Demand Reductions
Measure Life
(Years)
Levelized Costs a
Program/Year Participants Utility Cost b Resource Cost c
Annual Energy e
(kWh)
Peak Demand f
(MW)
Total Utility
($/kWh)
Total Resource
($/kWh)
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
2019 ...................8 5,982 14,432 2,069 45 0.149 0.360
Total .......................109 $79,615 $167,727 126,713 28 $0.045 $0.094
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
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 ...................66 111,050 148,142 411,272 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
2019 ...................109 156,748 355,897 353,615 44 0.023 0.052
Total .......................1,252 $1,277,917 $2,623,021 5,144,062 38 $0.016 $0.033
Residential New Construction Pilot Program (ENERGY STAR® Homes Northwest)
2003 ...................13,597 13,597 0
2004 ...................44 140,165 335,437 101,200 25 0.103 0.246
Historical DSM Expense and Performance 2002–2019 Idaho Power Company
Page 8 Demand-Side Management 2019 Annual Report
Total Costs Savings and Demand Reductions
Measure Life
(Years)
Levelized Costs a
Program/Year Participants Utility Cost b Resource Cost c
Annual Energy e
(kWh)
Peak Demand f
(MW)
Total Utility
($/kWh)
Total Resource
($/kWh)
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 0.028 0.064
2019 ...................322 534,118 1,411,391 774,597 54 0.035 0.092
Total .......................5,186 $5,848,297 $10,681,433 9,164,559 33 $0.043 $0.078
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 20 0.307 0.307
2019 ...................2,063 147,750 147,750 35,727 30 0.235 0.235
Total .......................12,903 $835,886 $835,886 71,298 25 $0.868 $0.868
Simple Steps, Smart Savings
2007 ...................9,275 9,275 0
2008 ...................3,034 250,860 468,056 541,615 15 0.044 0.082
2009 ...................9,499 511,313 844,811 1,638,038 15 0.031 0.051
2010 ...................16,322 832,161 1,025,151 1,443,580 15 0.057 0.070
2011 ....................15,896 638,323 1,520,977 1,485,326 15 0.034 0.080
2012 ...................16,675 659,032 817,924 887,222 14 0.061 0.075
2013 ...................13,792 405,515 702,536 885,980 12 0.041 0.071
Idaho Power Company Historical DSM Expense and Performance 2002–2019
Demand-Side Management 2019 Annual Report Page 9
Total Costs Savings and Demand Reductions
Measure Life
(Years)
Levelized Costs a
Program/Year Participants Utility Cost b Resource Cost c
Annual Energy e
(kWh)
Peak Demand f
(MW)
Total Utility
($/kWh)
Total Resource
($/kWh)
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
2019 ...................5,729 90,499 123,541 271,452 11 0.032 0.043
Total .......................128,164 $4,199,139 $7,209,692 10,294,870 13 $0.042 $0.073
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 23 0.112 0.112
2019 ...................129 957,626 957,626 504,988 23 0.119 0.119
Total .......................1,398 $10,018,086 $10,030,296 5,325,483 24 $0.142 $0.142
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 $0.079
Residential—Weatherization Assistance for Qualified Customers (WAQC)
WAQC—Idaho
2002 ...................197 235,048 492,139
2003 ...................208 228,134 483,369
2004 ...................269 498,474 859,482 1,271,677 25 0.029 0.050
2005 ...................570 1,402,487 1,927,424 3,179,311 25 0.033 0.045
2006 ...................540 1,455,373 2,231,086 2,958,024 25 0.037 0.056
2007 ...................397 1,292,930 1,757,105 3,296,019 25 0.029 0.040
2008 ...................439 1,375,632 1,755,749 4,064,301 25 0.025 0.032
Historical DSM Expense and Performance 2002–2019 Idaho Power Company
Page 10 Demand-Side Management 2019 Annual Report
Total Costs Savings and Demand Reductions
Measure Life
(Years)
Levelized Costs a
Program/Year Participants Utility Cost b Resource Cost c
Annual Energy e
(kWh)
Peak Demand f
(MW)
Total Utility
($/kWh)
Total Resource
($/kWh)
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
2019 ...................193 1,264,767 1,890,584 639,880 30 0.137 0.205
Total .......................5,456 $20,479,840 $31,069,915 30,410,349 25 $0.050 $0.076
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
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
2019 ...................4 38,960 62,905 9,419 30 0.287 0.463
Total .......................247 $698,985 $1,045,810 1,101,093 25 $0.047 $0.070
Idaho Power Company Historical DSM Expense and Performance 2002–2019
Demand-Side Management 2019 Annual Report Page 11
Total Costs Savings and Demand Reductions
Measure Life
(Years)
Levelized Costs a
Program/Year Participants Utility Cost b Resource Cost c
Annual Energy e
(kWh)
Peak Demand f
(MW)
Total Utility
($/kWh)
Total Resource
($/kWh)
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 ...........5,875 $21,354,095 $32,445,916 32,172,299 25 $0.049 $0.075
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
Commercial Energy-Saving Kits (Commercial Education Initiative)
2005 ...................3,497 3,497
2006 ...................4,663 4,663
2007 ...................26,823 26,823
2008 ...................72,738 72,738
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 ...................1,652 146,174 146,174 442,170 10 0.034 0.034
2019 ...................2,629 161,945 161,945 569,594 10 0.029 0.029
Total .......................4,281 $977,478 $977,478 1,011,765 10 $0.120 $0.120
New Construction
2004 ...................28,821 28,821
2005 ...................12 194,066 233,149 494,239 12 0.043 0.052
2006 ...................40 374,008 463,770 704,541 12 0.058 0.072
2007 ...................22 669,032 802,839 2,817,248 12 0.015 0.040
Historical DSM Expense and Performance 2002–2019 Idaho Power Company
Page 12 Demand-Side Management 2019 Annual Report
Total Costs Savings and Demand Reductions
Measure Life
(Years)
Levelized Costs a
Program/Year Participants Utility Cost b Resource Cost c
Annual Energy e
(kWh)
Peak Demand f
(MW)
Total Utility
($/kWh)
Total Resource
($/kWh)
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
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
2019 ...................168 3,548,476 5,292,835 20,640,334 12 0.015 0.023
Total .......................1,141 $22,951,991 $53,775,955 166,989,294 12 $0.015 $0.035
����
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
2019 ...................1,033 6,281,056 17,700,769 42,674,418 12 0.013 0.037
Total .......................15,913 $53,621,565 $122,796,579 375,046,788 12 $0.016 $0.036
Holiday Lighting
2008 ...................14 28,782 73,108 259,092 10 0.014 0.035
2009 ...................32 33,930 72,874 142,109 10 0.031 0.066
Idaho Power Company Historical DSM Expense and Performance 2002–2019
Demand-Side Management 2019 Annual Report Page 13
Total Costs Savings and Demand Reductions
Measure Life
(Years)
Levelized Costs a
Program/Year Participants Utility Cost b Resource Cost c
Annual Energy e
(kWh)
Peak Demand f
(MW)
Total Utility
($/kWh)
Total Resource
($/kWh)
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
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
2019 ...................11 7,262 7,262
Total .......................236 $111,896 $111,896
������������
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 $0.044
Industrial
Custom Projects
2003 ...................1,303 1,303
2004 ...................1 112,311 133,441 211,295 12 0.058 0.069
2005 ...................24 1,128,076 3,653,152 12,016,678 12 0.010 0.033
2006 ...................40 1,625,216 4,273,885 19,211,605 12 0.009 0.024
Historical DSM Expense and Performance 2002–2019 Idaho Power Company
Page 14 Demand-Side Management 2019 Annual Report
Total Costs Savings and Demand Reductions
Measure Life
(Years)
Levelized Costs a
Program/Year Participants Utility Cost b Resource Cost c
Annual Energy e
(kWh)
Peak Demand f
(MW)
Total Utility
($/kWh)
Total Resource
($/kWh)
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
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
2019 ...................257 11,879,873 24,590,176 70,433,920 15 0.013 0.027
Total .......................2,097 $96,793,261 $206,034,364 684,597,900 13 $0.015 $0.031
Green Motors Rewind—Industrial
2016 ...................14 123,700 7
2017 ...................13 143,976 7
2018 ...................25 64,167 7
2019 ...................12 117,223 8
Total .......................64 $0 $0 449,066 7
Irrigation
��������������
2003 ...................2 41,089 54,609 36,792 0.0 15 0.106 0.141
2004 ...................33 120,808 402,978 802,812 0.4 15 0.014 0.048
2005 ...................38 150,577 657,460 1,012,883 0.4 15 0.014 0.062
2006 ...................559 2,779,620 8,514,231 16,986,008 5.1 8 0.024 0.073
2007 ...................816 2,001,961 8,694,772 12,304,073 3.4 8 0.024 0.103
2008 ...................961 2,103,702 5,850,778 11,746,395 3.5 8 0.026 0.073
2009 ...................887 2,293,896 6,732,268 13,157,619 3.4 8 0.026 0.077
2010 ...................753 2,200,814 6,968,598 10,968,430 3.3 8 0.030 0.096
2011 ....................880 2,360,304 13,281,492 13,979,833 3.8 8 0.020 0.113
2012 ...................908 2,373,201 11,598,185 12,617,164 3.1 8 0.022 0.110
2013 ...................995 2,441,386 15,223,928 18,511,221 3.0 8 0.016 0.098
Idaho Power Company Historical DSM Expense and Performance 2002–2019
Demand-Side Management 2019 Annual Report Page 15
Total Costs Savings and Demand Reductions
Measure Life
(Years)
Levelized Costs a
Program/Year Participants Utility Cost b Resource Cost c
Annual Energy e
(kWh)
Peak Demand f
(MW)
Total Utility
($/kWh)
Total Resource
($/kWh)
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
2019 ...................1,080 2,661,263 10,042,514 10,073,455 8 0.032 0.120
Total .......................12,616 $33,612,574 $144,915,072 206,119,317 8 $0.024 $0.103
Green Motors Rewind—Irrigation
2016 ...................23 73,617 19
2017 ...................27 63,783 19
2018 ...................26 67,676 19
2019 ...................34 44,705 20
Total .......................110 $0 $0 249,781 19
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
Comprehensive Lighting
2011 ....................2,404 2,404
2012 ...................64,094 64,094
Total .......................$66,498 $66,498
�����������������
2005 ...................21,552 43,969
2006 ...................24,306 24,306
2007 ...................8,987 8,987
2008 ...................-1,913 -1,913
Total .......................$52,932 $75,349
DSM Direct Program Overhead
2007 ...................56,909 56,909
2008 ...................169,911 169,911
2009 ...................164,957 164,957
Historical DSM Expense and Performance 2002–2019 Idaho Power Company
Page 16 Demand-Side Management 2019 Annual Report
Total Costs Savings and Demand Reductions
Measure Life
(Years)
Levelized Costs a
Program/Year Participants Utility Cost b Resource Cost c
Annual Energy e
(kWh)
Peak Demand f
(MW)
Total Utility
($/kWh)
Total Resource
($/kWh)
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
2017 ...................1,759,352 1,759,352
2018 ...................1,801,955 1,801,955
2019 ...................2,119,820 2,119,820
Total .......................$8,112,719 $8,112,719
��������������
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 $0.043
Other C&RD and CRC BPA
2002 ...................55,722 55,722
2003 ...................67,012 67,012
2004 ...................108,191 108,191
2005 ...................101,177 101,177
2006 ...................124,956 124,956
Idaho Power Company Historical DSM Expense and Performance 2002–2019
Demand-Side Management 2019 Annual Report Page 17
Total Costs Savings and Demand Reductions
Measure Life
(Years)
Levelized Costs a
Program/Year Participants Utility Cost b Resource Cost c
Annual Energy e
(kWh)
Peak Demand f
(MW)
Total Utility
($/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 ...................160,851 160,851
Total .......................$2,801,555 $2,801,555 1,491,225
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 $160,762
Historical DSM Expense and Performance 2002–2019 Idaho Power Company
Page 18 Demand-Side Management 2019 Annual Report
Total Costs Savings and Demand Reductions
Measure Life
(Years)
Levelized Costs a
Program/Year Participants Utility Cost b Resource Cost c
Annual Energy e
(kWh)
Peak Demand f
(MW)
Total Utility
($/kWh)
Total Resource
($/kWh)
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 23,038,800
2016 ...................2,676,387 2,676,387 24,352,800
2017 ...................2,698,756 2,698,756 24,440,400
2018 ...................2,500,165 2,500,165 25,666,800
2019 1 .................2,721,070 2,721,070 18,107,684
Total .......................$36,724,592 $36,724,592 357,605,095
Annual Totals
2002 ...................1,932,520 2,366,591 16,791,100 0.0
2003 ...................2,566,228 3,125,572 18,654,343 0.0
2004 ...................3,827,213 4,860,912 19,202,780 6.5
2005 ...................6,523,348 10,383,577 37,978,035 43.9
2006 ...................11,174,181 20,950,110 67,026,303 43.6
2007 ...................14,896,816 27,123,018 91,145,357 57.9
2008 ...................20,213,216 44,775,829 128,508,579 74.3
2009 ...................33,821,062 53,090,852 143,146,365 235.5
2010 ...................44,643,541 68,981,324 193,592,637 357.7
2011 ....................44,877,117 79,436,532 183,476,312 415.2
2012 ...................47,991,350 77,336,341 172,054,327 448.8
2013 ...................26,100,091 54,803,353 109,505,690 54.5
Idaho Power Company Historical DSM Expense and Performance 2002–2019
Demand-Side Management 2019 Annual Report Page 19
Total Costs Savings and Demand Reductions
Measure Life
(Years)
Levelized Costs a
Program/Year Participants Utility Cost b Resource Cost c
Annual Energy e
(kWh)
Peak Demand f
(MW)
Total Utility
($/kWh)
Total Resource
($/kWh)
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 75,797,483 184,078,634 358.7
2019 ...................47,390,056 83,661,890 203,041,359 332.5
Total Direct Program ......................$507,013,424 $898,316,540 2,240,138,636
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
2019 ...................1,194,640
Total .......................$18,823,178
Total Expenses
2002 ...................2,061,375
2003 ...................2,528,685
2004 ...................3,969,550
Historical DSM Expense and Performance 2002–2019 Idaho Power Company
Page 20 Demand-Side Management 2019 Annual Report
Total Costs Savings and Demand Reductions
Measure Life (Years)
Levelized Costs a
Program/Year Participants Utility Cost b Resource Cost c
Annual Energy e
(kWh)Peak Demand f
(MW)Total Utility ($/kWh)Total Resource ($/kWh)
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
2019 ...................48,584,696
Total 2002–2019 ....$525,836,602
a�������������������������������’s 2017 Integrated Resource Plan and calculations include line loss adjusted energy savings.
b�����������������������������������.
c The Total Utility Cost is all cost incurred by Idaho Power to implement and manage a DSM program.
d 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.
e Average Demand = Annual Energy/8,760 annual hours.
f 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 9.7% peak line losses.
1 Savings are preliminary funder share estimates. Final results will be provided by NEEA in June 2020.
Smart Infrastructure www.Aclara.com
Expand your vision of the network Page 1 of 65

Idaho Power Corporation
Home Energy Report Year 2
Public Program Summary Report

ACLARA ACE™
Adaptive Consumer Engagement

Version 1.5
Updated: 2/28/2020

Smart Infrastructure www.Aclara.com
Expand your vision of the network Page 2 of 65
Table of Contents

Revision History 3
Document Approval 3
1 Executive Summary 4
Project Overview 4
Results and Findings 5
2 Program Overview 7 Team Structure 7 Objectives 7
2.2.1 Ongoing Objectives from Year One 7
2.2.2 Year-Two Objectives 7
Treatment Groups Defined 8
2.3.1 Year-One Treatment Groups 8
2.3.2 Year-Two treatment Groups 8
2.3.3 Side-by-side: Year one vs. year two treatment groups 10
2.3.4 Eligibility Screening 11
Customer Data Acquisition/Integration 11 Aligning Tip Selection with Season 12
3 Year-Two Program Results 13
Year-Two Objectives: Findings 13
3.1.1 How did the T1 rollout in year one (with monthly reports for four months) compare to the T2
rollout in year two (with bimonthly reports) in terms of: 13
a) Energy savings 13
b) Customer satisfaction 14
c) Opt-out rate 14
3.1.2 How do bimonthly reports compare to quarterly reports in terms of: 15
a) Energy savings 15
b) Customer satisfaction 15
C) Opt-out rate 15
Energy Savings Results 16
3.2.1 Evaluation, Measurement & Verification Process 16
3.2.2 Bimonthly Vs. Quarterly Report Savings, All Treatment Groups 17
3.2.3 Winter Heating Group Measurement & Verification Results 19
3.2.4 Year-Round Group Measurement & Verification Results 22
Email Reports 25
3.3.1 Enrollment 25
3.3.2 Delivery, Open, and Bounce Rates 26 Customer Satisfaction 27
3.4.1 Customer Satisfaction Survey 27
3.4.2 Customer Service Line Call Rates and Opt-Outs 27
Additional Metrics 29
3.5.1 Microsite Engagement 29
3.5.2 My Account Web Activity 29
3.5.3 Attrition Rates 30
4 Lessons Learned & Future Recommendations 32
Smart Infrastructure www.Aclara.com
Expand your vision of the network Page 3 of 65
Lessons Learned 32
Recommended Improvements 33
5 Appendices 34

Revision History
Date Version Description Author/Editor
2019-10-31 1.0 Version 1 Laura Cornish
2019-11-21 1.1 Version 1.1 Laura Cornish
2020-01-13 1.2 Version 1.2 Laura Cornish
2020-01-24 1.3 Version 1.3 Laura Cornish
2020-02-26 1.4 Version 1.4 Laura Cornish
2020-02-28 1.5 Version 1.5 Laura 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 Idaho Power Company Home Energy Report year two Final Program Summary, version 1.4
approved by:
Client Name:
Name, Title:
Signature
Date:

Client Name:
Name, Title:
Signature:
Date:

For Aclara:
Signature:
Date:
Smart Infrastructure www.Aclara.com
Expand your vision of the network Page 4 of 65
1 Executive Summary
PROJECT OVERVIEW
In July 2017, Idaho Power contracted with Aclara and its subcontractor, Uplight1 to create a Home
Energy Report pilot program with the goal of reducing participating residential customers’ energy
use while meeting cost-effectiveness guidelines. The program was initially to span one year, with the
possibility of renewal.
The Home Energy Reports included the following elements:
 Customer information: customer name, address, and account number
 Household energy-usage disaggregation: home usage separated into four loads
(heating, air conditioning, lights & appliances, and always-on)
 Targeted message(s): customized messaging to drive customers to relevant programs
and the My Account portal
 Social benchmarks: customer’s home energy use compared to similar homes and
efficient homes, designed to motivate savings
 Personalized savings recommendations: Tips for saving energy based on home profile
attributes, customer segmentation, and season
In year one, pilot program
participants were selected
based on their historical
energy usage and were
divided into different
treatment groups according
to their energy-use
patterns. Each treatment
group received reports with
messaging targeted to its
members that was deemed
most likely to help them
save energy. Between July
2017 and June 2018,
~25,500 customers received
Home Energy Reports,
which resulted in statistically significant energy savings with a 95% confidence interval in three out
of the four treatment groups. By percentage, the savings ranged from 0.5% to 1.7%.
The program was renewed and expanded for a second year (which is detailed in this report). The
treatment groups were optimized by removing people with low savings potential, a new treatment
group was added (T2), and the frequency of the reports was altered to compare the performance of

1 Uplight in this case is formerly known as Ecotagious. Ecotagious was acquired by Uplight in August 2019, after the
completion of the program.
Figure 1. Sample Home Energy Report (see Appendix A for detail)
Smart Infrastructure www.Aclara.com
Expand your vision of the network Page 5 of 65
bimonthly versus quarterly delivery. Customers were also given the option of receiving reports by
email. In total, around 24,000 customers received reports during the second year of the program
(which ran from August 1, 2018 to July 31, 2019).
In year two, each treatment group showed savings of between 0.5 percent and 1.82 percent, which
added up to a total savings of 5,433,539 kWh across all groups (all groups’ savings are considered
statistically significant, except the bimonthly T5 group, whose statistical non-significance may be due
to the small group size and members’ low kWh usage).
RESULTS AND FINDINGS
Main takeaways from year two of the program are as follows.
Overall Energy Savings Met Program Goals (With One Exception)
The program’s energy-savings goals were generally met, with four out of five treatment groups
having average savings between 1 and 2 percent:
 T1: 1.8%, or 386 kWh per customer
 T2: 1.1%, or 155 kWh per customer
 T3: 1.8%, or 266 kWh per customer
 T4: 1.8%, or 184 kWh per customer
 T5: 0.5%, or 45 kWh per customer
Only the T5 group did not achieve statistically significant savings. This may be due to their having
already been low energy users prior to the program.
Winter-Heating Group Savings Increased in Year Two
T1 had more savings in year two of receiving reports than they had in year one. In year one, they
had average savings of 1.5%, and in year two, 1.8%. In general, participants in HER programs tend to
see their savings increase in the second year over the first. It is expected that the T2 group will
follow suit and see greater savings in the third year (but T2’s second) of the program.
Bimonthly Report Delivery Did Not Save More Than Quarterly Delivery
A bimonthly report-delivery schedule did not result in greater energy savings than a quarterly
delivery schedule (see 3.2.2). Although not statistically significant, the customer satisfaction survey
showed a potentially slight lift in customer satisfaction with the bimonthly reports. Given the savings
results and the lack of solid evidence re: customer satisfaction, it is recommended that IPC move
forward with six reports in the first year of treatment and four reports in the following years.
Customer Satisfaction Was High
Customer satisfaction with IPC is generally high, regardless of participation in the HER program.
However, customers who receive HERs have an improved opinion of the company (see Appendix C).
Smart Infrastructure www.Aclara.com
Expand your vision of the network Page 6 of 65
Report Readthrough and Retention Were High
Customers who were surveyed scored high in terms of five key factors: report recall, report
readthrough rates, detailed report recall, actions taken as a result of reports, and impression of IPC.
(See 3.4.1 for details.)
Opt-Out Rates Remained Below 1%
Opt-out rates for the program were below 0.25% (0.22% for quarterly report recipients, 0.20% for
bimonthly).
The overall program opt-out rate was 0.22% in year 2, a decrease from year 1 (0.64%), and lower
than the industry average of 1%2.

2 Sussman, R., & Chikumbo, M. (2016). Behavior Change Programs: Status and Impact, 12.
Smart Infrastructure www.Aclara.com
Expand your vision of the network Page 7 of 65
2 Program Overview
Team Structure
The IPC Home Energy Report program has been a joint effort between Idaho Power Company,
Aclara, and Uplight since 2017.
Aclara and Uplight have been partnering since 2016, combining their offerings to deliver greater
value and energy savings to customers. In combining Uplight’s ability to segment residential energy
use into load types and Aclara's behavioural efficiency programs, they have driven savings for gas
and electric utilities.
Objectives
2.2.1 ONGOING OBJECTIVES FROM YEAR ONE
The primary year-one objectives that continued into year two included the following:
 Provide average annual savings of 1 to 3 percent across the participant group.
 Maintain or enhance current customer satisfaction levels.
 Encourage customer engagement with electricity usage, including utilization of online tools
and lift for other energy efficiency programs.
 Meet cost-effectiveness guidelines from a Total Resource Cost (TRC) perspective.
Secondary objectives carried over from year one include:
 Following industry best practices/protocols for all segments to ensure lessons learned from
the pilot to appropriately inform program decisions going forward.
 Ensuring program design will stand up to the rigors of a third-party evaluation on the back
end (i.e., sample sizes are adequate to detect and claim expected savings, control and
treatment group assignments are clean and accurate, etc.)
 Obtaining information to provide insights for the future of the program, such as:
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.
2.2.2 YEAR-TWO OBJECTIVES
In addition to continuing year-one objectives, year two of the HER program also endeavored to
answer the following questions:
 How did T1’s rollout in year one (with monthly reports for four months) compare to T2’s
rollout in year two (with bimonthly reports), in terms of:
o Energy savings
Smart Infrastructure www.Aclara.com
Expand your vision of the network Page 8 of 65
o Customer satisfaction
o Opt-out rate
 How do bimonthly reports compare to quarterly reports in terms of:
o Energy savings
o Customer satisfaction
o Opt-out rate
A final objective of year two was to allow customers to choose to receive reports by email, to
potentially improve customer satisfaction.
Treatment Groups Defined
2.3.1 YEAR-ONE TREATMENT GROUPS
In year one, customers were selected to participate in the HER program based on their historical
energy usage. Of customers selected for the program, four treatment groups were created:
 T1: customers with high electric heating in the winter,
 T3: customers with high year-round energy use,
 T4: customers with medium year-round energy use, and
 T5: customers with low year-round heating use.
There was no active T2 group in year one, but customers from T1 who did not have enough
historical data to participate in year one (but would accumulate enough data by year two) were
removed from that group and put into T2 for possible future participation in the program.
In year one, T1, T3, T4 and T5 received Home Energy Reports. The T1 group reports gave tips related
to reducing heating use, while T3, T4, and T5 received reports focused on lights & appliances, always
on, and air conditioning loads.
2.3.2 YEAR-TWO TREATMENT GROUPS
In year two, the treatment groups were adapted from the groups that had been used in year one.
The following changes were made:
 The T2 group was added to the program.
The T2 group was added to the HER program in year two. This group had previously been
created in year one. Its members were initially part of the T1 group but were removed due
to insufficient data on household heating source for sufficient benchmarking, and labeled
T2. After year one, IPC provided data that allowed for the addition of T2 to the HER program
in year two. T2 was sent bimonthly reports.
 Treatment groups were split into monthly and Quarterly Report Schedules.
In year one, all of the treatment groups received reports bimonthly, except T1, who received
reports monthly (and only for four months — November to February), and T2, who had
inadequate data and received no reports.

Smart Infrastructure www.Aclara.com
Expand your vision of the network Page 9 of 65
In year two, as mentioned, the T2 group began receiving bimonthly reports. In November
2018, the T1, T3, T4, and T5 groups were all divided into halves, with one half receiving
reports quarterly, the other half receiving them bimonthly. This allowed the program’s
facilitators to examine if there was a difference in response or energy usage between
customers receiving quarterly and bimonthly reports.

 The total number of customers receiving reports was reduced
In year one of the program, the total number of customers receiving reports was ~25,500. In
year two, the total was around 24,000.
Prior to the start of year two of the program, the T3, T4, and T5 groups were optimized by
removing customers with factors correlated with low savings (their respective control groups
were optimized using the same factors). So even though a new treatment group (T2) was
added in year two, there were fewer customers in the program overall compared with year
one.

Smart Infrastructure www.Aclara.com
Expand your vision of the network Page 10 of 65
2.3.3 SIDE-BY-SIDE: YEAR ONE VS. YEAR TWO TREATMENT GROUPS
Tables 2 and 3 give a high-level overview of the makeup of year-one and year-two treatment groups.
Table 1. Year-Two Treatment Groups
Description Sample Size
(at 1st
report)
Report
Frequency
Mailout
Period
Total #
Reports
T1-Q Winter Heating
Group (Quarterly)
3,260 Quarterly* Sept 2018 –
May 2019
4
T1-B Winter Heating
Group
(Bimonthly)
3,262 Bimonthly Sept 2018 –
May 2019
6
T2 Winter Heating
Group
5,623 Bimonthly Dec 2018 –
July 2019
5
T3-Q Year-Round
Group – High
Users (Quarterly)
3,297 Quarterly* Sept 2018 –
May 2019
4
T3-B Year-Round
Group – High
Users (Bimonthly)
3,315 Bimonthly Sept 2018 –
July 2019
6
T4-Q Year-Round
Group – Medium
Users (Quarterly)
1,596 Quarterly* Sept 2018 –
May 2019
4
T4-B Year-Round
Group – Medium
Users (Bimonthly)
1,554 Bimonthly Sept 2018 –
July 2019
6
T5-Q Year-Round
Group – Low
Users (Quarterly)
1,002 Quarterly* Sept 2018 –
May 2019
4
T5-B Year-Round
Group – Low
Users (Bimonthly)
1,034 Bimonthly

Sept 2018 –
July 2019
6
TOTAL 23,943

Table 2. Year-One Treatment Groups

Description Sample Size
(at 1st
report)
Report
Frequency
Mailout Period Total # Reports
T1 Winter Heating
Group
7,092 Monthly Nov 2017 – Feb 2018 4
T3 Year-Round Group
– High Users
8,295 Bimonthly July 2017 – July 2018 7
T4 Year-Round Group
– Medium Users
3,985 Bimonthly July 2017 – July 2018 7
T5 Year-Round Group
– Low Users
6,305 Bimonthly July 2017 – July 2018 7
TOTAL 25,677
*Plus welcome report in July 2017
Smart Infrastructure www.Aclara.com
Expand your vision of the network Page 11 of 65
2.3.4 ELIGIBILITY SCREENING
Eligibility screening for T1, T3, T4, and T5 was initially conducted in year one, and these groups
persisted into year two.
However, as mentioned, the T3,
T4, and T5 groups were optimized
prior to the start of the year two
program by removing customers
with factors correlated with low
savings (their respective control
groups were optimized using the
same factors). This was done to
improve the performance of these
groups.
As for T2, Aclara had previously
conducted eligibility screening of
these potential participants before
the creation of the treatment and
control groups in year one. In year
two, these participants were
reviewed for eligibility again, after
extra data on their primary
heating source was provided by
Idaho Power.
The criteria for culling customers
during eligibility screening are listed in Table 4.
Customer Data Acquisition/Integration
The initial data acquisition and integration required to begin the program was performed in year
one. This involved using third-party demographic and property data, as well as IPC’s data on
customer usage.
In year two, data acquisition and integration was primarily maintenance, including receiving weekly
electric customer-billing data and weekly electric AMI data for the treatment groups, control groups,
and a sample of customers (for benchmarking). In addition, Aclara extracts customer action and
profile data from My Account tools (EnergyPrism) weekly for treatment and control groups (this
ensures home profiles are up to date), and Idaho Power provides Aclara with real-time data re:
customers who have opted out so they can be removed from the program.
Table 3. Criteria and Rationale for Culling Customers During Eligibility Screening
Culling Criteria Rationale
Multi-family dwellings Data concerns:
1. Program requires a 1:1 relationship of
meter to dwelling, which could not be
established in these dwellings.
2. Multiplexes and condos had
unreliable floor-size data.
Tenant-billing
mismatch
In homes where the service address does not
match the billing address, it is likely that
landlords would receive reports relating to
tenants (reports would not go to the
households they pertained to).
<1 year of AMI data
available
More than one 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
In households on a net metering rate, HERs
would not accurately reflect household energy
use.
Counties without
sufficient eligible
accounts to create
robust benchmarks.
All customers receiving reports should be
compared to robust benchmarks.

Smart Infrastructure www.Aclara.com
Expand your vision of the network Page 12 of 65

Aligning Tip Selection with Season
In year one customers received tips based on the past two months electricity use. A program
improvement was made to provide seasonal tips in a more relevant fashion, such as tips based on
last season’s usage.

Table 4. Program Data Integration
Integration Point Description Format Frequency Initiator Recipient
Public Record
Data
Aclara uses third-party data for latest property
records for treatment group customers,
selected control customers, and random sample
for benchmarking.
CSV batch: one-time
historical
(performed year
one)
Aclara Aclara
Electric
Customer-Billing
Data
Idaho Power provides electric customer-billing
data for treatment-group customers, selected
control customers, and all eligible customers
incrementally each week.
CSV recurring weekly IPC Aclara
Electric
Customer-AMI
Data
Idaho Power provides recurring daily AMI
updates of electric AMI data for treatment
group customers, selected control customers,
and all eligible customers for benchmarking.
CSV recurring weekly Idaho
Power
Aclara
Action and Profile
Data
Aclara extracts customer action and profile data
from My Account tools (EnergyPrism) for
treatment and control group customers.
CSV recurring weekly Aclara Aclara
Opt-Outs Aclara provides a weekly report on all customer
calls and opt-outs to Idaho Power.
CSV recurring weekly Idaho
Power
Aclara

Smart Infrastructure www.Aclara.com
Expand your vision of the network Page 13 of 65
3 Year-Two Program Results
Year-Two Objectives: Findings
3.1.1 HOW DID THE T1 ROLLOUT IN YEAR ONE (WITH MONTHLY REPORTS FOR FOUR
MONTHS) COMPARE TO THE T2 ROLLOUT IN YEAR TWO (WITH BIMONTHLY REPORTS) IN
TERMS OF:

A) ENERGY SAVINGS
The T1 rollout differed from the T2 rollout in that T1 received monthly reports, whereas T2 received
bimonthly reports. T1 received four reports total during year one (from Nov 2017 to Feb 2018),
whereas, T2 received five reports (regular bimonthly reports, plus one introductory report). This
may account for the slight difference in saving seen between these two groups in their respective
first years in the program, with T1 saving about 0.3% more energy than T2.
The T1 group, with its four-report rollout, outperformed the T2 bimonthly rollout in raw kWh savings
in all months from December to June, except April (even though T1 stopped receiving reports after
February). This may suggest that these four monthly reports contributed to increased savings even
after the treatment group stopped receiving them.
Savings During T1 Vs. T2 Rollout
Table 5. Average kWh Savings During T1 Rollout
Month Average kWh
savings
December 2017 25
January 2018 29
February 2018 41
March 2018 38
April 2018 24
May 2018 22
June 2018 20
Note: T1 received only 4 reports in year one
— one each in Nov 2017, Dec 2017, Jan 2018,
and Feb 2018. This chart also shows savings
in the months after report delivery ceased.
Month Average kWh
savings
December 2018 18
January 2019 25
February 2019 26
March 2019 32
April 2019 28
May 2019 15
June 2019 9

To try to ensure T1’s and T2’s first-year performances were measured as identically as possible
considering that they occurred in different calendar years, the savings for each group were taken
from the same time period in the year:
 T1 year-one savings period: December 1, 2017 – July 31, 2018
 T2 year-one savings period: December 1, 2018 – July 31, 2019
Smart Infrastructure www.Aclara.com
Expand your vision of the network Page 14 of 65
Table 8. T1 (December 1, 2017 – July 31, 2018 ) and T2
(December 1, 2018 – July 31, 2019 ) Energy Savings
Group Average Usage
during period
Average Savings
Percent
Average Savings
(kWh) per household
T1 15,266 1.36 207.1
T2 15,093 1.03 155.3
B) CUSTOMER SATISFACTION
Customers were asked to rate their overall level of satisfaction with Idaho Power on a scale of 1 to 5
(1 — very dissatisfied, 2 — dissatisfied, 3 — neither satisfied nor dissatisfied, 4 — satisfied, 5 — very
satisfied).
The results did not show any major
differences in satisfaction between the T1
and T2 groups. T1 (the monthly-report
group) had a slightly higher percentage of
customers self-report as "very satisfied" as compared to the T2 group (receiving bimonthly reports).
However, T1 also had a slightly higher percentage of customers on the overall "dissatisfied" end of
the spectrum. There did not appear to be any overarching trends regarding T1 versus T2.
C) OPT-OUT RATE
The opt-out rate was less than 1
percent after both the year-one and
year-two rollouts. It was slightly lower
in year two (which received bimonthly
reports) at 0.47 percent, versus 0.65
percent in year one.

Table 8. Opt-Out Rates, Monthly vs. Bimonthly Rollout Groups
Opt-
Outs
Sample Size
(at 1st report)
Opt-Out
Rate
Y1 rollout (T1)
(monthly reports) 46 7,092 0.65%
Y2 rollout (T2)
(bimonthly
reports)
20 5,623 0.36%

Table 7. Customer Satisfaction with IPC, Monthly vs. Bimonthly Reports
1
🙁
2 3 4 5
🙂
T1 Rollout (monthly reports) 1% 4% 4% 33% 58%
T2 Rollout (bimonthly reports) 2% 5% 6% 29% 58%

Smart Infrastructure www.Aclara.com
Expand your vision of the network Page 15 of 65
3.1.2 HOW DO BIMONTHLY REPORTS COMPARE TO QUARTERLY REPORTS IN TERMS OF:

A) ENERGY SAVINGS
There has not been any clear indication that one group (quarterly or bimonthly) regularly saves
more than another (see section 3.2.2 for detailed analysis).
B) CUSTOMER SATISFACTION
Over 85 percent of customers in the year-two T1, T3, T4, and T5 groups reported they were
"satisfied" or "very satisfied" overall with Idaho Power, both amongst monthly and quarterly report-
delivery schedules, when asked (please list question).
The group receiving bimonthly HERs reported slightly higher levels of satisfaction than the quarterly
group, with 64 percent saying they were "very satisfied" and 31 percent saying they were "satisfied"
(versus 64 percent and 22 percent in the quarterly group). The quarterly group also reported higher
levels of dissatisfaction: 3.8 percent said they were "very dissatisfied" (versus 0.6 percent in the
bimonthly group) and 5 percent said they were "dissatisfied" (versus 1.3 percent in the bimonthly
group).

Figure 1. IPC Customer Satisfaction, Quarterly Vs. Monthly Reports

C) OPT-OUT RATE
Opt-out rates for both groups were very
similar. The group receiving quarterly
reports opted out at a slightly higher rate of
0.22 percent, versus the 0.20 percent opt-
out rate for the bimonthly group.

1%1.3%3%
31%
64%
4%5%6%22%
64%
0%20%40%60%80%
IPC Customer Satisfaction,
Quarterly Vs. Monthly Reports
Bimonthly Quarterly
Table 9. Customer Satisfaction by Treatment Group
1
🙁
2 3 4 5
🙂
Bimonthly
(T345) 0.6%1.3%2.5% 31.3%64.4%
Quarterly
(T345) 3.8%5.0%5.6% 21.9%63.8%
1 = Very Dissatisfied, 5 = Very Satisfied

Table 10. Opt-Out Rates for Bimonthly and Quarterly T3, T4, and T5 Groups
Group Opt-Outs Sample Size
(at 1st report) Opt-Out Rate
Bimonthly
(T345) 12 5,903 0.20%
Quarterly
(T345) 13 5,895 0.22%

Smart Infrastructure www.Aclara.com
Expand your vision of the network Page 16 of 65
Energy Savings Results
Cumulative Savings During Treatment Period
In total, each treatment group showed savings of between 0.5 percent and 1.82 percent. This added
up to a total savings of 5,433,539 kWh across all groups. All savings were shown to be statistically
significant, except the bimonthly T5 group’s savings. This may be due to the T5 group’s small group
size and low kWh usage.
Table 11. Cumulative Savings by Cohort Over Entirety of Year Two
(T1345 Treatment Period: Aug 1, 2018 – July 31, 2019; T2 Treatment Period: Dec 1, 2018 – July 31, 2019)
Cohort Avg kWh
Savings per
Customer
Average
savings
percent
95% Confidence
Margin of Error
One-Sided Null
Hypothesis P-
Value
Cumulative
Aggregate
Savings (kWh)
Winter Heating –
T1
386 1.8 136.44 1.41831E-08 2,336,715
Winter Heating –
T2
155 1.1 97 0.000886278 821,687
Year-Round - T3 266 1.8 79.785 2.94214E-11 1,649,319
Year-Round - T4 184 1.8 75.21235 8.06114E-07 539,327
Year-Round - T5 45 0.5 91.08169 0.167808163 86,491
5,433,539
3.2.1 EVALUATION, MEASUREMENT & VERIFICATION PROCESS
The treatment groups' energy savings
were evaluated following standard
industry-accepted evaluation
practices. The program was set up as
a Randomized Control Trial (RCT), with
a third party (DNV-GL) randomly
assigning the treatment and control
groups. The evaluation employed a
difference-in-differences method,
which allows for accurate evaluation
of program-driven energy savings.
In year one, appropriately sized
treatment and control groups were
created for each cohort, assuming an
attrition rate of 10 percent and
allowing for statistically significant
detection of energy savings in excess
of 1.2 percent in the treatment
groups. To achieve this objective, all
eligible customers were placed in
either the treatment or control group.
Table 12. Treatment and Control Group Sizes
Year Two Year One Control
T1-B: Winter Heating,
Bimonthly Reports
3,260
7,092 12,720 T1-Q: Winter Heating,
Quarterly Reports
3,262
T2-B: Winter Heating,
Bimonthly Reports
5,623 None 5,316
T3-B: Year-Round High Users,
Bimonthly Reports
3,297
8,295 36,965 T3-Q: Year-Round High Users,
Quarterly Reports
3,315
T4-B: Year-Round Medium
Users, Bimonthly Reports
1,596
3,985 33,638 T4-Q: Year-Round Medium
Users, Quarterly Reports
1,554
T5-B: Year-Round Low Users.
Bimonthly Reports
1,002
6,305 22,330 T5-B: Year-Round Low Users.
Bimonthly Reports
1,034
TOTAL 23,943 25,677 110,969

Smart Infrastructure www.Aclara.com
Expand your vision of the network Page 17 of 65
In year one, 27,000 customers were identified as initial program participants. After taking into
consideration exclusionary factors such as move-ins/move-outs, as well as removing a number of
potential T1 participants due to a lack of adequate county benchmarks, the sample size at the time
of the first report was 25,677.
In year two at the time the bimonthly and monthly groups were created, the total number of
customers in treatment groups was down to around 23,000, a net decrease from the previous year.
The changes made to the treatment groups were as follows:
1. The T2 group was added to the study.
2. Move-outs were removed from all EMV treatment groups, the result of on-going attrition
due to customers moving out over the course of year 1.
3. All groups were optimized to remove households with low savings potential (see 2.3.3).
The total number of customers in control groups in year two was 110,969 (down from 166,840 in
year one). The same changes made to the treatment groups were applied to the control groups:
1. A new control group was created to accompany the new T2 group.
2. Move-outs were removed from all control groups, the result of on-going attrition due to
customers moving out over the course of year 1.
3. The control groups were similarly optimized to remove households with low savings
potential.
Households where residents moved out during the evaluation period were taken out of both the
treatment and control groups for the purpose of measuring energy savings. Customers who opted
out or did not receive reports due to being marked non-deliverable by the National Change of
Address database were left in both the treatment and control groups for the purpose of measuring
energy savings.
3.2.2 BIMONTHLY VS. QUARTERLY REPORT SAVINGS, ALL TREATMENT GROUPS
Starting at the beginning of 2019, the treatment
groups from year one (T1, T3, T4 and T5) were
split into two, with each group receiving either
quarterly or bimonthly reports. Customers were
randomly assigned to quarterly and bimonthly
groups by a third party (DNV-GL). Since then, the
savings of the quarterly and bimonthly groups
have been assessed and compared.
Between January 2019 and the end of July —
seven months — there has not been any clear
indication that one group regularly saves more
than another. T1-B saved .03 percent more energy
than T1-Q, while T5-Q and T4-Q saved more
energy than their respective bimonthly counterparts (T5-Q saved 1.9 percent more, T4-Q saved .02
percent more). The two T3 groups saved the same amount of energy.

Table 13. Cumulative Savings by Bimonthly Vs. Quarterly Cohort (Treatment Period: Dec 1, 2018 – July 31, 2019)
Figure 2. Side-By-Side Comparison of Bimonthly Vs. Quarterly Report
Savings (Dec 1, 2018 – July 31, 2019)

1.9%
1.0%
1.9%2.1%
-0.4%
1.6%
1.9%2.3%
1.5%
-1.0%
-0.5%
0.0%
0.5%
1.0%
1.5%
2.0%
2.5%
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5
Bimonthly Reports Quarterly Reports
Smart Infrastructure www.Aclara.com
Expand your vision of the network Page 18 of 65
Average kWh
Savings per
Customer
Average
Savings
Percent
95%
Confidence
Margin of Error
P-Value of Null
Hypothesis being
true
Statistically
Significant?
T1-B 300 1.9 138 0.000011 Yes
T1-Q 253 1.6 140 0.000201 Yes
T2
(bimonthly)
155 1.0 97 0.000886 Yes
T3-B 192 1.9 84 0.000004 Yes
T3-Q 192 1.9 79 0.000001 Yes
T4-B 144 2.1 78 0.000178 Yes
T4-Q 156 2.3 78 0.000045 Yes
T5-B -25 -0.4 98 0.692583 No
T5-Q 90 1.5 93 0.028654 Yes
Table 14. Bimonthly Versus Quarterly Savings for Combined T3, T4, and T5 Groups (Since Quarterly and Bimonthly Schedule
Creation)
Treatment
Period

Average Energy
Savings in kWh per
Customer
Percent
Savings
95% Confidence
Margin of Error
P-Value of Null
Hypothesis being true
Statistically
Significant

T345
Bimonthly
Dec 1, 2018-
July 31, 2019
140 1.68 54.27 2.03342E-07 Yes
T345 Quarterly Dec 1, 2018-
July 31, 2019
165 1.99 51.55 1.90732E-10 Yes
The difference in savings between quarterly and bimonthly groups was not statistically significant
for any group except T5, meaning that for the T1, T3, and T4 groups, the different report delivery
schedules likely do not significantly impact how much energy customers save.
Note: we used the null hypothesis that the
bimonthly and quarterly groups’ saving
results were the same. Only for the T5
group was the P-Value smaller than 0.05,
which is the threshold value for statistical
significance. This means only the T5
bimonthly and quarterly groups had a
difference in savings that is statistically significant.

Table 15. Statistical significance of savings differences between quarterly and
bimonthly delivery schedules for T1, T3, T4, and T5
T1-B & -Q T3-B & -Q T4-B & -Q T5-B & -Q
T- Statistic 0.534 0.005 0.237 1.713
P-Value 0.297 0.498 0.407 0.0436

Smart Infrastructure www.Aclara.com
Expand your vision of the network Page 19 of 65
Table 16. Monthly Average Percentage Energy Savings per Treatment Group
T1-B T1-Q T2 T3-B T3-Q T4-B T4-Q T5-B T5-Q
Dec 2018 1.29% 2.36% 0.64% 1.69% 2.93% 1.82% 2.46% -0.10% 3.04%
Jan 2019 2.43% 1.51% 0.91% 1.35% 3.15% 2.03% 4.57% 1.14% 1.68%
Feb 2019 1.82% 1.74% 1.03% 2.24% 3.00% 2.14% 3.21% 1.42% 1.56%
March 2019 2.35% 2.23% 1.52% 2.07% 2.17% 2.54% 2.83% -0.18% 2.38%
April 2019 2.08% 1.01% 2.07% 1.73% 0.72% 2.63% 3.33% -0.84% 1.51%
May 2019 2.53% 1.70% 1.33% 1.93% 1.51% 2.30% 2.42% -0.61% 1.18%
June 2019 1.96% 0.99% 0.91% 1.84% 1.06% 2.31% -0.30% -1.41% 1.37%

3.2.3 WINTER HEATING GROUP MEASUREMENT & VERIFICATION RESULTS
The T1 group’s energy savings continued to improve in
year two, as is expected in HER programs. The
performance of T2 in its first year did not quite match T1
in its first year (as discussed in 3.1.1 and 3.1.2), but it is
expected that T2’s energy savings results will continue to
improve similarly to T1. Both groups’ savings results are
statistically significant.
Figures 2 and 3 show the average monthly energy savings per household for the winter-heating
groups (T1 and T2) by percentage and total kWh (negative values are energy savings). The monthly
energy savings results in this section and section 3.2.4 do not show monthly results from August
through November because the treatment groups were not split into the bimonthly vs quarterly
groups until November. The savings have been calculated and accrued, although they are not
shown in the chart. The total savings kWh savings for all groups is outlined in table 13.

Figure 2. Winter Heating Groups’ Monthly Energy-Use Reduction (as a Percentage)
Table 17. Winter Heating Group Percentage Savings
T1 — Winter Heating 1.8%
T2 — Winter Heating 1.0%

Smart Infrastructure www.Aclara.com
Expand your vision of the network Page 20 of 65
Figures 4 through 6 show average monthly kWh savings per customer with 95% confidence bounds.

Figure 3. Winter Heating Groups’ Monthly Average Reduction in Energy Use per Household (in kWh)

Figure 4. T1 Quarterly Group Savings by Month per Household with 95% Confidence Bounds
-120
-100
-80
-60
-40
-20
0
20
December January February March April May June July
KW
h
T1_Q Average Kwh savings per Customer by Month
with 95% Confidence Bound
Smart Infrastructure www.Aclara.com
Expand your vision of the network Page 21 of 65

Figure 7 shows the total kWh savings each winter-heating group achieved combined.
Figure 5. T1 Bimonthly Group Savings by Month per Household with 95% Confidence Bounds
-120
-100
-80
-60
-40
-20
0
20
December January February March April May June July
kW
h
T1_B Average Kwh savings per Customer by Month
with 95% Confidence Bound
Figure 6. T2 Savings by Month per Household with 95% Confidence Bounds
-60
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
December January February March April May June July
KW
h
T2 Average KWh savings per Customer by Month with 95%
Confidence Bound
Smart Infrastructure www.Aclara.com
Expand your vision of the network Page 22 of 65

3.2.4 YEAR-ROUND GROUP MEASUREMENT & VERIFICATION RESULTS
Of the groups that received reports year-round, T3 and T4 showed increased savings over year one.
However, T5 (the group with low energy use prior to the program) did not show satisfactory savings,
despite the group having been optimized to remove customers with low savings potential.
Interestingly, the high-energy-user (T3) and medium-energy-user (T4) groups saw the same
percentage energy savings (1.8%). However, in
kilowatt hours, T3 delivered more savings because
of their overall higher kWh usage.
Figures 8 and 9 show the various year-round
groups’ average household energy reduction each
month by percentage and in kilowatt hours. Figure
10
shows the combined kWh reduction made by each group each month.
Figure 7. Total (Aggregate) Winter Heating Group Energy-Use Reduction in kWh, by Month

-250000
-200000
-150000
-100000
-50000
0
T1_B T1_Q T2
kW
h
Aggregate Savings
December January February March April May June July
Table 18. Year-Round Treatment Groups Percentage Savings
T3 — Year-Round 1.8%
T4 — Year-Round 1.8%
T5 — Year-Round 0.5%

Figure 10. Year-Round Groups’ Total (Aggregate) Energy-Use Reduction in kWh, by Month

Smart Infrastructure www.Aclara.com
Expand your vision of the network Page 23 of 65
Figures 11 and 12 show the T3 groups’ average energy savings per household by month (in kWh),
with 95% confidence bounds.

Figures 13 and 14 show the T3 groups’ average energy savings per household by month (in kWh),
with 95% confidence bounds.
Figure 12. T3-Q’s Average kWh Reduction per Household by Month, with 95% Confidence Bounds

-60
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
December January February March April May June July
KW
h
T3_Q Average KWh savings per Customer by Month with
95% Confidence Bound
Figure 11. T3-B’s Average kWh Reduction per Household by Month, with 95% Confidence Bounds

-60
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
December January February March April May June July
KW
h
T3_B Average KWh savings per Customer by Month with 95%
Confidence Bound
Figure 8. Year-Round Groups’ Monthly Energy-Use Reduction (as a Percentage)

Smart Infrastructure www.Aclara.com
Expand your vision of the network Page 24 of 65

Figure 13. T4-B’s Average kWh Reduction per Household by Month, with 95% Confidence Bounds

-40
-35
-30
-25
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
December January February March April May June July
KW
h
T4_B Average KWh savings per Customer by Month with
95% Confidence Bound
Figure 14. T4-Q’s Average kWh Reduction per Household by Month, with 95% Confidence Bounds
-70
-60
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
December January February March April May June July
KW
h
T4_Q Average KWh savings per Customer by Month with
95% Confidence Bound
Smart Infrastructure www.Aclara.com
Expand your vision of the network Page 25 of 65
Figures 15 and 16 show the T5 groups’ average energy savings per household by month (in kWh),
with 95% confidence bounds.

Email Reports
3.3.1 ENROLLMENT
Starting in March 2019, HER recipients were given the option to receive reports by email. They were
made aware of this option through a note in the header of their print HERs. No further promotion of
email reports was conducted. According to a customer survey, 45 percent of HER recipients who
responded were aware that they could choose to receive their reports by email (see Appendix C).
Figure 15. T5-B’s Average kWh Reduction per Household by Month, with 95% Confidence Bounds
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40
December January February March April May June JulyKW
h
T5_B Average KWh savings per Customer by Month with 95%
Confidence Bound
Figure 16. T5-Q’s Average kWh Reduction per Household by Month, with 95% Confidence Bounds
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
December January February March April May June July
KW
h
T5_Q Average KWh savings per Customer by Month
with 95% Confidence Bound
Smart Infrastructure www.Aclara.com
Expand your vision of the network Page 26 of 65
In total, only 11 customers signed up to receive reports by email. However, according to the
customer survey, email was the most-preferred method for receiving reports, with 45 percent of
respondents saying they preferred email reports, followed by 25 percent who preferred print, and
22 percent who preferred print and email reports.
Figure 17. HER Header with Email Sign-Up Information

Since customers have indicated a high interest in email reports, the low sign-up rate may be due to
low awareness (as mentioned, the survey found awareness was at 45 percent) and/or the relatively
high barrier to signing up (customers cannot sign up through a website or online form, but instead
must send an email request to receive email reports). It is possible that lowering barriers to
enrollment — for example, sending customers an email with a sign-up link — would result in more
customers adopting email.
While some customers indicated that they would prefer to receive email reports, the impact of email
reports on savings is presently unknown. Currently, email reports are offered for customer
convenience, not due to any impact they may (or may not) have on savings.
3.3.2 DELIVERY, OPEN, AND BOUNCE RATES
As of August 26, 2019, a total of 33 email reports had been sent to Idaho customers and seeds (i.e.,
IPC employees receiving an eHER in order to evaluate it). Of these, 31 emails were successfully
delivered, and a total of 22 were opened. The total clickthrough rate (that is, the rate of clicks on
links contained within the emails) was 3.2 percent, which came from one person clicking on the
“want to learn more?” link leading to IPC’s “Savings for Your Home” page. This is a normal
clickthrough rate, though the sample size receiving emails is too small to draw any real conclusions.
As noted, 33 emails were sent, but only 31 were delivered. The reason for the non-deliveries was
because two emails, both sent to the same customer, bounced (i.e., were unable to be delivered to
the customer’s inbox) due to their subject lines, which contained words that may have caused them
to be marked as spam. These words included “cost” and “savings” — words related to money.

Smart Infrastructure www.Aclara.com
Expand your vision of the network Page 27 of 65
Customer Satisfaction
3.4.1 CUSTOMER SATISFACTION SURVEY
A survey to gauge customer satisfaction with IPC and with the HER program was performed in July
2019 by Oraclepoll, a third-party company, via live telephone interviews. Eight hundred customers
were interviewed, six hundred of which were in treatment groups, and two hundred who were not
(as a control group).
The Home Energy Report program scored high in terms of five key performance indicators: 1. Recall,
2. Readthrough, 3. Detailed recall, 4. Action, and 5. Impression of IPC.
Analysis of the customer survey showed the following responses:
1. Recall: Customers recalled receiving reports at a high rate (82%).
2. Readthrough: The readthrough rate was also high at 83%.
3. Detailed recall: Customers remembered specific elements of their reports, including the
energy-use breakdown (90%), social benchmarking (87%), and tips (76%).
4. Action: With 77% of those reading their reports saying they have acted on the information
given in their reports, Idaho Power has the highest action rate of any Ecotagious program.
5. Impression of IPC: Customers said that HERs have improved their opinion of Idaho Power
(63%) and that the recommendations given within them are useful (74%).
Customers also generally agreed that the information in their HERs was accurate (78%) and that the
tips contained in reports were useful (74%). However, it was found that younger customers were
more likely to read the reports, so engaging customers age 55+ may require different methods.
A detailed report on the survey is included in Appendix C. A full set of the cross-tabs were delivered
to IPC for further analysis. The phone survey instrument is included in Appendix B.
3.4.2 CUSTOMER SERVICE LINE CALL RATES AND OPT-OUTS
In year two, IPC customer solutions advisors (CSAs)
received 160 calls related to the HER program, down
from 411 calls in year one. This means 0.64 percent
of customers in the treatment groups (or less, if
there were repeat callers) called in about the
program.
The opt-out rate in year two was 0.22 percent (down from 0.64% in year one). This remains below
the industry average of 1 percent. A low opt-out rate in year 2 is expected because customers who
wished to opt out of the program are likely to have done in year 1. T2 did have a slightly higher opt-
out rate: 0.36%. This is expected because year 2 was the first year that treatment group received
reports.
From January to July 2019, CSAs classified each call they received into one of seven categories:
 General
 Profile Update
Table 21. CSA Calls and Opt-Out Rates, Year-One Vs.
Year-Two
Year One Year Two
Total Calls 411 160
Opt-Out Rate 0.64% 0.22%
Smart Infrastructure www.Aclara.com
Expand your vision of the network Page 28 of 65
 Opt-Out
 Escalation
 Non-Program-Related
 Switching to Email Reports
 Other
Figure 18. Reasons for Calls to CSAs in 2019 by Category

Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Total
General 8 2 6 1 17 0 5 39
Profile Update 4 2 9 0 9 1 8 33
Opt Out 12 3 7 0 7 1 9 39
Escalation 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1
Non-Program-
Related
2 0 4 0 3 1 1 11
Switch to
Email
2 3 3 0 2 0 0 10
Other 3 0 8 2 2 1 4 20

Following are some sample notes from CSAs regarding phone calls from customers about the HER
program:
 “Discussed energy breakdown and updated home profile. Explained the usage breakdown is an
estimate.”
 “Customer was interested in a home energy audit and signed up after we discussed the program. I
mailed her an ESK as well.”
 “Customer called in to talk about energy efficiency and ways to save. Was showing him much
higher than average home on his report.”
 “[Customer] thinks the report is waste as she thinks the same information can be found on her
monthly bill. I explained the report shows her usage vs. other homes and breaks it down more to
show how the energy was used.”
 “HER to the rescue! [Customer] is on budget and had a setting wrong on their new heat pump.
They didn't notice the billing had gone way up this winter due to their budget plan but their HER
tipped them off to the extreme usage and they called their HVAC installer who figured out the
issue right away. [Customer] called to see how it would affect their budget moving forward."

Smart Infrastructure www.Aclara.com
Expand your vision of the network Page 29 of 65
Additional Metrics
3.5.1 MICROSITE ENGAGEMENT
Microsite usage has remained low, as expected. From August 1, 2018 to July 31, 2019, there were a
total of 204 unique page views (that is, people who navigated to the site) and 21 unique clicks within
the site.
Low microsite usage is to be expected, as the site serves only to supplement the HER program and
does not offer extra value to customers beyond answering basic FAQs. It is not a venue for
customers to update their home profiles or opt out of the program; it functions primarily to help
reduce call volumes.
The microsite link — http://idahopower.com/homeenergyreport — is available from HER reports.
3.5.2 MY ACCOUNT WEB ACTIVITY
Since the beginning of the program, the treatment groups have consistently used IPC’s My Account
slightly more than the controls. The treatment group has been an average of 0.1 percent more
active on My Account than the controls since January 2017.

Table 22. Monthly Microsite Activity from August 2018 to July 2019
Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb March April May June July Total
Unique Clicks 13 0 1 1 0 2 1 1 1 1 0 0 21
Total Clicks 14 0 1 1 0 2 4 1 1 1 0 0 25
Unique Page Views 0 36 15 10 33 22 36 10 9 12 8 13 204
Total Page Views 0 42 25 10 34 31 48 14 10 13 11 15 253

Figure 19. IPC My Account Usage Over Duration of the HER Program
Smart Infrastructure www.Aclara.com
Expand your vision of the network Page 30 of 65
3.5.3 ATTRITION RATES
Attrition rates measure the number of people removed from the HER program, either due to not
meeting program requirements or because participants chose to opt out. The attrition rate in Y2
was 15.15%.
Table 23. T1 Attrition Rates in Sep/Nov 2018

Table 24. T345 Attrition Rates in Sep/Nov 2018
Reason for Removal Sep Nov Total
Billing 324 18 342
Location 0 0 0
Property 0 0 0
AMI Insufficient/Negative Usage 32 12 44
USPS Non-Deliverables 36 69 105
Opt-Outs 2 6 8
Total Removal 394 105 499
Reports Dropped 11,845 11,740

Bimonthly Treatment Group Attrition Rates
Table 25. T1-B and T2-B Attrition Rates in 2019
Reason for Removal Jan March May July Total
Billing 151 129 85 128 493
Location 0 0 0 0 0
Property 12 0 2 1 15
AMI Insufficient/Negative Usage 509 389 1 3 902
USPS Non-Deliverables 81 16 11 13 229
Opt-Outs 9 6 5 3 23
Total Removal 762 540 104 148 1154
Reports Dropped 8,170 7,630 7,526 7,378

Table 26. T3-B, T4-B, and T5-B Attrition Rates in 2019
Reason for Removal Jan March May July Total
Billing 164 100 73 111 448
Reason for Removal Sep Nov Total
Billing 375 10 385
Location 0 0 0
Property 0 0 0
AMI Insufficient/Negative
Usage
0 5 5
USPS Non-Deliverables 43 57 100
Opt-Outs 4 4 8
Total Removal 422 76 498
Reports Dropped 6,489 6,413
Smart Infrastructure www.Aclara.com
Expand your vision of the network Page 31 of 65
Location 0 0 0 0 0
Property 40 0 0 2 42
AMI Insufficient/Negative Usage 64 99 2 4 169
USPS Non-Deliverables 22 30 7 5 64
Opt-Outs 2 2 3 1 8
Total Removal 292 231 85 124 732
Reports Dropped 6,085 5,854 5,769 5,645

E-2. QUARTERLY TREATMENT GROUP ATTRITION RATES
Table 27. T1-Q Attrition Rates in 2019
Reason for Removal Feb May July Total
Billing 98 41 37 176
Location 0 0 0 0
Property 0 1 0 1
AMI Insufficient/Negative Usage 105 3 19 127
USPS Non-Deliverables 8 2 4 14
Opt-Outs 2 1 1 4
Total Removal 213 48 61 322
Reports Dropped 2,994 2,946 2,885

Table 28. T3-Q, T4-Q, and T5-Q Attrition Rates in 2019
Reason for Removal Feb May July Total
Billing 272 94 92 458
Location 0 0 0 0
Property 46 0 2 48
AMI Insufficient/Negative Usage 7 1 39 47
USPS Non-Deliverables 9 6 7 22
Opt-Outs 1 2 2 5
Total Removal 335 103 142 580
Reports Dropped 5,688 5,586 5,444
Smart Infrastructure www.Aclara.com
Expand your vision of the network Page 32 of 65
4 Lessons Learned & Future
Recommendations
Lessons Learned
During year two of the pilot there were a number of lessons learned, detailed below.
1. Minimize HER with Zero Usage
In the pilot year 1 and 2, reports where customers had zero usage in the reporting period were sent
out. This is due to a variety of reasons: the inclusion of T5 customers in the program who had very
low usage, changes in occupancy in households as well as vacation homes. To minimize the number
of reports sent out with zero usage, our operations team checks for low usage reports with every
report run.
2. Consider Rules for Attrition
In Year 1 and Year 2 of the pilot, customers who did not receive a report because they had missing
billing data or other data errors in one report period were also removed from the program and did
not receive any future reports. This affects program savings and also means that a customer that is
potentially a good candidate to receive HERs will no longer receive HERs at all. In the expansion, this
decision should be revisited so that a customer is not removed from the program if they miss one
report due to insufficient billing or AMI data error.
3. Review Email Opt-In Recruitment
The number of households who decided to switch from paper to email reports once the opportunity
was offered after the March report was very low – only 11 households. There are a couple of
reasons that the uptake was very low: a) the barrier to switch from print to email is high: requiring
customers to send an email b) many customers might not even notice the text saying that this is an
option, even though it was put in red font in the first couple reports c) the Customer Satisfaction
survey indicates that households may be satisfied just knowing this is an option offered by Idaho
Power and not decide to switch to email.
This channel was offered for customer satisfaction reasons so as not to upset customers who did
not want to receive print reports, and to offer customers the ability to receive the information in
their channel of choice. The very small number of customers receiving email precludes any analysis
to determine if receipt mechanism affected energy savings. In addition, the email group does not
have a valid control group to use to perform M&V as there are inherent differences between
customer groups who opt-in to email vs. those who do not. Therefore, offering email HER as an
option that customers can switch to from print should be viewed as a customer experience choice
rather than a channel that savings can be expected of.
4. Be Cognizant of Sending Appropriate Messaging to Electric Vehicle (EV) Owners
Smart Infrastructure www.Aclara.com
Expand your vision of the network Page 33 of 65
Idaho Power is encouraging customers to purchase EVs. At the same time the HERs currently do not
differentiate for customers who have electric vehicles. This means that a customer who recently
purchased an EV to be environmentally responsible can receive HERs messaging indicating they are
using more than similar homes without acknowledging that it may be due to an electric vehicle. This
creates confusion in company messaging, creating a less-than-ideal customer experience. As an
interim solution, the text of the HER benchmarking section was updated to add “Please note that
charging an electric vehicle may affect your comparison.” If the program expands, Idaho Power will
be looking to adjust messaging for HER participants/EV owners in a way that validates the EV
purchase decision while still providing energy use home comparisons and recommendations for
improving the homes’ energy use.

Recommended Improvements
Based on the findings from year two of the pilot, Aclara/Uplight has the following recommendations
for enhancing the program in year three and beyond:
1. Do a full program roll-out, expanding to treat an optimized group of IPC customers based on
the characteristics that have proven to be cost-effective during the two-year pilot.
2. Improve the email subject lines to they are less likely to be caught by spam filters.
3. Continue to allow program participants to switch from print to email reports. Ensure new
participants know the option is available by offering email reports in the welcome letter.
4. Continue to promote IPC energy-efficiency programs in HERs to drive participation in these
programs.
5. Send six reports on a bimonthly schedule in the first year customers receive reports, and
align on a quarterly report format after the first year of HER treatment. There is not enough
of a difference in savings to justify sending bimonthly reports. Customer satisfaction
differences were small between the quarterly and bimonthly reports.
6. Simplify the program by merging all treatments groups into one group for the purpose of
simplifying the report template and cadence and improving the cost-effectiveness of the
program.
7. Remove the T5 group from the program. Their inclusion in this program confirmed the
belief that low-energy-users do not save well in HER programs.
8. Improve in-home times (the time it takes for a report to reach the customer in their home)
by switching to a daily AMI data schedule.
Smart Infrastructure www.Aclara.com
Expand your vision of the network Page 34 of 65
5 Appendices
Appendix A: Sample Home Energy Reports
A-1. SAMPLE PRINT HER — ALWAYS-ON TIPS

Smart Infrastructure www.Aclara.com
Expand your vision of the network Page 35 of 65

A-2. SAMPLE EMAIL REPORT — ALWAYS-ON TIPS
Smart Infrastructure www.Aclara.com
Expand your vision of the network Page 36 of 65

Smart Infrastructure www.Aclara.com
Expand your vision of the network Page 37 of 65
Appendix B: Customer Satisfaction Survey Report

2019 Annual Customer Survey Report

August 2019
Smart Infrastructure www.Aclara.com
Expand your vision of the network Page 38 of 65
Methodology and Logistics
Background
Ecotagious commissioned Oraclepoll Research Limited to conduct survey research among Idaho
Power customers. The research assessed customers’ satisfaction levels, as well as customers'
willingness to conserve energy.
A primary focus of the study was to determine the impact of Home Energy Reports on the
select group of Idaho Power customers who received them (i.e., the treatment group). To
determine this, a sample of customers were interviewed from the treatment group, as well as
general customers (i.e., a control
group).
This survey project is a follow-up to a
baseline poll that was conducted by
Oraclepoll in April 2018 for
Ecotagious/Idaho Power. That survey
established baseline data for several
indicators that were repeated in this
project. When and where possible, the
results are compared over time.
Survey Method
The survey was conducted by live
person-to-person researchers at the
Oraclepoll call centre using computer-assisted techniques of telephone interviewing (CATI). An
initial call was made to contact respondents or, if requested, to set up a suitable callback time
to complete the interview. Researchers asked for the contact person provided in the database,
but respondents were also 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 July 10 and July 23, 2019.
Confidence
The margin of error for the total (N=800) sample is ±3.5 percent, 19/20 times. The error rate for
the control sample (N=200) is ±6.9 percent, 19/20 times. For the treatment group (N=600), it is
±4.0 percent, 19/20 times.
Study Sample

Smart Infrastructure www.Aclara.com
Expand your vision of the network Page 39 of 65
Idaho Power provided a database of customers to
be interviewed. Quotas were set for each customer
category to ensure enough respondents were
selected from each treatment group to allow for
comparison between them.
The total number of customers interviewed was
800. Of these, 600 were in treatment groups and
200 were in control groups. This is an increase in
respondents from 2018, when the sample size was
400 — 200 in the control group and 200 in
treatment groups (100 from T1, 100 from T1/T2/T3
combined).
Treatment Group Details
The treatment groups were created based on their electricity usage prior to the program. T1
and T2 have high electric heating in the winter, whereas T3, T4, and T5 do not. T3 are
considered high energy users, T4 are medium, and T5 are low.
Findings to date show that T1 and T2 have higher savings than T3, T4, and T5. However, this is
likely because, as users of electric heating, they have higher electricity usage than other groups
(and therefore more savings potential), not because they have a different response to the
reports.
Starting in 2019, all treatment groups except T2 were split into two groups with different
report schedules, one quarterly and the other bimonthly (e.g., T1 was divided into T1-Q and T1-
B).

Breakdown of respondents from each customer group
(2019)
Category Respondents % of Total
Sample
T1 Total 180 22.5%
T2 Total
(bimonthly) 100 12.5%
T3 Total 180 22.5%
T4 Total 85 10.6%
Smart Infrastructure www.Aclara.com
Expand your vision of the network Page 40 of 65
Summary
The survey measured customer perceptions of Idaho Power and Home Energy Reports (HERs).
A basic summary of results follows.
Customer Satisfaction
Customer satisfaction, both with Idaho Power as a whole and with the Home Energy Report
program specifically, was found to be very high.
A vast majority (90%) of customers — in treatment and control groups — indicated that they
are satisfied with Idaho Power. In addition, most customers who received and read HERs
indicated that their opinion of Idaho Power had improved as a result of receiving reports (63%).
Customers who received reports also saw a larger increase in satisfaction over 2018 (7%) than
those who did not (2%). So, while a majority of all customers are satisfied with Idaho Power,
those who received HERs found that the reports improved their opinion of the company.
Customer Impressions of Home Energy Reports
Most customers in the treatment group agreed that the information in their HERs was accurate
(78%) and that the tips contained in the reports were useful (74%). Furthermore, customers’
belief in the reports’ accuracy increased 17 percent over last year. This is a favorable finding, as
accuracy and credibility are often customers’ most common subjects of complaint.
Demographics
The survey found that older customers were the least likely to read Home Energy Reports (12–
13% of customers aged 55+ did not read them, compared with less than 4% of customers under
55). Similarly, older customers were found to be less motivated to reduce their electricity
consumption than respondents under 55. Notably, 100 percent of the 18–24 age group said
they were motivated to reduce consumption. There were no notable differences between the
responses of males vs. females.

These findings may indicate that energy-saving programs like HERs may be more effective with
younger customers, and that different methods may be required to engage older customers.
Energy Savings Indicators
When asked, most customers agreed that Idaho Power helps them to save energy and offers
helpful tools, tips, and programs. However, only 46 percent agreed that their smart meter
provides valuable information.
It is possible that many customers are not aware that their smart meters are essential to
creating Home Energy Reports. In the future, it may be useful to create a clearer link between
HERs and smart meters, or to implement features such as alerts using smart meter data.
Smart Infrastructure www.Aclara.com
Expand your vision of the network Page 41 of 65
Treatment Groups
A comparison of the bimonthly and quarterly treatment groups’ responses was performed for
each question, and in most cases, no notable pattern of difference was found between
quarterly and bimonthly treatment groups. The only notable exception was that the quarterly
and bimonthly report recipients had different recall of how frequently they received HERs.
The fact that different delivery schedules did not seem to affect results is likely because the
schedules had been implemented only seven months before the survey was conducted
(meaning the bimonthly groups had only received two more reports than the quarterly groups).
Thus, in this report, results are given for each treatment group as a whole, unless otherwise
specified.
Regarding differences in response between the T1, T2, T3, T4, and T5 groups, little difference
was found, except where noted. For Question #T9 (“How, if at all, has your opinion of Idaho
Power changed since receiving the Home Energy Reports? Would you say it is much worse,
somewhat worse, stayed the same, somewhat better or much better?”), results were tested to
see if there was any significant difference between the T1–T5 treatment groups. No statistically
significant difference was found (see Appendix for details).
Customer Journey
The goal for the customer experience with Home Energy Reports is that report recipients:
A. remember the reports (recall),
B. read them (readthrough),
C. recall specific elements (detailed recall),
D. take action based on the reports (action), and
E. have a higher opinion of Idaho Power as a result of being in the program (impression of
IPC).

Smart Infrastructure www.Aclara.com
Expand your vision of the network Page 42 of 65
Analysis of the customer survey shows that results are very positive on all fronts:
A. Recall: Customers recall receiving reports at a high rate (82%).
B. Readthrough: The readthrough rate is also high at 83%.
C. Detailed recall: Customers remembered specific elements of their reports, including the
energy-use breakdown (90%), social benchmarking (87%), and tips (76%).
D. Action: With 77% of those reading their reports saying they've acted on the information
given in their reports, Idaho Power has the highest action rate of any Ecotagious
program.
E. Impression of IPC: Customers say that HERs have improved their opinion of Idaho
Power (63%) and that the recommendations given within them are useful (74%).
Smart Infrastructure www.Aclara.com
Expand your vision of the network Page 43 of 65
Overall Satisfaction
The following section includes questions asked of all respondents — in both treatment and
control groups.

Question #Q1: 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 very high level of satisfaction among Idaho Power customers, as evidenced by the 90-
percent overall "satisfied" score (61% "very satisfied," 29% "satisfied"), which is 5 percent
higher the 85-percent score in 2018 (60% "very satisfied,” 25% "satisfied").
The survey did not include follow-up questions as to why customers were satisfied or
unsatisfied. However, as of February 2019, customers were offered the opportunity to switch
from print reports to email reports, which potentially might have helped increase the
treatment group’s satisfaction between year one and year two. Otherwise, the HER program
was not notably changed between 2018 and 2019, so the overall increase in satisfaction may
be due to broader trends of communication and policy in Idaho Power and/or customers who
did not like the HER program having opted out in year one.
There were no notable differences in satisfaction between treatment groups or according to
report delivery frequency, gender, or education. There were small differences in satisfaction
according to age group, with 25- to 34-year-olds being the least satisfied (85% total satisfied)
and 55- to 64-year-olds being the most satisfied (94% total satisfied).
6%
7%
2%
6%
5%
6%
4%
10%
10%
8%
6%
9%
90%
83%
88%
86%
90%
85%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Treatment 2019
Treatment 2018
Control 2019
Control 2018
Total 2019
Total 2018
Overall Satisfaction
Total Dissatisfied Total Neutral Total Satisfied
In the first question, all respondents (N=800) rated their level of satisfaction with Idaho Power using a five-point
scale.* The graph below combines total "satisfied" (5 and 4) and total "dissatisfied" (1 and 2) results. It also
compares the findings over the baseline 2018 survey.

*5 = very satisfied, 4 = satisfied, 3 = neither satisfied nor dissatisfied, 2 = unsatisfied, 1= very unsatisfied
Smart Infrastructure www.Aclara.com
Expand your vision of the network Page 44 of 65
Motivation to Reduce Consumption

Question #Q2: 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.”

Almost eight in ten (78%) of all customers said that they are "motivated" (34%) or "very
motivated" (44%) to reduce the amount of electricity they use at home. This is a 9 percent
increase over 2018, when 69 percent stated the same. Results from the treatment group were
notably higher at 80 percent than from the control sample at 72 percent, indicating a
correlation between receiving reports and wanting to save energy. The increase in motivation
to reduce electricity use between 2018 and 2019 may be due to the length of time customers
have been receiving reports — T1, T3, T4, and T5 have been receiving reports since 2017, and
their motivation to reduce electricity consumption may have increased over time.
There were no notable differences in response rates between the treatment groups.
Respondents under the age of 55 tend to be the most motivated to reduce electricity
consumption. All respondents aged 18–24 said they are motivated, as are 80 percent of
respondents aged 25–34, 81 percent of respondents aged 35–44, and 82 percent of
respondents aged 45–54.
These motivation rates are higher than those of respondents aged 55–64 (72% reported being
motivated), 65–74 (76% were motivated), and 75 years or older (67% were motivated).
10%
11%
7%
15%
10%
13%
9%
15%
21%
20%
12%
18%
80%
74%
72%
65%
78%
69%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Treatment 2019
Treatment 2018
Control 2019
Control 2018
Total 2019
Total 2018
Motivation to Reduce Consumption
Total Unmotivated Total Neutral Total Motivated
All customers (N=800) were questioned about how motivated they are to reduce the
amount of electricity consumed at their residence. Results from "total motivated" (5 and
4) and "total not motivated" (1 and 2) scores are combined below.

*5 = very motivated, 4 = motivated, 3 = neither motivated nor not motivated, 2 = not motivated, 1 = not at all motivated
Smart Infrastructure www.Aclara.com
Expand your vision of the network Page 45 of 65
Efforts to Reduce Use

Question #Q3: Do you make any efforts to reduce your electricity use?

A very strong majority (92%) of all customers claimed that they make efforts to reduce their
electricity use. This is 10 percent higher than the 82 percent in 2018 who claimed the same.
The increase in effort may be due to increased societal pressure to conserve, which would
impact both treatment and control groups.
Results from both 2018 and 2019 show treatment samples making slightly higher efforts to
reduce electricity use than their respective control groups (in 2019, 93% of respondents in
treatment groups said they make efforts, compared to 90% of the control group. In 2018, 86%
in the treatment groups reported making efforts, compared to 77% in the control). Although
the gap between treatment and control groups narrowed in 2019, more customers overall
reported making efforts to reduce electricity use.
There was no notable difference in response to this question according to gender. There were
some differences according to age group, with a greater percentage of younger respondents
reporting that they make an effort to reduce electricity use. Notably, 100 percent of 18- to 24-
year-olds reported making efforts to reduce their electricity use, while only 85 percent of those
75 or older reported the same. (However, as a standalone figure, 85 percent is still quite high.)
93%
86%
90%
77%
92%
82%
7%
14%
10%
19%
8%
16%
0%
1%
0%
4%
0%
2%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Treatment 2019
Treatment 2018
Control 2019
Control 2018
Total 2019
Total 2018
Effort to Reduce Electricity Use
Yes No Don't Know
All respondents (N=800) were then specifically asked if they make efforts to reduce the electricity that they
use.
Smart Infrastructure www.Aclara.com
Expand your vision of the network Page 46 of 65
Reasons for Reducing Electricity Use

Question #Q4: Please tell me if each of the following are reasons why you make
efforts to reduce your electricity use.

2018 2019
Reason Total
Sample
Control Treatment Total
Sample
Control Treatment
Save money 98% 97% 98% 99% 98% 99%
Reduce waste 86% 83% 88% 82% 78% 83%
Help preserve the
environment
76% 69% 83% 80% 77% 80%
Make your home more
comfortable
73% 64% 81% 75% 72% 76%
Reduce your dependence on
fossil fuels (propane, coal,
etc.)”
67% 60% 73% 65% 60% 66%

Saving money was the prime motivator for saving energy for nearly all customers in both 2019
(99%) and 2018 (98%). The next most common reason was reducing waste (82% — a 4%
decrease from 2018), followed by helping to preserve the environment (80% — a 4% increase
from 2018). Home comfort ranked fourth at 80 percent (4% higher than in 2018), while the
least-selected reason was reducing dependence on fossil fuels at 65 percent (2% less than in
2018).

The respondents from Q3 who said they make efforts to reduce their electricity consumption (N=737)
were then asked to indicate the reasons why they conserve electricity, selecting from five factors. The
numbers below indicate those that answered "yes" to each factor.
Smart Infrastructure www.Aclara.com
Expand your vision of the network Page 47 of 65
Agreement Statements

Question #Q5: 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.

Customer-Service Indicators
The first three statements related to Idaho Power’s service (results below).

2019 2018
Customer Service Indicator Total
Sample Control Treatment Total
Sample Control Treatment
"Idaho Power provides
excellent customer service." 89% 87% 90% 84% 84% 83%
"Idaho Power provides
service at a reasonable cost."80% 81% 79% 74% 75% 74%
"Idaho Power cares about its
customers." 77% 73% 79% 69% 70% 68%

Percentage of Customers who Responded "Agree" or "Strongly Agree" to the phrase, "Idaho Power
Provides Excellent Customer Service."

Results show a strong level of satisfaction with Idaho Power’s service and improved (in 2019,
over 2018) for every customer-service statement. Findings are roughly consistent between the
control and treatment groups.
90%
83%
87%
84%
89%
84%
78%
80%
82%
84%
86%
88%
90%
92%
Treatment
2019
Treatment
2018
Control
2019
Control
2018
Total 2019 Total 2018
All respondents (N=800) were asked to rate their level of agreement with nine statements, using a five-
point scale.* Figures in the following tables include the total "agree" answers (5 and 4) for each indicator.

*5 = strongly agree, 4 = agree, 3 = neither agree nor disagree, 2 = disagree, 1 = strongly disagree
Smart Infrastructure www.Aclara.com
Expand your vision of the network Page 48 of 65

Energy-Savings Indicators
The next six statements related to Idaho Power’s offerings to help customers understand their
energy use and save energy (results below).

2019 2018
Energy-Savings Indicator Total
Sample Control Treatment Total
Sample Control Treatment
"Idaho Power helps you understand
how you’re using energy."* 77% 63% 82% 71% 59% 83%
"Idaho Power provides helpful tools
to help you save money."* 76% 62% 81% 68% 61% 75%
"Idaho Power is a trusted resource for
information on how to save energy." 72% 65% 74% 65% 60% 70%
"Idaho Power helps you manage your
energy usage."* 69% 58% 73% 58% 45% 71%
"Idaho Power helps you save
electricity by providing useful energy-
saving recommendations and
programs."*
69% 62% 72% 62% 53% 72%
"You feel like your smart meter is
providing valuable information."* 46% 42% 48% 45% 39% 52%
*First-person words (e.g., “I” and “my”) from the 2018 survey were changed to second-person (e.g., “you” and “your”) in
2019. E.g., "Idaho Power helps me understand how I’m using energy” (2018) vs. “Idaho Power helps you understand how
you're using energy" (2019)

Overall, the difference between treatment and control groups was quite high for all
statements, suggesting the HERs are improving customers’ perception of Idaho Power in these
categories. The statements that saw the highest rates of agreement were "Idaho Power helps
you understand how you’re using energy" and "Idaho Power provides helpful tools to help you
save money." Results for these two indicators were higher overall in 2019 than in 2018, with
the treatment groups' results being 19 percent higher than the control groups' for both
questions. This suggests that HERs contributed to the improved perception of Idaho Power in
relation to these statements.
Treatment-group results were also stronger for the remaining four statements, and the scores
had improved compared to 2018. The statement with the third-highest rate of agreement was
"Idaho Power is a trusted resource for information on how to save energy," followed by "Idaho
Power helps you manage your energy usage," which made the biggest gains over 2018 results
and was selected by 15% more of the treatment group than the control group. The next highest
ranked statement was "Idaho Power helps you save electricity by providing useful energy-
saving recommendations,” and there was a 10 percent gap between the treatment group's
results and the control’s. Results for "You feel like your smart meter is providing valuable
information" remained lowest and are consistent with the results from 2018.

Smart Infrastructure www.Aclara.com
Expand your vision of the network Page 49 of 65
Actions to Save

Question #Q6: 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”
2018
Total
sample
“yes”
2019
Control
sample
“yes”
2019
Treatment
sample
“yes”
2019
Turned off lights N/A 93% 92% 93%
Purchased LEDs to install in your
home 83% 91% 90% 92%
Set your thermostat to a lower or
higher temperature 74% 84% 78% 86%
Only used dryer when it’s full 85% 82% 82% 82%
Avoided heating unused rooms 85% 75% 72% 76%
Washed clothes in cold water 71% 70% 63% 72%
Unplugged electrical devices N/A* 67% 62% 69%
Reduced shower time N/A* 60% 53% 62%
Installed a high efficiency
showerhead 41% 44% 35% 47%
Checked air ducts for leaks 37% 39% 37% 40%
Changed appliances N/A* 30% 26% 32%
Used a clothesline to dry clothing 25% 29% 32% 28%
Changed windows or doors N/A* 20% 21% 20%
Added insulation to your home 21% 14% 12% 15%
*Responses marked "N/A" indicate questions that were not asked in the 2018 survey. These questions were
added in 2019 after they were found to be common open-ended customer responses in the 2018 survey.

According to the 2019 survey, a more than nine-in-ten majority have turned off lights (93%)
and have purchased LEDs (91%) for their home in the last six months in order to save energy. A
large majority have also adjusted their thermostats (84%) and only used the dryer when it was
full (82%). Also topping the list of energy-saving actions taken were: not heating unused rooms
(75%), washing clothes in cold water (70%), unplugging electrical devices (67%), and reducing
shower time (60%). Fewer customers took more labor-intensive, time-consuming, and costly
actions such as installing showerheads (44%), checking for air-duct leaks (39%), buying new
appliances (3%), using clotheslines (29%), and doing renovations such as replacing windows
and doors (20%) or adding insulation (14%).

Next, all respondents (N=800) were asked if they had completed a series of fourteen conservation
actions in the past six months.
These 20% (N=163)
were asked a
follow-up question
about how many
windows or doors
were changed.
“How many were
changed?”
1–3 42%
4–6 11%
7–9 21%
10 or more 24%
Don't know 2%

Smart Infrastructure www.Aclara.com
Expand your vision of the network Page 50 of 65
All respondents were asked a final, open-ended question (#Q7) regarding whether they had
done anything else to save electricity. Given the exhaustive list in Question 6, most (90%) said
no, and another 2 percent were unsure. Of those who gave responses, 3 percent said they had
upgraded a furnace or air conditioner, while 1 percent each named adding solar panels, turning
off their air conditioner, using less water, burning wood or pellets, and closing blinds or
curtains during the day.

Smart Infrastructure www.Aclara.com
Expand your vision of the network Page 51 of 65
Customer Recall of Reports
The following questions were asked only to those customers receiving a home energy report
(treatment).

The treatment group (N=600) was asked a series of questions relating specifically to the Home Energy Reports.
This total group was made up of five sub-groups (T1, T2, T3, T4, T5). The T1, T3, T4, and T5 groups were further
subdivided into those receiving bimonthly reports and those receiving quarterly reports (e.g., T1 was divided into
T1-B and T1-Q). All members of T2 received bimonthly reports.
The groups were created according to the customers' household energy usage prior to the start of the program.
T1 and T2 were customers with high winter usage, T3 was customers with high usage, T4 had medium usage, and
T5 had low usage.
The number of respondents in each group was as follows:
 T1: 180 (T1-B: 90; T1-Q: 90)
 T2: 100 (all bimonthly)
 T3: 180 (T3-B: 90; T3-Q: 90)
 T4: 85 (T4-B: 43; T4-Q: 42)
 T5: 55 (T5-B: 27; T5-Q: 28)
The number of respondents surveyed that were in treatment groups was markedly larger in 2019 (N=600) than in
2018 (N=200).

Smart Infrastructure www.Aclara.com
Expand your vision of the network Page 52 of 65

Question #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?”

The number of respondents in the treatment group who recalled receiving a HER was
consistent with last year. In 2019, 82 percent said they recalled receiving a report, compared
with 84 percent in 2018.
There was not a large difference between
the bimonthly and quarterly groups'
overall recall of having received a Home
Energy Report, as shown in the table to
the right.
The 82 percent of respondents who answered "yes" when asked if they recalled receiving a HER
were asked a series of follow-up questions about the reports, while those who said "no" (17%)
or "don’t know" (2%) were not.
Yes, 84%Yes, 82%
No, 14%No, 17%
Unsure, 2%Unsure, 2%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
The respondents in treatment groups (N=600) were read the following short introductory statement, after which they
were asked if they recalled receiving a Home Energy Report.
2018 2019
Responses to Question #T1: Do you recall receiving a Home Energy report?
Yes No Don't know
T345 Bimonthly 81% 18% 1%
T345 Quarterly 77% 20% 3%
Smart Infrastructure www.Aclara.com
Expand your vision of the network Page 53 of 65
Customer Rates of Reading the Report
The following questions were asked only to those customers who recalled receiving a report
and had read some or all of it (N=457).

Question #T2: How thoroughly did you read the reports you received? Did you read
all or most of them, some of them, or little to none of them?
Comparison between 2018 and 2019 Comparison between Bimonthly and
Quarterly

Findings over the two survey periods show consistency in the rates of readership. In 2019, 83
percent of treatment customers that recalled receiving a Home Energy Report said they had
read all or most of it, while 10 percent said they had gone through some of it.
82%83%
14%10%
4%7%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
2018 2019
All or most Some Little/none
83%85%
8%9%
9%6%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
T345 Bimonthly T345 Quarterly
All or most Some Little/none
The treatment group respondents that recalled receiving the reports (N=490) were asked about how
thoroughly they had read them.
Smart Infrastructure www.Aclara.com
Expand your vision of the network Page 54 of 65
These responses do not seem to
differ between the bimonthly and
quarterly treatment groups. There
was also not a notable difference
between the electric heating
groups (T1 and T2) and the year-
round usage groups (T3, T4 and
T5)
There does appear to be a
correlation between customer
age and their rates of reading the
report. Younger customers (those
under 55) were more likely to
read all or most of their reports,
while people 55 and over were
more likely to read little or none
of their reports.
For the 7 percent of all
respondents who answered that
they’d read little or none of the
reports, the survey ended here.

Responses, by Age, to Question #T2: “How thoroughly did you read the Reports you
received? Did you read…”
Age Group All or most of
them
Some of
them
Little to none
of them?
18–24 91% 9% 0%
25–34 91% 6% 3%
35–44 84% 16% 0%
45–54 92% 4% 4%
55–64 74% 14% 13%
Responses, by Report Frequency, to Question #T2: “How thoroughly did you read the
Reports you received? Did you read…”
Report Frequency All or most of
them
Some of
them
Little to none
of them?
T345 Bimonthly 83% 8% 9%
Smart Infrastructure www.Aclara.com
Expand your vision of the network Page 55 of 65
Experience with the Report

Question #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.
Overall, responses to this question indicated that most customers find their Home Energy
Reports accurate, useful, and easy to understand.
Of the treatment group
customers surveyed in
2019, almost eight in ten
(78%) agreed that the
information in the Home
Energy Report seemed
accurate (a 17% increase
from the 61% who agreed in
2018), indicating that an
increasing majority of
customers see HERs as
credible.
Up 10 percent from last year, 74 percent of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that the
recommendations and tips in the report were useful. At a very similar rate to last year, 84
percent agreed or strongly agreed that the information in the report was easy to understand.
The were no notable differences in responses between the treatment groups.

The respondents who had received a report and had read some or all of it (N=457) were read three statements
related to information contained within the report and asked to rate their level of agreement using a five-point
scale*. The respondents who had received a report and had read some or all of it (N=457) were read three
statements related to information contained within the report and asked to rate their level of agreement using a
five-point scale*. Figures in the following table include the total "agree" answers (5 and 4) for each statement.

*5 = strongly agree, 4 = agree, 3 = neither agree nor disagree, 2 = disagree, 1 = strongly disagree
Percentage of Respondents who Answered “Agree” or “Strongly Agree” to the Following
Statements
Statement 2018 2019
"The information presented in your* Home
Energy Report was easy to understand." 85% 84%
"The information presented in your* Home
Energy Report seemed accurate."
61% 78%
"The recommendations and tips on how to 64% 74%
Smart Infrastructure www.Aclara.com
Expand your vision of the network Page 56 of 65
Customer Recognition of HER Features

Question #T4: Do you recall seeing each of the following features of the Home
Energy Report?

Next, the respondents who had received a report and had read some or all it (N=457) were asked if they
remembered seeing three features, and which were most useful.
87%
The next most remembered
feature was "the comparison
of your electricity use in
relationship to homes of
similar type and size in your
area” at 87% (versus 91% in
2018).

In 2019, 90 percent recalled
seeing “The breakdown of
your electricity use providing
insights into how much your
electricity use goes towards
the different major appliance
categories in your home”
(compared to 88% in 2018).

Less frequently recalled, but
still remembered by more
than three-quarters of those
questioned, was “Saving tips,
including personalized
savings tips just for you”
(13% higher than the 63%
who recalled it in 2018).

90%
76%
Question #T5: Which one
of the features you recall
seeing did you find the
most useful?

33%
37%
30%
In terms of usefulness, there was a near-three-way split
of opinion, with a similar number of customers seeing
each feature as most useful. However, by a few
percentage points, the comparison feature was found to
be most useful, followed by the energy breakdown,
then saving tips.

Smart Infrastructure www.Aclara.com
Expand your vision of the network Page 57 of 65
Question #T5a: Is there anything else about the Home Energy Report you found useful?

Response N %
No/nothing else N=250 55%
Don’t know N=91 20%
Information (in general) N=39 9%
Breakdown of energy usage (over time, peak times, etc.) N=34 7%
Everything N=32 7%
Having an efficient home N=11 2%

Finally, the respondents (N=457) were asked if there was anything else that they had found useful,
and most were unable to recall anything else.
Smart Infrastructure www.Aclara.com
Expand your vision of the network Page 58 of 65
Taking Actions

Question #T6: Have you acted on any of the information and suggestions to save
money and electricity that were included in the report?

Of those asked, 77 percent said that they had taken actions to save money or electricity, which
is slightly higher than the 75 percent who took actions in 2018.

Yes, 75%Yes, 77%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
2018 2019
Those that received the report and had read some or all it (N=457) were asked if they had acted on any of
the suggestions or information provided regarding saving money and electricity.
Smart Infrastructure www.Aclara.com
Expand your vision of the network Page 59 of 65
Frequency of Report Receipt

Question #T7: How frequently do you recall receiving your Home Energy Report?

Monthly 51%
Bimonthly 5%
Quarterly 32%
Twice a year 1%
Don’t know 11%

The table below outlines the responses to this question according to the frequency of reports the
customers are currently receiving.

Responses to Question #T7: “How frequently do you recall receiving your Home Energy Report?”
Treatment Group Monthly Bimonthly Quarterly Twice a year Don't know
T1 Bimonthly 77% 3% 7% 1% 12%
T1 Quarterly 12% - 75% 3% 10%
T2 (Bimonthly) 37% 16% 28% 12% 7%
T345 Bimonthly 76% 13% 3% - 8%
T345 Quarterly 40% 1% 50% 2% 8%

Customers that recalled receiving the report and that had read some or all it (N=457) were asked how often they
remembered getting it, and then at what frequency they would prefer to receive reports.
More than half, or 51 percent, of
respondents said they
remembered getting the report
monthly, while 32 percent
answered quarterly. Eleven percent
could not recall, while only 5
percent said bimonthly, and 1
percent said twice a year.

Smart Infrastructure www.Aclara.com
Expand your vision of the network Page 60 of 65
Question #T8: At what frequency would you prefer to receive the report?

Monthly 42%
Bimonthly 11%
Quarterly 28%
Twice a year 14%
Don’t know 5%

The table below outlines responses to this question according to the frequency of reports the
customers are currently receiving.

Responses to Question #T8: “At what frequency would you prefer to receive the report?”
Treatment Group Monthly Bimonthly Quarterly Twice a Year Don't Know
T1 Bimonthly 62% 8% 15% 10% 5%
T1 Quarterly 15% 8% 52% 21% 4%
T2 (Bimonthly) 44% 7% 31% - 19%
T345 Bimonthly 56% 14% 18% 9% 3%
T345 Quarterly 36% 8% 33% 18% 5%
Those receiving the report bimonthly tended to answer that they received the report monthly
or bimonthly and that they would prefer to get it each month. Quarterly recipients most
answered that they received it quarterly and monthly and that they would prefer to get it
monthly and quarterly.

Monthly receipt is preferred by 42
percent of respondents, and
quarterly receipt is preferred by 28
percent. The remaining responses
were split between biannually
(14%) and bimonthly (11%).
Smart Infrastructure www.Aclara.com
Expand your vision of the network Page 61 of 65
Report and Opinion of Idaho Power

Question #T9: How, if at all, has your opinion of Idaho Power changed since
receiving the Home Energy Reports? Would you say it is much worse, somewhat
worse, stayed the same, somewhat better or much better?

The Home Energy Reports have had a positive impact on perceptions of Idaho Power, with 63
percent of respondents saying they now have a better opinion of the utility (29% "somewhat
better" and 34% "much better"), which is a 7-percent improvement over the 57 percent that
held this opinion in 2018 (27% "somewhat better" and 30% "much better").

In 2019, 35 percent of those surveyed stated that their opinion has remained the same (3%
more than the 38% who answered this way in 2018), and only 2 percent said their opinion had
worsened (4% less than the 6% who gave this answer in 2018).
Responses to Question #T9 by Treatment Group and Report Schedule
The separate treatment groups did not show
any notable variation in their responses to
the question (“How, if at all, has your opinion
of Idaho Power changed since receiving the
Home Energy Reports?”). Respondents from
T1 had the most improved opinion of Idaho Power due to the receiving Home Energy Reports.
2%
6%
35%
38%
63%
57%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Treatment 2019
Treatment 2018
Opinion of Idaho Power Since Receiving HER
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5
Total "better" 68% 63% 57% 63% 61%
Same 28% 35% 42% 38% 39%
Total "worse" 3% 3% 2% 0% 0%
The respondents who had received a report and had read some or all of it (N=457) were asked to rank on a
five-point scale* how, if at all, the report had changed their opinion of Idaho Power. The graph below
combines the total "worse" (1 and 2) and the total "better" (5 and 4) results.

*5 = much better, 4 = somewhat better, 3 = neither better nor worse, 2 = somewhat worse, 1 = much worse
Smart Infrastructure www.Aclara.com
Expand your vision of the network Page 62 of 65
T3 had the most respondents whose opinion remained the same. No one in groups T4 and T5
had a decreased opinion of Idaho Power due to the reports.

A comparison between T1 and T2 vs T3, T4 and T5
shows a modest trend that the electric heating
reports (T1 and T2) have a higher impact on
improving opinion of Idaho Power than the year-
round reports (T3, T4 and T5).

There was no notable difference of opinion between the customers who received reports
bimonthly and those who received them quarterly.

Question #T10: Is there anything about the reports you think could be improved?

T1 & T2 T3, T4, T5
Total "better" 66% 59%
Same 31% 40%
Total "worse" 3% 1%

T345
Bimonthly
T345
Quarterly
Total "better" 57% 61%
Same 42% 38%
Total "worse" 1% 1%
Nothing else 50%
Don't know 24%
Better analysis of breakdowns/better comparative analysis 12%
Have month-by-month breakdown over time 5%
Clearer to read/understand 5%
Digital reports/ability to access (website, app) 3%
More information/detail (in general) how to save 2%
Send more often 1%

In an open-ended, unaided
question, respondents were
asked about how to improve
the report.
Smart Infrastructure www.Aclara.com
Expand your vision of the network Page 63 of 65
Email and Preferred Future Methods of
Delivery

Slightly more than four in ten (45%) of respondents were aware that they could receive the
report by email.
Question #T12: Idaho Power is evaluating the options for delivering Home Energy
Reports. If available, how would you prefer to receive the report?

Question #T11: Are you aware
that you can choose to receive the
Home Energy Report by email?

Yes: 45%
The respondents who had received a report and had read some or all of it (N=457) were asked two final
questions about their awareness of electronic delivery and their preferred method for receiving future
reports.
25%
45%
22%
8%
Email is the preferred delivery
method, named by 45 percent of
those asked, while 25 percent
preferred print. There were 22
percent that identified both email
and print as preferred methods, while
8 percent were unsure.

+
Smart Infrastructure www.Aclara.com
Expand your vision of the network Page 64 of 65
Appendix: Statistical Significance Test
Statistical significance is determined by calculating the probability of error (p-value). The
difference between groups (such as treatment vs. control in this case) is judged to be
statistically significant when p=0.05 or less.
At p=0.05, there is only a 5% probability that the differences between the two groups are
occurring by chance alone, meaning there is only a 1-in-20 chance that a reported effect does
not reflect a true effect.
For Question #T9,
statistically significant
differences were tested
to see if there was any
significant difference
between the treatment
groups (T1, T2, T3, T4,
T5). Question T9 asked
respondents if their
opinion of Idaho Power
changed after receiving
the Reports.
There was no statistically
significant difference as a
function of treatment
groups (p<.705).

#T9. How, if at all, has your opinion of Idaho Power changed since receiving the Home Energy
Reports? Would you say it is:
much
worse
somewhat
worse
stayed
the same
somewh
at better
much
better Total
T1
Count 3 2 42 48 53 148
% 2% 1% 29% 32% 36% 100%
T2
Count 0 2 26 19 28 75
% 0% 3% 35% 25% 37% 100%
T3 Count 1 1 54 35 38 129
% 1% 1% 42% 27% 30% 100%
T4
Count 0 0 24 19 21 64
% 0% 0% 38% 30% 33% 100%
T5
Count 0 0 16 11 14 41
% 0% 0.0% 39% 27% 34% 100%
Total
Count 4 5 162 132 154 457
% 1% 1% 35% 29% 34% 100%
Smart Infrastructure www.Aclara.com
Expand your vision of the network Page 65 of 65
Appendix C: Quarterly Program Monitoring Reports
Reports on program metrics were reported on a quarterly basis, according to the schedule below.
Report # Date Presented Report Period
Q1 February 6, 2019 July 31, 2018 – November 30, 2018
Q2 March 5, 2019 July 31, 2018 – January 31, 2019
Q3 June 3, 2019 July 31, 2018 – April 30, 2019
Q4 Fall 2019 July 31, 2018 – July 31, 2019

Submitted by:
August 2019
Idaho Power Energy Wise®
Program Summary Report
2018-2019
Made possible by:
Idaho Power Energy Wise® Program Summary Report2
“I appreciate the awareness this
program provides the kids.
It helps reinforce their ability
to be proactive in their home,
and it also saves energy.”
, Parents
Ronald Reagan Elementary School
Resource Action Programs®, a Franklin Energy Company 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 ..................................................................................................44
Projected Savings from Showerhead Retrofit ...................................44
Projected Savings from Shower Timer Installation ...........................45
Projected Savings from FilterTone® Alarm Installation ....................46
Projected Savings from First 9-watt LED Light Bulb Retrofit .........47
Projected Savings from Second 9-watt LED Light Bulb Retrofit ....48
Projected Savings from Third 9-watt LED Light Bulb Retrofit ........49
Projected Savings from LED Night Light Retrofit .............................50
Appendix B ...................................................................................................51
Home Check-Up......................................................................................51
Home Activities ......................................................................................54
Appendix C ...................................................................................................58
Participant List .......................................................................................58
Appendix D ..................................................................................................69
Teacher Program Evaluation Data .......................................................69
Appendix E ...................................................................................................70
Parent/Guardian Program Evaluation Data ........................................70
Idaho Power Energy Wise® Program Summary Report4Executive Summary
“The students liked having an active
role in conserving and it is so cool
for them! We not only talk about it,
but they are able to do something
about it.”
Heather Mueller, Teacher
Washington Elementary School
Resource Action Programs®, a Franklin Energy Company 5Executive Summary
Resource Action Programs® (RAP), a Franklin Energy Company, is
pleased to present this Program Summary Report to Idaho Power,
which summarizes the 2018-2019 Idaho Power Energy Wise®
Program. The program was implemented in the Idaho Power
service area in the state of Idaho and Oregon by 10,053 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
99+1+F
Teachers who indicated
that materials were clearly
written and well organized.
99%
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
60% to 75%.
Measures Installed
Students completed take-home activities as part of the program
and reported on the kit measures they installed in their homes.
A summary of responses can be found in Appendix B.39+61+F
Students who reported
they installed the High-
Efficiency Showerhead.
39%71+29+F
Students who
reported they used the
Shower Timer.
71%78+22+F
Students who indicated
they installed the LED
Night Light.
78%
60+40+F
Students who reported
they installed the first
9-watt LED.
60%42+58+F
Students who reported
they installed the third
9-watt LED.
42%49+51+F
Students who reported
they installed the second
9-watt LED.
49%
_______________________100
_______________________95
_______________________90
_______________________85
_______________________80
_______________________75
_______________________70
_______________________65
_______________________60
_______________________55
_______________________50
_______________________45
_______________________40
_______________________35
_______________________30
_______________________25
_______________________20
_______________________15
_______________________10
_______________________5
_______________________0Pr
e
-
P
r
o
g
r
a
m

S
c
o
r
e

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

S
c
o
r
e

75
%
Resource Action Programs®, a Franklin Energy Company 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
14,110,344 gallons of water saved
2,113,566 kWh of electricity saved
56,405 therms of gas saved
14,110,344 gallons of wastewater saved
PROJECTED ANNUAL
SAVINGS PER HOME
1,404 gallons of water saved
210 kWh of electricity saved
6 therms of gas saved
1,404 gallons of wastewater saved
PROJECTED LIFETIME SAVINGS
141,103,441 gallons of water saved
22,656,318 kWh of electricity saved
564,054 therms of gas saved
141,103,441 gallons of wastewater saved
PROJECTED LIFETIME
SAVINGS PER HOME
14,036 gallons of water saved
2,254 kWh of electricity saved
56 therms of gas saved
14,036 gallons of wastewater saved
Total Capital Canyon Eastern Southern Western
Total Participants 10,053 2,239 2,938 1,953 2,157 766
Students 9,703 2,164 2,834 1,889 2,078 738
Surveys Received 5,463 1,041 1,898 1,493 590 441
Percent Response 56%48%67%79%28%60%
Student Survey Response by Region
**Per Idaho Power’s request, the associated savings for the shower timer have not been included in savings totals.
Idaho Power Energy Wise® Program Summary Report8Program Overview
“The students enjoyed working on
the home projects and also the fun
worksheets in the student guide.”
Bill Henry, Teacher
Connor Academy Public Charter School
Resource Action Programs®, a Franklin Energy Company 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 2018-2019
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
“My child educated me about
saving power and energy. He then
wanted to use all the gadgets
immediately. We all sat down and he
presented everything.”
, Parent
Eliza Hart Spalding Elementary School
Resource Action Programs®, a Franklin Energy Company 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

99
%
Idaho Power’s Energy Wise Program

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 tau
g
h
t

at school.
For more information, contact:Continued on back
Participate in Idaho Power’s
4th – 6th grade Energy Wise Program
2018-2019 Idaho Power E
n
e
r
g
y

W
i
s
e
® Program
© 2018 Resource Action Programs®
2033 & 2077
Each Student/Teacher Receives:
Student Guide
Student 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 Included
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/Evalua
t
i
o
n

F
o
r
m
• Self-Addressed Postage-Paid Envelope
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 for
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
.
Liz Haugee
Office: 208-736-3466
Cell: 208-308-5411
[e-mail]
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
8

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
8
.

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, 2019. 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 99% said they would

r
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d

t
h
e

p
r
o
g
r
a
m
to colleagues.• Of parents, 100% indicated the program was easy for them and their child to us
e

a
n
d

9
7
%

i
n
d
i
c
a
t
e
d

t
h
e
y
would like to see the program continued in local schools.• The 2017-2018 school year’s participants saved 1,993,950
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

a
l
m
o
s
t

2
,
1
0
0
homes’ electricity use for one year or avoided CO
2 emissions of 3,436 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®, a Franklin Energy Company 13Program Materials
Program Materials
Pledging to save energy and water is an important st
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 go th
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 Program wi
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 be 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 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, write two more pl
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 is 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 by 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 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 fac
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, aprenderá por qué es importante ah
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

e
n
s
e
ñ
a
r
á

formas sencillas de ahorrar energía, agua y dinero. Asum
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

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

s
e
r
v
i
c
i
o
s

p
ú
b
l
i
c
o
s

d
e

s
u

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

Usted ha ayudado escribiendo su primer comprom
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

e
l

primer compromiso es instalar los artículos de su kit
.

A
h
o
r
a
,

e
s
c
r
i
b
a

d
o
s

c
o
m
p
r
o
m
i
s
o
s

m
á
s

q
u
e

d
e
-
scriban 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
.
1.
2.
3.
Nombre:Fecha:Escuela:
Docente:
Estos Kits son posibles gracias a:
Developed by:
FIRMAR EL COMPROMISO He escrito y revisado mis anteriores compromis
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

I pledge to do my part by installing all of the items in my 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 mi kit par
a

a
h
o
r
r
a
r
energía y agua así como para reducir las facturas de

s
e
r
v
i
c
i
o
s

p
ú
b
l
i
c
o
s

d
e

m
i

f
a
m
i
l
i
a
.

©2018 Resource Action Programs®
©2018 Resource Action Programs®
STUDENT GUIDE
115429
976 United Circle Sparks, NV 89431www.resourceaction.com • [phone]©2016 Resource Action Programs®
Energy Wise® is a registered trademark of Resource Action Programs
is developed by:
115429 Idaho Power EW Student Guide Cover_PRINT.pdf 1 9/8/16 8:03 AM
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. © 2018 Resource Action Programs®
Please assess the Energy Wise® Program by filling out this Teacher Survey Form. Upon completion, return
this survey form, 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, 2018 for fall implementers or May 15, 2019 for spring
• 80% of Student Survey Forms
• This survey 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 2033 & 2077
©2018 Resource Action Programs®
Energy Wise® is developed by:
Diane Sumner, Ed.D., Director of Education
Teacher BookStudent Guide Student Take-Home Workbook
Teacher Survey 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.idahopowe
r
.
c
o
m
/
w
i
s
e
PARENTS
SIGN INSTALL
=+
CONGRATULATIONS!
Your child’s class has been selected to participate in the ex
c
i
t
i
n
g

I
d
a
h
o

P
o
w
e
r

E
n
e
r
g
y

W
i
s
e
® Program.
The program is designed to teach your child the importa
n
c
e

o
f

u
s
i
n
g

r
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
,

l
i
k
e

e
n
e
r
g
y

a
n
d

w
a
t
e
r
,

wisely and responsibly. This program is being provided

b
y

I
d
a
h
o

P
o
w
e
r

a
t

n
o

a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l

c
o
s
t

t
o

y
o
u
,

your child’s school or the school district.
The average U.S. household pays at least $2,060 p
e
r

y
e
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 w
i
l
l

b
e

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 an
d

y
o
u
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 follow
i
n
g
:
n Have your child talk to you about the ways they would like 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 page.
n Review the Illustrated Installation Guide in your kit.
n Install all of the kit items. You and your child can do mo
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

m
i
n
u
t
e
s
.

If you need additional help installing the kit items, visi
t

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

t
o

v
i
e
w

installation videos, see the printed Illustrated Installa
t
i
o
n

G
u
i
d
e

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 questio
n
s

i
n

t
h
e

S
t
u
d
e
n
t

T
a
k
e
-
H
o
m
e

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

y
o
u
r

e
n
t
i
r
e

f
a
m
i
l
y

a
n
d

will provide an opportunity for your child to be a leader in

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 2033 & 2077
$$$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. All yo
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 tw
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 is a

promise.
I pledge to do my part by installing all of the ite
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 utility bil
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 a
b
o
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 agua

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 factur
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 re
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 COMPROMI
S
O
ASUMIR EL COMPROMIS
O

Usted ha ayudado escribiendo su primer compromiso
.

T
o
d
o

l
o

q
u
e

t
i
e
n
e

q
u
e

h
a
c
e
r

p
a
r
a

c
o
m
p
l
e
t
a
r

el primer compromiso es instalar los artíc
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 hogar.

R
e
c
u
e
r
d
e
,

u
n

c
o
m
p
r
o
m
i
s
o

e
s

u
n
a

p
r
o
m
e
s
a
.
Me comprometo a hacer mi parte instalando todos lo
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 comp
r
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.idah
o
p
o
w
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
®
de Idaho Power. El programa está diseñado para enseña
r
l
e

a

s
u

h
i
j
o

l
a

i
m
p
o
r
t
a
n
c
i
a

d
e
l

u
s
o

d
e

l
o
s

recursos, como la energía y el agua, con sabiduría y res
p
o
n
s
a
b
i
l
i
d
a
d
.

E
s
t
e

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
d
i
s
t
r
i
t
o

e
s
c
o
l
a
r
.
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
s
i
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 d
e

$
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 estos cambios
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 formas en las 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 ubicad
o

e
n

l
a

p
r
ó
x
i
m
a

p
á
g
i
n
a
.
nRevise la Guía de Instrucciones Ilustrados que se encue
n
t
r
a

e
n

s
u

k
i
t
.
nInstale todos los artículos del kit. Usted y su hijo pued
e
n

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

c
o
n

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

d
e
l

k
i
t
,

visite www.idahopower.com/wise para ver videos d
e

i
n
s
t
a
l
a
c
i
ó
n
,

v
e
a

l
a

G
u
í
a

d
e

I
n
s
t
r
u
c
c
i
o
n
e
s

Ilustrados o llame al 1-888-GET-WISE. 
nTrabaje con su hijo para responder a todas las p
r
e
g
u
n
t
a
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
a
r
e
a
s

para el Hogar. 
Esperamos que el Programa Energy Wise® sea una experiencia fácil y divertida para toda la
familia y sea una oportunidad para que su hijo sea un
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 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.
A
s

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 Pr
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 s
h
o
w
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 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. Re
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 pledge
s

a
b
o
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 agua

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 factura
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 COMPROMISO
ASUMIR EL COMPROMIS
O

Usted ha ayudado escribiendo su primer compromi
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 a
r
t
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 hog
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 todo
s

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 re
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 • [phone]©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 • [phone]©2017 Resource Action Programs®
Idaho Power Energy Wise® Program Summary Report14Program Implementation
“The thought of getting items to
help their families save money was
something the students were excited
about. Also, the presentation Ms. Root
gave was great!”
Jessica Lillquist, Teacher
Central Canyon Elementary School
Resource Action Programs®, a Franklin Energy Company 15Program Implementation
The 2018-2019 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 2018-2019 school year.
Program Implementation
Idaho Power Energy Wise® Program Summary Report16Program Team
Chase Griswold
Program Manager
Libby Wilson
Director of Program Services
Resource Action Programs (RAP) has been in the business of designing and implementing energy and
water efficiency programs for nearly three decades. Throughout this time we’ve built an expert team of
industry professionals that deliver a seamless program to achieve your goals.
We designed the Idaho Power Energy Wise® Program in our program center from the ground up.
Working in conjunction with Idaho Power, we identified goals, desired outcomes of the program,
and specific materials’ customization. The result is a stimulating program that delivers significant
and measurable resource savings. The Idaho Power Energy Wise Program features a proven blend
of innovative education, comprehensive implementation services, and hands-on activities to put
efficiency knowledge to work in homes throughout the Idaho Power service territory.
The Idaho Power Energy Wise Program is a reflection of true teamwork. On behalf of the entire
implementation team at Resource Action Programs, we would like to thank you for the opportunity to
design and implement the Idaho Power Energy Wise Program. It has been a pleasure working with you.
We look forward to many more years of program success.
Sincerely,
Resource Action Programs®, a Franklin Energy Company 17Program Team
Program Team
Program Team
The success of the Idaho Power Energy
Wise® Program is owed to a cross-functional
implementation team chosen specifically to meet
the goals of the program. We incorporated both
a PMP® certified Program Manager and a CEM®
designated energy analyst to ensure the program
hits key milestones and delivers results. These
thought leaders are supported by an integral mix
of specialists working in unity to accomplish
your program objectives. The Idaho Power Energy
Wise Program implementation team consisted of
the following:
Education
Led by a Ph.D. educator having both classroom
and administration leadership experience, this
team is responsible for the development of
educational content as well as classroom energy
literacy and engagement. The group also ensures
the program’s content is aligned with Idaho state
expectations in science, math, and language
as well as the rigorous expectations of STEM
(Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math).
Outreach
Our outreach team is the face of the Idaho Power
Energy Wise Program, introducing teachers to
the program, and providing support throughout
implementation to guarantee the program’s
success in the classroom. This group builds
relationships and keeps teachers engaged in
program execution year after year.
Graphic Design and Marketing
Expertly-designed kits and program materials
are a result of our Graphic Design and Marketing
teams. This group provides brand alignment and
marketing strategies to ensure program branding
is within guidelines. Additionally, this team
facilitates copy and art direction and works with
education to develop end-user activities.
Information Technology
We leave IT strategy and cyber security in
the hands of our experts. This team built and
manages the integrated systems responsible
for seamlessly blending operations, driving
automation, and maximizing participation in
the Idaho Power Energy Wise Program. This
group provides the managed data services and
software in support of outreach, enrollment,
order processing, fulfillment, data collection
and reporting.
Warehouse and Logistics
Last but not least, our warehouse and logistics
teams guarantee Idaho Power Energy Wise
program materials reach the classroom on-time
and without errors. This group provides printing,
purchasing, production, quality assurance
& control, warehousing and shipping for all
program materials. Additionally, this team
ensures that all materials are consistent with
orders and confirms delivery.
Idaho Power Energy Wise® Program Summary Report18Program Impact
“The students loved the material in
the kits. They enjoyed telling each
other what they changed at home to
save energy.”
Shawna Hiller, Teacher
Valley View Elementary School
Resource Action Programs®, a Franklin Energy Company 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 75 participating teachers in the Capital region, 28 (37%) returned survey
results for the program. Parents and students were asked to install the kit measures and complete
the home activities. Of the 2,164 participating children in the Capital region, 1,041 (48%) returned
completed surveys.
Did your family install the first 9-watt LED Light Bulb? Yes - 58%
Did your family install the new High-Efficiency Showerhead? Yes - 39%
Did your family change the way they use energy? Yes - 66%
Program Impact
58+42+F
Students who indicated they installed
the first 9-watt LED Light Bulb.
58% Yes
42% No 39+61+F
Students who indicated they installed
the High-Efficiency Showerhead.
39% Yes
61% No 66+34+F
Students who indicated their family
changed the way they use energy.
66% Yes
34% 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 104 participating teachers in the Canyon region, 64 (62%) returned survey
results for the program. Parents and students were asked to install the kit measures and complete
the home activities. Of the 2,834 participating children in the Canyon region, 1,898 (67%) returned
completed surveys.
Did your family install the first 9-watt LED Light Bulb? Yes - 61%
Did your family install the new High-Efficiency Showerhead? Yes - 41%
Did your family change the way they use energy? Yes - 59%61+39+F
Students who indicated they installed
the first 9-watt LED Light Bulb.
61% Yes
39% No 41+59+F
Students who indicated they installed
the High-Efficiency Showerhead.
41% Yes
59% No 59+41+F
Students who indicated their family
changed the way they use energy.
59% Yes
41% No
Resource Action Programs®, a Franklin Energy Company 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 64 participating teachers in the Eastern region, 37 (58%) returned survey
results for the program. Parents and students were asked to install the kit measures and complete
the home activities. Of the 1,889 participating children in the Eastern region, 1493 (79%) 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 - 40%
Did your family change the way they use energy? Yes - 62% 60+40+F
Students who indicated they installed
the first 9-watt LED Light Bulb.
60% Yes
40% No 40+60+F
Students who indicated they installed
the High-Efficiency Showerhead.
40% Yes
60% 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 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 79 participating teachers in the Southern region, 18 (23%) returned survey
results for the program. Parents and students were asked to install the kit measures and complete
the home activities. Of the 2,078 participating children in the Southern region, 590 (28%) returned
completed surveys.
Did your family install the first 9-watt LED Light Bulb? Yes - 58%
Did your family install the new High-Efficiency Showerhead? Yes - 37%
Did your family change the way they use energy? Yes - 61%58+42+F
Students who indicated they installed
the first 9-watt LED Light Bulb.
58% Yes
42% No 37+63+F
Students who indicated they installed
the High-Efficiency Showerhead.
37% Yes
63% No 61+39+F
Students who indicated their family
changed the way they use energy.
61% Yes
39% No
Resource Action Programs®, a Franklin Energy Company 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 28 participating teachers in the Western region, 16 (57%) returned survey
results for the program. Parents and students were asked to install the kit measures and complete
the home activities. Of the 738 participating children in the Western region, 441 (60%) returned
completed surveys.
Did your family install the first 9-watt LED Light Bulb? Yes - 55%
Did your family install the new High-Efficiency Showerhead? Yes - 35%
Did your family change the way they use energy? Yes - 59%55+45+F
Students who indicated they installed
the first 9-watt LED Light Bulb.
55% Yes
45% No 35+65+F
Students who indicated they installed
the High-Efficiency Showerhead.
35% Yes
65% No 59+41+F
Students who indicated their family
changed the way they use energy.
59% Yes
41% No
Idaho Power Energy Wise® Program Summary Report24Program Impact
B. Pre-Program and Post-Program Tests
Students were asked to complete a 10-question test before the program was introduced and then again
after it was completed to determine the knowledge gained through the program. The average student
answered 6.0 questions correctly prior to being involved in the program and then improved to answer
7.5 questions correctly following participation. Of the 9,703 student households participating, 5,463
returned survey responses.
Scores improved from 60% to 75%.
Pre-Program Score 60%
Post-Program Score 75%
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100
Pre-Program and Post-Program Test Questions
Pre Post
1 Which layer of Earth do we live on?
Crust 71%87%
Mantle 7%3%
Inner Core 6%3%
Outer Core 16%7%
2 Non-Potable water is safe to drink.
True 24%13%
False 76%87%
3 Which of these is not a renewable resource?
Wind 20%9%
Plants 6%3%
Gold 57%78%
Animals 17%10%
4 Saving water saves energy.
True 86%94%
False 14%6%
Resource Action Programs®, a Franklin Energy Company 25Program Impact
Pre-Program and Post-Program Test Questions
Pre Post
5 Which are fossil fuels?
Coal 23%16%
Oil 11%6%
Natural Gas 12%7%
All of the above 54%72%
6 Which type of energy is created in the process of Photosynthesis?
Nuclear Energy 19%15%
Thermal Energy 26%22%
Chemical Energy 31%53%
Electric Energy 24%11%
7 Which Kit item will save the most natural resources?
Compact Fluorescent Lamp 35%35%
High-Efficiency Showerhead 30%47%
FilterTone® Alarm 17%9%
LED Night Light 18%9%
8 Which major appliance uses the most energy?
Dishwasher 20%16%
Refrigerator 60%67%
Dryer 20%17%
9 An LED (light emiting diode) light bulb uses more energy than an incandescent bulb.
True 34%18%
False 66%82%
10 On-peak time is the best time to play video games.
True 30%18%
False 70%82%
Idaho Power Energy Wise® Program Summary Report26Program Impact
C. Home Activities—Summary
As part of the program, parents and students installed resource efficiency measures in their homes.
They also measured the pre-existing devices to calculate savings that they generated. Using the family
habits collected from the home survey as the basis for this calculation, 10,053 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 9,703 student households participating, 5,463 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:10,053
Annual Lifetime
Projected reduction from Showerhead retrofit:14,110,344 141,103,441 gallons
Product Life: 10 years 926,688 9,266,876 kWh
46,371 463,706 therms
Projected reduction from first 9-watt LED Light Bulb:304,493 3,653,913 kWh
Product Life: 25,000 hours (12 years)
Projected reduction from second 9-watt LED Light Bulb:247,405 2,968,857 kWh
Product Life: 25,000 hours (12 years)
Projected reduction from third 9-watt LED Light Bulb:208,433 2,501,199 kWh
Product Life: 25,000 hours (12 years)
Projected reduction from LED Night Light retrofit:224,016 2,240,157 kWh
Product Life: 10,000 hours
Projected reduction from FilterTone® installation:202,532 2,025,316 kWh
Product Life: 10 years 10,035 100,348 therms
TOTAL PROGRAM SAVINGS:14,110,344 141,103,441 gallons
2,113,566 22,656,318 kWh
56,405 564,054 therms
TOTAL PROGRAM SAVINGS PER HOUSEHOLD: 1,404 14,036 gallons
210 2,254 kWh
6 56 therms
**Per Idaho Power’s request, the associated savings for the shower timer have not been included in savings totals
Resource Action Programs®, a Franklin Energy Company 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.
“The students loved receiving the kits and having the opportunity to see how much energy they will save.”
Dan Hoehne, Silver Trail Elementary School
“They love to take home the kit and use it with their family.”
Audra Thompson, Summit Elementary School
“They enjoyed the activities and the lessons. They really got into drawing a floor plan of their homes.
They really got excited about the kits.”
Candice Smith, Camas County School
“Students loved the kits! It was fun to watch them learn about the tools they were using.”
Danielle Petitmermet, Cambridge Elementary School
“They love the kits, and this year they participated in energy saving discussions.”
Brad Winder, Summit Elementary School
“The students liked the home kits! They liked the opportunity to try at home & share with their families.”
Caitlyn McConnell, Lewis & Clark Elementary
“Students liked that they could apply what they learned with the kit materials at home.”
Melissa Langan, Wilson Elementary School
“The ease of the lessons provided. They of course love the materials they receive.”
Juilana Lookhart, Birch Elementary School
“Students enjoyed learning about how energy works and their part/responsibility in conservation of energy.”
Brenda Fly, Birch Elementary School
“The kits and the student workbook. Kits were exciting, workbook was interesting.”
Adam Trowbridge, Lewis & Clark Elementary
Idaho Power Energy Wise® Program Summary Report28Program Impact
Teacher Response
(A summary of responses and regional data can be found in Appendix D)
What did you like best about the program? Explain.
“Helping students learn about finite resources & where their use of energy plays into
the world consumption.”
Paula Barnhart, Nyssa Elementary School
“I like that it gets us talking about how we can change our habits and why we should.
It also helps me cover the standards.”
Audra Thompson, Summit Elementary School
“The student materials cover a variety of topics that the students have learned in my
class and they involve the student’s families.”
Kristie Olsen, Camas County School
“The engagement level of the kids. They loved the activities!”
Meghan Willard, Lewis & Clark Elementary
“The students received information and materials, which are awesome.”
Julie Fowlkes, Claude A. Wilcox Elementary School
“The program is well-organized and easy to follow. The extra activities were fun too.
We would love more science experiments or ideas!”
Katie Strawser, Melba Elementary
“I love that it starts a conversation about energy conservation. It’s a seed!”
Brad Winder, Summit Elementary School
“I liked that this hit science standards with good real life application.”
Sally VanderVeen, West Canyon Elementary
“The chance to talk to students about conservation and that they students have an active role in it.”
John Stull, Greenhurst Elementary School
“I liked that the books for each child were informational and provided a challenge to some of my students.”
Andrea Chester, West Canyon Elementary
“I loved how this incorporated our science standards. I was able to supplements with my
renewable resource unit. Great info.”
Kim Birkinbine, Silver Trail Elementary School
“I talked a lot with my students about making their conservation techniques into habits.
I enjoyed listening to them talk about what they did with the items in the kit.”
Alisa O’Berry, Rockford Elementary School
Resource Action Programs®, a Franklin Energy Company 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 9,703 participating families, 94 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.
98% of participating parents indicated they would continue to use the kit items after the completion
of the program.
99% of participating parents indicated they would like to see this program continued in local schools.
As a parent, which aspect of the program did you like best?
“I appreciate the awareness this program provides the kids. It helps reinforce their
ability to be proactive in their home, and it also saves energy.”
, Ronald Reagan Elementary School
“I loved how there was a guide to explain why and how the easy changes help the environment.”
, Central Canyon Elementary School
“Raising awareness of the resources we use, so we can be more mindful about it.”
Connor Academy Public Charter School
“Showing my kids how to become more efficient, save money, and help the environment.”
Hansen Elementary School
“How it helped educate our children on the importance of water and power conservation.”
, New Plymouth Elementary School
“Teaching the kids that turning off lights and taking shorter showers saves energy.”
, Prospect Elementary
“Working together with my son to learn how to be more energy conscious.
Also, some plumbing and electrical skills.”
, Ronald Reagan Elementary School
Idaho Power Energy Wise® Program Summary Report30Program Impact
Parent Response
(A summary of responses and regional data can be found in Appendix E)
Are there any comments you would like to express to your child’s program sponsor?
“Thank you for helping our family be more aware of our energy use. We are going to
share this information with our cub scout troop too. Thank you!”
, Connor Academy Public Charter School
“This is great. This was fun for the kids and family. Thank you!”
, Gem Prep Nampa
“Thank you my child was very excited and I am grateful for the help.”
, Green Acres Elementary School
“Thank you! My son was excited to learn about cost savings and water conservation.”
, Melba Elementary
“This is a great way to teach young kids about important environmental issues and
ways to be more efficient with energy use.”
, Hawthorne Elementary School
“Thank you to your company for thinking of us, great companies help people make better decisions.”
, Horizon Elementary School
“Thanks for helping us save money throughout the year.”
, Nyssa Elementary School
“I think this is a great program that helps kids reduce the power and water that they use.”
Ronald Reagan Elementary School
“Just keep up the great work with this program.”
, Prospect Elementary
“It was great to start them early on conservation of energy efficiency.”
, Ronald Reagan Elementary School
“Great job! Please continue to educate children on this important matter.”
, New Plymouth Elementary School
“It was wonderful hearing my child give advice on to help with saving power.”
, Hollister Elementary
“This is great. This was fun for the kids and family. Thank you!”
, Gem Prep Nampa
Resource Action Programs®, a Franklin Energy Company 31Program Impact
F. Teacher Letters
Idaho Power Energy Wise® Program Summary Report32Program Impact
Teacher Letters
(continued)
Resource Action Programs®, a Franklin Energy Company 33Program Impact
Teacher Letters
(continued)
Idaho Power Energy Wise® Program Summary Report34Program Impact
G. Student Letters
Resource Action Programs®, a Franklin Energy Company 35Program Impact
Student Letters
(continued)
Idaho Power Energy Wise® Program Summary Report36Program Impact
Student Letters
(continued)
Resource Action Programs®, a Franklin Energy Company 37Program Impact
Student Letters
(continued)
Idaho Power Energy Wise® Program Summary Report38Program Impact
Student Letters
(continued)
Resource Action Programs®, a Franklin Energy Company 39Program Impact
Student Letters
(continued)
Idaho Power Energy Wise® Program Summary Report40Program Impact
Student Letters
(continued)
Resource Action Programs®, a Franklin Energy Company 41Program Impact
Student Letters
(continued)
Idaho Power Energy Wise® Program Summary Report42Appendices
“I love the educational programs and
my son loves them too. He finds them
very interesting and informative.”
, Parent
Washington Elementary School
Resource Action Programs®, a Franklin Energy Company 43Appendices
Appendix A
Projected Savings from Showerhead Retrofit ..................................44
Projected Savings from Shower Timer Installation...........................45
Projected Savings from FilterTone® Alarm Installation ...................46
Projected Savings from First 9-watt LED Light Bulb Retrofit .........47
Projected Savings from Second 9-watt LED Light Bulb Retrofit ...48
Projected Savings from Third 9-watt LED Light Bulb Retrofit .......49
Projected Savings from LED Night Light Retrofit ............................50
Appendix B
Home Check-Up .....................................................................................51
Home Activities .....................................................................................54
Appendix C
Participant List ......................................................................................58
Appendix D
Teacher Program Evaluation Data ......................................................69
Appendix E
Parent/Guardian Program Evaluation Data ......................................70
Appendices
Idaho Power Energy Wise® Program Summary Report44Appendix A
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x

A
Showerhead Retrofit Inputs and Assumptions:
Average household size: 5.12 people1
Average number of full bathrooms per home:2.06 full bathrooms per home1
% of water heated by gas:50.02%1
% of water heated by electricity:49.98%1
Installation / participation rate of:39.42%1
Average Showerhead has a flow rate of:2.01 gallons per minute1
Retrofit Showerhead has a flow rate of:1.30 gallons per minute1
Number of participants: 10,053 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:14,110,344 gallons4
Showerhead retrofit projects a lifetime reduction of:141,103,441 gallons5
Projected Electricity Savings:
Showerhead retrofit projects an annual reduction of:926,688 kWh2,6
Showerhead retrofit projects a lifetime reduction of:9,266,876 kWh2,7
Projected Natural Gas Savings:
Showerhead retrofit projects an annual reduction of:46,371 therms2,8
Showerhead retrofit projects a lifetime reduction of:463,706 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®, a Franklin Energy Company 45Appendix A
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x

A
Shower Timer Inputs and Assumptions:
% of water heated by gas:50.02%1
% of water heated by electricity:49.98%1
Installation / participation rate of Shower Timer:71.12%1
Average showerhead has a flow rate of:2.01 gallons per minute1
Retrofit showerhead has flow rate of:1.30 gallons per minute1
Number of participants: 10,053 1
Average of baseline and retrofit showerhead flow rate:1.65 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:9,246,587 gallons6
Shower Timer installation projects a lifetime reduction of:18,493,174 gallons7
Projected Electricity Savings:
Shower Timer installation projects an annual reduction of:607,264 kWh8
Shower Timer installation projects a lifetime reduction of:1,214,527 kWh9
Projected Natural Gas Savings:
Shower Timer installation projects an annual reduction of:30,387 therms10
Shower Timer installation projects a lifetime reduction of:60,774 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
*Per Idaho Power’s request, the savings figures for the shower timer have not been included in the savings totals.
Idaho Power Energy Wise® Program Summary Report46Appendix A
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x

A
FilterTone® Installation Inputs and Assumptions:
Annual energy (electricity) use by a central air conditioner:4,467 kWh1
Annual energy (natural gas) use by a central space heating or furnace:421 therms1
Projected increase in efficiency (electricity):1.75%2
Projected increase in efficiency (natural gas):0.92%2
Product life:10 years3
Installation / participation rate of:25.77%4
Number of participants:10,053 4
Projected Electricity Savings:
The FilterTone installation projects an annual reduction of:202,532 kWh5
The FilterTone installation projects a lifetime reduction of:2,025,316 kWh6
Projected Natural Gas Savings:
The FilterTone installation projects an annual reduction of:10,035 therms7
The FilterTone installation projects a lifetime reduction of:100,348 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®, a Franklin Energy Company 47Appendix 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:58.61 watts3
Installation / participation rate of:59.53%3
Number of participants: 10,053 3
Projected Electricity Savings:
The LED retrofit projects an annual reduction of:304,493 kWh2,4
The LED retrofit projects a lifetime reduction of:3,653,913 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 Report48Appendix 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:57.71 watts3
Installation / participation rate of:49.26%3
Number of participants: 10,053 3
Projected Electricity Savings:
The LED retrofit projects an annual reduction of:247,405 kWh2,4
The LED retrofit projects a lifetime reduction of:2,968,857 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®, a Franklin Energy Company 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:57.69 watts3
Installation / participation rate of:41.52%3
Number of participants: 10,053 3
Projected Electricity Savings:
The LED retrofit projects an annual reduction of:208,433 kWh2,4
The LED retrofit projects a lifetime reduction of:2,501,199 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 Report50Appendix 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:78.27%3
Number of participants:10,053 3
Projected Electricity Savings:
The Energy Efficient Night Light retrofit projects an annual reduction of:224,016 kWh4
The Energy Efficient Night Light retrofit projects a lifetime reduction of:2,240,157 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®, a Franklin Energy Company 51Appendix 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)12%8%11%13%13%12%
Single Family Home
(Manufactured)8%6%8%7%12%11%
Single Family Home (Built)64%72%62%66%57%60%
Multi-Family (2-4 units)10%8%11%10%12%8%
Multi-Family (5-20 units)4%4%5%3%5%7%
Multi-Family (21+ units)2%2%3%1%1%3%
2 Was your home built before 1992?
Yes 43%28%33%57%51%62%
No 57%72%67%43%49%38%
3 Is your home owned or rented?
Owned 74%79%69%78%70%69%
Rented 26%21%31%22%30%31%
4 How many kids live in your home (age 0-17)?
1 13%15%13%12%13%11%
2 29%37%27%27%27%26%
3 25%25%26%24%27%27%
4 18%14%18%21%18%17%
5+15%9%16%16%16%19%
Total Capital Canyon Eastern Southern Western
Total Participants 10,053 2,239 2,938 1,953 2,157 766
Students 9,703 2,164 2,834 1,889 2,078 738
Surveys Received 5,463 1,041 1,898 1,493 590 441
Percent Response 56%48%67%79%28%60%
Idaho Power Energy Wise® Program Summary Report52Appendix B
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x

B
Home Check-Up
(continued)
Due to rounding of numbers, percentages may not add up to 100%
Total Capital Canyon Eastern Southern Western
5 How many adults live in your home (age 18+)?
1 12%13%10%12%16%10%
2 69%74%66%71%64%68%
3 11%8%13%11%11%12%
4 5%3%7%4%7%6%
5+3%1%4%2%3%4%
6 Does your home have a programmable outdoor sprinkler system?
Yes 65%82%68%56%53%50%
No 35%18%32%43%47%50%
7 Does your home have a programmable thermostat?
Yes 78%87%79%72%74%71%
No 22%13%21%28%26%29%
8 What is the main source of heating in your home?
Natural Gas 43%58%42%46%30%27%
Electric Heater 40%34%42%37%52%48%
Propane 4%1%4%6%5%7%
Heating Oil 1%1%1%1%1%1%
Wood 5%2%4%7%6%10%
Other 6%4%8%4%6%6%
9 What type of air conditioning unit do you have?
Central Air Conditioner 71%85%76%59%63%64%
Evaporative Cooler 6%4%5%7%6%12%
Room Unit 13%8%12%16%16%15%
Don’t Have One 10%3%8%18%14%8%
10 Does your home have a Dishwasher?
Yes 86%96%87%82%78%81%
No 14%4%13%18%22%19%
Resource Action Programs®, a Franklin Energy Company 53Appendix 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%49%59%73%74%70%
1 29%43%33%21%20%19%
2 5%5%5%4%5%7%
3 2%2%2%1%1%3%
4+1%1%1%1%0%2%
12 How many full bathrooms are in your home?
1 23%13%20%26%31%36%
2 54%58%63%41%55%48%
3 19%23%14%29%10%12%
4 3%5%3%4%3%3%
5+1%1%1%1%1%1%
13 How many toilets are in your home?
1 16%8%14%17%23%29%
2 43%33%46%40%54%46%
3 31%43%33%29%17%18%
4 8%14%5%11%4%4%
5+2%2%2%3%2%3%
14 How is your water heated?
Natural Gas 50%64%52%48%34%36%
Electricity 50%36%48%52%66%64%
Idaho Power Energy Wise® Program Summary Report54Appendix B
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x

B
Home Activities
Due to rounding of numbers, percentages may not add up to 100%
Total Capital Canyon Eastern Southern Western
1 What is the flow rate of your old showerhead?
0 - 1.0 GPM 12%10%12%12%10%12%
1.1 - 1.5 GPM 18%13%18%19%19%18%
1.6 - 2.0 GPM 20%22%18%20%23%20%
2.1 - 2.5 GPM 24%27%26%22%20%20%
2.6 - 3.0 GPM 18%19%16%17%19%23%
3.1+ GPM 9%8%9%9%8%7%
2 Did you install the new High-Efficiency Showerhead?
Yes 39%39%41%40%37%35%
No 61%61%59%60%63%65%
3 If you answered “yes” to question 2, what is the flow rate of your new showerhead?
0 - 1.0 GPM 24%16%22%26%30%34%
1.1 - 1.5 GPM 39%40%42%37%34%37%
1.6 - 1.75 GPM 37%44%35%37%36%30%
4 Did you use the Shower Timer?
Yes 71%70%71%73%75%67%
No 29%30%29%27%25%33%
5 Did your family install the first 9-watt LED Light Bulb?
Yes 60%58%61%60%58%55%
No 40%42%39%40%42%45%
Total Capital Canyon Eastern Southern Western
Total Participants 10,053 2,239 2,938 1,953 2,157 766
Students 9,703 2,164 2,834 1,889 2,078 738
Surveys Received 5,463 1,041 1,898 1,493 590 441
Percent Response 56%48%67%79%28%60%
Resource Action Programs®, a Franklin Energy Company 55Appendix 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 18%14%19%17%18%22%
60-watt 39%41%39%38%38%41%
75-watt 14%15%15%11%16%16%
100-watt 10%10%10%10%11%9%
Other 19%21%18%24%18%11%
7 Did your family install the second 9-watt LED Light Bulb?
Yes 49%47%51%50%45%50%
No 51%53%49%50%55%50%
8 If you answered “yes” to question 7, what is the wattage of the incandescent bulb you replaced?
40-watt 19%16%23%17%17%20%
60-watt 38%36%35%40%38%43%
75-watt 14%17%13%11%20%17%
100-watt 9%10%10%7%8%7%
Other 20%21%19%25%17%12%
9 Did your family install the third 9-watt LED Light Bulb?
Yes 42%39%42%42%38%45%
No 58%61%58%58%62%55%
10 If you answered “yes” to question 9, what is the wattage of the incandescent bulb you replaced?
40-watt 18%17%20%16%19%20%
60-watt 35%33%33%37%33%41%
75-watt 14%18%14%12%16%15%
100-watt 10%10%10%9%11%9%
Other 23%22%23%27%21%16%
11 Did your family install the FilterTone® Alarm?
Yes 26%27%26%26%24%24%
No 74%73%74%74%76%76%
Idaho Power Energy Wise® Program Summary Report56Appendix B
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x

B
Home Activities
(continued)
Due to rounding of numbers, percentages may not add up to 100%
Total Capital Canyon Eastern Southern Western
12 How much did your family turn down the thermostat in winter for heating?
1 - 2 Degrees 19%24%18%18%16%21%
3 - 4 Degrees 18%22%17%16%18%20%
5+ Degrees 13%14%15%10%11%15%
Didn’t Adjust Thermostat 50%40%49%56%55%45%
13 How much did your family turn up the thermostat in summer for cooling?
1 - 2 Degrees 18%23%17%16%13%21%
3 - 4 Degrees 18%21%20%13%16%18%
5+ Degrees 14%15%17%11%15%16%
Didn’t Adjust Thermostat 50%41%46%60%57%44%
14 Did you install the LED Night Light?
Yes 78%77%78%81%80%75%
No 22%23%22%19%20%25%
15 Did your family lower your water heater settings?
Yes 22%23%21%20%23%26%
No 78%77%79%80%78%74%
16 Did your family raise the temperature on your refrigerator?
Yes 18%18%18%16%16%22%
No 82%82%82%84%84%78%
17 Did you complete the optional online energy use activity?
All of it 8%7%8%7%11%14%
Some of it 16%14%17%13%18%19%
None 76%79%76%79%71%67%
18 Did you work with your family on this Program?
Yes 60%63%58%63%62%50%
No 40%37%42%37%38%50%
Resource Action Programs®, a Franklin Energy Company 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
19 Did your family change the way they use water?
Yes 54%58%52%55%55%47%
No 46%42%48%45%45%53%
20 Did your family change the way they use energy?
Yes 61%66%59%62%61%59%
No 39%34%41%38%39%41%
21 How would you rate the Idaho Power Energy Wise® Program?
Great 48%50%48%46%49%49%
Pretty Good 38%37%40%37%36%38%
Okay 11%11%10%14%12%10%
Not So Good 3%3%2%4%3%3%
Idaho Power Energy Wise® Program Summary Report58Appendix 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
Eastern Aberdeen Middle School Layne Arnoldson 1 67 YES
Western Aiken Elementary School Candace Zugner 1 30 NO
Western Aiken Elementary School Patty Eidson 1 30 NO
Southern Alturas Elementary School Juan Salamanca 1 23 NO
Southern Alturas Elementary School Kiley Hoefer 1 23 NO
Southern Alturas Elementary School Melanie Blacker 1 24 NO
Eastern American Falls Intermediate School Kristen Jensen 1 11 NO
Southern Bellevue Elementary School Alexis Duvall 1 16 NO
Southern Bellevue Elementary School Andrea Gallegos 1 15 NO
Southern Bellevue Elementary School Krista Jones 1 46 NO
Canyon Birch Elementary School Brenda Fly 1 28 YES
Canyon Birch Elementary School Carol Briggs 1 29 YES
Canyon Birch Elementary School Juilana Lookhart 1 28 YES
Canyon Birch Elementary School MaryJo Pegram 1 28 YES
Eastern Blackfoot Charter Community Learning Center Britani Barrus 1 19 YES
Eastern Blackfoot Charter Community Learning
Center Camilla Polish 1 20 NO
Eastern Blackfoot Charter Community Learning
Center Krystal Murdock 1 24 YES
Southern Buhl Middle School Caroline Barger 1 108 YES
Southern Camas County School Bridget Smith 1 13 NO
Southern Camas County School Candice Smith 1 14 YES
Southern Camas County School Kristie Olsen 1 16 YES
Western Cambridge Elementary School Danielle Petitmermet 1 12 YES
Southern Carey Public School Jan Morey 1 12 NO
Canyon Centennial Elementary School Aimee Christensen 1 30 YES
Canyon Centennial Elementary School Diane Gharring 1 30 YES
Canyon Centennial Elementary School Doris Atherton 1 30 YES
Canyon Central Canyon Elementary School Ashley Van Vorous 1 26 NO
Canyon Central Canyon Elementary School Betsy Smith 1 26 YES
Canyon Central Canyon Elementary School Jessica Lillquist 1 26 YES
Canyon Central Canyon Elementary School Tracy Bullock 1 26 YES
Canyon Central Elementary School Aubrey Crisp 1 28 NO
Canyon Central Elementary School Courtney Craner 1 28 YES
Capital Christine Donnell School of Arts Amy Hymas 1 29 YES
Resource Action Programs®, a Franklin Energy Company 59Appendix 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 29 YES
Capital Christine Donnell School of Arts Debra Tiffany 1 30 YES
Eastern Chubbuck Elementary School Christenia Coast 1 23 YES
Eastern Chubbuck Elementary School Lori Schmitt 1 28 NO
Eastern Chubbuck Elementary School Terra Pirrong 1 25 NO
Eastern Chubbuck Elementary School Wendy VanDyke 1 24 NO
Eastern Claude A. Wilcox Elementary School Julie Fowlkes 1 28 YES
Eastern Claude A. Wilcox Elementary School Krista Campos 1 29 YES
Eastern Claude A. Wilcox Elementary School Tricia Hemsley 1 28 YES
Southern Clover Trinity Lutheran Wendy Barckholtz 1 10 NO
Capital Collister Elementary School Gwendolyn Balmer 1 15 NO
Eastern Connor Academy Public Charter School Bill Henry 4th Grade 1 30 YES
Eastern Connor Academy Public Charter School Bill Henry 5th grade 1 36 YES
Eastern Connor Academy Public Charter School Bill Henry 6th Grade 1 50 YES
Eastern Connor Academy Public Charter School Bill Henry 7th Grade 1 60 YES
Eastern Connor Academy Public Charter School Bill Henry 8th Grade 1 63 YES
Capital Cynthia Mann Elementary School Lisa Stitt 1 25 YES
Capital Cynthia Mann Elementary School Rachael Cromie 1 25 NO
Capital Cynthia Mann Elementary School Wendy Frost 1 21 YES
Canyon Desert Springs Elementary School Jackie Sodaro 1 23 YES
Canyon Desert Springs Elementary School Janelle Smith 1 23 YES
Canyon Desert Springs Elementary School Lindsay Mangum 1 26 YES
Canyon Desert Springs Elementary School Stacey Pearson 1 26 YES
Southern Dietrich School Jerry Heimerdinger 1 16 NO
Eastern Donald D. Stalker Elementary School LaNita McRae 1 25 YES
Eastern Donald D. Stalker Elementary School Lisa Clark 1 26 NO
Canyon East Canyon Elementary Brett Mizuta 1 22 NO
Canyon East Canyon Elementary Brian Constant 1 22 NO
Canyon East Canyon Elementary Tiara Shippy 1 22 YES
Canyon East Canyon Elementary Trisha Cramer 1 22 NO
Eastern Edahow Elementary School Debbie Nickel 1 31 YES
Eastern Edahow Elementary School Megan Bullock 1 30 YES
Capital Eliza Hart Spalding Elementary School Rachel Lindquist 1 34 YES
Capital Eliza Hart Spalding Elementary School Robin Apalategui 1 34 YES
Capital Eliza Hart Spalding Elementary School Sarah Williams 1 34 YES
Participant List
(continued)
Note: “T” represents number of teachers and “S” represents number of students
Idaho Power Energy Wise® Program Summary Report60Appendix C
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x

C
Note: “T” represents number of teachers and “S” represents number of students
REGION SCHOOL TEACHER T S SURVEYS
RETURNED
Capital Eliza Hart Spalding Elementary School Shawna Brenna 1 34 YES
Eastern Ellis Elementary School Anna Pugliano 1 26 YES
Eastern Ellis Elementary School Margo Lamont 1 26 YES
Eastern Ellis Elementary School Sherry VanEvery 1 26 YES
Eastern Fern Waters Campus/Upper Carmen Eryk Foss 1 42 YES
Southern Filer Elementary School Stacie Beem 1 24 NO
Southern Filer Intermediate School Anna Koch 1 22 YES
Southern Filer Intermediate School Jo Borrup 1 22 YES
Southern Filer Intermediate School Mary Kelly 1 23 NO
Southern Filer Intermediate School Robyn Flint 1 23 YES
Southern Filer Intermediate School Tes Fields 1 24 NO
Western Fruitland Elementary School Amber Bridgewater 1 25 YES
Western Fruitland Elementary School Heather Heitz 1 25 NO
Western Fruitland Elementary School Ish Green 1 25 YES
Western Fruitland Elementary School Linda Langley 1 25 NO
Western Fruitland Elementary School Stacy Wescott 1 25 NO
Western Fruitland Elementary School Suzy Hrizuk 1 25 YES
Western Garden Valley Elementary Shannon Court 1 20 NO
Eastern Gate City Elementary School Christin Brown 1 27 YES
Eastern Gate City Elementary School John Humphrey 1 27 YES
Eastern Gate City Elementary School Lacey Smart 1 27 YES
Canyon Gem Prep Nampa Elaine Gross 1 30 NO
Canyon Gem Prep Nampa Jolene Daniels 1 30 YES
Capital Glenns Ferry Middle School Liza Martin 1 33 NO
Capital Grace Jordan Elementary School Darwood Ashmead 1 27 NO
Capital Grace Jordan Elementary School Jason Fewkes 1 28 NO
Capital Grace Jordan Elementary School Rebekah Spille 1 28 NO
Eastern Grace Lutheran School Katie Grant 1 26 YES
Eastern Green Acres Elementary School Kathy Walker 1 30 YES
Eastern Green Acres Elementary School Rachel Thomas 1 30 YES
Canyon Greenhurst Elementary School John Stull 1 27 YES
Canyon Greenhurst Elementary School Tami Ashley 1 28 NO
Eastern Groveland Elementary Kalli Lopez 1 14 YES
Eastern Groveland Elementary Melissa Schreiber 1 16 YES
Southern Hagerman Elementary School Marianne Christian 1 12 NO
Participant List
(continued)
Resource Action Programs®, a Franklin Energy Company 61Appendix 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 Hagerman Elementary School Melissa Kast 1 16 NO
Southern Hansen Elementary School Marcie Parkinson 1 22 YES
Southern Harrison Elementary School Chelsea Kelly 1 24 NO
Southern Harrison Elementary School Corissa Johns 1 24 NO
Southern Harrison Elementary School Karley Wilkins 1 22 NO
Capital Hawthorne Elementary School Susie Noland 1 27 YES
Southern Heritage Academy School Amanda Thayne 1 25 NO
Southern Heritage Academy School Ana Carpenter 1 20 NO
Capital Hillsdale Elementary School Angie Fraas 1 31 YES
Capital Hillsdale Elementary School Hannah Kessler 1 30 YES
Capital Hillsdale Elementary School Jocelyn Robinson 1 28 YES
Capital Hillsdale Elementary School Michelle Montoya 1 30 YES
Southern Hollister Elementary Elara Smith 1 9 NO
Southern Hollister Elementary Susan Hamby 1 14 YES
Southern Horizon Elementary School Gayle Butts 1 23 YES
Southern Horizon Elementary School Jennifer Mandis 1 24 NO
Southern Horizon Elementary School Kelly Semler 1 24 NO
Southern Horizon Elementary School Michelle Powell 1 24 NO
Southern Horizon Elementary School Mikayla Fox 1 24 NO
Southern Horizon Elementary School Sheena Teal 1 24 NO
Southern Horizon Elementary School Sherry Young 1 32 NO
Southern Horizon Elementary School Stephanie Anderson 1 24 NO
Capital Hunter Elementary School Angela Zweifel 1 29 YES
Capital Hunter Elementary School Cinda Bodell 1 30 NO
Capital Hunter Elementary School Diane Escandon 1 30 YES
Capital Hunter Elementary School Rebecca Lenon 1 30 YES
Capital Hunter Elementary School Rene Bilkiss 1 30 YES
Southern I.B. Perrine Elementary School Emily Strom 1 30 YES
Southern I.B. Perrine Elementary School Mary Fraley 1 30 YES
Southern I.B. Perrine Elementary School Rob Weaver 1 30 YES
Canyon Idaho Arts Charter School Amanda Pearcy 1 31 NO
Canyon Idaho Arts Charter School Jenell Mee 1 30 NO
Canyon Idaho Arts Charter School Lindsey Corey 1 30 NO
Canyon Idaho Arts Charter School Samantha Barnes 1 30 NO
Participant List
(continued)
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
Participant List
(continued)
REGION SCHOOL TEACHER T S SURVEYS
RETURNED
Eastern Idaho Science & Technology Charter School Lydia Beck 1 21 NO
Eastern Indian Hills Elementary Deri Hall 1 23 YES
Eastern Indian Hills Elementary Heidi Austin 1 26 YES
Eastern Indian Hills Elementary Janet Plowman 1 26 YES
Eastern Indian Hills Elementary Mark Bowman 1 25 YES
Eastern Inkom Elementary School Virginia Robinson 1 30 YES
Canyon Iowa Elementary Pepper Allen 1 30 YES
Canyon Iowa Elementary Shetila Henry 1 30 YES
Canyon Iowa Elementary Veronica Knutson 1 30 NO
Capital Joplin Elementary School Amy Bass 1 38 NO
Capital Joplin Elementary School Kirsten Grover 1 37 NO
Western Kenneth Carberry Elementary School Alissa Combe 1 28 YES
Western Kenneth Carberry Elementary School Karen Nichols 1 27 YES
Western Kenneth Carberry Elementary School Katrina Savitz 1 30 YES
Western Kenneth Carberry Elementary School Vicki Beckman 1 27 YES
Southern Kimberly Elementary School Deanna Miller 1 25 NO
Southern Kimberly Elementary School Rachelle Mueller 1 25 NO
Southern Kimberly Elementary School Roberta Beck 1 25 NO
Capital Lake Hazel Elementary Courtney Randall 1 29 NO
Capital Lake Hazel Elementary Elizabeth McLaughlin 1 29 NO
Capital Lake Hazel Elementary Michelle Roach 1 29 NO
Canyon Lake Ridge Elementary School Deanna Menssen 1 26 YES
Canyon Lake Ridge Elementary School Laura Crawford 1 27 YES
Canyon Lake Ridge Elementary School Laura VanDerschaaf 1 27 YES
Canyon Lake Ridge Elementary School Tanya Scheibe 1 25 YES
Eastern Leadore School Melody Kauer 1 13 YES
Canyon Lewis & Clark Elementary Adam Trowbridge 1 25 YES
Canyon Lewis & Clark Elementary Caitlyn McConnell 1 25 YES
Canyon Lewis & Clark Elementary Meghan Willard 1 25 YES
Eastern Lewis and Clark Elementary John Anderson 1 27 YES
Eastern Lewis and Clark Elementary Stacy Briner 1 25 YES
Eastern Lewis and Clark Elementary Tamara Palmer 1 27 YES
Capital Maple Grove Elementary Erin Luthy 1 26 NO
Capital Maple Grove Elementary Kaitlyn Ilg 1 24 NO
Resource Action Programs®, a Franklin Energy Company 63Appendix 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 Maple Grove Elementary Scott Roe 1 24 YES
Canyon Melba Elementary Carrie Bowers 1 27 YES
Canyon Melba Elementary Katie Strawser 1 27 YES
Canyon Melba Elementary Marie Rockwood 1 27 YES
Canyon Middleton Heights Elementary School Emily Rebrich 1 28 NO
Canyon Middleton Heights Elementary School Katelyn Shannon 1 27 NO
Canyon Middleton Heights Elementary School Kim Platt 1 25 YES
Canyon Middleton Heights Elementary School Scott Brocke 1 27 NO
Canyon Mill Creek Elementary School Jill Mescher 1 28 YES
Canyon Mill Creek Elementary School Lauren Denny 1 28 YES
Canyon Mill Creek Elementary School Lyna Butler 1 28 YES
Canyon Mill Creek Elementary School Staci Miller 1 28 YES
Southern Morningside Elementary School Katie Mancari 1 22 NO
Southern Morningside Elementary School Sandy Paul 1 21 NO
Southern Morningside Elementary School Stephen Rahe 1 24 NO
Southern Murtaugh Middle School Amy Jensen 1 38 NO
Canyon Nampa Christian School Zachary Dwello 1 33 YES
Western New Plymouth Elementary School Cherry Meckert 1 28 YES
Western New Plymouth Elementary School Dorothy Woods 1 28 YES
Western New Plymouth Elementary School Jolene Taggart 1 28 YES
Capital North Elementary Denise Weis 1 23 YES
Capital North Elementary Rosemary Ash 1 23 YES
Capital North Elementary Shelby Sandefur 1 23 YES
Capital North Elementary Sherri Redmond 1 17 YES
Capital North Star Charter School Carol DeFriez 1 30 NO
Capital North Star Charter School Mariah Rodeghiero 1 30 NO
Capital North Star Charter School Michelle Obenchain 1 30 NO
Western Nyssa Elementary School Diane Moats 1 22 NO
Western Nyssa Elementary School Paula Barnhart 1 30 YES
Western Nyssa Elementary School Trisha Bunker 1 45 NO
Southern Oakley Elementary School Gloria Muhlestein 1 18 NO
Southern Oakley Elementary School Rose Marie Warrell 1 16 NO
Canyon Owyhee Elementary Becki Wheeler 1 30 YES
Canyon Owyhee Elementary Brenda Allen 1 30 YES
Idaho Power Energy Wise® Program Summary Report64Appendix 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 Owyhee Elementary Christa Roesberry-Barber 1 30 YES
Western Park Intermediate Grace Sharp 1 22 YES
Western Park Intermediate Jessica Mosley 1 21 YES
Western Park Intermediate Kathleen Cahill 1 20 NO
Canyon Park Ridge Elementary School Allison Garrison 1 25 NO
Canyon Park Ridge Elementary School Karey Cahan 1 25 NO
Capital Pierce Park Elementary Bill Hoffman 1 22 YES
Capital Pierce Park Elementary Shannon Nicholson 1 30
Southern Pillar Falls Elementary School Angella Enders 1 30 NO
Southern Pillar Falls Elementary School Gaelene Miller 1 30 NO
Southern Pillar Falls Elementary School Rachael Simson 1 30 NO
Southern Pillar Falls Elementary School Robin Mason 1 30 NO
Southern Pine Elem/Jr High School Jane Burke 1 1 NO
Capital Ponderosa Elementary School Deborah Lichter 1 30 YES
Capital Ponderosa Elementary School Kris Pfaff 1 30 YES
Capital Ponderosa Elementary School Veronica McAchran 1 31 YES
Southern Popplewell Elementary School Bill Clements 1 24 NO
Southern Popplewell Elementary School Cathy Butenschoen 1 24 NO
Southern Popplewell Elementary School Elizabeth Smith 1 24 NO
Southern Popplewell Elementary School Melinda Fontana 1 24 NO
Capital Prospect Elementary Alyssa Finley 1 30 NO
Capital Prospect Elementary Christin Cantlon 1 30 NO
Capital Prospect Elementary Felicia Lewis 1 30 NO
Capital Prospect Elementary Kit Shuman 1 30 NO
Capital Prospect Elementary Megan Yates 1 30 NO
Canyon Purple Sage Elementary School Madeline Laan 1 27 NO
Canyon Purple Sage Elementary School Melissa McPherson 1 27 YES
Canyon Purple Sage Elementary School Melody Craw 1 27 YES
Canyon Reed Elementary Arielle Jensen 1 31 YES
Canyon Reed Elementary Jennifer Dolan 1 32 YES
Canyon Reed Elementary Mary Holmes 1 31 YES
Southern Richfield School Jessica Scott 1 40 NO
Eastern Ridge Crest Elementary School Jacalyn Bombard 1 28 YES
Eastern Ridge Crest Elementary School Trina Heiner 1 25 NO
Resource Action Programs®, a Franklin Energy Company 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
Eastern Rockford Elementary School Alisa O'Berry 1 23 YES
Eastern Rockford Elementary School Kristine VanOrden 1 24 NO
Eastern Rockland Elementary School Kristi Thomas 1 24 NO
Canyon Ronald Reagan Elementary School Kelsey Rogers 1 30 YES
Canyon Ronald Reagan Elementary School Lisa Martell 1 30 YES
Canyon Ronald Reagan Elementary School Sheryll Sharp 1 26 YES
Canyon Roosevelt Elementary Anna Ganske 1 27 NO
Canyon Roosevelt Elementary Callie Hall 1 27 NO
Canyon Roosevelt Elementary Michael Palmer 1 27 NO
Canyon Sacajawea Elementary School Jennifer Howell 1 28 YES
Canyon Sacajawea Elementary School Penny Washburn 1 28 YES
Canyon Sacajawea Elementary School Terra Hurd 1 28 YES
Capital Sage International School of Boise Emily Seid 1 26 YES
Capital Sage International School of Boise Jennifer Laird 1 26 YES
Capital Sage International School of Boise Kadie Johnson 1 26 YES
Eastern Salmon Junior/Senior School Krystal Smith 1 65 YES
Southern Sawtooth Elementary Emily Martin 1 26 YES
Capital Seven Oaks Elementary School Heather Neptune 1 28 YES
Capital Seven Oaks Elementary School Jennifer DeMarini 1 28 YES
Capital Seven Oaks Elementary School Liz Paradis 1 28 YES
Capital Shadow Hills Elementary School Christy Schwehr 1 28 YES
Capital Shadow Hills Elementary School Clare Arnzen 1 90 YES
Capital Shadow Hills Elementary School Janell Irwin 1 28 YES
Capital Shadow Hills Elementary School Shannon Cullen 1 28 YES
Canyon Sherman Elementary School Chad Moore 1 20 YES
Canyon Sherman Elementary School Jennifer Castricone 1 27 NO
Canyon Sherman Elementary School Jennifer Jensen 1 20 YES
Canyon Sherman Elementary School Josephine Fisher 1 27 YES
Canyon Sherman Elementary School Meribeth Mathews 1 27 NO
Canyon Sherman Elementary School Tyler Keefe 1 20 YES
Southern Shoshone Elementary School Charli Cenarrusa 1 22 NO
Southern Shoshone Elementary School Denice Christiansen 1 21 NO
Canyon Silver Trail Elementary School Cathy Funkhouser 1 13 YES
Canyon Silver Trail Elementary School Dan Blitman 1 33 YES
Canyon Silver Trail Elementary School Dan Hoehne 1 33 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
Canyon Silver Trail Elementary School Kim Birkinbine 1 15 YES
Canyon Skyway Elementary School Casi Spengler 1 24 YES
Canyon Skyway Elementary School Elizabeth Pierce 1 24 NO
Canyon Skyway Elementary School Jamie Warren 1 24 NO
Canyon Skyway Elementary School Lexxi Radke 1 24 NO
Canyon Skyway Elementary School Mark Elli 1 24 NO
Canyon Snake River Elementary Heather Packer 1 30 YES
Canyon Snake River Elementary Lindsey Strong 1 30 YES
Canyon Snake River Elementary Matea Schindel 1 30 YES
Southern South Hills Middle School Desiree Montoya 1 130 YES
Southern St Edwards Catholic School Cortney Allison 1 16 NO
Canyon St. Paul's Catholic School Annette Wall 1 32 YES
Capital Star Elementary School Angela Fulkerson 1 25 NO
Capital Star Elementary School Candy Franscella 1 25 NO
Capital Star Elementary School Carmi Scheller 1 25 YES
Capital Star Elementary School Joyanna Galan 1 25 NO
Eastern Stoddard Elementary School Alicia Cody 1 29 YES
Eastern Stoddard Elementary School Brenna Waterbury 1 31 YES
Eastern Stoddard Elementary School Hallie Snyder 1 28 YES
Southern Summit Elementary School Anne Winder 1 29 YES
Southern Summit Elementary School Audra Thompson 1 30 YES
Southern Summit Elementary School Brad Winder 1 31 YES
Southern Summit Elementary School Jorma Fletcher 1 31 NO
Southern Summit Elementary School Kimberly Wallace 1 31 YES
Southern Summit Elementary School Leah Jones 1 36 NO
Southern Summit Elementary School Maggie Stump 1 32 YES
Southern Summit Elementary School Michele Putnam 1 31 YES
Southern Summit Elementary School Rosa Gonzalez 1 30 NO
Southern Summit Elementary School Stacey Lakey 1 29 YES
Southern Summit Elementary School Todd Lakey 1 29 NO
Southern Summit Elementary School Tracy Park 1 32 YES
Southern Summit Elementary School Trisha Neudorff 1 27 NO
Eastern Syringa Elementary School Andrea Gulden 1 27 NO
Eastern Syringa Elementary School Aubrey Eldredge 1 27 NO
Eastern Syringa Elementary School Cindel Vasquez 1 27 NO
Resource Action Programs®, a Franklin Energy Company 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 Taft Elementary School Jessica Rose 1 29 YES
Capital Taft Elementary School Sarah Wright 1 28 YES
Eastern Tendoy Elementary Cody Perry 1 25 YES
Eastern Tendoy Elementary Diana Son 1 21 YES
Southern Three Creek School Dena Pollock 1 10 YES
Capital Trail Wind Elementary School Jonathan Roesler 1 27 NO
Capital Trail Wind Elementary School Karen Palazzolo 1 26 NO
Capital Trail Wind Elementary School Kori Beavis 1 27 NO
Capital Trail Wind Elementary School Tyler Targee 1 27 NO
Eastern Tyhee Elementary School Haley Luce 1 28 NO
Eastern Tyhee Elementary School Jayne Johnson 1 28 YES
Capital Valley View Elementary School Meko Myers 1 27 YES
Capital Valley View Elementary School Shawna Hiller 1 26 YES
Eastern Wapello Elementary School Kristine Schnittgen 1 19 YES
Eastern Wapello Elementary School LaNae Porter 1 18 YES
Canyon Washington Elementary School Chris Wilcox 1 28 YES
Canyon Washington Elementary School Heather Mueller 1 26 YES
Canyon Washington Elementary School Joleena Malugani 1 27 YES
Canyon Washington Elementary School Kyle Backlund 1 27 NO
Eastern Washington Elementary School Jan Damron 1 22 YES
Eastern Washington Elementary School Teresa O'Toole 1 23 YES
Canyon West Canyon Elementary Andrea Chester 1 28 YES
Canyon West Canyon Elementary Chuck Knox 1 28 NO
Canyon West Canyon Elementary Sally VanderVeen 1 28 YES
Western Westside Elementary School Amy Brownell 1 28 YES
Western Westside Elementary School Brianne Garner 1 28 YES
Western Westside Elementary School Danielle Hayes 1 28 YES
Western Westside Elementary School Sarah Nesbitt 1 28 YES
Western Westside Elementary School Shauna Bain 1 28 YES
Capital Whitney Elementary School Eden Rodriguez 1 28 YES
Capital Whitney Elementary School Kayden Tague 1 25 YES
Capital Whitney Elementary School Tasha Crowell 1 32 NO
Eastern William Thomas Middle School Kelly Coleman 1 110 YES
Canyon Willow Creek Elementary School Kayla Stone 1 27 YES
Canyon Willow Creek Elementary School Kim Chierici 1 27 YES
Idaho Power Energy Wise® Program Summary Report68Appendix C
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x

C
TOTALS 350 9,703
TOTAL PARTICIPANTS 10,053
TOTAL PARTICIPATING 2018-2019 TEACHERS 350
211 60%YES
138 39%NO
TOTAL STUDENT SURVEYS RETURNED 5,463
TOTAL INCENTIVE PAID OUT $19,875
FULL YEAR SURVEY RETURN PERCENTAGE 56%
REGION SCHOOL TEACHER T S SURVEYS
RETURNED
Canyon Willow Creek Elementary School Nick Channer 1 27 YES
Canyon Willow Creek Elementary School Nicole Gibbs 1 27 YES
Canyon Wilson Elementary School Afton McSherry 1 35 YES
Canyon Wilson Elementary School Debbie Peterson 1 34 NO
Canyon Wilson Elementary School Melissa Langan 1 34 YES
Southern Xavier Charter School Stacey McFarland 1 33 YES
Participant List
(continued)
Resource Action Programs®, a Franklin Energy Company 69Appendix D
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x

D
Teacher Program Evaluation Data
Total Capital Canyon Eastern Southern Western
Participants 350 75 104 64 79 28
Surveys Received 163 28 64 37 18 16
Percent Response 47%37%62%58%23%57%
Number Percent
1 The materials were clearly written and well organized.
Strongly Agree 117 72%
Agree 44 27%
Disagree 0 0%
Strongly Disagree 2 1%
2 The products in the Kit were easy for students to use.
Strongly Agree 87 54%
Agree 70 43%
Disagree 4 2%
Strongly Disagree 1 1%
3 Students indicated that their parents supported the program.
Yes 149 93%
No 11 7%
4 Would you conduct this Program again?
Yes 161 99%
No 1 1%
5 Would you recommend this program to other colleagues?
Yes 161 99%
No 2 1%
6 If my school is eligible for participation next year, I would like to enroll.
Yes 155 95%
No 8 5%
Due to rounding of numbers, percentages may not add up to 100%
Idaho Power Energy Wise® Program Summary Report70Appendix E
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x

E
Total Capital Canyon Eastern Southern Western
Participants 9,703 2,164 2,834 1,889 2,078 738
Surveys Received 94 28 28 14 17 7
Percent Response .97%1.29%.99%.74%.82%.95%
Total Parent Responses 94
Number Percent
1 Was the Program easy for you and your child to use?
Yes 94 100%
No 0 0%
2 Will you continue to use the Kit items after the completion of the Program?
Yes 92 98%
No 2 2%
3 Would you like to see this Program continued in local schools?
Yes 93 99%
No 1 1%
Parent/Guardian Program Evaluation Data
Due to rounding of numbers, percentages may not add up to 100%

2019 Irrigation Peak Rewards Program Report

© 2019 Idaho Power
Idaho Power Company Irrigation Peak Rewards Program Report
Page i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table of Contents ............................................................................................................................. i
List of Tables .................................................................................................................................. ii
List of Figures ................................................................................................................................. ii
List of Appendices .......................................................................................................................... ii
Introduction ......................................................................................................................................1
Details ........................................................................................................................................1
Participation .....................................................................................................................................3
Operations ........................................................................................................................................5
Equipment ..................................................................................................................................5
Monitoring .................................................................................................................................5
Data Gathering and Processing ..................................................................................................6
Load Reduction Analysis .................................................................................................................6
Baseline Calculations and Event Reduction Calculations .........................................................7
Potential Realization Rate Analysis ...........................................................................................9
Load Reduction Results—Total System Load Data ................................................................11
Costs ...............................................................................................................................................12
Customer Satisfaction ....................................................................................................................12
Conclusions ....................................................................................................................................13

Irrigation Peak Rewards Program Report Idaho Power Company
Page ii
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 .............................8
Table 4 Hourly demand reduction results (MW) for each event, for Oregon-only pumps, including line losses ......................................................................................................................8
Table 5
Results for each event day by category and percentage*, percentage during each event
by reason .......................................................................................................................................9
Table 6 Annual program costs by category ..............................................................................................12

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 IPC service area ............................................................................................................................4
Figure 2 Distribution of participants by service area ..................................................................................4
Figure 3
Potential realization rate per day exluding Sundays and July 4 ..................................................10
Figure 4 Load reduction results—total system load data ..........................................................................11

LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix 1 ....................................................................................................................................14
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 IPC irrigation customers receiving service under schedules 24 and 84 in Idaho
and Oregon. Eligibility is based on prior participation at the pump location. There are two
options for shut off: automatic dispatch option and manual dispatch option. The load reduction spans a seven-hour timeframe with four groups. Each group is off for four hours starting at 2:00 p.m. If four or more events are dispatched during the season, any participant willing to have the pump remain off until 9:00 p.m. may have an additional variable payment. Currently,
the options for dispatch groups are as follows:
• 2:00 to 6:00 p.m.
• 3:00 to 7:00 p.m.
• 4:00 to 8:00 p.m.
• 5:00 to 9:00 p.m.
Automatic Dispatch Option
Pumps enrolled in the automatic dispatch option have one of two devices installed at the pump
location. The device controls the associated irrigation pump(s) with a signal from IPC.
This option requires all pumps shut off at a site for the demand response event. Approximately 90 percent of the devices are demand response units (DRU) and use IPC’s Automated Metering Infrastructure (AMI) to send the signal to open the contactor to shut off the pump. The other 10 percent of automatic participants have a cellular device (cell device) installed. If the pump has
an AMI meter, then a DRU is installed. If AMI technology is not available, a cell device is
installed. The cell device has the same load control feature as the AMI DRU but a cellular network signal is used to send the command for shut off during the event.
Irrigation Peak Rewards Program Report Idaho Power Company
Page 2
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) available for shut off during the season. They may choose to shut down all or partial load at the site.
Parameters
• Season dates June 15 to August 15
• Minimum of three load-control events
• Load-control events may occur any weekday or Saturday, excluding July 4 between the
hours of 1:00 p.m. and 9:00 p.m.
• Load-control events may occur up to four hours per day and up to 15 hours per week, but no more than 60 hours per program season
• IPC notifies automatic participants by phone, email, and/or text messaging four hours
before the start of the event whenever possible
• IPC notifies manual participants by phone, email, and/or text four hours before the start of the event
• IPC may cancel the load-control event and notify participants of the cancellation up to 30
minutes before 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 billing dates June 15 through August 15. The demand and energy credits for the manual dispatch participants
are paid with a check.
Demand credits are calculated by multiplying the monthly billing kW by the demand-related incentive amount. The energy credits are calculated by multiplying the monthly billing kilowatt-hour (kWh) usage by the energy-related incentive amount. Credits are prorated for
periods when meter reading/billing cycles do not align with the IPR season dates.
The incentive structure includes fixed and variable incentives. Variable incentives apply if more than three events occur in the season. Participants who choose the extended 5:00 to 9:00 p.m. group are paid a larger variable credit. No variable incentive payments were made in 2019.
Idaho Power Company Irrigation Peak Rewards Program Report
Page 3
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. The participants receive payment in the form of a check sent through the mail. The incentive rates for 2019 are listed in Table 1.
Table 1 Monthly incentive rates for manual and automatic options
Fixed Demand Credit ($/billing kW) Fixed Energy Credit ($/billing kWh) Variable Energy Credit ($/billing kWh) Extended Variable Energy Credit* ($/billing kWh)
$5.00 $0.0076 $0.148 $0.198
* 5-9 p.m. group
Opt-Outs
Under the rules of the automatic dispatch option, participants have the 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. An inexplicit opt-out occurs when a
participant turns the pump on prior to the four hours. Interval metering data and the hp rating are used to determine an inexplicit opt-out after the event data has been collected and analyzed.
PARTICIPATION
IPR enrollment packets were mailed to all past participants in February 2019. Contents of the
packet included an IPR brochure, program application, incentive structure details, eligible pump
locations, eligible pumps pinpointed on a map and an estimated incentive for each pump location.
IPC presented IPR details at ten irrigation workshops across the service area. IPC also had the opportunity to communicate program details while staffing the booth at four agricultural shows
across the service area. IPC continues to encourage past participants to enroll.
Nominated billing demand was 408.65 MW with 2,332 pumps enrolled for the 2019 season. The annual participation has remained steady over the past couple of years.
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
IPC service area

Figure 2 Distribution of participants by service area
5.5%
14.5%
42.1%
34.2%
1.5%2.2%
2019 Participation by Area
Canyon Capital Eastern Southern 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
Canyon 156 12 116 128 82.1% 35.70
Capital 378 31 307 338 89.4% 90.99
Eastern 1126 0 982 982 87.2% 136.23
Southern 979 5 792 797 81.4% 133.43
Western 62 0 36 36 58.1% 2.81
Oregon 63 3 48 51 81.0% 9.49
Totals 2,764 51 2,281 2,332 84.4% 408.65

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 command through the power line.
AMI technology allows IPC to investigate the status of participating pumps during load-control
events. Three days after the event an hourly usage report is downloaded and analyzed.
These reports provide data to help determine which DRUs functioned properly and which pumps were off during the event. During the 2019 season 2,461 DRUs were active and installed at 1,936 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 2019 season 319 cellular devices were active and installed at 274 pump locations.
Monitoring
Identification and correction of device failure is an ongoing effort before the season begins and throughout the season. Proper identification of malfunctioning devices helps to accurately predict
the load reduction. Based on assumptions made around the interval metering data and the
communication reports a work order may be sent to the electrician to troubleshoot the device. Often it is found the device is not working or damaged and exchanged for a new device.
Irrigation Peak Rewards Program Report Idaho Power Company
Page 6
A variety of issues with the DRUs and cell 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
Data Gathering and Processing
Troubleshooting, customer payments and program performance are informed by the interval metering data analysis. The first steps of the data analysis are gathering and processing the data.
This includes 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 data
3. Pumps running on the manual dispatch option with interval data
LOAD REDUCTION ANALYSIS
The load reduction analysis or program performance for the season is calculated using six primary sources:
1. Program participant list
2. AMI hourly usage data
3. Interval metering data
4. MV90 interval data
5. Cellular device communication data from event days
6. Total system load data for event days and surrogate days

Idaho Power Company Irrigation Peak Rewards Program Report
Page 7
The IPR participant data for each event day includes the following:
• Pump number
• Meter number
• 2019 dispatch option
• 2019 dispatch group
• Nominated kW
• Cellular device or DRU number or identified as Manual site
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 (MW) readings in five-minute
increments on event days as well as comparative nonevent days.
Baseline Calculations and Event Reduction Calculations
Calculating the performance of the program requires a comparison between usage prior to the
event (baseline hours) and usage during the event. See Appendix 1 for the definition of terms and the demand reduction calculation method. The descriptions below outline the process.
• Baseline hours are calculated using the average of the three hours prior to the dispatch
group start time.
• The event hour reduction is calculated using the average of the second, third and fourth hours of each dispatch group. The first hour is not used for event performance due to the potential for delay in AMI commands. The command may take up to 10 minutes to reach the pump location for shut off.
• Data with errors is removed from the data set.
• Load reduction for automatic AMI dispatch option is calculated and then extrapolated to represent the nominated amount.
• Load reduction for the automatic cell dispatch option is calculated using the AMI percentage extrapolated to represent the load reduction of sites with cell phones and sites with data errors.
• Load reduction for manual dispatch option is calculated using interval metering data
without errors and then extrapolated to represent the total manual population.
• 2,057 pump locations have interval data, representing 88.8 percent of the total program MW nomination.
Irrigation Peak Rewards Program Report Idaho Power Company
Page 8
Table 3 displays the load reduction results for each event day. The load reduction at generation level includes a 9.7 percent line loss.
Table 3
Hourly demand reduction results (MW) for each event for total program, including line losses
Event Date 2–3 p.m. 3–4 p.m. 4–5 p.m. 5–6 p.m. 6–7 p.m. 7–8 p.m. 8–9 p.m.
7/11/2019 60.71 136.33 204.24 268.89 208.18 132.56 64.65
7/23/2019 64.75 140.72 216.92 278.00 213.26 137.28 61.08
8/05/2019 50.69 119.35 202.78 253.99 203.30 134.64 51.21

Table 4 Hourly demand reduction results (MW) for each event, for Oregon-only pumps, including line losses
Event Date 2–3 p.m. 3–4 p.m. 4–5 p.m. 5–6 p.m. 6–7 p.m. 7–8 p.m. 8–9 p.m.
7/11/2019 0.00 0.00 6.00 6.13 6.13 6.13 0.13
7/23/2019 0.00 0.00 6.68 6.80 6.80 6.80 0.12
8/05/2019 0.00 0.00 7.28 7.38 7.38 7.38 0.10

July 11
The first event occurred on a Thursday. The load control commands for the 2 p.m. dispatch group were initiated however during the processing of the commands the program unexpectedly quit and failed to send a portion of the commands to the substations. The metering department isolated the problem and made an adjustment to the configuration file to compensate for the
error. The issue was resolved and for each dispatch group thereafter the commands were sent
successfully. This error impacted 88 substations and 21 MW of expected load reduction.
July 23
The second event occurred on a Tuesday. The highest reduction for the 2019 season occurred during the 5:00 to 6:00 p.m. hour at 278 MW. Notifications to program participants were successful and the AMI and cell commands were initiated and delivered timely resulting in the
expected load reduction.
August 5
The third event occurred on a Monday. The notifications to participants went out as designed and
the communication to the DRUs occurred without delays. The event had the anticipated load reduction of 253.4 MW for the 5:00 to 6:00 p.m. hour.
Idaho Power Company Irrigation Peak Rewards Program Report
Page 9
Potential Realization Rate Analysis
The 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 shutoff during a demand response event. For the analysis the realization rate percentage is reduced by the average of device failures, opt-outs and small loads left on during an event. These reductions
averaged 5.49 percent for the 2019 season. Removing the average left on allows IPC to
accurately calculate the potential load reduction for any day during the season had a demand response event been called. Table 5 shows the average by category for load left on at participating pumps.
Table 5 Results for each event day by category and percentage, percentage during each event by reason
Event Date Small Load Opt Out Device Failure
Average percent of MW on during an event
7/11/2019 2.91% 0.95% 3.23%* 7.09%
7/23/2019 1.42% 0.63% 2.88% 4.93%
8/05/2019 1.04% 0.37% 3.05% 4.46%
*Substation command failure on 7/11 is not included in this percentage

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. Figure 3 shows eligible days in the season and pumping load of participating pumps. The percentage of load running is reduced by the average
percentage of small load, opt out and device failure during the three load control event days. The
graph shows a maximum potential realization rate of 73.03 percent on July 3, which results in a maximum potential load reduction for IPR of 327.33 MW for the 2019 IPR season.
Irrigation Peak Rewards Program Report Idaho Power Company
Page 10

Figure 3 Potential realization rate per day exluding Sundays and July 4

Idaho Power Company Irrigation Peak Rewards Program Report
Page 11

Load Reduction Results—Total System Load Data
IPC measures system load data in five-minute intervals. This data is also used to validate load reduction for IPR during the season. Each event day is considered to evaluate the results of the program operation. The reduction is considered an estimate due to the expected load curve being estimated from similar days without events. Figure 4 shows each load reduction day in 2019 with
an estimated curve showing expected load. Each day shows a similar reduction to the interval
metering data analysis.

Figure 4
Load reduction results—total system load data

1500
1700
1900
2100
2300
2500
2700
2900
3100
3300
1:00 AM 3:30 AM 6:00 AM 8:30 AM 11:00 AM 1:30 PM 4:00 PM 6:30 PM 9:00 PM 11:30 PM
7/11/2019-expected 7/11/2019
7/23/2019-expected 7/23/2019
Irrigation Peak Rewards Program Report Idaho Power Company
Page 12
COSTS
IPR spent a total of $6,714,914.28 with the incentive credit being the largest portion at
96.9 percent of total program costs. Incentives paid for the 2019 season total $6,510,245.14. Had the program been utilized beyond 3 events then additional variable incentives would have been paid. The estimated maximum cost of variable incentives of running the program at the full 60 hours per season or an additional 48 hours is another $2.9 million dollars.
Table 6
Annual program costs by category
Expense Item 2019 Total Cost
Materials & Equipment $25,730.02
Purchased Service $114,519.86
Other Expense $106.92
Incentives $6,510,245.14
Labor/Administrative Expense $64,312.34
Total $6,714,914.28

CUSTOMER SATISFACTION
On October 2, an invitation was sent via text message to 905 cell phone numbers. The text
included a link to a six-question survey enabling the respondent to participate using their cell
phone. 165 surveys were completed. Approximately 80 percent of the respondents were owners. Over 95 percent of respondents indicate they are satisfied with the IPR and IPC’s responsiveness. Ninty-two percent indicate satisfaction with the timeliness of messages on event days and 99 percent are satisfied with the content of the message. 30 respondents chose to leave
additional comments. The general sentiment of the comments was positive with most folks
asking for more notice of an event and to enroll more pumps into the program. Also mentioned a couple of times was the monetary value being worth the risk and inconvenience.

Idaho Power Company Irrigation Peak Rewards Program Report
Page 13
CONCLUSIONS
Highlights from the 2019 season include the following:
• 2,332 pumps enrolled
• 408.65 MW of nominated billing demand
• Potential demand-reduction of 327.33 MW including line losses
• Event 1: July 11 - max reduction 268.9 MW including line losses
• Event 2: July 23 - max reduction 278.0 MW including line losses
• Event 3: August 5 - max reduction 253.9 MW including line losses
• 2,361 active AMI DRUs
• 319 active IPC cellular devices
• 84.4 percent of eligible pump locations with devices participated
• 95 percent of participants are satisfied with IPR
• The cost of running the program for three events this season was $6.7 million
• The cost of having this resource available was $21.98 per kW
• The estimated cost of running the program at the full 60 hours per season or an additional 48 hours is another $2.9 million
Irrigation Peak Rewards Program Report Idaho Power Company
Page 14
APPENDIX 1
Definition of terms and 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 was calculated as follows:
DRpump = BLpump – AELpump

The load reduction for all pumps within a dispatch group is the total hourly reduction for each group as calculated below:

DRgroup = Σ DRpump (groups 1-4) +DR(groups)DRnominated (groups)∗Nominated DRpumps with errors

Load reduction for the automatic dispatch option was calculated as follows:
DRADO = Σ DRgroup

Idaho Power Company Irrigation Peak Rewards Program Report
Page 15

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:
DRgroup = Σ DRpump AMI + Σ DRpump MV-90 +DR(groups)DRnominated (groups)∗Nominated DRpumps with errors

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

Regional Technical Forum
2020-2024 Business Plan

October 2019

2020-2024 Business Plan
2

Introduction
The Regional Technical Forum (RTF) is an advisory committee to the Northwest Power and
Conservation Council (Council). The RTF meets monthly to review analysis and make decisions
on methodologies for estimating energy efficiency savings and demand response impacts. The
RTF is supported by Council staff and outside contractors that manage the work flow and
conduct technical analysis. This document describes the RTF’s role, funding, operations and
staffing, and planned activities for the 2020-2024 period.
Role of the RTF
The RTF was formed in 1999 as an advisory committee to the Council in response to a directive
from Congress (1996) and the 1996 Comprehensive Review of the Northwest Energy System.
The primary roles of the RTF have been, and continue to be:
• Developing and maintaining a readily accessible list of eligible conservation resources,
the estimated lifetime costs and savings associated with those resources, and the
estimated regional power system value associated with those savings;
• Establishing a process for updating the list of eligible conservation resources as
technology and standard practices change, and an appeals process through which
utilities, trade allies, and customers can demonstrate that different savings and value
estimates should apply;
• Developing a set of protocols by which the savings and system value of conservation
resources should be estimated with a process for applying the protocols to existing or
new measures;
• Assisting the Council in assessing: 1) the current performance, costs and availably of
new conservation technologies and measures; 2) technology development trends; and
3) the effect of these trends on the future performance, cost and availability of new
conservation resources;
• Tracking regional progress toward the achievement of the region’s conservation targets
by collecting and reporting on regional research findings and energy savings annually.
For the 2020-2024 funding cycle, the RTF will expand upon its core mission to include:
• Developing and maintaining a list of natural gas and dual fuel energy efficiency
resources, including methodologies for estimating lifetime energy savings and costs
associated with those resources, and a process for updating those estimates as
technology and standard practices change
• Conducting technical analysis on technologies that provide both energy efficiency and
demand response potential to assist the Council in assessing the technical potential of
the technologies
Funding
The RTF is funded by Bonneville, the Energy Trust of Oregon, investor owned utilities, and large
generating public utilities in the region. The RTF Policy Advisory Committee (RTF PAC)
established funding levels for 2020-2024 based on the planned activities described below in
2020-2024 Business Plan
3

more detail. The proposed funding level for the five-year period is $9,461,300, starting out at
$1.8 million in 2020 and increasing annually at 2.5% to account for inflation. The five-year
funding period provides a level of consistency to ensure long-term goals of the RTF are
sufficiently supported, while providing flexibility to meet regional needs on an annual basis.
The RTF PAC agreed to use the allocation method developed by the Northwest Energy
Efficiency Alliance (NEEA) for funding. The RTF PAC further agreed to the following
methodology for sharing costs across the electric and gas utility funds:
• Electric ratepayer dollars are allocated to work that is intended to solely support electric
demand side management programs (ex: electric-only energy efficiency measures and
demand response)
• Gas ratepayer dollars are allocated to work that is intended to solely support natural gas
programs (ex: gas-only efficiency measures)
• Costs will be shared for work that is intended to support all ratepayers (ex: dual fuel
measures, tool development, and overhead) with 75 percent allocated to electric ratepayer
dollars and 25 percent to gas ratepayer dollars
The resulting funding shares are as follows:
Table 1: Funding Shares and Five-Year Contribution
Organization Proposed
Funding Share
Total 5-Year
Contribution
Bonneville Power Administration 30.03% $2,841,100
Energy Trust of Oregon 22.54% $2,132,800
Puget Sound Energy 18.99% $1,796,500
Idaho Power Company 7.54% $713,300
Avista Corporation, Inc 6.78% $641,400
PacifiCorp (Washington) 2.08% $197,200
PacifiCorp (Idaho) 1.78% $168,200
NorthWestern Energy* 1.70% $161,000
Seattle City Light 2.86% $270,800
PUD No 1 of Clark County 1.02% $96,800
Tacoma Power 0.77% $73,200
Snohomish County PUD 0.54% $51,400
Eugene Water and Electric 0.17% $16,500
Chelan County 0.81% $76,700
PUD No 1 of Cowlitz County 0.15% $14,500
Cascade Natural Gas 1.66% $157,000
NW Natural 0.56% $52,900
Total 100.00% $9,461,300
*NorthWestern Energy share adjusted to 52% of NEEA allocation share.

2020-2024 Business Plan
4

Operations and Staffing
The RTF is an advisory committee consisting of 20-30 voluntary members. The Council
appoints the membership to ensure a fair balance in technical expertise for successful
completion of the work plan. The RTF as a body meets approximately once a month for a full-
day meeting at the Council’s main office in Portland, OR.
To reduce the burden placed on the voluntary members, the RTF budget supports funding for
one full-time manager and contracted technical support. The RTF Manager is a Council
employee whose responsibility is to oversee day to day operation of the RTF. This includes
developing and managing work plans, managing contracts, developing quarterly and annual
reports, and interfacing with the Council. Approximately 10 percent of the RTF budget goes to
this function.
The largest portion of the budget (around 70 percent) supports a team of dedicated contract
analysts that conduct the bulk of technical analysis on behalf of the RTF. The RTF transitioned
to this team approach from one-off contracts as a way of ensuring greater consistency in
analysis across work products and providing flexibility in work flow for achieving annual work
plan goals. The 2020-2024 funding levels are sufficient to support up to six contract analysts
annually.
The remaining 20 percent of the budget is set aside for specific contracts in support of work plan
goals. This work generally falls into one of the following categories: 1) contracting with a firm to
act as a third party for quality control review, 2) supporting members attendance at meetings,
and 3) expanding the technical capabilities of the team for specific projects or tool development.
Council Contribution
In addition to the funding described above, the Council contributes staff time and office and
meeting space to the RTF. From a staffing perspective, the Council contributes a full time RTF
assistant who provides day to day support of the operations, as well as a portion of others’ time
to support technical analysis, contracting and legal assistance, and other administrative tasks.
These staff contributions are estimated in the table below.
Table 2: Annual Funding Levels
2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
Contract RFP $433,000 $431,400 $412,900 $440,400 $436,000
Contract Analyst Team $1,193,000 $1,235,200 $1,295,400 $1,310,600 $1,358,700
RTF Manager $174,000 $178,400 $182,800 $187,400 $192,100
Annual Funding $1,800,000 $1,845,000 $1,891,100 $1,938,400 $1,986,800
Council Staff Contribution $185,600 $190,300 $195,000 $199,900 $204,900

2020-2024 Business Plan
5

Activities and Budget
The specific tasks contained in this business plan are driven by existing measure work,
anticipated growth for new measure requests, and expectations for future analysis tied to
regional research or planning efforts. The specific work in any calendar year is largely driven by
the existing measure needs and any requests received from parties within the region, primarily
utilities, Bonneville, the Energy Trust of Oregon, NEEA, and Council staff. The RTF solicits
topics from stakeholders through an annual request as part of the work planning and through an
online form for proposing new measures. Each year, the RTF typically adjusts the allocation of
resources among the categories in its work plan based on requests received, proposals, and the
pace of multi-year projects. The RTF notifies the Council and its funders of all significant
reallocation of resources or priorities.

Table 3 provides an overview of the anticipated allocation of work for the 2020-2024 business
plan cycle, and

2020-2024 Business Plan
6

Table 4 provides a more detailed breakdown of activities for 2020. As shown in Table 3, the
annual changes in budget represent shifts in work between measure analysis and other
analytical support through tools and regional coordination. This section provides more detail on
the proposed activities for 2020 and how those activities fit into the longer-term five-year
business plan.
Table 3: Annual Funding, by high level category, excluding Council contribution
Subtotal Funders 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
Measure Analysis $971,000 $916,400 $883,600 $928,400 $1,029,800
Tools and Regional Coordination $275,000 $360,800 $425,500 $413,500 $345,400
Demand Response $50,000 $51,200 $52,500 $53,800 $55,200
RTF Management $504,000 $516,600 $529,500 $542,700 $556,400
Total $1,800,000 $1,845,400 $1,891,100 $1,938,300 $1,986,800

2020-2024 Business Plan
7

Table 4: Proposed 2020 Budget Levels
Category
Contract
RFP
Contract
Analyst
Team
Manager
Total
Funders
Council
Contribution
% of
total
Existing Measure Maintenance $92,000 $345,000 $437,000 $9,700 24%
New Measure Development $44,000 $220,000 $264,000 $4,400 15%
Standardization of Technical Analysis $40,000 $230,000 $270,000 $1,500 15%
Tool Development $0 $120,000 $120,000 $16,500 7%
Regional Coordination $0 $155,000 $155,000 $22,000 9%
Demand Response $40,000 $10,000 $50,000 $10,000 3%
Regional Conservation Progress $50,000 $0 $50,000 $45,000 3%
RTF Meeting Support $163,000 $113,000 $276,000 $10,000 15%
RTF Management $4,000 $174,000 $178,000 $66,500 10%
Total $433,000 $1,367,000 $1,800,000 $185,600 100%

Measure Analysis
Approximately 50 percent of the five-year budget is anticipated to directly support measure
analysis. This includes maintenance of the existing measure library, the addition of new
measures, and activities associated with ensuring consistency in analysis approach across the
entire measure suite.
Existing Measure Maintenance
One half of the measure analysis work is focused on the maintenance of existing measures.
The pace of existing measure review and update is driven by the sunset dates of measures.
The RTF assigns sunset dates that range from one to five years based on the specific
circumstances of a measure. For example, the RTF typically applies shorter sunset dates for
measures in markets that are changing rapidly to keep pace with that change, where as it
applies longer sunset dates to more stable markets and measures. Other factors that will impact
sunset dates are anticipated updates to Federal or state codes and standards, updates to
ENERGY STAR specifications, or anticipation of new data. The number of anticipated measures
sunsetting or otherwise requiring review in any given year of the funding cycle ranges between
16 and 26 measures. This assumption is in line with the 2015 to 2018 funding cycle, during
which time the number of existing measures considered in any year ranged from 15 to 30.
The 2020 work plan assumes updates to 23 of its existing measures. The majority of these
measures (21) are slated to sunset in 2020 and will require the RTF to reconsider the measure.
This includes 10 dual fuel measures for which the RTF will develop robust electric and natural
gas savings estimates. In 2020, the RTF is also expected to update two dual fuel measures that
the RTF considered in 2019, focusing on adding in the natural gas savings estimates.

2020-2024 Business Plan
8

New Measure Development
The RTF is continually seeking ways to provide value to the region’s utilities. As efficiency
programs are successful in transforming markets, emerging technologies are going to be
important for meeting future efficiency goals. To support this need, the RTF is allocating
approximately 15 percent of its budget to assessing new measure opportunities. The estimate of
new measure work varies each year, with the anticipation of between six and nine new
measures annually. The exact number of measures in any given year is highly uncertain, as it is
driven primarily by utilities’ needs. For reference, the RTF developed between two and nine new
measures in any given year of the 2015 to 2019 funding cycle.
The 2020 work plan assumes development of eight new measures. The primary driver for this
assumption is that the ongoing work on the Council’s 2021 Regional Power Plan, which is likely
to identify a handful of fruitful measures for the RTF to consider. The work plan also assumes
that the RTF will continue to focus on identifying opportunities to support more complex
efficiency opportunities, such as whole building performance or behavior programs. The number
of new measures drops off in the middle years of the funding cycle, increasing again in 2024 as
the Council starts to launch efforts on the ninth power plan. The RTF also anticipates working
on six new gas-only measures during the 2020 to 2024 cycle. This work will primarily take place
in 2022 and 2023, allowing time for the RTF to build up any analytical tools necessary to
support this work and for the natural gas efficiency programs to prioritize measure opportunities.
Standardization of Technical Analysis
The RTF has made attempts over the last several years to improve the consistency of its
analysis across measures. Key to this was the development of Operative Guidelines and the
establishment of a dedicated contract analyst team to perform the majority of the technical
analysis. As part of the 2020 to 2024 funding cycle, the RTF is allocating approximately 15
percent of its budget to ensuring thorough and consistent analysis across all its categories.
The largest portion of this work is to support coordination and review across the contract analyst
team. This work primarily takes place in the weekly contract analyst team meeting, during which
the team reviews each other’s analysis, develops recommendations to the RTF for
consideration, and explores new analytical techniques.
Another piece of this work is the maintenance of the RTF Operative Guidelines and its Standard
Information Workbook. For the 2020 to 2024 funding cycle, the RTF anticipates two updates to
each of these products. The first set will take place in 2020 and will focus on making
enhancements to the Guidelines and Standard Information Workbook, ensuring both products
effectively support natural gas measures. The RTF anticipates another update to the Guidelines
in 2022 to ensure they are keeping pace with RTF analytical work. The RTF also anticipates
another update to the Standard Information Workbook in 2023 in advance of the Council’s ninth
power plan.
Support of Small and Rural Utilities
The RTF allocates a small portion of its new measure development ($40,000 annually) to
support the needs of region’s small and rural utilities. This includes a portion of one contract
analyst’s time to support a standing subcommittee that discusses the applicability of existing
2020-2024 Business Plan
9

RTF measures to small and rural utilities and explores potential refinements to measures to
better meet their specific needs. This work also includes the development of new measures of
specific interest to small and rural utilities that might not otherwise get developed for the RTF.
Tool Development
The RTF maintains a handful of tools to support measure development, including its cost-
effectiveness tool (ProCost) and building simulation models to estimate energy savings. For the
2020 to 2024 funding cycle, the RTF is allocating approximately 7 percent of its budget to this
function. The annual funding level varies, as much of the work is tied to other regional efforts.
Additionally, the RTF will spend more time on tool development when there are fewer measures
requiring update or development.
ProCost
The RTF uses and maintains the Council’s cost-effectiveness tool. Given this, the ProCost
development work is closely tied to the Council’s regional planning cycles. The focus for 2020
will be enhancing ProCost to support natural gas efficiency measure assessment. A small
portion of budget is also allocated to any other enhancements required for 2021 Power Plan
analytics. The ProCost work is anticipated to pick up again in 2021, after completion of the
regional power plan. At this time, the RTF will be responsible for incorporating the 2021 Power
Plan findings into ProCost and will reevaluate the cost-effectiveness of all measures with
respect to those findings. ProCost maintenance will drop off somewhat in 2022 and 2023, with
another uptick in 2024 as the Council starts to prepare for its ninth regional power plan.
Building Simulation Models
The RTF uses building simulation models for estimating energy savings in residential and
commercial buildings. Currently, the RTF uses SEEM1 for modeling residential single family,
manufactured homes, and low-rise multifamily buildings and uses EnergyPlus2 to model
commercial buildings. Much of the efforts in 2020 through 2024 are focused on ensuring that
these models are well calibrated to the region’s building stock. Earlier on in the five-year period,
the RTF will focus more on its EnergyPlus models, leveraging the latest NEEA Commercial
Building Stock Assessment. In the latter portion of the funding cycle, the RTF will shift to making
updates to its residential building model in alignment with the next NEEA Residential Building
Stock Assessment.
The RTF has also allocated some funding to explore alternative modeling tools and/or
enhancements to existing tools that might improve its assessment of energy efficiency and
demand response savings, with a focus on residential opportunities. This work is anticipated to
take place in 2020 and 2021.
1 The Simplified Energy Enthalpy Model (SEEM) is developed and maintained by Ecotope. More information, and the
latest version of SEEM, can be found on the RTF’s website: https://rtf.nwcouncil.org/simplified-energy-enthalpy-
model-seem.
2 EnergyPlus is a whole building energy simulation program developed by the Department of Energy. The RTF uses
and adapts the building prototype models to better reflect buildings in the Pacific Northwest, based on regional data
from NEEA’s Commercial Building Stock Assessment.
2020-2024 Business Plan
10

Another component of building simulation is using weather files to represent weather sensitive
loads. For its 2021 Power Plan, the Council is exploring opportunities to enhance existing
weather files to better reflect future weather resulting from climate change. The RTF has
allocated some funding in 2022 and 2023 to further expand this work to improve the RTF’s
analysis of weather dependent measures. This work is also expected to support the Council’s
ninth power plan efforts.
Regional Coordination
The RTF does not have funding for the primary research required to inform its savings analysis.
Rather, the RTF relies on Bonneville, NEEA, the Energy Trust, the region’s utilities, and others
to conduct this primary research. The RTF has allocated approximately 9 percent of its budget
to coordinating with those regional entities to help inform research, identify opportunities to
leverage that research for RTF analysis, and connect RTF analysis to regional efforts. As with
its tool development efforts, the annual work flow varies to better coordinate with regional
efforts, while also providing a balance in the RTF work load when there are fewer measures
requiring updates or development.
Research Coordination
The RTF’s contract analysts are expected to coordinate with regional entities to help inform
regional research. This includes working with specific utilities on defining upcoming research
needs that might support RTF measure development and discussing the outcomes of the
research to inform measure analysis. As directed by interested research funders, the contract
analysts can support coordination of joint research projects funded by utilities in support of RTF
analysis.
The RTF also allocates a portion of contract analyst time to help inform regional studies, such
as the NEEA stock assessments. In preparation for the third Residential Building Stock
Assessment, the RTF will allocate resources to providing recommendations to NEEA on future
data needs and research design considerations based on lessons learned to date.
Market Analysis Review
The RTF, Council, and efficiency programs rely on market intelligence to inform baselines and
program design. Over the last several years, Bonneville and NEEA have dedicated more
resources to studying markets. During the 2020 through 2024 business cycle, the RTF will
allocate resources to increased engagement in this research. The goal of this effort is to
understand available data, provide recommendations on data analysis, weigh in on uncertainty
around market factors, and support estimation of total market consumption.
In addition, a portion of the budget is allocated to understanding and supporting sub-regional
market data analysis, as data are available and the need arises from regional utilities.
Savings Shape Development
Over the last few years, the region has increased its focus on understanding when energy
efficiency measures save energy to inform how energy efficiency can provide capacity benefits.
The RTF reviewed its existing load profiles to understand the relative quality of profiles and
2020-2024 Business Plan
11

where better data are needed to improve our understanding of the timing of savings. The region
has also launched residential and commercial end use metering studies to collect more data on
energy use. In this business plan, the RTF has allocated resources to using the results of the
end use metering studies (and other data sources as available) to develop end use load profiles
and measure savings shapes. The bulk of this work is anticipated to occur in the latter half of
the funding cycle, as the data come in and in preparation for the Council’s ninth power plan.
Council Plan and Other Regional Support
Being an advisory committee to the Council, one of the roles of the RTF is to provide technical
support and analysis on energy efficiency measures. Most of this work is directly tied to the
Council’s power planning efforts. The Council’s 2021 Power Plan is anticipated to be completed
in early 2021. To that end, the bulk of the analytical work on energy efficiency will be complete
by the start of 2020. The RTF has allocated some time in 2020 to support any additional
analytical work required as the Council finishes the development of energy efficiency supply
curves. Direct Council planning support then tapers off in 2021 and 2022, ramping up again
towards the last two years of the funding cycle as the Council starts preparing for its ninth power
plan.
In addition to supporting power planning analysis, the RTF has often been called upon to
conduct technical studies on energy efficiency. For the 2020 to 2024 funding cycle, the RTF has
allocated funding to support such a study. The anticipated timing is in the middle years of the
funding cycle, after completion of the 2021 Power Plan. The specifics of any study are to be
defined by the Council and/or other stakeholders.
Demand Response
The RTF has allocated 3 percent of its budget annually to support technical analysis on demand
response technologies. The RTF will specifically look at technologies that provide both energy
efficiency and demand response opportunities, as a way of leveraging the RTF’s existing
knowledge and thinking about these opportunities holistically. The RTF analysis will focus on
technical considerations of the technologies, estimating the technical, per unit demand impact
potential for technologies, absent any specific product design considerations. The purpose of
this work is to be one input, of many, into Council and utility demand response supply curves.
The work in the 2020 to 2024 funding cycle builds upon the RTF’s scoping effort in 2019. In
2020 and 2021, the focus of the work is on enhancing the RTF’s analytical capabilities, including
exploring enhancements to existing building simulation models or alternative modeling
approaches. In the middle portion of the funding cycle, the demand response efforts are
expected to build on the analysis around end use profiles, to help inform current timing of end
use loads for the technologies of interest. The final two years of the funding cycle will focus on
updates to the RTF’s 2019 analysis, leveraging these new analytical tools and profiles.
Regional Conservation Progress Report
Per its charter, one of the roles of the RTF is to track the region’s progress against the Council’s
power plan targets for energy efficiency. This is done through the annual Regional Conservation
Progress (RCP) survey and report. Every year, the RTF collects data from Bonneville, Energy
2020-2024 Business Plan
12

Trust, NEEA, and the region’s utilities on the energy efficiency savings and expenditures from
the previous year. The 2020 to 2024 funding cycle allocates $50,000 annually, plus inflation, to
contract out the data collection and analysis. This budget assumes that the RTF Manager, in
coordination with the RTF Assistant and other Council staff, will be responsible for compiling the
results into a final report for the Council.
RTF Management
The final 25 percent of the budget is allocated to management of the RTF, including support for
RTF meetings and the RTF Manager.
Meeting and Member Support
The RTF meets approximately monthly for a one-day meeting at the Council offices. It is at
these meetings where the formative work of the RTF occurs. Given the importance of these
meetings, the RTF allocates approximately 15 percent of its budget to supporting this function.
The most significant portion of this budget is ensuring that all the members and contract
analysts are able to attend and participate in the monthly meetings in person. As noted above,
the RTF members serve in a voluntary capacity. To ensure that all members can attend the
meeting in person, the RTF supports travel costs and participation for some of the members.
Additionally, several of the contract analysts have traditionally lived outside of Portland. Part of
contract costs for these analysts includes the travel and time for attending the RTF meetings.
The RTF also allocates a small portion of the budget to contract out for meeting minute
services, as well as phone lines and web conferencing. Each of these components is important
to ensuring that the RTF meetings are publicly available, including to those that are unable to
travel or attend a specific meeting.
Management and Administration
The final 10 percent of the RTF annual budget goes to support RTF management and
administration. This is primarily the support of the RTF Manager, who provides the day to day
management of the RTF.

IDAHO POWER
ENERGY-SAVING KIT
PROGRAM SUMMARY REPORT
2019
SUBMITTED BY:
RESOURCE ACTION PROGRAMS®
Submitted by:
February 2020
Idaho Power Energy-Saving Kit
Program Summary Report
2019
Sponsored by:
Idaho Power Energy-Saving Kit Program Summary Report2
"Great tools! Thanks for offering and
educating us!"
– Idaho Power Energy-Saving Kit Program Participant
©Franklin Energy 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
In-Kit Survey Response Summary ............................................................31
Follow-Up Survey Response Summary ....................................................34
Appendix C ........................................................................................................36
Idaho Cities & Towns Served .....................................................................36
Oregon Cities & Towns Served ..................................................................37
Idaho Power Regions Served ....................................................................38
Idaho Power Energy-Saving Kit Program Summary Report4Executive Summary
"I installed everything. As a first year
teacher, I need to save all the money I
can. Thanks for doing this! :)
– Idaho Power Energy-Saving Kit Program Participant
©Franklin Energy 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 2019 Energy-Saving Kit program, which was implemented by forty thousand, five-hundred and
forty seven (40,547) Idaho households and one thousand, one hundred and sixty-three (1,163) 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
40,547 Idaho and 1,163 Oregon households.
• Affected all five regions of the Idaho Power service territory
• Affected 115 cities & towns in Idaho
• Affected 20 cities & towns in Oregon
REGIONS HOUSEHOLDS ELECTRIC KIT NON-ELECTRIC KIT
Canyon 9,106 3,936 5,170
Capital 17,408 5,362 12,046
Eastern 4,392 2,396 1,996
Southern 5,892 3,469 2,423
Western 4,912 3,372 1540
TOTALS 41,710 18,535 23,175
2. Generated residential energy and water savings. Projected annual savings:
• 215,396,245 gallons of water saved*
• 10,802,276 kWh of electricity saved
• 128,538 therms of gas saved
Executive Summary
(continued on next page)
* Assuming 100% Installation.
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 ✔ Idaho Conservation League
● Info in bill ✔ Energy Savings Booklet ✔ TV
● Facebook/Twitter ✔ New customer Welcome Kit ✔ WICAP Head Start
● Friend or Family ✔ Nextdoor ✔ Miscellaneous
✔ Chamber of Commerce ✔ Other
✔ Blank

4. Designed and provided complementary educational materials and incentives to maximize
installation of targeted efficiency measures (Installation rates ranged from 40 – 90 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.
Direct mailings were distributed in January (95,950), April (95,369) August (84,192), and October (87,628)
and resulted in an 11% response rate 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
41,710 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.
Since 2018, a second follow-up survey was distributed two to three 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. Of the 725 customers who responded “Not yet, but will” to
the showerhead installation question from the In-Kit survey, 16% (115 customers) responded to the
Follow-up survey that they did install the showerhead.
(continued)
OPTING-IN METHODS HOUSEHOLDS %
Website 9,761 23%
Phone 905 2%
Postcards 31,044 75%
©Franklin Energy 7Executive Summary
PROJECTED ANNUAL SAVINGS
215,396,245 gallons of water saved*
10,802,276 kWh of electricity saved
128,538 therms of gas saved
PROJECTED ANNUAL
SAVINGS PER HOME
11,598 gallons of water saved*
259 kWh of electricity saved
3 therms of gas saved
PROJECTED LIFETIME SAVINGS
1,858,650,089 gallons of water saved*
100,227,348 kWh of electricity saved
257,077 therms of gas saved
PROJECTED LIFETIME
SAVINGS PER HOME
100,277 gallons of water saved*
2,403 kWh of electricity saved
6 therms of gas saved
Survey responses indicated high participant satisfaction and participation in product retrofits and
adoption of new energy saving behaviors. Total 9,734 households returned completed surveys and
the responses were overwhelmingly positive. The increase in installation rates from the In-kit Survey
results to the Follow-up Survey results show a marked improvement over time. 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:
46+54+F
In-kit surveys reporting
the Evolve TSV &
Showerhead installed.
46%58+42+F
Follow-up surveys
reporting the Evolve TSV &
Showerhead installed.
58%49+51+F
In-kit surveys reporting
all 9 LED Light Bulbs
installed.
49%52+48+F
Follow-up surveys
reporting all 9 LED
Light Bulbs installed.
52%
* Assuming 100% Installation rate.
Idaho Power Energy-Saving Kit Program Summary Report8RAP Direct-to-Customer Programs
"Thank you so much for LED bulbs;
wasn't sure I would like, but I plan to
replace all bulbs with LED."
– Idaho Power Energy-Saving Kit Program Participant
©Franklin Energy 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 34,077 81.76%
Friend or Family 2,220 5.30%
Info in Bill 995 2.38%
Idaho Power Website 966 2.31%
Idaho Power Employee 706 1.69%
Email from Idaho Power 364 0.87%
Other: Fair/Expo/Tradeshow 303 0.72%
Other 270 0.65%
Facebook/Twitter 143 0.34%
Other: News 33 0.08%
Other: Welcome Kit 26 0.06%
Other: Work 8 0.02%
Other: Wicap 3 0.01%
Other: Camas County SD 1 0.00%
Blank 1,595 3.81%
TOTALS 41,710 100%
©Franklin Energy 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 9,625 participating households, representing an average
response rate of 23% of the 41,710 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 %
Postcards 31,044 74%
Web 9,761 23%
Phone 905 2%
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
©Franklin Energy 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
©Franklin Energy 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
"We installed kit items and used the
thermometer; was good to see we
were already in appropriate range!"
– Idaho Power Energy-Saving Kit Program Participant
©Franklin Energy 17Program Impact
The program impacted 115 cities and towns throughout Idaho and 20 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 from the Follow-up Survey appear below and a complete
summary of all responses is included in Appendix B.
Did you install ALL 9 LED Light Bulbs? Yes - 52%
Did you install the LED Night Light? Yes - 96%
Did you install the Evolve TSV & Showerhead? Yes - 58%
Did you use the Shower Timer? Yes - 55%
Idaho Power Energy-Saving Kit
Program Impact
58+42+F
Reported households
with the Evolve TSV &
Showerhead installed.
58%55+45+F
Reported households who
used the Shower Timer.
55%52+48+F
Reported households
with ALL 9 LED Light
Bulbs installed.
52%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, 41,710 households
are expected to save the following resource totals. Savings from these actions and new behaviors will
continue for many years to come. Reported water savings assume 100% installation of the product.
Projected Resource Savings
A list of assumptions and formulas used for these calculations can be found in Appendix A.
Total Number of Participants: 41,710
Number of Electric Only Participants: 18,535
Number of Non-Electric Participants: 23,175
Annual Lifetime
Projected reduction from Showerhead retrofit:103,091,880 1,030,918,797 gallons
Measure Life: 10 years 2,740,029 27,400,291 kWh
Projected reduction from Shower Timer installation:36,914,045 73,828,090 gallons
Product Life: 2 years 2,231,233 4,462,465 kWh
128,538 257,077 therms
Projected reduction from Kitchen Faucet Aerator retrofit:43,831,581 438,315,815 gallons
Measure Life: 10 years 682,829 6,828,294 kWh
Projected reduction from Bathroom Faucet Aerator retrofit:31,558,739 315,587,387 gallons
Measure Life: 10 years 818,506 8,185,056 kWh
Projected reduction from 9-watt LED Light Bulbs:2,162,246 28,325,428 kWh
Measure Life: 13.1 years
Projected reduction from 6-watt LED Light Bulbs:1,081,123 14,162,714 kWh
Measure Life: 13.1 years
Projected reduction from LED Night Light:1,086,310 10,863,101 kWh
Measure Life: 10 years
TOTAL PROJECTED PROGRAM SAVINGS:215,396,245 1,858,650,089 gallons
10,802,276 100,227,348 kWh
128,538 257,077 therms
TOTAL PROJECTED PROGRAM SAVINGS PER HOUSEHOLD: 11,621.05 100,277.86 gallons
259 2,403 kWh
3 6 therms
©Franklin Energy 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 18,535 1,832 10%3,029 16%
Non-Electric 23,175 2,942 13%1,822 8%
TOTAL 41,710 4,774 11%4,851 12%
84+16+F
Reported households
that were very likely to
tell a friend or family
member to order a kit.
84%76+24+F
Reported households
that were very likely to
participate in another
energy efficiency program.
76%93+7+F
Reported households
that were very satisfied
with the ordering process.
93%95+5+F
Reported households
that received their kits
within 3 weeks.
95%
How satisfied were you with the kit ordering process? Very Satisfied - 93%
Did you receive your kit within 3 weeks? Yes - 95%
How likely would you be to tell a friend or family member to order a kit? Very Likely - 84%
How likely are you to participate in another energy efficiency program? Very Likely - 76%
*Includes Q4 2018 served, excludes Follow-up Surveys from Q4 2019 due to three month survey distribution.
Idaho Power Energy-Saving Kit Program Summary Report20Program Impact
Thank you!
Thank you, Idaho Power.
What I didn't use I gave to others who did use them.
Great kit!
Thank you, Idaho Power!
Great deal, installed all, Thank you!
We used everything. Thank you so much for the kit!
Thanks for reminding me.
Very happy with the kit. Thank you!
Thank you!
Using LED's as other bulbs burn out - will use all of them.
Used everything!
Thank you for the kit. We will probably use the bathroom faucet aerators.
All I need is attic insulation and energy windows.
Thank you! :)
Used them all - thank you. :)
Thank you.
Thank you for the info & items!! Freezer and water were at suggested temp - LED's will be
replaced.
Used most items/much more aware of power use than before.
Enjoying the ones I did install.
Great items - thanks!
Participant Responses
©Franklin Energy 21Program Impact
Used the items I liked!
Will be installing - mostly want LED bulbs throughout the home first.
Yes, I loved it!
We did. Thanks :)
A little bit of comfort is worth more than a little bit of savings.
Thank you for the kit!
I'm replacing burned out bulbs with the LED lights. I will use the temp adjuster for
the refrigerator.
Temps already lowered, already have low water pressure.
Very pleased with everything in the kit.
I haven't but I will.
Thank you!
Thank you for this program!
Thank you for the kit, we were already being very conservative.
Thank you for this great kit! loved every item.
Thanks for sending.
Participant Responses (continued)
Idaho Power Energy-Saving Kit Program Summary Report22Appendices
* An Electric Kit.
©Franklin Energy 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
In-Kit Survey Response Summary ..................................................................31
Follow-Up Survey Response Summary .........................................................34
Appendix C
Idaho Cities & Towns Served ..........................................................................36
Oregon Cities & Towns Served ........................................................................37
Idaho Power Regions Served .........................................................................38
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:41,710
Deemed savings per lamp (kWh): 8.64 kWh1
Measure life: 13.1 years1
Projected Electricity Savings:
The LED retrofit projects an annual reduction of: 2,162,246 kWh2
The LED retrofit projects a lifetime reduction of:28,325,428 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:41,710
Deemed savings per lamp (kWh): 8.64 kWh1
Measure life: 13.1 years1
Projected Electricity Savings:
The LED retrofit projects an annual reduction of: 1,081,123 kWh2
The LED retrofit projects a lifetime reduction of:14,162,714 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
©Franklin Energy 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: 18,535
Domestic electric hot water reported:100%1
Number of people per household: 2.59 1
Deemed Savings: 147.83 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:2,740,029 kWh5
TSV Combo showerhead retrofit projects a lifetime reduction of:27,400,291 kWh5
Potential Water Savings with 100 Percent Installation:
TSV Combo showerhead retrofit projects an annual reduction of:103,091,880 gallons4
TSV Combo showerhead retrofit projects a lifetime reduction of:1,030,918,797 gallons4
1. Data Reported by Program Participants.
2. Based on Regional Technical Forum.
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: 18,535
Domestic electric hot water reported:100%1
Number of people per household: 2.59 1
Savings: 36.84 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:682,829 kWh4
Kitchen Faucet Aerator retrofit projects a lifetime reduction of:6,828,294 kWh5
Potential Water Savings with 100 Percent Installation:
Kitchen Faucet Aerator retrofit projects an annual reduction of:43,831,581 gallons6
Kitchen Faucet Aerator retrofit projects a lifetime reduction of:438,315,815 gallons6
1. Data Reported by Program Participants.
2. Based on Regional Technical Forum. By request.
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
©Franklin Energy 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:18,535
Domestic electric hot water reported:100%1
Number of people per household:2.59 1
Savings:22.08 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:818,506 kWh4
Bathroom Faucet Aerator retrofit projects a lifetime reduction of:8,185,056 kWh5
Potential Water Savings with 100 Percent Installation:
Bathroom Faucet Aerator retrofit projects an annual reduction of:31,558,739 gallons6
Bathroom Faucet Aerator retrofit projects a lifetime reduction of:315,587,387 gallons6
1. Data Reported by Program Participants.
2. Based on Regional Technical Forum. By request.
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:91.48%3
Number of participants:41,710 3
Projected Electricity Savings:
The Energy Efficient Night Light retrofit projects an annual reduction of:1,086,310 kWh4
The Energy Efficient Night Light retrofit projects a lifetime reduction of:10,863,101 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
©Franklin Energy 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:53.00%1
% of water heated by electricity:46.00%1
Installation / participation rate of Shower Timer:53.22%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: 41,710 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:36,914,045 gallons6
Shower Timer installation projects a lifetime reduction of:73,828,090 gallons7
Projected Electricity Savings:
Shower Timer installation projects an annual reduction of:2,231,233 kWh8
Shower Timer installation projects a lifetime reduction of:4,462,465 kWh9
Projected Natural Gas Savings:
Shower Timer installation projects an annual reduction of:128,538 therms10
Shower Timer installation projects a lifetime reduction of:257,077 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 46%
Gas 53%
Other 1%
2 Do you own or rent your home?
Own 81%
Rent 19%
3 What is the primary method of heating your home?
Gas forced air 62%
Heat pump 7%
Electric forced air 20%
Baseboard or ceiling cable 5%
Other 7%
4 What is the primary method of cooling your home?
Central A/C 69%
Window A/C 15%
Heat pump 7%
Other 3%
None 7%
5 What, if any, energy-saving improvements are you planning to make in the next two years?
Windows 26%
Furnace or A/C 14%
Insulation 11%
Appliances 18%
Smart thermostat 15%
Other 16%
6 How did you hear about this kit offering?
Direct mail 82%
Idaho Power employee 2%

Info in bill 2%
Facebook/Twitter 0%
Friend or Family 5%
Other 2%
Enrollment Survey Response Summary
Due to rounding of numbers, percentages may not add up to 100%
©Franklin Energy 31Appendix B
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x

B
Due to rounding of numbers, percentages may not add up to 100%
In-Kit Survey Response Summary
1 What type of home do you live in?
Single family home - detached 84%
Apartment, Condo, Townhouses, or Multi-family with 2-3 units 4%
Apartment, Condo, Townhouses, or Multi-family with 4 or more units 3%
Mobile/Manufactured home 9%
2 How many people live in your home?
5 or more 8%
4 10%
3 14%
2 46%
1 21%
3 How many of the LEDs did you install?
All of them 49%
7-8 5%
5-6 16%
3-4 16%
1-2 8%
None 6%
4 If you did not install all of the LEDs, what did you do with the remainer?
Stored for later use
Gave them to someone else
5 Have you installed the Evolve Showerhead?
Not yet, but will
No, won't use
6 Have you installed the Kitchen Faucet Aerator?
Yes
No, won't use
7 Have you installed the Bathroom Faucet Aerator #1?
Yes
Not yet, but will
8 Have you installed the Bathroom Faucet Aerator #2?
Yes
No, won't use
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%
In-Kit Survey Response Summary (continued)
9 Have you used the LED Night Light?
Yes 87%
Not yet, but will 11%
No, won't use 1%
10 Have you used the Shower Timer?
Yes 51%
Not yet, but will 33%
No, won't use 17%
11 Have you used the Flow-Rate Test Bag to test the flow rate of your shower or faucets?
Yes 24%
Not yet, but will 55%
No, won't use 20%
12 If you used the Digital Thermometer to check the temperature of your water, what was the temperature?
> 140 F 4%
131 F to 140 F 10%
121 F - 130 F 24%
< 121 F 25%
Did not check water temperature 37%
13 Did you adjust the temperature of your electric water heater?
Yes, I lowered it 14%
Yes, I raised it 2%
No, I did not adjust 83%
14 Did you adjust the temperature of your refrigerator?
Yes, I lowered it 26%
Yes, I raised it 14%
No, I did not adjust 60%
15 Did you adjust the temperature of your freezer?
Yes, I lowered it 51%
Yes, I raised it 16%
No, I did not adjust 93%
16 How satisfied were you with the kit ordering process?
Very satisfied 93%
Somewhat satisfied 5%
Somewhat dissatisfied 1%
Very dissatisfied 1%
17 Did you receive your kit within 3 weeks?
Yes 95%
No 5%
©Franklin Energy 33Appendix B
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x

B
Due to rounding of numbers, percentages may not add up to 100%
In-Kit Survey Response Summary (continued)
18 How likely would you be to tell a friend or family member to order a kit?
Very likely 84%
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 51%
No 49%
20 Have you ever gone to Idaho Power's website to look for information about energy efficiency programs
and incentives?
Yes 28%
No 72%
21 How likely are you to participate in another energy efficiency program?
Very likely 76%
Somewhat likely 21%
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 B
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x

B
Follow-Up Survey Response Summary
1 Did you install the LEDs received in your kit?
Yes, I installed all of them 52%
Yes, I installed some of them 44%
No, I didn’t install any of them 3%
2 Did your experience with the LEDs in your kit cause you to purchase more LEDs?
Yes, I purchased 10 or more LEDs 17%
Yes, I purchase less than 10 LEDs 40%
No, I did not purchase any additional LEDs 42%
3 Have you installed the Evolve Showerhead?
Yes 58%
No, won't use 42%
4 Have you installed the Kitchen Faucet Aerator?
Yes 61%
No, won't use 39%
5 Have you installed the Bathroom Faucet Aerator #1?
Yes 62%
No, won't use 38%
6 Have you installed the Bathroom Faucet Aerator #2?
Yes 43%
No, won't use 57%
7 Have you used the LED Night Light?
Yes 96%
No, won't use 4%
8 Have you used the Shower Timer?
Yes 55%
No, won't use 45%
9 Have you used the Flow-Rate Test Bag to test the flow rate of your shower or faucets?
Yes 36%
No, won't use 64%
10 After receiving the kit, did you reduce the temperature of your refrigerator?
Yes 47%
No 53%
11 After receiving the kit, did you reduce the temperature of your freezer?
Yes 40%
No 60%
©Franklin Energy 35Appendix B
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x

B
Follow-Up Survey Response Summary (continued)
12 After receiving the kit, did you reduce the temperature of your water heater?
Yes 32%
No 68%
13 Did you review and/or complete the Mini Home-Assessment included in the kit?
Yes 67%
No 33%
14
Yes 31%
No 69%
15 If you did not install some of the kit items, please tell us why.
Since receiving the kit, have you gone to Idaho Power’s website to look for information
about energy efficiency programs or to find other ways to save?
Idaho Power Energy-Saving Kit Program Summary Report36Appendix C
Idaho Cities & Towns Served
IDAHO CITIES & TOWNS SERVED
ABERDEEN GOODING NEW MEADOWS
AMERICAN FALLS GRAND VIEW NEW PLYMOUTH
ARBON GREENLEAF NORTH FORK
ATOMIC CITY HAGERMAN NOTUS
BANKS HAILEY OAKLEY
BELLEVUE HAMMETT OLA
BLACKFOOT HANSEN OREANA
BLISS HAZELTON PARMA
BOISE HEYBURN PAUL
BRUNEAU HILL CITY PAYETTE
BUHL HOLLISTER PICABO
BURLEY HOMEDALE PINE
CALDWELL HORSESHOE BEND PINGREE
CAMBRIDGE IDAHO CITY PLACERVILLE
CAREY INDIAN VALLEY POCATELLO
CARMEN INKOM POLLOCK
CASCADE JACKSON PRAIRIE
CASTLEFORD JEROME RICHFIELD
CENTERVILLE KETCHUM RIGGINS
CHUBBUCK KIMBERLY ROCKLAND
CORRAL KING HILL ROGERSON
COUNCIL KUNA RUPERT
DIETRICH LAKE FORK SALMON
DONNELLY LEADORE SHOSHONE
EAGLE LEMHI SPRINGFIELD
EAST MAGIC LETHA STAR
EDEN LOWMAN STERLING
EMMETT MARSING SUN VALLEY
FAIRFIELD MCCALL SWEET
FEATHERVILLE MELBA TENDOY
FILER MERIDIAN TRIUMPH
FORT HALL MESA TWIN FALLS
FRUITLAND MIDDLETON WEISER
FRUITVALE MIDVALE WENDELL
GANNETT MONTOUR WEST MAGIC
GARDEN CITY MOUNTAIN HOME WILDER
GARDEN VALLEY MURPHY YELLOW PINE
GIBBONSVILLE MURTAUGH
GLENNS FERRY NAMPA
TOTAL NUMBER OF CITIES & TOWNS SERVED: 115
TOTAL NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS SERVED: 40,547
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x

C
©Franklin Energy 37Appendix 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 WESTFALL
HARPER NYSSA
TOTAL NUMBER OF CITIES & TOWNS SERVED: 20
TOTAL NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS SERVED: 1,163
Idaho Power Energy-Saving Kit Program Summary Report38Appendix C
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x

C
REGIONS (IDAHO)ELECTRIC NON-ELECTRIC
CANYON 3,883 5,166
CAPITAL 5,362 12,046
EASTERN 2,396 1,996
SOUTHERN 3,469 2,423
WESTERN 2,522 1284
NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS IMPACTED: 17,632 22,915
TOTAL NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS IMPACTED:40,547
REGIONS (OREGON)ELECTRIC NON-ELECTRIC
CANYON 53 4
WESTERN 850 256
NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS IMPACTED:903 260
TOTAL NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS IMPACTED:1,163
REGIONS (IDAHO POWER)ELECTRIC NON-ELECTRIC
NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS IMPACTED: 18,535 23,175
TOTAL NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS IMPACTED:41,710
Idaho Power Regions Served