20200313Goralski Direct.pdf

RECEI\,/ED
ntil HiiR 13 Pl{ 2: 07
lr,-nlJ3 FUtli-l'. i:-iTii:S CL'i,{Ml sst@r{
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION
OF IDAHO POhTER COMPANY FOR A
DETERMTNATION OF 2019 DEMAND_
SIDE MANAGEMENT EXPENSES AS
PRUDENTLY INCURRED.
IDAHO POWER COMPANY
DIRECT TESTIMONY
OF
PAWEL P. GORALSKI
CASE NO. IPC-E-20-15
1
2
3
4
q
6
1
8
9
O. Pl_ease
A. My name
address is 1221, West
state your name and business address.
is Pawel- P. Goralski. My business
Idaho Street, Boise, Idaho 83702.
10
O. By whom are you employed and in what capacity?
A. I am employed by Idaho Power Company ("Idaho
Power" or "Company") as a Regulatory Analyst in the
Regulatory Affairs Department.
O. Please describe your educational background.
A. In May of 2007, T received a Bachelor of
Administration degree in Finance from Boise State
University in Boise, Idaho. I have also attended "The
Basics: Practical Regulatory Training for the El-ectric
Industryr " an el-ect.ric utility ratemaking course of fered
through the New Mexico State University's Center for Public
Utilities, "Electric Utility Fundamental-s and Insights, " an
electric utility course offered by Western Energy
Institute, and "Electric Rates Advanced Courser " an
el-ectric utility ratemaking course offered through Edison
Electrlc Institute.
O. Please describe your work experience with
Idaho Power.
A. In 2071, T was hired as a Regulatory Analyst
in the Company's Regulatory Affairs Department. My primary
responsibillties include supporting the Company's class
cost-of-service actj-vities, supporting activities
11
L2
13
L4
15
L6
l1
18
t_9
20
2!
22
23
24
GORALSKI, Df
Idaho Power Company
I
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
I
9
associated with demand-side management (*DSM"), and I have
been the Company's witness supporting its annual Fixed Cost
Adjustment calculation and corresponding rates.
O. What is the purpose of your testimony in this
case?
A. The purpose of my testimony is to present the
Company's request for a determination that $45r079,479 of
DSM expenses incurred for the acquisition of demand-side
resources in 20L9 were prudently incurred. This amount
includes $38,083,244 funded Ln 20L9 by the Idaho Energy
Efficiency Rider ("Rider") and $6,996,236 of demand
response program incentive payments funded through base
rates and tracked annualJ-y through the Power Cost
Adjustment (*PCA"). Additionally, the Company j-s
requesting to remove separate reporting requirements for
its Fl-ex Peak Program, as the same reporting is included as
part of the Company's annua1 DSM Report filing.
The 2019 energy savings represent Idaho Power's all-
time highest annual incremental energy savings achievement
since the establishment of the Idaho Rider in 2002. The
2019 Rider-funded DSM expenses for which ldaho Power is
seeking a prudence determination is an 11 percent increase
from the 2018 Rider-funded DSM expenses reviewed in last
year's prudence case, Case No. IPC-E-19-11. This increase
in 20L9 expenses was driven by a 71 percent increase in
GORALSK], DI
Idaho Power Company
10
11
L2
13
74
15
76
71
18
t9
20
27
22
23
24
2
25
1 system-wide energy savings from 20!8 energy savings when
2 considering Idaho Power's energy efficiency programs alone.
3 When the Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance ("NEEA")
4 estj-mated savj-ngs are included, the 2019 energy savings
5 experienced an increase of 10 percent from 2078 l-evels.
6 My testimony will (1) provide a review of 2079 DSM
7 program performance, (2) discuss 2019 DSM expenses and
8 adjustments, (3) provide an overview of 201"9 cost-
9 effectj-veness and future i-mplementation of the Utility Cost
10 Test (*UCT") as the primary energy efficlency cost-
11 effectiveness test, (4) review eval-uation efforts, (5)
12 describe opportunities for stakeholder input, and (6)
13 request to remove separate Flex Peak Program reportlng
L4 requirements.
15 I. 2OL9 DSM PROGRJA}T PEFS'OR!{AI{CE
L6 O. What is Idaho Power's focus when evaluating
program performance?
A. Idaho Power takes its responsibility of
prudently managing customer funds serj-ously and the Company
bel-ieves it is important to get the maximum value for its
customers. The Company's actions in 2079, and the content
of the Demand-Side Management 2019 Annual- Report (*DSM 2019
Annual Report"), Attachment 1 to the Application filed in
this proceeding, provide evidence supporting the
conscientious work Idaho Power employees and leaders made
L1
18
79
20
22
24
GORALSK], DI
Idaho Power Company
2t
23
25
3
t_
2
3
4
5
6
1
8
9
toward using customers' funds wisely to support DSM
activities.
0. Please provide an overview of Idaho Power's
DSM efforts in 2079.
A. In 2019, on a system-wide basis, Idaho Power
offered a broad portfolio of energy efficiency programs and
demand response programs availabl-e to aII customer
segments, participated in market transformation efforts
through NEEA, and offered several educational- and
behavioral initiatives incl-uding the Residential Energy
Efficiency Education Initiative, seasonal contests, the
School Cohort, the Home Energy Report Pi1ot, and other
activities. Idaho Power also worked with its Energy
Efficiency Advisory Group ("EEAG") to identify
opportunities for increased effectiveness in program
deJ-ivery and marketing. A summary of Idaho Power's 2019
DSM programs j-s provided in Table 1 below.
10
11
T2
13
74
15
L6
L1
18
L9
20
27
22
23
24
GORALSKI, DI
Idaho Power Company
4
25
1
2
TalrJ.e 1. 2OL9 DSM Programs by Sector, Operational Type,
and Location
Program by Sector OperationalType State
Residential
A/C Cool Credit...........
Easy Savings: Low-lncome Energy Efficiency Education
Educational Distributions
Home Energy Report Pilot Program
Energy Efflcient Lighting
Energy House Calls
Heating & Cooling Efficiency Program.......
Home Energy Audit Program
Multifamily Energy Savings Program
Oregon Residential Weatherization ..................
Rebate Advantage
Residential New Construction Pilot Program
Shade Tree Project.
Simple Steps, Smart Savings"
Weatherization Assistance for Qualified Customers......
Weatherization Solutions for Eligible Customers
Gommercia!/l nd ustrial
Commercial and lndustrial Energy Efficiency Program
Custom Prqects........
Green Motors-lndustrial
New Construction........... .
Retrofits
Commercial Energy-Saving Kit.............
Flex Peak Program
Oregon Commercial Audits...........
lrrigation
I rri gation Efficiency Rewards
Green Motors-lrrigation
lrrigation Peak Rewards...................
All Sectors
Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance
Demand Response
Energy Efficiency
Energy Efficiency
Energy Efflciency
Energy Efficiency
Energy Efficiency
Energy Efficiency
Energy Efficiency
Energy Efiiciency
Energy Efficiency
Energy Efficiency
Energy Efficiency
Energy Efficiency
Energy Efficiency
Energy Efficiency
Energy Efficiency
Energy Efficiency
Energy Efficiency
Energy Efficiency
Energy Efficiency
Energy Efficiency
Demand Response
Energy Efficiency
Energy Efficiency
Energy Efficiency
Demand Response
Market Transformation
ID/OR
ID
ID/OR
ID
ID/OR
ID/OR
ID/OR
ID
ID/OR
OR
ID/OR
ID/OR
ID
ID/OR
ID/OR
ID
ID/OR
ID/OR
ID/OR
ID/OR
ID/OR
ID/OR
OR
ID/OR
ID/OR
ID/OR
ID/OR
3
4
5
6
1
B
TabIe 1 illustrates the broad availabj-1ity of
programs offered by Idaho Power to its customers in energy
Power'sefficiency, demand response,
energy efficiency portfolio
1n a 2.12 benefit/cost ratio
and education. Idaho
was cost-effective, resulting
when evafuated from a UCT
GORALSKI, DI
Idaho Power Company
5
1 perspective, a 2.72 benefit/cost ratio when eval-uated from
2 a Tota1 Resource Cost ("TRC") test perspectj-ve, and 2.79
3 benefit/cost ratio when eval-uated from a Particj-pant Cost
4 Test ("PCT") perspective.
5 The DSM 2019 Annual- Report provides detaj-Is for each
6 program, including a description of each program, 2079
7 performance and activities, cost-effectiveness, customer
8 satisfaction, and evaluation results when applicable. In
9 addition, the DSM 2019 Annual Report provides a description
10 of Idaho Power's DSM strategies for 2020.
11 a. What level- of incremental annual energy
72 efficiency savings was achieved in 20L9?
13 A. On a system-wi-de basis, Idaho Power achieved
L4 203,041 megawatt-hours ("MWh") of incremental- annual energy
15 ef f iciency savj-ngs in 201,9. This value i-ncludes !84,934
L6 MWh from Idaho Power's energy efficiency programs and an
L7 estimated 18,108 MWhl of energy efficiency market
18 transformation savings through NEEA initiatives. Chart 1
19 below shows the incremental annual energy efficiency
20 savings in MWh from 2002 to the current year. Al-so shown
27 in this chart are the total energy efficiency expenses for
22 each year in millions of dollars.
1 Because Idaho Power will not receive final 2019 savings from NEEA
until May 2020, the NEEA-attributable savings i-s an estimate provi-ded to
Idaho Power by NEEA.
GORALSKI, DI
Idaho Power Company
6
1 Chart 1. Increnental Annual Energry Efficiency Savings
2 (![I{h) and Energ'y Efficiency E:qrenses ($ nilJ.ions) 2OO2-2OL9
250,000 $45
$40
r Market Transformation (NEEA) (MWh)
r lclaho Pou,er Program Savings (MWh)
-EE
expenses (no DR)
3 2002 2003 2004 2005 20xJ6 2fi7 2008 2009 2010 2011 20122013 20'14 20'15 2016 2017 20tB 2019
4 Note: 2019 NEEA market-transformation savings are estimated.
5 Q. In 20L9, did Idaho Power meet the energy
6 efficiency targets incl-uded in its 2017 Integrated Resource
7 Pfan (*IRP") ?
I A. Yes. Chart 2 below shows the annual
9 incremental energy efflciency savings, in average megawatt-
10 hours ("aMW"), compared with the IRP targets for 2002
11 through 2019.
1.2 //
13 //
L4 //
1s //
1"5 //
77 //
18 //
GORALSKI, DI
Idaho Power Company
200,000
150,000
100,000
50,000
==oE"c
Go
Io
lrJ
$59
3$30
=o
$25 Eoo.
$20 fi
s1s Eo'6
E$10 fr
ED$sb
UJ
$00
1
1 Chart 2. Annua1 Increnental Energy Efficiency Savings
2 (av[v[) with IRP Targets (20O2-2OL9I
30
-*lPC
Savings
-lRP
Targets
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 20',t3 2014 20',t5 2016 2017 2018 2019
^25
==9zooog
.G 15
t,E;ro
ED
.EEs
.E
Eo
3
4
5
6
1
I
9
*NEEA codes and standards savings were removed because they are not
i-ncl-uded in IRP targets.
Did any programs experience large increases in
prior year?savings from the
o
10
A.
Commercial
exper j-enced
20L8. The l_ncrease an savr_ngs
as wel-l- as
Yes. The Custom Projects option in the
and Industrial Energy Efficiency Program
a 50 percent increase Ln 2019 as compared to11
72
13 general than
74 o.
savj-ngs?
A.
2078,
Did any programs
was due to more projects in
several large projects.
experience a decl-ine in
15
t6 Yes. Irrigation Efficiency Rewards energy
Ll savings decreased by 47 percent to 10,013,455 kilowatt-
18 hours. The energy savings reduction j-s due to significant
L9 reduction in Regional Technical Eorum ("RTE") measure
GORALSKI, DI
Idaho Power Company
B
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
deemed savings rel-eased in the spring of 2078. The Company
is participating in an RTE irrigation workgroup that wil-l
help inform irrigation measure replacement practices that
drive deemed savings. Residential- Energy Efficient
Lighting and Educational- Distributions also both declined,
by 74 percent and 33 percent, respectively.
O. Was the savings decl-ine related to lighting
anticipated?
A. Yes. As mentioned in prior years' annual DSM
filings, residential lighting savings were anticipated to
decrease tn 2079 as implementation of the 2020 Phase II
code required by the Energy Independence and Security Act
of 2007 ("EISA") approached. Phase II requires most bulbs
be 60-70 percent more efficient than incandescent light
bul-bs. While energy savings from energy efficient lighting
w1l-I be realized in grid savings and customer energy usage,
energy savings wil-l- no longer count in energy efficiency
program savings but will be accounted for in the Company's
load forecast once it is part of standards.
O. Will EISA become part of lighting standards in
2020?
A. That remains uncertain at this time. Final
rules issued by the Department of Energy in September 20L9
seek to limit definitions of general service incandescent
light bulbs that woul-d elimj-nate parts of EISA from
GORALSKI, DI
fdaho Power Company
10
11
L2
13
74
15
L6
77
18
79
20
2L
22
23
24
9
25
1 becoming the standard. Several states and other entities
2 have begun 1ega1 action against the Department of Energy to
3 challenge the more limited definltion in the final rules.
4 Q. How is Idaho Power evaluating lighting energy
5 savings with the uncertainty of the EISA standard?
6 A. Idaho Power, with support from EEAG, continued
7 using the "period 1/pre-EISA" savings which assume EISA is
B no longer in effect for both specialty bulbs and general
9 service j-ncandescent lamps for savings cal-culations for
10 2020. The Company will also continue to monitor how
11 utilities in the region incorporate the latest RTF numbers
72 beyond 2020.
13 O. Does the Company engage in customer education
14 and outreach activities for which it cannot quantify or
15
L6
L7
1B
1,9
20
21
22
report savings?
A. Yes. The Company engages in significant
educational and awareness activities and marketing efforts
that are likely to result in energy savings experienced by
the customer but are not quantified or cl-aimed as part of
Idaho Power's annual savings. These efforts are designed
to reach all- customer segments and are more fully explained
on pages l-2 of the DSM 2019 Annual- Report. In 201-9 this
included activity such as: holdlng technical trainings with
customers, participating in Irrigation expos, hosting
workshops to promote the Irrigation Efficiency Rewards
GORALSKT, Dr 10
Idaho Power Company
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
B
9
program to existing irrigation customers, publ-ishing
residential energy efficiency guides, attending other
outreach activities such as home shows, and financi-al1y
supporting the Integrated Design Lab.
O. What level of demand reduction capacity was
available from Idaho Power's demand response programs in
20!9?
A. The total available capacity of Idaho Power's
three demand response programs was approximately 391
megawatts ("MW") . This val-ue represents the total- demand
response capacity cal-culated using the total enrolled MW
from participants with an expected maximum real-ization rate
for those participants in all three demand response
L4 programs. The provided actua1 demand reduction of
10
11
L2
13
t-5
programs
the 2079333 MW during
reflects the annual
program season. Chart 3 below
available peak demand reduction
Ioad reduction in MW since 2004 and the
L6
18
L7 capacity and actual
19
associated annual expenses in millions of dol-lars.
20
2t
22
23
24
GORALSKT, Dr 11
Idaho Power Company
25
1 Chart 3. Peak Denand Reduction Capacity (!fiD and Denand2 Response E:qrenses ($ niJ.lions) 2OO4-2OL9
500
4g)
$25.00
-Actual
load reduction
-Available
capacity
-
Demand Response Expenses
$z).00
$15.00
$10.00
$5.00
0 $0.@
2@4 200s 2@6 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 20't3 2014 201s 2016 2017 2018 2019
II. 2OL9 DSM EXPENSES E}ID ADWSTI{ENTS
O. What amount of DSM expenses is the Company
requesting the Idaho Public Utilities Commission
("Commission") find were prudently incurred?
A. In the delivery of energy efficiency, demand
response, and market transformation programs, ds well- as
education and administratlve costs, Idaho Power expended
$38,083,244 of Rider funds and $6,996,236 of demand
response program incentives, for a total of $45r019,419
spent on demand-side resource acquisition in 2019.
Idaho Power requests that the 20L9 Rider-funded DSM
expenses, and the 20L9 demand response program incentives
recovered through base rates and the PCA, be reviewed
together for a prudence determination. With this filing,
Idaho Power requests the Commission issue an order finding
GORALSKT, Dr 72
Idaho Power Company
oc
:
=o
E
oe.xuJ
E
o
Botr
t,C(E
Eo6
9om3F 3so(,o3 3ooo
t zso
o€zmotE r50
agE,*ox3s0o.
3
4
5
6
7
I
9
10
11
!2
13
74
1_5
L6
l7
18
1 that these funds were prudently incurred. Exhibit No. 1 to
2 my testimony, 2019 ldaho DSM Expenses and Adjustments for
3 Prudence FiTing, shows a breakout of these expenses by
4 program, customer sector, and funding source.
5 Q. Pl-ease compare the dollar amounts in Exhibit
6 No. 1 to your testimony with Appendix 2, 2019 DSM expenses
1 by funding source (doLLars), of the DSM 2019 Annual Report.
8 A. For clarity and ease of understanding, Exhibit
9 No. 1 ties to Appendix 2, which is found on page 160 of the
10 DSM 2019 Annual Report. The first col-umn of AppendLx 2
1l- labeled "Idaho Rider" and the first column of Exhibit No. 1
72 labeled "Rider Expenses" match at the row labeled "Total
13 Expenses" in Exhibit No. 1 and "Grand Total" in Appendtx 2
14 in the amount of $38,069,980. Al-1 val-ues in Exhibit No. 1
15 represent DSM expenses for the Idaho service area only.
16 One prior year accountj-ng adjustment to this total was
Ll necessary to accurately arrive at the total 2019 expenses
18 for purposes of the prudence determination. That
L9 adjustment is listed on Exhibit No. 1 under the Adjustments
20 section as "Multifamily Energy Savings Program. "
27 O. Pl-ease describe the prior year-end accounting
22 adjustment included in Exhibit No. 1.
23 A. During 20L8, Oregon activity for the
24 Multifamily Energy Savings Program totaling $13,264 in
25 program expenses was charged to the Idaho Energy Efficiency
GORALSKT, Dr 13
Idaho Power Company
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
I
9
Rider and shou1d have been charged to the Oregon Energy
Efficiency Rider. Idaho Power made a correcting accounting
entry in 20L9 to move the charges to the Oregon Energy
Efficiency Rider and credit the amount to the Idaho Energy
Efficiency Rider. The reversing entry is excluded from
2019 DSM expenses to accurately represent the amount
incurred related to 2079 DSM efforts.
O. What was the year-end 20L9 balance of the
Rider?
A. The Rider account balance at December 31,
20L9, had a negative, or under collected balance of
$311,045. Table 2 below shows the January 20L9 beqinninq
13 bal-ance, the funding plus interest 1tems,
20L9.
expenses, and the
74 ending balance as of December 31,
15 TabJ.e 2. Idaho Energy Efficiency Rider (ilan Dec 2019)
10
11
72
ldaho Energy Efficiency Rider
2019 Beginning Balance
2019 Funding plus Accrued lnterest asoI12131l19
Total 2019 Funds
2019 Expenses as of 12131119
Ending Balance as of 12131/19
$5,258,957
32,499,978
37,758,935
(38,069,980)
$(311,045)
III. 2OL9 COST-EE'FECTIVENESS OVERVIEW
0. What is Idaho Power's overall goal when it
comes to DSM cost-effectiveness tests?
A. Prlor to the actual implementation of energy
efficiency or demand response programs, Idaho Power
performs a preliminary cost-effectiveness analysis to
GORALSKI, DI L4
Idaho Power Company
16
11
1B
t9
20
2t
22
1 assess whether a potential program design or measure will-
2 be cost-effective from the perspective of Idaho Power and
3 its customers. Idaho Power relies on the resul-ts of the
4 UCT, TRC test, and PCT to measure cost-effectiveness.
5 Idaho Power reviews the cost-effectiveness results
6 for each program and measure on an annual basis to
7 determine whether the program should continue or be
8 modified in some way to ensure it remains cost-effectj-ve on
9 an ongoing basis. If a measure or program is found to not
10 be cost-effective, Idaho Power will work with EEAG to get
11 i-nput before making its determination on modifying,
12 continuing, or discontinuing an offering.
13 The cost-effecti-veness test methodologies and
L4 assumptions are described in more detail in the first pages
15 of SuppJement 7: Cost-Effectiyeness ("Supplement l"),
76 included in Attachment I to the Application in this
L7 proceedlng.
18 A. Transition to UCT.
19 O. Has the Commission provided direction on the
20 primary cost-effectiveness test to use in evaluation of
2L energy efficiency in the IRP going forward?
22 //
23 //
24 //
2s //
GORALSKT, Dr 15
Idaho Power Company
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
A. Yes. As directed in Case No. IPC-E-19-71,2
the UCT perspectj-ve will be the primary test for evaluating
energy efficiency cost-effectiveness in the IRP.
O. How is the Company implementing the UCT as the
primary cost-effectiveness test in Idaho?
A. Changes to the cost-effectiveness test for
energy efficiency will be carried out over the 2020 program
year to synchronize with the Company's annual- pJ-anning
cycle. The Company is in the process of implementing the
UCT as the primary perspective as it moves into the 202L
IRP pJ-anning cycIe. A new DSM Potential Study based on the
Utility Cost perspective is currently underway and is
expected to be finalized in the second quarter of 2020.
This timeline provides an opportunity for the Company to
engage EEAG in the review of the impacts to current and
potential programs, as wel-I as incorporate EEAG's feedback
in developing the underlying energy efficiency assumptions
inc1uded in the Potential Study. The Company will- also
evaluate immediate opportunities to add measures that are
cost-effectj-ve under the UCT perspective to existing
programs during 2020.
z fn Final Order No. 34469 the Commission directed Idaho Power use
the UCT perspective for DSM programs i-n the integrated resource
planning context. Order Nos. 34469 at 9 and 34503 at 4.
GORALSKT, Dr 16
Idaho Power Company
10
11
1-2
13
L4
15
L6
77
t8
t9
20
2t
22
23
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
B
9
O Did the Company make any decisions to
discontinue any programs or measures from cost-
effectiveness results under the UCT or TRC test in 201,9?
A No.
B. 2OL9 Cost-Effectiveness Results.
O. What were the results of the 201,9 cost-
effectiveness analyses?
A. Exhibit No. 2 Lo my testimony, 2079 Cost-
Effectiveness Summary by Program, Sector, and PortfoJio,
shows the results of the TRC test, UCT, and PCT for every
energy efficiency program, aggregated by sector and for the
portfolio. As shown in Exhibit No. 2 and below in Tabl-e 3,
all tests achieved benefit/cost ratlos over 1.0 by sector
and portfol-io.
Table 3. 2OL9 Benefit/Cost by Sector & PortfoJ-io
10
11
72
l_3
L4
15
16 On an individual program basis, these results
tl reflect that, using 2019 DSM program year costs and
18 benefits, 1l of the 16 energy efficiency programs offered
19 in Idaho for which the Company calculates cost-
20 effectiveness had benefit/cost ratios greater than 1.0 for
2l both the TRC test and UCT.
GORALSKT, Df 11
Idaho Power Company
Sector Uti1ity Cost
Test (UCT)
Total
Resource Cost
(TRC) Test
Participant
Cost Test
(Pcr)
Residential 1.90 2 .29 7.76
Commerc ia I / I ndus t ria I 3. 55 2 .0L 2 .09
Irrigation 2.46 3. 13 3.16
Portfolio 2.72 2.12 2 .19
1 The PCT ratios cannot be calculated for those
2 programs that do not have a direct customer cost; these are
3 shown as *N/A" on Exhibit No. 2. The details of these
4 calculations are found in Supplement I of the DSM 2019
5 Annual Report.
6 Q. Did Idaho Power calculate cost-effectj-veness
7 for each measure within each energy efficiency program it
I offers?
9 A. Yes. In 2019, Idaho Power evaluated the
10 benefits and costs of 285 measures from both the TRC test
11 and the UCT perspective. The resul-ts of these cal-cul-ations
72 along wlth measure assumption detail-s and source
13 documentation can be found in Supplement 1 to the DSM 2019
t4 Annual Report.
15 O. How did Idaho Power address any individual-
76 measures that are not cost-effective based on one or more
77 tests?
18 A. The cost and benefi-t values used in the
t9 various analyses are based on markets, technologies,
20 economic inputs, savings estimates, and cost estimates,
2L which can change over tj-me. When a measure is determined
22 not to be cost-effective at a specific point in time, Idaho
23 Power first evaluates whether the inputs used in the
24 calculati-ons are still applicable and then determines if
25 measure parameters should be modified or whether the
GORALSKT, DI 18
fdaho Power Company
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
I
9
measure should be el-iminated. For additional detail- on
measure analysis, please refer to Supplement 1 to the DSM
20L9 Annual- Report.
O. Does Idaho Power evaluate cost-effectiveness
for its three demand response programs?
A. Yes,
cal-culated for the
however, benefit/cost ratios are not
three demand response programs.
determine the cost-Instead, the
effectiveness
methodol-ogy used to
of the demand response programs compares the
10 annual cost of operating Idaho Power's demand response
11 portfolio to the l-evelized annual cost of a 170 MW deferred
L2 resource over a 20-year life.3 In 2019, the system-wide
13 cost of operating the three demand response programs was
t4 approximately $8.3 million ($7.a million of incentives and
15 $0.9 million of other costs). The amounts attributabl-e to
t6 $7.8 million ($7.0 mill-ion
L1 other costs) . Idaho
programs were dispatched
total- costs would haveL9 for the full 60 hours allowed, the
been approximately $11.5 million on a system-wide basis.
Using the 20t1 IRP, acknowledged by the Commission
in Order No. 33983, Case No. IPC-E-17-LL, the maximum
annual cost of running all three demand response programs
3 Demand response valuatlon methodology was reached by settlement
agreement and approved i-n Commission Order No. 32923 as part of Case No.
rPC-E-13-14.
GORALSKT, Dr 19
Idaho Power Company
the ldaho-only jurisdiction were
of incentives and $0.8 million of
Power estimated that if the three1B
20
2L
22
23
1 for the maximum al-l-owable hours of 60 hours should be no
2
3
4
5
6
7
I
9
more than $l-9.8 million, leading Idaho Power to conclude
that its three demand response programs were cost-effective
in 2019.
1. Weatherization Assistance for Qualified Customers
(*I{AQC) and Weatherization Solutions ("So1utions")
Prograns.
What were the cost-effectiveness results for
10 the WAQC and Sol-utions programs?
11 A. As shown in Exhibit No. 2, the WAQC and
t2 Sol-utions programs, both of which are offered to limited-
13 income customers, did not achj-eve the 1.0 benefit/cost
74 ratio threshold in 2019 under the TRC test and UCT. The
15 PCT is not calculated for these programs because the
t6 programs impose no direct costs on the participants.
l7 a. Why does the WAQC program continue to not be
18 cost-effective and how does Idaho Power attempt to improve
19 ir?
20 A. The IilAQC program provides real and substantial
27 per-home savings, but due to the costs of comprehensive
22 whole-house weatherization, it is difficul-t for the val-ue
23 of the savings to outweigh the costs. The weatherization
24 services provided through the WAQC program are consistent
25 with the Idaho State Weatherization Assistance Program
26 ("WAP") guidelj-nes and are offered at no charge to the
27 participant. This program is designed for l-imited-income
GORALSKT, Dr 20
Idaho Power Company
1 customers and Idaho Power bel-ieves there are other benefits
2 Lo this program that are difficult to quantify, such as
3 health and safety measures. In 2019, 189 homes and four
4 buildings housing nonprofi-t agencies in Idaho were
5 weatherized through the WAQC program.
6 This program is offered in coordination with the
7 state WAP under U.S. Department of Energy guidelines;
8 changes to this program must be made by the state WAP.
9 Q. Why does the Solutions program continue to not
10 be cost-effective and how does Idaho Power attempt to
11 improve it?
t2 A. Simil-ar to the WAQC program, the Solutions
13 program provJ-des real and substantial per-home savings, but
74 due to the costs of comprehensive whole-house
15 weatherizatron, 1t is difficult for the value of the
L6 savings to outweigh the costs. Like the WAQC program, the
71 Sol-utions program i-s offered to customers who may not have
18 the income to participate in other residential energy
L9 efficiency programs. Idaho Power believes there are
20 unquantifiable non-energy benefits to program participants,
2L such as increased safety and comfort. Idaho Power
22 continues to work with its program stakeholders and vendors
23 to streamline operations and adjust offerings to make this
24 program more cost-effective.
25
GORALSKT, Dr 2L
Idaho Power Company
The Company has continued a participation
requirement for the Sol-utions program introduced in
3 requiring 1andlords to fund at l-east 10
4 pro j ect. In 2019, the Company hel-d the
percent of
average cost per
1
2
5
6
1
I
9
home constant from the 2074 l-evel for
contractors, which helped reduce the
20L6,
the
the weatherization
cost of the program.
whole-house philosophy
average per-home cost.
through the
t-0
The Company contj-nues
by allowing a $6,000
rn 2079, 129 homes in
program.
the programs are
UCT, unless the
to support the
annual maximum
Idaho were weatherized
11 0 Does Idaho Power
12 WAQC and Solutions programs in
plan to continue to offer the
the future?
13 A Yes. Whil-e the Company has identified that
t4 not cost-effective under the TRC test or
15 Commission directs otherwj-se, Idaho Power
L6 wil-l- continue its efforts to improve the cost-effectiveness
of these programs whil-e at the same time offering them to
the Company's limited-income customers on an ongoing basis.
2. Energ'y House Calls.
L1
18
19
20 O. What were the cost-effectiveness results for
21 Energy House Cal-l-s in 2019?
22 A. Energy House Calls had a cost-effectiveness
23 rati-o of 0.96 under the UCT, and 1.30 for the TRC test.
24 The PCT is not calculated because the program does not have
25 direct participant costs.
GORALSKT, Dr 22
Idaho Power Company
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
I
Y
O. What contributed to the UCT being l-ess than
1. 0 in 201,9?
A. The cost of lmpact and process eval-uations was
the main factor contributing to the unfavorable UCT results
in 201,9 for Energy House Cal-l-s. Evaluations typically
occur every 3-4 years, but because the expense is incurred
in a single year, it can impact the program's cost-
effectiveness in the year the program was evaluated. Whil-e
the UCT is below 1.0 when including total evaluation costs
in the 20L9 program cost-effectiveness calculation, the UCT
and TRC ratlos for the program improve to 1.05 and L.42,
respectively, when assuming only one-third of the
evaluation cost is included, and to 1.11 and 1.49 when
10
11
t2
13
74
15
27
the evaluation costs.
Does EEAG support reporting cost-effectiveness
L6 with and without evaluation costs?
77 Yes. fn a 2078 EEAG meeting, EEAG expressed
cost-effectiveness in this manner18support
when the
for evaluatj-ng
79 cost of an eval-uation on a smal-l- program may
20
excluding
0.
di sproport ional Iy
3. Heating
A
impact the cost-effectiveness results.
& Coo].inq Efficiency Program.
22 What were the cost-effectiveness resul-ts for
23 the Heating & Cooling Efficiency Program in 2079?
24
o
GORALSKT, Dr 23
Idaho Power Company
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
't
I
9
10
11
L2
13
t4
15
t6
t1
18
L9
20
2L
22
23
A. The Heating & Cooling Efficiency
cost-effectiveness ratio of 1.56 under the UCT,
the TRC test, and 1.48 for the PCT.
the
had
Program had a
0.77 for
O. Did cost-effectiveness decrease from 2018?
A. Yes. The program experienced a slight
decrease in cost-effectiveness under both the UCT and TRC,
mainly due to application of 2011 Avoided Costs, which are
slightly below the 20L5 Avoided Costs that were used in the
20!8 cost-effectiveness evaluation.
O. Does the Company plan to make changes to the
program in 2020?
A. No. However, Idaho Power expects the RTF may
update workbooks throughout this year to reflect reductions
in savj-ngs for ductless heat pumps and removal- of savi-ngs
for commissj-on, controls, and sizing. Idaho Power
anticipates that any changes to the program offerlng as a
resul-t of those RTF updates wil-1 be implemented in the 2021
program year.
4. Residential. New Construction Pi1ot Progr:rn.
O. What were the cost-effectiveness resul-ts for
Residential New Construction Pilot Program in 2019?
A. The Residential- New Construction Pilot Program
a cost-effectiveness ratio of 1.58 under the UCT, 0.83
24 for the TRC test, and 1.55 for the PCT.
GORALSKT, Dr 24
Idaho Power Company
25
l_
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
O. Why did the TRC test cost-effectiveness fal-l
bel-ow 1. 0 in 201,9?
A. The TRC test (and PCT) calcul-ation includes
updated participant costs which have increased from the
costs used in 2018.
O. What changes has Idaho Power recently made
which may improve TRC test cost-effectiveness in 2020?
A. The Compdny, with feedback from EEAG, has
recently updated the program to include tiered j-ncentives,
allowing for savings 10 percent and 15 percent above
building code to al-so receive incentives. Previously,
homes needed to be 20 percent above building code to
qualify for a $1,500 incentive. Now homes 10 percent above
code qualify for a $1,000 incentive, 15 percent above code
qualify for a $1r 500 incentive, and 20 percent or more
above code qualify for a $2,000 incentive. This may drive
a greater vo1ume of homes qualifying for the program with
lower participant-cost measures, which would improve the
TRC test and PCT cost-effectiveness.
IV. E1TAIUATION ACTIVTTY OVERVIEW
a What is the Company's approach to DSM program
22 eval-uation?
23 A To ensure the ongoing cost-effectiveness of
24
10
11
72
13
L4
15
16
L7
18
19
20
2t
programs through val-idation
reduction, and to guide the
of energy savings and demand
efficient management of its
GORALSKT, Dr 25
Tdaho Power Company
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
8
9
programs, the Company rel-ies on evaluations by third-party
contractors chosen through a competitive bidding process.
Idaho Power uses industry-standard protocols, internal
analyses,
internal-
and regional and national studies to inform its
and external evaluation efforts. The Company has
generally conducted impact evaluations
and process eval-uations for relatively
when a program has significant changes.
Evaluations ("Supplement 2") to the DSM
every three years,
new programs,
SuppTement
2079 Annual Report
Poweradditional information regarding how Idaho
its programs.
How does Idaho Power utilize the evaluations
above?
or
2
10 provides
eval-uates
0
11
L2
13 described
15
A. Idaho Power uses the results of its
evaluations to inform decisions rel-ated to program
improvement, to compare processes to industry best
practices, and to benchmark and val-idate reported program
savlngs.
0. What evaluati-on activities took place 1n 20L9?
A. In addition to the annual cost-effectiveness
16
77
18
79
20
2l analyses that the
!4
23
22 20L9, Idaho Power
24
assurance and risk management company, to conduct program
impact and program process evaluations for the Energy House
CalIs and Resj-dential New Construction program. DNV GL25
Company conducts for each
contracted with DNV GL, a
program, r_n
globa1 quality
GORALSKI, DI 26
Idaho Power Company
1 also conducted impact evaluations for the Commercial- and
2 Industrial- Energy Efflciency Program, Retrofits and New
3 Construction options. Resource Action Programs conducted a
4 program summary anal-ysis for Residential Energy-Savings
5 Kj-ts. Aclara conducted a summary analys j-s for Home Energy
6 Reports. A savings estimate analysis was conducted by DNV
1 GL for the Shade Tree Project. Fina1ly, Idaho Power
8 contracted with DNV GL to determine the 2019 demand
9 reduction from the A/C Cool- Credit.
10 Eour of the impact evaluations that were conducted
11 in 2019 analyzed reported
A/C Cool
savings from the 20LB program
72 year, while the Credit impact evaluation analyzed
Realization rates13 savings from the 20L9 program season.
74 were as follows:
15 a Energy House Cal-l-s realization rate of 99
percent
Residential New Construction Pilot Program -
realization rate of 100 percent
New Construction option of the Commercial and
Industrlal Energy Efficiency Program -
realization of 100 percent
Retrofits option of the Commercial- and Industrial-
Energy Efficiency Program - realization of 99.4
percent
L6
77
18
79
22
GORALSKT, Dr 27
Idaho Power Company
a
a
20
2t
23
24
a
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
8
9
a A/C Cool- Credit impact
with the three A/C Cool
estimates associated
Credi-t event
maximum total peak demand savings of
days, with
2L, 463
kil-owatts
For the Shade Tree Project,
analysis was conducted by DNV GL to
further savings estimate
better determine
potential tree l-ife and mortality rate.
Idaho Power conducted internal analyses of the load
10
reduction from the 20L9
Irri-gation Peak Rewards
GL determined the load
demand response events related to
and the Elex Peak
reduction for the
programs, and DNV
A/C Cool Credit11
72
13
14
15
t6
l1
18
L9
20
2L
22
23
24
surveys,
NEEA are
Report.
o
plan for
program.
The final-reports for these eval-uatj-ons and studies,
and the market effects eval-uations conducted by
2079 Annualincluded in Supplement 2 to the DSM
Does Idaho Power have a DSM program eval-uatj-on
2020-2027?
A. Yes, it is included as Exhibit No. 3 to my
testimony, and is al-so included in Supplement 2 Lo the DSM
2079 Annual Report. In 2020, Idaho Power's evaluation plan
includes third-party combination impact and process
evaluations for the Educational- Distributions and
Irrigation Efflciency Rewards, impact eval-uatj-ons for
Rebate Advantage, WAQC, and Solutions, process evaluatj-ons
GORALSKT, Dr 28
Idaho Power Company
25
1 for Home Energy Reports and Smal} Business Direct-Insta1l,
2 and statistical verification of Home Energy Reports.
3 In 2021, Idaho Power's evaluation plan includes
4 third-party combination impact and process evaluations for
5 the Heating & Cooling Efficiency Program, Multifamily
6 Energy Savings Program, all three options under the
7 Commercial- and Industrial Energy Efficiency Program
I (Custom, New Construction, Retrofit), j-mpact eval-uations
9 for all- three demand response programs (A/C Cool Credit,
10 FIex Peak Rewards, Irrigation Peak Rewards) and process
11 evaluation for Home Energy Audits, statistical verification
L2 of Home Energy Reports, and a field study for the Shade
13 Tree Project. This plan is intended to be used as a guide
L4 and may change based on need, tlming, or other factors.
15 V. STAKEHOIJDER INPUT
76 O. What is the EEAG?
A. In 2002, Idaho Power formed the EEAG to
provide input on enhancing existing DSM programs,
recommending new energy efficiency measures, and
implementing energy efflciency programs. Members include
customer representatives from residential, irrigation,
commercial, and industrial sectors, and technj-caI experts,
as well as representatj-ves for limited-income individuals,
environmental- organizations, state agencies, county and
L1
18
l-9
20
22
23
GORALSKT, Dr 29
Idaho Power Company
2L
24
25
1 city governments, the CommJ-ssion, the Public Utility
2 Commission of Oregon, and ldaho Power.
3 Q. What is the structure of EEAG meetings?
4 A. The EEAG generally meets quarterly i-n-person
5 at Idaho Power's corporate offices and through webinars as
6 needed. The agenda during EEAG meetings is varied, but
7 typically includes: new energy efficiency program ideas and
8 new measure proposals, marketing methods, and specific
9 measure details incl-uding cost-effectiveness, the status of
10 energy efficiency expenses and the Idaho and Oregon Rider
11 funding, updates of ongoing programs and projects, and
L2 general information on DSM issues and other important
13 issues occurrJ-ng in the region. When appropriate, the
14 Company invj-tes experts to speak on eval-uations, research,
15 and other topj-cs of interest to enhance EEAG's
L6 understanding.
L1 O. How did Idaho Power sol-icit guidance from EEAG
18 during the 2019 program year?
1,9 A. The Company held four in-person EEAG meetings
20 and one webinar. During these meetings, Idaho Power
27 discussed and requested
22 DSM j-ssues and requested
reconrmendations on a broad range of
feedback on new program ideas and
and specific23 new measure proposals, marketing methods,
24 measure detai]s.
GORALSKT, Dr 30
Idaho Power Company
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
I
9
As explained in greater detail
Annual Report, the below list includes
in the DSM 2019
some of the topics
design,Idaho Power worked with EEAG on for development,
promotion, or input:
1-0
o frrigatron Efficiency Rewards Proqram.
Throughout 2019, Idaho Power discussed the
measure savings of the Irrigation Efficiency
Rewards program and suggested development of a
workgroup that woul-d inform RTF irrigation
measure deemed savings. The RTE formed an
irrigation workgroup Ln 2079, in which Idaho
Power participated, and the Company has continued
to update EEAG on progress of the workgroup.
o Heating & Cooling Efficiency Program - Smart
Thermostats. The Company dj-scussed with EEAG the
licensed contractor installation requirement of
smart thermostats to qualify for the incentive.
Idaho Power sought EEAG's input on changing the
contractor requirement and most members of EEAG
were in favor of removing the installation by
contractor requirement. The Company made program
changes to the Heating & Cooling Efficiency
Program on January t, 2020, including removing
the contractor installation requirement.
GORALSKT, Dr 31
Idaho Power Company
11
L2
13
t4
15
t6
t7
18
19
20
27
22
23
24
25
I
2
3
4
q,
6
7
8
9
o Residential New Construction Pilot Program. The
10
Company explained a methodology change on how
home efficiency above building code is calculated
and potential negative impacts to future
participation from the calculation change. The
Company asked for feedback on program options and
recelved EEAG support for a tiered incentive
approach to mitigate potential negative i-mpacts
on participation, which was instituted in the
first quarter of 2020.
Residential- Direct Instal-l- Programs. During an
EEAG meeting, a member asked Idaho Power to
research addj-tional weatherj-zation measures,
specifically door sweeps, ds a
11
t2
13
L4
15
76
71
18
L9
20
2l
22
23
24
a
potential
After
measure
in its direct install programs.
manual-s for savr_ngsresearching
assumptions,
difficult to
reference
the Company found savings were
determine for Idaho Power's specific
climate zone and appeared to be speci-fic to
single-family homes. Idaho Power has requested
the RTF to review this measure as a smal-l saver
and j-t is part of the RTF's workplan for 2020.
Dependi-ng on the results from the RTF, Idaho
Power may incorporate door sweeps in its
residential- dlrect install- programs.
GORALSKT, Dr 32
Idaho Power Company
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
'7
8
9
o Idaho Power's DSM 2019 Annual- Report. The
Company sought input from EEAG on ways to improve
the report. One EEAG member suggested color
coding the different sections of the report. As
a resul-t, the Company col-or coded the headers,
footers, major titles, and tabl-es in the 2079
Program Activities sub-sections as fol-lows:
Residential Sector (orange),
Commercial/Industrial Sector (green), Irri-gation
Sector (bl-ue), and Other Programs and Activities
section (purpl-e) .
VI. ELEX PEAK PROGRA!{ REPORTING REQUIREI'IENTS
v What are the current reporting requirements
L4 for the Company's Flex Peak Program?
15 A As part of Case No. IPC-E-1-5-03 where the
76 Company
response
the El-ex
to file
t1
18
19
10
11
L2
13
filed to implement a Company-managed demand
program for commercial- and industrial customers,
the CompanyPeak Program, the Commission directed
an end-of-season report each year within 80 days
20 after the Flex Peak Program season ends for that year as
2L part of the Ordera approving the program.
22 0. What information j-s requJ-red to be included
23 the Flex Peak Program reporting requirement?
an
GORALSKT, Dr 33
Idaho Power Company
a Order NO. 33292, p. 8
1 A. The Commission ordered Idaho Power to report
2 program metrj-cs such as number of parti-cipants, MW of
3 demand response under contract, MW of demand response
4 realized and incented per dispatch, detailed program cost
5 analysis, among other metrics.s
6 Q. Does the Company report demand response
7 program performance in other reports?
8 A. Yes. Included in Supplement 2 are reports for
9 all- three of Idaho Power's demand response programs,
10 including the Flex Peak Program with all the Commission-
11 ordered metrics.
L2 0. What change is the Company requesting with
13 Fl-ex Peak Program reporting?
74
15
respect to
A.
reporting
Elex Peak
The Company requests to
requirements by ellminating
streamline the current
the
L6 Program
l7 after season end.
reporting requirement to
Idaho Power commi-ts to
separate annual
be filed B0 days
continue to
1B
L9
20
21
22
23
report on the Flex Peak Program, and its
response programsr ds part of its annual
centralizinq aLL demand response program
single case and on a single schedule.
two other demand
DSM fiJ-ing,
reporting in a
GORALSKT, Dr 34
Idaho Power Company
24
s rd.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
VII. CONCLUSION
o.Do you believe that the information contained
in this testimony and
determination for 2019
attached exhibits supports a prudence
expenses ?
2019 Annual Report detaj-l-s Idaho
Power's DSM offerj-ngs in program specific sections. Based
on the DSM 2019 Annual Report, the testimony set forth
above, and the attached exhibits, Idaho Power respectfully
requests the Commission determine that $45,019,419 of DSM
expenses j-ncurred for the acquisj-tj-on of demand-side
resources were prudently incurred. Additionally, the
Company requests to streamline reporting processes by
el-iminating the separate, annual Fl-ex Peak Program
reporting requirement in Case No. IPC-E-15-03, as the same
information is incl-uded in the Company's annual DSM filing.
O. Does thj-s conclude your testimony?
A. Yes, it does.
GORALSKT, Dr 35
Idaho Power Company
DSM
A Yes. The DSM
10
11
L2
13
1,4
15
L6
L7
1B
19
20
21,
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
I
9
ATTESTATION OF TESTIMONY
STATE OF IDAHO
County of Ada
I, Pawel- P. Goral-ski, having been duly sworn to
testify truthfulJ-y, and based upon my personal knowledge,
state the following:
I am employed by Idaho Power Company as a Regulatory
Analyst in the Regulatory Affairs Department and am
competent to be a witness in this proceeding.
I decl-are under penalty of perjury of the laws of
the state of Idaho that the foregoing pre-fil-ed testimony
and exhibits are true and correct to the best of my
information and belief.
DATED this 13th day of March 2020.
10
11
t2
13
t4
15
t6
71
18
19
20
2t
22
23 March 2020.
24
25
26
21
28
29
30
31
0o uJ. ? 6,xo)zt:
-l<;,*",MT",*ll
Pawel- P. Goralski
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 13th day of
Not/iy itiat4)toi iaar,o
Residing at Boise Idaho
My commission expires:L2/20 2020
GORALSKT, Dr 36
Idaho Power Company
KIMBERLY K. TOWELL
coMMtSSloN #16958
NOTARY PUBLIC
STATE OF IDAHO
BEFORE THE
IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
GASE NO. IPC-E-20-15
IDAHO POWER COMPANY
GORALSKI, DI
TESTIMONY
EXHIBIT NO. 1
ldaho Pourer Company
2019 ldaho DSM Expenses and Adjustments for Prudence Filing
Eroenses Rider Ermnses
Demand Response
Program lncentives
Recorded in PCA Total Exoenses
En e tg y Ef f i c ie n cylDe m nd R6 po n se
Residentirl
A/C Cool Credit
Educational Distributions
Energy Effi cient LightirE
Energy House Calls
Healing & CoolirE Efficiency Program
Home Energy Ardit
Muttifamily Energy Savings Program
Rebate Advantage
Residential Nil Construclion
Shade Tree Proict
Simple Steps, Smart Savings n
Weatherization Solutions for Eligible Customers
Commerciamndustrial
Commercial Energy-savings Kits(a)
Custom Poects
Flex Peak Program
New Construction
Retrofits
lrrigation
lrigation Efiicierry Re\,rrards
lrioation Peak ReMrds
$495,703 $
2,989,1 84
2,026,977
143,570
478,560
230,786
't't5,560
148.220
534.1 18
147.7fi
87.599
936.721
351.2m $
29/.,9',11
846,903
2,989,184
2,026,977
143.570
478,560
230,786
1't5.560
148.220
534,1 18
147,lfi
87,599
936,721
154,632
'11,614,380
75,306
3,365,862
6,1 31,1 17
1 54,632
1 1,614,380
370.2',t7
3,365,862
6,131,1 17
2.449.427
239.523 6,350,125
2,449,427
6,589,648
Enemv Eflicienculotemnd R6mse Iolr, S 3236aegB 3 6.996.236 $39.361.2jr1
Market Tr!nsformation
Northv{est Enerov Efiiciencv Alliance 2,585,017 2.58,5.O17
To,f,l
rems
Commercial/lndustrial Energy Efficiency Overhead
Energy Efriciency Oirect Program Overhead
Residental Energy Efiiciency Edu€tion lnitiatiw
Residential Enerov Efricienca Overhead
463,177
251,229
152,579
1,293,650
463,'t77
251,229
152,579
1.293.650
Other Proonms end Activitis Toral ,2,160,635 S s 2.160.635
lndirect Program Expenses
Energy Effciency Ac@unting & Analysis
Energy Efiiciency Advisory Group
S pecial A6ou nti ng En tries
927,383
20.937
927,383
20,93?
Sne.-iel A..drntihd Enlries 11 1too9
tndirect Prcqram Exrnses Iota, t 950.330 r t 959.330
Total ExDonses t 38.069.980 3 6,996,236 $45,066,215
Adiustments
Prior year-end accounting adjustments:
Multifamily Energy Savings Program(b)'t3,264 13,264
2019 Prudence Filino Total 38,083,2.14 $$6,996.236 $45,079,479
(a) This ptogtum was clered lo as ComreGbl Ed@lion lnitiali@ in 2018.
(b) ThE ex,pn@ was chaqcd to tte ldaho dder in 201 8, and should heve b@n charyed to fiE Oogon dlet. fhe @reclion was mde in 201 I
Exhibt No. 1
Case No. IPC-E-20-15
P. Goralski, IPC
Page 1 of 1
BEFORE THE
IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
GASE NO. IPG-E-20-15
IDAHO POWER GOMPANY
GORALSK!, D!
TESTIMONY
EXHIBIT NO.2
2019 Cost-Effectiveness Summary by Program, Sector, and Portfolio
'Evaluaton cosB included in cosl-e,recfiyeness rafros.
"' Commerciaundustrial Energy Effciency Sector cost-effecfiveness rafios ,nclude savings and pafticipant costs from Green Motors Rewinds."' lnigation Energy Efficiency Sector cost-efrectiveness ratios include savings and pa,licipanf cosfs frorn Green Motors Rewinds.
2019 BenefiUCost Tests
Progra[y'Sector
Utilaty Cost Test
(ucr)
Total Resource
Cost(TRc)
Participant Cost
(PCT)
Educational Distributions 206 3.32 N/A
Eneroy Efficient Liohtino 4.O4 517 11.72
Eneroy House Calls'0.96 't.30 N/A
Heatino & Coolino Efficiencv Prooram 1.56 o.77 't.18
Multifamilv Enerov Savinos Prooram 1.15 2.34 N/A
Rebate Advantaoe 't 82 1.'t4 2.55
Residential New Construction*'1.58 0.83 1.55
Shade Tree Proiect 't.09 1.16 N/A
Simple Steps, Smart Savinss 1.40 5.56 11 10
Weatherization Assistance for Oualified Customers 0.35 0.43 N/A
Weatherization Solutions for Elioible Customers 030 0.43 N/A
Residential Enerqy Efficiencv Sector 1.90 2.29 7.76
Custom Proiects*362 1.92 1.73
New Construction*315 2.88 3.52
Retrofits.3.68 'l 85 2.',t2
Commercial Energy-Savinqs Kits 1.57 2.52 N/A
CommerEialrlndust.ial Eneroy Efficiency Sector **3.55 2.O1 2.09
lnioation Efficiency 2.44 3.13 316
lrrigation EnerEy Efficiency Sector "*2.16 3.13 3.16
Enerqv Effi ciency Portfolio 2.72 2.12 2.79
Exhibt No. 2
Case No. IPC-E-20-15
P. Goralski, IPC
Page 1 of 1
BEFORE THE
IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
GASE NO. IPC-E-20-15
IDAHO POWER COMPANY
GORALSKI, DI
TESTIMONY
EXHIBIT NO.3
cG
o.
tr
.9*,l!
=t!
trJ
E(EL
UiOoLo.
F{NoN!oNoN
Itro
(J
:Erh
ET
otoLoCtrJ
T'co
tntr
.9tPoo
G,
Lo
Eo+,
1A
=(J
Exhibt No. 3
Case No. IPC-E-20-15
P. Goralski, IPC
Page 1 of '1
c)-coIo
,tiooooLI(L
io)o (-)(Uc9geo;r_E
P6
=>ECo-ET(EG'
9E'ut(L
Eeo)
Qa.
ocoqoo
!o
a
Eoo
obo
3
.\
q)
ooaoo
o
o
$
oN
Eo
G
G
o
Eo
Or
Qa.
o
ooGo\Poc
IJJ
(L o-TL o-(L o_
o o
o-L (L (L o(L o
&tL o o
o o
(L o o o
&(L (L (L o o
o 0-o o o
L (L o o o
(L o(L (L o o
(L (L o (L o (L (L (L
E(U
ooL(L
lz(Uo(Lxo)
tJ-
o
troIt6oc,
oco
:,o
.9.o6co
(EolDut
c'c
co
=c.9o
uJ
o:
o)cul
o6(J
o)oloI
o)
o)Eu.t
E
Eo)oLo-
oco)'o
uJ
o,.sooo
06
o,c
o(l.,
I
=T'f
o)oc
LJJ
q,
EoI
otoo-ot
o,Lq)Et!oEo
I
E(l,
o)I(L
oo,E
(ua
o)
ocuJi
E(E
==
oo)o
C(5
o
0)
a5oo)t
0)
(U'-
Eo
oofEUJ
oco)oE
UJ
g
0)E
IJJ6
E(,poo)t
Ego,oL0-
€Lco
olLocoo
3o)z
Ecc)poo)t
oc,oL(L
o0,Foo(u-co
=F
U)o,E
([oE
TU
Ea
uio_c)
U)
-9o.
EU)
o
0)
Eo
anfoEc)
=(Ula
o
(l)oc(U
(n
al,al,
c.9(!N
c,-c(5
0)3
o
o
-9o
ov
o,Etoa
o,
o)C
I.JJ6
(-)
o)
E
Eoo
LrJ
E.ooN
oE
(E
o)
B
oo
.9.o
(L
Eoof
C)
Eo
of
attcoo;c)z
o
og
o)t
=(U
(r,E
ogooooc,6
ltr]
o
Eo
(L
o
(L
o(L
(L
o
o(L
o
E6
oE
(U;ot
oo
o_
oE'g(U3(,tr-too(L
co
(5o.E